ESTRELLA C. PABALAN, PETITIONER, VS. ANASTACIA B. SANTARIN, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision,^[1]
dated November 23, 2001, and resolution, dated May 13, 2002, of the Court of
Appeals, affirming the denial of petitioner’s motion to dismiss by the trial
court.

The facts are as follows:

On September 1, 1999, private respondent Anastacia B. Santarin
filed a complaint (Civil Case No. Q-99-38618) against Tri-Lite Realty
Management and Development Corporation (TRI-LITE) and its officers, Cesar
Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C. Britanico, for the annulment of transfer
certificates of title and damages. In her complaint, which was filed in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 227, Quezon City, private respondent alleged ¾

3. That plaintiff [Anastacia
B. Santarin] is the absolute owner of a parcel of residential lot situated at
Brgy. Talipapa (Bagbag) Quezon City, with an area of 429 square meters and
covered by TCT No. 7589 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, with a
building constructed thereon;

4. That sometime in July
1997, while the plaintiff was abroad and without the knowledge and consent of
the plaintiff, defendants [Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C.
Britanico] thru trickery, stealth, and manipulation and undue influence on her
daughter, Annielita Santarin Villaluna, and by forging plaintiff’s signature,
succeeded in drawing an undated Deed of Absolute Sale on said house and lot and
making it to appear that plaintiff signed the same as vendor . . . ;

5. That by virtue of the
forged deed of sale in favor of plaintiff’s daughter [Annielita Santarin
Villaluna], defendants [Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C. Britanico]
caused the cancellation of plaintiff’s TCT No. 5975 and caused the issuance of
TCT No. N-179523 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City [in the name of
Annielita Santarin] . . . ;

6. That later or on October
8, 1997, defendants [Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C. Britanico],
confederating and helping one another, caused plaintiff’s daughter [Annielita
Santarin Villaluna] to execute another deed of absolute sale dated October 8,
1997, in favor of defendant corporation [TRI-LITE] for an alleged consideration
of P1,544,400.00 . . . ;

7. That [neither] plaintiff
nor her above-named daughter ever received any amount as consideration on both deeds
of sale;

8. That after the anomalous
manipulation by the defendants [Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C.
Britanico] as above-stated on the deed of sale in their favor, defendants
[Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C. Britanico] immediately caused the
cancellation of TCT No. N-179523 in the name of Annielita Santarin Villaluna,
and caused the issuance of TCT Nos. N-183147, N-138148, N-183149, N-183150,
N-183151, N-183152, and N-183153 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City [in
the name of Tri-Lite Realty Management and Development Corporation] . . . ;

. . . .

10. That due to this fraudulent manipulations by . . . defendants
[Cesar Ravela, Pepito G. Salac, and Robert C. Britanico], plaintiff [Anastacia
Santarin] suffered sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety on the
thought that she would lose her properties due to the manipulation of the
defendants, thereby suffering moral damages which could be pecuniarily
estimated at P2,000,000.00;

11. Defendants should be made liable solidarily for exemplary
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 as an effective lessons to people
who are similarly-minded;^[2]

Private respondent later amended her complaint to implead
petitioner Estrella C. Pabalan and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as additional
defendants. After reiterating the
allegations in her original complaint, private respondent alleged that-

10. Plaintiff [Anastacia B. Santarin] has discovered that on July
20, 1998, defendant corporation [TRI-LITE], through its officers, namely defendants
Ravela, and Salac, mortgaged the property, subject matter of this case, already
subdivided into seven (7) lots with individual titles, to defendant ESTRELLA C.
PABALAN for the sum of PHP ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED (P1,500,000.00)
PESOS . . . ;

11. For failure of defendant corporation [TRI-LITE] to pay the
mortgage loan after it became due, defendant Estrella Pabalan petitioned the
Clerk of Court of Quezon City, in her capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff, to
foreclose the property and sell the property in public auction, which petition
was granted. Thus, the Deputy Sheriff
held the public auction sale on March 2, 1999, where the mortgagee,
defendant Estrella Pabalan herself, came
out as the winning bidder for the total sum of PHP TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED
THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR (P2,934,554.00) PESOS . . .
;

12. To date, no title has as yet been issued in the name of
defendant Estrella Pabalan since the documentary stamp and capital gains tax
due by reason of the sale has remained unpaid, the same to become due upon the
expiration of the one year redemption period, as per annotation on the
memorandum of encumbrance of TCT Nos. N-183147 to 183153;^[3]

Private respondent Santarin prayed for (1) the annulment of the
deed of sale purporting to have been executed by her in favor of her daughter
Annielita Santarin Villaluna and the deed executed by the latter in favor of
TRI-LITE, the transfer certificates of title issued in the name of TRI-LITE and
the foreclosure sale of the properties and (2) the restoration of TCT No. 7589
issued in her name. Private respondent
reiterated her claim for damages against the defendant officers of TRI-LITE and
also sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction enjoining the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City from issuing
transfer certificates of title over the properties in favor of petitioner
Pabalan.^[4]

