15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R.

DUJUNGCO)

G.R. No. 171535 June 5, 2009 Jenkins as evidenced by the Tax Declaration and Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 18216, all under Mrs. Elma Jenkins’ name, which bear no annotation of
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, liens, encumbrances, lis pendens or any adverse claim whatsoever. After the sale
vs. wherein plaintiffs-appellees were purportedly purchasers for value and in good
SPOUSES EDITO and MERIAN TIROL and SPOUSES ALEJANDRO and faith, they succeeded in titling the said lot under their names per Transfer
MIRANDA NGO, Respondents. Certificate of Title No. 27044 on September 20, 1993, and further proceeded to
pay realty taxes thereon. It was only in January 1996 that plaintiffs-appellees
DECISION discovered a cloud on their title when their request for a Height Clearance with
the Department of Transportation and Communications was referred to the
defendant-appellant Mactan[-]Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA,
PUNO, C.J.:
for brevity), on account of the latter’s ownership of the said lot by way of
purchase thereof dating far back to 1958.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reverse, annul and set aside (i) the May 27,
At this point, it becomes imperative to trace the chain of ownership over Lot No.
2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CV No. 72867 entitled
4763-D. It is undisputed that the original owners of said property were the
"Spouses Edito and Merian Tirol, et al. v. Mactan-Cebu International
spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef, who owned the entire Lot No. 4763,
Airport Authority," and (ii) its February 17, 2006 Resolution2 denying
of which Lot No. 4763-D is a portion of (sic). Unfortunately for herein parties,
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
this is where the similarity of facts end (sic), and the instant controversy begins.

The instant case finds its genesis in a complaint for quieting of title filed on
According to plaintiffs-appellees: Originally, the entire Lot No. 4763 was decreed
August 8, 1996 by respondents, Spouses Edito and Merian Tirol and Spouses
in the names of spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef under the provisions
Alejandro and Miranda Ngo, against petitioner Mactan-Cebu International
of the Land Registration Act on June 1, 1934. [In] January 1974, spouses Julian
Airport Authority (MCIAA). The facts were aptly summarized by the Court of
Cuison and Marcosa Cosef sold Lot No. 4763 to Spouses Moises Cuizon and
Appeals as follows:
Beatriz Patalinghug. The latter spouses thereafter succeeded to secure the
reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title of Lot No. 4763, Opon Cadastre as
The instant appeal revolves around a certain parcel of land, Lot No. 4763-D, over evidenced by Court Order dated July 3, 1986. Said Court Order subsequently
which the parties to the above-entitled case assert ownership and possession. became final and executory, thus a reconstituted title, OCT No. RO-2754, was
issued in the name of the original owners-spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa
xxx xxx xxx Cosef. On September 12, 1986, the Deed of Absolute Sale between spouses Julian
Cuison/Marcosa Cosef and spouses Moises Cuizon/Beatriz Patalinghug was
Plaintiffs-appellees and business partners, Edito P. Tirol and Alejandro Y. Ngo, registered and annotated on OCT No. RO-2754, which was cancelled to give way
along with their respective spouses, claim to have purchased a 2,000 square to the issuance of TCT No. 16735 in the name of spouses Moises Cuizon and
meter parcel of land, Lot No. 4763-D, from a certain Mrs. Elma S. Jenkins, a Beatriz Patalinghug. Thereafter, the latter sold a portion, denominated as Lot
Filipino citizen married to a certain Mr. Scott Edward Jenkins, an American No. 4763-D, to Mrs. Elma Jenkins on December 15, 1987, who[,] as earlier
citizen, per Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 15, 1993. Plaintiffs-appellees discussed, sold the same lot to herein plaintiffs-appellees on September 15, 1993.
bought the said property on the strength of the apparent clean title of vendor Plaintiffs-appellees contend that all throughout the chain of ownership, the

