Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYLLABUS
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p
On August 16, 1941, Deogracias sold his undivided share in Lot No. 3011
to Pedro Golez, and in Lot No. 3017 to spouses Sofronio and Lourdes Lumagbas.
Golez annotated the sale at the back of the title thereof while spouses
Lumagbas caused the subdivision of Lot No. 3017 into Lot No. 3017-A and Lot
No. 3017-B, with Lot No. 3017-A registered in their names under TCT No. 8239.
Subsequently, Lot No. 3011 was subdivided into Lot No. 3011-A and Lot
No. 3011-B, with Lot No. 3011-A registered in the name of spouses Jalbuna and
Lot No. 3011-B in the name of Golez.
Thereafter, PNB sold the lot to spouses Johnny and Nona Lucero, who were
issued TCT No. 76938. As the new owners of Lot No. 3017-B, they filed an
ejectment case against Tranquilina, Azucena, Freddie and Eduardo, all
surnamed Militar, the actual occupants therein.
PNB claimed that it was a mortgagee in good faith and for value; that the
title of spouses Jalbuna was free from all liens and encumbrances when they
secured the loan; and that it conducted verification and inspection of the
property before granting the loan. EAHDac
Spouses Lucero alleged that the complaint was commenced without the
real party in interest; that the cause of action has prescribed; and that they
were innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
The trial court rendered a decision 3 dated October 18, 1995, dismissing
the complaint, complaint-in-intervention, as well as the cross claim of PNB. It
held that the case was not brought in the name of all indispensable parties and
although the two (2) deeds of sale were void for being simulated or fictitious,
their nullity cannot be invoked against PNB and spouses Lucero because they
were buyers in good faith. It found that the action for reconveyance had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
prescribed as it was filed more than fourteen (14) years from the execution of
the Deeds of Sale covering the disputed properties. An action for reconveyance
prescribes after ten (10) years from the issuance of title, which operates as a
constructive notice.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. It
held that ultimate issue is the propriety of reconveyance and not the shares of
the respective heirs which is proper in a case for partition. Thus, a final
determination of the case can be had despite non-inclusion of other heirs
because their interests may be severed and proceeded with separately.
Further, it held that PNB and spouses Lucero were not buyers in good faith; and
that the action for reconveyance based on implied trust does not prescribe. The
dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October
18, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Sixth Judicial Region,
Branch 38, in Civil Case No. 18836, is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Certificate of Title covering Lot 3011-A in the names of
Spouses Jalbuna and the Certificate of Title covering Lot 3017-B in the
names of Spouses Lucero-Ariete are hereby declared null and void.
Spouses Jalbuna and Spouses Lucero-Ariete are directed to reconvey
the subject properties to its original owners, namely Glicerio, Tomas
and Caridad, as the undivided property, of the aforestated co-owners.
SO ORDERED. 4
We are not persuaded by PNB's claim that the case was not brought by all
indispensable parties as other heirs of Glicerio, Tomas and Caridad have not
been named as parties therein.
There are two essential tests of an indispensable party: (1) can relief be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other party?; and, (2) can the
case be decided on the merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party?
There is, however, no fixed formula for determining who is an indispensable
party; this can only be determined in the context and by the facts of the
particular suit or litigation. 7
In the case at bar, the ultimate relief sought by the action is the
reconveyance of titles to their rightful owners. The records reveal that prior to
the forgery, the disputed properties were registered in the names of the co-
owners, Glicerio, Tomas and Caridad, whose interests remained undivided.
Thus, if reconveyance of the titles is granted, the titles will revert back to the
estates of the deceased co-owners and not to their individual heirs, whose
interests are divisible and may properly be ventilated in another proceeding.
Therefore, a co-heir may bring such action without necessarily joining all the
other co-heirs as co-plaintiffs because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the
benefit of all. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals:
It should be remembered, nevertheless, that the ultimate issue
herein is the propriety of reconveyance and not the shares of the
respective heirs of the co-owners, the latter being determined in a case
for partition. An action for partition is the action where co-ownership is
declared and the segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion
of the property is made. The heirs of the co-owners, (Glicerio, Tomas
and Caridad), if there are any, including the appellants herein may
claim their respective shares in an action for partition. Any claim of
interest, by way of succession, from the co-owners may be severed and
proceeded with separately and a final determination in the action for
reconveyance can be had despite the non-inclusion of other heirs
because the interest of the respective heirs of the co-owners, may be
severed. Corollary, the instant case, may proceed without the other
heirs, if there are any, because they are mere necessary parties.
