Perez v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angela Tuazon de Perez (Angela) sold five real properties, covered by T.C.T. 24923, 24924, 24926, 24929, and 24930, to Monserrat Enterprises Co., Inc. (Monserrat) on October 29, 1957. These properties were part of Angela's paraphernal estate. The deeds of sale were signed by Angela personally, and Monserrat took possession. The deeds were registered after May 2, 1958, the date of a compromise agreement between Angela's husband, Antonio M. Perez (Perez), and their son Benigno, and Angela, represented by her attorney-in-fact. New titles (T.C.T. Nos. 53290, 53286, 53287, 53288, and 53289) were issued in Monserrat's name, annotated with the compromise agreement. Subsequently, Monserrat filed a complaint for quieting of title against Perez and son, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-27171). Monserrat also filed a separate complaint questioning the "intrinsic nullity" of the compromise agreement, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Manila, and its appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-28731). Procedural History: Perez filed a motion for partial execution with the domestic court, seeking an order for Monserrat to surrender the five certificates of title. The domestic court denied this motion in its orders of April 17, 1967, and May 29, 1967, for lack of jurisdiction. Perez appealed these orders. The Petition: Perez appealed the lower court's orders denying his motion for partial execution, arguing that the domestic court should have asserted jurisdiction to order the surrender of the titles.
Issue(s)
Whether the domestic court, acting as a guardianship court, has jurisdiction to order a third party (Monserrat) to surrender property titles covered by a compromise agreement, when said third party claims prior ownership based on earlier deeds of sale. Whether the Supreme Court's resolution approving the compromise agreement is a judgment binding on the whole world, including third parties like Monserrat.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court dated April 17, 1967, and May 29, 1967, denying petitioner Antonio M. Perez's motion for partial execution. The Court held that the domestic court correctly ruled itself without jurisdiction to resolve the controversy regarding the title to the properties between Perez and Monserrat, a third party claiming prior ownership.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the guardianship court: The domestic court correctly held itself to be without jurisdiction over the controversy regarding the title to the properties between Perez and Monserrat. Monserrat was a third party, a stranger to the compromise agreement, and thus could not be bound by it nor be subject to the domestic court's jurisdiction. A guardianship court does not have the jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate the right or ownership of property claimed by the guardian to belong to the incompetent as against a third party, nor to order the surrender thereof. Such a controversy must be resolved in a separate independent action before a regular court of competent jurisdiction. The domestic court's ruling that the cession of the properties to Perez was merely a transfer of whatever rights Angela might have had at the time is in accordance with the principle that one cannot give what one does not have. On the conclusiveness of the Supreme Court's resolution: Perez's contention that the Supreme Court's resolution approving the compromise agreement is a judgment binding on the whole world is untenable. No judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in that case; it merely approved the compromise agreement on Angela's manifestation that she "now confirms the compromise agreement." This confirmation was made eight years after the original execution date. Any transfers Angela might have executed during the intervening period, or even before the original compromise agreement, were not passed upon by the Court. Furthermore, the subsequent sale of the properties by Monserrat to innocent purchasers for value, free from any annotation, further complicates the matter and underscores the lack of jurisdiction of the guardianship court to resolve such complex ownership disputes involving multiple parties and prior transactions.
Main Doctrine
A guardianship court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership of property claimed by a third party against the estate of the incompetent, and such controversies must be resolved in a separate independent action before a regular court of competent jurisdiction.