Agbayani v. Lupa Realty Holding Corp.20210510-11-1lrs7ua
Agbayani v. Lupa Realty Holding Corp.20210510-11-1lrs7ua
Agbayani v. Lupa Realty Holding Corp.20210510-11-1lrs7ua
RESOLUTION
CAGUIOA, J : p
Ruling of the CA
The CA in its Decision dated September 14, 2011 granted the appeal.
The CA held that the conclusions reached by the RTC are not in accord with
law and the evidence on record; therefore, the reversal of the trial court's
decision is warranted. 7
The CA ruled that Tranquilino failed to discharge his burden to present
clear and convincing evidence to overthrow the presumption of regularity in
the execution on January 21, 1992 of the Deed of Absolute Sale (1992 DAS)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
in favor of his brother Nonito and to prove his allegation of forgery regarding
his signature. 8 According to the CA, Tranquilino's insistence that he could
not have signed the 1992 DAS because he was in America at that time 9 was
insufficient. 10 Further, the CA stated that the fact that there is aDeed of
Absolute Sale (1997 DAS) purportedly executed by Tranquilino on October
29, 1997 in favor of Lupa Realty, which Moriel and his mother used in
registering the sale to Lupa Realty, is not sufficient in itself to invalidate
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-109129 in the name of Lupa Realty.
11
The Issues
The Petition raises the following issues:
1. whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC Decision that declared
the nullity of TCT No. T-109129 in the name of Lupa Realty;
2. whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC Decision on the
ground that the RTC erred in ordering the cancellation of the TCT under Lupa
Realty's name because the action filed by Tranquilino constitutes a collateral
attack on a Torrens title; and
3. whether the CA erred in recognizing and protecting Lupa Realty's
right as an innocent purchaser for value (IPV).
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
Court mandates that: the petition shall raise only questions of law; 17 this
mode of review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and
it will be granted only when there are special and important reasons
therefor. 18 A Rule 45 review is warranted when there is finding by the Court
that the court a quo has decided a question of substance in a way probably
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Court. 19
The Court agrees with the RTC that it is indeed mind boggling how two
distinct documents which were supposedly notarized on the same date by
one Notary Public have identical notarial details, i.e., document number,
page number, book number and year series. Indeed, one of them must be
fake or false.
Based on all the facts narrated, it is the 1997 DAS which is sham or
spurious. As noted above, these are: (1) the similarity of its notarial details
with those of the DAS Moriel-Lupa Realty; (2) the recital that it pertained to
the land covered by "Original Certificate of Title No. P-26619 with
Homestead Patent No. 119163" and not to Tranquilino's OCT No. P-46041
with Free Patent No. 587747; (3) the inclusion of Lupa Realty, represented
by its President, Roberto P. Alingog, as a party and the CTC details of
Roberto P. Alingog, but who is not made a signatory thereto; (4) the identity
of its date of execution with that of the DAS Moriel-Lupa Realty; and (5) the
identity of the notary public's details in both 1997 DAS and the DAS Moriel-
Lupa Realty.
In addition, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that there is
uncontested evidence that Tranquilino could not have signed the 1997 DAS
because he had left for California, U.S.A. in April, 1989. 37
It is likewise significant to note the fact that Lupa Realty did not even
have the 1997 DAS marked and offered as its evidence is a very strong
indication of its falsity. In the Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits of Lupa
Realty, the 1997 DAS was not marked and offered as one of its exhibits. 38 If
the 1997 DAS was truly executed by Tranquilino and is genuine, why did not
Lupa Realty have it marked and offered as its documentary exhibit? The
answer is obvious: because Lupa Realty wanted to distance itself therefrom
because it might be accused as being complicit with Moriel and/or his
mother in falsifying the 1997 DAS.
