G.R. No. 115788 September 17, 1998
SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY, JR., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. TEODULFO & SYLVIA ATANGAN, SPS. AGUSTINA & AMOR POBLETE, SPS. EDUARDO & FELICISIMA TIRONA, respondents.

FACTS

Three separate complaints were filed against petitioners Spouses Sonya and Ismael Mathay, Jr. for annulment of title, recovery of possession, and quieting of title, involving parcels of land in Tanza, Cavite. In Civil Case No. TM-175, Spouses Teodulfo and Sylvia Atangan alleged they are registered owners of two parcels covered by TCT Nos. T-195350 and T-195351, having purchased them from Spouses Tomas Lucido and Eustaquia Villanueva, whose titles originated from a decision in Civil Case No. NC-709. They claimed petitioners fenced and occupied 23,800 square meters of their land based on a forged title, TCT No. T-113047, which was derived from a falsified Deed No. V-12918 from the Bureau of Lands. In Civil Case No. TM-180, Spouses Agustina and Amor Poblete claimed ownership of a parcel covered by TCT No. T-192532, purchased from Juana Batallones and Gaudencio Quimio, whose title also originated from Civil Case No. NC-709. They alleged petitioners occupied 114,987 square meters using a forged title based on the same falsified deed. In Civil Case No. TM-206, Spouses Eduardo and Felicisima Tirona and other plaintiffs claimed ownership of subdivided lots purchased from Spouses Bonifacio and Juliana Motas, with titles derived from the same Civil Case No. NC-709. They sought to quiet title against petitioners’ claim. Petitioners, as defendants, asserted ownership based on TCT No. T-113047, allegedly acquired from Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay, who obtained the land through Deed No. V-12918 from the Bureau of Lands. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaints, upholding petitioners’ title. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, declaring petitioners’ title null and void and ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel it.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the title of petitioners, TCT No. T-113047, is valid and superior to the titles of the private respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. It ruled that petitioners’ title, TCT No. T-113047, is void because it was based on a forged and non-existent Deed No. V-12918 from the Bureau of Lands. The Court found that Deed No. V-12918 was actually issued for a lot in Caloocan City, not for the subject land in Cavite, and the certification from the Bureau of Lands confirmed the forgery. Petitioners failed to prove the genuineness and due execution of their predecessor’s title, TCT No. T-111070. In contrast, private respondents’ titles were derived from a valid judicial decree in Civil Case No. NC-709, which involved a petition for registration under the Land Registration Act. The Court held that a forged or fraudulent title is null and void and cannot prevail over a title originating from a valid judicial proceeding. Petitioners were not innocent purchasers for value because the defects in their title were evident on its face, and they failed to exercise due diligence in verifying its authenticity. The Court also found petitioners’ possession to be merely tacked to their predecessor’s possession, which was not proven to be in the concept of an owner. Therefore, petitioners’ title was declared null and void, and the Register of Deeds was ordered to cancel it.