G.R.

127941
January 28, 1999
Toledo-Banaga vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Petitioner Banaga filed an action for redemption of her property which was earlier foreclosed and later sold in a public
auction to the respondent. The trial court declared petitioner to have lost her right for redemption and ordered that
certificate of title be issued to the respondent which the petitioner caused an annotation of notice of lis pendens to the title.
On appeal, the CA reversed the decision and allowed the petitioner to redeem her property within a certain period.
Banaga tried to redeem the property by depositing to the trial court the amount of redemption that was financed by her copetitioner Tan. Respondent opposed in that she made the redemption beyond the period ordered by the court. The lower
court however upheld the redemption and ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the respondents title and issue a new
title in favor of the petitioner. In a petition for certiorari before the CA by the respondent, another notice of lis pendens was
annotated to the title. CA issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the execution of the court order.
Meanwhile, Banaga sold the property to Tan in the absolute deed of sale that mentions the title of the property still in the
name of the respondent which was not yet cancelled. Despite the lis pendens on the title, Tan subdivided the lot into a
subdivision plan which she made not in her own name but that of the respondent. Tan then asked the Register of Deeds
to issue a new title in her name. New titles were issued in Tans name but carried the annotation of the two notices of lis
pendens. Upon learning the new title of Tan the respondent impleaded her in his petition. The CA later sets aside the trial
courts decision and declared the respondent as the absolute owner of the property for failure of the petitioner to redeem
the property within the period ordered by the court. The decision was final and executory and ordered the Register of
Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of the respondent.
The Register of Deeds refused alleging that Tans certificate must be surrendered first. The respondent cited the register
of deeds in contempt but the court denied contending that the remedy should be consultation with the Land Registration
Commissioner and in its other order denied the motion of respondent for writ of possession holding that the remedy would
be to a separate action to declare Tans title as void. In its motion for certiorari and mandamus to the CA, the court set
aside the two assailed orders of the trial court and declared the title of Tan as null and void and ordered the Register of
Deeds to reinstate the title in the name of the respondent. Petitioners now argued that Tan is a buyer in good faith and
raised the issue on ownership of the lot.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Tan is a buyer in good faith?
Ruling:
The court held that Tan is not a buyer in good faith because when the property was sold to her she was aware of the
interest of the respondent over the property. She even had a hand in the process of redemption by furnishing cash
advances in favor of the private respondent. At the very moment she bought the property, it was within his thinking that the
land was registered under a name different from that of his seller.
The deed of sale has the name of the respondent written over it as the legitimate owner of the property. Moreover the title
still had 2 notices of lis pendens. Tan therefore cannot feign ignorance on the status of the property when she bought it.
Because Tan was also impleaded as a party to the litigation, she is bound by the decision promulgated to the subject of
such litigation. It is a settled rule that the party dealing with a registered land need not go beyond the Certificate of Title to
determine the true owner thereof so as to guard or protect her interest. She has only to look and rely on the entries in the
Certificate of Title. By looking at the title Tan would know that the certificate is in the name of respondent. Being a buyer in
bad faith, Tan does not acquire any better right over the property.
With respect to the issue of possession, such right is a necessary incident of ownership. The adjudication of ownership to
private respondent includes the delivery of possession since the defeated parties in this case has not shown by what right
to retain possession of the land independently of their claim of ownership which was rejected. Otherwise, it would be
unjust if petitioners who has no valid right over the property will retain the same. Thus, the CA correctly disagreed with
the trial courts order denying private respondents motion for writ of possession.