In People v. Sendaydiego, 39 the Court stated the rule that if a person
had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it),
taking advantage of it and profiting therefrom, the presumption is that he is
the material author of the falsification. 40 Pursuant to Re: Fake Decision
Allegedly in G.R. No. 75242 , 41 the simulation of a public or official
document, done in a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity,
constitutes the crime of falsification. 42 Under Rule 132, Section 19 (b),
documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments are public documents. Further, it is presumed that "evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced." 43
Article 1409 (2) of the Civil Code provides that contracts "which are
absolutely simulated or fictitious" are inexistent and void from the beginning.
It is also provided in Article 1346 that "[a]n absolutely simulated or fictitious
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
contract is void."
Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa discusses the concept and requisites of
simulation in the following manner: cSEDTC
because, as duly noted above, it pertained to the land covered by OCT No. P-
26619 with Homestead Patent No. 119163. Presented with the 1997 DAS
that has reference to an OCT different from that of Tranquilino's title and to a
Homestead Patent instead of a Free Patent, the Register of Deeds concerned
should not have allowed its registration because of the obvious or patent
irregularity appearing on the face of the 1997 DAS.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
From the foregoing, the CA erred when it ruled that the TCT of Lupa
Realty is valid.
With the declaration by the Court that the 1997 DAS is sham or
spurious and the TCT in the name of Lupa Realty is null and void, does it
follow that the sale of the subject land to Lupa Realty is also null and void? In
other words, can Lupa Realty be nonetheless declared as the lawful owner of
the subject land despite the finding that the TCT issued in his favor is void?
The resolution of this issue hinges on the validity of the 1992 DAS. If
the 1992 DAS between Tranquilino and Nonito is valid, then Nonito could
have validly sold the subject land to Moriel and Moriel could have thereafter
validly sold it to Lupa Realty. The invalidity of Lupa Realty's TCT does not
necessarily render invalid its right of ownership over the subject land if the
sales preceding the sale to it by Moriel are valid.
As to the 1992 DAS, Tranquilino argues that the unqualified admission
made during the pre-trial proceedings in the RTC by Nonito, through his
counsel on record, Atty. Frederick Aquino, that there was no such sale
between Tranquilino and Nonito is a judicial admission that it is spurious,
which dispenses with the need to present proof of the matter of fact already
admitted. 48 The Pre-Trial Order dated April 22, 2003 states: "Atty. Aquino
denied that Tranquilino Agbayani executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor
of Nonito Agbayani. According to Atty. Aquino there was no such sale." 49
Regarding admissions by counsel of a party during the preliminary
conference, Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation 50 is instructive:
x x x Unfortunately for petitioners, their counsel admitted the
genuineness of the owner's duplicate copy of the TCT presented by
Fidelity during the preliminary conference at the CA. The following
exchange is revealing: SDAaTC
J. MARTIN:
Counsel for the private respondent, will you go over
the owner's copy and manifest to the court whether
that is a genuine owner's copy?
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. MARTIN:
Alright. Make it of record that after examining the
owner's copy of TCT NO. (T-12110) T-4342, counsel
for the private respondent admitted that the same
appears to be a genuine owner's copy of the transfer
certificate of title. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing transcript of the preliminary conference
indubitably shows that counsel for petitioners made a judicial
admission and failed to refute that admission during the said
proceedings despite the opportunity to do so. A judicial admission is
an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
proceedings in the same case, which dispenses with the need for
proof with respect to the matter or fact admitted. It may be
contradicted only by a showing that it was made through palpable
mistake or that no such admission was made. 51
On the other hand, American jurisprudence sets the following
parameters on judicial admissions:
A judicial admission is a formal statement, either by party or his
or her attorney, in course of judicial proceeding which removes an
admitted fact from field of controversy. It is a voluntary concession of
fact by a party or a party's attorney during judicial proceedings.
