Title
Descutido vs. Baltazar
Case
G.R. No. L-11765
Decision Date
Apr 29, 1961
Fraudulent land sales by spouses Jose & Matea voided; ownership restored to Damaso after legal capacity, prescription, partition deed rulings upheld.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224567)

Overview of Transactions

The original land title was held by Jose Descutido and Matea Dolduco under Original Certificate of Title No. 31060. On December 10, 1937, they purportedly sold the property to Pedro Diamante, leading to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20491. Subsequently, on June 1, 1940, Diamante transferred ownership to Bonifacia Descutido, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25284. The legitimacy of these transactions was challenged by Damaso Descutido, one of the original owners’ children, who sought to annul these deeds citing fraud.

Allegations of Fraud

Damaso Descutido filed a complaint arguing that the deeds of sale were fraudulent, fictitious, and lacked valid consideration. He asserted that neither he nor his parents consented to these transactions and that the conveyances were void. The defendants, led by Jacinto Baltazar, contended that they had legal capacity to own the property as good faith purchasers and also claimed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the sales.

Legal Proceedings and Findings

During the trial, it was established that Jose Descutido, the original owner, had died in August 1944, leaving Damaso and his siblings as heirs. The lower court determined that the deeds of sale were indeed fraudulent. Various parties provided testimony, including assertions from Pedro Diamante and his wife, who claimed that they were misled into signing documents without understanding their implications, thus never receiving any consideration for the alleged sales.

Appellants' Claims and Court's Analysis

In their appeal, the appellants raised multiple errors, including claims that the action was barred due to the passage of time and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs discovered the fraud only in 1950, which was within the four-year limitation period for filing such actions. Regarding standing, it was found that Damaso had rights under a private deed of partition executed on April 30, 1944, which assigned ownership of Lot 790 to him, thus legitimizing his claim.

Findings on Ownership and Legal Effect

The court did not position the private deed of partition as superior to the title held by Bonifacia Descutido; rather, it ruled that both sales were void due to fraudulent circumstances. The court preserved Damaso's ri

...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.