REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, REGION II, VS. GRELINDA D. ESPEJO, MA. CAROLINA D. ESPEJO, GREGORIO V. ESPEJO, ROGER V. UMIPIG, ALMA V. UMIPIG, HELEN V. UMIPIG, CONSTANCE S. SALES, FAUSTINO LLANES, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PR

Ruling

WHEREFORE, a judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: (a) DISMISSING the Amended Complaint; (b) DECLARING Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- 256435, issued in favor of Grelinda Espejo and Ma. Carolina Espejo VALID and DECLARING the 1,640-square meter parcel of land described therein as owned by them; (c) DECLARING TCT No. T-241939 issued in favor of Gregorio Espejo VALID and DECLARING the [439.50]-square meter parcel of land described therein as owned by him; (d) DECLARING TCT No. T-250138 issued in favor of Ma. Carolina Espejo VALID and DECLARING the [439.50]-square meter parcel of land described therein as owned by her; x x x x [45] (Emphases in the original) In ruling in favor of the Espejos, the RTC proclaimed that they were buyers in good faith, considering that at the time the conveyances were made, the vendors were the registered owners of the lots, and their respective titles did not have any affidavit of adverse claim. Accordingly, the Espejos were not duty-bound to go beyond the titles of the vendors. [46] Ruling of the Court of Appeals Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the case before the CA. In its Appellant's Brief [47] dated June 14, 2013, petitioner primarily argued that the RTC erred when it ruled that: (1) the Espejos were buyers in good faith; and (2) TCT Nos. T-256435, T-241939, and T-250138 are valid. [48] However, on March 15, 2016, the CA rendered its Decision, [49] denying petitioner's appeal, to wit: WHEREFORE, the present Appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 25, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, of Roxas, Isabela in Civil Case No. 23-538-97, is hereby AFFIRMED . [50] (Emphases and italic in the original) In denying petitioner's appeal, the CA first noted that there is indeed confusion with respect to the titles held by the Espejos. The CA ratiocinated that such confusion stemmed from the conflicting subdivision plans, which were greatly instrumental in the issuance of the said TCTs. Further, the CA stated that an evaluation of the facts and circumstances in the case would reveal that there were various irregularities, especially when Felisa entered into the picture. Nonetheless, the CA still considered all the events that transpired and the means by which the Espejos acquired titles to the three parcels of land. [51] In this regard, the CA found that the sole issue that should be resolved was whether the Espejos should be considered buyers in good faith. To this, the CA answered in the affirmative, considering that the Espejos employed sufficient measures before buying the said lots. As noted by the CA: x x x They looked into their predecessors' titles which clearly had no annotations pertaining to adverse claims. Withal, it was never alleged that the Espejos encountered TCT No. T-143478 which had annotations referring to the lots in questions, since that was not the title which were registered under the names of the Umipigs and Llanes. Since the titles of Llanes and the Umipigs