Case Digest (G.R. No. 187225)
Facts:
Melinda M. Malabanan v. Francisco Malabanan, Jr., Spouses Ramon and Prescila Malabanan, and Spouses Dominador III and Guia Montano, G.R. No. 187225, March 06, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Melinda Malabanan and her husband Jose Malabanan acquired a 310-square meter portion of Lot 1146-B-2 by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 18, 1984; a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-188590 was issued on February 21, 1985 in the name of “Jose, married to Melinda.” The couple built and possessed a house on the lot beginning in 1984. Melinda worked abroad in Libya from October 13, 1984, and after Jose’s murder on June 12, 1985 she returned briefly, then left again until November 8, 1990.
Upon Melinda’s return she discovered that TCT No. T-188590 had been canceled through a sequence of transactions allegedly effected pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated March 20, 1985 purportedly executed by Jose with Melinda’s conformity. The SPA allegedly authorized Melinda’s father-in-law, Francisco Malabanan, Jr., to mortgage, lease or sell the property; Francisco sold it to Benjamin M. Lopez on May 29, 1985 (resulting in TCT No. T-195283), then purportedly reacquired it on September 9, 1985 (resulting in TCT No. T-198039 in Francisco’s name). After the death of Francisco’s spouse Adelfina, an extrajudicial settlement adjudicated the property to Ramon Malabanan (Jose’s brother), who sold it on June 17, 1994 to the Spouses Dominador III and Guia Montano (Montano Spouses), who obtained TCT No. T-467540.
On June 1, 1994, Melinda filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Civil Case No. TM-534, a Complaint for Annulment of Title with Damages against Francisco and the Malabanan Spouses; she later amended to implead the Montano Spouses. Melinda alleged forgery of her signature on the SPA, that she and Jose remained owners, and sought nullification of the SPA and subsequent transfers. At trial an NBI expert testified that Melinda’s signature on the SPA was forged; the RTC, in a July 9, 2004 Decision, credited petitioner’s proof, annulled the SPA and subsequent transactions, ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-467540 and reinstatement of TCT No. T-188590 in Melinda’s name, and awarded damages and attorneys’ fees.
The Court of Appeals, Second Division, in a June 17, 2008 Decision, reversed and dismissed the complaint, finding the property to be Jose’s exclusive property (an advance on his legitime or a gratuitous acquisition) and upholding respondents’ theory that Jose had acknowledged the SPA and that applicable presumptions rebutted conjugal characterization; the CA...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-188590 conjugal, and if so, was the subsequent sale effected without the wife's consent ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)