Case Digest (G.R. No. 85157)
Facts:
Francisco Jose, Antonio, Erlinda, Jovita, Araceli, Dolores, Virginia, Marta, Ledinia, and Anita, all surnamed Ramon Jao v. Court of Appeals and Laureana C. Vda. de Bairan, as administratrix of the estate of Pablo Bairan, G.R. No. 85157, December 26, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the heirs of Pedro Ramon Jao and Catalina Jao (collectively Jao); respondents include the Court of Appeals (respondent-appellate court below) and Laureana C. Vda. de Bairan (as administratrix of Pablo Bairan). In 1956 Jao executed a deed of absolute sale conveying four hectares in Novaliches, Caloocan City to spouses Zosimo H. Tan and Elizabeth O. Tan (Tan), and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 45783 was issued to the Tans on July 31, 1956. Jao later asserted the transfer was a loan to permit erection of a Chinese temple and that the land should revert to him if the temple was not built within five years; when the temple was not built Jao demanded reconveyance.
A woman, Segundina Vda. de Tiongson, fraudulently held herself out as Elizabeth Tan, procured a new owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 45783 on February 7, 1964, and executed a false deed of sale in her favor on February 10, 1964; the title was cancelled and TCT No. 3559 issued in Tiongson’s name. Tiongson then sold the property to spouses Pablo and Laureana Bairan (Bairans), who obtained TCT No. 3667 on March 4, 1964. Meanwhile the original duplicate TCT 45783 remained in the Tans’ possession.
Three civil actions followed. First, Civil Case No. 190 (Tans v. Tiongson and Bairans) sought annulment of TCT No. 3667 and revival of TCT No. 45783; lis pendens was annotated on TCT No. 3667. Second, Civil Case No. 390 (Jao v. Tan and Tiongson) filed July 1964 sought annulment of the deed between Jao and Tan and reconveyance; the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Jao ordering reconveyance to his heirs, the Court of Appeals affirmed on August 27, 1976, and the Supreme Court denied review, final and executory October 7, 1977. Third, Civil Case No. C-10228 (filed 18 years later by the Jao heirs against the Bairans) for annulment of title and reconveyance proceeded in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City.
Tiongson was criminally prosecuted and convicted for falsification of public document (Criminal Case No. C-566). In Civil Case No. C-10228 the RTC dismissed the Jao heirs’ complaint on September 30, 1985, and likewise dismissed the Bairans’ counterclaim; the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on July 14, 1988 and denied reconsideration on September 14, 1988. The Jao heirs filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Can a certificate of title and subsequent title transferred from an impostor (Segundina Vda. de Tiongson), procured through fraudulent reconstitution and falsified documents, be the root of a valid title for purchasers (the Bairans) who claim to be innocent pur...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)