MERILYN B. RUIZ, ARCELI RUIZ-VERZOSA AND LUZVIMINDA RUIZ-PIMENTEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. BONIFACIO G. REYES AND MERCELITA B. REYES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
ELBINIAS, J.:
Subject for disposition is an Appeal[1] filed under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The Appeal assails the Decision[2]
dated July 7, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 of Aparri,
Cagayan (“lower court” for brevity) in Civil Case No. II-4539 for
“REINVINDICACION, ANNULMENT OF TITLE, ANNULMENT OF DOCUMENT AND
DAMAGES.”[3] The Appeal also questions the lower court’s Order[4] dated January 12, 2011, which denied defendants-appellants’ eventual Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The salient facts are as follows:
On November 19, 2007, plaintiffs-appellees Merilyn Ruiz,
Arceli Ruiz-Verzosa and Luzviminda Ruiz-Pimentel (“plaintiffs-appellees”
for brevity) filed a Complaint[6]
for “REINVIDICACION, ANNULMENT OF TITLE, ANNULMENT OF DOCUMENT AND
DAMAGES” against defendants-appellants Bonifacio Reyes and Mercelita
Reyes (“defendants-appellants” for brevity).
The other salient facts are those as stated in the lower court’s Decision[7] dated July 7, 2010, as follows:
“In their Complaint, plaintiffs (plaintiffs-appellees here)
allege that they are the legitimate children of Maximo Ruiz and
Romilla Battung Ruiz. Their parents were then the absolute, beneficial
and registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-30095 (subject property here).
Unfortunately, Maximo Ruiz died on September 3, 1973 in Camalaniugan,
Cagayan while Romilla Battung Ruiz died on June 6, 1989 in Bicud,
Lal-lo, Cagayan. Plaintiffs, thus became co-owners of the said
properties by virtue of intestate succession. However, before the
plaintiffs could adjudicate the subject property unto themselves, they
were informed sometime in June 2007 that somebody had allegedly
registered the same in their name and have taken possession thereof.
They found out from the Register of Deeds that the subject property was
already registered in the name of the defendants, Bonifacio G. Reyes
and Mercelita B. Reyes (defendants-appellants here) and that
the defendants caused the transfer of the subject property to their name
by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale purportedly
executed by their mother on September 1, 2006 or about seventeen (17)
years after her death. xxx Plaintiffs argue that their mother could not
have executed the supposed Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale as
she was already dead at the time the deed was executed. Plaintiffs
allege that assuming arguendo that the Deed was actually executed by the
plaintiffs’ mother, still their mother had no legal right to transfer
the whole property by herself as plaintiffs were then also compulsory
heirs of their father, Maximo Ruiz. The plaintiffs now pray
that the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale and TCT NO. T-157411 issued
in the name of the Defendants be declared null and void and that the
subject property be restored to their possession.In their Answer, defendants aver that they are the
lawful and registered owners of Lot 5061-B, the land in suit, having
acquired the same by purchase from the previous owner, Menandro
Cristobal, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the
latter on July 22, 2006 before Atty. Juan T. Antonio. Lot 5061-B is now
registered in the name of the defendants under TCT No. T-157411 issued
by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan on October 11, 2006.”[8] (Emphasis supplied)
On July 7, 2010, the lower court rendered its Decision[9] in favor of plaintiffs-appellees. The dispositive portion of the Decision decreed:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated September 1, 2006 and TCT NO.
T-157411 are declared null and void.The Defendants are ordered to immediately vacate the subject
property and restore to plaintiffs to their possession of the same.For insufficiency of evidence the court cannot award damages to the plaintiffs.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.”[10] (Emphasis made in the original)
Upon the lower court’s denial of defendants-appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration[11] in its Order[12] dated January 12, 2011, defendants-appellants filed the Appeal at bench, praying that:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants-appellants,
hereby most respectfully pray of this Honorable Court that the Order of
the Hon. Judge Oscar T. Zaldivar of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7,
Aparri, Cagayan dated January 12, 2011 denying the Motion for
Reconsideration of the defendants from his Decision dated July 7, 2010
be reversed and set aside and thereafter, the assailed Decision be
reconsidered and the Complaint be ordered dismissed for lack of merit.”[13]
Defendants-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT TO THE NOTARIZED
DEEDS OF SALE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT LOT FROM ROMILLA
BATTUNG-RUIZ TO SOLEDAD SUBALA AND JOSE SUBALA AND FROM THE LATTER TO
MENANDRO CRISTOBAL AND FINALLY, FROM MENANDRO CRISTOBAL IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Contrary to defendants-appellants’ allegations in their assigned error 1, the issuance of TCT No. T-157411[15] in favor of defendants-appellants was wrong.
