114 Heirs of Intac v. CA

114 Heirs of Dr. Mario S. INTAC and Angelina Mendoza- A"THOR : JA""A * +itle to te land as transferred to Inta Intacc v. CA  and Spouses Marcelo Roy Jr. and Josefina S(/S'S I"+A 0Angelina, niece of IR'"'( om e Mend Mendoz ozaa-Roy Roy,, and and Spou Spouse sess Domi Domina nado dorr Loza Lozada da and and rais raised ed11 tro troug ug  Deed Deed of A2sol 2solut utee Sale Sale.. Daug Daugt ter erss of  Martina Mendoza-Lozada. IR'"'( claim tat te sale as simulated, and as 3ust [G.R. No. 173211; October 11, 2012] supposed to 2e used so te spouses can get a loan. S ruled TOIC: ontracts ! Definition " " #$%& in fa4or of Ireneo5s daugters, finding tat tere as no real intent, 2ased on e4idence, to sell te property. property. ON!NT!: M'"D()A, J. #ACT$% SAL6AI(" 7ermin. +ey ere te oners of te su23ect property, ++ "o. 898&& of  1. IR'"'( Mendoza, married to SAL6A te Registry of Deeds of ;, situated in e &'( 2 )i(s% Josefina and Martina 0respondents1. Sal4acion 2eing teir stepmoter. ?ile still ali4e, e also too@ care of is niece 0Angelina1, from $ years of age until se got married. marr ied. +e property as ten co4ered 2y ++ "o. #%&$%. 3. October 2*, 1+77: IR'"'(, it SAL6AI("5s consent, eecuted a deed of a2solute sale in fa4or of Angelina and er us2and Mario 0S(/S'S I"+A1. Despite te sale, Ireneo and is family, including te respondents, continued staying in te premises and paying te realty taes. 4. 1+2% IR'"'( died intestate. SAL6AI(" and R'S("D'"+S remained in te premises. *. After SAL6AI(" died, R'S("D'"+S still stayed. /p to te present 0time of decision at S1, tey are in te  premises, paying te real real estate taes tereon, leasing leasing out portions of of te property, property, and collecting te rentals. -. +e contro4ersy arose en respondents sougt te cancellation of ++ "o. 898&&, claiming tat te sale as only simulated and, terefore, 4oid. Spouses Intac resisted, claiming tat it as a 4alid sale for a consideration. 7. #ebr'r/ #ebr'r/ 22, 1++4% R'S("D'"+S filed te omplaint for ancellation of te ++ against S(/S'S I"+A  2efore R+, R+, praying not only for for te cancellation of te title, title, 2ut also for its recon4eyance recon4eyance to tem. . A 20, 1++*% ending litigation, Mario died and as su2stituted 2y is eirs, is sur4i4ing spouse, Angelina, and teir cildren, namely, Rafael, Bristina, Ma. +ricia Margarita, Mario, and ocolo, all surnamed Intac 0petitioners1. +. R!$ON!NT$ O$!#INA '( ARTINA 'ver% 5'6 ?en Ireneo as still ali4e, Spouses Intac 2orroed te title of te  property from im to 2e used as collateral for a loan from a financing institutionC 5b6 tat en Ireneo informed respondents a2out te reuest of Spouses Intac, tey o23ected 2ecause te title ould 2e placed in te names of said spouses and it ould ten appear tat te couple oned te propertyC propertyC 5c6 Ireneo, oe4er, tried to appease tem, telling tem not to orry 2ecause Angelina ould not ta@e ad4antage of te situation considering tat e too@ care of er for a 4ery long timeC 5(6 tat during is lifetime, e informed tem tat te su23ect property ould 2e eually di4ided among tem after is deatC 5e6 and tat tey ere te ones paying te real estate taes o4er said property property.. 5f6 after after te deat of Ireneo in #=E8, a conference conference among relati4es relati4es as eld erein erein 2ot parties ere present including SAL6A SAL6AI("C nepe MARI'++(C MARI'++(C Ireneo5s 2roter A/R'LI(. A/R'LI(. 56  In te said conference, it as said tat Aurelio informed all of tem tat it as Ireneo5s is to a4e te property di4ided among is eirsC 5e6 tat Spouses Intac ne4er raised any o23ectionC 5f6 and tat neiter did tey inform all tose present on tat occasion tat te property as already sold to tem in #=FF. 56Sometime in #==$, after te deat of SAL6A SAL6AI(", rumors spread in te neig2orood tat te su23ect property ad 2een registered in te names of Spouses IntacC 5&6 tat upon 4erification it te (ffice of te Register of Deeds of ;, tey ere surprised to find out tat suc is indeed te case, and te original ++ ad 2een cancelled 2y 4irtue of te a2solute sale eecuted in S(/S'S Intac5s fa4orC fa4orC 5i6 tat te cancellationand te su2seuent issuance of te ne ++ere null and 4oid and ad no legal effect atsoe4er 2ecause te deed of a2solute sale as a fictitious or simulated documentC 586 tat te Spouses Intac ere guilty of fraud and 2ad fait en said document as eecutedC 5)6 tat Spouses Intac ne4er informed respondents tat tey ere already te registered oners of te su23ect  property altoug tey ad ne4er ta@en possession tereofC 596 and tat te respondents ad 2een in possession of te su23ect property in te concept of an oner during Ireneo5s lifetime lifetime up to te present.

