THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248689. September 29, 2021.]
JOCELYN M. SEBASTIAN, petitioner, vs.HERMINIA ASIS, RENATO M. ASIS, PAUL ANDREI P. MACASIEB, TRISHA NADINE P. MACASIEB, UNNA LOREN P. MACASIEB, BETTINA P. MACASIEB, JULIAN MACASIEB, AND JESSICA MACASIEB, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248689 (Jocelyn M. Sebastian v. Herminia Asis, Renato M. Asis, Paul Andrei P. Macasieb, Trisha Nadine P. Macasieb, Unna Loren P. Macasieb, Bettina P. Macasieb, Julian Macasieb, and Jessica Macasieb). — This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated January 16, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated August 6, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110626, which reversed and set aside the Decision 4 dated January 25, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 258 in Civil Case No. CV07-0395.
Facts of the Case
This case originated from an amended complaint for annulment of title with damages5 filed by petitioner Jocelyn M. Sebastian (Jocelyn) against respondents Herminia Asis (Herminia), Renato M. Asis (Renato), Paul Andrei P. Macasieb, Trisha Nadine P. Macasieb, Unna Loren P. Macasieb, Bettina P. Macasieb, Julian Macasieb, and Jessica Macasieb (collectively, Macasiebs) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or Parañaque City, Branch 258.
Jocelyn alleged that she is the lawful owner of a parcel of land (subject property) located at Doña Soledad Subdivision, Parañaque City, containing an area of 179 square meters and previously covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 70727/T-354. 6 She acquired the subject property from Spouses Rolando and Magdalena Ramos via a Deed of Absolute Sale 7 dated June 30, 1993. After the sale, TCT No. 70727/T-354 was cancelled, and TCT No. 72731 8 was issued in Jocelyn's name. She kept said TCT in the drawer of her office inside the house of her sister, Baby Nuñez, in Mandaluyong City. Sometime in 1998, her copy got lost and she could not find it despite diligent efforts. Thus, Jocelyn executed an Affidavit of Loss 9 on December 28, 1998 which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds (RD) of Parañaque City under Entry No. 2438. Intending to sell her property, Jocelyn went to the RD on July 5, 2007 to secure a certified true copy of TCT No. 72731. She discovered that an Affidavit of Recovery 10 had been executed in her name and annotated in the title under Entry No. 1559 on July 6, 2004. Her signature thereon had been forged. Jocelyn then executed a second Affidavit of Loss 11 on July 16, 2007 and had it annotated under Entry No. 6344. Thereafter, she filed a petition for issuance of a new owner's copy before the RTC, Branch 258, Parañaque City.
Jocelyn had already made her offer of evidence when a letter dated September 19, 2007 was submitted to the court by respondent Herminia stating that she had in her possession the duplicate copy of said TCT. Herminia presented the duplicate original copy of the TCT and an incomplete 12 and unnotarized Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Jocelyn in Herminia's favor. In view of this, the RTC dismissed the petition. 13
To protect her interest, Jocelyn filed a complaint for delivery of title with damages against Herminia. While the case was pending, she learned that Herminia had transferred the TCT in her name (TCT No. 174856), using the forged Deed of Absolute Sale 14 dated January 3, 2008, which by then was already notarized. Unknown to Jocelyn, respondents Herminia and Renato had sold the subject property to minors Paul Andrei, Trisha Nadine, Unna Loren and Bettina — represented by their parents Julian and Jessica Macasieb as shown in the Deed of Sale dated February 8, 2008. Consequently, TCT No. 175049 was issued in the name of these vendees. Hence, Jocelyn amended the complaint to one for annulment of title with damages.
Jocelyn asserted that there was no sale that took place between the parties for Herminia never tendered any amount of money intended for the purchase of the subject property. No sale transaction ever took place between them. Also, the Macasiebs connived with respondents Herminia and Renato in defrauding her; hence, they should likewise be civilly liable.
For respondents Renato and Herminia, they countered that Jocelyn voluntarily surrendered her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 72731 to them upon the execution of the Deed of Sale in their favor. Since Herminia was entertaining the thought of immediately reselling the property, she and her husband agreed to execute a blank deed of sale signed by Jocelyn. The deed of sale was executed in the presence of Estelita San Mateo (Estelita), the broker who facilitated the transaction. In view of their plan to resell the property, Estelita told Jocelyn to inform them if she had a prospective buyer. In 2004, Estelita checked with the RD and discovered that Jocelyn annotated an Affidavit of Loss on the title of the property. When Estelita confronted Jocelyn, the latter said she did so to protect her property. Estelita thereafter asked Jocelyn to execute an Affidavit of Recovery which was annotated on TCT No. 72731. Later on, Estelita learned that Jocelyn executed and annotated another Affidavit of Loss on the title. Worse, she discovered that Jocelyn had filed a case for issuance of new duplicate copy of TCT No. 72731 by reason of the second affidavit of loss.
