Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)

8/13/2019 Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)

1/46

Rosencor Devt and Rene Joaquin v. Paterno Inquing,Irene Guillermo, Frederico Bantugan, Fernando Magbanua,and Lia !iangco

Facts" Paterno Inquing, Irene Guillermo, Frederico

Bantugan, Fernando Magbanua, and Liza Tiangco,

herein respondents, averred that they are the lessees,

since !", o# a t$o%story residential apartment

located at Tomas Morato &ve', (uezon )ity o$ned by

the spouses Faustino and )resencia Tiangco'

The lease $as not covered by a contract and the

lessees $ere assured by the *pouses Tiangco that

they had the pre%emptive right to purchase the

property i# ever there $as a decision to sell it'

+pon the death o# the *pouses Tiangco in !", the

management o# the property $as ad-ucated to their

heirs $ho $ere represented by .u#rocina de Leon'

The lessess $ere allegedly promised the same pre%

emptive rights to purchase by the heirs o# the spouses

Tiangco'

In /une !!0, the lessees received a letter #rom a

certain &tty' .rlinda &guila demanding that they

vacate the premises so that demolition to the buildingcould be underta1en' The lessees re#used to vacate'

Therea#ter, they received a letter #rom .u#rocina 2e

Leon o##ering to sell them the property #or

3,000,000'00 pesos' The lessees countered the o##er

by o##ering to buy the property #or ,000,000 pesos'

4o$ever, no ans$er $as given by 2e Leon to accept

the o##er'

4o$ever, in 5ovember !!0, 6ene /oaquin, came to

the leased premises introducing himsel# as the ne$

o$ner'

In /anuary !!, the lessees again received another

letter #rom &tty' &guila demanding that they vacate

the premises' &nd therea#ter, they received a letter#rom 2e Leon advising them that the heirs had

already sold the property to 6osencor'

The lessees, later on, received a copy o# the 2eed o#

*ale bet$een 2e Leon and 6osencor' They

discovered that the sale too1 place on *eptember

!!0 $hile the o##er by 2e Leon happened a month

later in 7ctober !!0'

The lessees o##ered to reimburse 2e Leon the selling

price but they $ere re#used' They then #iled an action,

among others, #or the rescission o# the 2eed o#

&bsolute *ale bet$een 2e Leon and 6osencor'

The 6T) dismissed the complaint holding that the

right o# #irst re#usal o# the lessees $as merely and oralone and $as thus unen#orceable by virtue o# the

statute o# #rauds'

The )& reversed the decision o# the 6T) and

ordered, among others, the rescission o# the 2eed o#

&bsolute *ale and #or the heirs to a##ord the lessees

to e8ercise their rights o# #irst re#usal'

4ence, the present petition $herein 6osencor and

6ene /oaquin raise the #ollo$ing errors9

I' T4. )& G6&:.L; .66.2


2/46

In the second case, Equatorial Realty and Devt, Inc.

vs Mayfair !eater, Inc, the court ordered the

rescission o# a contract entered into in violation o# a

right o# #irst re#usal' May#air could only e8ercise the

right i# the #raudulent sale is #irst set aside or

rescinded'

Third, in "aranaque #ings Enter$rises, Inc. vs C%, the

)ourt held that the allegations in a complaint sho$ing

violation o# a contractual right o# #irst option to buy

properties sub-ect to lease constitute a valid cause o#

action by summarizing the rulings in the t$o

previously cited cases'

Lastly, in the case o# &iton'ua vs &(R Cor$oration, the

court held that the sale made therein in violation o# a

right o# #irst re#usal embodied in a mortgage contract

$as rescissible'

Thus, as enunciated in the cited cases, a contract o#

sale entered into in violation o# a right o# #irst re#usal o#

another person is rescissible'

4o$ever, that doctrine cannot be applied to the case

at bar' +nder &rticle C o# the )ivil )ode,

paragraph , a contract validly agreed upon may be

rescinded i# it is Dunderta#en in $raud o$ creditors%&en t&e latter cannot in an' manner collect t&eclaim due t&em.(

Moreover, under &rticle C, rescission shall not

ta1e place D%&en t&e t&ings %&ic& are t&e ob)ect o$t&e contract are legall' in t&e *ossession o$ t&ird*ersons %&o did not act in bad $ait&.E

Good #aith is al$ays presumed unless contrary to the

evidence is adduced' In the case at bar, there clear

and convincing evidence should have been sho$n to

prove that petitioners $ere a$are o# the right o# #irst

re#usal accorded to the respondents'

6espondents point to the letter by &tty' &guila as

proo#' 4o$ever, no mention about the rights o# #irst

re#usal $as made in said letter'

5either $as there any sho$ing that respondents

noti#ied 6osencor o# &tty' &guila o# their right o# #irst

re#usal a#ter they received the said letter'

6espondents also point to the letter by 2e Leon

$here she recognized the right o# #irst re#usal o# the

respondents' 4o$ever, 2e Leon $as $riting on her

behal# and not on behal# o# petitioners and, as such, it

only sho$s that 2e Leon $as a$are o# the e8istence

o# the rights' It does not sho$ that petitioners $ere

a$are o# such rights'

)learly, 2e Leon is the only party in bad #aith in this

case'

)onsidering the there $as no sho$ing o# bad #aith on

the part o# the petitioners, the )& erred in ordering #or

the rescission o# the 2eed o# &bsolute *ale bet$een

6osencor and 2e Leon'

Thus, the remedy #or the respondent is not rescission

but an action #or damages against 2e Leon and the

heirs o# the *pouses Tiangco #or the un-usti#ied

disregard o# their right o# #irst re#usal'

+- /G 0-/G v. 01 and PIL1M I/23R1/0- 0.? *)6& "0@

Facts"

Petitioner he 4ong )heng is the o$ner o# Butuan

*hipping Lines' 7n or about A 7ctober !C, the Philippine

&gricultural Trading )orporation shipped on board the vesse

M: P6I5). .6I) ?o$ned by petitioner@ , A00 bags o# copra

#or delivery to 2ipolog )ity' The said shipment $as covered by

a marine insurance policy issued by &merican 4ome Insurance

)ompany ?respondent Philam>s assured@' M: P6I5). .6I)ho$ever, san1 resulting in the total loss o# the shipment

Because o# this, the insurer, &merican 4ome, paid the amoun

o# PA, 000' 00 ?the value o# the copra@ to the consignee'

&merican 4ome then instituted a civil case based on

breach o# contract o# carriage #or the recovery o# the money

paid'


3/46

ot!er legal means to o2tain re$aration for

t!e same.

It is thus apparent that an action to rescind or an

accion $aulianamust be o# last resort, availed o# only a#ter all

other legal remedies have been e8hausted and have been

proven #utile' For an accion $aulianato accrue, the #ollo$ing

requisites must concur9

?@ That the plainti## as1ing #or rescission has a credit

prior to the alienation, although demandable laterH?3@ That the debtor has made a subsequent contract

conveying a patrimonial bene#it to a third personH

?@ That the creditor has no other legal remedy to satis#y

his claim, but $ould bene#it by rescission o# the

conveyance to the third personH

?A@ That the act being impugned is #raudulentH

?@ That the third person $ho received the property

conveyed, i# by onerous title, has been an accomplice

in the #raud'

&s enunciated by the )&, #or as long as the creditor

still has a remedy at la$ #or the en#orcement o# his claim

against the debtor, he $ill not have any cause o# action #orrescission o# contracts' Indeed, an accion $auliana

presupposes a -udgment and the issuance by the trial court o#

a $rit o# e8ecution and the #ailure o# the sheri## to en#orce and

satis#y such' It presupposes that the creditor has e8hausted

the property o# the debtor' The date o# decision o# the trial court

against the debtor is immaterial' s -udgment' *ince respondent Philam #iled its complaint

#or accion $aulianaon 3 February !!", barely a month #rom

its discovery that petitioner he 4ong )heng had no other

property le#t, its action #or rescission clearly had not yet

prescribed'

4ence, the petition must be 2.5I.2 #or lac1 o# merit'

G.R. /o. 456789 June 64, 6::;3/I/ B1/+ F !- PILIPPI/-2, Petitioner,vs'

2P2. 1LFR-D /G 1/D 2321/1 /G and J10+2/L--, 6espondents'

I**+.9

Is the suit commenced by the petitioner against the

respondents #or annulment or rescission o# sale in #raud o

creditors'

F&)T*9

' 6espondents, the spouses &l#redo 7ng and *usana

7ng, o$n the ma-ority capital stoc1 o# Bali$ag

Mahogany )orporation ?BM)@'

2. 7n 7ctober 0, !!0, the spouses e8ecuted a

)ontinuing *urety &greement in #avor o# +nion Ban1

to secure a PA0,000,000'00%credit line #acility made

available to BM)'

' & year a#ter the e8ecution o# the surety agreement,the spouses 7ng, #orP3,00,000'00, sold their house

and lot located in Greenhills, *an /uan, Metro Manila,

to their co%respondent, /ac1son Lee ?Lee, #or short@'

A' 7n 5ovember 33, !!, BM) #iled a Petition #or

6ehabilitation and #or 2eclaration o# *uspension o#

Payments $ith the *ecurities and .8change

)ommission ?*.)@' To protect its interest, +nion

Ban1 #iled $ith the 6T) o# Pasig )ity an action #or

rescission o# the sale bet$een the spouses 7ng and

/ac1son Lee #or purportedly being in #raud o#

creditors'

5. The #raudulent design, according to +nion Ban1, is

evidenced by the #ollo$ing circumstances9 ?@insu##iciency o# consideration, the purchase price

o# P3,00,000'00 being belo$ the #air mar1et value

o# the sub-ect property at that timeH ?3@ lac1 o#

#inancial capacity on the part o# Lee to buy the

property at that time since his gross income #or the

year !!0, per the credit investigation conducted by

the ban1, amounted to only PA,"'"H and ?@ Lee

did not assert absolute o$nership over the property

as he allo$ed the spouses 7ng to retain possession

thereo# under a purported )ontract o# Lease dated

7ctober 3!, !!'