10. $O"$!$ INTAC:s AN$!R% 5'6  te su23ect property ad 2een transferred to tem 2ased on a 4alid deed of  a2solute sale and for a 4alua2le considerationC 5b6 tat te action to annul te deed of a2solute sale ad already prescri2edC 5c6 tat te stay of respondents in te su23ect premises as only 2y tolerance during Ireneo5s lifetime 2ecause tey ere not yet in need of it at tat timeC and 5(6 tat despite respondents5 @noledge @noledge a2out te sale tat too@ place on (cto2er 8&, #=FF, respondents still filed an action against tem. 11. R+ ruled in fa4or of R'S("D'"+ SIS+'RS and AGAI"S+ S(/S'S I"+A. 12. A modified R+ R+ ruling, 2ut still ruled in fa4or of te R'S("D'"+ SIS+'RS.

SAL6AI(" " as 4endors, and I$$"!5$6: ?eter te deed of sale 0dated (cto2er 8&5FF1 eecuted 2eteen IR'"'( and SAL6AI( S(/S'S I"+A I"+A as 4endees in4ol4ing te real property in agasa, ; as a simulated contract or a 4alid agreement.

H!<: "(C In te case at 2enc, te ourt is one it te courts 2elo tat no 4alid sale of te su23ect property actually too@ place 2eteen te alleged 4endors, Ireneo and Sal4acionC and te alleged 4endees, Spouses Intac. +ere as simply no consideration and no intent to sell it. T&e =ri>'r/ cosi(er'tio i (eter>ii t&e tre 'tre of ' cotr'ct is t&e itetio of t&e ='rties. If t&e ?or(s of ' cotr'ct '==e'r to cotr'vee t&e evi(et itetio of t&e ='rties, t&e

9'tter s&'99 =rev'i9. $c& itetio is (eter>ie( ot o9/ fro> t&e e@=ress ter>s of t&eir 'ree>et, bt '9so fro> t&e cote>=or'eos '( sbseet 'cts of t&e ='rties RATIO:

