Case Digest (G.R. No. 101262)
Facts:
Spouses Alberto Garrido and Coloma Daguro v. The Court of Appeals; Spouses Rufino and Conrada Suplemento, G.R. No. 101262, September 14, 1994, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns Lot 209-A of the Dingle Cadastre, Iloilo. Tomas Hingco originally owned Lot 209 and in 1947 donated one half to his stepdaughter Magdalena Rondael on the express condition that she could not sell, transfer or cede the property. Upon successive deaths, the whole lot came to be registered in Magdalena’s name under TCT No. T-13089; a portion (Lot 209-B) was sold in 1973 and Lot 209-A (343 sq. m.) remained.
While elderly and allegedly in need of funds, Magdalena filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to cancel the annotation/lien that prevented her disposal of the donated property; her deposition was taken 24 January 1979. During the pendency of that petition, on 17 August 1978 she executed a Conditional Deed of Sale of Lot 209-A in favor of respondents Spouses Rufino and Conrada Suplemento, expressly “subject to the lien subsisting and annotated on the face of the Certificate of Title,” with terms for cancellation costs and conditional refund if the lien remained. The petition to cancel the encumbrance was denied on 24 January 1979 for failure to show a ground under Sec. 112 of Act No. 496 and for failure to produce the deed of donation containing the restriction.
Despite the denial, Magdalena — with her husband’s conformity — executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Suplementos on 19 July 1979; the deed was notarized the same date and TCT No. T-108689 was issued in the Suplementos’ names on 2 December 1982. Magdalena died on 13 April 1982.
On 28 October 1985 petitioners Coloma Daguro (Magdalena’s surviving daughter) and her husband Alberto Garrido (petitioners here) filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City to annul the Deed of Absolute Sale, seek reconveyance and damages, alleging the deed was fictitious: Magdalena’s signature was traced and her husband Lorenzo’s signature a forgery (the husband allegedly died on 9 October 1976). The RTC relied on Magdalena’s deposition (24 January 1979), concluded that she intended and did sell Lot 209-A, and that Lorenzo’s signature was not material to convey her paraphernal property; however, because respondents did not prove payment of the purchase balance, the court declared the sale valid but ordered the Suplementos to pay petitioners P16,000 with legal interest (judgment dated 19 October 1988).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on 27 February 1991 (denying reconsideration 29 July 1991). Petitioners then filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking relief from the CA decision; among their c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal personality (standing) to assail the sale on the ground that the donor’s imposed restriction in the deed of donation was violated?
- Was the Deed of Absolute Sale of 19 July 1979 void for forgery of the signatures of Magdalena and/or her husband?
- Can the NBI Questioned Document Report, submitted for the first time to the Supreme Court, be treated as newly discovered evidence ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)