1985 – Heirs of Yanas v. Heirs of Acaylar, GR No. 54538 (Prescription, Action to declare a contract as void, deed of sale, illiterate owner)

3.1. DATE OF PROMULGATION

• April 25, 1985

3.2. DECIDING COURT

• Supreme Court of the Philippines

3.3. DIVISION

• Second Division

3.4. PONENTE

• Aquino

3.5. CONCURRENCE AND ATTENDANCE

3.6. SEPARATE OPINIONS

3.7.PARTIES

3.8. COUNSEL

3.9. NATURE OF ACTION

• Appeal on a lower court decision

3.10. LAWS AND PROVISIONS CITED

• Art. 1410, Civil Code

3.11. CASES CITED

• None

4.1. FACTS

4.1. FACTS

• Luis Yanas, also known as Sulung Subano, an illiterate, occupied Lot No. 5408 with an area of 13 hectares located at Sitio Dionom (Lower Gumay), Barrio Sianib, Piñan (Dipolog), Zamboanga del Norte. He claimed the lot in the cadastral proceeding through lawyer Leoncio S. Hamoy. Lawyer Valeriano S. Concha, Sr., an adjoining owner of Yanas since 1946, testified the same up to his death in 1962.
• 1950, August 7
  • Yanas thumbmarked in Dapitan a deed of sale and conveyance wherein he purportedly sold to Antonio L. Acaylar of Dapitan for P200 his 13-hectare land. The sale was notarized on the following day, August 8. An instrumental witness was lawyer Hamoy.
• 1953, May 15
  • The sale was approved by Governor Felipe B. Azcuna, 33 months after the sale.
• 1954, June 5
  • The said decree was only registed on June 5, 1954. OCT NO. 64 was issued to Yanas
• 1954, December 21
  • Acaylar registerd the 1950 deed of sale. He obtained TCT No. T-3338
  • How Acaylar possessed the owner’s duplicate of the OCT in question and why it was not delivered to Yanas was not shown on the record.

4.2. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

• Lower Court
  • 1958, August 4
    • Yanas discovered his title was discovered, so he filed an adverse claim on Acaylar’s title
    • He stated that he never sold his land and that the price of P200 was grossly inadequate because the land was worth not less than P6,000.
  • 1962
    • Yanas died
  • 1963
    • His widow, Maria Aglimot, also a Subano, and his children filed an action to declare void Acaylar’s title
    • A notice of lis pendens was annotated on that title
  • 1965
    • Aglimot died
    • The court found the sale to be valid.
• Court of Appealst
  • The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision
• Supreme Court
  • Heirs of Yanas appealed, contending that the Appellate Court erred in not holding that the deed of sale was fabricated and simulated and therefore, void ab initio and that Maria Aglimot as surviving spouse could recover the lot
  • The heirs of Acaylar, through counsel who did not take part in the trial, maintain that the sale was “true and faithful” and that the widow had no right to recover one-half of the lot

4.3. ISSUES

• Whether the deed of sale was fraudulent and therefore void?
• Whether the action to declare the sale as void prescribed?

4.4. HELD

• Whether the deed of sale was fraudulent and therefore void?
  • Yes
    • We hold that the sale was fictitious and fraudulent. Among the badges of fraud and fictitiousness taken collectively are the following:
      • (1) the fact that the sale is in English, the alleged vendor being illiterate;
      • (2) the fact that his wife did not join in the sale and that her name is indicated in the deed as “Maria S. Yanas” when the truth is that her correct name is Maria Aglimot Yanas;
      • (3) the obvious inadequacy of P200 as price for a 13-hectare land (P15.40 a hectare);
      • (4) the notarization of the sale on the day following the alleged thumbmarking of the document;
      • (5) the failure to state the boundaries of the lot sold;
      • (6) the fact that the governor approved it more than two years after the alleged sale;
      • (7) its registration more than three years later, and
      • (8) the fact that the Acaylars were able to occupy only four hectares out of the 13 hectares and were eventually forcibly ousted therefrom by the children and agents of the vendor. It was not a fair and regular transaction done in the ordinary course of business.
    • The grave flaws in the evidence for defendants Acaylar are the patent contradictions in the testimonies of Antonio L. Acaylar and lawyer Hamoy, their principal witnesses on the validity of the sale. Acaylar testified that he signed the deed of sale and that one Tupas was an instrumental witness . The truth is that Acaylar never signed the deed and Tupas was not a witness. The instrumental witnesses were Hamoy and Paulino Empeynado.
    • Hamoy at first testified on November 20, 1968 that on August 7, 1950 he was a witness in the deed of sale executed by Yanas who had requested him to look for a buyer of his lot. That means that Hamoy met Yanas in August, 1950.
    • More than a year later, or on June 22, 1970, Hamoy, testifying as a rebuttal witness for Acaylar, declared on direct and cross-examination that he last saw Yanas in 1946 (103-106). He absurdly stated that his name appears as an instrumental witness in the deed of sale but he testified: “That is my name but I did not sign that”.
    • The deed of sale appears as Document No. 113, page 57, Book 3, series of 1950 of Jose G. Empeynado’s notarial register. Teofisto Realiza, the clerk in charge of the court archives, testified on November 10, 1966 that Document No. 113 is an affidavit of Lorenzo Bajamunde, not a deed of sale signed by Yanas.
    • However, five days later, or on November 15, 1966, he issued a certified copy of the deed of sale to Acaylar’s lawyer. Presumably, the deed of sale was a part of the notarial report of Empeynado but he did not enter the sale in his notarial book.
• Whether the action to declare the sale as void prescribed?
  • No
  • The fact that the alleged sale took place in 1950 and the action to have it declared void or inexistent was filed in 1963 is immaterial. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe (Art. 1410, Civil Code).

4.5. DISPOSITION

• Decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals are set aside. Heirs of Luis Yanas declared owners of the contested lot.

4.6. SEPARATE OPINION

• None.