Defendants-appellants had argued as follows:
“The defendants-appellants acquired ownership of the lot in suit
by purchase from the previous owner, Menandro Cristobal, by virtue of a
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties on July 22, 2006 xxx. The
ownership of Menandro Cristobal of the lot in suit is evidenced by a
Deed of Absolute Sale of Land executed in his favor by the prior owners,
Soledad R. Subala and Jose Subala, before Atty. Cicero F. Elizaga on
January 22, 1991, xxx. In turn, the ownership of Soledad R. Subala and
Jose Subala over the lot in suit is evidenced by an Exrajudicial
Settlement with Sale executed by the late Romilla Battung-Ruiz, during
her lifetime, in favour of the former before Atty. Benjamin D. Aquino on
August 9, 1977, xxx.The above-mentioned notarized Deeds of Sale are pieces
of evidence which are of great weight and which plaintiffs-appellees
failed to refute by clear and convincing evidence. As a matter of fact,
Jose Subala, one of the witnesses for the plaintiffs, failed to deny
under oath the genuineness of his signature on the Deed of Sale which he
and his wife, Soledad Subala, executed in favor of previous vendee,
Menandro Cristobal on January 22, 1991, and he also failed to deny under
oath the due execution thereof. Lamentably, the Honorable Trial Court
failed to give any evidentiary weight to these pieces of evidence which
defendants-appellants presented and offered to prove that there was a
valid sale executed by the previous owner in their favor over the lot in
suit.
xxx
In finding for the plaintiffs-appellees, the Honorable Trial
Court concentrated its attention on the Extrajudicial Settlement and
Sale dated September 1, 2006 which was allegedly used in the transfer of
the title of Maximo Ruiz to the defendants-appellants. According to the
plaintiffs-appellees, the late Romilla Battung Ruiz was already 17
years dead at the time said document was executed, hence, the same is a
forged document, and therefore, it transferred no title to the
defendants-appellants.The defendants-appellants vigorously denied having
knowledge or even participation in the execution of the said
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale dated September 1, 2006. The averred
that they had no knowledge of the existence of said document because
they had in their hands valid notarized documents which they presented
to the Register of Deeds when they went to said office to register the
lot in suit in their names. xxx
xxx
Granting, without admitting, that the defendants-appellants were
the ones who introduced said false document or had participation in the
introduction of said false document in order to transfer title of the
subject lot in their name, would the sale itself be considered null and
void from the start, as the plaintiffs-appellees insist, so as to make
the title derived therefrom also ineffectual ab initio?xxx
xxx [A]lthough the document appearing to have been used
in the transfer of title in the name of the defendants-appellants is
simulated, this did not adversely affect their ownership of the subject
lot which they purchased legally from the previous owner as evidenced by
a series of deeds of conveyances which were all marked and offered in
evidence in the court a quo.”[16] (Emphasis supplied)
Prevailing over defendants-appellants’ allegations however, is that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[17] dated September 1, 2006 was a product of forgery. As revealed by the records, Romilia Battung[18] (“Romilia” for brevity) could not have executed such Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[19] on September 1, 2006 in favor of defendants-appellants. The reason is that, as was shown by Romilia’s Certificate of Death,[20]
she had died on June 6, 1989 or a long seventeen (17) years prior to
the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
Sale.[21] All of these matters were as also found by the lower court in its assailed Decision dated July 7, 2010,[22] by the following:
“The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
Sale dated September 1, 2006 executed by Romilia Battung and which was
the basis of the cancellation of TCT NO. T-30095 and the issuance of TCT
No. T-157411 as testified to by Atty. Alexander Simeon, the Register of
Deeds was a forgery, hence, void.The Court carefully perused the Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate and Sale allegedly executed by Romilia Battung xxx and noticed
that indeed, the same was executed on September 1, 2006. Said
instrument, as testified upon by Atty. Simeon of the Register of Deeds
of Cagayan, was the very instrument which was used to cancel TCT NO.
