FACTS4
A.* Ci&il Case $o. TMH-?4 )Spouses Atangan &s. Spouses Mat!a# and RegisterDeeds of Ca&ite*Hn&ol&es to parcels of land )Lot $o -</HA and Lot $o. -</H C*co&ered b# Transfer Certificates of Title )TCT $o. TH-4;40 and TCT$o. -4;4-* issued in t!e na"e of Spouses Atangan. Sps. Atangan alleges t!at t!e# are oners of to )* parcels of landpurc!ased fro" Spouses To"as Lucido and 2usta%uia 3illanue&a as e&idenced b# t!e deed of sale and b# t!e Transfer Certificates issued. T!e# i""ediatel# too@ possession of t!e sa"e and paid t!e corresponding realt# ta+es.
Atagan alleges t!at t!e &endees' titles ere transferred to t!e" b# &irtue of a decision on t!e Ci&il case )Lucido &s atallones and Petronilla Iui"io, Director of Lands, and Registers of Deeds of Ca&ite*. atallones and Iui"io, on t!e ot!er !and are t!e &endees of t!e lands fro" t!e ureau of Lands.
Sale of t!e parcel of lands in fa&or of t!e !eirs of atallones and Iui"io as e&idenced b# Deed of Con&e#ance dul# issued b# t!e ureau of Lands
Sps. Atagan furt!er alleges t!at Mat!a#s )defendant* !a&e enclosed a portion of said propert# it! a fence it!out t!eir consent.
T!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* declare t!at t!e# ere also issued it! a title co&ering t!e said land. Spouses Atagan asserts t!at t!e said title issued to Mat!a#s as a product of forger# because it as based on an alleged transferred certificate in fa&or of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# !o !a&e no rig!t !atsoe&er on t!e real estate in %uestion. =pon in&estigation, it as certified b# t!e ureau of Lands t!at t!e said titles ere falsified and forged.
Atagan t!erefore pra#s t!at since t!e title of t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no basis in la and t!at t!e sa"e as illegall# procured on t!e basis of forger#, t!e sa"e s!ould be cancelled and t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no rig!to ta@e possession of t!e propert# in %uestion. T!e# also de"and "oral, irreparable da"ages and attorne#'s fee for t!e sa"e.
.* Ci&il Case $o. TMH-<0 )Spouses Poblete &s. Spouses Mat!a# and t!e Registerof Deeds of Ca&ite*
n&ol&es a parcel of land registered in t!e na"e of Juana atallones and audencio Iui"io !ic! as allegedl# sold to Spouses Poblete as per FDeed of Conditional SaleG.
Spouses Poblete alleges t!at t!e# are registered oners of a parcel of land !a&ing purc!ased t!e sa"e fro" Juan attallones and audencio for t!e"sel&es and on be!alf of t!eir coH!eirs as e&idenced b# Deed of Sale. T!e spouses too@ possession of t!e land and alleges t!at t!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* !a&e enclosed a portion of t!e said propert# it! a fence it!out t!e consent and against t!e ill of t!e plaintiffs.
T!e &endees !ose titles ere transferred in fa&or of t!e plaintiffs !a&e obtained t!e title b# &irtue of t!e decision b# t!e court on t!e ci&il case )To"as Lucido &s. Juana nate atallones and Petronilla I.Iui"io, Director of Lands, t!e Register of Deeds of Ca&ite*. T!e !eirs of nofre atallones and Modesta Iui"io are t!e &endees of t!e land for" t!e ureau of Lands as e&idenced b# a Certification issued b# t!e Record fficer of t!e District Land ffice.
T!e sale of t!e subject parcel of land fro" t!e ureau of Lands in fa&or of t!e !eirs of atallones and Iui"io as also e&idenced b# a Deed of Con&e#ance dul# issued b# t!e ureau of Lands.
T!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* declare t!at t!e# ere also issued it! a title co&ering t!e said land. Spouses Poblete asserts t!at t!e said title issued to Mat!a#s as a product of forger# because it as based on an alleged transferred certificate in fa&or of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# !o !a&e no rig!t !atsoe&er on t!e real estate in %uestion. =pon in&estigation, it as certified b# t!e ureau of Lands t!at t!e said titles ere falsified and forged.
Spouses Poblete t!erefore pra#s t!at since t!e title of t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no basis in la and t!at t!e sa"e as illegall# procured on t!e basis of forger#, t!e sa"e s!ould be cancelled and t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no rig!t to ta@e possession of t!e propert# in %uestion. T!e# alsode"and "oral, irreparable da"ages and attorne#'s fee for t!e sa"e.
C.* Ci&il Case $o. TMH0/ )Spouses Tirona &s. Spouses Mat!a#, et. al*.
Spouses Motas boug!t a parcel of land )Lot -</H* co&ered b# a Transfer of Certificate of Title of t!e Registr# of Deeds of Ca&ite fro" Da&id Iui"io as e&idenced b# a Deed of Absolute Sale. T!e# ere issued b # a Transfer Certificate )TCT $o. TH0;?;0*. 3endors Da&id Iui"io, Sr., et. al, are t!e pre&ious registered oners of t!e said land as e&idenced b# a Transfer Certificate of Title )TCT $o.TH-4;0*. T!e# obtained rig!ts and interest t!ereon fro" t!eir predecessors !o ere &endees fro" t!e ureau of Lands !ic! as t!en confir"ed in a decision on a Ci&il case )To"as Lucido &s. Juana atallones and Petonila Iui"io*.
