Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Second Judicial Region
Branch 05
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

HEIRS OF MELECIO T. PAUIG Sr., CIVIL CASE NO.: 6165

Plaintiffs, FOR:
“QUIETING OF TITLE, ANNULMENT
-versus-
OF DEEDS OF SALE,
AUGUSTO TUDDAO, et.al., CANCELLATION OF TRANSFER
Defendants. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE, REVIVAL
OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE NO. T-94941, T-94942,
T-94943, AND T-94944 AND
x------------------------------------x DAMAGES”

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM
PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully submit this Memorandum, thus:

TIMELINESS
The Honorable Court issued an order requiring the parties to submit
their respective memorandum within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the order. The order was received by herein counsel on
_____________________. Hence, this memorandum is timely filed.

PARTIES
Plaintiffs are all of legal ages, with capacity to sue, Filipinos by
birth, with the following personal circumstances:
Melecio T. Pauig Sr., is of legal age, married, Filipino and a
resident of Cataggaman Viejo, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan is now

1
deceased and is substituted by Anita M. Pauig, Melecio M. Pauig Jr.,
Rommel M. Pauig, and Armeldo M. Pauig who are the legal heirs of
Melecio T. Pauig.

Defendants are all of legal ages, with full capacity to be sued,

and can be served summons and other court processes in the
following personal circumstances:

Augusto Tuddao is a resident of No. 242, Gunnacao Street,

Cataggaman Nuevo, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan;

Erlinda Tumaliuan, a resident #35 Luna Extension, Ugac Norte,

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan;

Rhoderick Ian G. Reyes and Ingrid Ivy G. Reyes are residents

of San Gabriel Village, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan;

Elizabeth Taloza, a resident of Paddaya, Aparri, Cagayan;

Walter U. Alonzo, a resident of Paddaya, Aparri,Cagayan;

Anastacia Florentino, a resident of Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao City,

Cagayan;

Minda V. Talaro, Charlie Contillo, Janet G. Taloza, Elpidio

Arellano Jr.,Lucille U. Utanes, all residents of Padday, Aparri,
Cagayan;

Jesus Arturo Lavadia, a resident of Pasicolan corner Addatu

Streets, Cataggaman Viejo, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan;

2
 Virginia A. Dela Cruz,a resident of No. 42 Aguinaldo Street,
Centro 10, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan; and

Genny V. Notarte, a resident of Paddaya, Aparri,Cagayan.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs are heirs of Melecio T. Pauig who is the lawful owner
of a parcel of land sub-divided into four (4) lots, located at Ugac Sur,
Tuguegarao City with an aggregate area of 8,044 square meters,
more or less and more particularly described as follows:

LOT NO. AREA TCT NO.

Lot No. 1990-A 1,202 sq.m. TCT NO. T-94941
Lot No. 1990-B 1,235 sq.m. TCT NO. T-94942
Lot No. 1990-C 2,733 sq.m. TCT NO. T-94943
Lot No. 1990-D 2,874 sq.m. TCT NO. T-94944

Through fraud and machinations, defendant Augusto Tuddao

made it appear that plaintiff sold the above-described parcels of land
to him. In fact, defendant Tuddao caused to be transferred in his
own name ownership of said four (4) parcels of land by virtue of a
falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 12, 2000 wherein plaintiff’s
signature, allegedly as vendor was forged.

Just a day after defendant Tuddao caused to be fraudulently

sold in his name the said parcels of land, he immediately sold Lot
Nos. 1990-A and 1990-C thereof to his co-defendant Erlinda
Tumaliuan.

3
 As a consequence of the spurious and fraudulent sale of Lot
Nos. 1990-A and Lot No. 1990-C to defendant Tumaliuan, she
transferred the title of ownership into her name. Consequently, TCT
No. T-94941 covering Lot No. 1990-A was cancelled and a new title,
TCT No. T-121894 was issued in defendant Tumaliuan’s name.

