Title
Cruz vs. Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 173292
Decision Date
Sep 1, 2010
Memoracion Cruz sued son Oswaldo for annulment of fraudulent land sale; case dismissed post-death. SC ruled action survived, allowed heir substitution, remanded for trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173292)

Petitioner

Memoracion Z. Cruz, through counsel Atty. Roberto T. Neri; after her death, represented by heir Edgardo Z. Cruz.

Respondent

Oswaldo Z. Cruz, defendant in the action for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages.

Key Dates

• February 12, 1973 – Date of the alleged deed of sale.
• August 1991 – Title transferred under TCT No. 0-199377.
• October 18, 1993 – Filing of the complaint.
• October 30, 1996 – Petitioner’s death.
• January 13, 1997 – Counsel’s manifestation of death.
• June 2, 1997 – RTC order dismissing the case.
• October 17, 1997 – Heir’s manifestation of substitution.
• December 20, 2005 – CA decision affirming with modification.
• June 21, 2006 – CA resolution denying reconsideration.
• September 1, 2010 – Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution; 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45 (review on certiorari), Rule 3 § 16 (death of party), old Rule 3 § 21; Bonilla v. Barcena test on survival of actions; Civil Code, art. 777.

The Case

A petition under Rule 45 assailed the Court of Appeals’ affirmation, with modification, of the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of petitioner’s action for annulment of sale, reconveyance, and damages against her son.

Antecedent Facts

Petitioner acquired a lot in Tondo, Manila, registered under TCT No. 63467. In August 1991 respondent and his wife re-registered the same property under a purported deed of sale dated February 12, 1973. Petitioner alleged that the deed was void for fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, and simulation. After barangay mediation failed, she filed suit in October 1993.

Procedural History

Petitioner died on October 30, 1996. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the action was purely personal and did not survive death. The RTC granted the motion on June 2, 1997. Petitioner’s heir filed a manifestation of substitution on October 17, 1997; the trial court denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but deleted the directive to prosecute estate proceedings. Reconsideration before the CA was denied on June 21, 2006.

Issues

  1. Whether the annulment of sale and reconveyance action is purely personal and did not survive petitioner’s death.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court held that the action rel

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.