Case Digest (G.R. No. 125755)
Facts:
Pedro Molina v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Spouses Margarito M. Flores and Nerisa Herrera, G.R. No. 125755, February 24, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pedro Molina and his siblings were co-owners of a parcel in Naic, Cavite registered under TCT No. T-44010. On April 23, 1984, petitioner executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying his share to his sister Felisa Molina (not registered). The siblings later agreed to partition the property into several lots, with Lot No. 98-A-2 (92 sq.m.) allotted to Pedro Molina.On June 13, 1988, petitioner executed another Deed of Absolute Sale, this time conveying the same share to private respondents Margarito M. Flores (Felisa’s son) and Nerisa Herrera for P8,000, which resulted in issuance of TCT No. T-170585 in the spouses' names. More than four years earlier petitioner had signed a Deed selling his share to Felisa (1984), but that earlier deed was unregistered.
On September 5, 1990, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cavite, Branch 15, Civil Case No. NC-325, an action for reformation of instrument and/or annulment of document and title with reconveyance and damages, alleging that the June 13, 1988 Deed did not express the true intention of the parties and that the transaction was in reality an equitable mortgage or otherwise void for fraud. After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on April 4, 1994 in favor of petitioner: it annulled the June 13, 1988 Deed, ordered cancellation of TCT No. T-170585, and awarded attorney’s fees.
Respondent spouses appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 46107, which on April 30, 1996 reversed the RTC and dismissed petitioner’s complaint, holding the sale valid. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision. Petitioner’s core contentions were that he was misled into signing the Deed (believing it to be a receipt of indebtedness), that the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage under Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code, that the consideration (P8,000) was grossly inadequate, and that parol evidence should show the true nature of the transaction.
At trial and on appeal the Court considered petitioner’s testimony that he received money from Felisa in monthly installments (P1,000 for ten months), his unsigned or unregist...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 1988 in favor of respondents constitute an equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code?
- If the sale was not an equitable mortgage, was the contract of sale consummated despite allegations of incomplete payment of the purchase price?
- Could parol evidence and surrounding circumstances overcome the written deed to show t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)