Case Digest (G.R. No. 231721-22)
Facts:
Jesus E. Ulay v. Maranguyod Bustamante et al., G.R. Nos. 231721-22, March 18, 2021, First Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Jesus E. Ulay bought a 9,689–9,690 sq. m. portion of an unpartitioned 19-hectare parcel (Lot No. 1089) in Taba, La Paz, Carmen, Davao. The land originally belonged to Candido Bustamante and passed by inheritance to his son Eugenio. Eugenio’s widow, Juana Bustamante, and their children (the Bustamantes) executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition (DEP) dated November 15, 1977 that divided an 11-hectare portion into six pro-indiviso shares of 1.9379 hectares each and included a sketch showing the relative positions of the shares.A subdivision survey dated December 7, 1979, however, mistakenly interchanged the lot designations for Juana and one daughter, Gregoria Bustamante, resulting in issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-17509 in Gregoria’s name for Lot No. 1089-E on January 12, 1981, although Juana and Gregoria continued to occupy the lots according to the DEP. Gregoria later died and her eight heirs (the Gregoria Heirs) succeeded to her possession (Lot No. 1089-F as they actually possessed it under the DEP).
On April 5, 1999, four of the Gregoria Heirs (Ernesto, Erlinda, Amelia, Hilyn) and Emelita Remillano-Comendador (purporting to represent heirs of Juana) executed a Deed of Exchange intended to correct the subdivision error. Ernesto, Erlinda, Amelia, and Hilyn thereafter sold a specific 9,689–9,690 sq. m. portion of Lot No. 1089-F to Jesus Ulay by Deed of Sale dated January 16, 2001; OCT No. P-41507 covering that portion was later issued in Jesus’s name on December 23, 2004. On May 3, 2001, Maranguyod Bustamante (widow of Ramon, one of the Bustamantes) occupied the purchased portion and built a pre-fabricated house, prompting Jesus to file a recovery of possession action (Civil Case No. 26-2003) on April 8, 2003.
While the recovery case proceeded, the Remillanos executed an Affidavit of Waiver on September 17, 2004, waiving participation over Lot No. 1089-F in favor of Jesus and two of Gregoria’s children (Dionisia and Roger). The Bustamantes then filed an annulment action seeking annulment of the Deed of Exchange, reconveyance, and damages (Civil Case No. 37-2005), alleging that transfers prejudiced their rights given the subdivision-plan designation and that Jesus was not a buyer in good faith.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City, rendered a Joint Decision on October 29, 2013 dismissing Jesus’s recovery case for lack of merit; declaring the Deed of Sale (Jan. 16, 2001) and the Deed of Exchange (Apr. 5, 1999) null and void; annulling OCT No. P-41507; ordering the Remillanos to reimburse Jesus ₱60,000 with 12% interest; and ordering reconveyance to the heirs of Juana except as to the inchoate shares of certain Remillano heirs. Jesus appealed.
The Court of Appeals (Special Twenty-First Division) issued a Decision on March 31, 2016 affirming the RTC in part but modifying some conclusions: it upheld the DEP as a binding contract and held the Deed of Exchange valid as corrective of the subdivision error; it declared the Affidavit of Waiver void (because specific allocation prior to partition was impermissible); it affirmed annulment of the Deed of Sale and OCT No. P-41507 as void for attempting to sell a specific portion of unpartitio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Between the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition (DEP) and the subsequent erroneous subdivision plan, which designation is binding?
- Is the Deed of Exchange dated April 5, 1999 between certain Gregoria Heirs and Emelita valid?
- Is the Deed of Sale dated January 16, 2001 (selling a specific 9,689-sq. m. portion of Lot No. 1089-F to Jesus) and the resulting OCT No. P-41507 valid?
- Is the Affidavit of Waiver dated Septe...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)