In her Answer, petitioner claimed that she was an innocent
purchaser for value of the seven parcels of land. She alleged that before extending a loan to TRI-LITE, she
obtained certified true copies of the TCTs issued in TRI-LITE’s name (which
were unencumbered) and a certification from the Office of the City Assessor,
Quezon City as to TRI-LITE’s ownership of said parcels of land. She prayed for the dismissal of the
complaint against her for lack of cause of action and sought payment of damages
against TRI-LITE and its officers.^[5]

The trial court treated petitioner’s special defense as a motion
to dismiss and, in its resolution, dated September 24, 2000, denied the
same. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration, but her motion was denied on November 10, 2000. The trial court held:

The complaint in this case states clearly the ultimate facts. No evidentiary matters are allowed to be presented
in the case of motion to dismiss because of lack of cause of action in the
complaint. The allegation… that
co-defendant Estrella C. Pabalan is an innocent purchaser in good faith is a
defense – the proper place for which is the Answer, not a Motion to Dismiss or
affirmative defense to be treated as a Motion to Dismiss. The answer and all defenses of the defendant
are not even considered. It is only the
Amended Complaint as it stand[s]. A
Motion to Dismiss based on failure of the allegations of the complaint to state
a cause of action admits, if only hypothetically, the truth of the allegations
in the complaint (Alguigue vs. de Leon L-15059, March 30, 1963). The Amended
Complaint in this case, as hypothetically admitted in the Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a cause of action does not allege that defendant Estrella C.
Pabalan is an innocent purchaser for value, as the defense alleges, but
expressly taints the allegedly fraudulent two Deeds of Sale and resulting TCTs
including the mortgage to Estrella Pabalan as void ab initio. That she is a purchaser at public auction is
admitted, but the complaint alleges the title is still void ab initio.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss embodied as
affirmative defense based on lack of cause of action, is hereby Denied for lack
of merit, based solely on the Amended Complaint which clearly alleges in
express terms the cause of action against defendant Estrella C. Pabalan; that her title derived as mortgagee and
purchaser at auction sale is void ab initio because it proceeds from an equally
void title of other defendants who allegedly derived title through a falsified
signature of plaintiff as vendor in the original first sale – because the
affirmative defense of innocent purchaser for value is a defense which begs for
evidentiary matters, the proper place for which should be in the trial on the
merits of this case.^[6]

Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals. Again, she lost as her
petition was dismissed on November 23, 2001.Her motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied on May 13, 2002. In its
decision, the Court of Appeals held:

If the . . . allegations of the Amended Complaint, . . . . are
proven, then as alleged [therein] . . . “the conveyances which preceded the
extrajudicial foreclosure”, including that made to mortgagor TRI-LITE, would be
null and void. There would thus be no
property which TRI-LITE could encumber which would eventually be sold to
petitioner at public auction.^[7]

While petitioner Pabalan’s petition was pending in the Court of
Appeals, private respondent Santarin filed a “Third Amended Complaint”
impleading as additional defendants her daughter Annielita Santarin Villaluna,
the respective spouses of the defendant officers of TRI-LITE and other
individuals whom she claimed to have connived with the latter in the transfer
of her property.

In this petition, petitioner contends that ¾

I.   IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT A QUO (AND
THE AMENDMENTS THERETO) INDICATING THE SUPPOSED PARTICIPATION OF PETITIONER IN
THE PURPORTED FRAUD THEREIN ALLEGED, THE PRESUMPTION THAT PETITIONER IS AN
INNOCENT MORTGAGEE (AND LATER PURCHASER) FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH BECOMES
CONCLUSIVE AND INCONTROVERTIBLE.

II.  HAVING FAILED TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT A QUO
(AND THE AMENDMENTS THERETO), THE INSTANT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY
THE COURT A QUO AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS.

III.  THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
RESPONDENT IS AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
FRAUD AND NOT THE CANCELLATION OF TRI-LITE REALTY’S TITLES TO THE PREJUDICE OF
PETITIONER WHO IS AN INNOCENT MORTGAGEE (LATER PURCHASER) FOR VALUE AND IN GOOD
FAITH.

IV. CONSIDERING THAT THE
COMPLAINT A QUO (AND THE AMENDMENTS
THERETO) FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER, RESPONDENT HAS NO
RIGHTS REQUIRING PROTECTION IN THE FORM OF A RECORDED NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS. THE SAID NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE CANCELLED.

