CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN vs.

ABUNDIO MADRID
- The spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu are the owners of a residential lot covered by a TCT.
- They wanted to build a house and so, they sought a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation on
November, 1953.
- Carmencita de Jesus, offered to work for the shortening of the usually long process before a loan could be
granted and the spouses accepting the assistance and delivered to her TCT to be surrendered to the RFC.
- But the spouses were able to secure a loan from their parents and they decided to withdraw the application
for a loan they filed with the RFC. They so informed de Jesus and asked her to retrieve the TCT and return it.
- Shortly thereafter, Carmencita told them, however, that the RFC employee in charge of keeping the TCT was
out on leave.
- But on August, 1954, one Florentino Calayag showed up in the house of the spouses and asked for Abundio
Madrid and Rosalinda Yu in which they answered that it was them.
- But Calayag would not believe them. And said that they the mortgage they executed has already expired.
- Confused, Abundio and Rosalinda then retorted that they had not mortgaged their land to anyone.
- Later, they found out then that the land had been mortgaged to a certain Constancio Joaquin on January 21,
1954.
- When he saw the spouses, Joaquin admitted, however, that they were not those persons who had signed the
deed of mortgage.
o Joaquin said that in the month of January 1954, Carmencita asked Calayag if he knows a money lender
who can grant a load secured with a TCT. Calayag then approached Joaquin who has extra funds to
spare, in which he asked Calayag to show him the prospective borrowers.
o Then, on the following day, Calayag brought two women who was presented to him as Rosalinda and
Carmencita.
o The alleged Rosalinda Yu claimed to be the owner of the lot with her husband Abundio Madrid who
authorized her to secure a loan on their property.
o Thus, the deed of mortgage was signed by the persons who posed themselves as Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu on the following day. The whole amount of the loan was delivered to the supposed
Rosalinda immediately after the registration of the document of mortgage in the RD.
Ruling of SC:
- Before the SC, the petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value; he should be protected as against the
registered owner because the latter can secure reparation from the assurance fund.
- But in this case, however, that petitioner herein is not the innocent purchaser for value protected by law.
- The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed, as the law expressly states.
- Such is not the situation of the petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the
registered owners but who are not said owners.
- Also it was petitioner who was negligent, as he did not take enough care to see to it that the persons who
executed the deed of mortgage are the real registered owners of the property.