he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual

after all. The government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the
conditions laid down by the law are satisfied.
Facts:
The land in question is situated in Tanza, Cavite. It was originally purchased
on installment from the government by Florentina Bobadilla, who allegedly
transferred her rights thereto in favor of Martina, Tomasa, Gregorio and Julio, all
surnamed Cenizal, in 1922. Tomasa and Julio assigned their shares to Martina, Maria
and Gregorio. In 1971 these three assignees purportedly signed a joint affidavit
which was filed with the Bureau of Lands to support their claim that they were
entitled to the issuance of a certificate of title over the said land on which they said
they had already made full payment. Subsequently, TCT No. 55044 was issued by
the register of deeds of Cavite in favor of Maria Cenizal, Gregorio Cenizal, and
Rosalina Naval, Luz Naval, and Enrique Naval. When the complaint for reversion was
filed, the registered owners of the land were named as defendants and were asked
to return the property to the State on the aforestated grounds of forgery and fraud.
The plaintiff claimed that Gregorio Cenizal having died on 1943, and Maria Cenizal
on 1959, they could not have signed the joint affidavit on the year 1971.
Respondent Miclat moved to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner contending that
the government had no cause of action against her because there was no allegation
that she had violated the plaintiff's right. The respondent court, in its order dated
October 2, 1987, granted the motion. The petitioner, contesting this order, now
insists that it has a valid cause of action and that it is not barred by either
prescription or res judicata.
Issue:
Given such deception, would the sale itself be considered null and void from
the start, as the petitioner insists, so as to make all titles derived therefrom also
ineffectual ab initio?
Held:
In Tanak Pangawaran Patiwayan v. Martinez it was held that "even if
respondent Tagwalan eventually is proven to have procured the patent and the
original certificate of title by means of fraud, the land would not revert back to the
State," precisely because it has become private land. The petitioner errs in arguing
that the original transfer was null and void ab initio, for the fact is that it is not so. It
was only voidable. The land remained private as long as the title thereto had not
been voided.
The private respondents are transferees in good faith and for value of the
subject property and that the original acquisition thereof, although fraudulent, did

not affect their own titles. These are valid against the whole world, including the
government. Petition denied.