Spouses ABRIGO vs.

DE VERA
G.R. No. 154409
June 21, 2004

Sps. Abrigo filed a petition for review seeking to set aside the March 21, 2002
Amended Decision and July 22, 2002 Resolution of CA.

Amended Decision declared that Romana de Vera is the rightful owner and with the
better right to possess the property in question, being an innocent purchaser for value
therof.

CA narrated the facts as follows:

1. Gloria Villafania (Vendor) sold a house and lot to Rosenda Tigno-

Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go (vendees).

2. Gloria failed to buy back the house and lot, so the vendees declared
the lot in their name.

3. Unknown, however to Rosenda and Rosita, Gloria obtained a free

patent over the parcel of land involved as evidenced by OCT No. P-
30522.

4. Salazar and Go sold the house and lot to Petitoner – Sps. Abrigo.

5. Gloria sold the same house and lot to Romana de Vera, Romana
registered the sale and as a consequence, TCT No. 2215 was issued in
her name.

6. Romana filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against the
petitioner before the MTC, ejectment was dismissed as the parties
submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement in the
instant case that neither of them can physically take possession of the
property in question until case is terminated.

Petitioner filed an instant case with the RTC for the annulment of documents,
injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and damages against de Vera and
Gloria.

The lower court then rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to
petitioners as well as damages.

Both parties appealed to the CA.

CA held that a void title could not give rise to a valid one and hence dismissed the
appeal of respondent de Vera. Since Gloria had already transferred ownership to
Salazar and Go, the subsequent sale was deemed void.

On reconsideration, the CA issued Amended Decision, finding Respondent De Vera to

be a purchaser in good faith and for value. The appellate court ruled that she relied in
good faith on the Torrens title of her vendor and must this be protected.

Hence, this Petition.

Both petitioners and respondent registered the sale of the property. Petitioners and the
predecessor being incognizant that the subject property was covered by the Torrens
System, registered the sales under Act 3344.

Respondent registered the transaction under Torrens system because during the sale,
Gloria had presented the TCT covering the property.

Respondent contended that her registration under the torrens system should prevail
over that of petitioner who recorded theirs un de Act. 3344.

ISSUES:

Who between the petitioners and respondent has a better title over the property in
question?

RULING: Respondent De Vera is the rightful owner of the property involved.

Since the property in dispute was already registered under the Torrens system,
petitioners’ registration of the sale under Act 344 was not effective for the purposes of
Article 1544 of the Civil Code.

A Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the whole world. All persons must
take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.

Romana is a purchaser in good faith as there is nothing in her certificate of title and in
the circumstances of the transaction or sale which warrant her in supposing that she
needed to look beyond the title.

Ratio:

Soriano v. Heirs of Magali held that registration must be done in the proper registry in
order to bind the land.