Case Digest (G.R. No. 209284)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 209284)
Facts:
Renee B. Tanchuling, and the Heirs of Vicente N. Y. Tanchuling, Namely Rebecca Tanchuling‑Tan, Rita Tanchuling‑Mapa, Rosemarie Tanchuling‑Salinas, and Vincent Raymond B. Tanchuling v. Sotero C. Cantela, G.R. No. 209284, November 10, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.
On March 17, 2005 the spouses Vicente Y. Tanchuling (deceased at a later date) and Renee B. Tanchuling executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Sotero C. Cantela covering two adjacent parcels (Lots 5 and 6, Block 1) in Rawis, Legazpi City (TCT Nos. 41486 and 41487). The deed recited a consideration of P400,000.00 and, thereafter, Vicente delivered the owner’s copies of the TCTs to Cantela, though none of the parties ever took actual physical possession of the lots.
When petitioners later sought return of the titles, Cantela refused. On August 6, 2007 petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (Legazpi City, Branch 5) Civil Case No. 10659 for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Delivery of Owner’s Duplicate Copies of the TCTs with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, alleging the March 17, 2005 deed was absolutely simulated: no consideration was paid; the sale was a public pretense to thwart illegal sales by a third party (John Mercado); and an undated Deed of Absolute Sale reconveying the properties to petitioners was simultaneously executed.
Cantela answered, admitted purchase for P400,000.00, claimed the undated reconveyance was surreptitiously inserted into the papers, and averred he attempted to have taxes computed and secure a tax declaration. In a Decision dated March 23, 2010 the RTC declared the subject deed absolutely simulated and null, relying on the simultaneous undated deed, identical witnesses/signatures and the long delay before Cantela sought to register the titles.
Cantela appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated August 30, 2013 the CA reversed, finding contemporaneous and subsequent acts by Cantela (efforts to assert dominion), the recited P400,000.00 as evidence of consideration, and the notarization of the subject deed (contrasted with the undated deed’s lack of notarization) showed the sale was not absolutely simulated. Petitioners brought a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court contesting the CA reversal.
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review the conflicting factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals in a Rule 45 petition (i.e., is there an exception allowing review of factual issues)?
- Was the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 17, 2005 absolutely simulated and therefore null and void?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)