santiago v. ca, g.r. no. 103959

8/12/2019 Santiago v. CA, G.R. No. 103959

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santiago-v-ca-gr-no-103959 1/10

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 103959. August 21, 1997]

SPOUSES REGALADO SANTIAGO a! ROSITA PALA"#A", $OSE%INA

AR&EGA, petitioners, vs. T'E 'ON. &OURT O% APPEALS(

T'E 'ON. &A)ILO &. )ONTESA, $R., P*+s!g $u!g+ o- t+ RT& o-)a/o/os, "u/aa, "*a 19, a! UIRI&O AR&EGA, respondents.

D E & I S I O N

'ER)OSISI)A, $R., J .

Assailed in this petition for review under Rule 45 is the November ! "##"De$ision of respondent %ourt of Appeals in %A&'(R( %V No( )5*+#( Itaffirmed in toto the ,ud-ment of .ran$h "#! Re-ional Trial %ourt of /alolos!.ula$an! in %ivil %ase No( 40*&/( The a$tion therein sou-ht to de$lare nulland void the 12asulatan n- .ilihan- Tulu3an n- upa e6e$uted on 7ul3 "!"#0" b3 the late 8aula Ar$e-a! sister of private respondent! in favor of hereinpetitioners over a par$el of land $onsistin- of #)0 s9uare meters! situated in

.aran-a3 Tabin- Ilo-! /arilao! .ula$an(

8aula Ar$e-a was the re-istered owner of that $ertain par$el of land $overedb3 Transfer %ertifi$ate of Title No( T&""55"*( :er residential house stood thereuntil "#0* when it was destro3ed b3 a stron- t3phoon(

On De$ember #! "#0*! 8aula Ar$e-a e6e$uted what purported to be a !++!o- o!toa/ sa/+ over the land in favor of 7osefina Ar$e-a and the spousesRe-alado Santia-o and Rosita 8alab3ab! the petitioners herein! for and in

os!+*ato o- P20,000.00. The vendees were supposed to pa3 80!***(**as downpa3ment( It was e6pressl3 provided that the vendor would e6e$ute anddeliver to the vendees an absolute deed of sale upon full pa3ment b3 thevendees of the unpaid balan$e of the pur$hase pri$e of 8";!***(**(

Subse9uentl3! on 7ul3 "! "#0"! supposedl3 upon pa3ment of the remainin-balan$e! 8aula Ar$e-a e6e$uted a deed of absolute sale of the same par$el ofland in favor of petitioners( Thereupon! on 7ul3 )*! "#0"! T%T No( T&""55"*! in



the name of 8aula Ar$e-a! was $an$elled and a new title! T%T No( T&"4##was issued in the name of petitioners(

On A*/ 10, 1945, Pau/a A*+ga !+! sg/+ a! tout ssu+ ! leavin-as +*s her two 6*ot+*s! Nar$iso Ar$e-a<"= a! *at+ *+so!+t u*oA*+ga.

I!+ta//8! before 8aula Ar$e-a died! a ous+ of four bedrooms with atotal floor area of ))5 s9uare meters as 6u/t o+* t+ a*+/ o- /a! in9uestion( Si-nifi$antl3! the ast+*:s 6+!*oo, t to/+t a! 6at, asou+! 68 Pau/a A*+ga ut/ +* !+at despite the e6e$ution of the alle-eddeed of absolute sale( The t*++ ot+* 6+!*oos! smaller than the master>sbedroom! were ou+! 68 t+ +tto+*s who were the suos+! +!++s t+ sa/+.

8rivate respondent ?uiri$o Ar$e-a! as heir of his de$eased sister! filed onO$tober )4! "#5 %ivil %ase No( 40*&/ before the RT% of /alolos! .ula$an!see@in- to de$lare null and void the deed of sale e6e$uted b3 his sister durin-her lifetime in favor of the petitioners on the -round that sa! !++! as-ttous sin$e the purported $onsideration therefor of 8)*!***(** was nota$tuall3 paid b3 the vendees to his sister(

Answerin- the $omplaint 6+-o*+ t+ RT&, +tto+* sous+s a+**+! thatprivate respondent>s $ause of ato as a/*+a!8 6a**+! 68 t+ statut+ o-/tatos $onsiderin- that t+ !sut+! !++! o- a6so/ut+ sa/+ as

+;+ut+! t+* -ao* o $u/8 14, 1971 ! b3 whi$h T%T No( "4## wasissued on 7ul3 )*! "#0"! while private respondent>s o/at as -/+!

