SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982

ESTEBAN MEDINA and GERTRUDES A. DE MEDINA, ** Petitioner, v. HON. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, PEDRO CARANTES, SR., ** MONDERO CARANTES, MARVIN CARANTES, and JUAN CARANTES, Respondents.

BARREDO, J.:

Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus praying that the orders of the respondent Judge of October 20, 1969, January 25, 1971 and December 29, 1971, Annexes C, G and K, respectively, of the petition, be set aside as acts in grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction of the respondent Judge and that said respondent be permanently prohibited from taking any further proceedings in Civil Case No. 2043 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, Br, III, La Trinidad, Benguet, entitled "Pedro Carantes, Sr., et al. vs. Spouses Esteban and Gertrudes Alejandrino de Medina, et al." chanrobles virtual law library

The original complaint filed by private respondents who are the plaintiffs in the court below was filed on May 7, 1969. It alleged as basis of their causes of action that the land here in question which was registered under the Torrens System in the name of their parents, Cuidno and Guinda Carantes, was transferred to the name of a certain J.O. Wagner through fraud and insufficient consideration and lack of proper compliance with all the le-al requirements for such transfer, their said parents being members of the cultural minority, and then, insofar as herein petitioners are concerned and in respect to Lot No. 2-B, the said J.O. Wagner sold a part of said property on March 13, 1917 to Messrs. Leung Yee and Leung Shank who partitioned the same between them in an Escritura de Particion executed by thein on February 25, 1926; and it was only April 23, 1932 that the spouses Leung Shank sold a portion of the property apportioned to them under the aforesaid deed of partition to the herein petitioners, spouses Esteban and Gertrudes A. de Medina, who became the holders of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 1452 and 1454 of the Register of Deeds of Baguio City.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by herein petitioners in the latter part of June, 1969 alleging as grounds thereof the following: chanrobles virtual law library

1. That the filing fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient because the assessed value of all the properties involved is about P1,500,00 (the assessed value was later proven to be P2,543,470.00); chanrobles virtual law library

2. That the complaint states no cause of action against the said defendants because:

a) The circumstances constituting the alleged fraud were not stated with particularity; and that since the lands involved are covered by the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) and the petitioners herein are innocent purchasers for value, their title thereto is absolute and indefeasible - assuming that the original contract with the alleged predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs was fraudulent; chanrobles virtual law library

b) That the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue since there are nine heirs and five of them withdrew as parties plaintiffs and expressly recognized the validity of the contracts executed by their deceased parents, for which reason the remaining four co-heirs cannot sue on behalf of all the nine heirs because the majority of them did not want to join as parties plaintiffs; and lastly

3. That the cause of action, if any, has prescribed or that it is barred by the statute of limitations because of the lapse of about 56 years from the date of the alleged sales in January, 1913 to May, 1969 when the original complaint was filed. (pp. 350-35 1, Record).

Said original complaint was amended on May 11, 1970 by dropping five (5) of the original plaintiffs who had filed affidavits that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the complaint; that they never hired the services of counsel Jesus M. Ponce and Ernesto Abroguena to prosecute the complaint; that they were not interested in the prosecution thereof for the reason that they had always recognized and respected the acts of their late father and mother with respect to the properties which they have disposed of during their lifetime; and, furthermore, they fully knew that the present owners and occupants thereof have legally come into the possession and ownership of said properties, etc.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After the amended complaint was filed, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss dated July 31, 1970 on the following grounds: chanrobles virtual law library

a. That since the main basis of the complaint is fraud and considering that the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud are not stated with particularity as required by the Rules of Court, then the complaint is defective; chanrobles virtual law library

b. That the complaint states no cause of action because the lands involved herein, more particularly that presently owned by the defendant spouses Esteban Medina and Gertrudes A. de Medina, are covered by the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) and the said defendant spouses are innocent purchasers for value, their title thereto is absolute and indefeasible, even assuming that the original contract with the alleged predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs was fraudulent; chanrobles virtual law library

c. That the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue because they constitute a minority of four out of the nine heirs and cannot therefore lay claim to the whole estate of their deceased parents; neither may they institute this action over the objection of the majority of five co-heirs; chanrobles virtual law library

d. That the cause of action, if any, has prescribed or that it is barred by the statute of limitations because the original sale of the property by respondents' deceased parents which was subsequently sold to another and then later on to the herein petitioners, was made on January 20, 1913, or after the lapse of about 56 years when the complaint was filed. (pp. 354-355, Record).

But after hearing, the respondent Judge denied the said motion on January 25, 1971 (Annex "G" of the Petition).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioners filed thereafter a motion for the reconsideration of the order of January 25, 1971, but again, said motion for reconsideration was denied on December 1, 1971. (Annex 1, Petition) chanrobles virtual law library

In a second motion for reconsideration dated December 22, 1971 (Annex J of the Petition), the petitioners reiterated their plea for the dismissal of the amended complaint with particular reemphasis on the fact that the defendants spouses, the petitioners herein, were innocent purchasers for value of the property claimed from them and that their title thereto was already absolute and indefeasible under the Land Registration Act, and to support their motion, they asked for a preliminary hearing on the ground just stated considering that the documents in support of their motion were public documents, the genuineness and authenticity whereof could not be denied. But notwithstanding that the documents referred to were made annexes to their second motion for reconsideration, respondent Judge denied the said motion insisting that the ground alleged was more proper as a defense than as a basis for a motion to dismiss.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We will not tarry on the other issues raised in the petition because We are convinced that the issue alone that petitioners herein are purchasers in good faith and for value sufficiently constitutes a bar to the complaint of private respondents and there being enough proof to that effect, respondent Judge should have dismissed the complaint of private respondents. What is more. We have read both the original and the amended complaints of the private respondents and We cannot discern in any of them any specific act indicating any participation of the petitioners in whatever fraud might have attended the original transaction between the parents of private respondents and J.O. Wagner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It is very clear from section 55 of the Land Registration Act that although an original owner of a registered land may seek the annulment of a transfer thereof on the ground of fraud, such a remedy, however, is "without prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for value" of the certificate of title.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the case at bar, We are readily persuaded that on the faces of the original and amended complaints of private respondents and the documents presented by the petitioners in connection with their second motion for reconsideration, the genuineness and authenticity of which do not appear to be denied insofar as the transfer from Wagner to the Leungs and from the Leungs to the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are purchasers in good faith within the contemplation of section 55 of the Land Registration Act. If only because (1) petitioners did not acquire the property in question from Wagner but from the Leungs and this transaction between Wagner and the Leungs took place in 1917, or four years after the alleged fraudulent execution of the transfer in favor of Wagner: (2) the transfer or conveyance to the petitioners took place only in 1932 or 19 years after the sale to the Leungs by Wagner; and (3) the complaint below was filed only in 1969, more than 50 years after the first transaction, it is unbelievable that the herein petitioners could have taken part in any manner in either the transfer from the parents of the private respondents to Wagner as well as the transfer from Wagner to the Leungs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the petition and hereby ordering the respondent Judge to dismiss the complaint of private respondents insofar as herein petitioners are concerned in Civil Case No. 2043 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet, Br. III, La Trinidad, Benguet, entitled "Pedro Carantes, Sr., et al. vs. Spouses Esteban and Gertrudes Alejandrino de Medina, et al." chanrobles virtual law library

No costs.

 chanrobles virtual law library

ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrobles virtual law library

I dissent. When the motion to dismiss was presented there was no indubitable proof that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. In fact they asked for a preliminary hearing on it. Petition should be dismissed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:

I dissent. When the motion to dismiss was presented there was no indubitable proof that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value. In fact they asked for a preliminary hearing on it. Petition should be dismissed.