You are on page 1of 4

1.

Bascara vs Javier and Pangilinan June 17, 2015 (f) In the course of time, CACALDA, who represented herself as having the capacity to have the title
transferred to Third-Party Claimant’s name, was able to gain the complete confidence of the Third-
Facts: Party Claimant, and he, in all his layman’s utter vulnerability, entrusted her not only with the owner’s
duplicate of TCT No. 135066x x x for purposes of transferring the Subject Property to Third-Party
On August 1, 2006, respondent Evangeline C. Pangilinan (Pangilinan) filed an ex parte petition for the
Claimant’s name but also the amount of ₱135,000.00 (out of the hurried sale of another small
issuance of a writ of possession. Essentially, the petition alleged that, on August 13,2004, Rosalina P.
property he also inherited from PARDO) to pay what CACALDA made him believe was the amount of
Pardo (Pardo) executed in favor of Pangilinan a real estate mortgage (REM) over a parcel of land as a
taxes and other expenses to be incurred to have the title transferred;
security for the payment of a loan in the amount of ₱200,000.00; that Pardo failed to comply with the
terms and conditions of the promissory note with REM; that upon compliance with the statutory (g) However, CACALDA never got the transfer done, and, not before long, left the Third-Party
requirements, the mortgaged property was sold at public auction to Pangilinan as the highest bidder; Claimant’s house where she was boarding, and never showed up ever again;
that the one-year redemption period already elapsed without Pardo exercising the right to redeem
the subject property; that the title over the lot was consolidated and transferred in the name of (h) Sometime in October 2004, Third-Party Claimant discovered the following Entry No. 2004-5119/T-
Pangilinan as evidenced by TCT No. 147777; and, that Pardo, her agents, and persons claiming rights 135066 which was annotated on August 13, 2004 on page 2 of TCT 135066 x x x, which reads:
under her failed and refused to vacate the subject premises despite several demands.
ENTRY NO. 2004-5119/T-135066 – REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE WITH SPECIAL POWER TO SELL
Claiming as the true, lawful and absolute owner of the subject property that is in his possession, MORTGAGE (sic) PROPERTY WITHOUT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS– In favor of EVANGELINE C.
petitioner filed an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim and a Motion to Recall Writ of Possession on April 23, PANGILINAN (Mortgagee) covering the property described herein to guarantee the credit facility or
2007. The motion alleged as follows: principal loan obligation in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱200,000.00),
Philippine Currency, upon terms and conditions set forth in Doc. No. 458; page No. 92; Book No. 41;
xxxx Series of 2004 acknowledged before Notary Public Jesus B. Bongon for Pasay City.
4. In response to the said Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim, Third-Party Claimant filed an (i) Upon learning about the above-cited annotation on TCT No. 135066 x x x Third-Party Claimant
Opposition and Motion to Dismiss x x x x x x states the following: sought the assistance of the Public [Attorney’s] Office and filed a complaint for estafa against
CACALDA on October 6, 2004 and annotated his Adverse Claim on TCT 135066 x x x per Entry No.
(a) [Third-Party Claimant] is the nephew and ward of the late ROSALINA P. PARDO x x x, who owned a
2004-7480/T-135066 dated October 28, 2004;
certain parcel of land, with improvements thereon x x x as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 135066 of the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City x x x; (j) In response to the said Petition, Third-Party Claimant x x x filed an OPPOSITION AND MOTION TO
DISMISS x x x, to which [Pangilinan] filed her REPLY/COMMENT where she attached, among other
(b) During her lifetime, or on May 15, 1999, PARDO executed a duly notarized deed of DONATION
documents, copies of the following:
MORTIS CAUSA donating the Subject Property to and in favor of Third-Party Claimant x x x;
j.1 Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power to Sell Mortgaged Property Without Judicial Proceedings
(c) Four years later, or on May 20, 2003, PARDO, a widow, age 78, died intestate, and without issue x
allegedly signed by PARDO x x x;
x x;
j.2 The purported Community Tax Certificate (CTC) No. CC12003 21039100 issued July 13, 2004 in
(d) PARDO having passed away intestate and without issue and by virtue of the DONATION MORTIS
Pasay City, of alleged PARDO who mortgaged the Subject Property x x x;
CAUSA, Third-Party Claimant became the owner of the Subject Property. He and his family have since
taken possession thereof and are residing there up to now; j.3 Two photographs taken by the alleged mortgagor-debtor PARDO when she signed the loan
documents x x x [.]
