Title
Heirs of Gregorio Lopez vs. Development Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 193551
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2014
Heirs challenged Enrique’s false self-adjudication and sale of inherited land; SC ruled affidavit, sale, and mortgage invalid, granting reconveyance of their rightful share.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 207407)

Facts:

  • Succession and Ownership
    • Gregoria Lopez owned a 2,734-sqm property in Bustos, Bulacan; died March 19, 1922, survived by sons Teodoro, Francisco, and Carlos.
    • Sons became co-owners; Teodoro died 1933, survived by children Gregorio, Enrique, Simplicio, and Severino, each entitled to an undivided one-fourth share. Petitioners are heirs of Gregorio and Severino and Simplicio (substituted by his daughter Eliza).
  • Transactions and Court Proceedings
    • November 29, 1990: Enrique executed a false affidavit of self-adjudication as sole heir and sold the entire property to Marietta Yabut; heirs demanded nullification and sought redemption of Enrique’s one-fourth share.
    • 1993–1994: Marietta obtained a loan from DBP, mortgaged the property; original certificate of title (TCT) issued to her July 26, 1993; supplemental mortgage annotation dated February 28, 1995. Heirs filed suit for annulment of affidavit, sale, mortgage, reconveyance of their shares, and annotated a lis pendens.
    • 1996: DBP foreclosed for nonpayment; certificate of sale registered September 11, 1996; title consolidated in DBP’s favor.
    • December 27, 2005: RTC nullified Enrique’s affidavit and sale beyond his one-fourth share, declared Marietta not an innocent purchaser and DBP not a mortgagee in good faith, ordered reconveyance to heirs and annulment of mortgage.
    • May 8, 2009 & August 16, 2010: CA reversed RTC as to DBP, held DBP an innocent mortgagee for value; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration denied.
    • October 15, 2010: Petitioners filed this Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether Enrique’s affidavit of self-adjudication and subsequent sale to Marietta validly transferred the property.
  • Whether DBP, as mortgagee and later purchaser, is entitled to the protection of an innocent mortgagee for value, thereby validating the mortgage and foreclosure sale.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.