Case Digest (G.R. No. 105647)
Facts:
Heirs of Ernesto Biona, namely: Editha B. Blancaflor, Marianita D. De Jesus, Vilma B. Blancaflor, Elsie B. Ramos and Perlita B. Carmen, v. Court of Appeals and Leopoldo Hilajos, G.R. No. 105647*, July 31, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.On October 23, 1953, the late Ernesto Biona was awarded Homestead Patent No. V-840 over Lot 177 (10 hectares, 43 ares, 68 centares), and Original Certificate of Title No. (V-2323) P-3831 issued in his name. On June 3, 1954, Ernesto and his wife Soledad Biona obtained a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now DBP), mortgaging the property as collateral. Ernesto died on June 12, 1956, leaving Soledad and five daughters who are the present petitioners (the Heirs).
On March 1, 1960, Soledad obtained a P1,000 loan from respondent Leopoldo Hilajos, and the subject property was mortgaged to secure it; the parties agreed Hilajos would occupy and have usufruct of the land for two years. The two-year period passed without payment; Hilajos continued in possession. The record also contains Hilajos’ allegation that on September 11, 1961 Soledad sold the entire lot to him by a handwritten deed of sale (Exh. 2) and that payment was evidenced by an acknowledgment receipt (Exh. 3); Hilajos later paid DBP P1,400 on July 3, 1962 to cancel the earlier mortgage. For over twenty-five years Hilajos occupied, declared the land in his name for taxation, paid real estate taxes, and caused the land to be tenanted.
On June 19, 1985, the Heirs (plaintiffs) sued Hilajos for recovery of ownership, possession, accounting and damages, alleging unlawful deprivation of use and income. Hilajos answered, denied material allegations, and filed a counterclaim asserting the 1961 sale, possession in the concept of owner, and asked that plaintiffs execute a formal deed of sale and pay damages and attorney’s fees. At trial each side presented witnesses and documentary exhibits.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), 11th Judicial Region, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, rendered judgment on January 31, 1990 ordering defendant to vacate and deliver 6/10 of the lot to Soledad upon her payment of P1,000 (redemption of the mortgage) and the remaining 4/10 to the children of Ernesto, with accounting and payment of costs; the RTC dismissed Hilajos’ counterclaim. Hilajos appealed.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed on March 31, 1992, setting aside the RTC judgment, dismissing the complaint, and ordering the plaintiffs to execute a registrable deed of conveyance of the property in favor of Hilajos within ten days from finality of the decision, with costs. The petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari b...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the signature of Soledad Biona on the handwritten deed of sale (Exh. 2) genuine?
- If authentic, is the deed of sale valid and capable of conveying ownership and title to Leopoldo Hilajos despite being a private, unnotarized document?
- Did the petitioners lose their right to recover the property by reason of the equitable doctrine of laches?
- Has Hilajos’ right of a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)