Case Digest (G.R. No. 181359)
Facts:
Spouses Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. and Ma. Rosario M. Sabitsana v. Juanito F. Muertegui, G.R. No. 181359, August 05, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners are the Spouses Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. (an attorney) and Ma. Rosario M. Sabitsana; respondent is Juanito F. Muertegui (represented by his attorney-in-fact Domingo A. Muertegui, Jr.). In 1981 Alberto Garcia executed an unnotarized deed of sale in favor of Juanito covering a 7,500-sq.m. unregistered lot in Biliran later appearing under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 1996 in Garcia’s name. The Muertegui family took actual possession, planted trees and paid real property taxes from 1980 to 1998.
In October 1991 Garcia sold the same lot to petitioner Atty. Sabitsana by a notarized deed of absolute sale; this sale was registered with the Register of Deeds in February 1992 and a new TD No. 5327 was issued in Atty. Sabitsana’s name. Petitioners—and Atty. Sabitsana in particular—also paid some taxes and introduced improvements in 1996. In August 1998 Atty. Sabitsana wrote the DENR opposing the Muertegui heirs’ application to have the lot registered, asserting his ownership and asking that the application be held in abeyance.
To prevent a cloud on title, Juanito (through his attorney-in-fact) filed Civil Case No. B-1097 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naval, Biliran on April 11, 2000, for quieting of title and preliminary injunction, seeking to nullify the Sabitsana deed, TD No. 5327 and to obtain damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Petitioners answered and counterclaimed, alleging lack of marital consent in the sale to Juanito, good faith acquisition, and defenses of prescription, laches and lack of jurisdiction of the RTC due to the low assessed value of the property.
After trial the RTC (Branch 16, Naval) rendered judgment on October 28, 2002 declaring the 2 September 1981 deed in favor of Juanito valid and preferred; declaring the 17 October 1991 deed to petitioners and TD No. 5327 void; and awarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to Juanito. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 79250), which by decision dated January 25, 2007 affirmed the RTC in toto, holding that (a) the absence of the wife’s signature rendered the 1981 sale voidable but not void; (b) Article 1544 was improperly applied by the lower court but, on the facts, petitioners were not in good faith and therefore the earlier buyer prevailed; and (c) the award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses was justified. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by resolution dated January 11, 2008.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision and resolution; the Supreme Court resolved the matter in this decision promulgated August 5, 2013 (Del Castillo, J., ponente) in the Second Division.
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain the action for quieting of title despite the low assessed value of the property?
- Whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the conflict between the two sales, or whether a different statutory scheme applies to unregistered land?
- Are petitioners’ defenses of laches, estoppel and prescription available against respondent when petitioners’ deed is void?
- Was the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to respondent justified?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)