THIRD DIVISION
|
CORNELIA BALADAD
(Represented by Heinrich M. Angeles and Rex Aaron A. Baladad), Petitioner, - versus - SERGIO A. RUBLICO and
SPOUSES LAUREANO F. YUPANO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 160743
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
us is a petition for review of the November 5, 2002 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA), as well as its November 10, 2003 Resolution[2] in
CA-G.R. CV No. 34979, which reversed and set aside the September 9, 1991
Decision[3] of
Branch 133 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, in a complaint for
annulment of sale, cancellation of title and damages[4]
filed by petitioner Cornelia Baladad against herein respondents.
Below are the antecedent facts.
Two
parcels of land located in what was then called the Municipality of Makati, Province
of Rizal were registered in the name of Julian Angeles on December 20, 1965
under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 155768.[5] On
December 3, 1968, Julian and Corazon Rublico, after co-habiting for some time,
got married. Julian was already 65 years
old then, while Corazon was already 67.[6] At that time, Corazon already had a son,
respondent Sergio A. Rublico, by Teofilo Rublico, who died sometime before the
outbreak of the Second World War.[7]
After Teofilo’s death, Corazon cohabited with Panfilo de Jesus and then, later,
with Julian. Julian died on February 2,
1969[8]
leaving no compulsory heirs[9]
except his wife and his brother, Epitacio.
On
February 4, 1985, while on her death bed, Cornelia was surrounded by four
individuals – her niece, petitioner Cornelia Baladad; her nephew, Vicente Angeles;
a certain Rosie Francisco; and notary public Atty. Julio Francisco who had been
called, accompanied by Cornelia herself to Corazon’s house, to notarize a deed entitled
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale. In his testimony, Atty.
Francisco said that Corazon imprinted her thumbmark on the document after he
read and explained the contents thereof in Tagalog
to her.[10] In the said document, Corazon and Epitacio
adjudicated unto themselves the two lots registered in the name of Julian –
with three-fourths (¾) of the property going to Corazon
and the remaining one-fourth (¼) to
Epitacio. The document also stated that both
Corazon and Epitacio conveyed by way of absolute sale both their shares in the
said lots in favor of Cornelia, Epitacio’s daughter, in exchange for the amount
of P107,750.00. Corazon’s
thumbmark was imprinted at the bottom of the said deed, while Vicente,
Epitacio’s son, signed in behalf of Epitacio by virtue of a power of attorney.[11] There
was no signature of Cornelia on the said document.
Two
days later, Corazon passed away.
Title
over the said lots remained in the name of Julian, but on July 20, 1987, more
than two years after Corazon’s death, respondent Sergio executed an Affidavit
of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased Person[12]
adjudicating unto himself the same parcels of land which had been subject of
the deed of sale between Corazon and Cornelia. On October 27, 1987, Sergio filed a petition
for reconstitution of the owner’s copy of TCT No. 155768 averring that after
the death of Corazon, he tried to locate the copy of the title but to no avail.[13] The petition was granted on January 11, 1988[14] and
a new owner’s duplicate title (TCT No. 155095) was issued in the name of Sergio
on April 18, 1988.[15]
On
May 31, 1988, Sergio sold the two lots to spouses Laureano and Felicidad Yupano
for P100,000.00.[16]
Sergio’s certificate of title was cancelled and TCT No. 155338 was issued in
favor of the Yupanos. On July 26, 1988, the
said title was also cancelled and TCT Nos. 156312[17]
and 156313[18] separately
covering the two parcels of land were issued. On July 17, 1990, Cornelia caused the
annotation on the said TCTs of her adverse claim over the said properties.