Judicial admissions are used as a substitute for legal evidence
at trial. Admissions made in the course of judicial proceedings or
judicial admissions waive or dispense with, the production of
evidence, and the actual proof of facts by conceding for the purpose
of litigation that the proposition of the fact alleged by the opponent is
true. x x x
A judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal
statement of a party about a concrete fact within that party's peculiar
knowledge, not a matter of law. x x x In order to constitute a judicial
admission, the statement must be one of fact, not opinion. To be a
judicial admission, a statement must be contrary to an essential fact
or defense asserted by the person giving the testimony; it must be
deliberate, clear and unequivocal x x x.
Judicial admissions are evidence against the party who made
them, and are considered conclusive and binding as to the party
making the judicial admission. A judicial admission bars the admitting
party from disputing it. x x x
A judicial admission of fact may carry with it an admission of
other facts necessarily implied from it.
xxx xxx xxx
Judicial admissions may occur at any point during the litigation
process. An admission in open court is a judicial admission. x x x 52
The admission by Nonito's counsel during the pre-trial proceedings
before the RTC that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito
qualifies as a judicial admission because the statement is a deliberate, clear,
unequivocal statement of a party's attorney during judicial proceedings in
open court about a concrete or essential fact within that party's peculiar
knowledge. Since such statement is a judicial admission, it does not require
proof according to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. — An admission, verbal or
written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same
case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only
by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no
such admission was made.
Moreover, there was no palpable mistake on the part of Nonito's
counsel in making the admission because in the offer of Nonito's testimony
on December 2, 2008, he stated that "the land was the property in suit was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
never sold to him [Nonito] by his brother Tranquilino Agbayani." 53 That is
not all. The admission by Nonito himself, on cross-examination by
Tranquilino's counsel, that Tranquilino was in the United States at the time of
the purported transaction 54 supports the statement of the counsel of Nonito
that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito.
Since there is judicial admission that there was no sale of the subject
land between Tranquilino and Nonito, affirmed anew during oral testimony
by Nonito himself, then there is no question that the 1992 DAS is void. The
three requisites of a simulated contract are existent. There is a deliberate
declaration that Tranquilino sold the subject land to Nonito, which is contrary
to their will because there was no sale between them. The agreement
appears on its face to be a valid act. The purpose is to deceive third persons
into believing that there was such a sale between them.
Consequently, the CA committed egregious error when it made the
finding that the 1992 DAS is valid. Given that Tranquilino did not sell the
subject land to Nonito, it could not have been sold by Nonito to Moriel and
Moriel could not, in turn, have sold it to Lupa Realty. acEHCD
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
J.C. Reyes, Jr., * J., is on leave.
Footnotes
* On leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 9-34, excluding Annexes.
3. Id. at 55-56.
7. Id. at 46.
8. Id. at 48.
9. The RTC Decision states that as testified upon by Vernold, his uncle Tranquilino
left for California, U.S.A. in April, 1989. Id. at 89.
10. Rollo , pp. 48-49.
22. Id.
23. See id. at 48.
24. The CA merely stated: "The fact that there is a Deed of Sale between
Tranquilino and Lupa Realty that Moriel and his mother used in registering
the sale is not sufficient in itself to invalidate TCT No. T-109129 in the name
of Lupa Realty." Id. at 50.
25. The CA merely stated: "Lupa Realty presented sufficient proof of its lawful
acquisition of the subject property" and "Tranquilino's action for declaration
of nullity of said Deed of Sale is not the direct proceeding required by law to
attack a Torrens certificate of title." Id.
26. Records, pp. 239-240.
44. IV Eduardo P. Caguioa, COMMENTS AND CASES ON CIVIL LAW, CIVIL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, 1983 Rev. Second Ed., p. 549, citing 1 Castan, 8th Ed., Part
II, p. 504.
45. Id., citing 1 Castan, 8th Ed., Part II, p. 504, citing Ferrara.
46. Agricultural Credit Cooperative Association of Hinigaran v. Yusay, 107 Phil. 791,
793-794 (1960).
52. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence §§ 770-771, pp. 136-138. Citations omitted.
53. TSN, December 2, 2008, p. 3.
54. Id. at 8.