Case Digest (G.R. No. 123547)
Facts:
Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez v. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123547, May 21, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez (a priest) claimed title to Lot No. 1337-A-3, Villa Fe Subdivision, Cabanatuan City, which he contended he purchased in February 1981 from Godofredo De la Paz and Manuela De la Paz for P15,000; he paid a P3,000 downpayment, secured a building permit (April 23, 1981) with the consent of the registered owner Claudia De la Paz, completed construction of a house (October 6, 1981), paid real estate taxes, and remained in continuous possession.
The De la Pazes had earlier purportedly sold the lot to spouses Reynaldo and Susan Veneracion by a Deed of Absolute Sale with Right to Repurchase dated October 28, 1981 (for P150,000), giving the Veneracions a one‑year right of redemption; the Veneracions did not take actual physical possession and later (June 2, 1983) allegedly bought two of the lots outright from the De la Pazes, one of which was the Martinez lot. The Veneracions registered title as TCT No. T‑44612 (recorded March 5, 1984). The De la Pazes also failed to deliver an absolute deed to Martinez despite his completion of payment (January 31, 1983) and written assurances.
A dispute ensued: the Veneracions sent Martinez a demand to vacate (March 19, 1986), and filed ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on May 12, 1986; Martinez filed a lis pendens (June 10, 1986) and, separately, an annulment of sale with damages against the Veneracions and the De la Pazes in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25 (May 30, 1986). The MTC dismissed the ejectment complaint (January 29, 1987), holding Martinez a possessor in good faith and advising that the proper remedy for ownership was accion publiciana in the RTC. The Veneracions filed a notice of appeal but failed to pay the docket fee.
The RTC, Branch 28, consolidated appeals and in Civil Case No. 670‑AF found the Veneracions true owners by virtue of their prior registration, subject to Martinez’s rights as a builder in good faith, and ordered him to vacate after reimbursing construction cost and paying attorney’s fees (February 20, 1991). In RTC, Branch 25 (Civil Case No. 44‑AF‑8642‑R), Martinez obtained a judgment annulling the sale in favor of the Veneracions only as to rights of a builder in good faith and awarding damages against the De la Pazes (March 5, 1990).
Martinez appealed both RTC decisions to the Court of Appeals (CA); the CA consolidated the matters (CA G.R. SP No. 24477; CA G.R. CV No. 27791) and affirmed the RTCs, ruling the Veneracions were first registrants in good faith under...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are private respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan Veneracion buyers in good faith of the lot in dispute, thereby becoming absolute owners under Art. 1544 of the Civil Code?
- Is payment of the appellate docket fee within the appeal period necessary to perfect an appeal from the Municipal Trial Court so as to render the trial court’s decision final?
- Did the Court of Appeals violate Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the 1987 Constitution by denying petitioner’s motion for reconsiderat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)