ANDREI DA JOSE 1
 15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R. DUJUNGCO)

titles – albeit from a reconstituted one – of the previous owners were absolutely plaintiffs-appellees should have exerted effort in researching the history of
devoid of any annotations of liens, encumbrances, lis pendens, adverse claim, or ownership and cannot possibly claim to be innocent of MCIAA’s ownership and
anything that may cause a reasonable man of ordinary prudence and diligence possession thereof.4
to suspect the contrary. Furthermore, plaintiffs-appellees have been in actual,
uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the property since 1993, and if the In its December 4, 2000 Decision,5 the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner
possession of their predecessors-in-interest be tacked, plaintiffs-appellees would MCIAA in this wise:
be in constructive, uninterrupted and peaceful possession for sixty-two (62) long
years as of the date of filing their Complaint for Quieting of Title in the court a WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court rules in favor of defendant and
quo. thus DISMISSES the complaint of plaintiffs for want of merit.

According to the defendant-appellant: On March 23, 19863 , the original owners, The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the defendant MCIAA, is
spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef sold Lot No. 4763 to the government, adjudged as (sic) the lawful owner of the entire Lot 4763, Opon Cadastre.
through the [then] Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA, for brevity). In a
Certificate dated March 19, 1959, vendor Julian Cuison confirmed that he was
The Deed of Absolute Sale involving Lot 4763-D in favor of plaintiffs is hereby
the possessor and actual owner of Lot No. 4763 which was located within the
declared null and void.
"Mactan Alternate International Airport" and that the duplicate copy of the
certificate of title was lost or destroyed during the last war without him or his
predecessor(s)-in-interest having received a copy thereof. Since then, the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27044 for Lot 4763-D under the names of
government, through defendant-appellant MCIAA, has been in open, plaintiffs is likewise deemed null and void.
continuous, exclusive and adverse possession of the property in the concept of
owner. Said lot allegedly became part of the Clear Zone of Runway 22 for The Register of Deeds is directed to issue to the defendant MCIAA a transfer
purposes of required clearance for take-off and landing. Moreover, defendant- certificate of title covering the whole Lot 4763.
appellant asserts that plaintiffs-appellees are nothing more than trustees of Lot
No. 4763-D in favor of defendant-appellant MCIAA, being merely successors-in- The counterclaim of defendant, however, is denied for lack of merit.
interest of the original owners, spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef, who
undertook in paragraph 4 of the Deed of Absolute Sale, to assist in the No pronouncement as to costs.
reconstitution of title so that the land may be registered in the name of vendee
government, through defendant-appellant MCIAA. In paragraph 5 of the same SO ORDERED.
Deed of Absolute Sale, the parties also agreed that the property be registered
under Act 3344 pending the reconstitution and issuance of title. Purportedly, in
The trial court held that there was a valid transfer of title from Spouses Julian
gross and evident bad faith and in open violation of their Deed of Absolute Sale,
Cuison and Marcosa Cosef to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), and
the spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef again sold the same property to
accordingly, the respondents did not buy Lot No. 4763-D from a person who could
spouses Moises Cuizon and Beatriz Patalinghug, who in turn sold the lot to Mrs.
validly dispose of it. It likewise ruled that the government (through the CAA,
Elma Jenkins, who eventually sold the same to herein plaintiffs-appellees.
and now respondent MCIAA) has been in possession of the disputed land since
Defendant-appellant MCIAA further imputes bad faith to plaintiffs-appellees
it bought the same in 1958, when a public deed of absolute sale was executed in
under the rationale that because their title came from a reconstituted one and
its favor. Lastly, respondents were considered as having bought Lot No. 4763-D
that Lot No. 4763 was within the Clear Zone of Runway 22 of the airport,
ANDREI DA JOSE 2
 15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R. DUJUNGCO)

