Title
Spouses Aguinaldo vs. Torres, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 225808
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2017
Spouses Aguinaldo discovered their Tanza, Cavite properties were fraudulently transferred via a forged 1979 deed. Respondent claimed ownership through a 1991 deed, upheld by courts despite improper notarization, requiring petitioners to execute a registrable deed.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225808)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Properties
    • Petitioners Spouses Edgardo M. Aguinaldo and Nelia T. Torres-Aguinaldo are registered owners of three lots in Tanza, Cavite covered by TCT Nos. T-93596, T-87764, and T-87765.
    • Respondent Artemio T. Torres, Jr. holds TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 allegedly issued on the basis of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • In March 2003 petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, and damages, alleging the 1979 deed was spurious and obtained through fraud. Respondent counterclaimed, asserting a valid sale by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991 and raising estoppel and prescription defenses.
    • The RTC ordered an NBI handwriting examination, which found petitioners’ signatures on the 1991 deed genuine. In a January 21, 2010 Decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure of proof, upheld the 1991 sale, and noted petitioners’ admission in a 1998 letter and respondent’s payment of real property taxes (1993–2003).
  • Court of Appeals Proceedings
    • In a May 20, 2015 Decision, the CA declared the 1979 deed spurious but nonetheless affirmed a valid sale via the 1991 deed based on the NBI reports, an independent signature comparison, Nelia’s 1998 admission, and tax payments.
    • The CA found the 1991 deed improperly notarized (signed abroad yet notarized in Cavite), rendering it unregistrable, and directed petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance within 30 days under Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code. A July 14, 2016 Resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
  • Petition for Review
    • Petitioners sought review of the CA Decisions before the Supreme Court, challenging the finding of a valid conveyance and the directive to execute a registrable deed.
    • The central question became whether the CA committed reversible error in those rulings.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in:
    • Ruling there was a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent via the 1991 deed of sale; and
    • Directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance within thirty days from finality of the decision.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.