Catindig v. Meneses
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the possession of a 49,139 square meter fishpond in Malolos, Bulacan, titled in the name of the late Rosendo Meneses, Sr. The respondent, Aurora Irene Vda. de Meneses, as administratrix of her late husband's estate, filed a complaint to recover possession of this property, alleging that petitioner Manuel Catindig, her husband's cousin, deprived her of possession in September 1975 through fraud, undue influence, and intimidation. Catindig subsequently leased the property to petitioner Silvino Roxas, Sr. Despite demands, the petitioners allegedly refused to vacate the property, prompting the respondent to file a suit for recovery of possession, damages, and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: The respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioners to vacate the property, pay back rentals, and reimburse attorney's fees and costs. The RTC found the Deed of Absolute Sale between the respondent and petitioner Catindig to be simulated and fictitious, lacking consideration, and thus invalid. The RTC also found petitioner Roxas not to be a lessee in good faith. Both petitioners appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed both appeals, affirming the RTC's decision. Petitioner Catindig then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, while petitioner Roxas filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, both assailing the CA's rulings. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Manuel Catindig, in G.R. No. 165851, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, questioning whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's decision by not holding that the respondent's cause of action was for annulment of contract that had prescribed, and in disregarding the genuineness of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioner Silvino Roxas, Sr., in G.R. No. 168875, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in finding him jointly and severally liable and in not considering him a lessee in good faith. The Supreme Court consolidated these two petitions. The Court noted that Roxas's petition under Rule 65 was an improper remedy, as an appeal under Rule 45 was available, and that his petition was filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the CA decision final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's decision in not holding that respondent's cause of action is one for annulment of contract under Articles 1390 and 1391 of the Civil Code, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's decision in not holding that respondent's cause of action, based on alleged fraud and/or intimidation, has prescribed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner Roxas jointly and solidarily liable with petitioner Catindig and in not considering him a lessee in good faith.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 165851 and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 168875 and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the genuineness and prescription of the Deed of Sale and the nature of the action and the right to possession: The Court held that the issue of the genuineness of the deed of sale is a question of fact, and it is settled that the Court is not duty-bound to re-analyze evidence already passed upon by the lower courts, especially when the RTC's findings were affirmed by the CA. The Court found no reason to disturb the RTC's finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and fictitious. The deed itself was incomplete, lacking essential details and notarization. Furthermore, the testimony of petitioner Catindig was contradicted by evidence showing his supposed witness had already died before the deed was allegedly executed. The fact that the property remained titled in the name of the late Rosendo Meneses, Sr., the owner's duplicate copy of the title remained with the respondent, and petitioner Catindig did not pay real estate taxes further supported the conclusion that the sale was simulated and lacked consideration. Applying Article 1471 of the Civil Code, if the price is simulated, the sale is void. Since the deed was void ab initio, the respondent's action was for recovery of possession, not annulment of a voidable contract, and thus, the defense of prescription was unavailing. The right to declare the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. The Court clarified that the case was an accion publiciana, a plenary action to recover possession, where the court may pass upon the issue of ownership only to determine the right to possess. Even if the Deed of Sale were considered valid, the registered owner's right to possess is superior to that of the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, as established in cases like Pascual v. Coronel and Co v. Militar. This doctrine is even more applicable here as the deed was unregistered, undated, and unnotarized. A Torrens title serves as conclusive evidence of ownership and the right to possession, and this right is imprescriptible, as affirmed in Gaudencio Labrador v. Sps. Ildefonso Perlas and Pacencia Perlas. The respondent, as the registered owner, has the right to eject any person illegally occupying her property, a right that is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. On the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court held that the issue of the genuineness of the deed of sale is a question of fact, and it is settled that the Court is not duty-bound to re-analyze evidence already passed upon by the lower courts, especially when the RTC's findings were affirmed by the CA. The Court found no reason to disturb the RTC's finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and fictitious. The deed itself was incomplete, lacking essential details and notarization. Furthermore, the testimony of petitioner Catindig was contradicted by evidence showing his supposed witness had already died before the deed was allegedly executed. The fact that the property remained titled in the name of the late Rosendo Meneses, Sr., the owner's duplicate copy of the title remained with the respondent, and petitioner Catindig did not pay real estate taxes further supported the conclusion that the sale was simulated and lacked consideration. On petitioner Roxas's remedy and liability: The Court found that petitioner Roxas improperly filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 when the proper remedy was a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Roxas's claim of grave abuse of discretion amounted to mere errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal, not certiorari. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Roxas failed to file his petition within the reglementary period for appeal, rendering the CA's decision final and executory. Therefore, the Court could not review the CA's findings regarding his joint and several liability or his claim of being a lessee in good faith. The Court reiterated that a final and executory decision becomes immutable and unalterable, and the court loses jurisdiction over the case.
Main Doctrine
A deed of sale that is simulated for lack of consideration is void ab initio. The right of a registered owner to recover possession of their property is imprescriptible. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 45.