' 6T) rendered decision, applying &rticle C o# the

)ivil )ode and noting that the evidence on record

JpresentKs circumstances distinctly characterized by

badges o# #raud,J rendered -udgment #or +nion Ban1,

the 2eed o# *ale e8ecuted by the spouses 7ng in

#avor o# Lee being declared null and void'

"' 6espondents #iled an appeal to )& ' The )& reversed

and set aside the trial courts ruling, observing that the

contract o# sale e8ecuted by the spouses 7ng and

Lee, being complete and regular on its #ace, is clothed

$ith the prima #acie presumption o# regularity and

legality'

4.L29


4/46

In this case , the determinative issue tendered in this case

resolves itsel# into the question o# $hether or not the 7ng%Lee

contract o# sale parta1es o# a conveyance to de#raud +nion

Ban1'

.ssentially, petitioner anchors its case on &rticle C o# the

)ivil )ode $hich lists as among the rescissible contracts

JKThose underta1en in #raud o# creditors $hen the latter cannot

in any other manner collect the claim due them'J

1. In a bid to attach a badge o# #raud on the transaction,

petitioner raises the issue o# inadequate

consideration, alleging payment o#

only P3,00,000'00 #or a property having a #air

mar1et value o# PA,00,000'00'

The *upreme )ourt held9 The e8istence o# #raud or

the intent to de#raud creditors cannot plausibly be

presumed #rom the #act that the price paid #or a piece

o# real estate is perceived to be slightly lo$er, i# that

really be the case, than its mar1et value' That the

spouses 7ng acquiesced to the price

o#P3,00,000'00, $hich may be lo$er than the

mar1et value o# the house and lot at the time o#

alienation, is certainly not an unusual businessphenomenon'

2. Petitioner>s assertion regarding respondent Lee>s lac1

o# #inancial capacity to acquire the property in

question since his income in !!0 $as

only PA,"'" is clearly untenable'

The *upreme )ourt held9 &ssuming #or argument that

petitioner got its #igure right, it is clearly incorrect to

measure one>s purchasing capacity $ith one>s income

at a given period' But the more important

consideration in this regard is the uncontroverted #act

that respondent Lee paid the purchase price o# saidproperty' ot&er c&ildren o$ -milio and Felisa.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_152347_2006.html#fnt20


5/46

DBP received a co*' o$ t&e decision on JAN 199,but t&e DBP $ailed to a**ealsupposedly because o#e8cusable negligence and the $ithdra$al o# its

counsel o# record'

o ,4??7, t&e date o$ suc& $inalit'.

!&e DBP claims t&at it s&ould be $our 'ears as*rovided under 1rticle 47>? o$ t&e 0ivil0ode.&rticle C! provides that Dthe action to claim

rescission must be commenced $ithin #our years'E !&e s economic interests as described in

&rticles C0 and C'

AResolution,(the action re#erred to in &rticle !, isbased on the de#endant>s breach o# #aith, a violation

o# the reciprocity bet$een the parties' &s an action

based on the binding #orce o# a $ritten contract,

there#ore, rescission ?resolution@ under &rticle !

prescribes in 0 years under &rticle AA'

&ctually, the cause o# action o# the (uirong heirs

stems #rom their having been ousted by #inal

-udgment #rom the o$nership o# the lot that the 2BP

sold to *o#ia (uirong, in violation o# the $arranty

against eviction that comes $ith every sale o#

property or thing' &rticle AC o# the )ivil )ode

provides9

1rticle 458>. .viction shall ta1e place $henever by a#inal -udgment based on a right prior to the sale or an

act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is deprived o#

the $hole or o# a part o# thing purchased'

o =it& t&e loss o$ >: o$ t&e sub)ect lot tot&e Dalo*es b' reason o$ t&e )udgment o$t&e R!0 in 0ivil 0ase D@945?, t&e


6/46

They alleged therein that *pouses Baylon, during their

li#etime, o$ned A parcels o# land all situated in 5egros

7riental'

ter the death o# *pouses Baylon, they claimed that 6ita

too1 possession o# the said parcels o# land and

appropriated #or hersel# the income #rom the same'

+sing the income produced by the said parcels o# land,

6ita allegedly purchased t$o parcels o# land, Lot 5o'

A"0! and hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0, situated in )anda%uay,

2umaguete )ity'

The petitioners averred that 6ita re#used to e##ect a

partition o# the said parcels o# land'

In their &ns$er, Florante, 6ita and Pan#ila asserted that

they and the petitioners co%o$ned 33 out o# the A parcels

o# land mentioned in the latter>s complaint, $hereas 6ita

actually o$ned 0 parcels o# land out o# the A parcels

$hich the petitioners sought to partition'

2uring the pendency o# the case, 6ita, through a 2eed o#

2onation dated /uly , !!", conveyed Lot 5o' A"0! and

hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0 to Florante'

6ita died intestate and $ithout any issue'

Therea#ter, learning o# the said donation inter vivos in

#avor o# Florante, the petitioners #iled a *upplementalPleading, praying that the said donation in #avor o# the

respondent be rescinded in accordance $ith &rticle

C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode'

Florante and Pan#ila opposed the rescission o# the said

donation, asserting that &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode

applies only $hen there is already a prior -udicial decree

on $ho bet$een the contending parties actually o$ned the

properties under litigation'

6T) ruled donation inter vivose8ecuted by 6ita Baylon in

#avor o# Florante Baylon is rescissible #or the reason that it

re#ers to the parcels o# land in litigation $ithout the

1no$ledge and approval o# the plainti##s or o# this )ourt'

)& held that be#ore the petitioners may #ile an action #or

rescission, they must #irst obtain a #avorable -udicial ruling

that Lot 5o' A"0! and hal# o# Lot 5o' A"0 actually

belonged to the estate o# *pouses Baylon and not to 6ita'

I223-" right to institute the action #or rescission

pursuant to &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode is no

preconditioned upon the 6T)>s determination as to the

o$nership o# the said parcels o# land'

It bears stressing that the right to as1 #or the rescission o

a contract under &rticle C?A@ o# the )ivil )ode is no

contingent upon the #inal determination o# the o$nership o

the thing sub-ect o# litigation'

The petition is partly granted' The decision o# the )& is

modi#ied' The case remanded to the trial court #or the

determination o# the o$nership o# Lot 5o' A"0! and hal# o

Lot 5o' A"0'

!IB3R0I 21M/!-, *etitioner, vs. 03R! F 1PP-1L2N Moe Toma$is

Facts9

From the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties

the #ollo$ing are not disputed or deemed admitted9 that Lo

3, containing an area o# 3," square meters,&gusan ?no$

del 5orte@ is covered by 7)T 5o' 67%3C issued in !3" in

the name o# &polonia &bao and Irenea Tolero in equa

undivided sharesH that 7)T 5o' 67%3C $as administratively

reconstituted on &ugust C, !" and the assigned number o

the reconstituted title is 7)T 5o' 67%3CH that on &ugust C

!", based on an a##idavit o# .8tra%-udicial *ettlement and

)on#irmation o# *ale 7)T 5o' 67%3C ?@ $as cancelled

and lieu thereo# T)T 5o' 6T%A" $as issued in the name o#

Irenea Tolero, O share and 5icolas /adol, O shareH that on

February , !!, based on subdivision plan, subdividing Lo

3 into Lot 3%& and Lot 3%B, the 6egister o# 2eeds o#

&gusan ?no$ del 5orte@ cancelled T)T 5o' 6T%A" and issuedin its place T)T 5o' 6T% in the name o# Tiburcio *amonte

#or Lot 3%& and T)T 5o'6T%A'Irenea Tolero and 5icolas

/adol #or Lot 3%BH that on February , !! based on a

subdivision plan subdividing Lot 3%B to 3%B% and 3%B%

3, T)T 5o' 6T%A $as cancelled and in its place T)T 5o

6T% $as issued in the name o# /acob B' Tagorda #or Lo

3%B% and T)T 5o' in the name o# Irenea Tolero and

5icolas /adol #or Lot 3%B%3H

Plainti##s in their evidence claim o$nership over the entire lot

Lot 3, as one%hal# ?3@ o# the area o# 3'" square meters

$as registered in the name o# their mother Irenea Tolero the


7/46

other hal# $as registered in the name o# their grandmother,

&polonia &bao' ter &polonia &bao died during the

/apanese occupation and Irenea Tolero died in !A, they

inherited and became o$ners o# Lot 3' Plainti##s questioned

the series o# cancellation o# the certi#icate o# title starting #rom

7)T 5o' 67%3C ?@ and the 2eed o# .8tra%-udicial

*ettlement and )on#irmation o# *ale e8ecuted by Ignacio

&tupan on &ugust ", !" ad-udicating one%hal# ?3@ o# the

area o# Lot 3' Plainti##s maintain that Ignacio &tupan is not a

son o# &polonia &bao but he only gre$ up $hile living $ith

&polonia &bao' That the plainti##s or their predecessors%in%interest have not signed any document agreeing as to the

manner ho$ Lot 3 $as to be divided, nor have they

consented to the partition o# the same'

&ccordingly, the court a quo -ointly tried the t$o cases' ter

due trial, the trial court rendered separate decisions, both in

#avor o# the plainti##s therein' The )& a##irmed'

I**+.9 s one%hal# lot in

#avor o# 5icolas /adol'

The trial court #ound &tupan>s a##idavit, dated &ugust ", !",

to be tainted $ith #raud because he #alsely claimed therein that

he $as the sole heir o# &bao $hen in #act, he merely lived and

gre$ up $ith her' /adol and his $i#e, Beatriz, 1ne$ about this

#act' 2espite this 1no$ledge, ho$ever, the /adol spouses still

presented the a##idavit o# &tupan be#ore the 6egister o# 2eeds

o# the Province o# &gusan $hen they caused the cancellation

o# 7)T 5o' 60%3C?@ and issuance o# T)T 5o'6T%A" in

their names covering that portion o$ned by &bao'

The trial court concluded that the incorporation o# the

statement in &tupan>s a##idavit con#irming the alleged e8ecution

o# the a#oresaid deeds o# sale $as intended solely to #acilitate

the issuance o# the certi#icate o# title in #avor o# the /adol

spouses' It $as noted that the documents evidencing the

alleged transactions $ere not presented in the 6egister o#

2eeds' It $as #urther pointed out that the /adol spouses only

sought the registration o# these transactions in !", eighteen

?C@ years a#ter they supposedly too1 place or t$elve ?3@years a#ter &bao died'

