Heirs of de Vela v. Tolentino

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 200058. November 6, 2017.]

HEIRS OF RAMON DE VELA AND FELIPA FORTUNATO, ET AL., petitioners,vs. LIZA TOLENTINO AND LUCY TOLENTINO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 6 November 2017 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 200058 (Heirs of Ramon de Vela and Felipa Fortunato, et al. v. Liza Tolentino and Lucy Tolentino). — Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners, heirs of Ramon de Vela and Felipa Fortunato, seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated September 26, 2011 and Resolution dated January 5, 2012, 2 respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95003. 3

The facts are as follows:

On September 14, 2005, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against respondents, siblings Liza Tolentino (Liza) and Lucy Tolentino-Dalangin (Lucy). 4 The spouses Ramon and Felipa Fortunato De Vela (the Spouses De Vela) both died intestate and without an issue on August 7, 1973 5 and January 23, 1959, respectively. 6 Consequently, petitioners who are the children of the late Vicente de Vela, the only brother of the late Ramon de Vela, are now claiming that they are the only heirs of the late Spouses Ramon and Felipa de Vela, and thus, entitled to succeed to their estate. 7

The Spouses De Vela were the registered owners of a parcel of land (subject land) denominated as Lot No. 2817-B of the subdivision plan, Psd-20726, situated in Poblacion, Naujan, Mindoro, containing an area of three hundred ninety-three (393) square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-328 8 of the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro.

Later, petitioners discovered that the subject land has been titled in the name of Liza under TCT No. T-101134 9 issued on May 19, 1999. Petitioners asserted that the TCT No. T-101134 was issued on the basis of a fictitious and absolutely simulated Deed of Sale 10 dated May 6, 1999 purportedly executed by the Spouses De Vela when the latter had long been deceased. They, maintained that Liza and Lucy have no right to possess the subject parcel of land.

Petitioners made written and verbal demand to vacate the subject property, but Liza failed and refused to vacate the same. Thus, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against respondents Liza and Lucy. 11

In her Answer, 12 Lucy denied all the material allegations in the complaint. She denied that she falsified any document for the acquisition of the subject land. She narrated that sometime in July 1973, the subject land was sold by Ramon De Vela to a buyer, which was later acquired by the spouses Lito De Chavez and Irene De Chavez who subsequently sold it to Liza. Lucy maintained that Liza is an innocent purchaser for value. Thus, Lucy asserted that petitioners have no cause of action against her and Liza.

On June 2, 2009, the court a quo ruled in favor of petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as follows:

1. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-101134 (Exhibit "1") in the name of defendant, Liza Tolentino and the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit "E") executed in her favor, are hereby declared NULL AND VOID;

2. The Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro is hereby directed to CANCEL the registration of said Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit "E") and the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-101134 (Exhibit "1");

3. The Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro is further directed to cause the restoration and re-issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-328 in the name of Ramon de Vela, married to Felipa Fortunato;

4. The defendants are hereby directed to vacate the premises of the land subject of litigation and to peacefully surrender and reconvey possession thereof to the plaintiffs.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.13

Lucy moved for reconsideration, but was denied in an Order 14 dated December 5, 2009.

On appeal, the appellate court sustained the court a quo's decision with modification, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 2, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 39 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that, the order directing defendant-appellant Lucy and defendant Liza to vacate the subject land and to peacefully surrender the same to plaintiffs-appellees is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.15

Thus, the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The petition is without merit.

At the onset, the issues raised by petitioners are clearly questions of fact which requires a review of the evidence presented. It should be stressed that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 16 It is not the function of this Court to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. 17 A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law. 18 Nevertheless, the Court admitted certain exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court, such as when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to that of the trial court. 19 In the instant case, the decision of the court a quo was generally affirmed by the appellate court. Consequently, we will limit Our review to those findings of the appellate court which differ from those of the court a quo.

We will no longer disturb the finding of the appellate court on the issue of the validity of the series of conveyances by virtue of contracts of sale executed from the original owner, Ramon de Vela, to Liza (third buyer) since the appellate court found all three deeds of sale, i.e., (1), the Kasulatan ng Ganap na Bilihan ng Lupa20 dated July 5, 1973 executed by Ramon de Vela in favor of the spouses Romia Z. Comia and Editha T. Comia (first buyers); (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale 21 dated November 23, 1973 by the spouses Romia Z. Comia and Editha T. Comia in favor of the spouses Lito de Chavez and Irene De Chavez (second buyer), and (3) the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa22 dated April 27, 1999 by the spouses Lito de Chavez and Irene de Chavez in favor of Liza (third buyer), to be uncontroverted.

