G.R. No. 93687 - Co vs. Court of Appeals

In 1965, Marcelita Co contracted to buy two parcels of land owned by Andres Gabriel at Malabon, Rizal, on an installment basis and completed payment in 1966.
To facilitate registration, the final deeds of sale were executed in the name of Ruperto Padonan, who held the properties as trustee for Marcelita Co.
One lot was later sold to Hipolito Tamayo; the other remained titled in Padonan's name and a house was constructed thereon.
On January 28, 1973, Padonan executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Marcelita Co and a special power of attorney constituting Romeo Co as attorney-in-fact; the deed in favor of Marcelita Co apparently was not registered.
On September 10, 1974, Padonan executed a deed of absolute sale of the lot with the house to Eduardo R. Memije, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 457594 was issued in the names of Eduardo R. Memije and Adelaida H. Memije.
Despite issuance of TCT No. 457594, petitioners continued to occupy the property; Memije spouses were unable to take possession.

On March 5, 1975, private respondents filed Civil Case No. C-3489 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for recovery of possession and quieting of title; that case was apparently not prosecuted and was dismissed.
In 1976 private respondents filed a petition for issuance of a writ of possession in the land registration proceedings (GLRO Rec. No. 1230); a writ issued but was set aside by the Supreme Court on March 18, 1983 in Spouses Co vs. Salvador, etc., et al., 121 SCRA 61 (1983).
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. C-11063 in RTC, Branch 120, Caloocan City, for annulment of the deed of sale and title with damages; that case was dismissed for improper venue.

On November 14, 1983, private respondents filed Civil Case No. 370-MN in the RTC of Malabon, Branch 170, against Romeo P. Co and Marcelita Co for recovery of possession of the residential lot and house (registered in respondents' names).
Petitioners asserted affirmative defenses of fraud and ownership and interposed th...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by disregarding petitioners' compulsory counterclaims of ownership and fraud.
Whether dismissing petitioners' counterclaims without detailed legal grounds constituted excess or grave abuse of discretion.
Whether petitioners' counterclaims, which attacked the Torrens title on grounds of fraud, constituted a permissible counterclaim or an impermissible collateral attack on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

Whether private respondents registered the property in bad faith.
Whether a double sale occurred and, if so, which transferee acquired ownersh...(Subscriber-Only)