Galido vs. Magrare et.

al

G.R.206584, Jan. 11, 2016

Second Division

J.Carpio

Nature of the case: petition for review assailing CA decision affirming RTC Antique
Cadastre Case.

Facts: Andigan sold undivided portions of Lot1052-A covered by TCTNo.T-21405 to

Magrare(700sq.m.),to Palcat(1000) and Bayombong(500),more or less, on 28 Dec.1998.He had
it subdivided into 5 lots and On October 1999, the original TCT no. 21405 was cancelled. The
purchasers were not aware of the approved subsivision.New TCTs were issued in Andigan's
name.

On May 8, 2000, Andigan mortgaged the three lots(sold to respondents) and petitioner Galido
came into possession of duplicate copies of the same sold lots.

On Feb 2001 at 1 a.m.,Magrare,Palcat and Bayombong registered their respective adverse

claims on such TCTs.At 3 p.m. that same day petitioner registered her mortgage on the same
TCTs and the originals in RD Antique were annotated.

On 22 Feb.2001, the purchasers filed before RTC and raffled to Br. 11, to compel spouses
Andigan to surrender the owners duplicate of disputed TCTs;that Civil case n. 2001-3230 was
decided on its merits on 18 Oct.2001.Same court ordered the annulment, if not surrendered to
the RD Antique, and new TCTs in lieu thereof shall contain memorandum of such annulment.

The petitioner upon learning of such Writ and Notification by RTC Br. 11 filed a third party claim
on March 2004 and another case for foreclosure of mortgage against Andigan, before RTC Br.
10..It appears that petitioner prevailed in foreclosure case CC No. 3345 so that the Sheriff issue
a certicate of sale in favor of petitioner covered by the disputed TCTs.On 19 August 2004filed
seeking all entries on such disputed TCTs and annul all other titles issued pursuant to RTC Civil
case N.2001-2-23230.she alleged being a holder in good faith.RTC Br.12 judge ordered her to
amend and implead the three purchasers Magrare t al..Bayombong had died and case was
dismissed without being impleaded.

The petitioner and her counsel did not appear for summary hearing on the respondents
affirmative defenses and another hearing for the petitioner to refute the same. The court took
the petitioners absences in such preliminary hearings as waiver to present documentary
evidence. The court ruled din favor of respondents ,dismissing the case, as barred by prior
judgment by CCNo.2001-2-3230.Petitionerappealed to CA which then denied the petition and
subsequently the MR, for lack of merit.

Issue: Whether a valid mortgage was entered into by petitioner and if petitioner is a
buyer in good faith?
Held: There is no valid mortgage. Petitioner derives her title form Andigan who had
earlier sold such lots to purchasers Magrare et al.Andigan was no longer the owner of the
mortgaged real property at time of petitioners transaction with him. Further, RTC Br. 11 favored
the purchasers in CC no. 2001-2-3230 which had attained finality and entered in the Book of
Judgments.

Prior registered adverse claims prevail over: Presidential Decree 1529,Sec.52Every

conveyance,mortage,lease, lien, attachment ,order,judgment,instrument or entry affecting
registered land shall ,if registered, filed or entered in the office of RD for the province or city
where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of
such registering , filing or entering. The adverse claims were registered at 11 in the morning.
The mortgage w was registered 3 p.m. that same day on 11 Feb 2001.The purchasers filed a
case for surrender to the RD of disputed titles. The law itself provides s the recourse that they
took.

Petitioner is not a buyer in good faith: Petitioner can hardly be considered a buyer in good faith.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right or interest in such and pays a full and fair price for the same
at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some persons
in the same property.

The law on the matter is clear that preference is given to the prior registered adverse claims
because registration is the operative act that binds or affects the land insofar as third persons
are concerned.(Martinez vs. Garcia,611 scra 537;PD 1529 sec.51;Chua vs. Gutierrez,637 scra
552 (2010).

Wherefore, we grant the petition in part. Affirmed the dismissal with respect to Magrare and
Palcat; REVERSED as to dismissal to the heirs of Bayombong who are ORDERED
IMPLEADED as parties-defendants and trial court is directed to proceed with the cas3e.Atty
A.C.Salvani is directed to furnish the names and addresses of the Heirs of Bayombong.