G.R. No. 165879 - Ching vs. Goyanko, Jr.

On December 30, 1947, Joseph C. Goyanko (Joseph Sr.) married Epifania dela Cruz.
They had seven children: Joseph Jr., Evelyn, Jerry, Imelda, Julius, Mary Ellen, and Jess (all respondents).

In 1961, respondents’ parents acquired a 661 sqm property at 29 F. Cabahug St., Cebu City, but, being Chinese citizens, registered it in their aunt Sulpicia Ventura’s name.
On May 1, 1993, Sulpicia executed a deed of sale in favor of Joseph Sr.
On October 12, 1993, Joseph Sr. sold the same property to his common-law wife, Maria B. Ching, leading to issuance of TCT No. 138405 in Ching’s name.
Following Joseph Sr.’s death on March 11, 1996, respondents discovered the transfer and had the deed’s signature examined by the PNP Crime Laboratory, which found it forged.

Respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for recovery of property and damages, seeking nullification of the deed of sale and TCT No. 138405 and issuance of a new title in their father’s name.
Petitioner Maria Ching asserted she provided the purchase price and presented the notary public as witness to the genuineness of Joseph Sr.’s signature.
On October 16, 1998, the RTC dismissed the complaint, holding the signature genuine, Ching the lawful owner, and citing the indefeasibility of Torrens titles absent bad faith.

On appeal, respondents argued that (a) the property was conjugal, (b) the signature was forged, and (c) sale to a common-law wife was void.
On October 21, 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring the deed and TCT null and void: the property was conjugal; sale to a concubine contravened public policy and Art. 1490’s proscription of spousal transfers, even in common-law unions.

Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the prohibition against conveyances between spouses (including common-law partners) to nullify the sale to Maria Ching?
Can Articles 1448 and 1450 of the Civil Code support an implied trust between common-law spouses to validate the sale?
Does a conveyance by a trustee (common-law husband) to a beneficiary (common-law wife) violate the public-policy prohibition against spousal transfers?
Did respondents improperly change their theory on appeal from forgery to public-policy grounds, thus prejudicing petitioner?