### G.R. No.

172172
## Spouses Yu v. Pacleb
######

### Facts:
- Respondent Baltazar N. Pacleb and his late first wife, Angelita Chan, are the
registered owners of an 18,000-square meter parcel of land in Barrio Langcaan,
Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-118375
(Langcaan Property).
- In 1992, the Langcaan Property became the subject of three documents purporting
to transfer its ownership: a Deed of Absolute Sale between Spouses Baltazar N.
Pacleb and Angelita Chan and Rebecca Del Rosario, a Deed of Absolute Sale between
Rebecca Del Rosario and Ruperto L. Javier, and a Contract to Sell between Javier
and petitioner spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu.
- All the aforementioned sales were not registered.
- Petitioner spouses filed a Complaint for specific performance and damages against
Javier to compel him to deliver ownership and possession, as well as title to the
Langcaan Property.
- The trial court rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner spouses, ordering
Javier to deliver the certificate of title to them upon payment of the balance of
the purchase price.
- Respondent filed a Complaint for annulment of deed of sale and other documents
arising from it, alleging that the signatures on the deed of sale were forgeries.
- The trial court dismissed respondent's case, holding that petitioner spouses are
purchasers in good faith.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, ruling that
petitioner spouses are not purchasers in good faith and that the Decision in Civil
Case No. 741-93 did not transfer ownership of the Langcaan Property to them.

### Issue:
1. Whether petitioner spouses are innocent purchasers for value and in good faith.
2. Whether ownership over the Langcaan Property was properly vested in petitioner
spouses by virtue of the Decision in Civil Case No. 741-93.

### Ruling:
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

### Ratio:
1. Petitioner spouses cannot be considered as innocent purchasers in good faith.
They should have been put on inquiry as to the alleged rights of their vendor,
Javier, over the Langcaan Property due to several factors: the property remains
registered in the name of respondent, the deeds of absolute sale were not
registered, the deeds of absolute sale were executed only two months apart and
contain identical provisions, and the Langcaan Property is in the possession of
Ramon, the son of the registered owner. Petitioner spouses failed to exercise the
required degree of prudence in verifying the true status of the property.
2. The decision in Civil Case No. 741-93 is an action in personam, which is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. It cannot bind respondent since he was not a party to the
case and his signature on the deed of sale was forged. Therefore, ownership over
the Langcaan Property was not properly vested in petitioner spouses by virtue of
the decision in Civil Case No. 741-93.

### Summary:
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of land in Cavite.
Petitioner spouses purchased the land from a vendor who claimed to have acquired it
through a series of sales. However, the deeds of sale were not registered and the
signatures on them were alleged to be forgeries. The trial court initially ruled in
favor of petitioner spouses, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision,
finding that they were not innocent purchasers in good faith and that the decision
in a previous case did not transfer ownership to them. The Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that petitioner spouses failed to
exercise due diligence in verifying the status of the property and that the
previous decision did not bind the respondent who was not a party to the case.
Therefore, ownership over the land was not properly vested in petitioner spouses.

------------------------------------------------------------------