LTD Prepared by: SOLLEGUE, Shanica

52 – Fule v De Legare
TOPIC: Subsequent Registration

Citation G.R. No. L-17951

Date February 28, 1963
Case Doctrine/s Related to Topic
Inquimboy v Cruz: there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of valid title. One such
instance is where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and while it
remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely
upon what appeared in the certificate.
Case Summary
Emilia’s adopted son, John, set her up. While they were at home, intruders demanded money from Emilia and that the
latter produce the money the next day else she will be killed. John made Emilia sign a document – allegedly a compensation
from the US Veterans Administration -- which should allow them to raise the money demanded. Emilia signed not knowing
that it was in fact a deed of sale of their lot and house. After signing, John took them to a hotel where they stayed for 1.5
months. It was only after some time, upon returning to their house, that Emilia discovered that it is inhabited by Sps. Fule,
to whom the house was sold. SC ruled that Sps Fule were purchasers in good faith and thus acquired title to the lot and
house.

FACTS:
1. Emilia de Legare (Emilia), was the owner of a parcel of land, together with a residential house erected thereon at San
Juan, Rizal, her ownership being evidenced by a TCT issued by Rizal’s Office of the Register of Deeds. She was living in
that house together with defendant John Legare (John), her adopted son, and a maid named Purita Tarrosa (Tarrosa)
2. 26 Sep 1951: Emilia, constituted a first class mortgage in favor of defendant Tomas Soriano (Soriano) to guarantee the
payment of an P8k loan. Because Emilia made partial payments and also contracted additional small loans, the debt was
reduced to P7k. These transactions were not annotated on the TCT’s memorandum of encumbrances.
3. 29 Mar 1953: An unknown man intruded into the said house’s room, approached Emilia, covered her mouth, and, pressing
a knife on her side, demanded that she give him P10k if she did not like to be killed. Emilia replied that she did not have
that amount. The intruder told Emilia to raise the necessary amount as he would come back the following morning and
once more threatened to kill her if she would fail to do so.
○ John did not call for help nor made any attempt to defend his mother, and when Tarrosa was about to call for a
policeman, he held the latter by the hand and slapped her on the face when she persisted in going down, telling
her that the man had companions waiting downstairs.
4. After the intruder was gone John approached Emilia, and exhibiting to her a paper told her to sign it as with the same he
could secure from the U.S. Veterans Administration the amount which they needed to deliver to that intruder.
○ Emilia, who did not know how to read nor write, although she could sign her name, asked John what that paper
was. The latter answered that it was an application for payment of compensation. As she had confidence in John
and prior to that occasion she had received from the U.S. Veterans Administration a letter concerning some
compensation she was to receive, she signed that paper. John had Tarrosa sign it as a witness, without however,
allowing the latter to read it.
5. After that paper was thus signed, John told them to pack up their things as they were leaving the house to hide in a hotel,
adding that the men who came earlier that evening were Huks. He took them to the Windsor Hotel and told them not to
leave the room or peep out of the window as they might be seen by the men who came to their house in the previous
evening. John left and the two stayed in the hotel for 1 ½ month, with John occasionally visiting but told them that they
could not go home yet.
6. 7 May 1953: John gave Emilia a P5 bill, and told her that she could use the amount for transportation expenses if she
wanted to leave the hotel. Emilia and Tarrosa left the hotel and went directly to her house at Sta. Mesa Boulevard
Extension. When they arrived at the house, however, they found that it was occupied by strangers, and that all her furniture
and personal belongings had disappeared.
7. Inquiring from those strangers how they happened to occupy the house, the latter told her that John had sold the house
to them and that it was no longer hers. Emilia thus sought the help of her attorney. It was then discovered that the paper
which John had them sign was a deed of sale of the lot and house in favor of John for P12k.
8. It further appears that John approached Elias Fermin (Fermin), the real estate broker who intervened in the securing of
the loan contracted by Emilia from Tomas Soriano, and sought said broker's help to sell the lot and house. Fermin offered
the property in sale to defendant spouses Conrado Fule and Lourdes Aragon (Sps.Fule).
9. Fule agreed to purchase the property for P12k on condition that the sum of P7k, the unpaid balance of Emilia’s
indebtedness to Soriano secured by a mortgage, would be deducted from the price, and that he would assume said
mortgage.
10. 9 May 1953: Soriano executed a deed of absolute sale thereof, free of all liens and encumbrances, in favor of Sps Fule,
and said spouses in turn executed in favor of Soriano a deed of mortgage covering the property for the sum of P7k.
11. The 3 deeds and TCT were on the same day presented for registration Rizal’s Office of the Register of Deeds. The
Register recorded:
○ first, the deed of sale executed by Emilia in favor of John) and issued in the name of the latter a TCT which
cancelled the TCT under Emilia’s name,
○ then the deed of sale executed by John in favor of the Sps and issued in favor of the latter a TCT which cancelled
the TCT under John’s name, and then annotated on the memorandum of encumbrances of Sps. Fule’s TCT the
deed of mortgage executed in favor of. Soriano by said spouses.