(e) To supplement what little and highly irregular, if totally unreliable, income he gets from working
part time in a cousin’s small business enterprise, Third-Party Claimant leases out portions of the 6. From all the foregoing, it is crystal clear that:
house to boarders, one of them a woman known by the name of EVANGELINE P. CACALDA;
a. PARDO, the true and real owner of the Subject Property, COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO, MUCH stayed by an injunction or a pending action for annulment of the real estate mortgage or the extra-
LESS SIGNED, the Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power to Sell Mortgaged Property Without judicial foreclosure proceedings.
Judicial Proceedings x x x, as she had been LONG DEAD at the time of the execution thereof x x x;
Meanwhile, in April 2007, petitioner filed an action for Annulment of Title and Damages against
b. PARDO, the true and real owner of the Subject Property, who was born on December 29, 1924, Pangilinan and Robert H. Guillermo in his official capacity as the Register of Deeds of Pasay City.18 It
was 78 years old at the time she died on May 20, 2003, as shown in her Death Certificate x x x and in was docketed as Civil Case No. 07-0529-CFM and raffled before the Pasay RTC, Branch 110.
her obituary x x x, and could not have been the PARDO who issued the Community Tax Certificate
(CTC) No. CC12003 21039100 issued July 13, 2004 in Pasay City x x x with the birth date "April 25, After exchanges of subsequent pleadings in LRC Case No. 06-0036-CF, the trial court eventually ruled
1957," which CTC was submitted to, and relied upon by, Defendant PANGILINAN to establish the in favor of Pangilinan. On January 17, 2008, it denied petitioner’s motion to recall the writ of
identity of PARDO[,] the alleged mortgagor-debtor; possession and directed respondent Sheriff Javier to implement the same. On April 3, 2008,
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration20 was likewise denied.
c. The photographs x x x taken of the alleged PARDO who mortgaged the Subject Property and who
received the proceeds of the mortgage loan of ₱200,000.00 show CACALDA, the former boarder of Petitioner elevated the case to the appellate court. Nevertheless, the CA did not find any evidence
[Third-Party Claimant] and swindler par [excellence], and CERTAINLY NOT THE LONG DECEASED that the trial court acted in a capricious and despotic manner or that the questioned Orders were
PARDO, the true and real owner of the Subject Property; issued by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility. It opined that any question regarding the
regularity and validity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, as well as the consequent cancellation of
d. All the signatures, including the thumbmarks, shown on the Real Estate Mortgage with Special the writ of possession, is to be determined in a subsequent proceeding, pursuant to Section 8 of Act
Power to Sell Mortgaged Property Without Judicial Proceedingsx x x are FAKE, COUNTERFEIT, No. 3135,21 as amended by Act No. 4118,22 and that such question should not be raised as a
BOGUS,PHONY AND FORGED, as they DON’T belong to PARDO, the true and real owner of the Subject justification for opposing the issuance of the writ since the proceeding is heard ex parte.
Property, who had been LONG DEAD at the time of the execution thereof, but to the impostor
CACALDA. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied; hence, this petition.

7. The said Petition for Cancellation of Adverse Claim is yet to be resolved by Hon. Ma. Rosario B. ISSUE: WON PETITIONER IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER OF THE PARCEL OF LAND BY VIRTUE OF THE DEED
Ragasa, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 108, and here is [Pangilinan] filing yet another petition, this OF DANATION MORTIS CAUSA. NO!
time for Writ of Possession;
as held in China Banking Corporation v. Lozada, thus:
8. Third-Party Claimant has already filed a complaint directly attacking the validity of [Pangilinan’s]
It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property
title and praying for, among other things, the annulment of TCT 147777 as having emanated from an
purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As
illegal source, as well as the reinstatement of the former title, TCT 135066, in the name of PARDO,
such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time following the
Third-Party Claimant’s deceased aunt, benefactor and donor without all the liens and [encumbrances]
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title.
caused to be annotated thereon by Petitioner x x x.