5onetheless, petitioner contends that respondents> action in

the court a quo had already prescribed' Generally, an action

#or reconveyance o# real property based on #raud may be

barred by the statute o# limitations $hich requires that the

action must be commenced $ithin #our ?A@ years #rom the

discovery o# #raud, and in case o# registered land, such

discovery is deemed to have ta1en place #rom the date o# the

registration o# title'

Petitioner, as successor%in%interest o# the /adol spouses, no$

argues that the respondents> action #or reconveyance, #iled

only in !", had long prescribed considering that the /ado

spouses caused the registration o# a portion o# the sub-ect lo

in their names $ay bac1 in &ugust C, !"' It is petitioner>s

contention that since eighteen years had already lapsed #rom

the issuance o# T)T 5o' 6T%A" until the time $hen

respondents #iled the action in the court a quo in !", the

same $as time%barred'

Petitioner>s de#ense o# prescription is untenable' The generarule that the discovery o# #raud is deemed to have ta1en place

upon the registration o# real property because it is Dconsidered

a constructive notice to all personsEK0 does not apply in this

case'

The )ourt>s resolution o# $hether prescription had set in

therein is quite apropos to the instant case9

It is true that registration under the Torrens system is

constructive notice o# title, but it has li1e$ise been our holding

that the Torrens title does not #urnish a shield #or #raud' It is

there#ore no argument to say that the act o# registration is

equivalent to notice o# repudiation, assuming there $as onenot$ithstanding the long%standing rule that registration

operates as a universal notice o# title'

For the same reason, $e cannot dismiss private respondents

claims commenced in !"A over the estate registered in !

s act o# de#raudation' &ccording to

the respondent )ourt o# &ppeals, they Jcame to 1no$ Ko# it

apparently only during the progress o# the litigation'J 4ence

prescription is not a bar'

In this case, the )& rec1oned the prescriptive period #rom the

time respondents had actually discovered the #raudulent act o

&tupan $hich $as, as borne out by the records, only during the

trial o# )ivil )ase 5o' "3' )iting &dille, the )& right#ully

ruled that respondents> action #or reconveyance had not yeprescribed'


8/46

!-R-21 .F. 1RR1G1, 01RL2 . FR!I0, J2- L3I2 . R2, P13LI!1 . RDRIG3-, and

L3RD-2 . L/, res*ondents. H

Facts9

The original o$ner o# the DLahug PropertyE?sub-ect

property in this case@ by the name )armen 7zamiz

.8ecuted a D5otarized 2eed o# &bsolute *aleE dated

&pril 3C, !C! in #avor o# herein petitioners in

consideration o# a sum o# P,0A0,000'

/anuary , !! herein respondents instituted a

petition #or guardianship $ith the 6T) alleging that

)armen 7zamiz, then C years old, a#ter an illness

sometime in !C" has become disoriented and could

no longer ta1e care o# hersel# nor manage her

properties'

Mario Mendezona and Luis Mendezona, t$o o# herein

petitioner and $ho are nephe$s o# )armen 7zamiz

and a certain Pilar Mendezona #iled an opposition to

the above said guardianship petition' In the course o#

the proceeding both parties agreed that )armen

7zamiz needed a guardian over her person and

properties'

7ne o# herein respondent Paz 7' Montalvan $asdesignated as guardian over the person o#

)armen 7zamiz $hile petitioner Mario /' Mendezona,

respondents 6oberto /' Montalvan and /ulio

4' 7zamiz $ere designated as -oint guardians over

the properties o# the said $ard' &nd as guardians

respondents 6oberto and /ulio #iled $ith the

guardianship court their Dinventories and &ccountsE,

listing )armen 7zamiz>s assets including the property

1no$n as the DLahug propertyE' *aid respondents

also caused the inscription on the titles o# petitioners

a notice o# lis pendens ?suit pending@ prompting

herein petitioners to #ile a suit #or quieting o# title ?&

proceeding to establish an individuals right to

o$nership o# real property against one or more

adverse claimants'@

respondents opposed the petitioners> claim o#

o$nership o# the Lahug property and alleged among

others, that at the time o# the sale on &pril 3C,

!C! )armen 7zamiz $as already ailing and not in

#ull possession o# her mental #aculties'

2uring the case the petitioners presented the

5otarized 2eed o# &bsolute *ale and $itnesses $ho

testi#ied #or the regularity o# the said document, on the

other hand the respondents presented di##erent

testimonials and the deposition o# 2r' Faith Go,

physician o# )armen 7zamiz' 6T) rendered a decision in #avor o# the petitioners

upholding the validity o# the contract and #urther

stating said contract $as voluntarily and deliberately

entered into $hile )armen 7zamis $as o# sound

mind, #or su##icient and good consideration, and

$ithout #raud, #orce, undue in#luence or intimidation

having been e8ercised upon her, and consequently,

the )ourt orders the de#endants herein to

ac1no$ledge and recognize the plainti##s> title to

the a#orecited property'

+pon appeal the )& reversed the #actual #inding o

the 6T)' &nd #urther denied the petitioners motion #o

reconsideration and motion #or a ne$ trial'

Issue9

s mental #aculties $ere indeed

seriously impaired $hen she e8ecuted the contract so

as to $arrant it>s nullity'

6uling'

/o. opposed to $ell%recognized statutory

presumptions o# regularity en-oyed by a notarizeddocument and that a contracting party to a notarized

contract is o# sound and disposing mind $hen

e8ecuting the contract'

The supreme )ourt held that the appellate court erred

in ruling that at the time o# the e8ecution o# the 2eed

o# &bsolute *ale on &pril 3C, !C! the menta

#aculties o# )armen 7zamiz $ere already seriously

impaired' The testimonies o# the respondents

$itnesses on the mental capacity o

)armen 7zamiz are #ar #rom being clear and

convincing'

' )arolina Lagura, a househelper o# )armen 7zamiz

testi#ied that $hen )armen 7zamiz $as con#ronted byPaz 7' Montalvan in /anuary !C! $ith the sale o

the Lahug property, )armen 7zamiz denied the same

*he testi#ied that )armen 7zamiz understood the

question then' 4o$ever, this declaration is inconsisten

$ith her ?)arolina>s@ statement that since !CC

)armen 7zamiz could not #ully understand the things

around her, that she $as physically #it but mentally could

not carry a conversation or recognize persons $ho

visited her' Furthermore, the disputed sale occurred

on &pril 3C, !C! or three ?@ months a#ter this alleged

con#rontation in /anuary !C!' This inconsistency $as

not e8plained by the respondents'

3' The revelation o# 2r' Faith Go did not also shed light

on the mental capacity o# )armen 7zamiz on the

relevant day % &pril 3C, !C! $hen the 2eed o# &bsolute

*ale $as e8ecuted and notarized' &t best, she merely

revealed that )armen 7zamiz $as su##ering #rom certain

in#irmities in her body and at times, she $as #orget#ul, bu

there $as no categorical statement tha

)armen 7zamiz succumbed to $hat the respondents

suggest as her alleged Dsecond childhoodE as early as

!C"' The petitioners> rebuttal $itness, 2r'


9/46

dated &pril 3C, !C!, e8ecuted by )armen 7zamiz'

4o$ever, there are nine ?!@ other important documents

that $ere, signed by )armen 7zamiz either be#ore or

a#ter &pril 3C, !C! $hich $ere not assailed by the

respondents' *uch is contrary to their assertion o#

complete incapacity o# )armen 7zamiz to handle her

a##airs since !C"' The court agrees $ith the trial court>s

assessment that Dit is un#air #or the Krespondents to claim

soundness o# mind o# )armen 7zamiz $hen it bene#its

them and other$ise $hen it disadvantages them'E &

person is presumed to be o# sound mind at any particulartime and the condition is presumed to continue to e8ist, in

the absence o# proo# to the contrary' )ompetency and

#reedom #rom undue in#luence, sho$n to have e8isted in

the other acts done or contracts e8ecuted, are presumed

to continue until the contrary is sho$n'

The petition is hereby G6&5T.2 and the assailed

2ecision and 6esolution o# the )ourt o# &ppeals are

hereby 6.:.6*.2 and *.T &*I2.' The 2ecision o#

the 6egional Trial )ourt 6.I5*T&T.2'

RB-R! G. F1M1/IL1, *etitioners. 01 and B1RB-R2IP M1/1G-M-/! LIMI!-D and/FD M1//I/G 1G-/!2, res*ondentsF&)T*9

In !C!, respondent 5F2 International Manning

&gents Inc' hired the service o# petitioner 6oberto

Famanila as Messman #or 4&5*& 6IG&, a vessel

registered and o$ned by its principal and co%

respondent, Barbership Management +nlimited'

/une 3, !!0, $hile 4&5*& 6IG& $as doc1ed at the

port o# eure1a, )ali#ornia, +*&, and $hile petitioner

$as assisting in the loading operations, the latter

complained o# a headache' Petitioner e8perienced

dizziness and he subsequently collapsed'

+pon e8amination, it $as determined that he hadsudden attac1 o# le#t cerebral hemorrhage #rom a

rupture cerebral aneurysm' Petitioner under$ent a

brain operation and e $as con#ined at the .mmanuel

hospital at Portland, 7regon, +*&'

/uly !, !!0, he again under$ent a second brain

operation'

2ue to the physical and mental condition, he $as

repatriated to the Philippines'

&ug' 3, !!0, petitioner $as e8amined at the

&merican 4ospital in Intramuros, Manila, $here the

e8amining physician declared that he cannot go bac1

to sea duty and has been observed #or 30 days and

declared as permanently and totally disabled' &uthorized representatives o# the respondents

convinced the petitioner to amicably settle his claims

against the respondent by accepting the o##ered

amount o# ,300'

Petitioner accepted the o##er as evidenced by his

signature in the receipt and release dated Feb' 3C,

!!' The petitioner>s $i#e, Gloria Famanila and one

6ichard Famanila, acted as $itnesses in the signing

o# release'

