Macababbad Jr. v. Masirag
Macababbad Jr. v. Masirag
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
71
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
72
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
73
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
final and executory for the CA’s failure to rule on the issue. This
argument lacks legal basis as nothing in the Rules of Court states
that the failure of an appellate court to rule on an issue raised in
an appeal renders the appealed order or judgment final and
executory with
74
BRION, J.:
Before us is the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by
Perfecto Macababbad, Jr.1 (Macababbad) and the Spouses
Chua Seng Lin (Chua) and Say Un Ay (Say) (collectively
called the petitioners), praying that we nullify the Decision2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Resolution3 denying
the motion for reconsideration that followed. The assailed
decision reversed the dismissal Order4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan,
remanding the case for further trial.
Background
_______________
75
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
76
_______________
77
_______________
78
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE
NATURE OF APPELLANTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION AS THAT
DESIGNATED IN THE COMPLAINT’S TITLE AND NOT IN
(SIC) THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT21
_______________
79
The CA Decision22
The CA ignored23 the jurisdictional issue raised by the
petitioners in their motion to dismiss, took cognizance of
the appeal, and focused on the following issues: 1)
whether the complaint stated a cause of action; and
2) whether the cause of action had been waived,
abandoned or extinguished.
The appellate court reversed and set aside the
RTC’s dismissal of the complaint. On the first issue, it
ruled that the complaint “carve(d) out a sufficient and
adequate cause of action xxx. One can read through the
verbosity of the initiatory pleading to discern that a fraud
was committed by the defendants on certain heirs of the
original owners of the property and that, as a result, the
plaintiffs were deprived of interests that should have gone to
them as successors-in-interest of these parties. A positive
deception has been alleged to violate legal rights. This is the
ultimate essential fact that remains after all the clutter is
removed from the pleading. Directed against the
defendants, there is enough to support a definitive
adjudication.”24
On the second issue, the CA applied the Civil Code
provision on implied trust, i.e. that a person who acquires a
piece of property through fraud is considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom
the property came. Reconciling this legal provision with
Article 1409 (which defines void contracts) and Article 1410
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
80
_______________
25 Id., p. 38.
26 Id., p. 136.
27 Id., p. 138.
28 Id., p. 142.
29 Id., p. 143.
30 Ibid.
31 Id., p. 147.
81
Our Ruling
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
32 Id., p. 148.
33 Id., pp. 167-170.
34 Suarez v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 124512, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA
74.
35 Regalado, Florenz, D., Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 2000 ed.,
p. 596.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., citing Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 224 (1992).
82
_______________
38 Ibid.
39 Rollo, pp. 95-96.
40 Id., pp. 107-112.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
83
“first, that they were the co-heirs and co-owners of the inherited
property; second, that their co-heirs-co-owners sold their
hereditary rights thereto without their knowledge and consent;
third, that forgery, fraud and deceit were committed in the
execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and
Confirmation of Sale since Francisco Ingjug who allegedly
executed the deed in 1967 actually died in 1963, hence, the
thumbprint found in the document could not be his; fourth, that
Eufemio Ingjug who signed the deed of sale is not the son of
Mamerto Ingjug, and, therefore, not an heir entitled to participate
in the disposition of the inheritance; fifth, that respondents have
not paid the taxes since the execution of the sale in 1965 until the
present date and the land in question is still declared for taxation
purposes in the name of Mamerto Ingjug, the original registered
owner, as of 1998; sixth, that respondents had not taken
possession of the land subject of the complaint nor introduced any
improvement thereon; and seventh, that respondents are not
innocent purchasers for value.”
Modes of appeal.
(a) Ordinary appeal—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
_______________
84
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
85
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
46 Rollo, p. 110.
86
“Article 1458 of the New Civil Code provides: ‘By the contract
of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself of transfer
the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other
to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.’ It is
essential that the vendors be the owners of the property sold
otherwise they cannot dispose that which does not belong to them.
As the Romans put it: ‘Nemo dat quod non habet.’ No one can
give more than what he has. The sale of the realty to
respondents is null and void insofar as it prejudiced
petitioners’ interests and participation therein. At best,
only the ownership of the shares of Luisa, Maria and
Guillerma in the disputed property could have been
transferred to respondents.
Consequently, respondents could not have acquired ownership
over the land to the extent of the shares of petitioners. The
issuance of a certificate of title in their favor could not
vest upon them ownership of the entire property; neither
could it validate the purchase thereof which is null and
void. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the
evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not
give the holder any better title than what he actually has.
Being null and void, the sale to respondents of the
petitioners’ shares produced no legal effects whatsoever.
Similarly, the claim that Francisco Ingjug died in 1963 but
appeared to be a party to the Extrajudicial Settlement and
Confirmation of Sale executed in 1967 would be fatal to the
validity of the contract, if proved by clear and convincing
evidence. Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time
of the consummation of the contract. Stated otherwise, to form a
valid and legal agreement it is necessary that there be a party
capable of contracting and party capable of being contracted with.
Hence, if any one party to a supposed contract was already dead
at the time of its execution, such contract is undoubtedly
simulated and false and therefore null and void by reason of its
having been made after the death of the party who appears as one
of the
87
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
88
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
89
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/19
1/22/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017729b190a385b69087003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/19