For decades, we were told that buying real estate from the person whose name appears on a clean Transfer Certificate of Title is the safest route. The logic seemed sound: the registered owner is presumed to have the authority to transfer ownership. This belief became common practice—check the title, confirm the seller’s name, and the deal is good.
But in a recent case, the Supreme Court reminded us that appearances can deceive. In Ciacho v. Spouses De Guia (G.R. No. 259051, 26 February 2025), the Court warned that even sellers with their names on the Transfer Certificate of Title may not always have the power to convey ownership.
The case involved two parcels of land inherited by Adolfo De Guia. Facing foreclosure, Adolfo turned to Cerilla for help in redeeming the properties. In exchange, Adolfo executed Deeds of Absolute Sale in Cerilla’s favor, and the titles were transferred to Cerilla’s name.
After redemption, Cerilla executed another Deed of Absolute Sale back to Adolfo—though unnotarized—while Adolfo annotated Adverse Claims on the titles. Later, they agreed that Adolfo would sell the same properties to Cerilla for ₱15 million, with partial payment made upfront and the balance due after the eviction of illegal settlers.
To finance this, Cerilla borrowed money from Ciacho. As a condition for the loan, Ciacho required that the Adverse Claims be canceled and a Real Estate Mortgage be constituted over the properties. When Cerilla failed to repay, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Ciacho but curiously requested that it not be registered.
Adolfo, stunned, sought to annul the sale, arguing that Cerilla, though the “titled” owner, was merely an accommodation party and never the true owner
Ciacho claimed protection as a buyer in good faith. He argued that he relied solely on the title—a standard practice for many buyers. Yet the Court refused to uphold his claim.
The ruling emphasized that not all “titled” owners possess the power to transfer ownership. When the person on the title is only an accommodation party—someone who holds title temporarily or nominally without real ownership—they cannot validly sell the property to third parties. Such individuals are owners only “on paper.”
The Court noted red flags in this case: the prompt reconveyance of the properties to Adolfo, Cerilla’s request not to register the sale to Ciacho, and the underlying arrangement between Cerilla and Adolfo. Together, these showed that Cerilla’s ownership was nominal.
The ruling is a wake-up call. It dismantles the illusion that titles alone guarantee security. While the Torrens system provides indefeasibility of title, it is not absolute. Titles may reveal the registered owner but not always the true owner.
Buyers are thus reminded to exercise due diligence beyond merely checking the Transfer Certificate of Title. This includes verifying:
- The history of the property and the circumstances of previous transfers.
- Possible adverse claims or annotations that may signal disputes.
- The seller’s actual authority and intent in holding the property.
Blind reliance on the face of the title may no longer be enough.
The case of Ciacho v. Spouses De Guia is more than a property dispute—it is a cautionary tale. It underscores that in real estate, prudence and vigilance are indispensable. Titles may be clean, names may match, but ownership is not always what it seems.
As disciples of the law, we must heed the Court’s reminder: look beyond what is written “on paper.” In matters as valuable as land, diligence is not just wise—it is essential.