in bad faith since they ignored circumstances that should have made them invalidated by prior unrecorded rights, while the Land Registration Act (No.
curious enough to investigate beyond the four corners of the Transfer Certificate 496) contains a special disposition that only transactions noted on the certificate
of Title. In the trial court’s view, the facts that Lot No. 4763-D (i) is only about of title and entered in the registry books can bind the land. On the other hand,
320 meters from the center of the runway and therefore part of the clear zone transactions registered under Act No. 3344 cannot defeat a third person with a
and (ii) has been vacant for several decades should have alerted the respondents better right. Of course[,] the law does not define exactly what may be considered
to the possibility that the lot could be part of the airport complex and therefore a better right, leaving the matter of its construction to the courts. The main
owned by petitioner. reason for the difference in the operation of Act No. 3344 compared with the
other systems of registration lies obviously in the fact that recordings under said
Respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration 6 on January 23, 2001, and a Act No. 3344 are not preceded by any investigation, judicial or administrative,
Supplemental (sic) to Motion for Reconsideration 7 on May 17, 2001. Petitioner as to the validity or efficacy of the title sought to be recorded." It is undisputed
duly filed its Opposition8 to the said Motions on April 10, 2001 and June 13, that Lot No. 4763 was a registered land, only that at the time of registering
2001, respectively. defendant’s document of sale there was no copy of the certificate of title because
the same was not available due to the after effect of the last global war.
In an Order9 dated August 9, 2001, the trial court did a complete volte face and
reversed its Decision. Holding that Article 154410 of the New Civil Code – which Hence, the Court agrees with the plaintiffs when they contended that "even at
set forth the rule on double sales – finds application to the instant case, the trial the time when OCT No. RO-2754 was issued[,] there was no document allegedly
court ratiocinated: proving its (defendant) ownership being annotated on the certificate of title." At
the time when Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 16735, 18216 and 27044 were
In the words of the Supreme Court in Cruz vs. Cabana, this Court finds that in issued to the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest, there were no
the case of [a] double sale of real property[,] Article 1544 of the New Civil Code annotations of the alleged claim of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs have all
applies. Defendant was certainly the first buyer and the plaintiffs [were] the the good reasons to rely on the validity of the titles. xxx
subsequent buyers, to be exact fourth (sic).
xxx xxx xxx
But who among the parties herein has a better right to Lot No. 4763-D? To
answer this question, it is necessary to determine first the issue [of] whether or xxx The fact that Lot No. 4763-D was within 320 meters from the center of the
not the plaintiffs were buyers in good faith.lawphil runway and within airport premises, was part of the clear zone, and had long
been vacant are not enough warning to third persons dealing [with] such land.
xxx xxx xxx It was undisputed that the lot in controversy is outside the perimeter fence of
the defendant. The fact that the said lot was part of the clear zone is not
sufficient justification to warn the plaintiffs in (sic) buying it. Such fact was
The Court is not convinced that indeed the plaintiffs were buyers in bad faith.
merely for the purpose of construction of buildings, not for realty
xxx The registration of the deed of absolute sale by the defendant at the Registry
ownership.11 (italics in the original)
of Deeds under Act No. 3344 sometime in 1959 is not the registration being
contemplated under the law. "Registration under Act No. 3344 differs materially
from registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law and under the Land Aggrieved, petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered a
Registration Act. In the Spanish Mortgage Law[,] there is [an] express provision Decision12 on May 27, 2005, the dispositive portion of which states:
(Article 17) to the effect that titles recorded thereunder cannot be annulled or

ANDREI DA JOSE 3
 15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R. DUJUNGCO)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. (d) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the
Accordingly, the assailed Order dated August 9, 2001 is AFFIRMED. subject matter must each have bought from the very same seller.

