You are on page 1of 6

HAIDE BULALACAO-SORIANO

vs.
ERNESTO PAPINA, represented by ROSEMARY PAPINA-ZABALA

Ruling:

Petitioner, in the main, argues that the unlawful detainer action will
not lie against her by virtue of the sale in her favor of Manuel's share, making
her the new co-owner thereof, vesting in her the right to possess the co-
owned property subject of the instant dispute. She maintains that
participation in the subdivision of the property is properly the right of the
buyer of the aliquot share and not the seller thereof and that she was
deprived of the said right when the Papina brothers entered into the
Agreement without her knowledge, consent, authorization, or participation.
In the case at bar, petitioner raised the issue of ownership, arguing that
it was already she, not Manuel, who was respondent's co-owner at the time
the disputed Agreement was entered into. She claims that she acquired
ownership of Manuel's share upon payment of the purchase price.
Consequently, the Agreement entered into by Manuel, the former co-owner,
is invalid.
LUZ S. NICOLAS
vs.
LEONORA C. MARIANO

The Absolute Sale of Real Property contains all the foregoing requisites and
nothing in the records proves, or at least suggests, that the same was
executed through fraud or under duress. Hence, by no stretch of the
imagination can we sustain the RTC's declaration of invalidity on said
ground.

Supreme Court declare the Absolute Sale of Real Property is invalid on the
ground that Leonora Mariano, the supposed vendor of the subject property,
is not the owner thereof. For a sale to be valid, it is imperative that the vendor
is the owner of the property sold. The records show that Leonora Mariano,
to debunk Luz Nicolas' claim of ownership of the subject property, openly
admitted that she has not fully paid the grant thereof to the NHA. Leonora
Mariano, as mere grantee of the subject property who failed to fulfil the
conditions of the grant, never acquired ownership thereof, hence, was
without any right to dispose or alienate the same. "Nemo dat quod non
habet." One cannot give what he does not own. Hence, not being the owner
of the subject property, Leonora Mariano could have not transferred the
ownership thereof to Luz Nicolas.
MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC.,
vs.
FELICIDAD VILLAMENA
On September 23, 1997, plaintiff filed against defendant a complaint for
"Nullification of Deed of Sale and of the Title Issued" pursuant thereto
alleging that she is the owner of a parcel of land with improvements located
in Caloocan City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 204755. A
letter from defendant corporation dated June 12, 1997, informed plaintiff
that TCT No. 204755 over aforesaid property had been cancelled and TCT
No. C-319464 was issued in lieu thereof in favor of defendant corporation on
the strength of a purported Special Power of Attorney executed by
Dominador Villamena, her late husband, appointing her, plaintiff Felicidad
Villamena, as his attorney-in-fact and a deed of absolute sale purportedly
executed by her in favor of defendant corporation on May 21, 1997, the same
date as the Special Power of Attorney. The Special Power of Attorney dated
May 21, 1997 is a forgery. Her husband Dominador died on June 22, 1991.
The deed of sale in favor of defendant corporation was falsified. What
plaintiff executed in favor of Mamarco was a deed of real estate mortgage to
secure a loan of P100,000.00 and not a deed of transfer/conveyance.
On August 23, 1999, the RTC rendered the default judgment nullifying the
assailed deed of absolute sale and the transfer certificate of title issued
pursuant thereto; and ordering the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, City to
cancel the petitioner's Transfer Certificate of Title No. C-319464, and to
reinstate the respondent's Transfer Certificate of Title No. 204755. It
concluded that the act of the petitioner's counsel of formally entering an
appearance in the case had mooted the issue of defective service of summons;
and that the respondent had duly established by preponderance of evidence
that the purported special power of attorney was a forgery.

The petitioner appealed the default judgment to the CA, arguing that the RTC
had gravely erred in nullifying the questioned deed of absolute sale and in
declaring it in default.
It is true that the RTC had the discretion to permit the filing of the answer
even beyond the reglementary period, or to refuse to set aside the default
order where it finds no justification for the delay in the filing of the
answer.Conformably with the judicious exercise of such discretion, the RTC
could then have admitted the belated answer of the petitioner and lifted the
order of default instead of striking the answer from the records. However,
the RTC opted not to condone the inordinate delay taken by the petitioner,
and went on to render the default judgment on August 23, 1999. Such actions
were fully within its discretion. We uphold the default. While the courts
should avoid orders of default, and should be, as a rule, liberal in setting
aside orders of default, they could not ignore the abuse of procedural rules
by litigants like the petitioner, who only had themselves to blame.
SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and VILLAFRlA, DR. RUEL B. SPOUSES MARIA FRANCISCO
substituted by VILLAFRIA, Petitioners,
vs.
MA. GRACIA RINOZA PLAZO and MA. FE RINOZA ALARAS

Ruling
The petitioner's contention that the sale must be considered valid as to the heirs who assented to the
conveyance as well as their allegation of good faith, this Court does not find any compelling reason
to deviate from the ruling of the appellate court. As sufficiently found by both courts below, the
authenticity and due execution of the documents on which petitioners claims are based were
inadequately proven. They were undated, forged, and acknowledged before a notary public who was
not commissioned as such on the date they were executed. They were never presented to the
Register of Deeds for registration. Neither were the supposed notaries and buyers of the subject
properties presented as witnesses.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
vs.
JUAN F. VILLA

During the public sale, respondent Juan F. Vila (Vila) was declared as the highest bidder after he offered to
buy the subject property for P50,000.00. The Certificate of Sale dated 13 January 1988 was duly recorded in
TCT No. 131498 under Entry No. 623599. Certificate of Final Sale was issued to Vila after the one-year
redemption period had passed without the Spouses Cornista exercising their statutory right to redeem the
subject property. He was, however, prevented from consolidating the ownership of the property under his
name because the owner's copy of the certificate of title was not turned over to him by the Sheriff. The
Spouses Cornista defaulted in the payment of their loan obligation with the PNB prompting the latter to
foreclose the property offered as security. The bank emerged as the highest bidder during the public sale as
shown at the Certificate of Sale issued by the Sheriff. As with the prior mortgage, the Spouses Cornista once
again failed to exercise their right of redemption within the required period allowing PNB to consolidate its
ownership over the subject property.

You might also like