SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 391

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 105944. February 9, 1996.

SPOUSES ROMULO AND SALLY EDUARTE, petitioners,

vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO
CA-LAPINE (substituted by ALEXANDER CALAPINE and
ARTEMIS CALAPINE), respondents.

Donations; Revocation of Donation; All crimes which offend the

donor show ingratitude and are causes for revocation.·As noted in
the aforecited opinion „all crimes which offend the donor show
ingratitude and are causes for revocation.‰ PetitionersÊ attempt to
categorize the offenses according to their classification under the
Revised Penal Code is therefore unwarranted considering that
illegal detention, threats and coercion are considered as crimes
against the person of the donor despite the fact that they are
classified as crimes against personal liberty and security under the
Revised Penal Code.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Expert Testimony; Handwriting
Experts; The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends
not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or
false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would
ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.·
In gauging the relative weight to be given to the opinion of
handwriting experts, we adhere to the following standards: „We
have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert
depends not upon his mere state-

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

* THIRD DIVISION.

392

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

ments of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the

assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or
detection from an unpracticed observer. The test of genuineness
ought to be the resemblance, not the formation of letters in some
other specimens but to the general character of writing, which is
impressed on it as the involuntary and unconscious result of
constitution, habit or other permanent course, and is, therefore
itself permanent.‰
Land Titles; Ownership; Possession; The rule is well-settled that
mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered
torrens title to real property.·We agree with petitioners. The rule is
well-settled that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder
of a registered torrens title to real property. Moreover, reliance on
the doctrine that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title
is squarely in point in this case: „Although generally a forged or
fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title, however there are
instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of
a 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.
Same; Sales; The fact that the vendorÊs title was fraudulently
secured cannot prejudice the rights of the purchasers absent any
showing that they had knowledge or participation in such
irregularity.·When herein petitioners purchased the subject
property from Helen Doria, the same was already covered by TCT
No. T-23205 under the latterÊs name. And although Helen DoriaÊs
title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot prejudice the rights

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 2 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

of herein petitioners absent any showing that they had any

knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Thus, they cannot
be obliged to look beyond the certificate of title which appeared to
be valid on its face and sans any annotation or notice of private
respondentsÊ adverse claim. Contrary therefore to the conclusion of
respondent Court, petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for
value as they bought the disputed property without notice that
some other person has a right or interest in such property, and paid
a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or before they
had notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
property.

393

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 393

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; The established rule is that the rights of an

innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the seller in securing his
title.·Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible error
when it affirmed the ruling of the trial court annulling and setting
aside the deed of absolute sale dated March 25, 1988 between
petitioners and Helen Doria, as well as the Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-27434 issued under petitionerÊs name, the established
rule being that the rights of an innocent purchaser for value must
be respected and protected notwithstanding the fraud employed by
the seller in securing his title.
Same; Same; Assurance Fund; Remedies of the owner of a
parcel of land who was prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of
his property.·In this regard, it has been held that the proper
recourse of the true owner of the property who was prejudiced and
fraudulently dispossessed of the same is to bring an action for
damages against those who caused or employed the fraud, and if
the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the
Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages against the
Assurance Fund.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 3 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

Makalintal, Barot, Torres & Ibarra for petitioners.

Roberto E. Gomez for private respondents.

FRANCISCO, J.:

A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes

gratuitously
1
of a thing or right in favor of another, who
accepts it. On the part of the donor, it is an exercise of
oneÊs generosity. However, on several occasions, instead of
being accorded recognition and appreciation for this act of
beneficence, the donor ends up as a victim of greed and
ingratitude. This was the fate that befell Pedro Calapine
(herein original plaintiff) constraining him to cause the
revocation of the donation that he made to his niece in
1984. The instant petition

_______________

1 Article 725, New Civil Code.

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

for certiorari is interposed by the spouses Romulo and Sally

Eduarte, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 29175 which affirmed the revocation of the
donation made by Pedro Calapine to his niece, Helen Doria,
and at the same time declared petitioners as purchasers in
bad faith of the property donated.
As set out in the appealed decision, the undisputed facts
are as follows:

„Pedro Calapine was the registered owner of a parcel of land located

in San Cristobal, San Pablo City, with an area of 12,199 square
meters, as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2129
(Exhibits A and 1). On April 26, 1984, he executed a deed entitled
ÂPagbibigay-Pala (Donacion Inter-Vivos)Ê ceding one-half portion
thereof to his niece Helen S. Doria (Exhibit B).
„On July 26, 1984, another deed identically entitled was
purportedly executed by Pedro Calapine ceding unto Helen S. Doria