T-30095 in order for TCT No. T-157411 to be issued (TSN, June 23, 2008,
p. 11). This instrument, however, is suspect because of the date
of execution: September 1, 2006. It must be remembered that the
Certificate of Death xxx of Romilia Battung indicates June 06, 1989 as
the date of her death. The question then becomes: how can Romilia, who
died on June 06, 1989, execute an instrument dated September 1, 2006 or
more than seventeen (17) year after her death? The foregoing leads the
court to no other conclusion than that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement and Sale was a forgery. x x x”[23] (Emphasis supplied)
Being a forgery, the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[24] dated September 1, 2006 was invalid, and therefore conveyed no title.[25] Consequently, all the transactions subsequent to the falsified Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[26]
were likewise void, including the sale of the subject property to
defendants-appellants, which sale, in turn, was the basis for the
issuance of a new title, TCT No. 157411, in favor of
defendants-appellants. These matters were as similarly found by the
lower court, to wit:
“In consonance with the above ruling of the Supreme Court, the
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale allegedly executed by Romillia Battung
on September 1, 2006 did not convey any title to the defendants.”[27]
That a forged document, like the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[28]
here, could not be a valid basis for the issuance of a new title, such
as TCT No. T-157411 issued to defendants-appellants here, is pursuant
to the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rufloe, et al. v. Burgos, et al., G.R. No. 143573, January 30, 2009:
“The issue concerning the validity of the deed of sale between
the Rufloes and Delos Reyes had already been resolved with finality in
Civil Case No. M-7690 by the RTC of Pasay City which declared that the
signatures of the alleged vendors, Angel and Adoracion Rufloe, had been
forged. It is undisputed that the forged deed of sale was null and void and conveyed no title.
xxx Due to the forged deed of sale, Delos Reyes acquired no right over
the subject property which she could convey to the Burgos siblings. All
the transactions subsequent to the falsified sale between the spouses
Rufloe and Delos Reyes are likewise void, including the sale made by the
Burgos siblings to their aunt, Leonarda.” (Emphasis supplied)
Given also that the Deed of of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[29]
was a forgery, then, it was incumbent upon defendants-appellants to
overcome the burden of having to prove that they were innocent
purchasers for value.[30] This burden, however, defendants-appellants failed to overcome, contrary to their allegations in their assigned error 2.
Defendants-appellants had argued this way:
“With due respect, the case cited by the Honorable Trial Court
does not stand on all fours with the present case. The document
primarily used for transferring ownership of the land in suit in the
name of Patricio and Myrna Bernales was a forged deed of sale as found
by the National Bureau of Investigation, while in the above-entitled
case, the Deeds of Sale used for transferring ownership of the lot in
suit from the registered owner to the two (2) vendees prior to the
defendants, and finally to the defendants, were all notarized genuine
deeds of sale.With due respect again, the Honorable Trial Court
gravely erred in declaring that the defendants-appellants are not
purchasers for value and in good faith for the reason that no such
imputation or allegation was found in the complaint filed by the
plaintiffs-appellees in the court a quo.
xxx
Furthermore, the plaintiffs-appellees themselves, as
well as the defendants-appellants, presented and marked in evidence
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30095 covering the lot in suit in
the name of the previous registered owner, the late spouses Maximo Ruiz
and Romilla Battung. No claim of interest of any third party, not even
by the plaintiffs-appellees themselves, was annotated at the back of
said title. The defendants-appellants clearly had no notice of any
defect, irregularity or encumbrance in the certificate of title of
Maximo Ruiz which was delivered to them by the vendor and previous
vendee himself, Menandro Cristobal. Neither did the
defendants-appellants have any knowledge of facts and circumstances
which should have put them on inquiry, requiring them to go beyond the
certificate of title. At the time they purchased the property in suit,
the previous vendee, Menandro Cristobal, was the one in possession
thereof. Obviously, therefore, the defendants-appellants were innocent
purchasers for value and in good faith at the time they acquired the
subject property. x x x”[31] (Emphasis supplied)
Overwhelming defendants-appellants’ allegations however, is that
the circumstances surrounding the sale of the property should have
alerted defendants-appellants as to the possible invalidity of such
sale. This is because the property was not even registered in the name
of Menandro Cristobal (“Menandro” for brevity), who had allegedly sold
the subject property to defendants-appellants.[32]
A buyer of a property, such as defendants-appellants, could
not be considered an innocent purchaser for value due to his failure to
examine all the circumstances covering the property. This is
especially so when such property was not registered in the name of the
seller, such as Menandro here. That this is the consequence is pursuant
to the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in The Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, et al., G.R. No. 175291, July 27, 2011:
“A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of
another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest
in such property, and pays a full and fair price for the same at the
time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim of another
person. It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser cannot close
his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and
then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was
no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that
such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the
possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor’s title, will not
make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops
that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such
notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted
with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a
prudent man in a like situation.We are dealing with registered land, a fact known to the Cabigas
spouses since they received the duplicate owner’s certificate of title
from Cobarde when they purchased the land. At the time of the sale to the Cabigas spouses, however,
the land was registered not in Cobarde’s name, but in Ouano’s name. By
itself, this fact should have put the Cabigas spouses on guard and
prompted them to check with the Registry of Deeds as to the most recent
certificates of title to discover if there were any liens, encumbrances,
or other attachments covering the lots in question. As the Court pronounced in Abad v. Sps. Guimba:[The law protects to a greater degree a purchaser who buys from
the registered owner himself. Corollarily, it] requires a higher degree
of prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered
owner, although the land object of the transaction is registered. While
one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look behind the
certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the
registered owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of
title but all factual circumstances necessary for [one] to determine if
there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in [the] capacity to transfer the land.” (Emphasis supplied)
Given further that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale[33] dated September 1, 2006 was invalid, then, contrary to defendants-appellants’ arguments in their assigned errors 3 and 4, plaintiffs-appellees’ causes of action against defendants-appellants were not barred by laches and prescription.