ou*t o/8 o Oto6+* 2<, 1945 or more than fourteen "4B 3ears from thetime the $ause of a$tion a$$rued( P+tto+*s also !+8 that the sa/+ was-ttous. The3 maintain that the u*as+ *+ as atua//8 a! to 8aula

Ar$e-a and that said amount was spent b3 the de$eased in the $onstru$tion ofher three&door apartment on the par$el of land in 9uestion(

7osefina Ar$e-a! the other petitioner! was de$lared in default for failure to file

her answer within the re-lementar3 period(

After trial! the RT& *+!+*+! =u!g+t -ao* o- *at+ *+so!+tu*o A*+ga, viz.:

"(a) Declaring as null and void and without legal force and effect the 'Kasulatan Ng

Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa' dated July ! #$ e%ecuted &y the deceased aula rcega

covering a parcel of land e&raced under T*T No+ T,--. in favor of the defendants/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/103959.htm#_edn1




(&) Declaring T*T No+ T,0!#!# issued and registered in the naes of defendants

Josefina rcega and spouses 1egalado 2antiago and 1osita ala&ya& as null and void/

(c) 3rdering the reconveyance of the property including all iproveents thereon

covered &y T*T No+ T,--. now T*T No+ T,0!#!# to the plaintiff su&4ect to real

estate ortgage with the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste/ and

(d) To pay 4ointly and severally the aount of ....+.. as attorney's fees+

3n the counterclai the sae is here&y disissed for lac5 of legal and6or factual &asis

(p+ 7 decision pp+ 8#-,9.. rec+)+":8;

In rulin- for private respondent! the trial $ourt! as affirmed in toto b3 thepubli$ respondent %ourt of Appeals! found thatC

"3n the &asis of the evidence adduced it appears that plaintiff <uirico rcega and his

&rother Narciso rcega are the only surviving heirs of the deceased aula rcega who

on pril . #!- died single and without issue+ 2oetie in #$. a strong typhoon

destroyed the house of aula rcega and the latter together with the defendants decided

to construct a new house+ All the defendants:9; being members of the SSS, Paula deemed

it wise to lend her title to them for purposes of loan with the SSS. 2he e%ecuted a deed

of sale to effect the transfer of the property in the nae of the defendants and thereafter

the latter ortgaged the sae for 9....+.. &ut the aount actually released was

only 8-...+..+ aula rcega spent the initial aount of 9....+.. out of her savings

for the construction of the house soetie in #$ and after the sae and the proceeds

of the loan were e%hausted the sae was not as yet copleted+ aula rcega and her

&rothers sold the property which they inherited for 0-...+.. and the sae all went to

the additional construction of the house however the said aount is not sufficient+Thereafter aula rcega and her &rothers sold another property which they inherited

for !.-#-.+.. and one,third (69) thereof went to aula rcega which she spent a

portion of which for the finishing touches of the house+ The house as finally finished in

#!9 is worth ore than .....+.. with a floor area of 88- s=uare eters consisting

of four &edroos + A big master's bedroom complete with a bath and toilet was occupied

by Paula Arcega up to the time of her death on April 10, 198 and the other three

smaller bedrooms are occupied by spouses, defendants !egalado Santiago and !osita

Palabyab, and "osefina Arcega. fter the death of aula rcega defendant Josefina

rcega and Narciso rcega constructed their own house at &ac5 portion of the lot in

=uestion+

#here is clear indication that the deed of sale, which is unconscionably low for 9$%

s&uare meters in faor of the defendants sometime on "uly 18, 19%1 who are all

members of SSS, is merely designed as an accommodation for purposes of loan with the

SSS. aula rcega cogni>ant of the shortage of funds in her possession in the aount

of 9....+.. deeed it wise to augent her funds for construction purposes &y way of

a ortgage with the 222 which only defendants could possi&ly effect they &eing







e&ers of the 222+ Since the SSS re&uires the collateral to be in the name of the

mortgagors, Paula Arcega e(ecuted a simulated deed of sale )*asulatan ng +ilihang