SO ORDERED. Obviously, said provision has no application in cases where the sales involved
were initiated not by just one vendor but by several successive vendors. 16 In the
On June 21, 2005, petitioner seasonably moved for its reconsideration but the instant case, respondents and petitioner had acquired the subject property from
Court of Appeals denied the same in its February 17, 2006 Resolution.13 different transferors. Petitioner, through its predecessor-in-interest (CAA),
acquired the entire Lot No. 4763 from its original owners, spouses Julian Cuison
Hence this appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, where and Marcosa Cosef, on March 23, 1958. On the other hand, respondents acquired
petitioner argues that: the subject parcel of land, a portion of Lot No. 4763, from Mrs. Elma Jenkins,
another transferee, some thirty-five years later. The immediate transferors of
Elma Jenkins were the spouses Moises Cuizon and Beatriz Patalinghug who, in
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW
turn, obtained the subject property from spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa
WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AUGUST 9, 2001 ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT
Cosef. Therefore, the instant controversy cannot be governed by Article 1544
EVEN IF THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON
since petitioner and respondents do not have the same immediate seller.
RECORD.14lavvphi1

This notwithstanding, we find that respondents have a better right to Lot No.
Simply stated, the issue may be synthesized as follows: Between respondents
4763-D.
Spouses Tirol and Spouses Ngo, on the one hand, and petitioner MCIAA, on the
other, who has the superior right to the subject property?
Petitioner does not contest that Lot No. 4763, of which the property subject of
this case is a part, was registered under Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act)
We rule in favor of the respondents, but on grounds different than those relied
even before the Second World War. Paragraph 4 of the Deed of Absolute
upon by the Court of Appeals and the trial court.
Sale17 between petitioner and Spouses Julian Cuison and Marcosa Cosef
stipulates, in relevant part:
Preliminarily, reliance on Article 1544 of the New Civil Code is misplaced.
In Cheng v. Genato, et al.,15 we enumerated the requisites that must concur
That since the Original/Transfer Certificate of Title of the aforementioned
for Article 1544 to apply, viz.:
property has been lost and/or destroyed, or since the said lot is covered by
Cadastral Case No. 20 and a decree issued on July 29, 1930, xxx the VENDEE
(a) The two (or more) sales transactions must constitute valid sales; hereby binds itself to reconstitute said title at its own expense and that the
VENDOR, his heirs, successors and assigns bind themselves to help in the
(b) The two (or more) sales transactions must pertain to exactly the same reconstitution of title so that the said lot may be registered in the name of the
subject matter; VENDEE in accordance with law. (italics supplied)

(c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the Additionally, in his Certification18 dated March 19, 1959, Julian Cuison stated
subject matter must each represent conflicting interests; and that "the duplicate copy of the certificate of title for [Lot No. 4763] was lost or

ANDREI DA JOSE 4
 15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R. DUJUNGCO)

destroyed during the last war without having been received by [him] or [his] Hence, respondents may not be characterized as buyers in bad faith for having
predecessor-in-interest." bought the property notwithstanding the registration of the first Deed of
Absolute Sale under Act No. 3344. An improper registration is no registration at
In this regard, well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be all. Likewise, a sale that is not correctly registered is binding only between the
done in the proper registry in order to effect and bind the land.19 Prior to the seller and the buyer, but it does not affect innocent third persons.23
Property Registration Decree of 1978, Act No. 496 (or the Land Registration Act)
governed the recording of transactions involving registered land, i.e., land with Petitioner, however, is of the impression that registration under Act No. 3344 is
a Torrens title. On the other hand, Act No. 3344, as amended, provided for the permissible because the duplicate copy of the certificate of title covering Lot No.
system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate without 4763-D had been lost or destroyed. This argument does not persuade. Our
prejudice to a third party with a better right. 20 Accordingly, if a parcel of land pronouncement in Amodia Vda. de Melencion, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
covered by a Torrens title is sold, but the sale is registered under Act No. 3344 al.24 is apropos:
and not under the Land Registration Act, the sale is not considered
registered21 and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive In the case at bench, it is uncontroverted that the subject property was under
notice to the whole world.22 the operation of the Torrens System even before the respective conveyances to
AZNAR and Go Kim Chuan were made. AZNAR knew of this, and admits this
Consequently, the fact that petitioner MCIAA was able to register its Deed of as fact. Yet, despite this knowledge, AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under
Absolute Sale under Act No. 3344 is of no moment, as the property subject of the Act 3344 on the contention that at the time of sale, there was no title on file. We
sale is indisputably registered land. Section 50 of Act No. 496 in fact are not persuaded by such a lame excuse.
categorically states that it is the act of registration that shall operate to convey
and affect the land; absent any such registration, the instrument executed by xxx xxx xxx
the parties remains only as a contract between them and as evidence of authority
to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration, viz.: In this case, since the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of AZNAR was registered under Act No. 3344 and not
SECTION 50. An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge, under Act No. 496, the said document is deemed not registered. Rather, it was
or otherwise deal with the same as fully as if it had not been registered. He may the sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan which was registered under Act No. 496.
use forms of deeds, mortgages, leases, or other voluntary instruments like those
now in use and sufficient in law for the purpose intended. But no deed, mortgage, AZNAR insists that since there was no Torrens title on file in 1964, insofar as
lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to convey or affect the vendors, AZNAR, and the Register of Deeds are concerned, the subject
registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall property was unregistered at the time. The contention is untenable. The fact
operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to that the certificate of title over the registered land is lost does not convert it into
the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall unregistered land. After all, a certificate of title is merely an evidence of
be the operative act to convey and affect the land, and in all cases under this Act ownership or title over the particular property described therein. This Court
the registration shall be made in the office of register of deeds for the province agrees with the petitioners that AZNAR should have availed itself of the legal
or provinces or city where the land lies. (italics supplied) remedy of reconstitution of the lost certificate of title, instead of registration
under Act 3344. We note that in Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying,
AZNAR, beset with the similar problem of a lost certificate of title over a

