GR 181057; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181057 June 17, 2015
JOSEFINA C. BILLOTE, represented by her Attorneys-in-Fact, WILLIAM C. BILLOTE and SEGUNDO BILLOTE, Petitioner, vs. IMELDA SOLIS, SPOUSES MANUEL and ADELAIDA DALOPE, SPOUSES VICTOR and REMEDIOS BADAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS (LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN), and HON. MELITON EMUSLAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 47, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Respondents.
FACTS
The property subject of the petition is a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 15296 issued under the names of spouses Hilario Solis and Dorotea Corla. After Hilario’s death, Dorotea contracted a subsequent marriage with Segundo Billote, with whom she had petitioner Josefina C. Billote and William C. Billote. Respondent Imelda Solis, a child from the first marriage, filed a Petition for the Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate Certificate of TCT No. 15296 before the RTC, claiming the owner’s duplicate copy was missing. She submitted a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement dated July 13, 2002, whereby Dorotea allegedly conveyed her share to respondents Imelda and Adelaida Solis-Dalope, and an Affidavit of Loss. The RTC granted the petition on February 24, 2003. Upon receipt of the new owner’s duplicate copy, respondents Imelda and Adelaida registered the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, leading to the cancellation of TCT No. 15296 and the issuance of TCT No. 269811 in their names. They subsequently sold the property to respondent spouses Victor and Remedios Badar, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 274696 in the spouses’ names.
Petitioner Josefina Billote filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the CA, seeking to annul the RTC Decision. She alleged that Dorotea had executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on July 28, 2001, conveying her conjugal share to petitioner, and that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 15296 was entrusted to William Billote and was never lost. The CA partially granted the petition, declaring the RTC Decision and the second owner’s duplicate copy null and void for lack of jurisdiction, as the original duplicate was not lost. However, the CA refused to declare TCT No. 274696 in the names of the Spouses Badar null and void, finding them to be innocent purchasers for value. Petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring TCT No. 269811 (in the names of respondents Solis and Dalope) and TCT No. 274696 (in the names of respondent-spouses Badar) as null and void.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not conducting proceedings or referring the issue on whether respondent-spouses Badar were purchasers in good faith for value to the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 6, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision.
On the first issue, the Court ruled that while the RTC Decision and the second owner’s duplicate copy were void due to lack of jurisdiction (the original duplicate not being lost), the subsequent titles derived therefrom require separate consideration. TCT No. 269811, issued in the names of respondents Imelda and Adelaida, was fraudulently secured and is void. However, TCT No. 274696, issued to the Spouses Badar, cannot be automatically declared void. The Spouses Badar, as innocent purchasers for value who relied on the clean title (TCT No. 269811) presented by the vendors, are protected. The Court emphasized that a purchaser in good faith and for value is not obliged to look beyond the certificate of title, which appeared valid on its face and devoid of any adverse claim.
On the second issue, the Court found no error in the CA’s refusal to remand the case. The determination of whether the Spouses Badar were innocent purchasers for value is a question of fact, and the CA correctly ruled on the issue based on the evidence on record. The Spouses Badar purchased the property without notice of petitioner’s claim, and the Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner was unregistered and unannotated on the title. Thus, no further proceedings were necessary. The rights of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected notwithstanding the fraud employed by the sellers.