Title
St. Mary's Farm, Inc. vs. Prima Real Properties, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 158144
Decision Date
Jul 31, 2008
Petitioner alleged forgery of a board resolution authorizing sale of land to Prima, but Supreme Court upheld Prima as a buyer in good faith, ruling petitioner estopped after accepting purchase price.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 115455)

Facts:

  • Background of Property Ownership and Documentation
    • Petitioner, St. Mary's Farm, Inc., was the registered owner of 25,598 square meters of land in Bo. Pugad Lawin, Las PiAas City under TCT No. S-1648 (11521-A).
    • A final court decision in Civil Case No. 87-42915 of RTC, Branch XL, Manila, led petitioner to pass a board resolution on June 27, 1988, authorizing its agent, Rodolfo A. Agana, to cede 4,000 square meters of the property to T.S. Cruz Subdivision.
    • Subsequent actions involved transactions that, allegedly, deviated from the authorized scope.
  • Allegations of Unauthorized Sale and Forgery
    • It is alleged that after ceding the 4,000 square meters portion, defendant Rodolfo A. Agana withheld the title from petitioner.
    • Agana is further accused of forging a board resolution by which petitioner purportedly authorized him to sell the remaining 21,598 square meters of the property.
    • A series of transactions ensued between Agana and Prima Real Properties, Inc. (defendant), culminating in an absolute deed of sale on September 5, 1988, transferring title from petitioner to defendant Prima.
  • Transfer and Issuance of New Titles
    • After the sale, defendant Prima effected the cancellation of TCT No. S-1648 and obtained a new title, TCT No. T-6175, issued by Register of Deeds Alejandro R. Villanueva.
    • Prima later purchased the 4,000 square meters portion from T.S. Cruz Subdivision, leading to the cancellation of TCT No. T-6175 and the issuance of two separate titles: TCT No. 7863 (4,000 sqm) and TCT No. T-7864 (21,598 sqm).
  • Pleadings and Procedural Background
    • The petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the sale, alleging that:
      • The board resolution authorizing Agana was a forgery.
      • Defendant Prima Real Properties, Inc. acted in collusion with Agana by relying on a forged authorization.
    • Defendant Prima, in its answers, contended:
      • The plaintiffs (Venice B. Agana and Ma. Natividad A. Villacorta) lacked legal capacity to sue, as they were not authorized by the board of directors.
      • Prima acted in good faith by relying on the face of the allegedly notarized authorization, having paid the full purchase price.
    • The trial court dismissed the petition on April 7, 2000, finding that:
      • The sale had been validly consummated, relying on a notarized board resolution.
      • Respondent Prima was a buyer in good faith and for value, and any alleged breach of trust by Agana was binding on the petitioner.
    • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, leading petitioner to file a petition for review.
  • Specific Allegations Raised in the Petition
    • Petitioner argued that:
      • There was no proof of authenticity or due execution of the Certification dated June 30, 1988.
      • Clear and convincing evidence showed that the Certification was forged.
      • Even if authentic, the Certification did not sufficiently authorize Agana to sell or to receive payment on behalf of the petitioner.
    • Petitioner also claimed that:
      • Defendant Prima failed to make reasonable inquiries into Agana’s authority, contributing to its own damage.
      • The sale should be annulled on account of the fraudulent transaction resulting from Agana’s lack of authority.
  • Reliance on Supporting Evidence and Further Transactions
    • Defendant Prima’s position was bolstered by:
      • Reliance on a notarized board resolution and a separate Certification by the petitioner’s president.
      • Verification from the Register of Deeds and other parties involved in similar transactions.
    • Defendant Agana’s retraction, made later and only after years of litigation, was deemed an afterthought insufficient to disturb the earlier findings.

Issues:

  • Authenticity and Due Execution of the Authorization
    • Whether the Certification dated June 30, 1988, purportedly authorizing Rodolfo A. Agana to sell the subject property, was authentic and properly executed.
    • Whether, even if authentic, the Certification sufficiently empowered Agana to sell the property.
  • Good Faith Purchase and Buyer’s Reliance
    • Whether respondent Prima acted in good faith and for value by relying on the face of the notarized board resolution.
    • Whether Prima's reliance on the Certification and other supporting documents negated any claim of fraudulent sale.
  • Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations
    • Whether the factual determinations of the trial court and the appellate court, in affirming the buyer’s good faith, should preclude reassessment of evidentiary material regarding alleged forgery.
    • Whether the retraction by Agana, as raised anew in the petition, can be considered as a sufficient basis to annul the sale.

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.