/une , !!", petitioner #iled a complaint $ith the

5L6) praying #or an a$ard o# disability bene#its,

share in the insurance proceeds, moral damages and

attorney>s #ees'

&cting e8ecutive labor arbiter Balitaan dismissed the

complaint on the ground o# prescription'

&ppealed the decision $ith the 5L6) and even #iled a

Motion #or 6econsideration yet both $ere dismissed

#or the #act that these $ere $ithout merit'

Petitioner re#erred the case to the )ourt o# appeals

and raised the issue that, he did not sign the receip

and release voluntarily because he $as permanently

disabled and in #inancial constraints, but sti

dismissed the case #or lac1 o# merit'

I**+.9 s consent in the receipt and

release $as vitiated due to his disability, thereby ma1ing the

same :7I2 or +nen#orceableQ

6+LI5G9 *) said 5o'

:itiated consent does not ma1e a contract void and

unen#orceable' & vitiated consent only gives rise to

voidable agreement' +nder the )), vices o# consen

are Mista1e, :iolence, Intimidation, +ndue In#luence

or Fraud' I# consent is given through any o# the

a#orementioned vices o# consent, the contract is

voidable' & voidable contract is binding unless

annulled by a proper action in court'

Petitioner>s contention that his permanent and tota

disability vitiated his consent in the said agreemen

thereby renders it void and unen#orceable '

This court corrects it by mentioning that, disability is

not among the #actors that may vitiate the consent' In

the absence o# proo# o# vitiated consent, then the

court must upheld to the validity o# the receipt and

release'

In the case at bar, there are nothing in records

sho$ing that petitioner>s consent $as vitiated $hen

he signed the agreement'

The document entitled receipt and release $hich $as

attached by petitioner in its appeal does not sho$ onits #ace any violation o# la$ or public policy' In #act

the petitioner did not present any proo# to sho$ tha

the consideration #or the same is not reasonable and

acceptable'

5ot all $aiver and quitclaims are invalid as agains

public policy' I# the agreement $as voluntarily entered

into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is

binding on the parties and may not later be diso$ned

simply because o# change o# mind'

It is only $here there is clear and proo# that the $aiver

$as $angled #rom an unsuspecting or gullible person

or the terms o# the settlement are unconscionable on

its #ace, that the la$ $ill step in to annul thequestionable transaction'

In the case at bench, it $as sho$n that the petitione

made the $aiver voluntarily $ith #ull understanding o

$hat he $as doing, and the consideration #or the

quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction

must be recognized as a valid and binding

underta1ing'

Dire necessit' is not an acce*table ground $orannulling %aiver since it &as not been s&o%n t&atem*lo'ee %as $orce to sign it. The signing $aseven $itnessed by the petitioner>s $i#e, and one

6ichard T' Famanila'


10/46

the decision o# )& $as a##irmed and denied the

petition'

0atalan vs Basa

Facts" In !AC, Feliciano )atalan $as discharged #rom activemilitary service' The Board o# Medical 7##icers o# the

2epartment o# :eteran #airs #ound that he $as un#it to render

military service due to his Jschizophrenic reactionsE'

In !A!, Feliciano got married to )orazon )erezo'

7n /une , !, a document $as e8ecuted, titled D&bsolute

2eed o# 275&TI75,E $herein Feliciano allegedly donated to

his sister Mercedes )atalan a parcel o# land located at

Pangasinan' The donation $as then registered $ith the

6egister o# 2eeds'

In !, People>s Ban1 and Trust )ompany ?presently 1no$n

as BPI@ #iled a *pecial Proceeding be#ore the )FI o#

Pangasinan to declare Feliciano incompetent' The trial court

issued its order #or ad-udication o# Incompetency #or &ppointing

Guardian #or the .state and Fi8ing &llo$ance o# Feliciano' Thecourt consequently appointed People>s Ban1 and Trust

)ompany as Feliciano>s guardian'

In !"C, Feliciano and )orazon donated a real property to their

son .ulogio' The spouses again, in !C, donated to their

children, &le8, Librada, and Renaida a parcel o# land' 7n the

same year, the spouses donated a parcel o# land in #avor o#

.ulogio and Florida )atalan'

)onversely, on March 3, !"!, Mercedes sold the property in

issue in #avor o# her children 2elia and /esus Basa ?herein

respondents@' The D2eed o# &bsolute *&L.E $as then

registered $ith the 6egister o# 2eeds'

In &pril o# !!", BPI acting as Feliciano>s guardian, #iled a case

be#ore the trial court #or the 2eclaration o# 5ullity o#

2ocuments, 6ecovery o# Possession and 7$nership $ith

damages against herein respondents'

BPI contented that Feliciano $as not o# sound mind and $as

there#ore incapable o# giving a valid consent' Thus, it claimed

that the 2eed o# &bsolute 275&TI75 $as void and the

subsequent 2eed o# &bsolute *&L. should li1e$ise be void,

#or Mercedes had no right to sell the property'

s disease' 4o$ever, the illness $ill $a8

and $ane over many years, $ith only very slo$ deterioration o

intellect'

From these scienti#ic studies it can be deduced that a person

su##ering #rom schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his

competence to intelligently dispose his property' By merely

alleging the e8istence o# schizophrenia, petitioners #ailed to

sho$ substantial proo# that at the date o# the donationFeliciano )atalan had lost total control o# his menta

#aculties' Furthermore, the presumption $as bolstered by the

e8istence o# the other contracts he entered into li1e his

marriage $ith )orazon and the other donations made in #avo

o# petitioners'

It must be noted that su##icient proo# o# his in#irmity to give

consent to contracts $as only established $hen the )FI o

Pangasinan declared him an incompetent on 2ecember 33

!'


11/46

Finally, the petitioners raised the issue o# prescription and

laches #or the #irst time on appeal be#ore this )ourt' It is

su##icient to note that even i# the present appeal had

prospered, the 2eed o# 2onation $as still a voidable, not a

void, contract' &s such, it remained binding as it $as not

annulled in a proper action in court $ithin #our years' *Refer to

%rticle -05 and -0-

/ote"%rt. -05. !e follo4ing contracts are voida2le or annulla2le,

even t!oug! t!ere may !ave 2een no damage to t!econtracting $arties6

-. !ose 4!ere one of t!e $arties is inca$a2le of giving

consent to a contract7

8. !ose 4!ere t!e consent is vitiated 2y mista9e,

violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

!ese contracts are 2inding, unless t!ey are annulled 2y a

$ro$er action in court. !ey are susce$ti2le of ratification.

%rt. -0-. !e action for annulment s!all 2e 2roug!t 4it!in

four years 333.

illanueva, petitionersvs 0&iong, respondentsFacts"6espondents Florentino and .lisera )hiong $ere married

sometime in !0 but have been separated in #act since !"'

2uring their marriage, they acquired a lot situated at Poblacion,

2ipolog )ity, covered by a T)T issued by the 6egistry o#

2eeds o# Ramboanga del 5orte'

*ometime in 4?>5, Florentino sold the one%hal# $estern portiono# the lot to petitioners #or PC,000, payable in installments'

Therea#ter, Florentino allo$ed petitioners to occupythe lot and

build a store, a shop, and a house thereon' *hortly a#ter their

last installment payment, petitioners demanded #rom

respondents the e8ecution o# a deed o# sale in their #avor'

.lisera, ho$ever, re#used to sign a deed o# sale'

7n 4??4, .lisera #iled a civil case #or )omplaint #or (uieting o#Title $ith 2amages' 7n !!3, petitioners #iled a )omplaint #or

*peci#ic Per#ormance $ith 2amages'

7n May !!3, Florentino e8ecuted the questioned 2eed o#

&bsolute *ale in #avor o# petitioners'

R!0" 1//3L-Dthe deed o# absolute sale dated May !!3,and ordered *etitioners to vacate the lot and remove allimprovements thereinH DI2MI22-D )ivil )ase #iled bypetitioners, but ordered Florentinoto return to petitioners theconsideration o# the sale $ith interest #rom May !!3'

01" 1FFIRM-D.Petitionerscontend that the lot is not a con-ugal property' Itbelongs e8clusively to Florentino because respondents $ere

already separated in #act at the time o# sale and that the shareo# .lisera, had previously been sold to *pouses /esus ;'

)astro and &ida )uenca' They also aver that the separation in

#act resulted in its actual liquidation' .ven assuming that the lot

is still con-ugal, the transaction should not be entirely voided as

Florentino had one%hal# share over it'

-liseracounters that the sale o# the lot to petitioners $ithouther 1no$ledge, consent or authority, $as void because the lot

is con-ugal property' It $as neither authorized by any

competent court nor did it redound to her or their childrens

bene#it' &s proo# o# the lots con-ugal nature, she presented a

trans#er certi#icate o# title, a real property ta8 declaration, and a

Memorandum o# &greement $hich she and her husband had

e8ecuted #or the administration o# their con-ugal properties'

Issue"?@


12/46

have been the sub-ect matter o# the contract, $ith

their #ruits, and the price $ith its interest, e8cept in

cases provided by la$'

*trictly applying &rticle !C to the instant case, petitioners

should return to respondents the land $ith its #ruits and

respondent Florentino should return the sum o# PC,000, $hich

he received as the price o# the land, together $ith interest

thereon'

20" Petitioners have been using the land and have derivedbene#it #rom it -ust as respondent Florentino has used the price

o# the land in the sum o# PC,000' 4ence, it $ould be equitableto consider the t$o amounts as o##setting each other' )&

decision 1FFIRM-D =I! MDIFI01!I/' The order #or thepayment o# interest is D-L-!-D'

1M1D . 12/, JR., petitioner,vs'

2P32-2 F-LI and M1IM1 P1R1G12,respondents'