The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period except that
9. Third-Party Claimant is the rightful owner of the Subject Property and is entitled to its possession, he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No such bond is
not[Pangilinan] whose title TCT 147777 emanated from an illegal source and is therefore null and required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed. x x
void.10
Upon the expiration of the period to redeem and no redemption was made, the purchaser, as
In her Comment/Opposition,11 Pangilinan relied on Spouses Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, Autocorp confirmed owner, has the absolute right to possess the land and the issuance of the writ of
Group & Autographics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Chailease Finance, Corp. v. Spouses Ma, Sps. de Vera possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court upon proper application and proof of title.
v. Hon. Agloro, PNB v. Sanao Marketing Corp., and Sps. Yulienco v. Court of Appeals insofar as these
Moreover, it is not amiss to point that the execution of Pardo of donation mortis causa in favor of
cases held that the trial court has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession, which cannot be
petitioner does not immediately transfer title to the property to the latter. Considering that the
alleged donation is one of mortis causa, the same partake of the nature of testamentary provision.29 Absolute Sale; ( b) he was initially prevented from entering the subject land since it was being
As such, said deed must be executed in accordance with the requisites on solemnities of wills and occupied by the Heirs of Alfredo Gaccion (Heirs of Gaccion); (c) in order to buy peace, he had to "buy"
testaments under Articles 805 and 806 of the New Civil Code; otherwise, the donation is void and the subject land anew from the Heirs of Gaccion; (d) he was a buyer in good faith, for value, and was
would produce no effect. Unless and until the alleged donation is probated, i.e., proved and allowed without any knowledge or participation in the alleged defects of the title thereof; and ( e)
in the proper court, no right to the subject property has been transmitted to petitioner. respondents were never in possession of the subject land and they never paid real property taxes
over the same. Ultimately, petitioner claimed that he was duped and swindled into buying the subject
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The land twice.13
March 4, 2009 Decision and May 29, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
103194, which affirmed the Orders dated January 17, 2008 and April 3, 2008 of the Regional Trial After the pre-trial conference, the parties submitted the case for summary judgment on the basis of
Court, Branch 111, Pasay City, in LRC Case No. 06-0036-CFM, are AFFIRMED. the documents and pleadings already filed.1awp++i1 The RTC then ordered the parties to
simultaneously submit their memoranda in support of their respective positions.14
SO ORDERED.
The RTC Ruling

In a Summary Judgment15 dated September 12, 2006, the RTC ruled in petitioner's favor and
2. Andy Ang vs. Severino Pacunio G.R. No. 208928 July 8, 2015 accordingly, dismissed the case for lack of merit.16 It found that while respondents claimed to be
Udiaan's successors-in-interest over the subject land, there is dearth of evidence proving their
FACTS:
successional rights to Udiaan's estate, specifically, over the subject land. As such, the RTC concluded
The instant case arose from a Complaint5 dated March I 9, 2003 for Declaration of Nullity of Sale, that respondents are not the real parties in interest to institute an action against petitioner,
Reconveyance, and Damages filed by Pedrito N. PaGunio, Editha P. Yaba, and herein respondents warranting the dismissal of their complaint.17
Severino Pacunio, Teresita P. Torralba, Susana Loberanes, Christopher N. Pacunio, and Pedrito P.
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed18 to the CA.
Azaron (respondents) against petitioner before the RTC involving a 98,851 square meter (sq. m.)
parcel of land originally registered in Udiaan's name as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) The CA Ruling
No. T-35936 (subject land). In their Complaint, respondents alleged that they are the grandchildren
and successors-in-interest of Udiaan who died on December 15, 1972 in Cagayan de Oro City and left In a Decision19 dated September 28, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling in that:
the subject land as inheritance to her heirs. However, on July 12, 1993, an impostor falsely (a) it nullified the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale; (b) declared valid the deed of absolute sale
representing herself as Udiaan sold the subject land to petitioner, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute between petitioner and the Heirs of Gaccion over a 3,502-sq. m. portion of the subject land; and ( c)
Sale of even date (Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale). Consequently, OCT No. T-3593 was cancelled distributed portions of the subject land to the Heirs of Gaccion and to the children of Udiaan.20
and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-790519 was issued in the latter's name. In 1997,
petitioner entered the subject land and used the same in his livestock business. Respondents then It agreed with the RTC's finding that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant case,
informed petitioner that he did not validly acquire the subject land, and thereafter, demanded for its considering that, as mere grandchildren of Udiaan, they have no successional rights to Udiaan's
return, but to no avail.10 Hence, they filed the aforesaid complaint, essentially contending that estate. In this regard, the CA ratiocinated that respondents could only succeed from said estate by
Udiaan could not have validly sold the subject land to petitioner considering that she was already right of representation if their mother, who is one of Udiaan's children,21 predeceased Udiaan.
