Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sps. Roque, Et. Al. v. Aguado Case Digest
Sps. Roque, Et. Al. v. Aguado Case Digest
Aguado
Facts:
1. On July 21, 1977, petitioners-spouses Jose C. Roque and Beatriz dela Cruz Roque (Sps.
Roque) and the original owners of the then unregistered Lot 18089 Rivero, et al executed a
Deed of Conditional Sale of Real Property (1977 Deed of Conditional Sale) over a 1,231-sq.
m. portion of Lot 18089 (subject portion) for a consideration of P30,775.00.
6
2. The parties agreed that Sps. Roque shall make an initial payment of P15,387.50 upon
signing, while the remaining balance of the purchase price shall be payable upon the
registration of Lot 18089, as well as the segregation and the concomitant issuance of a
separate title over the subject portion in their names. After the deeds execution, Sps. Roque
took possession and introduced improvements on the subject portion which they utilized as a
balut factory.
7
3. On August 12, 1991, Fructuoso Sabug, Jr. (Sabug, Jr.), former Treasurer of the National
Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), applied for a free patent over the entire Lot
18089 and was eventually issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. M-5955 in his name
on October 21, 1991. On June 24, 1993, Sabug, Jr. and Rivero, in her personal capacity and
in representation of Rivero, et al., executed a Joint Affidavit (1993 Joint Affidavit),
acknowledging that the subject portion belongs to Sps. Roque and expressed their
willingness to segregate the same from the entire area of Lot 18089.
8
4. On December 8, 1999, however, Sabug, Jr., through a Deed of Absolute Sale (1999 Deed
of Absolute Sale), sold Lot 18089 to one Ma. Pamela P. Aguado (Aguado) for P2,500,000.00,
who, in turn, caused the cancellation of OCT No. M-5955 and the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. M-96692 dated December 17, 1999 in her name.
10
11
5. Thereafter, Aguado obtained an P8,000,000.00 loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines
(Land Bank) secured by a mortgage over Lot 18089. When she failed to pay her loan
obligation, Land Bank commenced extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and eventually
tendered the highest bid in the auction sale. Upon Aguados failure to redeem the subject
property, Land Bank consolidated its ownership, and TCT No. M-115895 was issued in its
name on July 21, 2003.
12
13
14
6. On June 16, 2003, Sps. Roque filed a complaint for reconveyance, annulment of sale, deed
of real estate mortgage, foreclosure, and certificate of sale, and damages before the RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. 03-022, against Aguado, Sabug, Jr., NCCP, Land Bank, the
Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, and Sheriff Cecilio U. Pulan, seeking to be declared as
the true owners of the subject portion which had been erroneously included in the sale
between Aguado and Sabug, Jr., and, subsequently, the mortgage to Land Bank, both
covering Lot 18089 in its entirety.
15
7. In defense, NCCP and Sabug, Jr. denied any knowledge of the 1977 Deed of Conditional
Sale through which the subject portion had been purportedly conveyed to Sps. Roque.
16
8. For her part, Aguado raised the defense of an innocent purchaser for value as she allegedly
derived her title (through the 1999 Deed of Absolute Sale) from Sabug, Jr., the registered
owner in OCT No. M-5955, covering Lot 18089, which certificate of title at the time of sale
was free from any lien and/or encumbrances. She also claimed that Sps. Roques cause of
action had already prescribed because their adverse claim was made only on April 21, 2003,
or four (4) years from the date OCT No. M-5955 was issued in Sabug, Jr.s name on
December 17, 1999.
17
9. On the other hand, Land Bank averred that it had no knowledge of Sps. Roques claim
relative to the subject portion, considering that at the time the loan was taken out, Lot 18089
in its entirety was registered in Aguados name and no lien and/or encumbrance was
annotated on her certificate of title.
18
Issue: WON sps roque is the rightful owner of the subject property hence can claim
action for reconveyance.
Ruling:
The essence of an action for reconveyance is to seek the transfer of the property which was
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another persons name to its rightful owner or to one
with a better right. Thus, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to show that he has a
legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner and that the property has
not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
49
50
Sps. Roque claim that the subject portion covered by the 1977 Deed of Conditional Sale
between them and Rivero, et al. was wrongfully included in the certificates of title covering
Lot 18089, and, hence, must be segregated therefrom and their ownership thereof be
confirmed.
Examining its provisions, the Court finds that the stipulation above-highlighted shows that the
1977 Deed of Conditional Sale is actually in the nature of a contract to sell and not one of
sale contrary to Sps. Roques belief.
In this relation, it has been consistently ruled that where the seller promises to execute a
deed of absolute sale upon the completion by the buyer of the payment of the purchase
price, the contract is only a contract to sell even if their agreement is denominated as a Deed
of Conditional Sale, as in this case.
This treatment stems from the legal characterization of a contract to sell, that is, a bilateral
contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the
subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the
subject property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed
upon, such as, the full payment of the purchase price. Elsewise stated, in a contract to sell,
ownership is retained by the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the
purchase price.
52
53
54
Here, it is undisputed that Sps. Roque have not paid the final installment of the purchase
price. As such, the condition which would have triggered the parties obligation to enter into
and thereby perfect a contract of sale in order to effectively transfer the ownership of the
57
subject portion from the sellers (i.e., Rivero et al.) to the buyers (Sps. Roque) cannot be
deemed to have been fulfilled. Consequently, the latter cannot validly claim ownership over
the subject portion even if they had made an initial payment and even took possession of the
same.
58
The Court further notes that Sps. Roque did not even take any active steps to protect their
claim over the disputed portion. This remains evident from the following circumstances
appearing on record: (a) the 1977 Deed of Conditional Sale was never registered; (b) they
did not seek the actual/physical segregation of the disputed portion despite their knowledge
of the fact that, as early as 1993, the entire Lot 18089 was registered in Sabug, Jr.s name
under OCT No. M-5955; and (c) while they signified their willingness to pay the balance of
the purchase price, Sps. Roque neither compelled Rivero et al., and/or Sabug, Jr. to accept
the same nor did they consign any amount to the court, the proper application of which
would have effectively fulfilled their obligation to pay the purchase price. Instead, Sps.
Roque waited 26 years, reckoned from the execution of the 1977 Deed of Conditional Sale,
to institute an action for reconveyance (in 2003), and only after Lot 18089 was sold to Land
Bank in the foreclosure sale and title thereto was consolidated in its name.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, Sabug, Jr. as the registered owner of Lot 18089 borne by
the grant of his free patent application could validly convey said proprty in its entirety to
Aguado who, in turn, mortgaged the same to Land Bank.
In fine, Sps. Roque failed to establish any superior right over the subject portion as against
the registered owner of Lot 18089, i.e., Land Bank, thereby warranting the dismissal of their
reconveyance action, without prejudice to their right to seek damages against the vendors,
i.e., Rivero et al.
59
60
61
62