#. A contract, as defined in te i4il ode, is a meeting of minds, it respect to te oter, to gi4e someting or to render  some ser4ice. Article #$#E pro4ides: +ere is no contract unless te folloing reuisites concur: 0#1 onsent of te contracting partiesC 081 (23ect certain ic is te su23ect matter of te contractC 0$1 ause of te o2ligation ic is esta2lised. Accordingly, for a contract to 2e 4alid, it must a4e tree essential elements: 0#1 consent of te contracting  partiesC 081 o23ect certain ic is te su23ect matter of te contractC and 0$1 cause of te o2ligation ic is esta2lised. All tese elements must 2e present to constitute a 4alid contract. onsent is essential to te eistence of a contractC and ere it is anting, te contract is non-eistent. In a contract of sale, its perfection is consummated at te moment tere is a meeting of te minds upon te ting tat is te o23ect of te contract and upon te price. onsent is manifested 2y te meeting of te offer and te acceptance of te ting and te cause, ic are to constitute te contract. 8. I t&is c'se, t&e CA r9e( t&'t t&e (ee( of s'9e e@ecte( b/ Ireeo '( $'9v'cio ?'s 'bso9te9/ si>9'te( for 9'c) of cosi(er'tio '( c'se '(, t&erefore, voi(. Articles #$9& and #$9 of te i4il ode pro4ide:

Art. #$9&. Simulation of a contract may 2e a2solute or relati4e. +e former ta@es place en te parties do not intend to 2e 2ound at allC te latter, en te parties conceal teir true agreement.

Art. #$9. An a2solutely simulated or fictitious contract is 4oid. A relati4e simulation, en it does not pre3udice a tird person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to la, morals, good customs, pu2lic order or pu2lic policy 2inds te parties to teir real agreement.

If te parties state a false cause in te contract to conceal teir real agreement, te contract is only relati4ely simulated and te  parties are still 2ound 2y teir real agreement. >ence, ere te essential reuisites of a contract are present and te simulation refers only to te content or terms of te contract, te agreement is a2solutely 2inding and enforcea2le 2eteen te parties and teir successors in interest.

$. In a2solute simulation, tere is a colora2le contract 2ut it as no su2stance as te parties a4e no intention to 2e 2ound  2y it. H+e main caracteristic of an a2solute simulation is tat te apparent contract is not really desired or intended to  produce legal effect or in any ay alter te 3uridical situation of te parties.H #9 HAs a result, an a2solutely simulated or fictitious contract is 4oid, and te parties may reco4er from eac oter at tey may a4e gi4en under te contract.H #& 9. I t&e c'se 't bec&, t&e Cort is oe ?it& t&e corts be9o? t&'t o v'9i( s'9e of t&e sb8ect =ro=ert/ 'ct'99/ too) =9'ce bet?ee t&e '99ee( ve(ors, Ireneo and Sal4acionC and te alleged 4endees, Spouses Intac. + &ere ?'s si>=9/ o cosi(er'tio '( o itet to se99 it. ritical is te testimony of Marietto, a itness to te eecution of te su23ect a2solute deed of sale. >e testified tat Ireneo personally told im tat e as going to eecute a document of sale 2ecause Spouses Intac needed to 2orro te title to te property and use it as collateral for teir loan application. Ireneo and Sal4acion ne4er intended to sell or permanently transfer te full onersip of te su23ect  property to Spouses Intac. Marietto as caracterized 2y te R+ as a credi2le itness. &.

Aside from teir plain denial, petitioners failed to present any concrete e4idence to dispro4e Marietto5s testimony. +ey claimed tat tey actually paid #&%,%%%.%% for te su23ect property. +ey, oe4er, failed to adduce proof, e4en 2y circumstantial e4idence, tat tey did, in fact,  pay it. '4en for te consideration of %,%%%.%% as stated in te contract, petitioners could not so any tangi2le e4idence of any payment terefor. +eir failure to pro4e teir payment only strengtened Marietto5s story tat tere as no payment made 2ecause Ireneo ad no intention

to sell te su23ect property. Angelina5s story, ecept on te consideration, as consistent it tat of Marietto. Angelina testified tat se and er us2and mortgaged te su23ect property sometime in July #=FE to finance te construction of a small ospital in Sta. ruz, Laguna. Angelina claimed tat Ireneo offered te property as e as in deep financial need. Granting tat Ireneo as in financial straits, it does not pro4e tat e intended to sell te property to Angelina. etitioners could not adduce any proof tat tey lent money to Ireneo or tat e sared in te proceeds of te loan tey ad o2 tained. And, if teir intention as to 2uild a ospital, could tey still afford to lend money to Ireneo And if Ireneo needed money, y ould e lend te title to Spouses Intac en e imself could use it to 2orro money for  is needs If Spouses Intac too@ care of im en e as terminally ill, it as not surprising for Angelina to reciprocate as e too@ care of er since se as tree 0$1 years old until se got married. +eir caring acts for im, ile tey are deemed ser4ices of 4alue, cannot 2e considered as consideration for te su23ect property for  lac@ of uantification and te 7ilipino culture of ta@ing care of teir elders.