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 4 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

the whole of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-2129 (Exhibits
C and D), on the basis of which said original certificate was
cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
23205 was issued in her name (Exhibits G and 2).
„On February 26, 1986, Helen S. Doria donated a portion of 157
square meters of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-23205 to
the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. (Exhibit H), on the
basis of which said transfer certificate of title was cancelled and
TCT No. T-24444 was issued in its name covering 157 square
meters (Exhibit 2-A) and TCT No. T-24445, in the name of Helen S.
Doria covering the remaining portion of 12,042 square meters
(Exhibit 3).
„On March 25, 1988, Helen S. Doria sold, transferred and
conveyed unto the spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte the parcel of
land covered by TCT No. T-24445, save the portion of 700 square
meters on which the vendorÊs house had been erected (Exhibits 1
and 3-F), on the basis of which TCT No. 24445 was cancelled and in
lieu thereof TCT No. T-27434, issued in the name of the vendees
(Exhibit 4).
„Claiming that his signature to the deed of donation (Exhibits C
and D) was a forgery and that she was unworthy of his liberality,
Pedro Calapine brought suit against Helen S. Doria, the Calauan
Christian Reformed Church, Inc. and the spouses Romulo and Sally
Eduarte to revoke the donation made in favor of Helen S. Doria

395

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 395

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

(Exhibit B), to declare null and void the deeds of donation and sale
that she had executed in favor of the Calauan Christian Reformed
Church, Inc. and the spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte (Exhibits
H, I and 3-F) and to cancel TCT Nos. T-24444, 24445 and T-27434.
„Answering the complaint, the defendants spouses denied
knowledge of the first deed of donation and alleged that after a part
of the property was donated to the defendant Calauan Christian
Reformed Church, Inc., the remaining portion thereof was sold to
them by the defendant Helen S. Doria; and that the plaintiff Ês
purported signature in the second deed of donation was his own,
hence genuine. They prayed that the complaint against them be
dismissed; that upon their counterclaim, the plaintiff be ordered to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 5 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

pay them moral and exemplary damages and attorneyÊs fees; and
that upon their cross-claim the defendant Helen S. Doria be ordered
to reimburse them the purchase price of P110,000 and to pay them
moral and exemplary damages and attorneyÊs fees (pp. 23-31, rec.).
„The defendant Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc.
manifested in its answer the willingness to reconvey to the plaintiff
that part of the property donated to it by Helen S. Doria (pp. 36-38,
rec.). And having executed the corresponding deed of reconveyance,
the case as against it was dismissed (pp. 81-83; 84, rec.).
„The defendants Helen S. Doria and the City Assessor and the
Registrar of Deeds of San Pablo City did not file answers to the
plaintiff Ês complaint.
„After the plaintiff Ês death on August 27, 1989, on motion, he
was substituted by his nephews Alexander and Artemis Calapine
upon order of the Court (pp. 147-152; 250, rec.).
„After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region,
Branch 30, San Pablo City rendered judgment, the dispositive part
of which provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by the

Court in the instant case in favor of plaintiff and against defendant
Eduartes to wit:

1. DECLARING as it is hereby declared, the revocation of the Deed

of Donation dated April 26, 1984;
2. ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no force and
effect the Deed of Donation dated July 26, 1984, the deed of
absolute sale executed on March 25, 1988 by and between
spouses Eduartes and Helen Doria, and the Transfer

396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

Certificate of Title No. T-27434 issued under the name of spouses Romulo
and Sally Eduarte;

3. ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San Pablo City, to

cancel TCT No. T-27434 or any other adverse title emanating
from OCT No. P-2129 and in lieu thereof, to issue a new transfer
certificate of title covering the subject property under the names
of the substitute-plaintiffs Alexander and Artemis both surnamed

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 6 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

Calapine, after payment of the corresponding fees and taxes

therefor; and
4. ORDERING defendant Helen Doria to pay substitute-plaintiffs
the sum of P200,000.00 as and for attorneyÊs fees.

Judgment on the cross-claim of defendant Eduartes against Helen

Doria is further rendered by ordering the latter to pay the former the
sum of P110,000.00 with legal interest thereon starting from March 25,
1988 until full payment, and the further sum of P20,000.00 as and for
attorneyÊs fees.
The counterclaim of defendant Eduartes against plaintiff is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit.
Costs against defendant Helen Doria in both the complaint and the
cross-claim (pp. 11-12, decision, pp. 264-265, rec.).