The controversy commenced $ith the #iling o# an e-ectment

complainton &pril 3, !! be#ore Branch o# the Municipal

Trial )ourt in )ities ?MT))@ o# 2agupan )ity by herein

petitioner &mado R' &yson, as represented by his natural

#ather Rosimo *' RarenoA ?Rareno@, against respondent%

spouses Feli8 and Ma8ima Paragas' 6espondents e8ecuted

an a##idavit declaring that9

' That $e are occupants o# a parcel o# land o$ned

by &mado Ll' &ysonH

3' That $e occupy the said land by tolerance $ithout

paying any rental $hatsoeverH

' That $e #urther agree to vacate the a#oresaid land$ithin three ?@ months #rom the date hereo# and to

remove and trans#er our house there#rom to another

placeH

A' That in consideration o# vacating the said parcel o#

land the amount o# T$enty Thousand Pesos

?P30,000'00@ shall be paid to usH and, that the amount

o# Ten Thousand Pesos ?P0,000'00@ shall be paid

upon signing o# this a##idavit and the balance o# Ten

Thousand Pesos ?P0,000'00@ shall be paid upon

removal o# our house on the third month #rom date

hereo#'

2espite the receipt o# the P0,000'00 upon the e8ecution o#

the #idavit, respondent%spouses re#used to vacate the land as

agreed uponH and ?@ despite demands, respondent%spouses

still re#used to vacate, thus constraining him to #ile the

complaint' In their &ns$er, respondent%spouses alleged that

Rareno had no personality and authority to #ile the case and

the #iling o# the complaint $as made in bad #aith'

MT)) decided in #avor o# petitioner' #irmed by 6T), )&, *)

Mean$hile, on 7ctober , !!, during the pendency o# the

appeal $ith the 6T), respondent%spouses #iled against

petitioner, the heirs o# Blas F' 6ayos, the spouses 2el#in and

Gloria &log a complaint #or declaration o# nullity o# deed o

sale, transactions, documents and titles $ith a prayer #o

preliminary in-unction and damages'

The complaint alleged respondent Ma8ima is a co%o$ner o# a

parcel o# land $hich is her S share o# land inherited #rom her

#ather' *ometime prior to &pril , !, respondent Feli8, then

an employee o# the de#unct 2agupan )olleges ?no$ +niversity

o# Pangasinan@ #ailed to account #or the amount o# P,000'00

It $as agreed that respondent Feli8 $ould pay the said amoun

by installment to the 2agupan )olleges' Pursuant to tha

agreement, Blas F' 6ayos and &mado Ll' &yson, then both

occupying high positions in the said institution, required

respondent%spouses to sign, $ithout e8plaining to them, a

2eed o# &bsolute *ale on &pril , ! over responden

Ma8ima>s real property under threat that respondent Feli8

$ould be incarcerated #or misappropriation i# they re#used to do

so'

The complaint #urther alleged that later, respondent%spouses

true to their promise to reimburse the de#alcated amount, too1

pains to pay their obligation in installments regularly deducted

#rom the salaries received by respondent Feli8 #rom 2agupan)ollegesH that the payments totaled P,"!'!H tha

not$ithstanding the #ull payment o# the obligation, &mado Ll

&yson and Blas F' 6ayos did nothing to cancel the purported

2eed o# &bsolute *aleH and that they $ere shoc1ed $hen they

received a copy o# the complaint #or e-ectment #iled by

petitioner'

Later, the land $as later conveyed to &yson and 6ayos by

virtue o# the 2eed o# *ale' The portion belonging to 6ayos $as

sold by his heirs to spouses &log and the potion belonging to

&yson $as ad-udicated to his adopted son, the Petitioner'

6T) ruled in #avor o# respondent declaring the deed o# sale asan equitable mortgage'


13/46

2el#in and Gloria &log to the late Blas F' 6ayos, there

being no proo# adduced by the plainti##s as to the

actual current mar1et value o# the said propertyH

)& denied the petition'

Petitioner>sc ontentions9

Petitioner contends that respondent%spouses are bound by the

-udicial admissions they made both in the e-ectment case andin the case #or declaration o# nullity o# the 2eed o# &bsolute

*ale'

Petitioner #urther argues that the action instituted be#ore the

6T), Branch A3, 2agupan )ity has already prescribed'

&ccording to him, the complaint alleged that the 2eed o#

&bsolute *ale $as e8ecuted through #raud, ma1ing the said

contract merely voidable, and the action to annul voidable

contracts based on #raud prescribed in #our ?A@ years #rom the

discovery o# #raud' 4e insists that the registration o# the 2eed

o# &bsolute *ale occurred on May A, !, $hich operated as

constructive notice o# the #raud to the $hole $orld, including

respondent%spouses' Thus, petitioner concludes that the actionhad long prescribed $hen they #iled the same on 7ctober ,

!!, since its cause had accrued C years ago'%%%M&I5

I**+.

Petitioner adds that respondent%spouses are bound by

estoppel and guilty o# laches in light o# the -udicial admissions

they have already made and the unreasonable length o# time

that had lapsed be#ore they questioned the validity o# the 2eed

o# &bsolute *ale and the #idavit they e8ecuted on &pril C,

!!3'

4e also asseverates that the 2eed o# &bsolute *ale is a true

sale and not an equitable mortgage, arguing that the allegedpayments made by respondent Feli8 $ere made #rom

2ecember 3!, ! to 2ecember ", !C0, long a#ter the

e8ecution o# the contract on &pril , !H that respondent%

spouses only paid realty ta8es over their house and not on the

disputed landH that their possession o# the property $as by his

mere toleranceH that there $as no evidence pro##ered that the

amount o# P,000'00 as consideration #or the sale $as

unusually inadequate in !H and that the other co%o$ners o#

the land did not question or protest the subdivision thereo#

leading to the issuance o# T)T 5o' !0 in his name'

Lastly, petitioner claims that he is a trans#eree in good #aith,

having had no notice o# the in#irmity a##ecting the title o# his

predecessor &mado Ll' &yson over the property' 4e says that

he $as only e8ercising his right as an heir $hen he ad-udicated

unto himsel# the parcel o# land pertaining to his adoptive

#ather,C resulting in the issuance o# T)T 5o' !0 in his

name, and, thus, should not be penalized #or his e8ercise o# a

legal right'

4.L2 9

:irst'


14/46

the land she co%o$ned $as already partitioned, such that the

payments o# real estate ta8es in her name $ere limited to the

improvement on the land'

1n equitable mortgage is a voidable contract. 1s suc&, itma' be annulled %it&in $our E8H 'ears $rom t&e time t&ecause o$ action accrues. !&is case, &o%ever, not onl'involves a contract resulting $rom $raud, but covers atransaction ridden %it& t&reat, intimidation, andcontinuing undue in$luence %&ic& started %&en*etitioners ado*tive $at&er 1mado Ll. 1'son and Blas F.Ra'os, FeliCs su*eriors at Dagu*an 0olleges, *racticall'bullied res*ondent@s*ouses into signing t&e Deed o$1bsolute 2ale under t&reat o$ incarceration. !&us, t&e$our@'ear *eriod s&ould start $rom t&e time t&e de$ect int&e consent ceases.6;=&ile at $irst glance, it %ould seemt&at t&e de$ect in t&e consent o$ res*ondent@s*ousesceased eit&er $rom t&e *a'ment o$ t&e obligation t&roug&salar' deduction or $rom t&e deat& o$ 1mado Ll. 1'sonand Blas F. Ra'os, it is a**arent t&at suc& de$ect o$consent never ceased u* to t&e time o$ t&e signing o$ t&e1$$idavit on 1*ril >, 4??6 %&en areno, acting on be&al$ o$*etitioner, caused res*ondent FeliC to be broug&t to &im,

and ta#ing advantage o$ t&e latter being unlettered, undul'in$luenced FeliC into eCecuting t&e said 1$$idavit $or a $eeo$ P4:,:::.::.69!&e com*laint *ra'ing $or t&e nullit' o$ t&eDeed o$ 1bsolute 2ale %as $iled on ctober 44, 4??7, %ell

%it&in t&e $our@'ear *rescri*tive *eriod.

6egarding the #inality o# the ad-udication o# physical

possession in #avor o# petitioner, it may be reiterated that the

right o# possession is a necessary incident o# o$nership' This

ad-udication o# o$nership o# the property to respondent%

spouses must include the delivery o# possession to them since

petitioner has not sho$n a superior right to retain possession

o# the land independently o# his claim o# o$nership $hich is

herein re-ected

Petiton denied'

GR-GRI D-2!R-1,vs'1!!. M1. GR10I1 RIK1@PL1 and M1. F- 1L1R12,6espondents'!e :acts

on 5ovember , !C! Pedro L' 6ioza ?6ioza@ died

leaving several heirs, including herein respondents

Ma' Gracia 6' Plazo ?Plazo@ and Ma' Fe 6' &laras

?&laras@'

In the course o# settling 6ioza>s estate, Plazo $rote

a letter to the 6egistry o# 2eeds requesting #orcerti#ied true copies o# all titles in 6ioza>s name,

including a sugarland located at Barangay +tod,

Batangas covered by T)T A0' s 7##ice covering the

same +tod sugarland and canceling the missing T)T

A0' The ne$ title $as in the name o# the 2estreza

*pouses

6espondent Plazo also $ent to the Bureau o# Interna

6evenue ?BI6@ o# Batangas )ity to inquire on any

record involving the sale o# the +tod sugarland' But i

did not have any record o# sale o# the sugarland

covered by T)T A0'

Finally testi#ied that be#ore the death o# 6ioza, he

gave her the title o# a land that he $anted to mortgage

to her uncle' 6ioza told her that the land $as located

at Barangay +tod, 5asugbu, Batangas' *he did not

ho$ever, loo1 at the number o# the title' +nable to

secure a mortgage #rom her uncle, she returned the

title to her #ather and never sa$ it again'

Their discovery prodded respondents Plazo and

&laras to #ile a complaint against the 2estreza

spouses and the 6egister o# 2eeds be#ore the 6T)

claiming serious irregularities in the issuance o# T)T

!' They as1ed that T)T ! be nulli#ied, thaT)T A0 be restored, and that the 2estrezas be

ordered to reconvey the land to the 6ioza estate'

In his ans$er, &tty' Bonuan denied that T)T A0

$as missing since he had the title sa#e in his o##ice

and no transaction a##ecting it had been recorded

s #ailure to repor

the transcaton to the 6T) notarial section ho$eve

the 2estrea spouses destroyed such presumption

$hen they #ailed to prove its authenticity and

genuineness, #urthermore the destreza spouses

claimed that they have paid rinoza 00T but the price
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_146730_2008.html#fnt27


