G.R. No. L-26882. April 5, 1978.
ROSARIO VDA. DE LAIG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CARMEN VERZO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petre Galero obtained a homestead patent and title over a parcel of land. In 1948, he sold the land to Atty. Benito K. Laig. This sale required the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources under Section 118 of the Public Land Act, as the title was issued within the prohibited period. Atty. Laig failed to secure this approval before his death. His widow, petitioner Rosario Vda. de Laig, subsequently applied for and obtained the Secretary’s approval for the 1948 sale in August 1952.
Meanwhile, in July 1952, Galero, assisted by Atty. Jose L. Lapak, secured a second owner’s duplicate copy of the original certificate of title from the Register of Deeds, Baldomero M. Lapak (Atty. Lapak’s father), by falsely claiming the original duplicate was lost. Using this new duplicate, Galero immediately sold the same land to respondent Carmen Verzo. Verzo then applied for and also obtained the Secretary’s approval for her sale in September 1952. Relying on this later approval and the second duplicate title, Verzo was able to register the sale and obtain a new transfer certificate of title in her name.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, as heirs of the original vendee Atty. Laig, have a superior right to the homestead land over respondent Verzo, who derived her title from a subsequent sale by the same grantor.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The legal logic centers on the nullity of the second sale to Verzo. The 1948 sale from Galero to Laig was a valid contract, albeit initially unperfected due to the lack of the Secretary’s approval. This requisite approval was validly obtained by petitioner Vda. de Laig in August 1952. Consequently, upon that approval, the sale was consummated and related back to the date of the execution of the deed, vesting ownership in Laig’s heirs.
All actions taken after Laig’s rightful acquisition were void. The procurement of the second owner’s duplicate certificate of title was fraudulent, as the original was not lost but in the possession of Laig’s heirs. The Register of Deeds, Baldomero Lapak, acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing it without a proper judicial order, as required by law. Therefore, the subsequent sale to Verzo, based on this fraudulently procured duplicate title, conveyed no valid rights. Verzo cannot be considered a purchaser in good faith as she was aware of the prior transaction, having been present in her own house when the 1948 deed to Laig was executed. The Court ordered the cancellation of Verzo’s title and the issuance of a new one in favor of Laig’s heirs, while also holding the Lapaks civilly liable for damages.