Lot No. 1990-C, on the other hand, was transferred into

defendant Tumaliuan’s name under TCT No. T-121895;
Thereafter, defendant Tumaliuan caused to be subdivided Lot
No. 1990-C into four (4) smaller parts, to wit: Lot Nos. 1990-C-1,
1990-C-2, 1990-C-3, and 1990-C-4 eventually resulting in the
issuance of four distinct muniments of Title also in her name, in
particular;
LOT NO. TCT NO.
Lot No. 1990-C-1 T-122894
Lot No. 1990-C-2 T-122895
Lot No. 1990-C-3 T-122896
Lot No. 1990-C-4 T-122897

Once title over Lots 1990-C-1, 1990-C-2, 1990-C-3, and 1990-

C-4 were transferred to defendant Tumaliuan’s name and she then
fraudulently sold the same to the following named defendants as
vendees thereof thus effectively cancelling TCT Nos. T-122894, T-
122895, T-122896, and T-122897, to wit:

VENDEES LOT NO. AREA TCTs ISSUED

Elizabeth Usigan Taloza Lot No. 1990-C-1 500 sq.m. T-126300
Walter Urdas Alonzo Lot No. 1990-C-2 500 sq.m. T-126302
Anastacia P. Florentino Lot No. 1990-C-3 300 sq.m. T- 124505
Minda V. Talaro
Charlie Contillo
Janet G. Taloza Lot No. 1990-C-4 1,433 sq.m. T-126301
4
 Elpidio Arellano Jr.
Lucille U. Utanes

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-126301 was cancelled and

derivative Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-126682 issued to
defendant Janet G. Taloza, T-126683 issued to defendant Elpidio
Arellano Jr., T-126684 issued to defendant Charlie Contillo, T-126685
issued to defendant Lucille U. Utanes and T-126686 issued to
defendant Minda V. Talaro.

Not satisfied with the fraudulent sale and transfer of Lot Nos.
1990-A and 1990-C, defendant Tuddao, again through fraud and
misrepresentation, transferred into his own name Lot No. 1990-B
under TCT No. T-121896. Defendant Tuddao sold to defendant
Rhoderick Ian G. Reyes and Ingrid Ivy G. Reyes the said lot. The
defendants Reyeses sub-divided into two the lot covering Lot 1990-B-
1 with an area of 617.50 square meters and resulted to the issuance
of TCT No. T- 122892 in the name of Rhoderick Ian G. Reyes. On the
other hand, Lot 1990-B-2 also with an area of 617.50 square meters
was transferred in the name of Ingrid Ivy G. Reyes under TCT No. T-
122893.

Continuing with his commission of fraud upon the plaintiff and

with the end view of depriving plaintiff of his rightful ownership over
his own parcels of land, defendant Tuddao once more to the damage
and prejudice of the plaintiff fraudulently transferred Lot No. 1990-D
into his own name under TCT No. T- 122671. The transfer of Lot
1990-D was followed suit by the selling of the western portion
specifically Lot 1990-D-1 with an area of 500 square meters for a
measly sum of forty thousand pesos (Php 40,000.00) in favour of
defendant Jesus Arturo E. Lavadia. Consequently, TCT No. T- 12889
5
was issued in favour of Jesus Arturo E. Lavadia. On the other hand,
Lot No. 1990-D-2 still remains in the name of defendant Tuddao
under TCT No. T- 122890.Lot No. 1990-D-3 was further sub-divided
into three (3) smaller lots, in particular: Lot 1990-D-3-A, Lot 1990-D-
3-B, and Lot 1990-D-3-C. Again, defendant Tuddao in connivance
with defendant Tumaliuan, who acted as his attorney-in-fact, the said
defendants sold said lots to the following defendants as vendees,
resulting in the issuance of new muniments of titles in their names,
to wit:
VENDEES LOT NO. AREA TCTs ISSUED
Jaime Gannaban Lot No. 1990-D-3-A 387 sq.m. T-126305
Virginia H. Dela Cruz Lot No. 1990-D-3-B 387 sq.m. T-127848
Genny V. Notarte Lot No. 1990-D-3-C 500 sq.m. T- 126437

The Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by the plaintiff in

favour of defendant Augusto Tuddao purporting to sell all the parcels
of land of Melencio T. Pauig Sr. is a nullity considering that said
document was a falsified one. Worse, the signature of Pauig therein
was a forgery. Melencio T. Pauig Sr. never sold the subject lot to
defendant Augusto Tuddao and that he never executed any
document selling or disposing said real properties in favour of
defendant Augusto Tuddao.

That subject property is under the control and possession of

the plaintiffs up to the present.