15/46

stated in the 27* $as only 0T placed the veracity o#

27* in doubt' 4ence this petition'

Issues

$hether or not su##icient evidence $arranted the nulli#ication o#

the deed o# sale that the late 6ioza e8ecuted in #avor o# the

2estrezas'


16/46

shall not be incumbered, alienated, or

trans#erred to any person, corporation,

association, or partnership not quali#ied to

acquire public lands under the said &ct and

its amendmentsH 8 8 8

7n *eptember !", 6u#ina and Maria sold the

&ntipolo property to )anuto Galido #or P30,000' &

deed o# sale $as e8ecuted bet$een them and

)armen &ldana delivered the o$ner>s duplicate copy

o# 7)T 5o' to respondent'

7n !CC, the .niceo heirs ?actual occupant o# the

property@ registered a 5otice o# Loss $ith the 6egistry

o# 2eeds o# Mar1ina )ity and #iled a petition #or the

issuance o# a ne$ o$ner>s duplicate copy o# 7)T 5o'

$ith Branch "3 o# the 6T) o# &ntipolo' 6T)

#ound that the certi#ied true copy o# 7)T 5o'

contained no annotation in #avor o# any person,

corporation or entity' It then ordered the 6egistry o#

2eeds to issue a second o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 5o'

in #avor o# the .niceo heirs and declared the

original o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 57' cancelled and

considered o# no #urther value'

7n &pril !C!, the 6egistry o# 2eeds issued a second

o$ner>s copy o# 7)T 5o' in #avor o# the .niceoheirs'

Petitioner alleges that sometime in February !!,

Leonila Bolinas ?a relative o# the .niceo heirs@ came

to the o##ice o# &lberto Tronio /r ?petitioner>s general

manager@ and o##ered to sell the &ntipolo property'

Tronio then did an on%site inspection and ascertained

that 7)T 5o' $as clean and had no lien and

encumbrances' Petitioner then bought the &ntipolo

property'

7n March A, !!, respondent caused the

annotation o# his adverse claim in 7)T 5o' '

7n March 30, !!, the .niceo heirs e8ecuted a deed

o# absolute sale in #avor o# petitioner covering lots UA o# the &ntipolo property #or P00,000' 5e$ T)Ts

$ere issued'

7n &pril , !!, the .niceo heirs again e8ecuted

another deed o# sale in #avor o# petitioner covering the

remaining lots o# the &ntipolo property #or P,000,000'

The previous T)T $as cancelled and a ne$ one $as

issued in the name o# petitioner'

7n &ugust ", !!, the 2.56 *ecretary approved

the deed o# sale bet$een the .niceo heirs and

respondent'

7n /anuary !!, respondent #iled a civil

complaint $ith the trial court against the .niceo heirs

and petitioner' 6espondent prayed #or thecancellation o# the certi#icates o# title issued in #avor o#

petitioner, and the registration o# the deed o# sale and

issuance o# a ne$ trans#er certi#icate o# title in #avor o#

respondent'

7n A /uly 3000, the trial court rendered its decision

dismissing the case #or lac1 o# legal and #actual basis'

6espondent appealed to the )ourt o# &ppeals' 7n 30

2ecember 300A, the )& rendered a decision

reversing the trial court>s decision' &ggrieved by the

)&>s decision and resolution, petitioner elevated the

case be#ore this )ourt'

Petitioners 0ontentions"

The 2.56 *ecretary gave only his approval #or the deed osale in #avor o# respondent a#ter 3 years #rom the date the

deed $as e8ecuted'

VThe deed o# sale to respondent $as a #orgery'

VThe deed o# sale in #avor o# respondent is an equitable

mortgage because the .niceo heirs remained in possession o

the &ntipolo property despite the e8ecution o# the deed o# sale'

VThe subsequent sale must be upheld because the petitioner is

a buyer in good #aith'VThe respondent is guilty o# laches because he slept on his

rights by #ailing to register the sale o# the &ntipolo property a

the earliest possible time'

Issue"


17/46

7. >n :orgery6 &s correctly held by the )&, $orger' can neverbe *resumed.The party alleging #orgery is mandated to proveit $ith clear and convincing evidence' s adverse claim'

Petitioner purchased the &ntipolo property only on 30 March

!! and &pril !! as sho$n by the dates in the deeds o#

sale' 7n the same dates, the 6egistry o# 2eeds issued ne$

T)Ts in #avor o# petitioner $ith the annotated adverse claim'

)onsequently, the adverse claim registered prior to the second

sale charged petitioner $ith constructive notice o# the de#ect in

the title o# .niceo heirs' There#ore, petitioner cannot be

deemed as a purchaser in good #aith $hen they bought and

registered the &ntipolo property'

;. >n &ac!es6 The essence o# laches is the $ailure or neglect,$or an unreasonable and uneC*lained lengt& o$ time, to dot&at %&ic&, t&roug& due diligence, could &ave been doneearlier, t&us giving rise to a *resum*tion t&at t&e *art'entitled to assert it &ad eit&er abandoned or declined toassert it.

6espondent discovered in !! that a ne$ o$ner>s

copy o# 7)T 5o' $as issued to the .niceo heirs'6espondent #iled a criminal case against the .niceo heirs #or

#alse testimony'


18/46

)&I interposed the #ollo$ing de#enses9 ?a@ *pouses

:iloria have no right to as1 #or a re#und as the sub-ect

tic1ets are non%re#undableH ?b@ Fernando cannot insist

on using the tic1et in Lourdes> name #or the purchase

o# a round trip tic1et to Los &ngeles since the same is

non%trans#erableH ?c@ as Mager is not a )&I employee,

)&I is not liable #or any o# her actsH ?d@ )&I, its

employees and agents did not act in bad #aith as to

entitle *pouses :iloria to moral and e8emplary

damages and attorney>s #ees'

6T) ruled in #avor o# the spouses :iloria'

7n appeal, )& reversed the decision o# 6T)' 4ence,

the present petition'

I223-"


19/46

already present at the time o# the negotiation and

per#ection stages o# the contract'

&ccordingly, by pursuing the remedy o# rescission

under &rticle !, the :ilorias had impliedly admitted

the validity o# the sub-ect contracts, #or#eiting their

right to demand their annulment' & party cannot rely

on the contract and claim rights or obligations under it

and at the same time impugn its e8istence or validity'

Indeed, litigants are en-oined #rom ta1ing inconsistent

positions'

R-G1L FILM2, I/0.,petitioner# vs. G1BRI-L0/0-P0I/, respondent.

In !!, respondent Gabriel JGabbyJ )oncepcion, a

television artist and movie actor, through his manager

Lolita *olis, entered into a contract $ith petitioner

6egal Films, Inc', #or services to be rendered by

respondent in petitioner>s motion pictures' Petitioner,

in turn, undertoo1 to give t$o parcels o# land to

respondent, one located in Mari1ina and the other in

)avite, on top o# the Dtalent #eesE it had agreed to pay'

In !!, the parties rene$ed the contract,

incorporating the same underta1ing on the part o#

petitioner to give respondent the t$o parcels o# land

mentioned in the #irst agreement' 2espite the

appearance o# respondent in several #ilms produced

by petitioner, the latter #ailed to comply $ith its

promise to convey to respondent the t$o

a#orementioned lots'

7n 0 May !!A, respondent and his manager #iled

an action against petitioner be#ore the 6egional Trial

)ourt o# (uezon )ity, #or rescission o# contract $ith

damages' In his complaint, respondent contendedthat he $as entitled to rescind the contract, plus

damages, and to be released #rom #urther

commitment to $or1 e8clusively #or petitioner o$ing to

the latter>s #ailure to honor the agreement'

Instead o# #iling an ans$er to the complaint, petitioner

moved #or its dismissal on the allegation that the

parties had settled their di##erences

amicably' Petitioner averred that both parties had

e8ecuted an agreement, dated " /une !!A, $hich

$as to so operate as an addendum to the !! and

!! contracts bet$een them' The agreement $as

signed by a representative o# petitioner and by *olispurportedly acting #or and in behal# o# respondent

)oncepcion'

7n 0 *eptember !!A, *olis #iled a motion to

dismiss the complaint reiterating that she, acting #or

hersel# and #or respondent )oncepcion, had already

settled the case amicably $ith petitioner' 7n "

7ctober !!A, respondent )oncepcion himsel#

opposed the motion to dismiss contending that

the addendum, containing provisions grossly

disadvantageous to him, $as e8ecuted $ithout his

1no$ledge and consent' 6espondent stated that

*olis had since ceased to be his manager and had no

authority to sign the addendum #or him'

2uring the preliminary con#erence held on 3 /une

!!, petitioner intimated to respondent and his

counsel its $illingness to allo$ respondent to be

released #rom his !! and !! contracts $ith

petitioner rather than to #urther pursue

the addendum$hich respondent had challenged'

7n 0 /uly !!, respondent #iled a mani#estation

$ith the trial court to the e##ect that he $as no$ $illing

to honor the addendumto the !! and !!

contracts and to have it considered as a compromise

agreement as to $arrant a -udgment in accordance

there$ith'

7n 3A 7ctober !!, the trial court issued an orde

rendering -udgment on compromise based on the

sub-ect addendum$hich respondent had previously

challenged but later agreed to honor pursuant to his

mani#estation' Petitioner moved #or reconsideration

having been denied, it then elevated the case to the

)ourt o# &ppeals $hich a##irmed the trial court>s

decision' 2issatis#ied, petitioner elevated the case to

the *upreme )ourt, hence this petition'

I**+.9


20/46

The addendum resulted in an unen#orceable

contract'

It can be rati#ied but the rati#ication should

be made be#ore its revocation by the other

contracting party' The adamant re#usal o#

respondent to accept the terms o#

the addendum constrained petitioner, during the

preliminary con#erence held on 3 /une !!, to

instead e8press its $illingness to release respondent

#rom his contracts prayed #or in his complaint and to

thereby #orego the

re-ected addendum' 6espondents subsequent

attempt to rati#y the addendum came much too late

#or, by then, the addendum had already been

deemed revo1ed by petitioner'

