Case Digest (G.R. No. 127347)
Facts:
Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr. v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Felicidad S. Vda. de Abrogar, G.R. No. 127347, November 25, 1999, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr. was manager of A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co., a partnership engaged in lending; private respondent Felicidad S. Vda. de Abrogar and her late husband Ruben M. Abrogar were registered owners of a house and lot in Marikina (TCT No. 195101). On April 18, 1991 the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement providing for an immediate deed of absolute sale to the partnership for P200,000 with a ninety-day option to repurchase at P230,000, a 15-day grace for delivery of possession after the repurchase period, and other stipulations; a Deed of Absolute Sale (dated June 11, 1991 in the record) and a Special Power of Attorney authorizing title cancellation/transfer were also executed that day.
Private respondent failed to redeem within ninety days; petitioner caused cancellation of TCT No. 195101 and the issuance of a new title in the partnership's name. A letter of demand dated August 10, 1991 required private respondent to vacate; upon her refusal A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. filed ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 76, Marikina), which on April 3, 1992 ruled for the partnership. Private respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (Branch 163, Pasig), then to the Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, but she lost in those proceedings.
On December 4, 1993 private respondent filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 273, Marikina, a petition for declaration of nullity of the deed of sale, alleging the signature of her husband on the deed was forged because he had died on May 8, 1991. A related criminal complaint for falsification against petitioner had been dismissed by the prosecutor on February 14, 1994. RTC Branch 273 on April 11, 1995 dismissed private respondent’s petition, finding the documents were signed on April 18, 1991 and rejecting the forgery claim.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC, concluding the transactions were in truth an equitable mortgage (pacto de retro in substance), invoking Article 1602 and Article 2088 of the Civil Code, declared the deed and title cancellation void, ordered reinstatement of TCT No. 195101 and directed payment of P230,000 within 90 days with provisions for auction if unpaid. Petitioner then filed this...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner Alfredo N. Aguila, Jr. the real party in interest such that the action for declaration of nullity of the deed of sale may be validly prosecuted against him?
- Does the prior ejectment judgment operate as a bar to private respondent’s petition for declaration of nullity?
- Was the contract between A.C. Aguila & Sons, Co. and private respondent an equitable mortgage (and thus void as pactum commissorium) or a valid pacto de...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)