-. +us, te ourt agrees it te courts 2elo tat te uestioned contract of sale as only for te purpose of lending te title of te property to Spouses Intac to ena2le tem to secure a loan. +eir arrangement as only temporary and could not gi4e rise to a 4alid sale. ?ere tere is no consideration, te sale is null and 4oid a2 initio.

7.

I t&e c'se of
a party5s consent to a contract of sale is 4itiated or ere tere is lac@ of consideration due to a simulated price, te contract is null and 4oid a2 initio. 'mpases suppliedK E. ore i>=ort't9/, Ireeo '( &is f'>i9/ cotie( to be i =&/sic'9 =ossessio of t&e sb8ect =ro=ert/ 'fter t&e s'9e i 1+77 '( = to t&e =reset. T&e/ eve ?et 's f'r 's 9e'si t&e s'>e '( co99ecti ret'9s. If Spouses Intac really purcased te su23ect property and claimed to 2e its true oners, y did tey not assert teir onersip immediately after te alleged sale too@ place ?y did tey a4e to assert teir onersip of it only after te deat of Ireneo and Sal4acion (ne of te most stri@ing 2adges of a2solute simulation is te complete a2sence of any attempt on te part of a 4endee to assert is rigt of dominion o4er te property. #F =.

(n anoter aspect, $=oses It'c f'i9e( to s&o? t&'t t&e/ &'( bee ='/i t&e re'9 est'te t'@es of te su23ect  property. +ey admitted tat tey started paying te real estate taes on te property for te years #== and #==F only in #===. +ey could only so to 081 ta receipts 0Real roperty +a Receipt "o. $##%&, dated April 8#, #===, and Real roperty +a Receipt "o. $##%#, dated April 8#, #===1. #E "oticea2ly, petitioners5 ta payment as 3ust an aftertougt. +e non-payment of taes as also ta@en against te alleged 4endees in te case of Lucia arlos Alio 4. >eirs of Angelica A. Lorenzo.#= +us, 7urtermore, Lucia religiously paid te realty taes on te su23ect lot from #=E% to #=E F.?ile ta receipts and declarations of onersip for taation purposes are not, in temsel4es, incontro4erti2le e4idence of onersip, tey constitute at least proof tat te older as a claim of title o4er te property, particularly en accompanied 2y proof of actual possession. +ey are good indicia of te possession in te concept of oner, for no one in is rigt mind ould 2e paying taes for a property tat is not in is actual or at least constructi4e possession. +e 4oluntary declaration of a piece of property for taation purposes manifests not only ones sincere and onest desire to o2tain title to te property and announces  is ad4erse claim against te State and all oter interested parties, 2ut also te intention to contri2ute needed re4enues to te Go4ernment. Suc an act strengtens ones 2ona fide claim of acuisition of onersip.

#%. (n te oter and, respondent eirs failed to present e4idence tat Angelica, during er lifetime, paid te realty taes on te su23ect lot. +ey  presented only to ta receipts soing tat Ser4illano, Sr. 2elatedly paid taes due on te su23ect lot for te years #=E%-#=E# and part of year #=E8 on Septem2er E, #=E=, or a2out a mont after te institution of te complaint on August $, #=E=, a clear indication tat payment as made as an aftertougt to gi4e te sem2lance of trut to teir claim. +us, te su2seuent acts of te parties 2elie te intent to 2e 2ound 2y te deed of  sale. 'mpases suppliedK

