Case Digest (G.R. No. 85082)
Facts:
Spouses Pastor Valdez and Virginia Valdez v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Felicidad Viernes, Francisco Ante, and Antonio Ante, G.R. No. 85082, February 25, 1991, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Spouses Pastor and Virginia Valdez bought a parcel of land (TCT No. 141582) from Francisco and Manuela Ante, through a special power of attorney granted to their son Antonio Ante. Antonio, acting as attorney-in-fact, subdivided the lot into Lot A (280 sq. m.) and Lot B (345.70 sq. m.) and executed deeds of sale to the Valdezes for Lot A on June 15, 1980 and Lot B on February 12, 1981. The Valdezes took possession and fenced the property and demanded delivery of the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 141582, which Antonio promised but failed to deliver.
On September 6, 1982 the Valdezes filed an affidavit of adverse claim with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and annotated it on the title. Unbeknownst to them initially, Antonio had delivered the owners duplicate copy of the title to Dr. and Mrs. Garma as collateral for a P9,000 debt; the Garmas later turned the duplicate over to the Valdezes after the Valdezes paid Ante’s obligation. Meanwhile, on February 17, 1982 Antonio executed a deed of assignment of the property in favor of Felicidad Viernes, and a petition was filed in the Court of First Instance for issuance of a new owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 141582 on the ground that the original was lost. An order dated November 10, 1982 (appearing in the record as November 10, 1983 in parts of the decision) declared the original null and void and authorized issuance of a new owners duplicate in the Antes’ name; the duplicate was thereafter delivered to Viernes and presented to the Register of Deeds, which canceled TCT No. 141582 and issued TCT No. 293889 in Viernes’ name on November 11, 1982.
The Valdezes filed an adverse claim against TCT No. 293889, pursued an unsuccessful barangay complaint, and then sued in the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City) seeking, among other reliefs, cancellation of the order authorizing issuance of the new owners duplicate, cancellation of the deed of assignment to Viernes, annulment of TCT No. 293889, reinstatement of TCT No. 141582 in the Antes’ name, declaration of the Valdezes as true owners, eviction of respondents, and damages. After the Antes were declared in default, the trial court rendered judgment on April 9, 1986 dismissing the complaint as against the Vierneses but awarding damages against the defaulted Antes (actual P250,000; moral and exemplary P15,000 and P5,000; attorneys’ fees P5,000). The Valdezes appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto on September 12, 1988.
The Valdezes filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court raising three principal issues: (1) whether the November 10, 1982 order (declaring the owners duplicate void and or...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the trial court's decision and the Court of Appeals' adoption thereof violated Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court by failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which the decision was based, warranting reversal.
- Whether the order dated November 10, 1982 declaring the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 141582 null and void and ordering issuance of a new owners duplicate should be set aside as having been procured fraudulently and in bad faith by Francisco and Antonio Ante.
- As between petitioners Spouses Pastor and Virginia Valdez and respondent Felicidad Viernes, who is en...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)