G.R. No. 171531
January 30, 2009
Facts
The land in dispute was owned by Pablo Pascua. It was covered by an Original Certificate of Title. Pablo Pascua died intestate. One of the four heirs, Cipriano, executed an “Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales.” He sold the property to Spouses Rodolfo who thereafter sold it to petitioners. Subsequently, Cipriano was granted a TCT which was cancelled and a TCT in favor of the Spouses Rodolfo was issued. Later on, the TCT of the Spouses were also cancelled and a new one in favor of petitioners were issued.
28 years after the issuance of the TCT to petitioners, the respondents, who were heirs of Pablo Pascua, filed a complaint seeking the reconveyance of the parcel of land. The RTC dismissed the petition but the CA reversed the dismissal. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Who between the petitioner and respondent has a better right to the property in question?
Held
The petitioner has better right to the property in question.
A certificate of title is a mere evidence of ownership, it is not the title itself. Moreover, the purchaser is not bound by the original certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom he had purchased the property. If there is 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. Otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and nugatory.
In this case, the TCT in favor of petitioners were duly registered while the OCT in favor of respondent’s predecessors were cancelled. The lack of signature by the Register of Deeds in the TCT in favor of Cipriano does not invalidate such since the Register of Deeds also signed the TCT in favor of Spouses Rodolfo on the same day.
Even if the extrajudicial settlement of property was a forgery, it can still be a source of a valid title if such was conveyed to an innocent purchaser.
n the case at bar, the petitioner was an innocent purchaser for value. With that, there is no cause of action for cancellation of title will lie against it.
Hence, petitioner has the better right to the property in question.