Jose v. Quesada-Jose
G.R. No. 249434
March 15, 2023
FACTS:
Rene
Manuel R. Jose (petitioner) and Luis Mario Jose (Luis) are the sons of spouses
Domingo Jose (Domingo) and Emilia Jose (Emilia). In 1996, Domingo was sued as
solidary debtor with five co-defendants by Philippine Export and Foreign Loan
Guarantee Corporation (now called Trade Investment Development Corporation
[TIDCORP]) before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC Makati). After due
proceedings, the RTC Makati rendered judgment in TIDCORP's favor. Pending
appeal before the CA, Domingo requested help from petitioner and his wife,
Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose (Cynthia), to settle the case by ceding to TIDCORP a
portion of their 23-hectare property in Antipolo City (Antipolo property). The
CA approved the compromise agreement. The Antipolo property was later subdivided
into three lots. Three titles were issued with the first in TIDCORP’s name and
the last two in the name of Cynthia. Pursuant to their oral agreement,
petitioner later demanded Domingo to pay him P120 Million corresponding to the
fair value of the property ceded to TIDCORP. Domingo failed to pay despite
demands. On July 4, 2005, Domingo executed a Deed of Revocation claiming that
he and his wife, Emilia, are the real owners of the Antipolo property.
Luis alleged that on November 3,
1978, his parents executed a simulated sale of the Antipolo property in favor
of Cynthia for a consideration of only P65,000.00 to supposedly hide the
property from their creditor, TIDCORP. Domingo allegedly gave clear
instructions not to transfer the title in Cynthia's name, but the latter did
not comply. In September 1980, TCT No. N-50023 was issued in Cynthia's name
covering the Antipolo property. Despite the sale, his parents allegedly
remained in possession and enjoyment of the property in the concept of owners
by continuing to keep the title and by paying taxes. On appeal, Domingo
endeavored to settle the case by offering a portion of the Antipolo property.
After the satisfaction of the loan to TIDCORP, Domingo allegedly wanted to
reinstate in his name the two titles issued in Cynthia's name. However,
petitioner and Cynthia began to claim ownership over the property. In
connection with this adverse claim, Domingo and Emilia executed a deed of
revocation as regards the Antipolo property.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not there was a collateral attack on the title.
HELD:
Yes.
The Court acknowledges the settled rule in this jurisdiction that the issue as
to whether a certificate of title was procured by fraud can only be raised in
an action expressly instituted for the purpose. This finds basis in Section 48
of the Property Registration Decree 70 (PRD) which states that a certificate of
title shall not be subject to a collateral attack and cannot be altered,
modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding.
In the
collection case, Luis attempted a collateral attack on Cynthia's title when he
assailed the validity of the deed of sale. Jurisprudence has emphasized that
"an attack on a deed of sale pursuant to which a certificate of title was
issued [constitutes] an impermissible collateral attack on the certificate of
title." To recall, in the collection case, petitioner and Cynthia aimed to
claim the proceeds representing the value of the portion of the property
transferred to TIDCORP to answer for Domingo's obligations. For their part, Domingo
and Emilia, and later Luis, argued that they were the true owners of the
Antipolo property, alleging that its sale to Cynthia was simulated and the
latter fraudulently transferred the title of the property to her name.
Effectively, Luis, in his affirmative defense, challenged the validity of the
sale upon which TCT No. N-50023 was issued. Accordingly, he questioned the
validity of the issuance of TCT Nos. R[1]19952
and R-19953 which were issued in Cynthia's name after the property covered by
TCT No. N-50023 was subdivided. The collateral attack through an affirmative
defense is not proper.
No comments:
Post a Comment