Case Digest (G.R. No. 199766)
Facts:
Generoso Sepe v. Heirs of Anastacia Kilang, G.R. No. 199766, April 10, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.The petition was filed by Generoso Sepe (petitioner) against the Heirs of Anastacia Kilang, represented by her children Maria, Donata, Feliciana, Dominga and Severo Solijon (respondents), seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision that set aside the trial court's dismissal of respondents' annulment suit concerning a 1992 deed of sale and the transfer certificate of title issued thereon.
The antecedent facts begin with a notarized Deed of Sale (DOS) dated November 18, 1992, by which Anastacia Kilang, with her husband’s marital consent, purportedly sold an 18,163-sq.m. parcel (TCT T-10069) to spouses Generoso and Gaudencia Sepe for P15,000.00. On December 14, 1992, Anastacia executed a notarized Notice of Adverse Claim asserting the title was never sold and that a duplicate TCT had been found in petitioner’s possession. On December 17, 1992, four of Anastacia’s children (except Dominga) executed a notarized Confirmation of Sale (COS) stating they had received P40,000.00 and confirming the sale. On January 14, 1993, Anastacia executed a notarized Notice of Withdrawal of Adverse Claim asserting she had in fact sold the land on November 18, 1992; that same day TCT T-10069 was cancelled and TCT T-35367 was issued in the names of spouses Sepe. Anastacia died on October 20, 1993.
Respondents first filed Civil Case No. 6703 on November 17/December 21, 1998; it was dismissed for failure to prosecute on February 26, 2002. They refiled by complaint dated March 25, 2002 (filed May 16, 2002). At trial respondents offered oral testimony (including Anastacia’s children) and documentary evidence; the NBI examined signatures. Petitioner demurred to evidence (July 13, 2006), arguing prescription and ratification. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, granted the demurrer and dismissed the case in an August 7, 2006 Order, finding respondents’ oral claims inadequate against notarized public documents and that the action had prescribed; a September 14, 2006 motion for reconsideration was denied.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated August 4, 2010, reversed the RTC, held the DOS void for lack of consideration, nullified TCT T-35367 and reinstated TCT T-10069 in Anastacia’s name, and awarded moral and e...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling there was no consideration for the November 18, 1992 Deed of Sale?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in inferring from the haste in executing the December 14, 1992 Notice of Adverse Claim that Anastacia did not sell her property?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the January 14, 1993 withdrawal of the adverse claim was not genuinely executed by Anastacia but procured by petitioner?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that petitioner took advantage of Anastacia and her children’s ignorance by making them believe the DOS referred to a partition or subdivision?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reasoning that, if petitioner had validly ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)