ANDREI DA JOSE 5
 15 AUGUST 2020 LAND TITLE AND DEEDS (ATTY. RAQUEL R. DUJUNGCO)

registered land, sought the reconstitution thereof. It is unfortunate that, in the pertinent documents registered in the Registry of Property and even consulting
instant case, despite the sale of the subject property way back in 1964 and the legal advice on the matter. These, for Us, are badges of good faith. Besides, being
existence of the remedy of reconstitution at that time, AZNAR opted to register allegedly part of the Clear Zone, ATO aviation rules proscribe merely the
the same under the improper registry (Act 3344) and allowed such status to lie installation of buildings and other physical structures, except landing facilities.
undisturbed.25 (italics supplied) Aviation rules (which, although repeatedly invoked, interestingly were not
presented before the court by defendant-appellant MCIAA) do not prohibit realty
In the instant case, petitioner MCIAA did not bother to have the lost title ownership.29
covering Lot No. 4763-D reconstituted at any time, notwithstanding the fact that
the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1958, or more than fifty years ago. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The May 27, 2005
Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Laws must come to the Decision and the February 17, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleepy. 26 As a matter of fact, this entire AFFIRMED.
controversy may very well have been avoided had it not been for petitioner’s
negligence. SO ORDERED.

Furthermore, under the established principles of land registration, a person REYNATO S. PUNO
dealing with registered land may generally rely on the correctness of a certificate Chief Justice
of title and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond it to determine the
legal status of the property,27 except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious
man to make such inquiry.28 Applying this standard to the facts of this case, we
rule that respondents exercised the required diligence in ascertaining the legal
condition of the title to the subject property as to be considered innocent
purchasers for value and in good faith. We quote with favor the factual findings
of the Court of Appeals in this respect:

Defendant-appellant MCIAA also asseverates that the close proximity of the

property to the runway of the airport (320 meters from the center line of the
runway) and the fact that it has been vacant for a considerable period should
have caused [plaintiffs-appellees] to be dubious of the title of the previous
owners thereof. This was, in Our opinion, satisfactorily explained by plaintiffs-
appellees when witness Mr. Edito Tirol testified in open court that he never
thought it strange that the land had always been vacant, and that besides, there
were private houses beside the vacant lot, suggesting that the property must be
of private ownership and not that of the airport. Furthermore, he testified that
he undertook great care in verifying the clean title of the said land, [e.g.,]
deputizing an employee to do the necessary research, personally copying

ANDREI DA JOSE 6