In their Answer, respondents Julian and Jessica Macasieb averred that they purchased the subject property in good faith and for value. 15 They had no actual knowledge of facts and circumstances indicative of defect or lack of title on the part of respondents Herminia and Renato which could have impelled them to conduct further inquiry beyond the face of the title. There were no encumbrances or any lien, adverse or otherwise, in the memorandum of encumbrances on the title of respondents Herminia and Renato at the time they made the purchase. They are in open, peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property and paying the real property taxes. They were never in collusion with anyone, nor did they act in a way to unjustly deprive Jocelyn or anyone of the property.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On January 25, 2018, the RTC issued a Decision 16 nullifying TCT Nos. 174856 (in the name of Herminia) and 175049 (in the name of the Macasiebs). It ordered TCT 72731 to be restored to Jocelyn. The decretal portions states:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring TCT No. 174856 and TCT No. 175049 in the name of Herminia S. Asis and defendants Paul Andre P. Macasieb, Trisha Nadine P. Macasieb, Unna Loren P. Macasieb respectively as null and void;
2. Directing the Register of Deeds Parañaque to cancel TCT No. 174856 and TCT No. 175049 in the name of Herminia S. Asis and defendants Paul Andre P. Macasieb, Trisha Nadine P. Macasieb, Unna Loren P. Macasieb respectively and to restore TCT No. 72731 in favour of Jocelyn Sebastian;
3. Ordering the defendants to solidary pay the plaintiff the following:
a. Php300,000.00 as exemplary damages to serve as an example for the public good and not to dispose any property without having any legal right thereto;
b. Php300,000.00 as moral damages;
c. Php100,000.00 for Attorney's Fees and to pay the cost of suit.
Furnish the plaintiff and all the defendants as well as their respective counsels on record with a copy of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 17
The RTC ruled that with Herminia's admission that the contract of sale between her and Jocelyn was merely an accommodation without any consideration, the contract of sale is void. Herminia admitted that the deed of sale already bore Jocelyn's signature when Estelita handed it to her. Herminia further admitted that neither she nor Jocelyn appeared before the notary public. As to the Macasiebs' claim that they are buyers in good faith, the same is belied by their admissions and actions. The negotiation for the sale of the property took them three days. They should have been put on guard when the property was resold less than a month after it was purchased at a price far below the market value. They could not claim to be innocent purchasers for value by merely relying on the copy of the title possessed by the seller and ignoring the other circumstances surrounding the sale.
Herminia and the Macasiebs appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 18 dated January 16, 2019, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision, the dispositive portion reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the Decision dated January 25, 2018 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one rendered:
1) DECLARING Paul Andrei P. Macasieb, Trisha Nadine P. Macasieb, Unna Loren P. Macasieb, and Bettina P. Macasieb, represented by their parents Julian Macasieb and Jessica Macasieb, as the rightful owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 175049; and
2) REMANDING the case to the RTC for the purpose of determining the liability of Spouses Renato and Herminia Asis to Jocelyn arising from the "Accommodation Agreement."
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis in the original)
While the CA affirmed the trial court's finding that the contract of sale between Herminia and Jocelyn was merely for accommodation and that no consideration or payment was made to Jocelyn, the CA ruled that the contract of sale is valid as it contained all the essential requisites of a valid deed of sale, albeit, the parties stated a false cause therein to conceal their real agreement pertaining to the so called "accommodation." The contract is a relatively simulated one, the existence of which does not affect the binding force of the real agreement insofar as the parties are concerned.
The CA further ruled that the Macasiebs are buyers in good faith and for value. Jessica Macasieb and Herminia negotiated for three days. The Macasiebs conducted an ocular inspection of the property; asked for a certificate of title from Herminia and had it verified with the RD of Parañaque City; and detected no irregularity in the ownership of the property. The fact that the property was sold for an extremely low price of P1.5 million compared to its zonal value of P4.475 million does not raise a cause for suspicion regarding the status of the property nor does it warrant the nullification of the sale.
Jocelyn moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution 20 dated August 6, 2019.
Proceedings before this Court
Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 filed by Jocelyn.
