Title
Spouses Fuentes vs. Roca
Case
G.R. No. 178902
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2010
A disputed land sale involving forged spousal consent; heirs sought annulment, claiming forgery. SC ruled sale void, ordered reimbursement for buyers' payments and improvements.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178902)

Facts:

  • Original Ownership and Initial Sale
    • In 1982, Sabina Tarroza sold a titled 358-sqm lot in Canelar, Zamboanga City, to her son, Tarciano T. Roca, by deed of absolute sale.
    • Title remained in Tarroza’s name as Tarciano did not immediately effect transfer.
  • Agreement to Sell to the Fuentes Spouses
    • On April 29, 1988, Tarciano and petitioners Manuel and Leticia Fuentes executed an agreement to sell the lot, stipulating:
      • P60,000 down payment;
      • Six-month period for Tarciano to clear the lot and secure his estranged wife Rosario’s written consent.
    • If conditions were met, the Fuentes spouses would pay P140,000–P160,000 and take possession; if not, they would acquire the lot free of further payment.
  • Procurement of Spousal Consent and Transfer
    • Atty. Romulo Plagata obtained an affidavit of consent from Rosario in Manila (allegedly signed September 15, 1988) and later notarized it in Zamboanga City on January 11, 1989.
    • That same day, Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Fuentes spouses, who paid the balance and secured a new title in their names. They immediately constructed a building on the lot.
  • Post-Sale Events and Litigation
    • Tarciano died January 28, 1990; Rosario died nine months later.
    • In 1997, Tarciano and Rosario’s heirs (the Rocas and Pilar Malcampo) filed in RTC Zamboanga City Civil Case No. 4707 for annulment of sale and reconveyance, alleging Rosario’s signature had been forged and no valid spousal consent existed.
    • The Fuentes spouses defended on prescription grounds and denied forgery, presenting Atty. Plagata’s testimony and their own handwriting expert.
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • RTC (2005): Dismissed the case for prescription under Article 1391 (4-year period) and held forgery unproven; ruled defective notarization did not void the sale.
    • CA (2007): Reversed, finding clear variance in signatures and forged jurat; applied Civil Code Article 173 (10-year period for voidable sale), annulled the sale, awarded reimbursement and indemnity for improvements, but no damages.

Issues:

  • Whether Rosario’s signature on the affidavit of consent was forged.
  • Whether the Rocas’ action to annul the sale had prescribed.
  • Whether only Rosario (and not her heirs) could maintain the annulment action for lack of spousal consent.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.