Case Digest (G.R. No. 201193)
Facts:
Tranquilino Agbayani v. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation, G.R. No. 201193, June 10, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tranquilino Agbayani filed a complaint on October 11, 1999 (Civil Case No. 07-532, RTC, Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan) for reivindicacion, cancellation of title and damages against respondent Lupa Realty Holding Corporation through his authorized agents. Tranquilino alleged that his original title (OCT No. P-46041, Free Patent No. 587747) had been cancelled and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-109129) had been issued in favor of Lupa Realty based on a purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 29, 1997 that bore his alleged forged signature; he insisted he was in the United States in April 1989 and never executed the 1997 deed. He sought cancellation of the TCT and reinstatement of his OCT, and damages.
Lupa Realty answered that the property had passed from Tranquilino to his brother Nonito Agbayani by a notarized deed dated January 21, 1992 (1992 DAS), from Nonito to Moriel Urdas by a notarized deed dated May 30, 1997, and from Moriel to Lupa Realty by a notarized deed dated October 29, 1997; it claimed to be an innocent purchaser for value and filed a third-party complaint against Moriel for warranty. Moriel denied preparing or registering the deed used to transfer the title to Lupa Realty and filed a fourth-party complaint against Nonito, who admitted signing the 1992 DAS but claimed it was executed under undue pressure and that he had only mortgaged (not sold) the property.
At trial, Tranquilino did not present a handwriting expert to prove forgery and relied mainly on testimony of his nephew and tenants that they possessed the land. Lupa Realty and Moriel presented witnesses and documents, including testimony by a former Lupa Realty employee that Moriel’s mother processed registration. The RTC found both the 1992 DAS (Tranquilino → Nonito) and the 1997 DAS (purported Tranquilino → Lupa Realty) were falsified, that Lupa Realty was not an innocent purchaser for value (IPV), and ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-109129 and reinstatement of OCT No. P-46041; it also rendered monetary awards among parties (Decision dated June 15, 2009).
Lupa Realty appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a Decision dated September 14, 2011, reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissed Tranquilino’s complaint and the related counterclaims and third-/fourth-party claims, holding that Tranquilino failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the 1992 DAS and that the existence of the 1997 DAS did not by itself invalidate Lupa Realty’s TCT; the CA also characterized Tranquilino’s action as a collateral attack on a Torrens title. Tranquilino’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated March 9, 2012.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Ce...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s decision declaring TCT No. T-109129 in the name of Lupa Realty null and void?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Tranquilino’s action for declaration of nullity of the 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale constituted an improper collateral attack on a Torrens certificate of title?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in recognizing and protecting Lupa Realty’s stat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)