Case Digest (G.R. No. 178902)
Facts:
Manuel O. Fuentes and Leticia L. Fuentes v. Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R. Cristobal and Pilar Malcampo, G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, Abad, J., writing for the Court.The property dispute began with a 1982 sale by Sabina Tarroza to her son Tarciano T. Roca of a titled 358-square-meter lot in Canelar, Zamboanga City. In 1988 Tarciano agreed to sell the lot to Manuel and Leticia Fuentes; they signed an agreement to sell dated April 29, 1988, which required a P60,000 down payment and conditioned full transfer on several events, including that Tarciano clear occupants and secure the written consent of his estranged wife, Rosario Gabriel Roca.
According to the Fuentes spouses, their lawyer, Atty. Romulo D. Plagata, obtained an affidavit of consent purportedly signed by Rosario in September 1988 and later notarized in Zamboanga on January 11, 1989. On that date Tarciano executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of the Fuentes spouses; they paid the balance, a new title issued to them, and they immediately improved the lot. Tarciano died January 28, 1990; Rosario died about nine months later.
In 1997 Tarciano and Rosario’s children and a sister (collectively, the Rocas) filed Civil Case No. 4707 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking annulment of the sale and reconveyance on the ground that Rosario did not consent and that her signature on the affidavit was forged. The Fuentes spouses defended, producing Atty. Plagata who testified he witnessed Rosario sign the affidavit; both sides also presented handwriting experts with conflicting opinions.
On February 1, 2005 the RTC dismissed the Rocas’ complaint, ruling that the cause of action had prescribed under Article 1391 (four-year prescription for annulment based on fraud) and that the Rocas had not proven forgery by clear and convincing evidence; the RTC also held that the defective notarization did not invalidate Rosario’s consent. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed on February 27, 2007, finding significant variance between the affidavit signature and specimen signatures, discrediting Atty. Plagata’s jurat, and holding that the action was timely under the Civil Code’s ten-year rule (Article 173). The CA annulled the sale as voidable and directed reimbursement and indemnity to the Fuentes spouses.
The Fuentes spouses filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. A Divis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Rosario’s signature on the affidavit of consent to Tarciano’s sale of the conjugal lot forged?
- Did the Rocas’ action to annul the sale prescribe?
- If consent was lacking and Rosario is deceased, may her heirs (the Rocas) bring the action to have the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)