T!e subject land as subdi&ided into eig!t lots as e&idenced b# a Subdi&ision Plans. T!e subdi&ided lots ere boug!t b# t!e Spouses fro" Motas in good fait!, and ere t!erefore issued it! Transfer Certificates of Title.
Spouses Tirona are t!e one pa#ing t!e corresponding real propert# ta+es t!ereon and ere issued it! corresponding ta+
declaration. T!e# allege t!at t!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* !a&e enclosed a"ong ot!ers t!e propert# in %uestion it! a fence and too@ p!#sical possession t!ereof it!out t!eir @noledge and consent.
T!e defendants )Spouses Mat!a#* declare t!at t!e# ere also issued it! a title co&ering t!e said land. Spouses Tirona asserts t!at t!e said title issued to Mat!a#s as a product of forger# and falsification because it as based on an alleged transferred certificate in fa&or of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# !o !a&e no rig!t !atsoe&er on t!e real estate in %uestion. =pon in&estigation, it as certified b# t!e ureau of Lands t!at t!e said titles ere falsified and forged.
Spouses Tirona t!erefore pra#s t!at since t!e title of t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no basis in la and t!at t!e sa"e as illegall# procured on t!e basis of forger#, t!e sa"e s!ould be cancelled and t!e Mat!a#s !a&e no rig!t to ta@e possession of t!e propert# in %uestion. T!e# also de"and "oral, irreparable da"ages and attorne#'s fee for t!e sa"e.
T!e loer court decided for t!e defendant spouses Mat!a# and against t!e plaintiffs in t!e t!ree consolidated cases. n appeal, t!e Court of Appeals decided in fa&or of t!e plaintiffHappellants. T!us, t!e appeal.
ISS3ES4
• 7$ Spouses Mat!a# can be considered bu#ers in good fait!. • 7$ SpousesHpri&ate respondents on t!e indi&idual properties
in %uestion.
HELD4
Spouses Mat!a# cannot be considered as purc!asers in good fait! because prior to t!e fencing of t!e subject land, neit!er t!e# nor t!eir predecessorsHinHinterest )ana#o and Puga#* e&er possessed t!e sa"e. At t!e sa"e ti"e t!e propert# as sold to petitioners )Mat!a#s*, t!e pri&ate respondents ere not onl# in actual possession of t!e sa"e but also built t!eir !ouses t!ereon, culti&ated it and ere in full enjo#"ent of t!e produce and fruits gat!ered t!erefro".Alt!oug! it is a ellHsettled principle t!at t!e person dealing on a registered land need not go be#ond t!e certificate of title, t!ere are still circu"stances !ic! ould put part# on guard and pro"pt !i" to in&estigate or inspect t!e propert# being sold to !i". t is e+pected fro" t!e purc!aser of a &alued price of a land to in%uire first into t!e status or nature of possession of t!e occupants, in concept of oner. ailure of a prospecti&e bu#er to ta@e suc! precautionar# steps ould "ean negligence on !is part and ould t!ereb# preclude !i" fro" clai"ing or in&o@ing t!e rig!ts of a Fpurc!aser in good fait!.G n addition, before t!e fence around subject propert# as erected, pri&ate respondent co""unicated t!eir objection to t!e fencing of t!e area b# petitioners but t!e# ere ignored b# t!e Mat!a#s, !o continued enclosing t!e pre"ises under contro&ers# in t!e present of ar"ed "en e"plo#ed b# t!e".
. T!e SpousesHPri&ate respondents are t!e &alid oners of t!e indi&idual properties in %uestion because all t!e subse%uent certificates of title including t!e petitioner's titles are &oid for t!e sa"e ere forged and falsified. t as furt!er pro&ed t!at t!e titles issued to Mat!a#s are &oid fort! allegedl# Sales Certificate e+ecuted b# To"as Lucido in fa&our of Pedro Puga# as not signed b# t!e said To"as Lucido. $eit!er does it bear t!e signature of t!e latter. t furt!er pro&ed t!at t!e deeds s!oed b# ana#o and Puga# ere not for t!e indi&idual propert# in
%uestion. T!e circu"stances surrounding t!e e+ecution of t!e Deed of Absolute Sale b# Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# in fa&or of t!e spouses Son#a Mat!a# and s"ael Mat!a# furt!er s!oed t!at it did not co"pl# it! t!e legal for"alities and as not dul# notariEed. urt!er"ore, t!e residence certificates of &endors ana#o and Puga# appeared to be of dubious source. T!e Spouses Mat!a# utterl# failed to disc!arge t!e burden of pro&ing t!e sustainabilit# of t!eir posture of t!e" being bu#ers in good fait!. urt!er"ore, t!e title of Pedro ana#o and Pablo Puga# relied upon b# t!e" !as been s!on b# preponderance of e&idence to be t!e product of forger#. Petition is DSMSS2D for t!e lac@ of "erit, and t!e Decision of t!e Court of Appeals is ARM2D in toto.
