CaseDig: Catindig vs. Vda. de Meneses

G.R. No. 165851, 02 February 2011
Posted by Roque H. Rios Jr. on 23 July 2018


FACTS:

The late Rosendo Meneses, Sr. owns a parcel of land situated in Malolos, Bulacan, with an area of 49,139 square meters under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1749 (hereinafter referred to as the Masusuwi Fishpond). Aurora Irene C. Vda. De Meneses, respondent, is the surviving spouse of the registered owner. She was issued Letters of Administration over the estate of her late husband. On May 17, 1995, respondent 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, to recover possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond.

Respondent alleged that in September 1975, petitioner Catindig, the first cousin of her husband, deprived her of her possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond, through fraud, undue influence and intimidation. Since then, petitioner Catindig unlawfully leased the property to petitioner Roxas. Respondent verbally demanded that petitioners vacate the said property, but all were futile, thus, forcing respondent to send demand letters to petitioners Roxas and Catindig. However, petitioners ignored the demand letters that led the respondent to file a suit against the petitioners to recover the property and demanded payment of unearned income, damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.

In his answer, petitioner Catindig stated that in January 1978, he bought the Masusuwi Fishpond from respondent and her children, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Catindig further argued that even assuming that respondent was indeed divested of her possession of the Masusuwi Fishpond by fraud, her cause of action had already prescribed considering the lapse of about twenty (20) years from 1975, which was allegedly the year when she was fraudulently deprived of her possession over the said property.

On the other hand, petitioner Roxas asserted in his own answer that respondent has no cause of action against him, since Catindig is the lawful owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond, to whom he had paid his rentals in advance until the year 2001.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of Meneses. Petitioners' then challenged the Trial Court's decision before the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner Catindig insisted that he holds a valid Deed of Sale, thus, ownership belongs to him. Petitioner Roxas argued that he, relying on that Deed of Sale, is a lessee in good faith.

After the trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its judgment and ruled in favor of the respondent. It was found out that the Deed of Sale executed between respondent and petitioner Catindig was simulated and fictitious so it did not convey title over the Masusuwi Fishpond to Catindig. The Deed of Absolute Sale also lacked consideration, because respondent and her children never received the stipulated purchase price for the said property which was pegged at P150,000.00. Since ownership over the property has never been transferred to Catindig, the trial court declared that he has no right to lease it to Roxas.

The petitioners separately challenged the trial court's decision before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of both petitioners because according to the Court of Appeals, the trial court properly rejected petitioners' reliance on the Deed of Absolute Sale between respondent and petitioner Catindig.


ISSUE:  Whether or not Catindig's claim that the Deed of Sale was genuine.


HELD:

The trial court found that the Deed of Sale was simulated and fictitious and has no consideration.  

On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale:

Is not complete and is not in due form. It is a 3-page document but with several items left unfilled or left blank, like the day the document was supposed to be entered into, the tax account numbers of the persons appearing as signatories to the document and the names of the witnesses. In other words, it was not witnessed by any one. More importantly, it was not notarized. While the name Ramon E. Rodrigo, appeared typed in the Acknowledgement, it was not signed by him.

The questioned deed was supposedly executed in January 1978. Petitioner Catinidig testified that his brother Francisco Catindig was with him when respondent signed the document. The evidence, however, shows that Francisco Catindig died on January 1, 1978 as certified to by the Office of Municipal Civil Registrar of Malolos, Bulacan and the Parish Priest of Sta. Maria Assumpta Parish, Bulacan.

The document mentions 49,130 square meters, as the area sold by respondent and her two children to petitioner Catindig. But this is the entire area of the property as appearing in the title and they are not the only owners. The other owner is Rosendo Meneses, Jr, stepson of herein respondent, whose name does not appear in the document. The declaration of Catindig that Rosendo Meneses, Jr. likewise sold his share of the property to him in another document does not inspire rational belief. This other document was not presented in evidence and Rosendo Meneses, Jr., did not testify, if only to corroborate Catindig's claim.
The Court also finds compelling reason to depart from the court a quo's finding that respondent never received the consideration stipulated in the simulated deed of sale, thus:

The title to this property is still in the name of Rosendo Meneses, Sr., and the owner's duplicate copy of the title is still in the possession of Meneses. If

Catindig was really a legitimate buyer of the property who paid the consideration with good money, why then did he not register the document of sale or had it annotated at the back of the title, or better still, why then did he not have the title in the name of Rosendo Meneses, Sr. canceled so that a new title can be  issued in his name? Equally telling is Catindig's failure to pay the real estate taxes for the property from 1978 up to the present.

It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. Moreover, Article 1471 of the Civil Code, provides that if the price is simulated, the sale is void, which applies to the instant case, since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was simulated for no payment was actually made.

Since it was well established that the Deed of Sale is simulated and therefore void, petitioners' claim the respondent's cause of action is one for annulment or contract, which already prescribed, is unavailing, because only voidable contracts may be annulled. On the other hand, respondent's defense for the declaration of the inexistence of the contract does not prescribe.

In Pascual v. Coronel, the Court held that as against the registered owners and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, is the former who has better right to possess. Likewise, in the recent case of Umpoc v. Mercado, the Court declared that the trial court did not err in giving more probative weight to the TCT in the name of the decedent vis-a-vis the contested unregistered Deed of Sale. Further, it a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein. Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.

Petitioner Roxas is not regarded as a lessee in good faith because of his reliance to an unregistered and unnotarized Deed of Sale.

The petition in G.R. No. 165851 is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2004, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trail Court of Malolos, Bulacan is affirmed.