Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Talavera Vs Tabu
Talavera Vs Tabu
~upreme Qtourt
Jm.anila
THIRD DIVISION
MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA.
DE
CABALU,
MELITON
CABALU,
SPS.
ANGELA
CABALU
and.
RODOLFO
TALAVERA, and PATRICIO
ABUS,
Petitioners,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
BRION,*
PEREZ**
'
MENDOZA, and
PERLAS-BERNABE,*** JJ
-versus-
Promulgated:
24 September 20~
,,.. 1 ~
-------------------~-----------------------------------------------------~~-~-- --DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a "Petition for Review on Certiorari (under Rule 45)" of the
Rules of Court assailing the June 16, 2009 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals
Designated acting member, per Special Order No. 1299-E, dated August 28, 2012.
Designated additional member, in lieu of i\ssociate .Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Raffle dated
August 31,2011.
*** Designated additional member, in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No.
l 320, dated September 21, 2012.
**
Annex "A'' of Petition, rolla, pp. 13-23. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with
Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring.
DECISION
The Facts
Id. at 14.
Id. at 14-15.
4
Id. at 15.
3
DECISION
(respondent spouses), subdivided the said lot into two which resulted into
TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339.5
Id. at 15-16.
Id. at 16.
7
Id. at 16-17.
6
DECISION
Id. at 25.
Id.
10
Id. at 24-34.
9
DECISION
Respondent spouses, 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. Further, they
claimed that the RTC erred in canceling TCT No. 266583 and insisted that
the same should be restored to its validity because Benjamin and Domingo
were declared heirs of Faustina.
On June 16, 2009, the CA rendered its decision and disposed as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant
appeal is partially GRANTED in that the decision of the trial court
is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that sub-paragraphs 2 & 3
of the disposition, which reads:
2. declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
October 8, 1996, executed by Domingo Laxamana in favor of
11
Id. at 32-33.
DECISION
Renato Tabu, and that TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339, both
registered in the name of Renato Tabu, married to Dolores
Laxamana be cancelled;
3. restoring to its former validity, TCT No. 16776 in the
name of Faustina Maslum subject to partition by her lawful
heirs,
are DELETED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.12
The CA further held that the RTC erred in canceling TCT No. 266583
in the name of Domingo and in ordering the restoration of TCT No. 16770,
registered in the name of Faustina, to its former validity, Domingo being an
undisputed heir of Faustina.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 19-20.
DECISION
GROUNDS
(A)
THE DEED OF SALE OF UNDIVIDED PARCEL OF LAND
EXECUTED ON MARCH 5, 1975 BY DOMINGO LAXAMANA IN
FAVOR OF LAUREANO CABALU IS VALID BECAUSE IT
SHOULD
BE
ACCORDED
THE
PRESUMPTION
OF
REGULARITY AND DECLARED VALID FOR ALL PURPOSES
AND INTENTS.
(B)
THE SUBPARAGRAPH NO. 2 OF THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SHOULD STAY BECAUSE THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DISCUSS THE
ISSUE AND DID NOT STATE THE LEGAL BASIS WHY SAID
PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE SEPTEMBER
30, 2003 DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.14
14
Id. at 89-90.
DECISION
They further argue that the CA, in modifying the decision of the RTC,
should not have deleted the portion declaring null and void the Deed of
Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, executed by Domingo in favor of
Renato Tabu, because at the time of execution of the said deed of sale, the
seller, Domingo was already dead. Being a void document, the titles
originating from the said instrument were also void and should be cancelled.
Respondent spouses, in their Comment15 and Memorandum,16 counter
that the issues raised are not questions of law and call for another calibration
of the whole evidence already passed upon by the RTC and the CA. Yet,
they argue that petitioners reliance on the validity of the March 5, 1975
Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land, based on presumption of
regularity, was misplaced because both the RTC and the CA, in the
appreciation of evidence on record, had found said deed as simulated.
It is well to note that both the RTC and the CA found that the
evidence established that the March 5, 1975 Deed of Sale of Undivided
Parcel of Land executed by Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu was a
fictitious and simulated document. As expounded by the CA, viz:
Nevertheless, since there are discrepancies in the signature
of the notary public, his PTR and the document number on the
lower-most portion of the document, as well as the said deed of sale
being found only after the plaintiffs-appellants were ejected by the
defendants-appellants; that they were allegedly not aware that the
said property was bought by their father, and that they never
questioned the other half of the property not occupied by them, it is
apparent that the sale dated March 5, 1975 had the earmarks of a
simulated deed written all over it. The lower court did not err in
pronouncing that it be declared null and void.17
15
DECISION
RTC and later the CA had ruled that the sale, dated March 5, 1975, had the
earmarks of a simulated deed, hence, the presumption was already rebutted.
Verily and as aptly noted by the respondent spouses, such presumption of
regularity cannot prevail over the facts proven and already established in the
records of this case.
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 square meter 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.
In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustinas will was not
yet probated; the object of the contract, the 9,000 square meter property, still
18
Arrogante v. Deliarte, G.R. No. 152132, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 63, 69-70, citing Tolentino, Civil
Code of the Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence, Vol. IV, p. 525, 1985.
DECISION
10
formed part of the inheritance of his father from the estate of Faustina; and
Domingo had a mere inchoate hereditary right therein.
The CA, therefore, did not err in declaring the March 5, 1975 Deed of
Sale null and void.
Gochan and Sons Realty Corp. v. Heirs of Raymundo Baba, 456 Phil. 569, 578, (2003).
DECISION
11
The contract being null and void, the sale to Renato Tabu produced no
legal effects and transmitted no rights whatsoever. Consequently, TCT No.
286484 issued to Tabu by virtue of the October 8, 1996 Deed of Sale, as
well as its derivative titles, TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339, both registered in
the name of Renato Tabu, married to Dolores Laxamana, are likewise void.
portion of the June 16, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
MODIFIED to read as follows:
. JOS.E CA
~ENDOZA
As;Jri~7e J:stlce
12
DECISION
WE CONCUR:
a~g~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
fA(),
hwi
ESTELA M: J-,ERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer oft e opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Arricle VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above De(:ision had been reached in consultation befofe the case was
assigned to the "vriter of the opini0n of '.:he Court's Divisjon.
OtTRf)M<S
~
J...
.~~....... P.t,.
Chief Justice
~. ' 11' ~ ~l .
~Va::1.r~.l\
J:'NO
SL~I.,
_t'.J '--~ ... 1