Case Digest (G.R. No. 195975)
Facts:
Taina Manigque‑Stone v. Cattleya Land, Inc., G.R. No. 195975, September 05, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Taina Manigque‑Stone (Taina) was sued by plaintiff‑appellee Cattleya Land, Inc. (Cattleya) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Tagbilaran City, docketed as Civil Case No. 5782, for quieting of title, recovery of ownership and cancellation of title with damages; the Tecson spouses, Troadio B. Tecson (Col. Tecson) and Asuncion Ortaliz‑Tecson, were impleaded as third‑party defendants in connection with alleged payments and representations.
Chronology of antecedent events: In July 1992 Cattleya sent counsel to the Register of Deeds, Bohol, to investigate several Tecson properties, including an 8,805‑sqm parcel in Doljo, Panglao (the subject property) covered by TCT No. 17655. On November 6, 1992 Cattleya entered into a Contract of Conditional Sale with the Tecson spouses and, on August 30, 1993, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale as to the subject property; annotation on TCT No. 17655 was initially refused because of a writ of attachment related to Civil Case No. 3399. The attachment was later lifted after settlement, but Cattleya could not obtain transfer because the owner's copy of TCT No. 17655 remained with the Tecson spouses who initially claimed it had been destroyed.
Separately, during the mid‑1980s petitioner’s then common‑law husband, Michael (Mike) Stone, a foreign national, negotiated with Col. Tecson for a portion of the beach lot; payments were made in 1985–1987 and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 1, 1987 was executed in favor of Taina. Taina and Mike were married in October 1986. In 1990 Troadio Tecson, Jr. delivered the owner’s copy of TCT No. 17655 to Taina. On April 25, 1994 Taina filed a Notice of Adverse Claim after learning Col. Tecson had filed for issuance of a second owner’s copy. On February 8, 1995 Taina presented the owner’s copy to the Register of Deeds and caused a Memorandum of Encumbrance to be annotated; a new TCT No. 21771 in her name was issued on February 10, 1995.
Cattleya then sued Taina for quieting of title and cancellation of TCT No. 21771. The RTC (Presiding Judge Fernando G. Fuentes III) rendered judgment for Cattleya: it quieted Cattleya’s ownership, ordered cancellation of TCT No. 21771 and issuance of a new title in Cattleya’s name after payment of fees, and ordered Taina to desist from claiming ownership and possession. The RTC also ruled on Taina’s third‑party complaint against the Tecson spouses, ordering return of P77,000 with interest and awarding P50,000 moral and exemplary damages and P30,000 attorney’s fees against the Tecsons. The RTC found that the Tecson spouses had effected a double sale but that Cattleya had superior right by first registration in good faith; the RTC also found the sale to Mike (and thus Taina as his nominee) void because a foreigner cannot acquire land, and further concluded Taina acted as Mike’s dummy.
Taina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 16, 2010 the CA (Associate Justice Egdardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Agnes Reyes‑Carpio and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring) affirmed the RTC with modifications: it again declared the sale in favor of Cattleya valid and enforceable, ordered cancellation of TCT No. 21771 and registration/issuance of title to Cattleya, and sustained the awards against the Tecson spouses. The CA relied on defective notarization, dubious delivery of the owner’s copy to Taina, and Taina’s own admission that Mike paid the purchase price, concluding she served as a dummy for a foreign purchaser. Taina’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a February 22, 2011 resolution....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals legally erred in holding that petitioner was a mere dummy of Michael (Mike) Stone.
- Whether the Court of Appeals legally erred in treating the verbal/earlier sale between the Tecson spouses and Mike as a transfer of ownership to a foreigner, thereby falling within the constitutional ban on land sales to foreigners.
- Whether petitioner’s subsequent marriage to Mike and the registration of the land in her name cured any constitutional infirmity in the earlier sale.
- Whether the rules on double sale (Art. 1544, Civil...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)