Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents: First Division
Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents: First Division
Petitioners vs. vs. Respondents: First Division
DECISION
RELOVA , J : p
Petitioner Circe S. Duran claims that the Deed of Sale in favor of her mother Fe S.
Duran is a forgery, saying that at the time of its execution in 1963 she was in the United
States. On the other hand, the adverse party alleges that the signatures of Circe S.
Duran in the said Deed are genuine and, consequently, the mortgage made by Fe S.
Duran in favor of private respondent is valid.
With respect to the issue as to whether the signature of petitioner Circe S. Duran
in the Deed of Sale is a forgery or not, respondent appellate court held the same to be
genuine because there is the presumption of regularity in the case of a public document
and "the fact that Circe has not been able to satisfactorily prove that she was in the
United States at the time the deed was executed in 1963. Her return in 1966 does not
prove she was not here also in 1963, and that she did not leave shortly after 1963. She
should have presented her old passport, not her new one. But even if the signatures
were a forgery, and the sale would be regarded as void, still it is Our opinion that the
Deed of Mortgage is VALID, with respect to the mortgagees, the defendants-
appellants. While it is true that under Art. 2086 of the Civil Code, it is essential that the
mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property mortgaged, and while as between the
daughter and the mother, it was the daughter who still owned the lots, STILL insofar as
innocent third persons are concerned the owner was already the mother (Fe S. Duran)
inasmuch as she had already become the registered owner (Transfer Certi cates of
Title Nos. 2418 and 2419). The mortgagee had the right to rely upon what appeared in
the certi cate of title, and did not have to inquire further. If the rule were otherwise, the
e cacy and conclusiveness of Torrens Certi cate of Titles would be futile and
nugatory. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent and forged document of sale may
become the root of a valid title if the certi cate has already been transferred from the
name of the true owner to the name indicated by the forger (See De la Cruz v. Fabie, 35
Phil. 144; Blondeau, et al. v. Nano et al., 61 Phil. 625; Fule et al. v. Legare et al., 7 SCRA
351; see also Sec. 55 of Act No. 496, the Land Registration Act). The fact that at the
time of the foreclosure sale proceedings (1970-72) the mortgagees may have already
known of the plaintiffs' claim is immaterial. What is important is that at the time the
mortgage was executed, the mortgagees in good faith actually believed Fe S. Duran to
be the owner, as evidenced by the registration of the property in the name of said Fe S.
Duran (pp. 146-147, Rollo)." LLpr