Who Is an Innocent Purchaser for Value?

Imagine this: you are the rightful owner of a piece of land. One day, you discover that a distant relative has forged your signature on a deed of absolute sale and managed to secure a new title in their own name. Before you can react, they sell the property to someone else — a third party.

You rush to city hall for advice, only to be told that you can’t recover the land because the new buyer is an innocent purchaser for value.

At first, this sounds absurd. How could you lose your property because of someone else’s forgery? But the answer lies in how the Philippines’ land registration system — the Torrens system — works.

Forgery Transfers No Ownership

Let’s start with a basic principle: a forged deed of sale is void from the very beginning.

Under Philippine law, a contract signed without a person’s real consent has no legal effect. In other words, the forger acquires nothing — and since they have nothing to sell, any sale they make is also void.

So, in theory, you remain the rightful owner.

The Torrens System and the Innocent Buyer

However, the Philippines uses the Torrens system of land registration, which prioritizes the security and reliability of land titles.

Under this system, people are allowed to rely on what appears on the face of the title. If someone buys a property in good faith — believing the title is genuine and clean — the law gives them protection, even if a previous deed was forged.

This type of buyer is called an innocent purchaser for value.

What Makes a Buyer “Innocent”?

A person qualifies as an innocent purchaser for value if they:

• Paid a fair price for the property;

• Checked the title and found it free from any liens, disputes, or defects; and

• Had no knowledge or suspicion that something was wrong with the transaction.

If these conditions are met, the buyer’s title is protected — even if the seller obtained it through fraud or forgery.

That’s why your city hall contact said you might not be able to recover the property. The Torrens system protects the integrity of the buyer’s title, even at the expense of the original owner.

When the Buyer Is Not Innocent

Not all buyers can hide behind the label of “innocent purchaser.”

If the third person knew or should have known that something was wrong — such as a suspiciously low price, a hurried sale, or rumors of family conflict — then they are not considered innocent.

Courts require buyers to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence. If they ignored warning signs, they lose their legal protection, and the true owner can demand the land back through reconveyance or annulment of title.

The Owner’s Remedies

If you find yourself in this situation:

1. Gather all your documents — your original title, tax declarations, tax receipts, and proof that you never sold the land.

2. File a civil case for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance, and a criminal case for Forgery or Falsification against the forger.

3. If the court rules that the buyer was truly innocent, your remedy shifts to claiming compensation from the Assurance Fund under Section 96 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

An innocent purchaser for value is someone who buys a property in good faith, for fair consideration, and without notice of any defect in the title.

While forgery never transfers ownership, the Torrens system protects innocent buyers to maintain confidence in land transactions.

That means if your property ends up in the hands of such a buyer, you may lose the land itself — but not your right to seek justice and compensation from the real culprit.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Restrictions on purchasing land under CLOA

A CLOA is a legal document issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to farmer-beneficiaries as proof of ownership of agricultural land awarded to them under the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Republic Act (RA) 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARP Law), was enacted to allow landless farmers and farmworkers to own, directly or jointly, the lands they till or to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State redistributed the ownership of all agricultural lands to landless farmers, subject to the landowners’ retention limits and with due regard to their right to just compensation.

However, farmer-beneficiaries under the CARP are subject to certain limitations in terms of sale, transfer or disposal of the land awarded to them. Sections 26 and 27 of the CARP Law, strictly provide a 10-year holding period, the requirement of a prior DAR clearance or approval, and fully-settled amortization payments, before an awarded land may be validly sold to another person, to wit:

Section 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. — Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum.

The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land, as provided herein, has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.

Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.

If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.

In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land.

Thus, while the law permits the sale of land under CLOA, it is necessary that the conveyance must comply with the conditions set by the DAR and the provisions of the CARP Law.

Source: Manila Times

Actions for claiming land ownership and possession

In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court explained the different actions for claiming land ownership and possession.

Lea Victa-Espinosa bought a parcel of land. When she had it surveyed, she discovered that parts of the land were occupied by the spouses Noel and Leny Agullo. Espinosa demanded that the Agullos vacate the portion belonging to her, but they refused.

Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession (but not ownership) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asking the court to order the Agullos to vacate the portion of land. The RTC dismissed the complaint, declaring that Espinosa should have filed an action for forcible entry considering that the action was still within the one-year period from her discovery of dispossession.

The RTC denied Espinosa’s motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding her argument that her complaint was not merely to determine who between her and the Agullos had the better right of possession over the property, but one for accion reivindicatoria, since she sought not only to recover ownership but also possession.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and agreed that Espinosa’s action was one for accion reivindicatoria, as her claim sought to recover full possession of the property, which is an element of ownership, allowing the case to proceed.

All the way to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, however, denied the appeal of the Agullos and allowed the RTC to proceed with the case on different grounds, declaring that the action was not accion reivindicatoria but one of accion publiciana.

The High Court explained that in accion publiciana, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land without necessarily claiming ownership, whereas in accion reivindicatoria, the determination of ownership of the land is essential, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

In the case, Espinosa did not seek a determination of ownership, nor did the Agullos dispute her title of ownership over the land. More importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that accion publiciana could be filed even within the one-year period from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth was used by the possessor—which, in this case, was not alleged. (Sps. Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa, G.R. No. 269921, April 22, 2025)

Understandably, the legal terms ejectment, unlawful detainer and forcible entry, accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria may be confusing to non-lawyers.

The following may help clarify any confusion. 

Accion interdictal or summary ejectment proceeding

This type of action may either be an action for Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer where both have the objective of recovery of physical or material possession. The action is based on Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and proceedings are summary (expedited) in nature. 

A complaint for Forcible Entry is one where the entry of the party being ejected is illegal from the start whereas, in Unlawful Detainer, the possession was initially lawful but becomes unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess — such as when a lease agreement has ended. 

Cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are filed with the lower courts (Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts) within one year from the unlawful deprivation or entry in the case of Forcible Entry or one year from the last demand in cases for Unlawful Detainer. 

Accion publiciana 

This is an action for recovery of the right to possess.  It is based on Articles 523 to 560 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and it is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of real property independently of title.

While this type of action is usually filed against third persons, it may also be filed against any co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property.  

In an action by one co-owner against another co-owner, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership. The complaining co-owner cannot seek exclusion of the other from the property because as co-owner he has a right of possession.  (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)

In the words of the Supreme Court, when possession can no longer be wrested via summary action for ejectment when dispossession has lasted for more than a year, the dispossessed party may still file a complaint for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

The general rule is accion publiciana is filed when the dispossession has lasted for more than a year. However, when the dispossession does not involve force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, the case may be filed even if the dispossession has lasted for less than one year.

This type of case is filed with the lower courts or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property) and the action prescribed within 10 years from the time of the dispossession. 

Accion reivindicatoria 

Accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership of a parcel of land and, as an element of this ownership, possession over the land. The party claimant must allege ownership over the parcel of land and seek recovery of its possession. (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)

This action is based on Articles 428 and 434 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and, like Accion Publiciana, is considered an ordinary civil proceeding. 

The action may be filed with the lower court or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property and, generally, there is no time limit within which to bring the action except that the adverse party may acquire ownership over the land by virtue of prescription which will then defeat the claimant’s action in accion reivindicatoria. 

Source: Inquirer