Sps. Luisito Pontigon and
Leodegaria Sanchez-Pontigon Vs. Heirs of Meliton Sanchez, et al.
G.R. No. 221513. December 5, 2016
G.R. No. 221513. December 5, 2016
TCT No. 162403-R was issued on May 21, 1980 under the name of the
petitioners covering the subject property inheritance of the Respondents, Heirs
of Meliton Sanchez, et al. The Respondents posited that the property in issue
had never been partitioned among the heirs. Thus, on September 17, 2000, the
respondents filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Real
Estate Mortgage with Damages against petitioners.
On the other hand, petitioner Luisito testified that even though he and
his wife do not particularly like the location of the lots in issue, they
accepted Juan, Apolonio, and Flaviana's offer to sell to them Meliton's
erstwhile property due to sentimental reasons. The Extrajudicial Settlement was
then executed and the Petition for Approval filed to effect the transfer in
petitioners' name. The petition for approval, according to Luisito, was
favorably acted upon by the CFI of Pampanga on November 30, 1979, which ruling
allegedly became final and executory. Moreover, the Extrajudicial Settlement
was not properly notarized.
During the course of the litigation, Petitioners’ original counsel was
Atty. Sanchez-Malit. Moreover, it was Atty. Munoz who filed motion for
reconsideration for the Petitioners when the trial court ruled in favor of the
adverse party. Atty. Munoz's indicated in his Entry of Appearance that his
office address is "Sanchez-Malit Building" in Dinalupihan, Bataan.
More, both counsels signed the present petition for review on certiorari
indicating only one address.
1. Decide with reason
on the nullity of TCT No. 162403-R.
TCT No. 162403-R is
valid.
First, the
respondents' action has already prescribed; the Extrajudicial Settlement,
though a private instrument, is nevertheless valid and binding on the heirs of
the contracting parties; the Extrajudicial Settlement is admissible in
evidence; and absent proof of complicity in the alleged fraud that attended the
issuance of TCT No. 162403-R, petitioners' rights under the said document of
title cannot be impaired.
2. Petitioners filed a
motion to dismiss reiterating the defense that respondents' action is already
barred by prescription. Rule on the motion.
Petitioner is
correct.
Under the Torrens
System as enshrined in P.D. No. 1529, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued become incontrovertible upon the expiration of one
(1) year from the date of entry of the decree of registration, without
prejudice to an action for damages against the applicant or any person
responsible for the fraud.
An action for
reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust
prescribes in ten (10) years, the point of reference being the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of
title over the property.
The subject
property does not include possession of the contested property as an ultimate
fact. As such, the present case could only be one for reconveyance of property,
not for quieting of title. Accordingly, respondents should have commenced the
action within ten (10) years reckoned from May 21, 1980, the date of issuance
of TCT No. 162403-R, instead of on September 17, 2000 or more than twenty (20)
years thereafter.
3. May an action for
reconveyance be filed despite the lapse of more than ten years?
Yes, by way of
exception, the filing of an action for reconveyance despite the lapse of more
than ten (10) years from the issuance of title.
Where the
plaintiffs therein were in actual possession of the disputed land, converting
the action from reconveyance of property into one for quieting of title.
Imprescriptibility is accorded to cases for quieting of title since the
plaintiff has the right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title
is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right.
4. How does
irregularity in notarization affect the validity of extrajudicial settlement?
The irregularity in
the notarization is not fatal to the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement.
For even the absence of such formality would not necessarily invalidate the
transaction embodied in the document - the defect merely renders the written
contract a private instrument rather than a public one.
5. Is the failure to
comply with Article 1358 of the New Civil Code fatal to the validity of the
extrajudicial settlement?
No.
While Art. 1358 of
the New Civil Code seemingly requires that contracts transmitting or
extinguishing real rights over immovable property should be in a public
document, hornbook doctrine is that the embodiment of certain contracts in a
public instrument is only for convenience. It is established in jurisprudence
that non-observance of the prescribed formalities does not necessarily excuse
the contracting parties from complying with their respective obligations under
their covenant, and merely grants them the right to compel each other to
execute the proper deed. A contract of sale has the force of law between the
contracting parties and they are expected to abide, in good faith, by their
respective contractual commitments60 notwithstanding their failure to comply
with Art. 1358.
6. Discuss the
principle of relativity of contracts.
The principle of
relativity of contracts dictates that contractual agreements can only bind the
parties who entered into them, and cannot favor or prejudice third persons,
even if he is aware of such contract and has acted with knowledge thereof.
7. Is the
extrajudicial settlement, which is not properly notarized, binding on heirs?
Yes.
The law provides:
Article 1311.
Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except
in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not
transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
The law is
categorical in declaring that as a general rule, the heirs of the contracting
parties are precluded from denying the binding effect of the valid agreement
entered into by their predecessors-in-interest. This is so because they are not
deemed "third persons" to the contract within the contemplation of
law. Additionally, neither the provision nor the doctrine makes a distinction
on whether the contract adverted to is oral or written, and, even more so,
whether it is embodied in a public or private instrument.
8. The son of
respondent Perla Manalansan, testified that on November 7, 1979, Juan, Luisito,
and Leodegaria forcibly took Flaviana and coerced the latter to execute the
sale in favor of petitioners. Is the extrajudicial settlement valid?
Yes. The
extrajudicial settlement is valid but voidable. The above circumstances render
the Extrajudicial Settlement voidable, not void.
Under the law, a
voidable contract retains the binding effect of a valid one unless otherwise
annulled. And as prescribed, the action for annulment shall be brought within
four (4) years, in cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the
time the defect of the consent ceases. Unfortunately for respondents, the
prescriptive period for annulment had long since expired before they filed
their Complaint. They cannot be permitted to circumvent the law by belatedly
attacking, collaterally and as an afterthought at that, the validity of the
erstwhile voidable instrument in the present action for declaration of nullity
of title.
9. What are the
requirement before an extrajudicial settlement be received as evidence?
Section 20. Proof
of private document. Before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
(a) By anyone who
saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of
the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private
document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be
10. What is the degree
of evidence needed to nullify TCT No. 162403-R?
It must be borne in
mind that the assailed document of title, as a government issuance, enjoys the
presumption of regularity. It was then incumbent upon the respondents to prove,
by preponderant evidence, that the issuance of TCT No. 162403-R on May 21, 1980
was attended by fraud as they claim.
11. Discuss the effect
of lapses in the observance of the standard operating procedure of the RD in
its issuance of titles. Will it invalidate the TCT?
x x x justice and
equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable
effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's agents, in the absence of
proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The
real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop
forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except claims that
were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that may arise
subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall
forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration
officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their
duties. (Emphasis supplied)
12. Is there a
substitution of lawyer in this case when Atty. Munoz made Entry of Appearance
where the original lawyer is Atty. Sanchez-Malit?
No.
A substitution
cannot be presumed from the mere filing of a notice of appearance of a new
lawyer and that the representation of the first counsel of record continuous
until a formal notice to change counsel is filed with the court. Thus, absent a
formal notice of substitution, all lawyers who appeared before the court or
filed pleadings in behalf of the client are considered counsels of the latter.
All acts performed by them are deemed to be with the clients' consent.
More, both counsels
signed the present petition for review on certiorari, indicating only one
address, the very same building of Atty. Sanchez-Malit, for where court
processes shall be served. Indubitably, the Entry of Appearance by the new
lawyer, Atty. Muñoz, ought then be construed as a collaboration of counsels,
rather than a substitution of the prior representation.
13. When may technical
rules be relaxed?
Oft cited, but rarely
applied, is that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of
justice and to benefit the deserving.
Comments
Post a Comment