V.  EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT RESPONDENT HAS A CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE THE COMPLAINT A QUO, JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF DEFENDANT VILLALUNA CANNOT
BE ACQUIRED BY SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION INASMUCH AS THE CASE A QUO IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM; CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT CANNOT
VALIDLY PROCEED AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF VILLALUNA, AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.^[8]

The test for determining the sufficiency of a complaint is
whether, assuming the facts as they are alleged therein, a valid judgment can
be rendered in accordance with the prayer in the complaint.^[9] In
this case, the amended complaint, dated October 26, 1999, alleged that private
respondent Anastacia Santarin is the registered owner of the lands in question;
that by forging her signature, the defendant officers of TRI-LITE made it
appear that she had sold the lands (which was then undivided) to her daughter,
Annielita Santarin Villaluna; that her daughter, upon the inducement by the
defendant officers of TRI-LITE, executed a fictitious deed of sale thereof in
favor of TRI-LITE; that TRI-LITE subdivided the land into seven lots, secured
the issuance of the corresponding titles to each portion, and mortgaged them to
petitioner, who, upon default of TRI-LITE in the payment of its loan,
foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the properties in the foreclosure
sale. As a forged deed is null and void
and conveys no title,^[10] all
the transactions subsequent to the alleged sale between private respondent and
her daughter are likewise void. Consequently, if the allegations in her complaint are true, private
respondent would be entitled to a judgment annulling the sale purporting to
have been executed by her in favor of Annielita Santarin Villaluna as well as
the latter’s sale of the said property to TRI-LITE, the transfer certificates
of title issued to the aforesaid transferors, the mortgage executed by TRI-LITE
in favor of petitioner, and the foreclosure sale of the properties in question.

Petitioner invokes the cases of Medina v. Chanco,^[11] Republic
v. Court of Appeals,^[12] and Galvez
v. Tuazon^[13]
in support of her claim that the complaint in an action to annul title to
property must allege that all the defendants are parties to the fraud attending
the transfer of title or had notice of the defect in the title of their
transferor and that no cause of action for cancellation of title will lie
against innocent purchasers for value. However, none to these cases involved forged deeds, such as are alleged
in the complaint in this case. Thus, in
Medina vs. Chanco, what was alleged
in the complaint was that the Medinas’ predecessor-in-interest had fraudulently
obtained title to a parcel of land through misinterpretation, insufficient
consideration, and lack of compliance with formal requirements. The complaint, which was filed more than 50
years after the alleged fraudulent sale, was dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner and his spouse were holders of title for value and in good faith. It was held that, under §55 of Act No. 496,
while “an original owner of a registered land may seek the annulment of a
transfer thereof on the ground of fraud, such a remedy, however, is without
prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for value’ of a certificate of
title.”

On the other hand, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, which
involved an action for the cancellation of a free patent, an original
certificate of title, and the transfer certificate of title on the ground that
the free patent and the original certificate of title had been obtained through
a false claim of possession by private respondent’s predecessor-in-interest,
the Court ordered the dismissal of the same with respect to the private
respondent for lack of cause of action as the latter had purchased the land in
question in reliance on the title of its predecessor-in-interest and had
registered the sale and obtained a transfer certificate of title in it’s
name. It was held that under the
circumstances petitioner was an innocent purchaser for value and holder of an
indefeasible title.

Nor can petitioner find support for her theory in Galvez v.
Tuazon.^[14]
That case involved a complaint for the annulment of the technical descriptions
in an original certificate of title obtained by respondents’
predecessor-in-interest. The complaint
was alleged that the technical descriptions erroneously included a portion of
the land owned by petitioners. However,
the dismissal of the case was based primarily on the ground that the action was
barred by prior judgment as the ownership of the land by respondents’
predecessor-in-interest had been settled in three other cases.

In this case, petitioner can seek the dismissal of the action
against her but only if she proves after appropriate proceedings that she is an
innocent purchaser for value.^[15] This
is a matter of defense which, taking into account the fact that the properties
in question thrice changed hands within the span of only one year, should be
determined during the trial, and not in a motion to dismiss. needless to say, such course of action
results in no prejudice to petitioner and in fact affords her sufficient
opportunity to prove her claim.

Anent the other matters raised by petitioner on the propriety of
canceling the annotation of lis pendens
on the titles of TRI-LITE and the acquisition by the trial court of
jurisdiction over Annielita Santarin Villaluna, suffice it to say that these
matters are not in issue in this review of the trial court’s order of September
24, 2000. Moreover, petitioner is not the proper party to raise such questions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that
the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr.,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Per Justice Conchita Carpio Morales concurred in by Justices Martin S.
Villarama, Jr. and Sergio L. Pestaño.

^[2]
Petition, Annex K; Rollo, pp. 106-107.

^[3]
Id., Annex L; id., pp.112-113.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 36-42.

^[5]
Id., pp. 69-73.

^[6]
Petition, Annex N; Rollo, pp. 125-127.

^[7]
CA Decision, pp. 5, 8; id., pp. 50, 53.

^[8]
Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 19.

^[9]
Suyom v. Collantes, 69 SCRA 515 (1976).

^[10]
Director of Lands v. Addison, 49 Phil. 19 (1926).

^[11]
117 SCRA 201 (1982).

^[12]
306 SCRA 81 (1999).

^[13]
10 SCRA 344 (1964).

^[14]
10 SCRA 344 (1964).

^[15]
See De La Cruz v. Fabie, 35 Phil. 144 (1916).