SOME DOCTRINES IN LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

a. Forged document can be a source of a valid title

A forged or fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title if the property has already been transferred from the name of the owner to that of the forger. This doctrine serves to emphasize that a person who deals with registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger and be absolutely protected by a Torrens title.(Sps. Villamil vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 177187, 2009)

b. Mirror doctrine

General Rule:

1. Consistently, this Court has ruled that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.  Where 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 further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. (Chua vs. Soriano, G.R. NO. 150066, 2007)

2. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a person dealing with the owner of registered land is not bound to go beyond the certificate of title as he is charged with notice of burdens on the property which are noted on the face of the register or on the certificate of title. (San Lorenzo Devt Corp vs. CA, G.R. No. 124242, 2005)

Exception/s:

1. However, when a person who deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered owner, he is expected to look behind the certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances, in order to determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer any interest in the land.  He has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter’s legal authority to convey. 

 The law “requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the transaction is registered.  While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land.”  The strength of buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell depends on the proof of capacity of the seller.  If the proof of capacity consists of a special power of attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already constitutes sufficient inquiry.  If no such special power of attorney is provided or there is one but there appear flaws in its notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its execution. (Chua vs. Soriano, G.R. NO. 150066, 2007)

2. This principle does not apply when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation.  One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith. (Sps. Villamil vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 177187, 2009)

3.     In case of banking institutions…..

While the cases cited by petitioner held that the mortgagee is not under obligation to look beyond the certificate of title when on its face, it was free from lien or encumbrances, the mortgagees therein were considered in good faith as they were totally innocent and free from negligence or wrongdoing in the transaction.  In this case, petitioner knew that the loan it was extending to Garcia/TransAmerican was for the purpose of the development of the eight-unit townhouses.  Petitioner’s insistence that prior to the approval of the loan, it undertook a thorough check on the property and found the titles free from liens and encumbrances would not suffice.  It was incumbent upon petitioner to inquire into the status of the lots which includes verification on whether Garcia had secured the authority from the HLURB to mortgage the subject lots.  Petitioner failed to do so.  We likewise find petitioner negligent in failing to even ascertain from Garcia if there are buyers of the lots who turned out to be private respondents.  Petitioner’s want of knowledge due to its negligence takes the place of registration, thus it is presumed to know the rights of respondents over the lot.  The conversion of the status of petitioner from mortgagee to buyer-owner will not lessen the importance of such knowledge. Neither will the conversion set aside the consequence of its negligence as a mortgagee.

            Judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of banks to investigate, examine and assess the real estate offered as security for the application of a loan.  We cannot overemphasize the fact that the Bank cannot barefacedly argue that simply because the title or titles offered as security were clean of any encumbrances or lien, that it was thereby relieved of taking any other step to verify the over-reaching implications should the subdivision be auctioned on foreclosure.  (Homebankers Saving & Trust Co. vs. CA, G.R. No. 128354, 2005)

4.      In case of financing institutions…

            In the case at bar, GSIS is admittedly a financing institution.  In its answer to the complaint filed with the trial court, GSIS admitted knowledge that the spouses Jose C. Zulueta and Soledad B. Ramos owned the Antonio Subdivision when they mortgaged the same with GSIS.  In Sunshine Finance and Investment Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, we held that when the purchaser or mortgagee is a financing institution, the general rule that a purchaser or mortgagee of land is not required to look further than what appears on the face of the title does not apply.  Further:

            Nevertheless, we have to deviate from the general rule because of the failure of petitioner in this case to take the necessary precautions to ascertain if there was any flaw in the title of the Nolascos and to examine the condition of the property they sought to mortgage.  The petitioner is an investment and financing corporation.  We presume it is experienced in its business.  Ascertainment of the status and condition of properties offered to it as security for the loans it extends must be a standard and indispensable part of its operations.  Surely it cannot simply rely on an examination of a Torrens certificate to determine what the subject property looks like as its condition is not apparent in the document.  The land might be in a depressed area.  There might be squatters on it.  It might be easily inundated. It might be an interior lot without convenient access.  These and other similar factors determine the value of the property and so should be of practical concern to the petitioner. (GSIS vs. dela Merced, G.R. No. 140398, 2001)

5. In the case of Domingo Realty vs. CA (2007), the SC had the occasion to give a precaution to prospective buyers of titled lands, to wit:

Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and the accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title.  It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties. 

c. Rules applicable in Double Sale:

Civil Code, Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

1. The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of double sale of immovable property. When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner. Verily, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith— that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. (San Lorenzo Devt Corp vs. CA, G.R. No. 124242, 2005)

d. Purchaser in good faith

1. A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. (Chua vs. Soriano, G.R. NO. 150066, 2007)

2. Thus, the reliance by the Chuas on the notarial acknowledgment found in the duly notarized SPA presented by Celestino is sufficient evidence of good faith.  The Chuas need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the document, its due execution and authenticity.   (Chua vs. Soriano, G.R. NO. 150066, 2007)