>

The "sellers" never actually owned the house they were selling and so it still belongs to the original owners. Just like with stolen goods the buyers are the ones that were screwed out of their money and the property must be returned to the rightful owners.
The article should be saying some poor folks thought they were buying a home only to find out they were being scammed by some impersonators, this article makes it sound like the actual owners no longer have their home and if that’s the case then that’s f-ed up, laws should exist to not let that be the case. >

Isn't this what title insurance is for? >

Do you mean the ‘buyers’ should have to give the house back, and might be compensated if they had title insurance?
Or that the original owners should need insurance against this sort of fraud, and that if they didn’t have insurance they should just lose their house? >

The buyers get screwed. Owners get their house back. >

Cue IASIP theme song 
The Gang Sells a House >

Whoever did it knows* them. Or knows someone who knew about their trip and how long they would be gone. >

Or found out over social media. >

It says the owners only realised after a few months, might have been a second home of theirs? >

So do they get their house back? Does the family that bought it have to move out? Who is out the hundreds of thousands of dollars?