Lopez v Lopez
GR No. 161925
November 25, 2009
Nachura, J.:
FACTS:
Respondents, spouses Eduardo and Marcelina Lopez, are the owners and occupants of an 80-
square-meter residential lot situated in San Pascual, Hagonoy, Bulacan and have occupied it
since 1977.
In November 1992, respondents discovered that Victor Villadares was granted a free patent
over a land, which included theirs, and was subsequently issued Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. RP-253 (P-8511) on March 8, 1978. Thereafter, Villadares subdivided the entire parcel
of land into 3 lots, namely: Lot 9954-A, Lot 9954-B and Lot 9954-C. As shown in the Deed of
Absolute Sale of Portions of a Parcel of Land, Villadares sold Lot 9954-B to petitioners and Lot
9954-C to Filomena Caparas. Consequently, OCT No. RP-253 (P-8511) was cancelled and TCT
Nos. T-5065, T-5066 and T-5067 were issued to Villadares, to petitioners, and to Caparas,
respectively.
Respondents filed an action for reconveyance, declaration of nullity of a deed of absolute sale,
cancellation of titles, and damages against Villadares and petitioners. But petitioners averred
that respondents had no personality to institute the action, that the free patent in favor of
Villadares was issued pursuant to law, that they were innocent purchasers for value, and that
their certificate of title was already incontrovertible.
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents which was later on affirmed by the CA. Hence this instant
petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondents are the rightful owner of the property in question.
2. Whether or not petitioners are innocent purchasers for value.
3. Whether or not the deed of sale is void.
RULING:
1. Yes, respondents are the rightful owner of the property in question. The Supreme court
affirm the CA’s findings of fact that respondents are the rightful owners of the subject
property. The declaration of the subject property for taxation purposes in the name of
respondents, coupled with their actual possession thereof, strongly indicated that they
owned the same. Further, petitioners did not become the owners of the subject
property even after a TCT had been issued in their names. After all, registration does not
vest title. Certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested.
They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as
a shield for the commission of fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the expense
of others. Thus, Villadares, not being the owner of the subject property, could not have
transferred ownership of the subject 80-sq-m portion of land to petitioners.
2. No, petitioners are not innocent purchasers for value. It held that petitioners were not
buyers in good faith because it appeared that the execution of the deed of sale was only
an afterthought. As neighbors of respondents, petitioners certainly would have known
that respondents actually occupied the subject property.
3. No, the deed of sale is valid. The primary consideration in determining the true nature
of a contract is the intention of the parties. Such intention is determined not only from
the express terms of their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and
subsequent acts of the parties. Simulation takes place when the parties do not really
want the contract they have executed to produce the legal effects expressed by its
wordings.
Article 1345 of the Civil Code provides that the simulation of a contract may either be
absolute or relative. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void, and the
parties may recover from each other what they may have given under the contract.
However, if the parties state a false cause in the contract to conceal their real
agreement, the contract is relatively simulated and the parties are still bound by their
real agreement. Based on the foregoing, the subject deed of sale can hardly be
considered simulated. There is no showing that the parties did not intend to be bound
by the contract and to comply with its terms. In fact, Villadares surrendered to
petitioners any right he had over the property. He caused the titling of the property and
the transfer of the tax declaration in petitioners’ names, and thereafter, delivered the
certificate of title and the tax declaration to petitioners and accepted the purchase price
from them.
