Practice question
A blameless registered owner’s title is fraudulently cancelled. The usurper later conveys the land to a buyer who registers a title and is conclusively found to be an innocent purchaser for value. The owner is legally unable to recover the land. Assuming timely suit and the remaining statutory conditions, why may compensation from the Fund be available despite section101?
- Because every fraud is expressly exempted from section101.
- Because the innocent buyer must surrender the land before compensation is considered.
- Because the operative deprivation is now attributable to Torrens protection of the innocent purchaser, rather than merely the usurper’s breach of trust.
- Because the owner’s duplicate becomes a government bond.
- Because the Fund pays automatically whenever a wrongdoer refuses payment.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1978/pd_1529_1978.html — PD1529, sections95,97,101.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/jul2018/gr_224678_2018.html — Spouses Stilianopoulos v Register of Deeds for Legazpi City, GR224678, July3 2018, main opinion: registration fraud and breach of trust.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/aug2015/gr_171804_2015.html — Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental v Anglo, Sr., GR171804, August5 2015, main opinion: section95 and claimant negligence.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.