##. T&e =ri>'r/ cosi(er'tio i (eter>ii t&e tre 'tre of ' cotr'ct is t&e itetio of t&e ='rties. If t&e ?or(s of ' cotr'ct '==e'r to cotr'vee t&e evi(et itetio of t&e ='rties, t&e 9'tter s&'99 =rev'i9. $c& itetio is (eter>ie( ot o9/ fro> t&e e@=ress ter>s of t&eir 'ree>et, bt '9so fro> t&e cote>=or'eos '( sbseet 'cts of t&e ='rties.8% As eretofore son, te contemporaneous and su2seuent acts of 2ot parties in tis case, point to te fact tat te intention of Ireneo as 3ust to lend te title to te Spouses Intac to ena2le tem to  2orro money and put up a ospital in Sta. ruz, Laguna. learly, te su23ect contract as a2solutely simulated and, terefore, 4oid. In 4ie of te foregoing, te ourt finds it ard to 2elie4e te claim of te Spouses Intac tat te stay of Ireneo and is family in te su23ect premises

as 2y teir mere tolerance as tey ere not yet in need o f it. As earlier pointed out, no con4incing e4idence, ritten or testimonial, as e4er  presented 2y petitioners regarding tis matter. It is also of no moment tat ++ "o. #%&$% co4ering te su23ect property as cancelled and a ne ++ 0++ "o. 898&&18# as issued in teir names. +e Spouses Intac ne4er 2ecame te oners of te pro perty despite its registration in teir names. After all, registration does not 4est title. As a logical conseuence, petitioners did n ot 2ecome te oners of te su23ect property e4en after a ++ ad  2een issued in teir names. After all, registration does not 4est title. ertificates of title merely confirm or record title already eisting and 4ested. +ey cannot 2e used to protect a usurper fro m te true oner, nor can tey 2e used as a sield for te commission of fraud, or to permit one to enric oneself at te epense of oters. >ence, recon4eyance of te su23ect property is arranted. 88 +e ourt does not find accepta2le eiter te argument of te Spouses Intac tat respondents5 action for cancellation of ++ "o. 898&& and te recon4eyance of te su23ect property is already 2arred 2y te Statute of Limitations. +e reason is tat te respondents are still in actual possession of te su23ect property. It is a ell-settled doctrine tat Hif te person claiming to 2e te oner of te property is in actual possession tereof, te rigt to see@ recon4eyance, ic in effect see@s to uiet title to te property, does not prescri2e.H 8$ In Lucia arlos Alio, it as also ritten: +e loer courts fault Lucia for allegedly not ta@ing concrete steps to reco4er te su23ect lot, demanding its return only after #% years from te registration of te title. +ey, oe4er, failed to consider tat Lucia as in actual possession of te property. It is ell-settled tat an action for recon4eyance prescri2es in #% years, te rec@oning point of ic is te date of registration of te deed or te date of issuance of te certificate of title o4er te property. In an action for recon4eyance, te decree of registration is igly regarded as incontro4erti2le. ?at is sougt instead is te transfer of te property or its title, ic as 2een erroneously or rongfully registered in anoter persons name, to its rigtful or legal oner or to one o as a 2etter rigt. >oe4er, in a num2er of cases in te past, te ourt as consistently ruled tat if te person claiming to e te oner of te property is in actual  possession tereof, te rigt to see@ recon4eyance, ic in effect see@s to uiet title to te property, does not prescri2e. +e reason for tis is tat one o is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to 2e te oner tereof may ait until is possession is distur2ed or is title is attac@ed 2efore ta@ing steps to 4indicate is rigt. +e reason 2eing, tat is undistur2ed possession gi4es im te continuing rigt to see@ te aid o f a court of euity to ascertain te nature of te ad4erse claim of a tird party and its effect on is title, ic rigt can 2e claimed only 2y one o is in possession. +us, considering tat Lucia continuously possessed te su23ect lot, er rigt to institute a suit to clear te cloud o4er er title cannot e 2arred 2y te statute of limitations.:89'mpases suppliedK ?>'R'7(R', te petition is D'"I'D. S( (RD'R'D.

CA$!