„Only the defendants Eduarte spouses took an appeal (p. 266,

rec.), claiming that the trial court erred·

1. In annulling, voiding, setting aside, and declaring of no

force and effect·

(a) the deed of donation (Exhibit C and 1-A), dated July 26,
1984;
(b) the deed of absolute sale (Exhibit 1 and 3-E) executed on
March 25, 1988 by and between Spouses Eduartes and
Helen Doria;
(c) TCT No. T-27434 (Exhibit 4) issued in the name of spouses
Romulo Eduarte and Sally Eduarte; and in revoking the
deed of donation (Exhibit B) dated April 26, 1984;

2. In declaring the appellants Eduartes buyers in bad faith;

3. In not finding the plaintiffs guilty of estoppel by silence
and/or guilty of suppression of evidence instead of find-

397

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 397

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

ing the appellants Eduartes guilty of suppression of

evidence; and
4. In finding that the signature of Pedro Calapine in the deed

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 7 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

of donation (Exhibits C and 1-A) dated July 26, 1984 a

forgery based on the opposite findings of the hand writing
experts presented by each party and in the absence of the
testimony of Pedro Calapine who was then still alive (pp. 1-
2
2, appellantsÊ brief.)‰
3
In its decision dated April 22, 1992, respondent Court of
Appeals dismissed petitionersÊ appeal and affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Respondent court was in
complete accord with the trial court in giving more
credence to the testimony of private respondentsÊ expert
witness, NBI document examiner Bienvenido Albacea, who
found Pedro CalapineÊs signature in the second deed of
donation to be a forgery. It also ruled that by falsifying
Pedro CalapineÊs signature, Helen Doria committed an act
of ingratitude which is a valid ground for revocation of the
donation made in her favor in accordance with Article 765
of the Civil Code. Furthermore, respondent court upheld
the trial courtÊs finding that petitioners are not buyers in
good faith of the donated property as they failed to exercise
due diligence in verifying the true ownership of the
property despite the existence of circumstances that should
have aroused their suspicions.
Petitioners are now before us taking exception to the
foregoing findings of respondent Court of Appeals and
contending that the same are not in accord with the law
and evidence on record.
Anent the revocation of the first deed of donation,
petitioners submit that paragraph (1) of Article 765 of the
Civil Code does not apply in this case because the acts of
ingratitude referred to therein pertain to offenses
committed by the donee against the person or property of
the donor. Petitioners argue that as the offense imputed to
herein donee Helen Doria·falsification of a public
document·is neither a crime against

_______________

2 Decision, pp. 1-5, Rollo, pp. 32-36.

3 Rollo, p. 32.

398

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 8 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

the person nor property of the donor but is a crime against

public interest under the Revised Penal Code, the same is
not a ground for revocation.
In support of this contention, petitioners cite the
following portions found in TolentinoÊs Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Civil Code:

„Offense against Donor·x x x. The crimes against the person of the

donor would include not only homicide and physical injuries, but
also illegal detention, threats and coercion; and those against honor
include offenses against chastity and those against the property,
include robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, arson, damages, etc.
4
(5 Manresa 175-176).‰

This assertion, however, deserves scant consideration. The

full text of the very same commentary cited by petitioners
belies their claim that falsification of the deed of donation
is not an act of ingratitude, to wit:

„Offense Against Donor.·All crimes which offend the donor show

ingratitude and are causes for revocation. There is no doubt,
therefore, that the donee who commits adultery with the wife of the
donor, gives cause for revocation by reason of ingratitude. The
crimes against the person of the donor would include not only
homicide and physical injuries, but also illegal detention, threats,
and coercion; those against honor include offenses against chastity;
and those against the property, include robbery, theft, usurpation,
5
swindling, arson, damages, etc. [Manresa 175-176]. (Italics
supplied).

Obviously, the first sentence was deleted by petitioners

because it totally controverts their contention. As noted in
the aforecited opinion „all crimes which offend the donor
show ingratitude and are causes for revocation.‰
PetitionersÊ attempt to categorize the offenses according to
their classification under the Revised Penal Code is
therefore unwarranted considering that illegal detention,
threats and coercion are considered as crimes against the
person of the donor despite

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 9 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

_______________

4 Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 23, citing Vol. II, ed., p. 550.