#uluyan ng upa- for 8....+.. dated "uly 18, 19%1 in faor of the defendants and the

same was notaried by Atty. uis /uin who emphatically claimed that no money was

inoled in the transaction as the parties hae other agreement. The allegations of the

defendants that the property was given to the (Kaloo&) &y the deceased has noevidentiary value+ ?hile it is true that 1osita ala&ya& stayed with the deceased since

childhood the sae cannot &e said with respect to defendant Josefina rcega distant

relative and a niece of the wife of Narciso rcega who stayed with deceased soetie

in #77 at the age of # years and already wor5ing as a saleslady in @anila+ Did the

deceased indeed give defendant Josefina rcega half of her property out of love and

gratitudeA 2uch circustance appears illogical if not highly ipro&a&le+ As a matter of

fact defendant Josefina Arcega in her unguarded moment unwittingly told the truth

that couple (Regalado Santiago and Rosita Palabyab) had indeed borrowed the title

and then mortgaged the same with the SSS as shown in her direct testimony which

reads:

'Atty Villanueva:

> ?8 !! 8ou sa8 tat t+ ous+ s o+! 68 sous+s Satago 6ut t+ /ot s6ougt 68 8ou a! Rosta@

A> Because at that time, the couple[<] borrowed the title and then mortgaged the property with the SSS. T+*+ s o/8 o+ tt/+ 6ut 6ot o- us o+! t. TSN !t!. 19Ot. :44, . 5BC[5]

O a+a/, t+ u6/ *+so!+t &ou*t o- A+a/s !sss+! the same!a--*g a// *+s+ts t+ RT& =u!g+t.

:en$e! this petition(

The petition is unmeritorious(

Veril3! this $ase is on all fours with Suta8 v . &ou*t o- A+a/s(<+= There! a$ertain Federi$o Sunta3 was the re-istered owner of a par$el of land in Sto(Nino! :a-ono3! .ula$an( A ri$e miller! Federi$o applied on September ;*! "#+*

as a miller&$ontra$tor of the then National Ri$e and %orn %orporation NARI%B!but his appli$ation was disapproved be$ause he was tied up with several unpaidloans( For purposes of $ir$umvention! he thou-ht of allowin- his nephew&

law3er! Rafael Sunta3! to ma@e the appli$ation for him( To a$hieve this Ra-a+/*+a*+! a ota*+! A6so/ut+ D++! o- Sa/+ +*+68 %+!+*o, -o*a! os!+*ato o- P20,000.00, o+8+! to Ra-a+/ sa! a*+/ o-/a! t a// ts +;stg st*utu*+s. pon the e6e$ution and re-istration ofsaid deed! %ertifi$ate of Title No( *&)*"5 in the name of Federi$o was $an$elled









and! in lieu thereof! T%T No( T&;+0"4 was issued in the name ofRafael( Sometime in the months of 7une to Au-ust! "#+#!<0= Federi$o re9uestedRafael to deliver ba$@ to him the owner>s dupli$ate of the transfer $ertifi$ate oftitle over the properties in 9uestion for he intended to use the propert3 as$ollateral in se$urin- a ban@ loan to finan$e the e6pansion of his ri$e

mill( Ra-a+/, o++*, tout =ust aus+, *+-us+! to !+/+* t+ tt/+sstg tat sa! *o+*t8 as Ca6so/ut+/8 so/! a! o+8+! [to] ;;; -o* a os!+*ato o- P20,000.00! 8hilippine $urren$3! and forother valuable $onsideration(E ?+ t+*+ *u/+! -ao* o- %+!+*o Suta8a! -ou! tat t+ !++! o- sa/+ u+sto as +*+/8 a a6so/ut+/8su/at+! ot*at -o* t+ u*os+ o- aoo!ato a! t+*+-o*+ o!(In retrospe$t! we observed in that $aseC

" ndeed the most protuberant inde( of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt

in any manner on the part of the late !afael to assert his rights of ownership oer the

land and rice mill in &uestion. fter the sale he should have entered the alnd andoccupied the preises thereof+ e did not een attempt to. f he stood as owner, he

would hae collected rentals from 2ederico for the use and occupation of the land and

its improements. All that the late !afael had was a title in his name.

