Case Digest (G.R. No. 161237)
Facts:
Perfecto Macababbad, Jr., Deceased, Substituted by His Heirs Sophia Macababbad, Glenn M. Macababbad, Perfecto Vener M. Macababbad III and Mary Grace Macababbad, and Sps. Chua Seng Lin and Say Un Ay, Petitioners, vs. Fernando G. Masirag, Faustina G. Masirag, Corazon G. Masirag, Leonor G. Masirag, and Leoncio M. Goyagoy, Respondents, G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the named defendants below (with Macababbad later substituted by his heirs); the respondents are heirs who sued to recover their purported shares in Lot No. 4144; Francisca Masirag Baccay, Pura Masirag Ferrer-Melad, and Santiago Masirag intervened as respondents.On April 28, 1999 the respondents filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City (Civil Case No. 5487), later amended, seeking quieting of title, nullity of titles, reconveyance, damages and attorney’s fees. They alleged an extrajudicial settlement with simultaneous sale dated December 3, 1967 had been falsified so as to show that certain heirs (the respondents) participated when they did not, thereby depriving them of their hereditary shares. The subject was Lot No. 4144 originally covered by OCT No. 1946; subsequently the OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 13408 issued, and portions were later registered or sold to third parties, including transfers in favor of the petitioners.
The petitioners moved to dismiss on prescription and non-joinder grounds. The RTC initially denied the motion but then, by Order dated May 29, 2000, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the action had prescribed (filed decades after the purported partition/sale) and for failure to implead indispensable parties (other heirs and innocent purchasers). The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA (written by Justice Guarina III) ignored the petitioners’ motion to dismiss the appeal as improperly taken, took cognizance of the appeal, reversed the RTC and remanded the case for further proceedings. The CA held the pleading sufficiently alleged a fraud-based cause of action and that the action to declare the extrajudicial settlement void is imprescriptible under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, with reconciling references to implied trust doctrines and the effect (or lack thereof) of issuance of transfer certificates of title.
The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the CA decision (initially denied by the Court in a Third Division resolution but later reinstated). They argued primarily that the CA lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised pure questions of law (and ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the RTC (i.e., was the appeal properly taken to the CA rather than directly to the Supreme Court)?
- Was the RTC correct in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription (or, alternatively, is the respondents’ action imprescriptible)?
- Could laches be invoked to dismiss the respondents’ complaint at the pleading stage?
- Did non-joinder of indispensable parties justif...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)