Page 1 of 2
LTD Prepared by: SOLLEGUE, Shanica
52 – Fule v De Legare
TOPIC: Subsequent Registration
12. Upon delivering the TCT to the spouses, they delivered to John the balance of the purchase price of the property after
deducting the mortgage’s amount constituted in favor of Soriano and other expenses, which amounted to P4k.
13. Emilia thus filed an action for annulment of the deeds of sale and conveyance.
14. RTC ruling: ruled in favor of Emilia, cancelled TCTs of John and Sps Fule and left Emilia’s TCT valid; ordered delivery of
the possession of the premises to + monthly rental of P150/mo from May 9, 1953, up to and including the date on which
the delivery is to be made, this obligation being understood to be joint and several insofar as the Sps Fule + damages
○ As to the cross-claim: John to refund Sps Aragon for amount paid + damages
15. CA ruling: modified RTC ruling – Emilia’s TCT revived with the mortgage in favor of Soriano annotated on its
memorandum of encumbrances but reduced to the amount of P7k
ISSUE # 1 HELD
WON Sps. Fule are purchasers in good faith and for value of the property YES. Thus they are lawful
owners
RATIO
1. Cui and Joven v. Henson: A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other
persons has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase,
or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. Good faith consists in an honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another.
2. Application:
○ Nothing in John person or behaviour suggested anything suspicious. He was the adopted son of Emilia, and had
not been known to commit crime or dishonesty. John also has had previous dealings with the real estate broker
during which he exhibited the expected degree of trustworthiness.
○ Deed of sale was regular upon its face, and no one would have questioned its authenticity since it was duly
acknowledged before a notary public
○ Even if Sps Fule had the opportunity to compare the Emilia’s signature the deed of conveyance with a specimen
of her genuine signature, it would have been in vain since the signature on the document was admittedly hers.
○ The diligence and precaution observed by the Sps Fule themselves could hardly have been wanting. The records
show that they did not rely solely and fully upon the deed of sale in favor of John and the fact that John had then
in his possession the corresponding certificate of title of the registered owner. They demanded more.
■ They insisted that the sale in favor of John be first registered and that the transfer in their favor be
thereafter likewise registered. It was only after all these were complied with that they paid the purchase
price.
○ Although the title was in Emilia’s name the certificate of title was in the possession of John. Under Sec 55 of Act
496, as amended, John's possession of the certificate and his subsequent production of it to the Sps Fule
operated as a "conclusive authority from the registered owner to the register of deeds to enter a new certificate."
ISSUE # 2 [RELEVANT] HELD
WON Sps. Fule acquired the title validy by virtue of the subsequent registration YES
1. Inquimboy v Cruz: there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of valid title. One
such instance is where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger,
and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had
the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate.
2. Under the Torrens system, "registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon
the land. Consequently, where there was nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership
of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens
title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto.
a. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system
seeks to insure would entirely be futile and nugatory. The public shall then be denied of its foremost
motivation for respecting and observing the Land Registration Act. In the end, the business community stands
to be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.
3. Application: when the Register of Deeds issued a certificate of title in John’s name, and thereafter registered the
same, John, insofar as third parties were concerned, acquired a valid title to the house and lot here disputed. When,
therefore, he transferred this title to the herein Sps. Fule, third persons, the entire transaction fell within the purview
of Article 14341 of the Civil Code. The registration in John’s name effectively operated to convey the properties to
him.
4. Emilia is herself not entirely free from blame (dafuq). When John presented to her the document which turned out to
be a bed of conveyance in his favor, she readily affixed her signature thereto upon the simple representation of John
that it was a document pertaining to her claim with the U.S. Veterans Administration. She could have asked her maid
to read the contents of the same for her and yet she did not.

RULING: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and set aside. A new one
is here entered dismissing the respondent's complaint and declaring the petitioners herein the lawful owners of the properties
here involved. Without pronouncement as to costs.

1
ART. 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such
title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.
Page 2 of 2