Title
Supreme Court
Bangis vs. Heirs of Adolfo
Case
G.R. No. 190875
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2012
A disputed 1955 mortgage led to foreclosure; later, a 1975 undocumented transaction was contested as a sale or mortgage. Courts ruled it a mortgage, ordered debt repayment, and voided a spurious title.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190875)

Factual Background

The original owners of a 126,622 square meter lot covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-489 were Serafin and Salud Adolfo. The property was mortgaged to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in 1955, and after default, it was foreclosed and transferred to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Serafin repurchased the property after the foreclosure and held Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6313. In 1975, he allegedly mortgaged the property to Aniceto Bangis without a written agreement. Upon Serafin’s death, his heirs partitioned the property, which was later subdivided and titled in their names. Their attempts to redeem the property from Bangis were met with claims that the transaction was a sale.

Proceedings Before the RTC

In July 2000, the Heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to annul the alleged deed of sale and assert their rights concerning an antichresis agreement regarding the disputed land. The complaint underwent multiple amendments, reflecting various allegations, including the invalidity of TCT No. T-10567 issued to Bangis. After extensive testimony and the presentation of documentary evidence, the RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Adolfo, declaring the transaction between them and Bangis as a mere mortgage and ordering the return of the property upon satisfaction of the mortgage debt.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that the nature of the transaction was a mortgage rather than a sale. It noted that, despite Bangis possessing the property, the title remained with Adolfo and had not been canceled. The Appellate Court instructed the Heirs of Adolfo to repay the mortgage debt, with interest, but removed the directive to cancel TCT No. T-10567, labeling it a collateral attack.

Legal Issues Presented

The petition for review on certiorari primarily raised the issue of whether the transaction was a sale or a mortgage. The Heirs of Bangis contended that the appellate court erroneously disregarded their presented evidence, including an Extra-Judicial Settlement with an Absolute Deed of Sale. Conversely, the Heirs of Adolfo maintained that the appellate court's rulings were correct and consistent with property law.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition, attesting that it primarily deals with questions of law, thereby rejecting the factual disputes raised by the Heirs of Bangis. It corroborated the factual findings of the lower courts regarding the nature of the transaction as a mortgage. Specifically, the Court highlighted that essential documentation to support the sale claim was lacking, rendering the purported deeds inadmissible. The Heirs of Bangis failed to provide justifiable secondary evidence for the missing original documents.

Analysis of Property Titles

The Court further held that TCT No. T-10567, allegedly derived from a non-existent earlier title (TCT No. T-10566), was not supported by adequate documentation. The Register of Deeds characterized this title's origin as dubious, thereby favoring the legitimacy of the titles held by the Heirs of Adolfo. The established principle is that the heir with the original title prevails over others claiming possession derived from questionable titles.

Cancellation of TCT No. T-10567

The assessment ruled that the challenge to TCT No. T-10567 constituted a direct attack facilitated by the counterclaim filed by Bangis, countering any claims of a collateral attack against its validity. The Court stated that the indefeasibility principle does not apply to spurious titles and that a thorough examination of the circumstances was warranted.

Prescription of Action

The Heirs of Bangis' assertion that their claim had prescribed was

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.