MARCOS DE LA CRUZ vs.

FABIE
G.R. No. 8160. October 27, 1916.
ARELLANO, C.J.

A. Doctrine of the Case:

Sec. 101 of Act. 496 provides that any person who without negligence on his part is
wrongfully deprived of any land or any interest therein, by registration of any other person
as the owner of such land, may bring an action against the Insular Treasurer.

B. FACTS:
In 1909, De la Cruz filed an action against Velazquez alleging that he is the administrator
of the estate of Gregoria, which was declared to be the owner of a parcel of land. He
allege that Velazquez succeeded in having the register of deeds issue to him a certificate
of title on the parcel of land by executing a false and fraudulent deed of sale in his favor.
In 1904, Velazquez then sold the land under pacto de retro to Ramon Fabie and in 1907,
sold it to him outright, whereupon certificate of title was issued to the purchaser Fabie.
De la Cruz prays that the supposed deed of sale by Gregoria to Velazquez, pacto de retro
from Velazquez to Fabie, and the deed of final sale to Fabie be annulled. He also prays
that he be entitled to the indemnity against the assurance fund.

C. ISSUE/(S):
Whether the estate of Gregoria is entitled to indemnity under the assurance fund.

D. RULING:
NO. It was proven that Fabie’s ownership was and is perfect and absolute and that he is
entitled to possess, as he does possess, the land in question, it is indisputable that
Gregoria had lost her property. But the indemnity was denied principally for the reason of
her negligence.

Sec. 101 of Act. 496 provides that any person who without negligence on his part is
wrongfully deprived of any land or any interest therein, by registration of any other person
as the owner of such land, may bring an action against the Insular Treasurer. Fabie was
registered as the owner, it is true, but Gregoria had not proven that he was enabled to
obtain the inscription without negligence on her part.

The Attorney-General, in behalf of the Insular Treasurer, alleged that Gregoria’s

complaint showed that if she suffered any loss or damage, it was due to her negligence
and to the deceit and faithlessness of her agent and attorney-in-fact Velazquez. The loss
and damage did not result from having brought the land under the provisions of Act. 496,
from its being registered by any other person, from any omission, mistake, or legal act
unduly performed by the clerk or register, deputy, or substitute of the register, in the
discharge of their official duties. Hence, she is not entitled to claim from the assurance
fund.