Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 567 views

    163 - Sps. Aguinaldo v. Torres

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    1) Petitioners filed a complaint to annul the sale of three properties to the respondent, claiming the respondent fraudulently transferred the titles to his name in 1979. 2) The respondent denied participating in the 1979 sale and claimed the properties were validly sold to him through a 1991 deed of sale, though this deed had an improper notarization. 3) The courts dismissed the petitioners' complaint, finding the properties were validly sold to the respondent, and ordered the petitioners to properly execute a registrable deed of conveyance to the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    163 - Sps. Aguinaldo v. Torres

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    567 views2 pages
    1) Petitioners filed a complaint to annul the sale of three properties to the respondent, claiming the respondent fraudulently transferred the titles to his name in 1979. 2) The respondent denied participating in the 1979 sale and claimed the properties were validly sold to him through a 1991 deed of sale, though this deed had an improper notarization. 3) The courts dismissed the petitioners' complaint, finding the properties were validly sold to the respondent, and ordered the petitioners to properly execute a registrable deed of conveyance to the respondent.

    Original Title

    163_Sps. Aguinaldo v. Torres

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners filed a complaint to annul the sale of three properties to the respondent, claiming the respondent fraudulently transferred the titles to his name in 1979. 2) The respondent denied participating in the 1979 sale and claimed the properties were validly sold to him through a 1991 deed of sale, though this deed had an improper notarization. 3) The courts dismissed the petitioners' complaint, finding the properties were validly sold to the respondent, and ordered the petitioners to properly execute a registrable deed of conveyance to the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    567 views2 pages

    163 - Sps. Aguinaldo v. Torres

    Uploaded by

    Vener Margallo
    1) Petitioners filed a complaint to annul the sale of three properties to the respondent, claiming the respondent fraudulently transferred the titles to his name in 1979. 2) The respondent denied participating in the 1979 sale and claimed the properties were validly sold to him through a 1991 deed of sale, though this deed had an improper notarization. 3) The courts dismissed the petitioners' complaint, finding the properties were validly sold to the respondent, and ordered the petitioners to properly execute a registrable deed of conveyance to the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SPS. EDGARDO and NELIA AGUINALDO vs.

    ARTEMIO TORRES 
    G.R. No. 225808 | Perlas-Bernabe, J. | Second Division | 11 September 2017 

    FACTS:
    On March 3, 2003, petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, and
    damages against respondent before the RTC. They claimed that they are the registered owners
    of three (3) lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-93596, T-87764, and T-
    87765 situated in Tanza, Cavite (subject properties). 7 Sometime in December 2000, they
    discovered that the titles to the subject properties were transferred to respondent who, in bad
    faith, and through fraud, deceit, and stealth, caused the execution of a Deed of Absolute
    Sale dated July 21, 1979 (1979 deed of sale), purportedly selling the subject properties to him,
    for which he was issued TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 (subject certificates of
    title).

    Respondent filed his Answer with Counterclaim, denying participation in the execution of the
    1979 deed of sale, and averring that the subject properties were validly sold by petitioners to
    him through a Deed of Absolute Sale11 dated March 10, 1991 (1991 deed of sale). He claimed
    that petitioners caused the registration of the 1979 deed of sale with the Register of Deeds of
    Trece Martires City, and the transfer of title in his name, hence, they are estopped from
    impugning the validity of his title. Moreover, the action has prescribed, having been filed beyond
    four (4) years from dis covery of the averred fraud, reckoned from the registration of the said
    deed on March 26, 1991.He further alleged that petitioners only filed the instant baseless suit to
    harass him in view of their acrimonious relationship, and thus, interposed a counterclaim for
    moral damages and attorney's fees.

    RTC dismissed the complaint, It found that petitioners validly sold the subject properties to
    respondent,considering too Nelia's admission of the sale in her letter21 dated November 12,
    1998 (November 12, 1998 letter) to respondent. CA denied the appeal and upheld the RTC's
    findings and conclusions. The CA also observed that despite its authenticity and due execution,
    the 1991 deed of sale was improperly notarized, given that it was signed by respondent and
    witness Lalaine Bucapal (Bucapal) in Makati City, and by petitioners in the United States of
    America (USA), but notarized in Tanza, Cavite; 32 as such, the same could not be properly
    registered by the Register of Deeds. 33 Accordingly, the CA found it equitable to compel
    petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within thirty (30)
    days from finality of the Decision, in accordance with Articles 1357 and 1358 (1) of the Civil
    Code.

    Issue: Whether the improper notarization of the 1991 Deed of Sale affected the validity of
    the sale. 

    Ruling: NO.

    Bearing in mind that the legal requirement that the sale of real property must appear in a public
    instrument is merely a coercive means granted to the contracting  parties to enable them to
    reciprocally compel the observance of the prescribed form, and considering that the existence of
    the sale of the subject properties in respondent's favor had been duly established, the Court
    upholds the CA's directive for petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in
    respondent's favor within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision, in accordance with the
    prescribed form under Articles 1357 and 1358 (1) of the Civil Code.

    You might also like