FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238992. August 5, 2019.]
ROMEO DELGADO, SR., petitioner,vs. SPOUSES ERNESTO OMPOY & CARMELITE OMPOY, ET AL., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 5, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238992 (Romeo Delgado, Sr. v. Spouses Ernesto Ompoy & Carmelite Ompoy, et al.). — After review, We DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in its Decision dated June 6, 2017 and Resolution dated April 4, 2018.
The CA correctly ruled that the elements for quieting of title have been sufficiently proved by respondent spouses. Their title to the subject lot appears in the Deed of Sale dated June 15, 2008 in their favor, and in the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6532 issued in their names. The claim which casts the cloud against their title consists of the Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner.
The CA correctly found that petitioner failed to prove that there was no valid contract of sale between the owner of the subject lot and respondent spouses. A fictitious name in the contract would not render the same void, in the absence of any proof of the lack of consent of the vendor, or of the lack of intent to transfer ownership. In this case, petitioner merely alleged as fictitious the name of the vendor appearing on the Deed of Sale, but failed to prove that the parties to the deed had no desire nor the intention to cause the transfer of ownership of the subject lot. In fact, there was testimonial evidence to the effect that the parties were all present when they gave their consent during the execution of the Deed of Sale. Furthermore, petitioner cannot rely on the Decision of the Cadastral Court in 1976. At the time the Decision was issued, the subject lot was already registered in the name of respondent spouses. It is established that lands that are already titled and registered can no longer be the subject of cadastral proceedings.
Finally, the CA correctly ruled that as between respondent spouses' certificate of title, TCT No. 6532, which was registered as early as 1957, and petitioner's lack of any certificate of title, respondent spouses' claim must be recognized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision dated June 6, 2017 and Resolution dated April 4, 2018 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court