Spouses Chu v. Benelda Estate Development Corp

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 142313. March 1, 2001

SPOUSES MANUEL CHU, SR. and CATALINA B. CHU, the former substituted by THEANLYN B. CHU, THEAN CHING LEE B. CHU, THEAN LEEWN B. CHU and MARTIN LAWRENCE B. CHU, the latter represented by his mother and guardian ad litem, petitioner CATALINA B. CHU, Petitioners, v. BENELDA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

Facts:

The petitioners spouses Manuel Chu, Sr. and Catalina Chu were the registered owners of five (5) parcels of land situated in Barrio Saguin, San Fernando, Pampanga. They executed a deed of sale on Sept. 30, 1986 with assumption of mortgage in favor of Trinidad N. Cunanan. It was made to appear in the deed of sale that the total consideration had been fully paid to enable Cunanan to have the parcels of land registered in her name so that she could mortgage the same to secure a loan and thereupon pay from the proceeds of the loan.

Their agreement, however, was that the ownership of the properties shall remain with the petitioners until full payment of the balance of the total purchase price.

Cunanan failed to pay the balance of the total purchase price to the petitioners. Without the knowledge of the petitioners, Cunanan sold the three (3) parcels of land to Cool Town Realty and Development Corporation, and the two (2) other parcels of land to the spouses Amado and Gloria Carlos. The spouses Carlos, in turn, sold these two (2) properties to the respondent Benelda Estate Development Corporation.

Petitioners commenced civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga against Trinidad N. Cunanan, Cool Town Realty and Development Corporation and the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. The petitioners amended their complaint to include respondent Benelda Estate Development Corporation as a defendant.

The respondent filed its answer with a motion to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint states no cause of action against respondent. It alleged that respondent corporation, through its officers, acted in good faith in buying the properties inasmuch as it exerted all efforts to verify the authenticity of the titles and that no defect was found.

After the petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the trial court rendered a decision denying the motion to dismiss.

The respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the trial court and dismissed the case as against the respondent on the ground of lack of cause of action and for failure of the petitioners to include the spouses Carlos as indispensable parties in the complaint.

Issues:

a) Whether the spouses Amado E. Carlos and Gloria A. Carlos (sellers of the subject titled parcels of land to respondent) are real and indispensable parties in the case at bar.

b) Whether or not the respondent corporation is an innocent purchaser for value.

Held:

A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. The test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.

In land title cases, the court held that a person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.

A person is considered in law as an innocent purchaser for value who is defined as one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such property and pays a full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. In this connection, Section 53 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides that:

The production of the owners duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.

Thus, a title procured through fraud and misrepresentation can still be the source of a completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

In a case for annulment of title, therefore, the complaint must allege that the purchaser was aware of the defect in the title so that the cause of action against him will be sufficient. Failure to do so, as in the case at bar, is fatal for the reason that the court cannot render a valid judgment against the purchaser who is presumed to be in good faith in acquiring the said property. Failure to prove, much less impute, bad faith on said purchaser who has acquired a title in his favor would make it impossible for the court to render a valid judgment thereon due to the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title.

What is important is that when respondent bought the subject properties, it was not aware of any defect in the covering certificates of title thereto at the time of such purchase. There is no allegation to the contrary in the amended complaint. Therefore, the title of respondent, being that of an innocent purchaser for value, remains valid.

By allowing the cancellation of their certificates of title and the issuance of new ones in lieu thereof in the name of Trinidad N. Cunanan despite alleged non-payment of the full purchase price for their subject two (2) parcels of land, the petitioners took the risk of losing their titles on the said properties inasmuch as the subject deed of sale with assumption of mortgage constitutes their consent and announcement to the whole world that Cunanan was indeed the legal owner of the properties by virtue of the said deed which is a public document.

The appellate court therefore was correct in entertaining the petition for the reason that the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it refused to dismiss the case against the respondent, despite the obvious insufficiency of the amended complaint against the corporation respondent.

To implead the respondent in the case at bar, absent an allegation of bad faith on its part, is to undermine a well-settled rule protecting innocent purchasers for value and the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of certificates of title issued under the Torrens System.

The petition is DENIED for lack of cause of action.