Lindain Vs CA
Lindain Vs CA
Lindain Vs CA
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992
ELENA, OSCAR, CELIA, TERESITA and VIRGILIO, all surnamed LINDAIN,
petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES APOLINIA VALIENTE and FEDERICO
ILA, respondents.
Maria Rosario B. Ragasa and Oscar L. Lindain for petitioners.
Jose C. Felimon for private respondents.
GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated August 8, 1990 of the
Court of Appeals which dismissed the complaint for annulment of a sale of registered
land, thereby reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City.
The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
When the plaintiffs were still minors, they were already the
registered owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. NT-63540 (Exh. D-1). On November 7, 1966, their
mother, Dolores Luluquisin, then already a widow and acting as
guardian of her minor children, sold the land for P2,000 under a
Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land (Exh. 2) to the defendants
spouses Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila. The Deed of Absolute
Sale was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
Province of Nueva Ecija. TCT No. NT-66311 was issued to the
vendees, Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila.
The defendants admitted that the property in question was sold to
them by the mother of the minors as evidenced by a Deed of Sale
(Exh. B for the plaintiffs and Exh. 2 for the defendants) and although
at first they were reluctant to buy the property as the sale would not
be legal, the registered owners thereof being all minors, upon
advice of their counsel, the late Atty. Arturo B. Pascual, and the
counsel of Dolores Luluquisin, Atty. Eustaquio Ramos, who notarized
the documents, that the property could be sold without the written
authority of the court, considering that its value was less than
P2,000, they bought the property and had it registered in their
names under Certificate of Title No. 66311 (Exhibit C for the
plaintiffs).
Plaintiffs contend, however, that the sale of the lot by their mother
to the defendants is null and void because it was made without
judicial authority and/or court approval.
The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the sale was valid,
as the value of the property was less than P2,000, and, considering
the ages of plaintiffs now, the youngest being 31 years old at the
time of the filing of the complaint, their right to rescind the contract
which should have been exercised four (4) years after reaching the
age of majority, has already prescribed.
On May 25, 1989, the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City rendered a decision for the
plaintiffs (now petitioners), the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the following:
(1) Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by the guardian Dolores
Luluquisin in favor of the defendants spouses Apolonia Valiente and
Federico Ila over the property of the minors covered by the TCT No.
NT-66311 to be null and void;
(2) Ordering defendants Spouses Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila
to surrender to the Register of Deeds of San Jose City Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 66311;
(3) Ordering the Register of Deeds of San Jose City to cancel
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 66311 in the names of Spouses
Apolonia Valiente and Federico Ila;
(4) Ordering the Register of Deeds to issue a new Transfer
Certificate of Title in lieu of what was ordered cancelled in the
names of plaintiffs, namely: Elena, Oscar, Celia, Teresita and Virgilio,
all surnamed Lindain;
(5) Ordering the defendants to vacate the lot covered by TCT No. NT66311 and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs
subject however to the rights of the defendants as buyers,
possessors and builders in good faith;
(6) Without cost. (pp. 41,42, Rollo.)
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was reversed and another one was
entered dismissing the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. The Court of
Appeals applied the ruling of this Court in Ortaez vs. Dela Cruz, O.G., Vol. 60, No. 24,
pp. 3434, 3438-3439, that:
A father or mother acting as legal administrator of the property of
the child under parental authority cannot, therefore, dispose of the
child's property without judicial authority if it is worth more than
P2,000.00, notwithstanding the bond that he has filed for the
protection of the child's property. But when the value of such
property is less than P2,000.00, the permission of the court for its
alienation or disposition may be dispensed with. The father or
mother, as the case may be, is allowed by law to alienate or dispose