Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23279. January 31, 1968.]

ALEJANDRA CUARTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, LEONARDO DE LUNA, IRENE CASTILLO, BONIFACIO NAKPIL and AIDA SOLIMAN, Defendants, BONIFACIO NAKPIL and AIDA SOLIMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

Luis Vizchoso, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Del Rosario & Mañacop for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS. NULLITY OF CONTRACTS; IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY. — A motion to dismiss admits, hypothetically the truth of the allegations of the complaint, pursuant to which the three (3) transactions therein impugned are fictitious, simulated and without any consideration. Under these allegations, said transactions are, not merely voidable, but inexistent. It is well-settled not only in our jurisprudence, but also, by specific legal provision that "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; REQUISITES. — As regards the acquisitive prescription invoked by the defendants, it should be noted that real property cannot be acquired by this means unless there is "actual, adverse possession" by one claiming to be the owner, of said property, uninterruptedly and continuously, for ten (10) years. In the case at bar, the complaint does not show that the lands in litigation have been so held by defendants herein. On the contrary, this is impliedly, but, necessarily negated by the allegations in the complaint — which are hypothetically admitted in the motion to dismiss — to the effect that each and every one of the transactions above referred to are fictitious, simulated, and without consideration, and that the defendants are and were aware of such fact.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Appeal from two orders of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

Plaintiff Alejandra Cuarto is the widow of Sotero de Luna. In her complaint, against Estelita de Luna, Leonardo de Luna, his wife, Irene Castillo and the spouses Bonifacio Nakpil and Aida Soliman — hereinafter referred to as the Nakpils — it is alleged that plaintiff and her deceased husband had, during his lifetime, acquired, as conjugal properties, Lots 11-A and 12, Block 53, of the San Juan Heights Subdivision, containing 433 and 503 square meters, respectively, and are more particularly described in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 12999 and 10383 of Rizal; that, by virtue of a simulated deed of sale, dated November 13, 1947, Sotero purported to sell said lots, for an alleged consideration of P1,000 00, which was never paid, either wholly or partly, to his daughter by a previous marriage, defendant Estelita de Luna, in whose favor, upon cancellation of said transfer certificates of titles, TCT Nos. 6544 and 6545, were issued; that, subsequently, Estelita de Luna simulated another sale of said properties to her brother Leonardo de Luna — another offspring of Sotero de Luna by a previous marriage — and his wife, Irene Castillo, in whose favor TCT Nos. 24871 and 74965 were, in turn, issued, upon cancellation of TCT Nos. 6544 and 6545; that, on December 29, 1962, Mr. and Mrs. Leonardo de Luna simulated a third sale, for a stated consideration of P20,000.00, to the Nakpils, in whose names TCT Nos. 106286 and 106287 were issued, in lieu of TCT Nos. 24871 and 74965; that all of these transactions are fictitious and simulated, as well as without any consideration; that before the properties in question were placed in their name, the Nakpils knew that the title of their co-defendants was void or defective and that plaintiff has a valid claim over said properties or, at least, to over one-half thereof; that plaintiff was not cognizant of these simulated transactions until February, 1963, when she came to know about the same; and that, in view of the conjugal nature of the properties in question, she is entitled to, at least, one-half (1/2) thereof. Hence, she prayed that the transactions above-referred to be declared simulated, and, accordingly, null and void, insofar, at least, as her share therein is concerned and, in the event that the Nakpils be found to have validly acquired title to the other half of said properties, that she be authorized to redeem the same.

The Nakpils moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that plaintiff’s actions is for the recovery of title to real property, which is barred by extinctive as well as by acquisitive prescription, under sections 40 and 41 of Act No 190. Despite plaintiff’s opposition to said motion, the same was, on September 5, 1963, granted by the lower court, which dismissed the complaint upon the theory that the questioned transactions are merely voidable, that the properties involved therein are covered by certificates of title, which had no infirmity or defect, and that more than ten (10) years have elapsed from the first transaction. A reconsideration of this order having been denied. on October 18, 1963, plaintiff appealed from the order of this date and that of September 5, 1963, to the Court of Appeals. The trial court, however, certified the Record on Appeal to the Supreme Court, only questions of law being raised in the appeal.

The orders appealed from should be reversed. A motion to dismiss admits, hypothetically, the truth of the allegations of the complaint, 1 pursuant to which the three (3) transactions therein impugned are "fictitious, simulated and without any consideration." Under these allegations, said transactions are, not merely voidable, but inexistent. It is well settled, not only in our jurisprudence, 2 but, also, by specific legal provision 3 that "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe."cralaw virtua1aw library

As regards the acquisitive prescription invoked by the defendants, it should be noted that real property cannot be acquired by this means unless there is "actual, adverse possession" by one "claiming to be the owner" of said property, "uninterruptedly" and continuously for ten (10) years. In the case at bar, the complaint does not show that the lands in litigation have been so held by defendants herein. On the contrary, this is impliedly, but, necessarily negated by the allegations in the complaint — which are hypothetically admitted in the motion to dismiss — to the effect that each and every one of the transactions above referred to are fictitious, simulated, and without consideration, and that the defendants are and were aware of such fact.

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from should be and are hereby reversed and the records of this case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance against defendants Bonifacio Nakpil and Aida Soliman.

It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Republic of the Philippines v. Patanao, L-22356, July 21, 1967; Vda. de Valencia v. Deudor, Et Al., L-21598, May 19, 1966; Alquique v. De Leon, et. al., L-15059, March 30, 1963; Reinares v. Arrastia, Et Al., L-17083, July 31, 1962; Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications, L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960; Tupas v. Parreño, L-12545, April 30, 1959; Wise & Company v. City of Manila, 54 Off. Gaz., 4245; Carreon v. Province of Pampanga, Et Al., 99 Phil, 809; Community Investment & Finance Corp. v. Garcia, 88 Phil., 215; Piñero v. Enriquez, 84 Phil., 774.

2. Quetulio v. Ver, L-6831, June 29, 1956; Corpus v. Beltran, 97 Phil., 772; Tipton v. Velasco, 6 Phil., 67.

3. Article 1410, Civil Code of the Philippines.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.