Petitioner's Arguments
Jocelyn asserts that the decision of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts. She claims that that Deed of Sale allegedly executed between her and Herminia is spurious and forged. She did not sign the deed. She denied the genuineness of her signature appearing thereon. She did not sell her property to Herminia nor was the same for accommodation. There was no consideration given to Jocelyn. The Deed of Sale does not exist in the notarial records filed before the Office of Clerk of Court of the RTC. Hence, contrary to the CA, the Deed of Sale is a void contract for being fictitious and it is an absolute simulation caused and executed solely by Herminia without the knowledge and consent of Jocelyn. Herminia admitted not paying anything to Jocelyn. There is no consideration; hence, the Deed of Sale is null and void. 21
Further, petitioner Jocelyn argues that the Macasiebs are not innocent purchasers for value. They bought the property at an inequitably low price of P1.5 million when the value of the property at that time was already P4.475 million. Herminia's title bears a date of January 28, 2008 and promptly sold the same to the Macasiebs on February 20, 2008. Such goes to prove that Herminia cunningly disposed the subject property to the Macasiebs. Also, the registered owners of TCT No. 175049 are all minors, with no purchasing powers. This just bolsters the position of Jocelyn that the Macasiebs are in bad faith in acquiring the subject property. 22
Respondents Macasiebs' Comment
The Macasiebs aver that they were buyers in good faith. They relied on the title which was regular on its face. It had no annotations whatsoever which would make them aware that there was any issue concerning said title. Despite having been shown a clean title, Jessica Macasieb personally went to the location of the property to conduct an ocular inspection and to check if the description in the title matched the actual property itself. After this, Jessica asked for a copy of the TCT and went to the RD to verify whether the property could be a valid subject of sale. The RD issued a certified true copy of the TCT which reflected Herminia as the owner of the property and that there were no encumbrances. After that, a Deed of Sale was executed between Herminia and the Macasiebs especially since the property was being sold at a price the Macasiebs found agreeable. At no point did they come into knowledge of any issue with respect to petitioner Jocelyn. 23
After the sale, the TCT of Herminia was surrendered to the RD and a new one was issued in favor of the Macasiebs. There was no problem whatsoever with the transfer. They have been religiously paying the real property taxes of the property. The Macasiebs maintain that they are buyers in good faith or innocent purchasers for value. 24
Respondents Herminia and Renato's Comment
Respondents Herminia and Renato contend that the CA correctly ruled when it remanded the case for a proper determination of the nature of the transactions between Herminia and petitioner Jocelyn. The contract of sale between them was a relatively simulated one because of a false cause stated to conceal the true agreement. This, however, does not affect the binding force of the Agreement between the parties. As actual owners of the property, they were well within their rights to sell the same to the Macasiebs for whatever price they deem fit. Respondents Herminia and Renato claim that Jocelyn never exercised acts of ownership over the property, which contradicts Jocelyn's claim that she knew that the property was hers from the start. 25
Issues
The issues to be resolved are:
(1) Whether the Deed of Sale between Jocelyn and Herminia was a valid sale; and
(2) Whether the Macasiebs are buyers in good faith and for value.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
After a judicious examination of the records of the case, the Court affirms the CA in declaring the Deed of Sale between Jocelyn and Herminia as a relatively simulated one. The CA considered the sale valid as it contained all the essential requisites of a valid Deed of Sale, although the parties stated a false cause therein to conceal their real agreement pertaining to the so called "accommodation." The CA considered the contract a relatively simulated one, the existence of which does not affect the binding force of the real agreement insofar as the parties are concerned.
Jocelyn alleged forgery of her signature in the questioned Deed of Sale. She denied the genuineness of her signature appearing thereon. She claimed that she did not sell her property to Herminia nor was the same for accommodation. Jocelyn averred that the Deed of Sale is a void contract for being fictitious and it is an absolute simulation caused and executed solely by Herminia without the knowledge and consent of Jocelyn.
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. 26
In this case, Jocelyn has the burden to prove forgery. However, aside from mere allegations, she failed to convincingly prove that her signature was forged. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. 27 She failed to submit any document showing her authentic and genuine signature so that a visual comparison could have been made with the signature appearing in the Deed of Sale.
Jocelyn alleged that there was no consideration for the sale. The Court finds that the consideration was the accommodation, which the parties failed to explain to the court. It should be stressed that the CA did not make a categorical conclusion that the Deed of Sale between Jocelyn and Herminia was void. It was seemingly valid but a relatively simulated one because the parties did not disclose their true agreement. Being only relatively simulated, the parties are still bound by their real agreement. 28 Herein parties stated a false cause in the contract to conceal the true agreement. The clear intent was for accommodation, which the parties failed to disclose what this accommodation is all about.
Further, the Court finds that the Macasiebs are buyers in good faith and for value.
In the case of EEG Development Corp. v. Heirs of De Castro, 29 the Court explained who is a buyer in good faith:
A person, to be considered a buyer in good faith, should buy the property of another without notice that another person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and should pay a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property.