Liton)ua vs. Fernande Ebli0on 8t&-1M case 4;HFacts o$ t&e case"

Involved in the case are t$o parcel o# lands registered in

the 6egistry o# deeds o# *an Pablo )ity $ith T)T 5o' T%" and T%"A o$ned by the heirs o# 2omingo

Ticzon and 4eirs o# Paz Ticzon .leosida respectively'

*ometime in !!, bro1ers Lourdes &limaro and &gapito

Fisico o##ered to sell to petitioners &ntonio ' Liton-ua

and &urelio ' Liton-ua the lands mentioned above'

Petitioners $ere sho$n a locator plan and copies o# the

titles sho$ing that the o$ners o# the properties $ere

represented by Mary Mediatri8 Fernandez and Gregorio

T' .leosida, respectively' The bro1ers told the petitioners

that they $ere authorized by respondent Fernandez to

o##er the property #or sale'

Petitioners made 3 ocular inspections o# the property

$here they sa$ some people gathering coconuts'

The respondents and the bro1ers met $ith the petitioners

at the petitioner>s Mandaluyong )ity o##ice $here they

agreed that the petitioners $ould buy the property

consisting o# ,"A3 sq' mts' For PhP0 per square

meter or a total sum o# PhP,0!C,00' Petitioners

contented that in the meeting, it $as agreed upon that

the o$ners $ould shoulder the capital gains ta8, trans#er

ta8, and the e8penses #or the documentation o# the sale'

Petitioners contended that it $as agreed upon in the

same meeting that they $ill meet again on C th2ecember,

!! to #inalize the sale and that respondent Fernandez

$ould present *pecial Po$er o# &ttorney e8ecuted by the

o$ners o# the property authorizing her to sell in their

behal#, and to e8ecute a deed o# absolute sale thereon'

The petitioners, in turn, $ould remit the purchase price to

the o$ners, through respondent Fernandez'

4o$ever, only the bro1er &gapito Fisico attended the

meeting $here he in#ormed the petitioners that

respondent Fernandez $as encountering some problems

$ith the tenanrs and $as trying to $or1 out a sett lement

$ith them'

th /anuary !!, respondents $rote a letter to

respondent Fernandez demanding that the sale be

#inalized by 0th/anuary, !!'


21/46

#ailed to satis#y &rt' A0 o# the 5e$ )ivil )ode $hich

requires certain classes o# contracts to be in $riting'

The statute o# #rauds does not deprive the parties the

right to contract but merely regulates the #ormalities o#

the contract necessary to render it en#orceable' The

purpose o# $hich is to prevent #raud and per-ury in the

en#orcement obligations #or their e8istence to be

dependent on the unassisted memory o# the

$itnesses but by requiring certain enumerated

contracts and transactions to be evidenced in $riting

signed by the party to be charged'

The statute is satis#ied by an e8ecution o# a note or a

memorandum $hich is su##icient to state the

requirements o# the statute' For a note or

memorandum to satis#y the statute, it must be

complete in itsel# and cannot rest partly in $riting and

partly in parol'

The note or memorandum must contain9

o The names o# the parties

o The terms and conditions o# the contract

o & description o# the property su##icient to

render it capable o# identi#ication'

Further, the note or memorandum should include the

essential elements o# the contract e8pressed $ith

certainty $ithout resorting to parol evidence' *uch

must also be signed by the said party or by his agent

duly authorized in $riting'

There $ere no documentary evidenced on record that

the respondents%o$ners authorizing respondent

Fernandez to sell their properties to another'

&rt' C"C o# the 5)) provides that a special po$er o#

attorney is necessary to enter into any contract #or

trans#er o# o$nerships'

The court #urther emphasized that petitioners, as

noted businessmen, ought to be very #amiliar $ith the

intricacies o# business transactions such as a sale o#

a real property

J-232 M. G3/, *etitioner, vs.J2- !-FIL !.M-R01D

In the local elections o# !!, respondent vied #or the

gubernatorial post in Pampanga' +pon respondent>s request,

petitioner, o$ner o# /MG Publishing 4ouse, a printing shop

located in *an Fernando, Pampanga, submitted to respondent

dra#t samples and price quotation o# campaign materials' By

petitioner>s claim, respondent>s $i#e had told him that

respondent already approved his price quotation and that hecould start printing the campaign materials, hence, he did print

campaign materials li1e posters bearing respondent>s

photograph, lea#lets containing the slate o# party candidates,

sample ballots, poll $atcher identi#ication cards, and stic1ers'

Mean$hile, on March , !!, respondent>s sister%in%la$,

Lilian *oriano ?Lilian@ obtained #rom petitioner Jcash advanceJ

o# P3,000 allegedly #or the allo$ances o# poll $atchers $ho

$ere attending a seminar and #or other related e8penses' Lilian

ac1no$ledged on petitioner>s !! diary! receipt o# the

amount'

Petitioner later sent respondent a *tatement o# &ccount in

the total amount o# P3,"",!0 itemized as #ollo$s9 PA0,0

#or /MG Publishing 4ouseH PC",! #or Metro &ngeles

PrintingH PAA,!00 #or *t' /oseph Printing PressH and

P3,000, the Jcash advanceJ obtained by Lilian'

2espite repeated demands and respondent>s promise to pay

respondent #ailed to settle the balance o# his account to

petitioner'

7n petitioner>s claim that Lilian, on his ?respondent>s@ behal#

had obtained #rom him a cash advance o# P3,000respondent denied having given her authority to do so and

having received the same'

&s adverted to earlier, the trial court rendered -udgment in

#avor o# petitioner'

&lso as earlier adverted to, the )ourt o# &ppeals reversed the

trial court>s decision and dismissed the complaint #or lac1 o

cause o# action'

Issue" s claim o# 3,000 isunen#orceable'

By the contract o# agency a person binds himsel# to rendesome service or to do something in representation or on behal

o# another, $ith the consent or authority o# the latter'3

)ontracts entered into in the name o# another person by one

$ho has been given no authority or legal representation or $ho

has acted beyond his po$ers are classi#ied as unauthorized

contracts and are declared unen#orceable, unless they are

rati#ied'

Generally, the agency may be oral, unless the la$ requires a

speci#ic #orm'3C 4o$ever, a special po$er o# attorney is

necessary #or an agent to, as in this case, borro$ money

unless it be urgent and indispensable #or the preservation o

the things $hich are under administration'3! *ince nothing in

this case involves the preservation o# things unde

administration, a determination o# $hether *oriano had the

special authority to borro$ money on behal# o# respondent is in

order'

Petitioner>s testimony #ailed to categorically state, ho$ever

$hether the loan $as made on behal# o# respondent or o# his

$i#e'


22/46

the name o# the principal, other$ise, it $ill bind the agent only'

It is not enough merely that the agent $as in #act authorized to

ma1e the mortgage, i# he has not acted in the name o# the

principal'

/-L2/ 01B1L-2 and RI! 01B1L-2 v. 014>t&0ase

Facts9

' 6u#ino )abales died on /uly W and le#t a ,"A%sq

m parcel o# land ?Brgy' 6izal, *ogod, *outhern Leyte@

to his surviving $i#e *aturnina and children

?Boni#acio, &lbino, Francisco, Leonora, &lberto U

petitioner 6ito@'

4st21L- =I! RIG! ! R-P3R012-3' /uly W"9 brothers U co%o$ners Boni#acio, &lbino U

&lberto sold the sub-ect property to 2r' )ayetano

)orrompido #or P3T, $ right to repurchase $in C

years'

X The siblings divided the proceeds o# the sale

among themselves, each getting a share o# P''X &lberto secured a note ?DvaleE@ #rom 2r' )orrompido

in the amount o# P00'

X !"39 &lberto died leaving his $i#e and son,

petitioner 5elson'

' 2ec W"9 $in the C%year redemption period, Boni#acio

and &lbino tendered their payment o# P' each to

2r' )orrompido' But 2r' )orrompido only released

the document o# sale $ith pacto de retro a$ter2aturnina *aid $or t&e s&are o$ &er deceased son,1lberto, including &is Avale( o$ P7::.

2-0/D 21L-A' *aturnina U her A children Boni#acio, &lbino,

Francisco U Leonora sold the sub-ect parcel o# land to

respondents%spouses /esus U &nunciacion Feliano

#or PCT'

PRI2I/ I/ !- D--D 21L-' The 2eed o# *ale provided9 It is hereby declared and

understood that the amount o# P3,3C corresponding

to the 4eirs o# &lberto )abales and to 6ito )abales

$ho are still minors upon the e8ecution o# this

instrument are held in trust by the :.52.. and to be

paid and delivered only to them upon reaching the

age o# 3'

1FFID1I! R-" R-0-I1BL- F P-!I!I/-R/-L2/ E2on o$ 1lbertoH

' *aturnina and her A children e8ecuted an a##idavit to

the e##ect that petitioner 5elson ?son o# &lberto@ $ould

only receive the amount o# P"'A $hen he reaches

the age o# 3 considering that *aturnina paid 2r'

)orrompido P!' #or the obligation o# his #ather

&lberto ? P' #or his share in the redemption o#

the sale $ith pacto de retro as $ell as his DvaleE o#

P00'00@

23B2-;, %&en &e %as68 '.o.'

47. 01 MDIFI-D R!02 D-0I2I/.

X 2ale b' 2aturnina o$ *etitioner Ritos undivideds&are to t&e *ro*ert' %as unen$orceable $or lac#o$ aut&orit' or legal re*resentation but t&at t&econtract %as e$$ectivel' rati$ied b' *etitioneRitos recei*t o$ t&e *roceeds on Jul' 68, >;.X Further, *etitioner /elson is co@o%ner to t&eeCtent o$ 4Q9 o$ sub)ect *ro*ert' as 2aturnina %asnot subrogated to 1lbertos rig&ts %&en s&ere*urc&ased &is s&are to t&e *ro*ert'' It #urthedirected petitioner 5elson to pay the estate o# the late

*aturnina )abales the amount o# P!'

representing the amount $hich the latter paid #or the

obligation o# petitioner 5elson>s late #ather &lberto'


23/46

X Finally, ho$ever, it denied *etitioner /elsonsclaim $or redem*tion $or &is $ailure to tender orconsign in court t&e redem*tion mone' %it&in t&e*eriod *rescribed b' la%.

