Case Summary (G.R. No. 248130)
Petitioner
Felipa Binasoy Tamayao and the heirs of Rogelio Tamayao, alleging entitlement to ownership under the 1981 extrajudicial settlement and sale and the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-54668.
Respondent
Heirs of Juan Lacambra—Felipa, Natividad, Francisca, Sotero, Cirilo, Catalino Lacambra, and Basilio Lacambra—asserting superior title based on the 1962 sale and uninterrupted possession.
Key Dates
– 1944: Death of Vicente Balubal
– January 23, 1962: First sale to Juan Lacambra
– 1979: Death of Juan Lacambra
– January 21, 1980: Sale of 5/14 share to Rogelio Tamayao
– December 24, 1981: Extrajudicial settlement and sale to Spouses Tamayao
– October 8, 2015: RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 2986
– May 23, 2018; January 14, 2019: CA Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 106279
– November 3, 2020: Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 244232)
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution; Rule 45, Rules of Court; Civil Code Arts. 1318, 1403 (Statute of Frauds), 1458, 1475–1477, 1497–1498, 1544; Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529); best evidence rule (Rule 130).
Facts of the Case
Three overlapping conveyances affected Lot 2930: (1) 1962 extrajudicial settlement and sale by Balubal heirs to Juan Lacambra; (2) 1980 sale by Lacambra heirs to Rogelio Tamayao of a 5/14 share; and (3) 1981 settlement and sale by Balubal heirs to Spouses Tamayao of the entire parcel. Juan’s heirs continuously possessed the property until litigation commenced.
Proceedings Below
The RTC upheld the validity of the 1962 and 1980 sales, annulled the 1981 sale, and canceled TCT T-54668. The CA affirmed, finding the 1962 notarized instrument presumptively regular and the 1981 sale void because Spouses Tamayao acted in bad faith.
Issues
- Whether the CA correctly recognized the 1962 sale to Juan Lacambra as valid.
- Whether the CA properly invalidated the 1981 sale and cancelled the resulting title in favor of Spouses Tamayao.
Sale as a Consensual Contract
Under Arts. 1458 and 1475, sale is perfected by consent and creates reciprocal obligations—vendor to convey ownership and vendee to pay. No particular form is required, though public instruments confer presumptions and effect constructive delivery.
Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Public Instrument
The 1962 extrajudicial settlement and sale, duly notarized and on file with the Clerk of Court, enjoys a conclusive presumption of authenticity and due execution. Allegations of forgery must be supported by clear, convincing, and more than preponderant evidence, which the Balubal heirs failed to provide.
Best Evidence Rule Inapplicable to Authenticity
Because only the existence and due execution (not the terms) of the 1962 deed were in dispute, the best evidence rule did not require production of the original. A certified true copy sufficed to prove legitimacy and execution.
Constructive and Actual Delivery
Per Art. 1498, execution of the public instrument effected constructive delivery of Lot 2930. Subsequent acts—turnover of the owner’s duplicate OCT No. 6106, possession, planting fruit trees, and dwelling construction—established actual delivery and transfer of ownership to Juan Lacambra and his heirs.
Non-Registration Not Fatal to Ownership
Failure to register the 1962 sale did not void a valid contract or defeat ownership between parties. Registration under P.D. 1529 merely gives notice to third parties; it is not a mode of acquiring title.
Invalidity of the 1981 Sale and Title Cancellation
By 1981 the Balubal heirs no longer held title and thus could not convey ownership (nemo dat quod non habet). Spouses Tamayao, fully aware of the Lacamb
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 248130)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing:
• CA Decision dated May 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 106279
• CA Resolution dated January 14, 2019 - Lower courts:
• RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City: Decision of October 8, 2015 in Civil Case No. 2986
• CA, Tenth Division: Assailed Decision and Resolution affirming the RTC
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
- Original owner: Vicente Balubal died c. 1944; heirs Tomasa and Jose Balubal inherited Lot No. 2930 (922 sqm., OCT No. 6106).
- First sale (January 23, 1962): Tomasa & Jose Balubal executed an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale conveying Lot No. 2930 to Juan Lacambra for ₱325; deed duly notarized but not annotated on OCT.
- Possession: Juan Lacambra took possession, planted fruit trees, and accepted the owner’s duplicate OCT.
- Second sale (January 21, 1980): Heirs of Juan (except Cirilo & Catalino Lacambra) sold 5/14 undivided share (329 sqm.) to Rogelio Tamayao; Rogelio annotated adverse claim on OCT.
- Third sale (December 24, 1981): Heirs of Balubal purportedly sold entire Lot No. 2930 to Rogelio & Felipa Tamayao after disputing the 1962 sale.
- Title changes: OCT No. 6106 cancelled; TCT No. T-54668 issued in Rogelio’s name.
- Cases filed:
• Civil Case No. 2986 – Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Title with Damages by heirs of Lacambra
• Civil Case No. 2989 – Complaint for Legal Redemption and Removal of Improvements by Cirilo & Catalino Lacambra - RTC consolidated and tried both cases jointly (Order of March 1, 1983).
Issues
- Whether the first 1962 sale in favor of Juan Lacambra was validly executed, delivered, and proved.
- Whether the 1981 sale by heirs of Balubal to Spouses Tamayao and the resulting TCT No. T-54668 must be invalidated.
RTC Ruling (October 8, 2015)
- Validated the first sale (1962) as duly executed and gave it presumptio