Lausa v.

Quilaton
G.R. No. 170671
August 19, 2015

Brion, J.:

FACTS:
The present sace involves the title Lot No. 557 in Cebu City where the petitioner and
respondents are relatives and residing in the said lot.

The said property formed part of the Banilad Friar Estate Lands, which had been bought by the
government. Martin Antonio had initially been the beneficiary of the said property, but
subsequently assigned his rights over the property to Alejandro Tugot.

Since then, Alejandro possessed the said property until his death; thereafter, his children and
grandchildren continued to reside in the lot.

Respondents claimed to the registered owners of the said property and attempted to eject the
petitioners from the property. Mauricia filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of a new
owner’s duplicate of the property, claiming she lost her owner’s duplicate during a strong
typhoon sometime in 1946. Rodrigo subsequently defaulted his loan, prompting the foreclosure
of the property and it was thereafter sold by public auction to Lopez.

RTC found that TCT No. 572 is a fabricated title and declared it and all titles originating from it
to be null and void ab initio. The CA held that Lopez is an innocent purchaser in good faith.

ISSUE:

1. Whether relying on the fabricated title as basis to Alejandro’s claim to acquisitive

prescription is correct?
2. Whether Lopez is an innocent purchaser in good faith?

RULING:

1. No, the said property could no longer be acquired through prescription because it has
already been registered under the Torrens System. Moreover, Alejandro did not acquire
the property through acquisitive prescription because it was found that the Deed of
Assignment between Antonio and him was cancelled three months after it was executed.
Thus, it reverted back to its original status where it was a conditional sale between the
government and Antonio. There was no evidence shown to prove that whether the
contract of Antonio and the government had been completed or if Antonio had fully paid
the purchase price of the property and had acquired the property.
2. No, records of the case show that Filadelfa resided in Lot No. 557-A at the time Lopez
executed the real estate mortgage with Rodrigo. The ejectment case was filed five
 months after Lopez had entered into the real estate mortgage contract. Thus, at the time
Lopez inspected Lot No. 557, she would have found Filadelfa residing in it, and not
Rodrigo. The status of an innocent-purchaser for value or innocent mortgagor for
value is established by the person claiming it, an onus probandi that Lopez failed to
meet.

Digest by: Gimenez, Rhogem Rose P. (1-Estrellado)