Flashcards Studio

In a sale of a residential lot, a Filipino buyer, Mateo, purchases Lot 58 from Kaye, who presents herself as owner and signs a deed of sale with a title certificate in Kaye's name. After transfer and registration, it is discovered that Kaye never owned Lot 58 and had no authority to sell it; the title shown by Kaye was forged. Mateo now invokes Article 3 of the Civil Code, arguing that his lack of knowledge about Kaye's true status should excuse him. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine and its scope. (b) Distinguish ignorance of the law from ignorance of the facts in a land-transaction context. (c) Apply the rule to the facts and state whether the sale is valid or void and what remedies Mateo may have.