Case Digest (G.R. No. 191889)
Facts:
Sps. Ireneo T. Fernando (Substituted by Their Heirs, Ronaldo M. Fernando, Concordia Fernando-Jayme, Esmeralda M. Fernando, Antonette M. Fernando-Regondola, Ferdinand M. Fernando, and Jean Marie Fernando-Cansanay), and Monserrat Magsalin Fernando v. Marcelino T. Fernando, G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The parties were siblings and co-owners in equal pro rata thirds of three adjoining lots in Quezon City (Lots 22, 24 and 26, Block 329) originally covered by TCT Nos. RT-7108 and RT-7109. Celerina T. Fernando died on April 28, 1988, single and intestate; Juliana T. Fernando died on December 1, 1998, also single and intestate, and allegedly left a holographic will. Marcelino T. Fernando (respondent) is a full-blood brother of petitioner Ireneo and of Juliana and Celerina.
On October 27, 1994 (notarized same date), a document entitled Deed of Partition with Sale was presented to the Register of Deeds, purportedly executed by Ireneo, Juliana and Celerina partitioning the three lots and providing for Juliana’s sale of Lot 24 to Ireneo for P300,000. New TCTs (Nos. 120654–120656) were issued in November 1994 in the names of the purported grantees. Respondent annotated an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on December 10, 1997, and filed on February 22, 2000 a complaint for annulment of the deed and the derivative TCTs (RTC, Quezon City, Civil Case No. Q-00-40041), alleging Celerina’s signature was forged because she had died six years before the deed’s notarial date and that Juliana’s sale was simulated, depriving respondent of pre-emption/redemption rights as an heir.
Respondent was appointed administrator of Celerina’s estate (Dec. 21, 2001). Intervenors Matias (Procilo) and Panfilo (Procilo/Procilo noted in records) Fernando, as special co-administrators of Juliana’s estate, filed a complaint-in-intervention asserting similar claims and seeking reconveyance. Petitioners replied, asserting the deed had in fact been executed in 1986 and merely belatedly notarized in 1994; they also asserted Juliana’s holographic will was pending probate.
At trial petitioner Monserrat (Ireneo’s widow) testified she witnessed execution in 1986 but could not recall witnesses, who prepared the instrument, nor produce the P300,000 check; respondent’s testimony supported his complaint. The trial court (RTC, Br. 220) rendered judgment on April 13, 2005 dismissing the complaint and intervention and awarding petitioners moral damages and attorney’s fees on their counterclaim, finding no dispute as to the signatures and that belated notarization did not void the instrument.
The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated January 6, 2010 (CA penned by Veloso, J., concurring Justices Lazaro-Javier and Reyes, Jr.), reversed, holding the deed null and void for forgery because Celerina could not have executed or acknowledged the instrument in 1994, ordered revival of original TCTs RT-7108 and RT-7109, and awarded damages to respondent. The CA denied reconsideration (Apr. 13, 2010). Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, argui...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review the factual finding on the genuineness of the deed under Rule 45 when the trial and appellate courts’ findings conflict?
- Was the Deed of Partition with Sale dated October 27, 1994 (and the derivative TCTs) null and void for forgery and notarial irregularities?
- Did respondent and the intervenors have legal personality to question the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)