dead for more than 20 years when the sale occurred.11 However, such fact was not established.22

In his Answer,12 petitioner denied respondents' allegations and countered that: (a) at first, he bought This notwithstanding, the CA nullified the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale because it was clearly
the subject land from a person representing herself as Udiaan who showed a community tax executed by a person other than Udiaan, who died more than 20 years before such sale occurred.23
certificate as proof of identity, has in her possession OCT No. T-3593, knew the location of the subject Considering, however, that some of Udiaan's heirs had already sold a 9,900-sq. m. portion of the
land, and was not afraid to face the notary public when they executed the Questioned Deed of subject land to the Heirs of Gaccion, who in turn, sold a 3,502-sq. m. portion to petitioner, the CA
apportioned the subject land as follows: (a) 3,502 sq. m. to petitioner; (b) 6,398 sq. m. to the Heirs of the Civil Code is available to them. In this situation, representatives will be called to the succession by
Gaccion; and (c) the remainder of the subject land to Udiaan's children.24 the law and not by the person represented; and the representative does not succeed the person
represented but the one whom the person represented would have succeeded.32
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration,25 but was denied in a Resolution26 dated August
13, 2013; hence, this petition. For such right to be available to respondents, they would have to show first that their mother: (a)
predeceased Udiaan; (b) is incapacitated to inherit; or (c) was disinherited, if Udiaan died testate.33
However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, nothing in the records would show that the right of
representation is available to respondents. Hence, the RTC and the CA correctly found that
ISSUE: The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly declared the nullity
respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant case. It is well-settled that factual findings
of the Questioned Deed of Absolute Sale and distributed portions of the subject land to different
of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court and are
parties, among others, despite ruling that respondents are not real parties in interest to the instant
deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record,34 as in this case.
case.
Having established that respondents are not the real parties in interest to the instant suit, the proper
RULING:
course of action was for the CA to merely affirm the RTC's dismissal of their complaint. It therefore
The petition is meritorious. erred in proceeding to resolve the other substantive issues of the case and granting one of the
principal reliefs sought by respondents, which is the declaration of the nullity of the Questioned Deed
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the definition of a real party in interest as follows: of Absolute Sale.35 In the same vein, the CA erred in awarding portions of the subject land to various
non-parties to the case, such as the Heirs of Gaccion and Udiaan's children. Basic is the rule that no
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured
relief can be extended in a judgment to a stranger or one who is not a party to a case.36
by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise provided
by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in In sum, the CA transgressed prevailing law and jurisprudence in resolving the substantive issues of
interest. the instant case despite the fact that respondents are not real parties in interest to the same.
Necessarily, a reinstatement of the R TC ruling is in order.
The rule on real parties in interest has two (2) requirements, namely: (a) to institute an action, the
plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and (b) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated September 28, 2012 and the
real party in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an Resolution dated August 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00992-MIN are hereby
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Summary Judgment dated September 12, 2006 of the
curiosity about the question involved. One having no material interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 38 in Civil Case No. 2003-115 is REINSTATED.
of the court as the plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is
dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.27 In Spouses Oco v. Limbaring,28 the Court SO ORDERED.
expounded on the purpose of this rule, to wit: Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1) to
prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest in the case; 2) to
require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid
multiplicity of suits; and 4) discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to public
policy.29

In the instant case, respondents claim to be the successors-in-interest of the subject land just
because they are Udiaan's grandchildren.1âwphi1 Under the law, however, respondents will only be
deemed to have a material interest over the subject land - and the rest of Udiaan' s estate for that
matter - if the right of representation provided under Article 970,30 in relation to Article 982,31 of