Case Digest (G.R. No. 158384)
Facts:
Olivares and Robles v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 158384, June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court First Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Esperanza de la Cruz Sarmiento owned a 230-square-meter residential lot in Barangay San Antonio, Oton, Iloilo, covered by TCT No. T-86397. In August 1976 she and her husband Manuel obtained a P12,000 loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and mortgaged the property as security; they defaulted on amortizations and the property faced foreclosure. In 1979 respondent allegedly procured funds from neighbor Luis Boteros (her son's godfather) to pay DBP; respondent later claimed Boteros and his niece Segunda Planta forged deeds of sale to make it appear she and Manuel sold the property.
Boteros testified that respondent offered to sell the lot to him if he would pay off the DBP obligation; he paid DBP P21,009.62, and a DBP certification of cancellation of mortgage dated 28 June 1979 was issued. A notarized Deed of Definite Sale dated May 1979 (P2,000 plus assumption of DBP loan) and a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated 2 July 1979 (stating P25,000) were executed and signed by respondent and Manuel; TCT No. T-86397 was cancelled and TCT No. T-99121 issued in Boteros’s name on 24 July 1979. On 7 January 1984 Boteros sold the property to petitioners Juan Olivares and Dolores Robles for P27,000; petitioners’ title (TCT No. T-115,672) was registered on 3 April 1985.
Petitioners demanded respondent vacate; when she failed to do so they filed an illegal detainer action in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Oton and obtained a decision on 14 October 1988 ordering ejectment. Separately, respondent filed Civil Case No. 16177 (7 December 1984) against Boteros and Planta, which was dismissed without prejudice on 23 April 1986. On 26 September 1986 respondent filed Civil Case No. 17242 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo for recovery of ownership, annulment of title, and damages against Boteros, Planta, and petitioners.
On 1 March 1993 the RTC, Branch 36, dismissed respondent’s complaint and ordered her to pay P3,000 moral damages, P5,000 attorney’s fees, and P2,000 litigation expenses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed in a Decision dated 30 October 2002, declaring null and void the Deed of Definite Sale (May 1979), the Deed of Absolute Sale (2 July 1979), and the sale from Boteros to petitioners (7 January 1984); it ordered restoration of possession to respondent and directed her to pay petitioners P21,009.62 with interest and costs, failing which the property would be sold at public auction. The CA denied petitioners’ mo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court of Appeals disregard the trial court’s findings upholding the notarized deed and instead accept respondent’s uncorroborated denial over affirmative testimonies and notarial attestations?
- Were the CA’s factual findings and conclusions based on speculation without citation to specific evidence?
- Can the Deed of Definite/Absolute Sale be construed as an equitable mortgage and thus be declared null and void rather than reformed?
- May the appellate court order a mortgagee to redeem the property mortgaged?
- Were petitioners, relying on Boteros’s ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)