Title
Augusto vs. Dy
Case
G.R. No. 218731
Decision Date
Feb 13, 2019
A dispute over Lot No. 4277 involving conflicting claims of ownership, fraudulent settlements, and invalid sales, leading to a Supreme Court-ordered partition among rightful owners.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 218731)

Facts:

Background of the Property

The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4277, consisting of 5,327 square meters, located in Lapu-Lapu City. The land was originally registered under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-3456 in the name of spouses Sixto Silawan and Marcosa Igoy. The couple had only one child, petitioner Roberta Silawan.

Respondent Antonio Carlota Dy's Claim

On July 16, 2002, respondent Antonio Carlota Dy filed a complaint against petitioners Nicomedes Augusto, Gomercindo Jimenez, Marcelino Paquibot, Roberta Silawan, and the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City. Antonio claimed ownership of a portion of Lot No. 4277, tracing his acquisition through a series of sales:

  1. On March 31, 1965, Sixto sold the entire Lot No. 4277 to Severino Silawan.
  2. On May 7, 1965, Severino sold half of the property (2,663.5 sq m) to Isnani Maut and Lily Silawan.
  3. On September 16, 1966, Isnani and Lily sold their portion to Filomeno Augusto and Lourdes Igot.
  4. On November 25, 1989, Filomeno and Lourdes sold 2,363 sq m to Antonio and the remaining 300 sq m to Nicomedes Augusto and Gaudencia Augusto.

Petitioners' Titles

Antonio discovered that Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) had been issued in the names of the petitioners:

  • TCT No. 48562: Spouses Nicomedes Augusto and Gaudencia Augusto (300 sq m).
  • TCT No. 48563: Gomercindo Jimenez (1,331 sq m).
  • TCT No. 48564: Marcelino Paquibot (1,332.50 sq m).
  • TCT No. 48565: Roberta Silawan (2,363.50 sq m).

These TCTs were issued based on an "Extrajudicial Settlement by Sole and Only Heir with Confirmation of the Deed of Absolute Sale" executed by Roberta on June 27, 2001, which was annotated on OCT No. RO-3456 on December 14, 2001.

Respondent Mario Dy's Claim

Mario Dy intervened, claiming ownership of a portion of Lot No. 4277, tracing his acquisition through:

  1. Sixto's sale of the entire lot to Severino on March 31, 1965.
  2. Severino's sale of half of the lot to Mariano Silawan on September 15, 1965.
  3. Mariano's sale of 1,332.5 sq m to Rodulfo Augusto and Gloria Pinote on May 12, 1990.
  4. Rodulfo and Gloria's sale of the same portion to Mario on May 23, 1994.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared null and void the Extrajudicial Settlement, Affidavit of Loss, Letter-Request, Deed of Partition, and the Deed of Sale between Mariano and Marcelino. The RTC ordered a new partition of the property among the parties.

CA Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that Roberta could not unilaterally rescind the sales made by her father, Sixto. The CA also held that the Extrajudicial Settlement and accompanying documents were executed fraudulently.

Issue:

  1. Whether the RTC properly declared petitioners in default and allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte.
  2. Whether the cancellation of petitioners' TCTs was proper.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Modified Partition

The Court ordered the following partition:

  • Gomercindo Jimenez: 1,331.75 sq m.
  • Spouses Antonio and Jean Dy: 2,363.5 sq m.
  • Spouses Nicomedes and Gaudencia Augusto: 300 sq m.
  • Roberta Silawan: 1,331.75 sq m.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, modifying the CA's decision. The Court upheld the validity of certain sales but declared others void. The property was to be repartitioned among the rightful owners, and all existing TCTs were ordered canceled.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.