What is the remedy of the owner of a titled land in case it was registered
fraudulently under the name of another? Explain.
He can file an action for reconveyance within 10 years, as the registrant is merely
holding it as a trustee. The Torrens title cannot be a shield for fraud notwithstanding
the rule that registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the whole
world. (Pagkatipunan, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 70722, July 3, 1991; Pajarillo vs.
IAC, 176 SCRA 340 [1989])
A stole the title of B and then forged the signature of B. He was able to
transfer the title under his name. In case B discovers such act of A, can he
file an action for the recovery of the property? Can A interpose the
defense that a title has already been issued under his name? Explain.
No. In the first question, B can recover the property for as long as it is still under As
name, because the title of A is void.
In the second question, A cannot interpose the defense that a title has already been
issued because a title does not provide a shield for the commission of fraudulent or
illegal act. A never acquired a valid title. (Coronel vs. IAC, Oct. 1987; Pagkatipunan
vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 70722, July 13, 1991; Rep. vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon,
244 SCRA 537, [1995]; Aonuevo vs. CA, 244 SCRA 28 [1995]).
Suppose in the question above, A has already sold it to C, a buyer in good
faith and for value, and has now a title, can B still recover the land? Why?
No more, because of the protection afforded to C, a buyer in good faith and for
value by the Torrens System. Since the title of A appeared to be clean, then C had to
rely on the face of the title. Even on the assumption that As title is void, yet, a void
title can be the root of a valid title, the moment it passes to the hands of a buyer in
good faith and for value. To require him to look beyond the title is to defeat the
primary objective of the Torrens system. (Sps. Dizon vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 95921,
Sept. 2, 1992; GSIS vs. CA, 240 SCRA 737 [1995]).
There is however, an exception to the rule that he can rely on the face of the title
as when he has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would impel
him as a cautious man to make an inquiry (Santos vs. CA, Sept. 13, 1990; Embrado
vs. CA, 233 SCRA 335 [1994]; or if the defects in the title are too glaring to escape
the naked eye. (Lorenzana Food Corp. vs. CA, 231 SCRA 713 [1994]).
More than one year had elapsed since the issuance of the final decree of
registration when A discovered that his land had been fraudulently
registered in the name of his caretaker, B.
What right of action if any, does A have and against whom? Explain.
A can file an action for reconveyance against B or for damages if the property has
passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Such action does not seek
to review the decree of registration, but is merely for the enforcement of a trust.
154 SCRA 396, 407; Caro vs. CA, 180 SCRA 40, 407; Walstron vs. Mapa, Jr., 181
SCRA 431, 442; Dino vs CA, et al., G.R. No. 94114, June 19, 1991).