5 Vol. II, 1983 Ed., p. 538.

399

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 399

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

the fact that they are classified as crimes against 6personal

liberty and security under the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioners also impute grave error to respondent Court
of Appeals in finding that the second deed of donation
dated July 26, 1984 was falsified. Petitioners deplore the
fact that more credence was given to the testimony of the
NBI handwriting expert who found Pedro CalapineÊs
signature in the second deed of donation to be a forgery
despite the existence of controverting testimony by PC-INP
Crime Laboratory (PCCL) Chief Document Examiner
which petitioners adduced as evidence on their part.
We are not persuaded. Respondent Court of Appeals and
the trial court cannot be faulted for giving more weight and
credence to the testimony of the NBI handwriting expert
considering that the examination of the said witness
proved to be complete, thorough and scientific.
In gauging the relative weight to be given to the opinion
of handwriting experts, we adhere to the following
standards:

„We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert
depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is
genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing
out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and
between genuine and false specimens of writing which would
ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.
The test of genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not the
formation of letters in some other specimens but to the general
character of writing, which is impressed on it as the involuntary
and unconscious result of constitution, habit or other permanent
7
course, and is, therefore itself permanent.‰

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 10 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

_______________

6 See Revised Penal Code, Title Nine·Crimes Against Personal

Liberty and Security; Articles 267, 268, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289.
7 People vs. Domasian, 219 SCRA 245, 252 (1993) citing Alcos v. IAC,
162 SCRA 823, Moran, Comments on Rules of Court, 434, Nolasco ed.,
1980; People v. Bustos, 45 Phil. 9 (1983).

400

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

Confronted with contradicting testimonies from two

handwriting experts, the trial court and respondent Court
of Appeals were convinced by the opinion of the NBI
handwriting expert as it was more exhaustive, in contrast
with the testimony of petitionersÊ witness from the PCCL
which was discarded on account of the following flaws:

„The Court is not convinced with CruzÊs explanations. Apart from

the visual inconsistencies, i.e., the strokes with which some letters
were made, the variety in the sizes of the letters, the depth, the
difference in the slant which the Court itself observed in its own
examination of both the questioned signatures and those standard
specimen signatures, there is evidence showing that Cruz did not
make a thorough examination of all the signatures involved in this
particular issue. Thus even in the report submitted by the PCCL it
was admitted that they omitted or overlooked the examination of at
least three (3) standard specimen signatures of Pedro Calapine
which were previously subject of the NBI examination marked as
Exhibits ÂS-9,Ê ÂS-10Ê and ÂS-11.Ê When questioned regarding this
oversight, Cruz testified that in his opinion, the inclusion or non-
inclusion of said exhibits in their examination will not affect the
same and they would have arrived at the same conclusion anyway.
Again, when asked why they did not bother to have the original
copies of the documents being questioned (Exhs. ÂQ-1Ê through ÂQ-3Ê)
for their examination, Cruz replied that they are using a special
film so it will not matter whether the documents being examined
are the original or a mere photocopy (TSN 8, 10, 12 and 26, Hearing
of Nov. 23, 1989).
„The Court will not attempt to make its own conclusion or

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 11 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

resolution on such a technical issue as the matter at hand in the

light of the cavalier attitude of Cruz. In fine, between the
examinations made by the two witnesses, that of AlbaceaÊs proved
to be complete, thorough and scientific and is worthy of credence
8
and belief.‰

The afore-quoted findings confirm beyond doubt the failure

of petitionersÊ expert witness to satisfy the above-
mentioned criteria for evaluating the opinion of
handwriting experts. At the same time, petitionersÊ witness
failed to rebut the convincing testimony of the NBI
handwriting expert presented by

_______________

8 Decision, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 36-37.

401

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 401

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

private respondents. We therefore find no reason to deviate

from the assailed conclusions as the same are amply
supported by the evidence on record.
Finally, proceeding to the crucial issue that directly
affects herein petitioners, it is reiterated that petitioners
are buyers in good faith of the donated property, and
therefore, it was grave error to annul and set aside the
deed of sale executed between petitioners and donee Helen
Doria.
In adjudging petitioners as buyers in bad faith,
respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courtÊs
finding that the attendant circumstances, that is, the
presence of other occupants as well as houses built of
strong materials and fruit bearing trees in the subject land,
should have aroused the suspicion of petitioners and
impelled them to exercise due diligence in verifying the
true ownership of the property being sold. Petitioners
dispute the lower courtÊs conclusion and argue that
although there were other occupants in the subject
property, no adverse claim was made by the latter as they

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 12 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

were mere tenants therein, thus, petitioners were not

obliged to make any further inquiry because the property
being sold was covered by a certificate of title under Helen
DoriaÊs name.
We agree with petitioners. The rule is well-settled that
mere possession cannot defeat the title 9
of a holder of a
registered torrens title to real property. Moreover, reliance
on the doctrine that a forged deed can legally be the root of
a valid title is squarely in point in this case:

„Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and

conveys no title, however there are instances when such a
fraudulent document may become the root of a 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.

