Case Digest (G.R. No. 214319)
Facts:
Pasco v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 214319, November 04, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Myrna C. Pasco (petitioner) sued respondents Isabel Cuenca, and spouses Romeo M. Ytang, Jr. and Esther C. Ytang (collectively, respondents) by filing a complaint on September 9, 1999 in Branch 6, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dipolog City, docketed as Civil Case No. 5437. The subject was Lot No. 38‑B (336 sq.m.), originally under TCT No. T‑12461 in the names of Spouses Antonio Baguispas and Isabel Cuenca‑Baguispas (Spouses Baguispas).
Petitioner alleged that in June 1986 the Spouses Baguispas agreed to sell Lot No. 38‑B to her for P50,000 and executed a notarized Deed of Sale dated July 1, 1986 in her favor; Antonio died on March 3, 1987 leaving Isabel as sole surviving compulsory heir; Isabel then purportedly executed an affidavit of self‑adjudication on June 8, 1988 and later sold the property to the Spouses Ytang by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 8, 1998, after which TCT No. T‑62536 was issued in the Ytangs’ names. Petitioner prayed for annulment of TCT No. T‑62536, annulment of the 1998 deed, and recovery of ownership and damages.
Respondents answered that the 1986 sale was simulated and unsupported by consideration; it was executed only to enable petitioner to use the title as collateral for a Social Security System (SSS) loan. They contended the Spouses Baguispas never intended to sell Lot No. 38‑B to petitioner.
The RTC, in a decision dated May 31, 2010, found for petitioner: it declared TCT No. T‑62536 and the May 8, 1998 Absolute Deed of Sale null and void, declared petitioner lawful owner of Lot No. 38‑B, and directed the Register of Deeds to reinstate TCT No. T‑12461 and annotate the 1986 Deed of Sale if petitioner registers it. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a decision dated August 27, 2014 in CA‑G.R. CV No. 02386‑MIN, the CA reversed the RTC: it held the July 1, 1986 Deed of Sale void ab initio for lack of consideration and as an absolutely simulated sale under Art. 1345 and Art. 1471 of the Civil Code, and therefore validated the subsequent sale to the Spouses Ytang. The CA relied on evidence including Isabel’s testimony that the deed was signed only to enable petitioner to obtain an SSS loan and that no P50,000 was ever received.
Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court. During the SC proceedings the Court required proof of authority for Atty. Senen O. Angeles (petitioner’s counsel) to sign the verification/certification of non‑forum shopping; counsel then disclosed that petitioner had died on August 19, 2011 and submitted a Letter of Authority dated September 20, 2014 from petitioner’s alleged heirs (represented by Emma P. Saile) authorizing him to file the peti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Atty. Senen O. Angeles have authority to file and verify the Rule 45 petition on behalf of petitioner after her death?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the July 1, 1986 Deed of Sale is null and void for lack of consideration and for being an absolutely...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)