G.R. No. 165851 (February 2, 2011)
Topics: Questions of fact – issue on the genuineness of the deed of sale
Summary:
The registered owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond’s surviving spouse is the respondent Aurora Irene C. Vda de Meneses. She filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Sum of Money, and Damages against petitioners Manuel Catindig and Silvino Roxas, Sr.
The petitioners’ argument that the respondent’s cause of action is one for annulment of contract, which already stipulated, is unpersuasive. The Deed of Sale is not only unregistered but also undated and unnotarized in the meanwhile.
Doctrines:
The certificate of title is proof that the person whose name is on it has an unquestionable and indefeasible title to the property.
Facts:
The registered owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond’s surviving spouse is the respondent Aurora Irene C. Vda de Meneses. She filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Sum of Money, and Damages against petitioners Manuel Catindig and Silvino Roxas, Sr. before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, in her capacity as administratrix of her husband’s estate in order to regain possession of the Masusuwi Fishpond.
Respondent claimed that petitioner Catindig, her husband’s first cousin, deprived her of ownership of the Masusuwi Fishpond by fraud, coercion, and intimidation in September 1975. Since then, the land has been illegally leased by petitioner Catindig to petitioner Roxas.
According to the petitioner Catindig, a Deed of Absolute Sale proves that he acquired the Masusuwi Fishpond from the respondent and her children in January 1978. Catindig further contended that even in the event that the respondent had in fact been defrauded of her ownership of the Masusuwi Fishpond, her right of action had already been barred by the passage of around 20 years.
While Catindig is the legitimate owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond and who he had paid his rentals to, the petitioner Roxas claimed in his own answer that the respondent had no right of action against him.
The respondent was awarded by the RTC. It was determined that the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by the respondent and petitioner Catindig was fraudulent and simulated, and as a result, did not provide petitioner Catindig ownership of the Masusuwi Fishpond.
The trial court determined that the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by the respondent and petitioner Catindig was fraudulent and simulated, and that it did not give petitioner Catindig ownership of the Masusuwi Fishpond.
Issue:
Whether or not the Deed of Sale was genuine or simulated.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
The question of whether the selling deed is authentic is essentially a factual one. The CA’s affirmation of the trial court’s factual conclusions renders them final and irrevocable, and they cannot be challenged on appeal. The petitioners’ argument that the respondent’s cause of action is one for annulment of contract, which already stipulated, is unpersuasive since only voidable contracts may be annulled, as it is widely established that the Deed of Sale is simulated and hence void.
The former has a better right to possess than the registered owners and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale. The certificate of title is proof that the person whose name is on it has an unquestionable and indefeasible title to the property. Even if the Deed of Sale is legitimate in this situation, it would not benefit the petitioner. TCT No. T-1749, registered in the name of the respondent’s husband, covers the subject property. The Deed of Sale is not only unregistered but also undated and unnotarized in the meanwhile.
Petition is DENIED.
The decision of CA is affirmed.