Moreover, in a co-ownership, the act of one benefits all the co-owners,
unless the former repudiates the co-ownership. Thus, if the appellants
herein prevail in the case for reconveyance, it will also redound to the
benefit of the other co-owners or co-heirs. 8
PNB next argues that since Deogracias sold his shares in the disputed
lots, his heirs, herein respondents, do not have a cause of action against it,
spouses Jalbuna and spouses Lucero.
This argument is proper had Deogracias died ahead of the other co-
owners. However, records show that Glicerio, Tomas and Caridad predeceased
Deogracias. Glicerio died on March 22, 1939, Tomas on August 20, 1959,
Caridad on April 29, 1957, while Deogracias died on March 17, 1964.
Article 1003 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1003.If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate
children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following
articles.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Clearly, when Glicerio and Caridad died intestate and without issue, their
shares in the disputed properties were inherited by Deogracias and Tomas. It is
this portion that respondents, as heirs of Deogracias, have an interest on and
which vested them with personality to institute the present case.
PNB and spouses Lucero claim to be mortgagee and buyers in good faith,
respectively, since title to Lot No. 3017-B appeared to be free from any
encumbrance. They argue that a person dealing with a registered land may rely
on the correctness of the certificate of title and is not required to go beyond it
to determine the condition of the property.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court based on its
findings of facts which are in accord with the documents on record. Thus, we
affirm the Court of Appeals' finding that petitioners were not mortgagee or
buyers in good faith.
Moreover, the burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith
and for value lies upon him who asserts that status. 12 In discharging the
burden, it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith. 13
The rule is settled that a buyer of real property in possession of persons other
than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in
possession. Without such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as buyer in
good faith and cannot have any right over the property. 14
PNB claims that it conducted the necessary inquiry and investigation on
the subject lot and was convinced that Nilda Jalbuna, as one of the heirs of
Estanislao Militar, had every right to mortgage the same, even if she was not in
actual possession thereof.
However, considering that the land was in the possession of persons other
than the mortgagors, PNB should have inquired whether the possessors knew
that the lot is being mortgaged, and the circumstances surrounding the
acquisition of the lot by the mortgagors. Indeed, while PNB is not expected to
conduct an exhaustive investigation on the history of the mortgagor's title, it
cannot be excused from the duty of exercising the due diligence required of a
banking institution. In Tomas v. Tomas , 15 we noted that it is standard practice
for banks, before approving a loan, to send representatives to the property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
offered as collateral to assess its actual condition and to investigate who are
the real owners thereof. We held that banks are expected to exercise more
care and prudence than private individuals in their dealings, even those
involving registered lands, for their business is affected with public interest.
Verily, PNB was remiss in the exercise of due diligence required of a banking
institution, hence it cannot be considered as mortgagee in good faith. TSCIEa
In the case at bar, the complaint filed was for the reconveyance of the
properties in question to the estates of Deogracias, Glicerio, Tomas and
Caridad, considering that the deeds of sale were simulated and fictitious. The
complaint thus amounts to an action for declaration of nullity of a void contract,
which does not prescribe.
Neither could laches be successfully invoked. Laches is a doctrine in equity
which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality", and applied only in
the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Aequetas nunguam
contravenit legis. The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the Civil Code conferring
imprescriptibility to actions or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of
a contract should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only
on equity. Certainly, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an
imprescriptible legal right; thus, respondents can validly vindicate their
inheritance despite the lapse of time. 18
Footnotes
1.Rollo in G.R. No. 164801, pp. 35-47. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Dadole and concurred in by Associate Justices Monina Arevalo Zenarosa and
Vicente L. Yap.
2.Rollo in G.R. No. 165165, pp. 93-94.
3.Rollo in G.R. No. 164801, pp. 51-61. Penned by Presiding Judge David A. Alfeche,
Jr.
4.Id. at 47.
5.Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, 450 Phil. 532, 541 (2003).
6.Id.
7.Republic v. Sandiganbayan , G.R. No. 152154, 15 July 2003, 406 SCRA 190, 269-
270.
19.Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No.
132161, 17 January 2005.