Case Digest (G.R. No. 133749)
Facts:
Penalosa v. Santos, G.R. No. 133749, August 23, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Hernando R. Penalosa (alias Henry Penalosa); respondents are Severino C. Santos (deceased), substituted by his heirs Oliver S. Santos and Adyll M. Santos, and Adela Durán Méndez Santos. The dispute concerns a residential house and lot in Quezon City (TCT No. PT-23458/54434) that respondents owned and negotiated to sell in 1988.In 1988 the parties negotiated sale. On August 1, 1988 petitioner signed a deed of absolute sale (the "first deed") for P1,800,000 but Severino did not sign it. On August 15, 1988 petitioner executed a document (Exhibit D) admitting the first deed was meant to assist Severino in ejecting a lessee and acknowledging that he had not paid the stated consideration. Thereafter the parties executed a second deed of absolute sale (Exhibit B), originally dated "August 1988" with the date "September 12, 1988" superimposed; it was signed by both parties and recited a P2,000,000 purchase price with receipt of full payment.
Concurrently petitioner paid Severino P300,000 as earnest money and pursued an ejectment action against the lessee, Eleuterio Perez, relying on the (later) deed; the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment on April 28, 1989 ordering the tenant to vacate and explicitly recognizing petitioner as owner by virtue of the sale dated September 12, 1988 after full payment. Petitioner applied for a loan from Philam Life to finance the balance; Philam Life approved a P2,500,000 loan in January 1989 with P1,700,000 payable to Severino, but the loan was not completed because Severino refused to surrender the owner's duplicate title at the closing meeting.
Petitioner moved into the property in August 1989 and spent about P700,000 on renovations. In July 1992 Severino demanded vacation and, when petitioner refused, filed an action for quieting of title, recovery of possession and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging the second deed was void and inexistent for multiple reasons (nonpayment of price, lack of wife’s signature, defective notarization/registration, falsified residence certificate, and that the deed was simulated to place petitioner in possession).
On August 20, 1993 the RTC, Branch 78, declared the second deed void and quieted title in respondents, ordered petitioner to pay monthly compensation and to be reimbursed the P300,000 only after he vacated. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Severino died while the appeal was pending and his heirs were substituted. Petitioner obtained leave to deposit P1,700,000 in ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petition raise only factual questions such that this Court should not review the Court of Appeals' findings of fact?
- Was the second deed of absolute sale between Severino and petitioner a simulated or void instrument and thus inexistent?
- If the second deed was valid, does nonpayment of the full purchase price, defects in notarization/registration, or absence of the wife's signature render the sale void; and did possession following the ejectme...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)