1. DURAN v.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Issue: Whether private respondent was a buyer in
COURT good faith and for value
G.R. No. L-64159 September 10, 1985
Held: Yes. Good faith consists in the possessor’s
Doctrine: belief that the person from who he received the
– The fraudulent and forged document of sale may thing was the owner of the same and could convey
become the root of a valid title if the certificate has his title (Arriola v. Gomez Dela Serna, 14 Phil. 627).
already been transferred from the name of the true Good faith, while it is always to be presumed in the
owner to the name indicated by the forger. absence of proof to the contrary, requires a well-
– The mortgagee has the right to rely on what founded belief that the person from whom title was
appears in the certificate of title and, in the received was himself the owner of the land, with
absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is the right to convey it (Santiago v. Cruz, 19 Phil.
under no obligation to look beyond the certificate 148).
and investigate the title of the mortgagor The mortgagee has the right to rely on what
appearing on the face of the said certificate. appears in the certificate of title and, in the
– Good faith, while it is always to be presumed in absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is
the absence of proof to the contrary, requires a under no obligation to look beyond the certificate
well-founded belief that the person from whom and investigate the title of the mortgagor
title was received was himself the owner of the appearing on the face of the said certificate. Every
land, with the right to convey it. person dealing with registered land may safely rely
on the correctness of the certificate of title issued
Facts: Petitioner Duran owned 2 parcels of land. therefore and the law will in no way oblige him to
She left the Philippines in June 1954 and returned go behind the certificate to determine the
in May 1966. On 1963, a Deed of Sale was made in condition of the property. If the rule were
favor of the petitioner’s mother. On December otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the
1965, Duran’s mother mortgaged the same Torrens Certificate of Titles would be futile and
property to private respondent Erlinda Marcelo- nugatory. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent
Tiangco. When Duran came to know about the and forged document of sale may become the root
mortgage made by her mother, she wrote the of a valid title if the certificate has already been
Register of Deeds informing the latter that she had transferred from the name of the true owner to the
not given her mother any authority to sell or name indicated by the forger.
mortgage any of her properties in the Philippines. While it is true that under Article 2085 of the Civil
Meanwhile, foreclosure proceedings were initiated Code, it is essential that the mortgagor be the
by Tiangco upon the failure of Duran’s mother to absolute owner of the property mortgaged, and
redeem the mortgaged properties. while as between the daughter and her mother, it
Duran claims that the Deed of Sale is a forgery, was the daughter who still owns the lots, STILL
saying that at the time of its execution in 1963 she insofar as innocent third persons are concerned
was in the United States. Respondent Court ruled the owner was already the mother inasmuch as
that there is a presumption of regularity in the she had already become the registered owner.
case of a public document.