Londres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136427, December 17, 2002
Londres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136427, December 17, 2002
Londres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136427, December 17, 2002
Facts: The present case stemmed from a battle of ownership over Lots 1320
and 1333 both located in Barrio Baybay, Roxas City, Capiz. Paulina Arcenas
originally owned these two parcels of land. After Paulinas death, ownership of
the lots passed to her daughter, Filomena VidaI. The surviving children of
Filomena, Petitioners, namely, Sonia Fuentes Londres Armando V. Fuentes,
Chi-Chita Fuentes Quintia, Roberto V. Fuentes, Leopoldo V. Fuentes and
Marilou Fuentes Esplana now claim ownership over Lots.
On the other hand, private respondents Consolacion Alivio and and Elena
Alovera Santos anchor their right of ownership over Lots on the Absolute Sale
executed by Filomena. Filomena sold the two lots in favor of Consolacion and
her husband, Julian Alovera, Elena is the daughter of Consolacion and Julian
(deceased). Petitioners filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of
contract, damages and just compensation. Petitioners sought to nullify the
Absolute Sale conveying Lots.
Petitioners alleged that it was only recently that they learned of the claim of
private respondents when Consolacion filed a petition for the judicial
reconstitution of the original certificates of title of Lots. Upon further inquiry,
petitioners discovered that there exists a notarized Absolute Sale. The private
respondents copy of the Absolute Sale was tampered so that the second parcel
of lot sold, Lot 2034 would read as Lot 1333. However, the Records
Management and Archives Office kept an unaltered copy of the Absolute Sale.
This other copy shows that the objects of the sale were Lots 1320 and 2034.
In their Answer, private respondents maintained that they are the legal
owners of Lots. Julian purchased the lots from Filomena in good faith and for
a valid consideration. Private respondents explained that Julian was deaf and
dumb and as such, was placed in a disadvantageous position compared to
Filomena. Julian had to rely on the representation of other persons in his
business transactions. After the sale, Julian and Consolacion took possession
of the lots. Up to now, the spouses successors-in-interest are in possession of
the lots in the concept owners. Private respondents claimed that the alteration
in the Absolute Sale was made by Filomena to make it conform to the
description of the lot in the Absolute Sale. Private respondents filed a
counterclaim with damages.
The trial court ruled that the Absolute Sale is valid. Private respondents and
their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous possession of Lots for
nearly 30 years in good faith and with just title. The trial court gave more
credence to the explanation of private respondents as to why the Absolute Sale
was altered. Consolacion noticed that the lot number of the second parcel of
and sold to them by Filomena under the Absolute Sale appeared to be Lot
2034 and not Lot 1333. Together with her husband, Julian, Consolacion went
to Filomena. It was Filomena who erased Lot 2034 in the deed of sale and
changed it to Lot 1333. However, the copies of the document in the custody of
the Notary Public were not correspondingly corrected. Consequently, the
copies kept by the Records Management and Archives Office still referred to
the second parcel of land sold as Lot 2034.
Based on its factual findings, the trial court held that private respondents are
the legal owners of Lots. The trial court held that petitioners filed the action in
good faith, believing that they were the real owners of the two lots. The Court
of Appeals sustained the factual findings of the trial court.
The contention is without basis. The Dead Mans Statute then embodied in
Section 20 (a) of Rule 130 of the 1988 Rules of Court provides: