Serrano vs ca

One who is found in possession of forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the
forger.

Veloso vs ca

Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence whoever alleges it has the buden of proving
the same.

Magno vs ca

Sarep vs sb

Document falsified is public, wrongful intent is not essential. Alcantara vs sb

Sabiniano vs ca

Pecho vs sb

Demetriou vs cs

Garrido vs ca

Pp vs villalon

Koh tieck heng vs. pp

Rufloe v. Burgos, G.R. No. 143573, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA 264, 273.

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some
other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the
purchase or before receiving any notice of another person’s claim.35 The burden of proving the status
of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon one who asserts that status.36 This onus probandi
cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the ordinary presumption of good faith.37

As a general rule, every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of
the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate
to determine the condition of the property.38 (Cayana v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 830, 846 (2004).
However, this principle admits exceptions:

x x x (a) person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and
to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when the party has actual knowledge of facts
and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the
purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in litigation. The
presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate.
One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated as innocent purchaser for value nor
a purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the protection of the law.39

Moreover, the power of attorney was notarized and as such, carried with it the presumption of
its due execution. Thus, having had no inkling on any irregularity and having no participation
thereof, private respondent was a buyer in good faith. It has been consistently held that a
purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other
person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at
the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person
in the property (Bautista, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 106042, Feb. 28, 1994).

Documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary weight with respect to
their due execution. The questioned power of attorney and deed of sale, were notarized and
therefore, presumed to be valid and duly executed. Atty. Tubig denied having notarized the said
documents and alleged that his signature had also been falsified. He presented samples of his
signature to prove his contention. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence
and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. Just like the petitioner, witness Atty.
Tubig merely pointed out that his signature was different from that in the power of attorney
and deed of sale. There had never been an accurate examination of the signature, even that of
the petitioner. To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 54719-
50, 17 January 1985 (quoting Osborn, The Problem of Proof) that:

"The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the

extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It
then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation
of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in
the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the
resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and
characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When
these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is
solved."
Even granting for the sake of argument, that the petitioner's signature was falsified and
consequently, the power of attorney and the deed of sale were null and void, such fact would
not revoke the title subsequently issued in favor of private respondent Aglaloma. In Tenio-
Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 109767, March 1, 1994, it was held, viz:

"The right of an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected,
even if the seller obtained his title through fraud. The remedy of the person
prejudiced 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."

CONSORCIA TENIO-OBSEQUIO, ORLANDO OBSEQUIO, and MANUEL, REGINA, TUNAY and

MELITON, all surnamed OBSEQUIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EUFRONIO ALIMPOOS,
and PONCIANA ALIMPOOS, respondents.

[G.R. No. 107967. March 1, 1994.]

Under Section 55 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Section 53 of Presidential

Decree No. 1529, an original owner of registered land may seek the annulment of a transfer
thereof on the ground of fraud. However, such a remedy is without prejudice to the rights of
any innocent holder for value with a certificate of title.

In consonance with this accepted legal definition, petitioner Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio

is a purchaser in good faith. There is no showing whatsover nor even an allegation that herein
petitioner had any participation, voluntarily or otherwise, in the alleged forgery. Nor can we
charge said petitioner with negligence since, at the time of the sale to her, the land was already
registered in the name of Eduardo Deguro and the tax declaration was also issued in the latter's
name. It was also clearly indicated at the back of the original certificate of title that Eduardo
Deguro acquired ownership over the said land by virtue of the deed of sale executed in his
favor. In fact, it is not disputed that one of his heirs was actually residing therein. There is no
annotation, defect or flaw in the title that would have aroused any suspicion as to its
authenticity. Such being the case, petitioner has the right to rely on what appears on the face of
the certificate of title.

There is no indubitable, legal and convincing reason for nullifying the deed of sale.
Herein private respondents have not presented any cogent, complete and convincing proof to
override the evidentiary value of the duly notarized deed of sale. A notarial document is
evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the
presumption of regularity. To contradict all these, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.

There is no indubitable, legal and convincing reason for nullifying the deed of sale.
Herein private respondents have not presented any cogent, complete and convincing proof to
override the evidentiary value of the duly notarized deed of sale. A notarial document is
evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the
presumption of regularity. To contradict all these, there must be evidence that is clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant (Yturralde vs. Azurin, et al., G.R. No. L-22158,
May 30, 1969, 28 SCRA 407; Cabrera vs. Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 75069, April 15, 1988, 160
SCRA 672; Almendra, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 75111, November
21, 1991, 204 SCRA 142).

It has been consistently ruled that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title when
an innocent purchaser for value intervenes (Mallorca, et al. vs. De Ocampo, et al., G.R. No. L-
26852, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 48; Torres vs. Court of Appelas, et al., G.R. No. 63046, June
21, 1990, 186 SCRA 672; Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 43972,
July 24, 1990, 187 SCRA 735). A deed of sale executed by an impostor without the authority of
the owner of the land sold is a nullity, and registration will not validate what otherwise is an
invalid document. However, where the certificate of title was already transferred from the
name of the true owner of the forger and, while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser, the vendee had the right to rely upon what
appeared in the certificate and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, was under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on
the face of said certificate (De Lara, et al., vs. Ayroso, 95 Phil. 185 (1954); Duran, et al. vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 64159, September 10, 1985, 138 SCRA 489) .

The Torrens Act, in order to prevent a forged transfer from being registered, erects a
safeguard by requiring that no transfer shall be registered unless the owner's certificate of
title is produced along with the instrument of transfer. However, an executed document of
transfer of registered land placed by the registered owner thereof in the hands of another
operates as a representation to a third party that the holder of the document of transfer is
authorized to deal with the land (Blondeau, et al. v. Nano, et al., 6 Phil. 625 (1935), citing 53
C.J. 1141; Act No. 496, as amended, Secs. 47, 51, 55). In the case at bar, it was even private
respondents who made the allegation that they further delivered their certificate of title to
Eduardo Deguro, allegedly to secure the loan extended to them. Consequently, petitioner
cannot be faulted and, as a matter of fact, she is vested with the right to rely on the title of
Eduardo Deguro.