Maria Cabotaje, Agustin Cabotaje, Amelia Tomas and Daniel Pugayan v. Spouses Sotero Pudunan and Maria Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Bonifacia Lang-ew owned two parcels of land (Lot 1 and Lot 2) covered by TCT No. T-1657. After her death, her grandchildren, including petitioners Maria Cabotaje, Agustin Cabotaje, Amelia Tomas, and Daniel Pugayan, borrowed P1,000 from respondents Spouses Sotero Pudunan and Maria Rivera. They signed a private document mortgaging Lot 1 as security and delivered the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-1657. On the same date, they signed a "Confirmatory Deed of Sale" for Lot 2 for P2,000.00. Subsequently, the original copy of this deed was altered to include Lot 1, making it appear that both lots were sold for P2,000.00. This altered deed was filed, leading to the issuance of TCT No. T-20808 in the names of the respondents. 2. Procedural History: Nineteen years later, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession, alleging they only mortgaged Lot 1 and received less than the loan amount. They discovered the altered deed only in 1986. The respondents raised the defense of prescription. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the TCT and the deed void ab initio as to Lot 1 and ordering the return of the property and damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the deed voidable and the action prescribed. 3. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing the altered deed was void ab initio and their action imprescriptible. The core issue was whether the original copy of the Confirmatory Deed of Sale, as altered to include Lot 1, was null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the original copy of the Confirmatory Deed of Sale, altered to include Lot 1, is null and void due to lack of consent and consideration. Whether the action to declare the nullity of the altered deed has prescribed, and the consequences regarding ownership, possession, and damages.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 207 is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nullity of the altered deed: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not consent to the sale of Lot 1. The alterations in the Confirmatory Deed of Sale were substantial and material, made without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. Respondent Maria Rivera admitted the alteration occurred after execution. The petitioners did not authenticate the alterations, nor did the notary public. Furthermore, the price for Lot 1 remained unchanged despite the inclusion of an additional lot, making the consideration for Lot 1 absent and the sale incredible. The respondents' explanation regarding the notary public's clerk making the insertion was found incredible due to contradictory testimony regarding the clerk's identity and tenure. On the imprescriptibility of the action, ownership, possession, and damages: The Court held that a void contract is absolutely wanting in civil effects and produces no legal consequences, thus the action is imprescriptible. Based on the finding that the deed of sale for Lot 1 was void, the Court reinstated the trial court's decision declaring the petitioners as the lawful owners of Lot 1 and ordering the respondents to deliver its physical possession. The respondents failed to acquire ownership of Lot 1 by acquisitive prescription because their possession was merely upon the tolerance of the petitioners, and the underlying basis for their claim (the altered deed) was void. The Court reinstated the trial court's award of actual damages equivalent to the monetary value of palay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, as these were based on the finding that the petitioners were unlawfully deprived of their property due to the void deed.
Main Doctrine
A contract that is null and void ab initio due to lack of essential elements like consent or consideration is imprescriptible. Alterations in a deed of sale made without the consent of the parties and without proper authentication render the deed void, not merely voidable.