[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-292422-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-292422-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","nicolas-vs-mariano-gr-no-201070-decision","Nicolas vs. Mariano - G.R. No. 201070 - Decision","","Nicolas vs. Mariano is a Philippine Supreme Court decision resolving a dispute over land registration and ownership under the Torrens system. The ruling upholds the Court of Appeals, finding that although a TCT is in Mariano’s name, ownership was not fully established because installment payments to the National Housing Authority remained incomplete. With no clean title, Nicolas was expected to exercise diligence before mortgaging and buying the property. The Court also applies the in pari delicto principle, denying Mariano’s claim for damages and adjusting the rental and interest awards while deleting attorney’s fees.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/nicolas-vs-mariano-gr-no-201070-decision/292422/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/nicolas-vs-mariano-gr-no-201070-decision/292422.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Noah","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",23,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why did the Court rule that the Torrens title did not create ownership in this case?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Mariano’s installments to the National Housing Authority were not completed, and she admitted she was not the owner of the property. The Court held that the Torrens system merely confirms ownership and does not create it, so Nicolas could not validly mortgage and sell what was not fully owned by Mariano.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What reasoning supported the conclusion that Nicolas lacked sufficient diligence?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The original owner’s copy of the certificate was not shown in Mariano’s possession, and Entry No. 98464/C-39393 on the dorsal side of the TCT served as warning that the title was not clean. The Court stated that diligence would have revealed Mariano’s delinquency to the NHA.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did the Court apply the in pari delicto principle to the damages claim?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Because both parties were not in good faith and knowingly dealt with property that was effectively not theirs, the Court applied in pari delicto. It ruled that neither party could expect positive relief through contract interpretation, and it also noted Mariano failed to directly assail the CA’s ruling by filing her own petition.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},292422,1789651191,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},8796095462418,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80000253c1241d02b47?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778826106357471780","54 PHILIPPINE REPORTS  \nNicolas vs. Mariano  \nWHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 18, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80277 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Bonifacio Danan is hereby ORDERED to PAY respondent Spouses Gregorio Serrano and Adelaida Reyes monthly rental in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (~~P ~~ 3,000.00) with legal interest of Twelve Percent (12%) per annum from the time of the filing of respondent spouses’Answer on September 24, 1999 until June 30, 2013 and Six Percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid. The award of attorney’s fees in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (~~P ~~ 50,000.00) is deleted.  \nSO ORDERED.  \nVelasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.  \nSECOND DIVISION  \n[G.R. No. 201070. August 1, 2016]  \nLUZ S. NICOLAS, petitioner, vs. LEONORA C. MARIANO, respondent.  \nSYLLABUS  \n1. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; TORRENS SYSTEM;  \nTHE TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION MERELY CONFIRMS OWNERSHIP AND DOES NOT CREATE IT.—While title to TCTNo. C-44249 is in the name of Mariano, she has not completed her installment payments to NHA; this fact is not disputed, and as a matter of fact, Mariano admits it. Indeed, Mariano even goes so far as to concede, in her Comments and Opposition to the Petition, that she is not  \nVOL. 792, AUGUST 1, 2016 55  \nNicolas vs. Mariano  \nthe owner of the subject property. Thus, if she never became  \nthe owner of the subject property, then she could not validly mortgage and sell the same to Nicolas. The principle nemo dat quod non habet certainly applies. x x x Indeed, the Torrens system of land registration “merely confirms ownership and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest lawful owners of their title for the purpose of transferring it to another one who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law.” Nicolas is charged with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the subject property. The original owner’s copy of TCT No. C-44249 is not in Mariano’s possession, and the latter could only present a photocopy thereof to her. Before one could part with his money as mortgagee or buyer of real property, it is only natural to demand to be presented with the original owner’s copy of the certificate of title covering the same. Secondly, Entry No. 98464/C-39393 on the dorsal side of TCT No. C-44249 constitutes sufficient warning as to the subject property’s condition at the time. In other words, TCTNo. C-44249 was not a clean title, and if Nicolas exercised diligence, she would have discovered that Mariano was delinquent in her installment payments to the NHA, which in turn would have generated the necessary conclusion that the property belonged to the said government agency.  \n2. ID.; CIVIL CODE; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS;  \nWHEN BOTH PARTIES ARE IN PARI DELICTO, NEITHER ONE MAY EXPECT POSITIVE RELIEF FROM COURTS OF JUSTICE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THEIR CONTRACT.—For her part, Mariano cannot recover damages on account of her claimed losses arising from her entering into contract with Nicolas. Realizing that she is not the owner of the subject property and knowing that she has not fully paid the price therefor, she is as guilty as Nicolas for knowingly mortgaging and thereafter selling what is not hers. As correctly held by the CA, both parties herein are not in good faith; they are deemed in pari delicto or in equal fault, and for this,“[n]either one may expect positive relief from courts of justice in the interpretation of their contract. The courts will leave them as they were at the time the case was filed.” Besides, if Mariano’s prayer for damages were to be considered at all, she should have directly assailed the CA’s pronouncement by filing her own petition before this Court, which she failed todo.  \n56 PHILIPPINE REPORTS  \nNicolas vs. Mariano  \nAPPEARANCES OF COUNSEL  \nBabaran & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.","cbCaihxChXdGU1Je","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihxChXdGU1Je","pdf",180565,17,"English","# Syllabus\n## Torrens system and confirmatory effect on ownership\n## In pari delicto and denial of positive relief\n# Decision\n## Parties and procedural posture\n## Factual antecedents","[{\"question\":\"Why did the Court rule that the Torrens title did not create ownership in this case?\",\"answer\":\"Mariano’s installments to the National Housing Authority were not completed, and she admitted she was not the owner of the property. The Court held that the Torrens system merely confirms ownership and does not create it, so Nicolas could not validly mortgage and sell what was not fully owned by Mariano.\"},{\"question\":\"What reasoning supported the conclusion that Nicolas lacked sufficient diligence?\",\"answer\":\"The original owner’s copy of the certificate was not shown in Mariano’s possession, and Entry No. 98464/C-39393 on the dorsal side of the TCT served as warning that the title was not clean. The Court stated that diligence would have revealed Mariano’s delinquency to the NHA.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Court apply the in pari delicto principle to the damages claim?\",\"answer\":\"Because both parties were not in good faith and knowingly dealt with property that was effectively not theirs, the Court applied in pari delicto. It ruled that neither party could expect positive relief through contract interpretation, and it also noted Mariano failed to directly assail the CA’s ruling by filing her own petition.\"}]","Nicolas vs. Mariano - G.R. No. 201070 - Decision | PDF",43]