666 666 666

%%% The fact that, notwithstanding the title transfer, ederico remained in actual

possession, culti!ation and occupation of the disputed lot from the time the deed of

sale was e"ecuted until the present, is a circumstance which is unmista#ably added

proof of the fictitiousness of the said transfer, the same being contrary to the principle

of ownership$% :!;

In the $ase before us! while petitioners were able to o$$up3 the propert3 in9uestion! the3 were rele-ated to a small bedroom without bath and toilet! <#= while8aula Ar$e-a remained virtuall3 in full possession of the $ompleted house andlot usin- the bi- master>s bedroom with bath and toilet up to the time of herdeath on April "*! "#5(<"*= If! indeed! the transa$tion entered into b3 thepetitioner>s and the late 8aula Ar$e-a on 7ul3 "! "#0" was a veritable deed ofabsolute sale! as it was purported to be! then /s( Ar$e-a had no business

whatsoever remainin- in the propert3 and! worse! to still o$$up3 the bi- master>sbedroom with all its amenities until her death on April "*! "#5 ( Definitel3! an3le-itimate vendee of real propert3 who paid for the propert3 with -ood mone3 wilnot a$$ede to an arran-ement whereb3 the vendor $ontinues o$$up3in- themost favored room in the house while he or she! as new owner! endures thedis-ra$e and absurdit3 of havin- to sleep in a small bedroom without bath andtoilet as if he or she is a -uest or a tenant in the house( In an3 $ase! -+tto+*s *+a//8 stoo! as /+gtat+ o+*s o- t+ *o+*t8, t+8 ou/!











propert3 does not vest title thereto( <")= The To**+s s8st+ !o+s ot*+at+ o* +st tt/+. It o/8 o-*s a! *+o*!s tt/+a/*+a!8 +;stg a! +st+!. It does not prote$t a usurper from the

true owner( It $annot be a shield for the $ommission of fraud( It does not permitone to enri$h himself at the e6pense of another( <";= here one does not havean3 ri-htful $laim over a real propert3! the Torrens s3stem of re-istration $an$onfirm or re$ord nothin-(

Petitioners! nevertheless! insist that both the trial court and therespondent court should have followed the Parole vidence !ule and

prevented evidence, li"e the testimony of #otary Public, $tty. %uis &uvin, private respondent 'uirico $rcega, among others, which impugned thetwo notarized deeds of sale.

T+ *u/+ o a*o/+ +!++ u!+* S+to 9, Ru/+ 130 s

ua/-+! 68 t+ -o//og +;+tos

“owever a party ay present evidence to odify e%plain or add to the ters of the

written agreeent if he puts in issue in his pleading/

(a) n intrinsic ambiguity mista!e or imerfection in the written agreement/

(&) The failure of the written agreeent to e%press the true intent and agreeent of

the parties thereto/

(c) #he alidity of the written agreement3 or

(d) The e%istence of other ters agreed to &y the parties or their successors in interestafter the e%ecution of the written agreeent+

The ter Cagreeent includes wills+E

In this $ase! *at+ *+so!+t u*o A*+ga was able to ut ssu+in his $omplaint before the Re-ional Trial %ourt the validit3 of the su6=+t !++!so- sa/+ for bein- a su/at+! t*asatoC

“7+ That in #$ the defendants who &y then were already eployed in private firs

and had &ecoe e&ers of the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste &y virtue of their respective

eployents decided aong theselves to &uild a new house on the property of

FL 1*GH a&ove descri&ed and to &orrow oney fro the 2ocial 2ecurity

2yste to finance the proposed construction+

$+ That in order to secure the loan fro the 2ocial 2ecurity 2yste it was necessary that

the lot on which the proposed house would &e erected should be registered and titled

in the names of the defendants#







666 666 666

#+ #hat in conformity with the aboe plans and schemes of the defendants, t hey made

PA&'A AR*A e"ecute and sign a fictitious, hence null and !oid +AS&'ATA-

-* ./'/0A-* T&'&1A- -* '&PA2 on "uly 18, 19%1, before 4otary Public 5S

/564, of +ulacan and entered in his register as 7oc. 4o. $, Page 4o. , +oo 4o.

::, Series of 19%1, by which PA5A A!/;<A purportedly conyed)sic- in faor of thedefendants "=S;24A A!/;<A and the spouses !;<AA7= SA4#A<= and !=S#A

PAA+>A+, the whole parcel of land aboe described for the sum of #?;4#>

#=5SA47 )P0,000.00-, as consideration which was not actually, then or thereafter

paid either wholly or partially. A copy of said document is hereto attached as Anne( @+

and made integral part hereof.

