ASHTON PAMINTUAN,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
The Parties
The Case
Plaintif filed a case for Quieting of Title with TRO and Preliminary
Injunction against defendant to vindicate her rights to the subject parcel of land
which was allegedly a subject of sale.
The Facts
Plaintif is the sole heir and successor-in-interest of the late Julia de la Cruz,
who died intestate on 6 March 2012 of a parcel of land with an assessed value of
P1.5 million, and with Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10070 located in Brgy.
62 A Sagkahan Tacloban City.
Upon assurance from the Defendant that the mortgage would be for a brief
period only and that he would forthwith pay and settle in full all his personal loan
obligations with Edelyn Cadiz to ensure that said mortgage is cancelled in the
soonest time possible, and being such very good friends, Julia de la Cruz lent the
TCT of the subject land.
During the efectivity of the Real Estate Mortgage, Plaintif and Julia de la
Cruz migrated in the United States of America to treat the worsening health
condition of the latter.
Since then, nothing was heard of the Defendant and the whereabouts of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10070 up until the demise of Julia de la Cruz
where Plaintif returned to the Philippines in 2014 where she inquired with the
Civil Registry of Deeds of Tacloban City as to the status of Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 10070.
Plaintif was surprised to know that Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
10070 had become the subject of a Deed of Conditional Sale with the Defendant
in 2011, of which she had no knowledge thereof nor her mother informing her.
The Issues
1. Whether or not the signature of Julia de la Cruz appearing on the
contract of Deed of Sale was genuine.
The Arguments
2. Granting that it is indeed Mrs. Julia de la Cruz who willingly sold the
property in question, still the disposition is invalid for failure to obtain the consent
of the husband, Anton de la Cruz who was still alive during the disposition.
The Discussion
The Supreme Court held in its decision in Sps. Bernales vs. Heirs of
Sambaan, GR No. 163271, 15 January 2010, that a forged deed of absolute sale is
null and conveys no title. Neither does prescription bar the action to recover
ownership of the subject property.
It further held in Sps. Solivel v. Judge Francisco:
x x x in order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the
registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good
faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the
instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owners
duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his
title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or
title to the property.
The facts of the case establishes the migration of the de la Cruz family to
the USA because of the worsening health of Julia. Taking into consideration the
latters health and current place of residence, she could not have signed the
original Deed of Sale without the knowledge of her husband or her daughter who
was living on one and same house. Though there is possibility of her signing the
deed, the improbability of hiding said circumstance to her family is highly low,
them being closely-tied and open with each other. Hence, the presentation of the
forged deed, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate of title, the
registered owner did not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in
the forged deed acquire any right or title to the said property.
The supposed vendor's signature, not being genuine, thereby a forgery, the
instrument is totally void or inexistent as absolutely simulated or fictitious under
Article 1409 of the Civil Code. Further, in pursuance to Article 1410, the action or
defence for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable which cannot be cured
either by ratification or by prescription.
With regards the want of consent, when Julia de la Cruz allegedly sold the
parcel of land which is a conjugal property, the provisions of the Family Code
should be taken into consideration and upheld. Article 124 of said code provides:
Art. 124. x x x In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the
other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do
not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the
authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the
absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall
be void. x x x
The Prayer
Other just and equitable reliefs are also hereby prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
____________________ _____________