Modina v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Serafin Modina (Modina) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages against Ernesto Hontarciego, Paul Figueroa, and Teodoro Hipalla, claiming ownership over parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-86912, T-86913, and T-86914. Modina's claim was based on deeds of sale from Ramon Chiang (Chiang), who in turn claimed to have purchased the properties from his wife, Merlinda Plana Chiang (Merlinda), via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 17, 1975. Merlinda intervened, seeking the declaration of nullity of the sale between her and Chiang, and subsequently the sale between Chiang and Modina, alleging that the titles were fraudulently obtained by Chiang and never legally transferred to him. Merlinda confirmed the validity of lease contracts with other respondents and stated the properties were part of the intestate estate of her first husband, Nelson Plana, for which she was administratrix and had an Authority to Sell from the Probate Court. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the deed of sale between Merlinda and Chiang, and the subsequent sale between Chiang and Modina, as void and inexistent. It ordered the cancellation of titles in the names of Chiang and Modina, reinstatement of titles in the name of Nelson Plana, Modina to vacate the premises, Chiang to restitute Modina, and Modina to pay damages to Hontarciego and Figueroa. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Modina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of the subject lots should be nullified. Whether the petitioner was not a purchaser in good faith. Whether the decision of the trial court was tainted with excess of jurisdiction. Whether only three-fourths of the subject lots should be returned to the private respondent.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nullity of the sale: The Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that the sale between Merlinda and Chiang was void and inexistent. This was primarily based on the finding of want of consideration, which renders a contract void under Article 1409 of the New Civil Code. The Court also noted that the sale violated Article 1490 of the Civil Code, which prohibits sales between spouses, except under specific conditions not present in this case. Since the sale between Merlinda and Chiang was void, Chiang could not have validly sold the properties to Modina, rendering the sale to Modina also void and inexistent. The principle of in pari delicto was deemed inapplicable because the contract was inexistent due to lack of consideration, not due to an illegal cause or object constituting a criminal offense. The Court emphasized that inexistent contracts produce no legal effect and can be invoked by any person against whom juridical effects founded thereon are asserted. On whether the petitioner was a purchaser in good faith: The Court ruled that Modina was not a purchaser in good faith. It cited several circumstances indicating bad faith: Modina's nephew investigated the property's origin and learned it belonged to Merlinda's first husband; the sale was between spouses; and lessees informed Modina that the lands belonged to Merlinda and they had no knowledge of the sale to Chiang. The Court reiterated the rule that a purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts that would put a reasonable man on guard and must make necessary inquiries. Modina's failure to do so meant he could not claim to be an innocent purchaser for value, and thus, the exception to the rule that a void title cannot give rise to a valid title did not apply. On whether the trial court's decision was tainted with excess of jurisdiction: The petitioner's contention that the RTC decision allowing Merlinda to recover the properties was void for interfering with the Probate Court's Order to Sell was found untenable. The Court clarified that a regular court has jurisdiction to rescind a sale made under a Probate Court's authority, as the Probate Court does not have jurisdiction over the question of title to the properties. A separate action is permissible to determine ownership. Therefore, the RTC did not commit an excess of jurisdiction. On whether only three-fourths of the subject lots should be returned: The Court dismissed this issue, stating that it was never raised in the lower court. It is a settled doctrine that issues not averred in the complaint or raised during trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it violates basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process. The Court also noted that a Petition for Review is limited to questions of law, and Modina was attempting to have the Court re-examine the probative value of evidence, which it cannot do unless there is a glaring error in appreciation.
Main Doctrine
A sale that is void for want of consideration or for being prohibited by law (e.g., between spouses under Article 1490 of the Civil Code) produces no legal effect and can be invoked by any person against whom juridical effects founded thereon are asserted. A purchaser who fails to exercise due diligence and is aware of circumstances that would put a reasonable man on guard cannot claim to be a purchaser in good faith.