On this matter, defendants-appellants had argued that:
“In the instant case, the plaintiffs-appellees never
raised a howl of protest on the possession of Soledad Subala over the
lot in suit for thirteen (13) years, five (5) months and thirteen (13)
days, or even on the possession and acts of ownership executed by
Menandro Cristobal for fifteen (15) years and six (6) months, and on
the possession and acts of ownership of the defendants-appellants for
one (1) year, three (3) months and twenty-seven (27) days or a total of
thirty (30) years, two (2) months and ten (10) days.
xxx
Plaintiffs-appellees offered no convincing explanation why it
took them more than thirty (30) long years delay in the filing of their
complaint. Their inaction for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time constitutes laches.
xxx
To reiterate, the plaintiffs-appellees, never raised a
howl of protest on the possession and acts of ownership of previous
owners, Soledad Subala and Jose Subala, Menandro Cristobal and the
defendants for more than thirty (30) years. Tucking in the possession of
their predecessors, the appellants have already acquired ownership of
the subject lot by extraordinary acquisitive prescription.”[34] (Emphasis supplied)
Defeating defendants-appellants’ arguments however, is that an
action for the declaration of a nullity of a contract, like the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale here,[35] is imprescriptible. This is pursuant to the following declaration of the Supreme Court in Heirs of Policronio Ureta, Sr. v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta, G.R. No. 165748, September 14, 2011:
“Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1410. The action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
This is one of the most fundamental characteristics of void or inexistent contracts.
As the Deed of Sale is a void contract, the action for
the declaration of its nullity, even if filed 21 years after its
execution, cannot be barred by prescription for it is imprescriptible.
Furthermore, the right to set up the defense of inexistence or absolute
nullity cannot be waived or renounced. Therefore, the Heirs of Alfonso
cannot be precluded from setting up the defense of its inexistence.” (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, the findings of the lower court are entitled to great
weight and respect on appeal, and are in fact accorded finality when
supported by sufficient evidence on the record,[36]
as in this case. The lower court’s conclusions and findings of fact
should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because it
is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the
demeanor of the witnesses during trial.[37]
After careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and
issues appearing on the records as well as of the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and, in accordance with what is best determined to be
proper under the circumstances, the following disposition is therefore
made on these matters.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairperson) and Dimagiba,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice J. Paredes per Office Order No. 34-14-RSF
[1] Rollo, pp. 19-39.
[2] Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[3] Records, pp. 1-5.
[4] Records, p. 175.
[5] Records, pp. 153-157.
[6] Records, pp. 1-5.
[7] Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[8] Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[9] Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[10] Rollo, p. 44.
[11] Records, pp. 153-157.
[12] Records, p. 175.
[13] Rollo, p. 39.
[14] Rollo, p. 23.
[15] Records, p. 12.
[16] Rollo, pp. 29-32.
[17] Records, pp. 13-14.
[18] Interchangeably known as “Romilla” or “Romilia” Battung.
[19] Records, pp. 13-14.
[20] Records, p. 10.
[21] Records, pp. 13-14.
[22] Rollo, pp. 41-44.
[23] Rollo, p. 43.
[24] Records, pp. 13-14.
[25] Rufloe, et al. v. Burgos, et al., G.R. No. 143573, January 30, 2009.
[26] Records, pp. 13-14.
[27] Rollo, p. 44.
[28] Records, pp. 13-14.
[29] Records, pp. 13-14.
[30] Aloria v. Clemente, G.R. No. 165644, February 28, 2006.
[31] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[32] Records, p. 6.
[33] Records, pp. 13-14.
[34] Rollo, pp. 35-36.
[35] Records, pp. 13-14.
[36] Spouses Patricio and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010.
[37] Spouses Patricio vs. Heirs of Sambaan, G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010.