Meanwhile,
there were seven families who occupied the lots and paid rentals to Julian and,
later, to Corazon. After Corazon’s
death, they paid rentals to Cornelia through Pacifica Alvaro, and later to
Cornelia’s brother, Vicente, when Cornelia transferred her residence to the
On
August 3, 1990, a month before the promulgation of the decision, Cornelia filed
a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title and damages, which is now
the subject of this Rule 45 petition. Cornelia
argued that Sergio knew of the sale made by Corazon in her favor and was even
given part of the proceeds. Cornelia also
averred that the Yupanos could not be considered as buyers in good faith,
because they only lived a block from the disputed properties and had knowledge
that the two lots had been sold to Cornelia prior to Corazon’s death.[20]
For
their part, respondents argued that the Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute
Sale dated February 4, 1985 could not have been executed because at the time, Corazon was already dying. Ignacio Rublico, Sergio’s son, also testified
that he saw Vicente Angeles holding the hand of Corazon to affix her thumbmark
on a blank sheet of paper.[21] Sergio also argued that the property was
originally bought by his mother, but was only registered in the name of Julian
in keeping with the tradition at that time.[22]
After
the trial, Branch 133 of the Makati RTC ruled in favor of Cornelia.[23]
Upon appeal, the CA reversed the RTC ruling[24]
prompting Cornelia to file a motion for reconsideration,[25]
but the same was denied for lack of merit.[26] Hence,
this petition.
The
determinative issue is the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
with Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Corazon prior to her death.
We
find in favor of petitioner.
The
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale executed by Corazon and
Epitacio through the latter’s attorney-in-fact, Vicente Angeles, partakes of the
nature of a contract. To be precise, the
said document contains two contracts, to wit: the extrajudicial adjudication of
the estate of Julian Angeles between Corazon and Epitacio as Julian’s
compulsory heirs, and the absolute sale of the adjudicated properties to Cornelia.
While contained in one document, the two
are severable and each can stand on its own. Hence, for its validity, each must comply with
the requisites prescribed in Article 1318 of the Civil Code, namely (1) consent
of the contracting parties; (2) object certain, which is the subject matter of
the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established.
During
the trial, respondents argued that the document was not valid because at the
time it was executed, Corazon was already weak and could not have voluntarily
given her consent thereto. One of the
witnesses for the defense even testified that it was Vicente who placed
Corazon’s thumbprint on a blank document, which later turned out to be the
Extrajudicial Adjudication with Absolute Sale. We are, however, inclined to agree with the
RTC’s finding on this matter, viz:
Ignacio is not a reliable witness. He was very certain the event took place on February 4, 1985 and Corazon was already dead. This was his testimony on cross-examination. He had forgotten that Corazon died on February 6, 1985 or two days after. So, when confronted with this contradiction, he had to change his stance and claim that Corazon was still alive when it happened.[27]
It
is also noteworthy that in the course of the trial, respondents did not
question Corazon’s mental state at the time she executed the said document.
Respondents only focused on her physical
weakness, arguing that she could not have executed the deed because she was
already dying and, thus, could not appear before a notary public.[28] Impliedly,
therefore, respondents indulged the presumption that Corazon was still of sound
and disposing mind when she agreed to adjudicate and sell the disputed
properties on February 4, 1985.
Respondents
also failed to refute the testimony of Atty. Francisco, who notarized the deed,
that he personally read to Corazon the contents of the Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate with Absolute Sale, and even translated its contents to Tagalog.
And,
most important of all is the fact that the subject deed is, on its face,
unambiguous. When the terms of a contract are lawful, clear and unambiguous,
facial challenge cannot be allowed. We
should not go beyond the provisions of a clear and unambiguous contract to
determine the intent of the parties thereto, because we will run the risk of
substituting our own interpretation for the true intent of the parties.
It
is immaterial that Cornelia’s signature does not appear on the Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale. A contract of sale is perfected the moment
there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the
contract and upon the price.[29] The fact that it was Cornelia herself who
brought Atty. Francisco to Corazon’s house to notarize the deed shows that she
had previously given her consent to the sale of the two lots in her favor. Her subsequent act of exercising dominion over
the subject properties further strengthens this assumption.
