Case Summary (G.R. No. 75009)
Antecedent Facts
On January 3, 1960, Pablo Cayetano passed away, leaving the property jointly owned with Filomena. By an extrajudicial settlement executed on April 10, 1961, Filomena and her children, except for one who had predeceased Pablo, became the co-owners of the property. Following the registration of this settlement, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42347 was replaced with TCT No. 68065 in their names. Filomena later sold half of this property to her son Juanito on November 10, 1980, leading to further transactions and conflict regarding ownership and possession.
Subsequent Transactions and Legal Actions
Juanito Cayetano later forged an Agreement of Partition of Common Property, claiming a larger ownership interest in the property. Despite his mother's ongoing lawsuit to annul the sale to him, he transferred his half-share to Bartolome Guevarra on December 22, 1981. Juanito then borrowed funds from Francisco M. Angeles to redeem the property from Guevarra and, in turn, mortgaged it to Angeles.
Heirs of Pablo, upon learning of these transactions, disowned the partition agreement as a forgery and demanded that Juanito fulfill his mortgage obligations. Angeles was informed of their claims but proceeded with the foreclosure of the mortgage, purchasing the property at a public auction on June 28, 1982.
Legal Proceedings
Subsequent to the foreclosure, private respondents (Filomena’s children excluding Juanito) initiated a civil action against him, shaking the foundation of the property transaction. Concurrently, they filed criminal complaints against Juanito and Angeles concerning the falsification of documents. On August 13, 1982, Filomena passed away, complicating matters further.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions
The Regional Trial Court later issued a writ of possession allowing Angeles to eject the private respondents from the property. When the private respondents challenged this order, claiming they were not parties to the mortgage obligation, the Intermediate Appellate Court ruled in their favor, finding that the writ of possession could not be enforced against them. The Court held that the private respondents had established adverse possession and were not parties in the mortgage or foreclosure proceedings.
Legal Arguments and Findings
Angeles contested this decision, asserting that he acted as an innocent mortgagee unaware of any claim on the property and argued that the lis pendens notices recorded later could not affect his rights. However, the Court emphasized that upon receiving the demand letter regarding the alleged forgery, he should have conducted further inquiries, thus negating his claim of good faith.
The Court also clarified that the original ownership rights of the private respondents took precedence because they filed an ac
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 75009)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari regarding the decision made by the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals) on April 24, 1986, and its subsequent resolution on June 25, 1986.
- The main parties involved are Francisco M. Angeles as the petitioner and the heirs of Filomena Vda. de Cayetano as the respondents.
Antecedent Facts
- The spouses Pablo Cayetano and Filomena Mendoza were registered owners of a lot in Sampaloc, Manila, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42347.
- Pablo Cayetano died on January 3, 1960.
- On April 10, 1961, Filomena and her children executed an extrajudicial settlement and sale of Pablo's estate, transferring their shares to Filomena and her three children (excluding Manuel, who predeceased them).
- Following the registration of this settlement, TCT No. 42347 was cancelled, and TCT No. 68065 was issued to Filomena and the children of Manuel.
Transactional Developments
- On November 10, 1980, Filomena sold one-half of the property to her son Juanito, leading to the issuance of TCT No. 140500.
- Juanito later presented an Agreement of Partition of Common Property to the Register of Deeds, leading to the issuance of TCT Nos. 146787 and 146788 for the respective halves of the property.
- In 1981, Filomena initiated an action