G.R. No. 159550 - Alino vs. Lorenzo

Title: Alino vs. Lorenzo

Case: G.R. No. 159550

Decision Date: Jun 27, 2008

Lucia sold land to daughter Angelica but retained possession, paid taxes, and managed it. After Angelica's death, heirs claimed ownership. SC ruled sale simulated, voided deed, and ordered reconveyance to Lucia’s heirs.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. 159550)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Title History

The subject matter is a 1,745‑square meter parcel known as Lot 183-A-1-B-3-A under Subdivision Plan Psd-12-001000, located at Sinsuat Avenue, Rosary Heights, Cotabato City.

Originally, the lot was registered in petitioner Lucia Carlos Aliao’s name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T‑15443 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Cotabato City.

On April 2, 1979, Lucia’s daughter, Angelica A. Lorenzo, purchased the subject lot for ₱10,000.00 via a Deed of Absolute Sale, which prompted the cancellation of TCT No. T‑15443 and issuance of TCT No. T‑15500 in Angelica’s name.

The lot was also declared for taxation under Tax Declaration No. 14136 in Angelica’s name.

Actions of Lucia and Preservation of Possession

Despite the transfer, Lucia continued paying the real estate taxes on the subject lot from 1980 to 1987 under her own name.

In 1984, Lucia designated Vivian Losaria as the caretaker of the lot. Vivian:

Constructed a 100‑square meter house on the property.

Resided on the lot.

Managed the fruit-bearing trees and delivered the harvested fruits to Lucia.

Informed tenants of adjacent properties of the rental schedules.

Developments Following Angelica’s Death

On October 3, 1985, Angelica died, leaving behind her husband, Servillano, Sr., and eight children as her surviving heirs.

On May 31, 1988, Angelica’s heirs executed an Extra‑Judicial Settlement, which adjudicated the subject lot to three minors: Servillano III, Ma. Angelica, and Anthony.

Consequently, TCT No. T‑15500 was canceled and replaced by TCT No. T‑24417 in the name of the said minors.

Steps Towards Reconveyance and Initiation of Litigation

On January 31, 1989, Lucia executed an “Authority to Look for a Buyer” authorizing Felixberto Bautista to find a purchaser for her lots, including the subject property.

On February 1, 1989, through a “Proposal to Sell Real Property,” Lucia offered the subject lot along with her other properties to the Central Bank of the Philippines.

On April 12, 1989, Lucia demanded the return of the subject lot from Servillano, Sr.; however, her demand was refused.

On August 3, 1989, Lucia filed a complaint seeking the:

Declaration of nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed on April 2, 1979.

Annulment of the extra‑judicial settlement and partition of the estate.

Reconveyance of the land title with damages.

Lucia alleged that the sale was simulated:

Owing to the absence of any act by Angelica or Servillano, Sr. to assert ownership.

Due to the gross disproportion between the purchase price and the market value.

Because of non‑payment of the consideration.

Since the sale was effected in Angelica’s name only.

Litigation History and Procedural Posture

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Cotabato City, rendered a decision on October 28, 1993, dismissing the complaint and ordering Lucia to pay ₱30,000.00 as attorney’s fees to Angelica’s heirs.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision on February 21, 2003, noting:

Lucia’s payment of the taxes, issuance of authority to sell, and her written offers as acts affirming Angelica’s ownership.

The notarized Deed of Absolute Sale carried a presumption of regularity, which Lucia could not overcome.

The award for attorney’s fees was deleted.

During the pendency of the appeal, Lucia died and was substituted by her surviving heirs, Nicolas and Potenciano C. Aliao; later, upon Potenciano’s death, his wife Rosita Pinto Aliao was substituted.

A CA Resolution dated August 20, 2003, denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Core Dispute of the Case

The central issue is whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 1979, is valid and binding on the parties.

Petitioners maintain that the sale is simulated:

As Angelica or Servillano, Sr. never took any steps to assert dominion over the subject lot.

Given Lucia’s continuous public possession and her payment of taxes.

In view of the inadequate purchase price and non‑payment of full consideration.

Respondent heirs counter that subsequent acts by Lucia affirmed the validity of the sale and that she failed to take timely concrete steps to recover the lot.

Issue:

Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 1979, is valid and binding or, instead, is simulated and void ab initio.

Did Lucia’s continued payment of taxes and retention of actual possession in any way conflict with or undermine the effect of the sale?

Does the absence of any act by Angelica or Servillano, Sr. to assert ownership indicate simulation?

Whether the subsequent acts of the parties—such as Lucia’s designation of a caretaker, her international offers to sell, and her delayed demand for reconveyance—are indicative of:

An intention to be bound by the sale.

A recognition, or conversely, a repudiation, of Angelica’s alleged ownership.

Whether the Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court appropriately assessed the facts, or if errors in fact finding and misapprehension of evidence warrant reversal.

Whether Lucia’s right to reconveyance, in light of her continuous actual possession and payment of taxes, should be upheld despite allegations of delay amounting to the expiration of the action by prescription.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END