DOMINGO v. ROBLES

DOMINGO v. ROBLES

G.R. No. 153743; March 18, 2005

Ponente: J. Panganiban

FACTS:

The historical backdrop shows that [petitioner] and her husband, Valentino Domingo, were the registered owners of Lot 19, Block 1, subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-15706 located at Cristina Subdivision, Concepcion, Marikina. On this lot, [Petitioner] Norma B. Domingo discontinued the construction of her house allegedly for failure of her husband to send the necessary financial support. So, she decided to dispose of the property.

A friend, Flor Bacani, volunteered to act as [petitioner's] agent in selling the lot. Trusting Bacani, [petitioner] delivered their owner's copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53412 to him (Bacani). Later, the title was said to have been lost. 

In the petition for its reconstitution, [petitioner] gave Bacani all her receipts of payment for real estate taxes. At the same time, Bacani asked [petitioner] to sign what she recalled was a record of exhibits. Thereafter, [petitioner] waited patiently but Bacani did not show up any more.

On November 1, 1994, [Petitioner] Norma Domingo visited the lot and was surprised to see the [respondents] (Robles, for short) starting to build a house on the subject lot. A verification with the Register of Deeds revealed that the reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53412 had already been cancelled with the registration of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991 signed by Norma B. Domingo and her husband Valentino Domingo, as sellers, and [Respondent] Yolanda Robles, for herself and representing the other minor [respondents], as buyers. As a consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 201730 was issued on June 10, 1991 in the name of [Respondent] Robles.

Claiming not to have met any of the [respondents] nor having signed any sale over the property in favor of anybody (her husband being abroad at the time), [petitioner] assumed that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991 is a forgery and, therefore, could not validly transfer ownership of the lot to the [respondents]. Hence, the case for the nullity thereof and its reconveyance.

[Respondents] Robles responded alleging to be buyers in good faith and for value. They narrate that the subject lot was offered to them by Flor Bacani, as the agent of the owners; that after some time when they were already prepared to buy the lot, Bacani introduced to them the supposed owners and agreed on the sale; then, on May 9, 1991, Bacani and the introduced seller presented a Deed of Absolute Sale already signed by Valentino and Norma Domingo needing only her (Robles') signature. 

ISSUE:

Whether the respondents were purchasers in good faith and for value

HELD:

Yes, the respondents were purchasers in good faith and for value.

The Supreme Court ruled that the sale was admittedly made with the aid of Bacani, petitioner's agent, who had with him the original of the owner's duplicate Certificate of Title to the property, free from any liens or encumbrances. . Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, a presumption of good faith in their favor stands

The signatures of Spouses Domingo, the registered owners, appear on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioner's husband met with Respondent Yolanda Robles and received payment for the property. The Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the production of the owner's certificate of title and the instrument of conveyance. The registered owner who places in the hands of another an executed document of transfer of registered land effectively represents to a third party that the holder of such document is authorized to deal with the property.