As to registered and titled land, the buyer has no obligation to inquire beyond the four corners of the title. To prove good faith, he must only show that he relied on the face of the title to the property; and such proof of good faith is sufficient. However, the rule applies only when the following conditions concur, namely: one, the seller is the registered owner of the land; two, the latter is in possession thereof; and, three, the buyer was not aware at the time of the sale of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property. Absent any of the foregoing conditions, the buyer has the duty to exercise a higher degree of diligence by scrutinizing the certificate of title and examining all factual circumstances in order to determine the seller's title and capacity to transfer any interest in the property. 30
The seller, Herminia, is the registered owner of the land. The Macasiebs relied on Herminia's title (TCT No. 174856), which was clean and regular on its face. It bore no annotations or encumbrances. The TCT showed no defect or restriction on Herminia's capacity to convey title.
It is settled that an innocent purchaser for value has the right to rely on the correctness of the TCT without any obligation to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. The rights an innocent purchaser for value may acquire cannot be disregarded or cancelled by the court; otherwise, the evil sought to be prevented by the Torrens system would be impaired and public confidence in the TCT would be eroded because everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would be required to inquire in every instance as to whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. 31
As found by the CA, Jessica Macasieb and Herminia negotiated for three days. Jessica even personally went to the location of the subject property to conduct an ocular inspection. She asked for a copy of the TCT from Herminia and had it verified with the RD of Parañaque City. She detected no irregularity in the ownership of the property. It was shown that the Macasiebs were not aware, at the time of the sale, of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property.
Convinced that the owner's duplicate copy of Herminia was genuine, Jessica and her husband proceeded to buy the property on behalf of their children. The fact that the property was sold for an extremely low price of P1.5 million compared to its zonal value of P4.475 million does not raise a cause for suspicion regarding the status of the property nor does it warrant the nullification of the sale. In fact, it was the main reason why Jessica and her husband grabbed the opportunity of buying the property because of its low purchase price. 32 Gross inadequacy of price does not even affect the validity of a contract of sale, unless it signifies a defect in the consent or that the parties actually intended a donation or some other contract. 33
Moreover, at no point did the Macasiebs come into knowledge of any issue with respect to petitioner Jocelyn. It was only after they were impleaded in this case that they discovered that there was an issue regarding the title of the subject property.
After the sale, the owner's duplicate copy of Herminia's TCT was surrendered to the RD and a new one was issued in favor of the Macasiebs. There was no problem whatsoever with the transfer. They have been in possession of the subject property and paying the real property taxes thereof submitting in evidence the tax receipts. 34
There is no prohibition for minors to be the registered owners of a property. What is required only is to state the age of the minor in the title. In this case, the minor Macasiebs were properly represented by their parents, Jessica and Julian.
Having acquired the subject property in good faith and for value, the Macasiebs are now the legal owners of the property now covered by TCT 175049. 35 The validity of their title must be upheld.
The CA ordered the remand of the case to determine the liability of Respondents Renato and Herminia to Jocelyn arising from the "Accommodation Agreement'' since the records does not yield any information as to the exact nature of the agreement.
Herminia admitted that she did not pay any consideration to Jocelyn, yet, she was able to transfer the title in her name and thereafter sold the same to the Macasiebs receiving the purchase price of P1.5 million.
Equity and justice demand that Jocelyn be compensated for the full value of the subject property and the damages she may have suffered by reason of Herminia's failure to pay or reimburse her on time.
In their Comment, even respondents Herminia and Renato is amenable that the case be remanded for further proceedings for a proper determination of the nature of the transactions between them and petitioner Jocelyn.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 16, 2019 and the Resolution dated August 6, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110626 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob; id. at 25-48.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Maria Christine Azcarraga-Jacob; id. at 51-52.
4. Penned by Judge Noemi J. Balitaan; records, pp. 777-790.
5. The original complaint was for Delivery of Title and Damages; id. at 205-210.
6.Id. at 11.
7.Id. at 9-10.
8.Id. at 12-13.
9.Id. at 14.
10.Id. at 15.
11.Id. at 16.
12. No consideration was stated.
13. Records, p. 616.
14. The consideration of the sale was P4.117 million; id. at 620.
15.Id. at 249-250.
16.Supra note 4.
17. Record, pp. 789-790.
18.Supra note 2.
19.Rollo, pp. 47-48.
20.Supra note 3.
21.Rollo, pp. 6-13.
22.Id. at 14-19.
23. Additional rollo, pp. 2-4.
24.Id. at 5-11.
25.Id. at 14-16.
26.Heirs of Malaque v. Heirs of Malaque, G.R. No. 208776, November 3, 2020.
27.Gepulle-Garbo v. Sps. Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855-856 (2015).
28.Valerio v. Refresca, 520 Phil. 367, 374 (2006).
29. G.R. No. 219694, June 26, 2019.
31.Id.
32. TSN dated March 15, 2017, pp. 17, 21.
33. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 1470
Article 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale, except as it may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties really intended a donation or some other act or contract.
34. Records, p. 702.
35.Id. at 253.