_______________

9 Abad vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 817, 826 (1989) citing J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 146 (1979).

402

402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

„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 further 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. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness
of the certificate of title which the Torrens System seeks to insure
10
would entirely be futile and nugatory.‰

When herein petitioners purchased the subject property

from Helen Doria, the same was already covered by TCT
No. T-23205 under the latterÊs name. And although Helen
DoriaÊs title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 13 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

prejudice the rights of herein petitioners absent any

showing that they had any knowledge or participation in
such irregularity. Thus, they cannot be obliged to look
beyond the certificate of title which appeared to be valid on
its face and sans any annotation or notice of private
respondentsÊ adverse claim. Contrary therefore to the
conclusion of respondent Court, petitioners are purchasers
in good faith and for value as they bought the disputed
property without notice that some other person has a right
or interest in such property, and paid a full price for the
same at the time of the purchase or before they had notice
of the claim
11
or interest of some other person in the
property.
Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible
error when it affirmed the ruling of the trial court
annulling and setting aside the deed of absolute sale dated
March 25, 1988 between petitioners and Helen Doria, as
well as the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27434 issued
under petitionerÊs name, the established rule being that the
rights of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected
and protected

_______________

10 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 187 SCRA

735, 740 (1990) citing Fule vs. Legare, 7 SCRA 351.
11 Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 550, 556 (1994)
citing De Santos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 157 SCRA 295;
Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 196 SCRA 705; Casupit, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 684.

403

VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 403

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

notwithstanding 12the fraud employed by the seller in

securing his title.
In this regard, it has been held that the proper recourse
of the true owner of the property who was prejudiced and
fraudulently dispossessed of the same is to bring an action
for damages against those who caused or employed the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 14 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the

Treasurer of the Philippines may be 13filed for recovery of
damages against the Assurance Fund.
Conformably with the foregoing, having established
beyond doubt that Helen Doria fraudulently secured her
title over the disputed property which she subsequently
sold to petitioners, Helen Doria should instead be adjudged
liable to private respondents, and not to petitioners as
declared by the trial court and respondent Court of
Appeals, for the resulting damages to the true owner and
original plaintiff, Pedro Calapine.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the
appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED. The portions of
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Branch 30, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 29175 which ordered the following:

„x x x xxx x x x;

„2. ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no

force and effect x x x, the deed of absolute sale executed on
March 25, 1988 by and between spouses Eduartes and
Helen Doria, and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
27434 issued under the name of spouses Romulo and Sally
Eduarte;
„3. ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San Pablo
City, to cancel TCT No. T-27434 or any other adverse title
emanating from OCT No. P-2129 and in lieu thereof, to
issue a new transfer certificate of title covering the subject
property under the names of the substitute-plaintiffs
Alexander and Artemis both surnamed Ca-

_______________

12 Pino vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 434, 440 citing Director of Lands vs.
Abache, et al., 73 Phil. 606.
13 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra, citing Blanco,
et al. vs. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494; Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, supra.

404

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 15 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

lapine, after payment of the corresponding fees and taxes

therefor; and
„4. x x x xxx x x x. „Judgment on the cross-claim of
defendant Eduartes against Helen Doria is further rendered
by ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of
P110,000.00 with legal interest thereon starting from March
25, 1988 until full payment, x x x.‰

are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Instead, Helen Doria is hereby ordered to pay herein
private respondents the sum of P110,000.00 with legal
interest counted from March 25, 1988 until full payment,
as damages for the resulting loss to original plaintiff Pedro
Calapine.
In all other respects, the appealed decision is hereby
affirmed.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and

Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment modified.

Notes.·It would be manifestly unfair for the Republic,

as donee, alleged to have violated the conditions under
which it received gratuitously certain property, thereafter
to put as a barrier the concept of non-suability. That would
be a purely one-sided arrangement offensive to oneÊs sense
of justice. Such conduct, whether proceeding from an
individual or governmental agency, is to be condemned. As
a matter of fact, in case it is the latter that is culpable, the
affront to decency is even more manifest. (Santiago vs.
Republic, 87 SCRA 294 [1978])
Only the donor or his heirs have the personality to
question the violation of any restriction in the deed of
donation. (Gar-rido vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 450
[1994])

··o0o··

405

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 16 of 17
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 253 18/10/2019, 12)07 PM

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ddd079129ef05cdab003600fb002c009e/p/APF959/?username=Guest Page 17 of 17