Title
De Leon vs. Chu
Case
G.R. No. 186522
Decision Date
Sep 2, 2015
Rowena claimed ownership of a 50-sqm land, alleging Lolita refused to return the title. Lolita and Domingo countered, accusing Rowena of forgery. Courts ruled against Rowena, dismissing her claims due to falsified documents and lack of merit.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186522)

Facts of the Case

The controversy originated when Rowena filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on 18 November 1999, seeking the surrender of TCT No. 228526 from Lolita, whom she alleged refused to return the title entrusted to her before Rowena went to Saudi Arabia in June 1997. Rowena claimed ownership of the 50-square meter property based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 March 1993, evidencing that she bought it from Domingo Delos Santos. However, Domingo had also sold the remaining 550 square meters of the property to Lolita on the same day.

Sequence of Cases

On 17 May 2000, Lolita and Domingo initiated a separate action against Rowena, seeking annulment of the Deed of Sale and the cancellation of the related TCT. They alleged that Rowena had forged their signatures in documents to present a false claim to the land. Rowena responded by asserting that she had an understanding with them not to disclose her involvement due to pending approvals from the Bureau of Lands.

Court Proceedings

Lolita filed a motion to suspend LRC Case No. 1322 based on the ongoing proceedings of Civil Case No. 2257. However, the RTC denied the motion, citing the earlier filing of LRC Case No. 1322. The cases were eventually consolidated for trial. On 28 August 2006, the RTC ruled against Rowena, citing evidence of forgery and declaring the Deed of Sale and Agreement of Subdivision null and void, ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 228526.

Court of Appeals Findings

Rowena appealed the RTC's decision, arguing it was rendered in error as it dismissed LRC Case No. 1322 without addressing her claims of forum shopping. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled against her, affirming that the dismissal was justified and clarifying the implications of submitting a false certificate of non-forum shopping did not warrant automatic dismissal unless there was clear evidence of deliberate forum shopping.

Legal Issues Raised

Rowena's petition raised several issues, including claims of forum shopping, the non-inclusion of an indispensable party in the complaint, and a challenge to the rulings of the RTC regarding evidence and good faith purchase claims. The p

...continue reading

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