COL. FRANCISCO DELA +ERCED@ s*;stit*ting ;y #is #eirs@
n%me&y@ BLAN73ITA E. DELA +ERCED@ L3IS CESAR DELA
+ERCED@ BLAN73ITA E. DELA +ERCED+ACATANGA52
%nd +ARIA OLI-IA +. PAREDES )s. GO-ERN+ENT
SER-ICE INS3RANCE S5STE+ GSIS2 %nd SPO3SES
-ICTOR %nd +ILAGROS +ANLONGAT
FACTS4
T!is case in&ol&es fi&e registered parcels of land located it!in t!e Antonio Subdi&ision, Pasig Cit# Lots /, ?, <, and -0 of loc@ and Lot < of loc@ < )subject properties*. T!ese lots ere originall# oned b#, and titled in t!e na"e of, Jose C. Uulueta )Uulueta*, as e&idenced b# Transfer Certificate of Title )TCT* $o. /-04 !ic! contains se&eral lots ot!er t!an t!e subject properties it!in t!e Antonio Subdi&ision.Later, t!e Uulueta spouses "ortgaged se&eral lots contained in TCT $o. /-04 to t!e SS, !ic! e&entuall# foreclosed on t!e "ortgaged properties, including t!e subject properties. =pon consolidation of SSs oners!ip, TCT $o. /-04 in Uuluetas na"e as cancelled, and TCT $o. ;44> as issued in SSs na"e.
=pon learning of t!e foreclosure, petitioners predecessor, rancisco Dela Merced )Dela Merced*, later on substituted b# !is !eirs, filed a co"plaint pra#ing for t!e nullit# of t!e SS foreclosure on t!e subject properties )Lots /, ?, <, and -0 of loc@ and Lot < of loc@ <* on t!e ground t!at !e, not t!e Uuluetas, as t!e oner of t!ese lots at t!e ti"e of t!e foreclosure. Dela Merced also i"pleaded 3ictor and Milagros Manlongat, !o ere clai"ing Lot /, loc@ b# &irtue of a sale e+ecuted b# t!e SS in t!eir daug!ters )2liEabet! Manlongat* fa&or. Dela Merced argued t!at, due to t!e nullit# of SSs foreclosure o&er t!e subject properties, it !ad no oners!ip rig!t t!at could be transferred to 2liEabet! Manlongat. After a protracted litigation, t!e SC rendered a Decision in t!e petitioners fa&or and nullified SSs foreclosure of t!e subject properties because t!ese lots ere ne&er part of its "ortgage agree"ent it! t!e Uulueta spouses. Pursuant to t!e finalit# of t!e Decision, petitioners filed a Motion for 2+ecution !ic! SS opposed on t!e basis of Section ; of t!e SS Act of -? )RA <- !ic! allegedl# e+e"pts SS funds and properties fro" attac!"ent, garnis!"ent, e+ecution, le&# and ot!er court processes. A rit of e+ecution as finall# issued, !oe&er, first b# t!e RTC and t!en b# t!e CA. T!e SS filed a petition for re&ie before t!e SC !ic! as denied b# t!e latter. After t!e resolution of t!e issue of SSs e+e"ption, petitioners encountered "ore proble"s it! t!e e+ecution of t!e Decision. According to t!e RD of Pasig Cit#, Policarpio 2spenesin, !e could not cancel t!e titles of SS o&er Lots ? and < because it
no longer !ad title o&er t!ese to lots and !ad alread# con&e#ed t!e sa"e to to ot!er persons. (ence, t!e RD clai"ed t!at t!e rit of e+ecution "ust first be "odified to include t!e cancellation of deri&ati&e titles of t!e SS title.
ISS3ES4
. 7!et!er t!e SS can still raise t!e issue of e+e"ption . 7!et!er a final and e+ecutor# judg"ent against SS and Manlongat can be enforced against t!eir successorsHinHinterest or !olders of deri&ati&e titles
. 7!et!er an order to cancel title to a particular propert# includes an order to pro&ide tec!nical descr iptions and segregate it fro" its "ot!er title
HELD4
)-* T!e issue of SSs alleged e+e"ption under RA <- !ad been finall# decided against !en t!is Court denied SSs petition for re&ie. SSs atte"pt to resurrect t!e sa"e issue b# interjecting t!e sa"e in t!is proceeding is barred b# t!e principle of 1la of t!e case,1 !ic! states t!at 1deter"inations of %uestions of la ill generall# be !eld to go&ern a case t!roug!out all its subse%uent stages !ere suc! deter"ination !as alread# been "ade on a prior appeal to a court of last resort.1
)* A notice of lis pendens is an announce"ent to t!e !ole orld t!at a particular real propert# is in litigation, ser&ing as a arning t!at one !o ac%uires an interest o&er said propert# does so at !is on ris@, or t!at !e ga"bles on t!e result of t!e litigation o&er t!e said propert#. t is not disputed t!at petitioners