Moreso, the above-mentioned deeds of sale, having been acknowledged before notaries public, are public documents as defined under par. (b), Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus, it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to its due execution, and have in their favor the presumption of regularity, in the absence of a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 23 They are valid and binding between the parties thereto even if said deeds of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds, since registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties. 24

Having settled the validity of the conveyances, the appellate court, thus, correctly ruled that said conveyances made from the Spouses De Vela to the Spouses Comia are binding to the latter's heirs, assigns and successors-in-interest. 25 Thus, Liza having bought the subject land from the Spouses De Chavez who acquired the same land from the Spouses Comia,, makes Liza a successor-in-interest of the Spouses Comia.

As to the issue of whether Liza is an innocent purchaser for value, we rule in the affirmative.

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before receiving any notice of another person's claim. 26 In the instant case, the appellate court correctly pointed out that in the absence of proof that Liza had knowledge of any defect on the title, or of other person's right to or interest in the subject property, Liza was a purchaser in good faith and for value. 27 At the time Liza purchased the subject land from the Spouses De Chavez, there was no evidence that Liza had knowledge of any defect on the title, or of other person's right to or interest in the subject property. Liza's right as a buyer to rely upon the face of the title certificate and to dispense with the need of inquiring further is upheld when the party concerned had no actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to conduct further inquiry, as in this case. 28 Thus, in so far as the contract of sale entered into between Liza and the Spouses De Chavez, in the absence of proof to the contrary, Liza remains to be an innocent purchaser for value.

Petitioners, on the other hand, as heirs and successors-in-interest of Ramon de Vela possess mere inchoate right which will ripen only upon the latter's death. Petitioners can only inherit whatever properties Ramon de Vela had left at the time of his death. But because Ramon de Vela sold the subject land during his lifetime, the subject land was no longer part of the estate of Ramon de Vela when the latter died; thus, petitioners could no longer inherit the subject land. What is valid and binding against Ramon de Vela is also valid and binding as against the petitioners. 29

However, as ruled by the appellate court and the court a quo, We cannot uphold the subsequent registration of the sale and the issuance of the title under Liza's name. It must be pointed out that, in registering the sale in order to transfer the title under her name, Liza did not use the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa dated April 27, 1999 which she and the Spouses De Chavez executed but instead presented the simulated Deed of Sale 30 dated May 6, 1999. Suffice it to say, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. 31 Although the underlying purpose of the Land Registration law is to impart stability and conclusiveness to transactions that have been placed within its operation, still that law does not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud. 32

It must be clarified that although the subsequent registration of the sale and issuance of title was void, this does not affect Liza's status as an innocent purchaser for value. Liza's status as an innocent purchaser for value of the subject land prior to the void registration is incontestable. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the fact that Liza or another person presented a simulated deed of sale to the Register of Deeds for the issuance of a transfer of certificate of title in her name does not affect her status as an innocent purchaser for value. Thus, while Liza is an innocent purchaser for value by virtue of valid and binding transfers from her predecessors-in-interest up to her, nonetheless, the TCT issued under her name remains to be void, precisely, because the document she presented for its issuance was the simulated deed of sale and not the deed of sale between her and the Spouses De Chavez.

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 26, 2011 and the Resolution dated January 5, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95003 are AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 21-37.

2.Id. at 38-39.

3.Heirs of Ramon De Vela, et al. v. Liza Tolentino, et al.; penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Elihu A. Ybañez concurring.

4. Records, pp. 1-5.

5.Id. at 9.

6.Id. at 10.

7.Rollo, pp. 22-23.

8. Records, pp. 7-8.

9.Id. at 11-12.

10.Id. at 13.

11.Supra note 4.

12. Records, pp. 20-25.

13.Rollo, p. 145.

14. Records, p. 224.

15.Rollo, p. 36.

16.Aliño v. Heirs of Angelica A. Lorenzo, 578 Phil. 698, 706 (2008); Diesel Construction Co., Inc. v. UPSI Property Holdings, Inc., 572 Phil. 494, 511 (2008).

17.Alicer v. Compas, 664 Phil. 722, 730 (2011).

18. Section 1.Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

19.Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, 642 Phil. 546, 556 (2010).

20. Records, pp. 66-67.

21.Id. at 64-65.

22.Id. at 63.

23.Eulogio v. Spouses Apeles, 596 Phil. 613, 625-626 (2009).

24.Heirs of Eduardo Manlapat v. Court of Appeals, 498 Phil. 453, 466 (2005).

25.Rollo, p. 12.

26.Rufloe v. Burgos, 597 Phil. 261, 270 (2009).

27.Rollo, p. 34.

28.Republic v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 319, 332 (1999).

29.Galasinao v. Austria, 97 Phil. 82, 87 (1995).

30.Supra note 10.

31.Directors of Lands v. Addison, 49 Phil. 19, 23 (1926).

32.De Lara & De Guzman v. Ayroso, 95 Phil. 185, 191 (1954).