As a consequence of the falsification committed by defendant

Augusto, a criminal complaint for falsification was filed against him.

6
 Indeed, the forged Deed of Aboslute Sale executed in favour of
defendant Tuddao is a complete nullity and registration thereof will
not validate what otherwise is an invalid document.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the defendants acquired a valid right of legal title
over the property in question?
1a. If in the affirmative, whether or not prescription and laches
set in?
2. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to claim damages?
3. Whether or not the succeeding purchasers who are the other
defendants considered as purchasers in good faith and for value?

DISCUSSION
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ACQUIRE A VALID RIGHT
OF LEGAL TITLE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE
THE SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATES OF TITLES OF THE
DEFENDANTS EMANATED FROM AN INVALID SOURCE
OF OWNERSHIP CONSIDERING THAT THE DEED OF
SALE BETWEEN MELENCIO T. PAUIG SR. AND AUGUSTO
TUDDAO WAS SPURIOUS AND FRAUDULENTLY
EXECUTED. HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE A VALID
SOURCE OF A VALID RIGHT.

Plaintiffs submit that while defendants appear to have

derivative Certificates of Title, they do not have “Title” that may be
the basis of the right to ownership and possession.

Plaintiffs humbly submit that “Title” is different from a

“certificate of title” which is the document of ownership under the
Torrens system of registration issued by the government through the
7
Register of Deeds. While title is the claim, right or interest in real
property, a certificate of title is the evidence of such claim.

Another way of looking at it is that, while “title” gives the

owner the right to demand or be issued a “certificate of title”, the
holder of a certificate of title does not necessarily possess valid title
to the real property. The issuance of a certificate of title does not
give the owner any better title than what he actually has in law.

Simply put, the true owners of the property subject of the case
are the plaintiffs. Defendants are sorry but the matter has to be
stated: Defendants are at best usurpers and, at worst, land grabbers.
----------------------------------------
NEITHER MAY DEFENDANTS FIND SOLACE IN THE
PRINCIPLE OF INDEFEASIBILITY OF TORRENS TITLE
---------------------------------------------------
It is true that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title of
property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is
conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land
described therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all
the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.
Thus, in Arambulo vs. Gungab, the Supreme Court declared that the
“age-old” rule is that the person who has Torrens title over a land is
entitled to possession thereof.”

However, the rule that a title issued under the Torrens System
is presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership does not
apply where the very certificate itself is faulty as to its purported
origin.

8
 Thus it has been held that the reality that presumption of
authenticity and regularity enjoyed by the title of a party has been
overcome and overturned by the nullity of the agreement or
document from whence the title sprung. Such a title can never be
indefeasible as its issuance was replete with badges of fraud and
irregularities that rendered the same nugatory. It is as if no title at all
was ever issued. Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a
title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation.

In the case at bar, the title to the subject property was

acquired by defendants through a fraudulent transfer.

This is the height of bad faith and fraud and they cannot be
allowed to profit from their fraudulent actions.
--------------------------------
THE TORRENS SYSTEM
---------------------------
The simplified system of titling lands was introduced by Sir
Richard Robert Torrens in South Australia in 1857, known as the
Torrens system. The system, also known as “title by registration”
replaced the system of “title by deeds” (also known as “deeds
system”), an old, expensive and complicated system of tracing deeds.
(Sir Robert Richard Torrens, Encyclopaedia Britannica,available at
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Richard-Torrens)

Stated differently, the Torrens system involves registration of

title while the deeds system involves registration of instruments.
Under the Torrens system, the certificate is guaranteed by the law,
and, with certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to the land
mentioned therein;(Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili, Property Registration

9
Decree and Related Laws 8, 2011 edition) unlike the deeds system
which proof of ownership to the land is traced through a series of
instruments affecting the land (also known as “chain of title”), hence,
title to the land is often uncertain and unreliable.

The Torrens system therefore does away the need for a chain
of title and instead puts a stop forever to any question of the legality
of the title, except claims which were noted on the certificate itself at
the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. Once
the title is registered, the owners can rest secure on their ownership
and possession. (Id. At 9 and 10, citing Legarda v. Saleeby, G.R. No.
8936, October 2, 1915 and SM Prime Holdings, Inc. G.R. No. 164687,
February 12, 2009) 

This principle of the Torrens system is also known as the

curtain principle – one does not need to look behind the certificate of
title and that ownership need not be proved by backtracking a series 
of documents.