.+ That defendants pursuing their unlawful schee registered the said void and

ine%istent IK2FLTN NH BLNH TFLFN NH LFE with the office of

the 1egister of Deeds of Bulacan procured the cancellation of Transfer *ertificate of

Title No+ --. in the nae of FL 1*GH and the issuance of Transfer*ertificate of Title No+ 0!#!# in their naes a %ero%ed copy of which is hereto

attached as nne% C* and ade integral part hereof+

+ That still in furtherance of their un4ust and unlawful schees defendants secured a

loan from $ocial $ecurity $ystem in the amount of %&# securing the

payent thereof with a eal *state +ortgage on the above,described roerty then

already titled in their naes as aforestated (pp+ 8,9 coplaint pp+ ,- rec+)+E:0;

/oreover! the a*o/ +!++ *u/+ a8 6+ a+! 68 -a/u*+ to oF+ t!

as b3 failure to ob,e$t to the introdu$tion of parol eviden$e( And! where a part3who is entitled to the benefit of the rule waives the benefit thereof 68 a//ogsu +!++ to 6+ *+++! tout o6=+to a! tout a8 +--o*t toa+ t st*F+ -*o t+ ut+s o* !s*+ga*!+! 68 t+ t*a/ ou*t, he$annot! after the trial has $losed and the $ase has been de$ided a-ainst him!invo@e the rule in order to se$ure a reversal of the ,ud-ment b3 an appellate$ourt(<"5= :ere! the re$ords are devoid of an3 indi$ation that petitioners everob,e$ted to the admissibilit3 of parole eviden$e introdu$ed b3 private respondentin open $ourt( The $ourt $annot disre-ard eviden$e whi$h would ordinaril3 bein$ompetent under the rules but has been rendered admissible b3 the failure

of part3 to ob,e$t thereto(<"+= 8etitioners have no one to blame but themselves inthis re-ard(

(inally, petitioners argue that private respondent)s complaint filedbefore the trial court on *ctober +, /0 is already barred by the statuteof limitations and laches considering that the deed of absolute sale wase1ecuted in their favor by the deceased Paula $rcega on July +2, 3.4ndeed, more than fourteen 56 years had elapsed from the time his cause









of action accrued to the time that the complaint was filed. $rticles and 7 of the #ew &ivil &ode provide:

“1T+ 00+ The following actions ust &e &rought within ten years fro the tie the

right of action accrues

() 5pon a written contract3

(8) Fpon an o&ligation created &y law/

(9) Fpon a 4udgent+E

“1T+ 9#+ The action for annulent shall &e &rought within four years.

This period shall &egin

n cases of intiidation violence or undue influence fro the tie the defect of the

consent ceases +

n cases of mistae or fraud, from the time of the discoery of the same .

nd when the action refers to contracts entered into &y inors or other incapacitated

persons fro the tie the guardianship ceases+E

This su6sso s utt+*/8 tout +*t! the pertinent provisionbein- Arti$le "4"* of the New %ivil %ode whi$h provides une9uivo$abl3 that

1<T=he a$tion or !+-+s+ -o* t+ !+/a*ato o- t+ +;st++ o- aot*at !o+s ot *+s*6+. [17]

As for /a+s, its essen$e is the failure or ne-le$t ! for an unreasonable and

une6plained len-th of time to do that whi$h! b3 e6er$isin- due dili-en$e! $ould or should have been done earlierJ it is the ne-li-en$e or omission to assert a ri-ht within a reasonable time! warrantin- a presumption that the part3 entitled toassert it either has abandoned it or de$lined to assert it(<"= .ut there is! to besure! no absolute rule as to what $onstitutes la$hes or staleness of demandJea$h $ase is to be determined a$$ordin- to its parti$ular $ir$umstan$es( The9uestion of la$hes is addressed to the sound dis$retion of the $ourt! and sin$ela$hes is an e9uitable do$trine! its appli$ation is $ontrolled b3 e9uitable$onsiderations( It $annot be wor@ed to defeat ,usti$e or to perpetrate fraud and

in,usti$e(<"#= In the $ase under $onsideration! it would not onl3 be impra$ti$al but+//>g u=ust a! at+t/8 +utous to a/8 /a+s agast*at+ *+so!+t a! +st o+*s o+* a a/ua6/+ ++ o- *+a/*o+*t8 -ao* o- +tto+*s b3 virtue of an absolutel3 su/at+! !++!o- sa/+ ++* ! in the first pla$e! meant to $onve3 an3 ri-ht over the sub,e$tpropert3( It is the better rule that $ourts! under the prin$iple of e9uit3! will not be-uided or bound stri$tl3 b3 the statute of limitations or the do$trine of la$heswhen to do so! manifest wron- or in,usti$e would result( <)*=












?'ERE%ORE, premises $onsidered! the petition is hereb3DGNIGD with $osts a-ainst petitioners(

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ (! $on$ur(

santiago v. ca, g.r. no. 103959

Documents