Case Digest: Catindig vs. De Meneses
G.R. No. 165851 : February 2, 2011
MANUEL CATINDIG, represented by his legal representative EMILIANO CATINDIG-RODRIGO, Petitioner, v.AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, Respondent.
x---x
G.R. No. 168875 : February 2, 2011
SILVINO ROXAS, SR., represented by FELICISIMA VILLAFUERTE
ROXAS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA IRENE VDA. DE
MENESES, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Aurora Irene C. Vda. de Meneses is the surviving spouse of the registered owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond. In her capacity as administratrix of her husband's estate, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Sum of Money and Damages against petitioners Manuel Catindig and Silvino Roxas, Sr. before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, to recover possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond.
Respondent alleged that in September 1975, petitioner Catindig, the first cousin of her husband, deprived her of the possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond, through fraud, undue influence and intimidation. Since then, petitioner Catindig unlawfully leased the property to petitioner Roxas.
petitioner Catindig maintained that he bought the Masusuwi Fishpond from respondent and her children in January 1978, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Catindig further argued that even assuming that respondent was indeed divested of her possession of the Masusuwi Fishpond by fraud, her cause of action had already prescribed considering the lapse of about 20 years
Petitioner Roxas, on the other hand, asserted in his own Answer that respondent has no cause of action against him, because Catindig is the lawful owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond, to whom he had paid his rentals
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent. It found that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between respondent and petitioner Catindig was simulated and fictitious, and therefore, did not convey title over the Masusuwi Fishpond to petitioner Catindig.
The trial court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between respondent and petitioner Catindig was simulated and fictitious, and therefore, did not convey title over the Masusuwi Fishpond to petitioner Catindig
ISSUES: Whether ot not the Deed of Sale was genuine or simulated.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Questions of fact
The issue on the genuineness of the deed of sale is essentially a question of fact. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Since it was well established that the Deed of Sale is simulated and, therefore void, petitioners’ claim that respondent's cause of action is one for annulment of contract, which already prescribed, is unavailing, because only voidable contracts may be annulled.
CIVIL LAW: Land registration
Against the registered owners and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, it is the former who has a better right to possess. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. In this case, even if the Deed of Sale is valid, it would still not help petitioner. The subject property is covered by TCT No. T-1749, registered in the name of respondent's husband. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale is not only unregistered, it is undated and unnotarized.
Petition is DENIED.
MANUEL CATINDIG, represented by his legal representative EMILIANO CATINDIG-RODRIGO, Petitioner, v.AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, Respondent.
x---x
G.R. No. 168875 : February 2, 2011
SILVINO ROXAS, SR., represented by FELICISIMA VILLAFUERTE
ROXAS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA IRENE VDA. DE
MENESES, Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Aurora Irene C. Vda. de Meneses is the surviving spouse of the registered owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond. In her capacity as administratrix of her husband's estate, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Sum of Money and Damages against petitioners Manuel Catindig and Silvino Roxas, Sr. before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, to recover possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond.
Respondent alleged that in September 1975, petitioner Catindig, the first cousin of her husband, deprived her of the possession over the Masusuwi Fishpond, through fraud, undue influence and intimidation. Since then, petitioner Catindig unlawfully leased the property to petitioner Roxas.
petitioner Catindig maintained that he bought the Masusuwi Fishpond from respondent and her children in January 1978, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Catindig further argued that even assuming that respondent was indeed divested of her possession of the Masusuwi Fishpond by fraud, her cause of action had already prescribed considering the lapse of about 20 years
Petitioner Roxas, on the other hand, asserted in his own Answer that respondent has no cause of action against him, because Catindig is the lawful owner of the Masusuwi Fishpond, to whom he had paid his rentals
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent. It found that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between respondent and petitioner Catindig was simulated and fictitious, and therefore, did not convey title over the Masusuwi Fishpond to petitioner Catindig.
The trial court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between respondent and petitioner Catindig was simulated and fictitious, and therefore, did not convey title over the Masusuwi Fishpond to petitioner Catindig
ISSUES: Whether ot not the Deed of Sale was genuine or simulated.
HELD:
The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Questions of fact
The issue on the genuineness of the deed of sale is essentially a question of fact. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. Since it was well established that the Deed of Sale is simulated and, therefore void, petitioners’ claim that respondent's cause of action is one for annulment of contract, which already prescribed, is unavailing, because only voidable contracts may be annulled.
CIVIL LAW: Land registration
Against the registered owners and the holder of an unregistered deed of sale, it is the former who has a better right to possess. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. In this case, even if the Deed of Sale is valid, it would still not help petitioner. The subject property is covered by TCT No. T-1749, registered in the name of respondent's husband. Meanwhile, the Deed of Sale is not only unregistered, it is undated and unnotarized.
Petition is DENIED.
The decision of CA is affirmed.