Issues" ;, *etitioner Ritoe$$ectivel' rati$ied it. !&is act o$ rati$ication rendered t&esale valid and binding as to &im.

:7I2 )75T6&)T 7F *&L. ?Petitioner 5elson, son o

deceased &lberto@


24/46

' .

X 6ecords sho$ that in 4?>>, petitioner 5elson, then oma-ority age, $as in#ormed o# the sale o# sub-ect property

Moreover, it $as noted by )& that petitioner 5elson $as

li1e$ise in#ormed thereo# in4??7 and he signi#ied his intentionto redeem sub-ect property during a barangay conciliation

process'

X But he only #iled the complaint #or legal redemption and

damages on /anuary 3, 4??5,certainly more than thirty days#rom learning about the sale'

S !&e 0ourt is satis$ied t&at t&ere %as su$$icient notice o$

t&e sale to *etitioner /elson. The 0%day redemption periodcommenced in !!, a#ter petitioner 5elson sought the

barangay conciliation process to redeem his property' By

/anuary 3, !!, $hen petitioner 5elson #iled a complaint #o

legal redemption and damages, it is clear that the thirty%day

period had already e8pired'

9. Petitioner /elson, as correctl' &eld b' 01, can nolonger redeem sub)ect *ro*ert'. But &e and &is mot&eremain co@o%ners t&ereo$ %it& res*ondents@s*ouses1ccordingl', title to sub)ect *ro*ert' must include t&em6egister o# 2eeds o# *outhern Leyte $as 762.6.2 to cance

7riginal )erti#icate o# Title 5o' "0 and to issue in lieu

thereo# a ne$ certi#icate o# title in the name o# respondents%spouses /esus and &nunciacion Feliano #or the " portion

and petitioner 5elson )abales and his mother #or the

remaining " portion, pro indiviso'

Penalber vs 6amos

!- F10!31L 1/!-0-D-/! F !- 012- I2 12FLL=2"

Petitioner is the mother o# respondent Leticia and the

mother%in%la$ o# respondent (uirino, husband o

Leticia' 6espondent Barte8, Inc', on the other hand, isa domestic corporation $hich bought #rom responden

spouses 6amos one o# the t$o properties involved in

this case'

7n C February !C", petitioner #iled be#ore the 6T)

a )omplaint #or 2eclaration o# 5ullity o# 2eeds and

Titles, 6econveyance, 2amages, $ith &pplication #o

a


25/46

K' The lot $ould be bought by respondent spouses 6amos #or

and in behal# o# herein petitionerH

K3' The consideration o# PC0,000'00 #or said lot $ould be paid

by respondent spouses 6amos #rom the accumulated earnings

o# the storeH

K' *ince respondent spouses 6amos have the better credit

standing, they $ould be made to appear in the 2eed o# *ale as

the vendees so that the title to be issued in their names could

be used by them to secure a loan $ith $hich to e8pand the

business o# petitioner'

In accordance $ith the above agreement, respondent

spouses 6amos allegedly entered into a contract o#

sale $ith Mendoza over the Boni#acio property, and

T)T covering said property $as issued in the names

o# respondent spouses 6amos'

7n *eptember !CA, respondent spouses 6amos

returned the management o# the hard$are store to

petitioner' 7n the bases o# receipts and

disbursements, petitioner asserted that the Boni#acio

property $as #ully paid out o# the #unds o# the store' It

appears that be#ore management o# the store $as

trans#erred a beginning inventory o# the stoc1s o# the

hard$are store amounted to 33"' ter management

o# the hard$are store $as returned, a secondinventory $as made $ith stoc1s amounting to 0

sho$ing a di##erence o# "' )onsequently,

petitioner demanded #rom respondent spouses

6amos the reconveyance o# the title to the Boni#acio

property to her but the latter un-usti#iably re#used'

Petitioner insisted that respondent spouses 6amos

$ere, in reality, mere trustees o# the Boni#acio

property, thus, they $ere under a moral and legal

obligation to reconvey title over the said property to

her' Petitioner, there#ore, prayed that she be declared

the o$ner o# the Boni#acio property'

R-2P/D-/!2 2ID-"

s second cause o# actioninvolving the Boni#acio property, respondent spouses

6amos contended that they $ere given not only the

management, but also the #ull o$nership o# the

hard$are store by the petitioner, on the condition that

the stoc1s and merchandise o# the store $ill be

inventoried, and out o# the proceeds o# the sales

thereo#, respondent spouses 6amos shall pay

petitioner>s outstanding obligations and liabilities'

ter settling and paying the obligations and liabilities

o# petitioner, respondent spouses 6amos bought the

Boni#acio property #rom Mendoza out o# their o$n

#unds'

7n the second cause o# action, 6T) ruled in #avor o#the petitioner' 2eclaring the petitioner the o$ner o#

Boni#acio propertyH and 7rdering the respondent

spouses 6amos to reconvey to the petitioner the said

Boni#acio property'

*pouses 6amos elevated their case to the )ourt o#

&ppeals, inso#ar as the ruling o# the 6T) on

petitioner>s second cause o# action $as concerned,

)& rendered the assailed decision in #avor o#

respondent spouses 6amos'

I223-2"

s allegations as to the e8istence

o# an e8press trust agreement $ith responden

spouses 6amos, supported only by her o$n and he

son /ohnson>s testimonies, do not hold $ater' &s

correctly ruled by the )ourt o# &ppeals, a resulting

di##erence o# P" in the beginning inventory o# the

stoc1s o# the hard$are store and the second

inventory, by itsel#, is not conclusive proo# that the

said amount $as used to pay the purchase price othe Boni#acio property, ?the di##erence might be due to

bad economic condition or damages o# the

merchandise@, thus it cannot be assumed that she is

no$ the o$ner o# the Boni#acio property'

Petitioner>s arguments #ail to prove the e8istence o

the alleged e8press trust agreement' Thus the petition

is denied and the decision o# the )& is a##irmed

Gonzales v' Perez

F10!2


26/46

' The #ormer Municipality o# used to o$n a parcel o#

land located in Barrio )oncepcion subdivided into

three ?@ lots, namely, lots &, B and )'

3' 7n /anuary A, !, the Municipal )ouncil o#

Mari1ina passed 6esolution 5o' !, series o# !

$hich authorized the sale through public bidding o#

Municipal Lots & and )'

' & public bidding $as conducted $herein Pedro

Gonzales $as the highest bidder'

A' *ometime in *eptember !, Pedro sold to MarcosPerez a portion o# Lot ), denominated as Lot )%,

$hich contains an area o# " square meters' The

contract o# sale $as embodied in a 2eed o# *ale

$hich, ho$ever, $as not notarized

' *ubsequently, Pedro and Marcos died'

' In !!3, the Municipality o# Mari1ina, through its then

Mayor 6odol#o :alentino, e8ecuted a 2eed o#

&bsolute Trans#er o# 6eal Property over Lots & and )

in #avor o# the .state o# Pedro )' Gonzales'

"' *ubsequently, herein petitioners e8ecuted an e8tra%

-udicial partition $herein Lot ) $as subdivided into

three lots' &s a result o# the subdivision, ne$ titles

$ere issued $herein the "0%square%meter portion o#Lot )% is no$ denominated as Lot )% and is

covered by T)T 5o' 3AAAA"! and the remaining

square meters o# the sub-ect lot ?Lot )%@ no$ #orms a

portion o# another lot denominated as Lot )%3 and is

no$ covered by T)T 5o' 3AAAAC'

C' 7n 7ctober , !!3, herein respondents sent a

demand letter to one o# herein petitioners as1ing #or

the reconveyance o# the sub-ect property' 4o$ever,

petitioners re#used to reconvey the said lot' &s a

consequence, respondents #iled an action #or

J&nnulment andor 6escission o# 2eed o# &bsolute

Trans#er o# 6eal Property and #or 6econveyance $ith

2amages'

I223-


27/46

MDI/1 broug&t a 0om*laint $or Recover' o$Possession %it& Damages against t&e *rivateres*ondents, .rnesto 4ontarciego, Paul Figueroaand Teodoro 4ipalla, be#ore the 6egional Trial )ourt

o# Iloilo )ity'

+pon learning the institution o# the said case,

M-RLI/D1 *resented a 0om*laint@in@intervention,see1ing the declaration o# nullity o# the 2eed o# *ale

bet$een her husband and M72I5& on

o The ground that the titles o# the parcels o#

land in dispute $ere never legally trans#erred

to her husband'

o Fraudulent acts $ere allegedly employed

by him to obtain a Torrens Title in his #avor'

4o$ever, she con#irmed the validity o# the lease

contracts $ith the other private respondents'

M.6LI52& also admitted that the said parcels o# land

$ere those ordered sold by Branch 3 o# the then

)ourt o# First Instance o# Iloilo in *pecial Proceeding

5o' 3A! in DIntestate .state o# 5elson PlanaE

o


28/46

M.6LI52& and there#ore, the principle o# in pari delicto

should have been applied'

These issues are #actual in nature and it is not #or

this )ourt to appreciate and evaluate the pieces o#

evidence introduced belo$' &n appellate court de#ers to

the #actual #indings o# the Trial )ourt, unless petitioner can

sho$ a glaring mista1e in the appreciation o# relevant

evidence'

*ince one o# the characteristics o# a void or

ine8istent contract is that it does not produce any e##ect,

M.6LI52& can recover the property #rom petitioner $honever acquired title thereover'

s decision'

Issue"stestimony $as $ithdra$n #rom the court leaving

only the testimony o# the Tagatag $hich aside #rom

uncorroborated, $as sel#%serving'

;econdly, the alleged other copies o# the document bore

di##erent dates o# entry9 Ma' 4;, 4?;;, 0930 &'M' and June4:, 4?;;, 9 P'M',and di##erent entry numbers9 3A,"AC! and A!' There#ore, the deed $

Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)

Documents

Transcript of Oblicon Case Digest 4th Exam (1)