Act No. 496, or the Land Registration Act of 1903 enacted by

the Philippine Commission placed all public and private lands in the
Philippines under the Torrens system. (Id. At 8) The principles of the
Torrens system are recognized to the fullest extent in our registration
law which is now the 1978 Property Registration Decree, which has
codified all laws relative to land registration. (Id. at 9)

However, the system does not furnish a shield for fraud, nor
permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. The
indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. While registration operates as a notice of the

10
deed, contract or instrument to others, it does not add to its validity
nor converts an invalid instrument into a valid one. The registration
under the Torrens system is not an impediment to a declaration by
the Courts of its invalidity. (Id. at 10, citing Rodriguez v. Lim, G.R.
No. 135817, November 30, 2006; Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 125585, June 8, 2005; Baguio v. Republic, G.R. No. 119682,
January 21, 1999; Pascua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243,
December 14,2000; Fudot v. Cattleya Land Inc., G.R. No. 171008,
September 13, 2007)

-------------------
FORGED DEED
-------------------
Generally, a forged or fraudulent deed or any instrument
effecting transfer of ownership is a nullity and conveys no title. (Id. at
482)  When the instrument presented to the Registry of Deeds for
registration is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his
title, and neither does the assignee or the mortgagee, for that
matter, acquire any right or title to the property. (Ibid.citing Bernales
v. Sambaan, G.R. No. 163271, January 16, 2010) Accordingly, an
innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases
a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner
himself, not by a forged deed. (Bernales, supra) This principle is
expressed under the third paragraph of Section 53 of P.D. 1529,
otherwise known as the “Property Registration Decree” which reads:
Section 53. x x x.
x x x. After the entry of the decree of registration on the
original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured

11
by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a
forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.

Hence, a forged deed conveys no title and any transaction that

has transpired by virtue of the same document is an absolute nullity.
Since no ownership was conveyed, the issued Transfer Certificate of
Title by reason of the forged instrument has no basis at all.
Consequently, the person who buys the real property in question
cannot take refuge in the protection accorded by the Torrens system
on titled lands. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, while one who buys from the registered owner

does not need to look behind the certificate of title, one who buys
from one who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not
only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for
him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor,
or in his capacity to transfer the land. The Court has consistently
applied the stricter rule when it comes to deciding the issue of good
faith of one who buys from one who is not the registered owner, but
one who exhibits a certificate of title. (Yu v. Pacleb, G.R. No. 172172,
February 24, 2009)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
INNOCENT PURCHASER (BUYER IN GOOD FAITH)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property
of another without notice that some other person has a right to or
interest therein and who then pays a full and fair price for it at the
time of the purchase or before receiving a notice of the claim or
interest of some other persons in the property. Buyers in good faith
buy a property with the belief that the person from whom they
12
receive the thing is the owner who can convey title to the property.
Such buyers do not close their eyes to facts that should put a
reasonable person on guard and still claim that they are acting in
good faith. (Peralta v. Heirs of Abalon, G.R. No. 183448, June 30,
2014)

In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by

virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered
a holder in good faith and for value , the instrument registered should
not be forged. (Bernales, supra)  As mentioned earlier, an innocent
purchaser for value is one who buys a titled land by virtue of a deed
executed by the registered owner himself and not by a forged deed.
It is important to determine whether a purchaser of the land is an
innocent purchaser for value since the law protects them.

The first sentence of the third paragraph of Section 53 of P.D.

1529 provides:
Section 53. x x x.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may
pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such
fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent
holder for value of a certificate of title . x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

However, the second sentence of the above-cited provision

(earlier quoted provision) operates as a qualification of the first
sentence or rather a limitation to the concept of innocent purchaser
(Agcaoili, supra, at 482)  since it provides that if the subsequent
registration was effected by means of forgery, the same shall be null
and void. This is the reason why there can be no “buyer in good
faith” when the instrument registered is forged. Thus, a purchaser

