Abanilla cannot use her title as a shield to perpetuate fraud.
“No amount of legal technicality may serve as a solid foundation for the enjoyment of the fruits of fraud.
Also, this Court held that prescription of action to review a title after the lapse of one year from its issuance under Section 38 of Act 496, cannot be invoked against the State, since under paragraph 4 of Article 1108 of the Civil Code, prescription does not run against the State. On 1981, a TCT in the name of the spouses was replaced by a TCT in the names of Leoncia and their children. Jorge then took over as sole administrator of the school until 1984 when he was joined in this task by Rafael’s wife, Teresita.
Furthermore, Abanilla is now estopped from claiming that this action had already prescribed for the simple reason that she can be considered an instrumental party in the delay in the flung of the instant action. Respondents alleged that their brother Rafael had in the meantime succeeded in obtaining title to the property in his own name by using a fictitious deed of sale dated 27 February 1979, purportedly executed by them and their deceased mother Leoncia in favor of Rafael.
In 1982, the TCT was cancelled and a new TCT was issued in the name of Rafael.
They discovered that indeed a TCT was issued solely in the name of Rafael, canceling the TCT issued in the name of Leoncia Chuatoco and her sons.
Moreover, even as the deed of sale was subsequently proven a forgery, the Lims had every reason to rely upon it due to the fact that it is a notarized document.
HELD: WHEREFORE, FINDING THAT THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FACTS AND THE LAW, THE SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED 1. Defendant-appellant clings to the legal fiction of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title.
ISSUE: WON the patent and original certificate of title issued by virtue of the said patent can still be cancelled despite the of six (6) years and six (6) months from their is issuance.
She cannot now turn back and say that said portion is public land. 141, as amended, expressly provides that any false statement in the application, which is an essential condition of the patent or title, “shall (2 SCRA 25), this Honorable Court held that “it is not only the right but the duty of the Director of Lands to conduct investigation to determine whether steps should be taken in the proper court for the annulment of the title or titles theretofore issued, and to file the corresponding court action for the reversion of the properties to the State, if the facts disclosed in the course of the investigation so warrant.” FACTS: Spouses Jose Chuatoco and Leoncia Yap were the registered owners of a land with improvements located Binondo, Manila.