Case Digest (G.R. No. 155810)
Facts:
Lydia Sumipat, Laurito Sumipat, Alejandro Sumipat, Alicia Sumipat, and Lirafe Sumipat v. Brigido Banga, Herminigildo Tabotabo, Viviano Tabotabo, Bernardita Aninon, and Leonida Tabotabo, G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The land at issue consisted of three parcels acquired during the marriage of Lauro Sumipat and Placida Tabotabo. Lauro fathered five illegitimate children by another woman: the petitioners here, all surnamed Sumipat. On January 5, 1983, Lauro executed a document titled “Deed of Absolute Transfer and/or Quit-Claim Over Real Properties” in favor of the petitioners; Placida’s signature also appears on the instrument as marital consent. Lauro died on January 30, 1984.
After Lauro’s death the parties jointly administered the properties, but Placida’s share dwindled and she later discovered that titles had been transferred to the petitioners. Placida (later substituted by her heirs) filed a complaint on March 3, 1993 seeking declaration of nullity of titles and other reliefs. Placida testified she was unlettered, that Lydia brought a paper and urged her to sign immediately without explaining its contents, and that she never appeared before the notary who acknowledged the deed.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Dipolog (decision dated September 29, 1997) found the properties conjugal but, because Placida did not contest due execution or denied signing, upheld the deed as effecting transfer of the entire parcels to the defendants. On appeal the Court of Appeals (Decision dated April 11, 2002, penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales) reversed in part: it held that as Placida was unlettered the petitioners bore the burden (Art. 1332, Civil Code) to show the deed’s terms were explained to her and that they failed to do so; it annulled the deed insofar as it affected Placida’s conjugal share and held the action timely under the implied/constructive trust doctrine (citing Manangan v. Delos Reyes...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the action to annul the Deed of Absolute Transfer and/or Quitclaim barred by prescription?
- Was the Deed of Absolute Transfer and/or Quitclaim valid as executed — i.e., did it effect a valid transfer of the conjugal properties given Placida’s signature and the surrounding circumstances?
- If the deed is void or voidable, what are the proper legal effects regarding the Torrens titles and rem...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)