Digest - Vda de Cabalu V Tabu

Vda. de Cabalu v.
Tabu
G.R. No. 188417, 24 September 2012
Third Division, Mendoza, J.
Nature: Petition for Review under Rule 45.
Facts: The property subject of the controversy is a 9,000 sq. m. lot situated
in Mariwalo, Tarlac, which was a portion of a property registered in the
name of the late Faustina Maslum under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 16776 with a total area of 140,211 sq. m. On December 8, 1941,
Faustina died without any children. She left a holographic will, dated July
27, 1939, assigning and distributing her property to her nephews and
nieces. The said holographic will, however, was not probated. One of the
heirs was the father of Domingo Laxamana, Benjamin Laxamana, who died
in 1960. On March 5, 1975, Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of
Undivided Parcel of Land disposing of his 9,000 sq. m. share of the land to
Laureano Cabalu.
On August 1, 1994, to give effect to the holographic will, the forced
and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Succession with Partition. The said deed imparted 9,000 sq. m. of the land
covered by TCT No. 16776 to Domingo. Thereafter, on December 14, 1995,
Domingo sold 4,500 sq. m. of the 9,000 square meters to his nephew,
Eleazar Tabamo. The document was captioned Deed of Sale of a Portion of
Land. On May 7, 1996, the remaining 4,500 square meters of Domingos
share in the partition was registered under his name under TCT No.
281353.
On August 4, 1996, Domingo passed away. Two months after his
death, Domingo purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of TCT No.
281353 in favor of Renato Tabu. The resultant transfer of title was
registered as TCT No. 286484. Subsequently, Tabu and his wife, Dolores
Laxamana (spouses Tabu), subdivided the said lot into two which resulted
into TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339.
On January 15, 1999, Dolores, together with Julieta TubilanLaxamana, Teresita Laxamana, Erlita Laxamana, and Gretel Laxamana, the
heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer action, against Meliton Cabalu,
Patricio Abus, Roger Talavera, Jesus Villar, Marcos Perez, Arthur Dizon, and
all persons claiming rights under them. They claimed that the defendants
were merely allowed to occupy the subject lot by their late father, Domingo,
but, when asked to vacate the property, they refused to do so. The case was
ruled in favor of Domingos heirs and a writ of execution was subsequently
issued.
On February 4, 2002, Milagros de Belen Vda. De Cabalu, Meliton
Cabalu, Spouses Angela Cabalu and Rodolfo Talavera, and Patricio Abus
(collectively petitioners), filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of
Absolute Sale, Joint Affidavit of Nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
291338 and 291339, Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, Application for
Restraining Order, Injunction and Damages (Civil Case No. 9290) against
the spouses Tabu before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In their complaint,
the petitioners claimed that they were the lawful owners of the subject
property because it was sold to their father, Laureano, by Domingo, through
a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975. Hence, being the rightful
owners by way of succession, they could not be ejected from the subject
property.
In their Answer, the spouses Tabu countered that the deed of sale
from which the petitioners anchored their right over the 9,000 sq. m.
property was null and void because in 1975, Domingo was not yet the owner
of the property, as the same was still registered in the name of Faustina.
Domingo became the owner of the property only on August 1, 1994, by
virtue of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition executed by
the forced heirs of Faustina. In addition, they averred that Domingo was of
unsound mind having been confined in a mental institution for a time.
After trial, the RTC dismissed the complaint as it found the Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975, null and void for lack of capacity to sell
on the part of Domingo. Likewise, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October
8, 1996, covering the remaining 4,500 sq. m. of the subject property was
declared ineffective having been executed by Domingo two months after his
death on August 4, 1996.
Not in conformity, both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The petitioners contended that the RTC erred in declaring void the Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975. They claimed that Domingo owned the
property, when it was sold to Laureano, because he inherited it from his
father, Benjamin, who was one of the heirs of Faustina. Being a co-owner of
the property left by Benjamin, Domingo could dispose of the portion he
owned, notwithstanding the will of Faustina not being probated.
The spouses Tabu, on the other hand, asserted that the Deed of Sale,
dated March 5, 1975, was spurious and simulated as the signature, PTR and
the document number of the Notary Public were different from the latters
notarized documents. They added that the deed was without consent,
Domingo being of unsound mind at the time of its execution.
After due consideration, the CA rendered a decision partially granting
the appeal. It held that although Domingo was of sound mind at the time of
the sale on March 5, 1975, it sustained the RTCs declaration of nullity of
the sale on the ground that the deed of sale was simulated.
Issue: Whether or not the March 5, 1975 deed is null and void, since
Domingo, the seller, was not yet the owner of the subject property?
Held: Yes. Even on the assumption that the March 5, 1975 deed was not
simulated, still the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that time,
Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. There is no dispute that the
original and registered owner of the subject property covered by TCT No.
16776, from which the subject 9,000 sq. m. lot came from, was Faustina,
who during her lifetime had executed a will, dated July 27, 1939. In the said
will, the name of Benjamin, father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs.
Thus, and as correctly found by the RTC, even if Benjamin died sometime in
1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the whole or even a
portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as
his mother only died sometime in 1980.
Besides, under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, No contract may be
entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized
by law. Paragraph 2 of Article 1347 [Civil Code], characterizes a contract
entered into upon future inheritance as void. The law applies when the
following requisites concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2)
the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) the
promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is
purely hereditary in nature.

Digest - Vda de Cabalu V Tabu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - Vda de Cabalu V Tabu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Cabalu v.

You might also like