Case Digest (G.R. No. 166190)
Facts:
Heirs of Venancio Bajenting and Felisa S. Bajenting v. Romeo F. Banez, Spouses Jonathan and Sonia Luz Alfafara, G.R. No. 166190, September 20, 2006, First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Venancio Bajenting applied for and was granted Free Patent No. 577244 over Lot 23 (104,140 sq.m.) in Davao; an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-5677) was issued in his name on February 6, 1976. Venancio planted fruit trees and his family resided on the land. He died intestate on February 18, 1974; his heirs later continued possession. In May 1993 the heirs (including Felisa Bajenting) executed an extrajudicial settlement with deed of absolute sale purporting to convey portions of Lot 23: 50,000 sq.m. to the spouses Sonia Luz Alfafara and 54,140 sq.m. to Engr. Romeo F. Banez. The deed was not notarized, was not submitted to the Register of Deeds, and lacked approval from the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The vendees paid P350,000 of a P500,000 purchase price; the owner’s duplicate of the title was delivered to them.
The Heirs attempted to exercise their statutory right of repurchase under Section 119, Commonwealth Act No. 141. After the vendees refused, the Heirs filed a barangay complaint (no settlement) and then a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for quieting of title, repurchase, recovery of title and damages. The Heirs amended their complaint and deposited P350,000 with the Clerk of Court as the repurchase tender. Defendants counterclaimed, asserting that the plaintiffs were not heirs, that the extrajudicial settlement/sale (though unnotarized) vested rights in defendants, and seeking relief to effect transfer in their favor.
At trial the Heirs relied on testimony (including that of Venencio Bajenting) and documentary proof of the free patent and OCT; defendants produced evidence of zoning and prospective development in the area and presented two lay witnesses, Reyes and Oyco, who testified that the Heirs intended to repurchase only to resell for a substantial profit. The RTC (March 1, 2002) ruled for the Heirs, ordered defendants to vacate and return the title, and directed release of the P350,000 deposit to defendants. The trial court dismissed defendants’ compulsory counterclaim.
Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 76526). The Court of Appeals reversed (February 27, 2004), finding that the Heirs sought to repurchase for speculative profit (applying Santana v. Marinas and related cases) rather than to preserve a family home, and thus Section 119 could not be invoked. The CA also found the testimonies of Reyes and Oyco credible and admissible despite the subsequent death of a purported principal witness. The CA denied...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners substantially comply with the Rules on verification and certification against forum shopping?
- Are the petitioners entitled to repurchase the subject lot under Section 119, Commonwealth Act No. 141, or were they seeking to repurchase for speculative profit such that repurchase must be denied?
- Are the petitioners obliged to execute a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of respondents upon payment of the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)