Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11765)
Facts:
Damaso Descutido, et al. v. Jacinto Baltazar, et al., G.R. No. L-11765. April 29, 1961. The Supreme Court En Banc. Dizon, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiffs-appellees Damaso Descutido and his wife Regina Decierdo sued to annul two deeds of sale (Exhibits B and C) and to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25284 issued in the name of Bonifacia Descutido (now deceased), claiming the instruments were fraudulent, fictitious and without consideration. The deeds traced their origin to an alleged 1937 sale by spouses Jose Descutido and Matea Dolduco to Pedro Diamante (Exh. B), and a subsequent 1940 sale by Diamante to Bonifacia (Exh. C). The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo declared both deeds null and void, ordered cancellation of TCT No. 25284, and directed issuance of a new title in the name of Damaso pursuant to a private deed of partition (Exh. D).
Defendants-appellants were Jacinto Baltazar (husband of Bonifacia) and his children (joined as heirs), who answered with denials and affirmative defenses asserting prescription, lack of legal capacity of plaintiffs, and that they were purchasers in good faith; they also interposed a counterclaim seeking damages and restitution of possession and products of the land from 1941 to 1950. Co-defendants Pedro Diamante and Cristina Doctolero separately denied having bought or possessed the land and alleged they were fraudulently induced to sign documents (they implicated Baltazar and a notary).
At trial the CFI found inter alia that Jose Descutido was induced to sign a deed (Exh. B) instead of a mortgage securing a purchase; Diamante had not paid the sums recited as consideration and never possessed the property; the instrument purportedly cancelling the mortgage was actually a sale (Exh. C); the partition instrument of April 30, 1944 (Exh. D) assigned Lot No. 790 to Damaso, who possessed it openly and adversely; and appellees only became aware of the deeds and the TCT in 1950–1951. On those findings the CFI voided Exhibits B and C, cancelled TCT No. 25284 and ordered issuance of title to Damaso. Only the Baltazars appealed.
Appellants initi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the action to annul the deeds of sale barred by prescription?
- Did appellees (specifically Damaso) have legal capacity to sue for annulment although they were not original parties to Exhibits B and C?
- Were Exhibits B and C and the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25284 properly declared null and void and the title reissued to Damaso?
- Did the trial court err in failing to declare appellees in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)