Case Digest (G.R. No. 118784)
Facts:
Heirs of Christina Ayuste v. Court of Appeals and Viena Malabonga, G.R. No. 118784, September 02, 1999, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner are the heirs of Christina Ayuste (substituted after Christina's death); respondents are the Court of Appeals (as public respondent) and Viena Malabonga (private respondent). Christina had married Rafael Ayuste in 1961; the couple acquired a house and lot in Lucena City in 1982–1983, titled in Rafael's name (TCT No. T-42972 issued October 23, 1983).
On February 27, 1987 Rafael executed a deed of absolute sale conveying the Lucena property to Viena Malabonga for P40,000; the deed was registered on March 5, 1987 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50046 was issued to Malabonga. Christina's signature appears on the deed below the phrase “With my conformity,” a signature Christina later alleged was forged; petitioners allege Rafael sold the conjugal property without his wife's knowledge or consent.
After Rafael's death on October 13, 1989, Christina learned of the sale when conducting an inventory. On March 2, 1990 she filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena City, Civil Case No. 90-33, seeking annulment of the sale, cancellation of the title issued to Malabonga, and damages, alleging lack of her consent and forgery. On June 20, 1991 the RTC annulled the sale, ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-50046, ordered the Register of Deeds to issue a new title in Christina's name and her children, and made reciprocal monetary orders relating to improvements and rents; judgment was entered with costs against the defendant.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. In CA-G.R. CV No. 38232 the Court of Appeals, in a January 23, 1995 decision, reversed the RTC, holding Christina’s right to seek annulment was barred by laches and, more particularly, by Article 173 of the Civil Code because she did not institute the annulment action during the marriage; the CA also found Malabonga a buyer in good faith for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioners’ action for annulment of the sale barred for having been filed after the dissolution of the marriage (i.e., after Rafael’s death) and thus not brought “during the marriage” as required by Article 173 of the Civil Code?
- Did registration of the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds impart constructive notice to Christina such that her ignorance of the sale during her husband’s lifetime is immaterial?
- Was private respondent entitled to the protection afforded a buyer in good faith and for value and to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)