13
who acquires a real property by virtue of a falsified deed of sale has
no right whatsoever as against the true owner of the property even
if he is a holder for value of a certificate of title. This usually
happens when a person buys a property from a seller pretending to
be the registered owner or an agent of the owner acting on the
latter’s behalf without corresponding authority.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, legal and equitable premises considered, it is
most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favour of the
plaintiff, quieting title to the lots by:
1. Declaring as null and void the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale
dated July 17, 2000 executed in favour of defendant Augusto
Tuddao and/or Erlinda Tumaliuan;
2. Declaring as null and void all subsequent transactions
entered into by defendants Augusto Tuddao and Erlinda
Tumaliuan involving plaintiffs’ four parcels of land as described
in herein complaint;
3. Ordering the annulment/cancellation of all muniments of title
issued subsequent to the fraudulent transactions entered into
by defendants Augusto Tuddao and Erlinda Tumaliuan
particularly TCT No. T-122892; TCT No. T-122893; TCT No. T-
122889; TCT No. T-122890; TCT No. T-122891; TCT No. T-
126438; TCT No. T-126305; TCT No. T-127848; TCT No. T-
126437; TCT No. T-121894; TCT No. T-126300; TCT No. T-
126302; TCT No. T-124505; TCT No. T-122897; TCT No. T-
126301; TCT No. T-126682; TCT No. T-126683; TCT No. T-
126684; TCT No. T-126685; TCT No. T-126686 issued all in the
names of the defendants;

14
 4. Ordering all defendants to reconvey titles to the four parcels
of land described in herein complaint in favour of Heirs of
Plaintiff Melecio T. Pauig;
5. Or in alternative, order the revival of Transfer Certificate of
Title Nos.T-94941, T-94942, T-94943 and T-94944 covering
four (4) portions of Lot No. 1990 all in the names of Melecio T.
Pauig.
6. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the following
amounts:
A. P10,000.00 by way of moral damages;
B. P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;
C. P5,000.00 by way of litigation of expenses;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan April ____, 2019

ATTY. NOEL A. MORA

Counsel for Defendants
#11 Aguinaldo Street, Barangay Centro 2,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500
Roll Number 42605, October 30, 1997
IBP OR Number:062434, January 4, 2019
PTR OR Number: 2466565, January 03, 2019

EXPLANATION

Undersigned finds it impractical to serve this Plaintiff’s

Memorandum personally, pursuant to the Rules of Court, due to
distance and for lack of messengerial services. Undersigned, is
therefore, constrained to serve the said pleading to the opposing
counsel through registered mail.

ATTY. NOEL A. MORA

15
PROOF OF SERVICE

TO THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court Branch 05
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

ATTY. MACPAUL B. SORIANO

Counsel for Defendants Augusto Tuddao,
Erlinda Tumaliuan, Rhoderick Ian G. Reyes,
Ingrid Ivy G. Reyes, Virginia A. Dela Cruz, and
Anastacia P. Florentino
2nd Floor Soriano Building, Luna Street,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

ATTY. FATIMA YADAO

Counsel for Defendants Genny V. Notarte,
Elizabeth U. Taloza, Elipidio Arellano,
Lucille U. Utanes, Walter U. Alonzo,
Charlie Contillo, and Minda V. Talaro
DAR Provincial Office, Ugac Sur
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

ATTY. SANTOS M. BACULI

Counsel for Defendant Jesus Arturo K. Lavadia
Carig, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

16
 VERIFICATION

WE, MELECIO M. PAUIG JR., ANITA M. PAUIG, ROMMEL

M. PAUIG, AND ARMELDO M. PAUIG, of legal ages, Filipinos, and
residents of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, hereby depose say:

1. That we are the plaintiffs in the above-entitled case;

2. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing

Memorandum and have read the same and know the
contents thereof;

3. That the allegations contained therein are true and correct

to the best of our own personal knowledge;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

________________, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan.

MELECIO M. PAUIG JR. ANITA M. PAUIG

Affiant Affiant
ID No.:__________________ ID No.:_______________
Issued by:_______________ Issued by:____________

ROMMEL M. PAUIG ARMELDO M. PAUIG

Affiant Affiant
ID No.:__________________ ID No.:________________
Issued by:_______________ Issued by:_______________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

__________________, at Tuguegarao City, by affiants exhibiting
their above-mentioned competent evidence of identity and
acknowledged that the same was his free and voluntary act.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

Doc. No. :________;

Page No.:________;
Book No.:________;
Series of 2019.

17