Case Digest (G.R. No. 233775)
Facts:
Doris Marie S. Lopez v. Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr., G.R. No. 233775, September 15, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. The petition is a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' February 9, 2017 Decision and August 30, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 96678, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67 (Civil Case No. 70886-PSG) Decision dated November 5, 2010.Petitioner is Doris Marie S. Lopez; respondent is Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. Respondent filed an Action for Reconveyance and Damages (with prayer for injunctive relief) alleging that he, and not petitioner, was the beneficial owner of two parcels of land in Barrio Pineda, Pasig City, which were later registered in petitioner’s name. Respondent alleged he was induced to let petitioner act as nominal buyer, paid the purchase price (P15,000,000.00) by issuing checks in petitioner’s name, and expected petitioner to reconvey the properties to him; respondent also asserted continuous actual possession, P9,000,000.00 in renovations, payment of real property taxes for 13 years, and payment of homeowner association dues.
Petitioner answered that she was the legal purchaser by virtue of a pacto de retro and later a Deed of Absolute Sale executed in her favor (TCT Nos. PT-111136 and PT-111137), that respondent voluntarily financed renovations as part of their special relationship, and that respondent had occupied the property and later filed an adverse claim. Petitioner invoked ownership and filed a barangay ejectment complaint against respondent.
The RTC (Branch 67, Pasig City) issued a Decision on November 5, 2010 declaring respondent the absolute and rightful owner, ordering petitioner to execute a Deed of Reconveyance, deliver original title documents, and pay attorney’s fees and costs. The RTC found an implied trust based on respondent’s payment and continuous possession. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, is the Supreme Court permitted to re-examine the factual findings of the CA/RTC in this case, or do limitations/exceptions to Rule 45 preclude such review?
- Did respondent prove the existence of an implied trust (resulting trust) such that he is the beneficial owner of the two parcels and petition...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)