Based
on these findings, we are constrained to uphold the validity of the disputed
deed. Accordingly, respondent Sergio
Rublico never had the right to sell the subject properties to the Yupanos,
because he never owned them to begin with. Nemo dat
quod non habet. Even before he could
inherit any share of the properties from his mother, Corazon, the latter had
already sold them to Cornelia.
The
Yupanos, for their part, cannot feign ignorance of all these, and argue that
Sergio’s certificate of title was clean on its face. Even prior to May 31, 1988, when they bought
the properties from Sergio, it had been widely known in the neighborhood and among
the tenants residing on the said lots that ownership of the two parcels of land
had been transferred to Cornelia as, in fact, it was Cornelia’s brother,
Vicente, who had been collecting rentals on the said properties. The Yupanos lived
only a block away from the disputed lots.[30]
The husband, Laureano Yupano, was relatively close to Julian and to Epitacio
and had known Cornelia before the latter left to live in the
In
Abad v. Guimba,[33]
we explained:
[A]s a rule, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Certificate indicates on its face. This rule, however, applies only to innocent purchasers for value and in good faith; it excludes a purchaser who has knowledge of a defect in the title of the vendor, or of facts sufficient to induce a reasonable prudent man to inquire into the status of the property.[34]
We thus declare the Affidavit
of Adjudication by Sole Heir of Estate of Deceased person executed by Sergio
Rublico to be void and without any effect. The sale made by him to spouses Yupano is,
likewise, declared null and void. Respondent
Sergio Rublico is ordered to return the amount of P100,000.00 paid to
him by spouses Laureano Yupano, less the amount spent on the acquisition of the
invalid title procured by him with the acquiescence of the Yupanos.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 34979
dated November 5, 2002 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati dated September 9, 1991 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in that:
1.
the
Extrajudicial Adjudication of Estate with Absolute Sale dated February 4, 1985 as
VALID;
2.
the
sale between respondent Sergio Rublico and Spouses Laureano Yupano is NULL and VOID. Respondent Sergio Rublico is ordered to return
the P100,000.00 paid by the Yupanos, less the amount spent on the
acquisition of the invalid title procured by him with the acquiescence of the
Yupanos; and
3.
the
Register of Deeds of Makati is ordered to CANCEL
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 156312 and 156313 in the name of Laureano
Yupano and, in lieu thereof, RESTORE
Transfer Certificate No. 155768.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (later, Supreme Court Associate Justice) and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; rollo, pp. 105-117.
[2]
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 1-8.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo, p. 50.
[10] TSN, July 5, 1991, pp. 13-14.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Records, pp. 1-4
[21] TSN, May 21, 1991, pp. 20-23.
[22] Rollo, p. 110.
[23] The dispositive portion of decision of Branch 133 of the RTC of Makati dated September 9, 1991 reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows:
(a) Declaring the affidavit of Self-Adjudication dated July 20, 1987 and the Affidavit of Extrajudicial Settlement of a Deceased Person dated February 16, 1988 of Sergio A. Rublico, null and void;
(b) Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale of the litigated property by Sergio Rublico in favor of Laureano Yupano, null and void;
(c) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Makati to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 156312 and 156313 in the name of Laureano Yupano and in lieu thereof to restore Transfer Certificate Title No. 155768 and issue a duplicate owner’s certificate of title thereof in the name of Cornelia A. Baladad;
(d)
Ordering defendants Sergio A. Rublico and Spouses
Laureano F. Yupano to pay, jointly and severally, the amount of P10,000.00
as moral damages; and the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and,
to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 59-60.)
[24] The fallo of the CA decision dated November 5, 2002 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated
September 9, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 133,
SO ORDERED. (
[25]
[27]
[28]
[29] Article 1475, Civil Code.
[30] Rollo, p. 107.
[31] TSN, May 21, 1991, p. 42; and May 23, 1991, p. 18.
[32] TSN, May 23, 1991, p. 37.
[33] G.R. No. 157002, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 356, 357.
[34]