Case Digest (G.R. No. 221586)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 221586, Zenaida D. Roa (petitioner) filed on March 19, 2013 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 66, Makati City, a complaint for cancellation of deeds of sale, annulment of title, and reconveyance with damages against Marie Antoinette R. Francisco, Spouses Robinson K. and Mary Valerie S. Sy, and the Register of Deeds of Makati City. Petitioner alleged that she and her sister Amelia Roa were the registered owners of Lot 73 Amorsolo Street, San Lorenzo Village, under TCT No. 133936. On July 6, 2012, a spurious Deed of Absolute Sale was purportedly executed by petitioner and Amelia in favor of Francisco and notarized on July 10, yet petitioner was abroad from March 20 to August 24, 2012, and Amelia had Alzheimer’s disease. Despite this, Francisco secured TCT No. 006-2012000849 on July 16 and sold the same property to Spouses Sy for ₱35,000,000.00 under a Deed of Sale dated July 20, 2012, resulting in TCT No. 006-2012000889 in the latter’s names. Spouses Sy fileCase Digest (G.R. No. 221586)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Petitioner: Zenaida D. Roa (and sister Amelia Roa), registered owners under TCT No. 133936 of a parcel at 73 Amorsolo St., San Lorenzo Village, Makati City.
- Respondents: Marie Antoinette R. Francisco (niece), Spouses Robinson K. and Mary Valerie S. Sy (buyers), and the Register of Deeds of Makati City.
- Alleged Fraudulent Transactions
- Deed of Sale allegedly executed July 6, 2012 (notarized July 10), purporting sale by Zenaida and Amelia to Francisco. Zenaida was abroad (Mar 20–Aug 24) and Amelia suffered Alzheimer’s, making their signatures impossible.
- TCT No. 006-2012000849 issued to Francisco on July 16, 2012; Francisco sold to Spouses Sy on July 20, 2012 for ₱35 million; TCT No. 006-2012000889 issued to Spouses Sy the same day. Suspicious circumstances included the handwritten title number in the Deed of Sale and close proximity of title issuance and sale dates.
- Procedural History
- RTC Branch 66 (Makati) – Civil Case No. 13-301: Complaint for cancellation of deeds, annulment of title, reconveyance and damages filed Mar 19, 2013. RTC denied Spouses Sy’s motion to dismiss (Aug 7, 2013) and their motion for reconsideration (Mar 26, 2014). RTC thereafter ordered Roa to submit a bill of particulars.
- Court of Appeals – CA G.R. SP No. 135555: Spouses Sy sought certiorari from the denial of their motion to dismiss. CA reversed the RTC on ground of lack of cause of action (Decision May 21, 2015), and denied reconsideration (Resolution Nov 25, 2015).
- Supreme Court – Petition under Rule 45 filed by Roa seeking reversal of CA’s decision.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action when Spouses Sy had moved for dismissal only for failure to state a cause of action.
- Whether the complaint, as supplemented by a bill of particulars and interrogatories, sufficiently states a cause of action against Spouses Sy.
- What is the effect of Spouses Sy’s motion for bill of particulars (in substance a request for written interrogatories) on their subsequent challenge to the complaint’s sufficiency.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)