Case Digest (G.R. No. 148846)
Facts:
Cecilia Amodia Vda. de Melencion, Veneranda Amodia, Felipe Amodia, Eutiquio Amodia and Go Kim Chuan v. Honorable Court of Appeals and Aznar Brothers Realty Company, G.R. No. 148846, September 25, 2007, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns a 30,351-square-meter parcel denominated Lot No. 3368 (the subject property) in Suba-basbas, Marigondon, Lapu‑Lapu City, which formed part of a larger 30,777-square-meter area covered originally by a Torrens title in the name of the late Go Kim Chuan’s predecessor, Esteban Bonghanoy. The certificate of title had been lost during World War II; nevertheless, the land remained under the operation of the Torrens system. In 1964 the Amodias (heirs of Juana Bonghanoy‑Amodia) purportedly executed an Extra‑Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the subject property to Aznar Brothers Realty Company (AZNAR), and AZNAR registered that instrument under Act No. 3344 and made improvements on the land.
In February 1989 the Amodias executed a Deed of Extra‑Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale conveying the same subject property to Go Kim Chuan for ₱70,000.00. The lost Torrens certificate was reconstituted pursuant to R.A. No. 26 and an Original Certificate of Title was issued in the name of Esteban Bonghanoy, and subsequently Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20626 was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan on December 1, 1989. On February 14, 1990 AZNAR annotated a Notice of Adverse Claim on TCT No. 20626 and, on April 25, 1990, filed an action for Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 20626 against the Amodias and Go Kim Chuan, alleging that the 1989 sale was a second, invalid sale.
At trial the Philippine Constabulary document examiner testified that the 1964 deed in favor of AZNAR bore forged signatures of the Amodias. On February 18, 1993, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Lapu‑Lapu City, dismissed AZNAR’s complaint and declared Go Kim Chuan the real owner, relying substantially on the document examiner’s finding and on the absence of proof of bad faith by Go Kim Chuan. AZNAR appealed.
On March 30, 2001 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. C.V. No. 51814 reversed the RTC, holding that (a) the 1964 deed registered under Act 3344 was registered earlier than Go Kim Chuan’s deed and therefore took preference under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code; (b) AZNAR’s adverse claim was annotated earlier than Go Kim Chuan’s purchase and should have put the latter on inquiry; and (c) the document examiner’s finding of forgery was insufficient absent a judicial determination. The CA directed cancellation of TCT No. 20626 and restitution of possession to AZNAR. AZNAR’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 5, 2001.
Petitioners (heirs of Go Kim Chuan) filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari seeking reinstatement of the RTC decision. The petition process included a contested procedural issue: the Original Petition’s Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping had been signed by only one heir (April Socorro Go), and petitioners later moved for leave to file an Amended Petition to implead the Heirs of Go Kim Chuan and delete the Amodias for reasons of non‑locatability. The Court, invoking doctrines of substantial compliance and commonality of interest (citing Igl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the petition have been dismissed for alleged defects in the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping and was the Court justified in allowing the Amended Petition?
- Did the Court of Appeals misapply the doctrine in Heirs of Severa Gregorio v. CA in rejecting the RTC’s finding of forgery based principally on the testimony of a document examiner?
- Between Go Kim Chuan (and his heirs) and AZNAR, who has the better right to the subject property un...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)