Case Digest (G.R. No. 142691)
Facts:
Heirs of Amado Celestial, as represented by his widow, Florencia Celestial, and Gloria Agui, petitioners, v. Heirs of Editha G. Celestial (Edwin Herminigildo Celestial et al.) and Prima B. Calingacion, joined by her husband Chua Chin, respondents, G.R. No. 142691, August 05, 2003, First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Prior to 1962, Amado Celestial applied for a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over a 466-square-meter parcel (Lot No. 4112, TS-217) in Dadiangas, General Santos City under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141). Amado married Florencia on February 8, 1962, and they occupied the lot. Amado’s application was granted in May 1966 and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-27090) was issued in his name; the OCT, however, erroneously listed his civil status as “single,” which the couple did not correct.
On October 10, 1975, a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Amado conveyed the 466-square-meter lot to his sister-in-law, Editha G. Celestial, for P20,000; the deed described Amado as single and lacked Florencia’s signature. The Register of Deeds subsequently cancelled the OCT and issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-9145 in Editha’s name. Amado died March 21, 1976.
Editha thereafter executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase (July 10, 1978) conveying the property to Prima B. Calingacion for P30,000, subdivided the lot into three parcels (Lot 4112-A, -B and -D) and obtained corresponding TCTs (T-14270, T-14271, T-14272). On September 4, 1979, Editha and her husband Erlindo sold the subdivided parcels to respondent Chua for P110,000; Chua received TCT Nos. T-14819, T-14820 and T-14821 on October 22, 1979.
After Chua sought to eject occupants in February 1990, petitioners filed on February 23, 1990 a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), General Santos City, Branch 23, docketed Civil Case No. 4401, seeking judicial declaration that the October 10, 1975 Deed of Absolute Sale (and subsequent transfers) were null and void as forgery/simulation. Editha died while the case was pending and was substituted by respondents. On April 27, 1995, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the 1975 Deed of Absolute Sale void as a forgery and the 1979 Deed of Sale a simulated contract, ordering reconveyance to petitioners, restoration of possession and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to petitioners. Respondents filed a motion for new trial which was denied on November 29, 1995.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 53211) reversed and dismissed the complaint in a decision dated August 26, 19...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court’s factual findings that the October 10, 1975 Deed of Absolute Sale was forged?
- Whether the October 10, 1975 Deed of Absolute Sale is null and void for forgery and, consequently, whether the subsequent conveyances (including those to respondent Chua) must be set aside.
- Whether respondent Chua was a purchaser in good faith whose titles (T-14819, T-14820, T-14821)...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)