Campos-Bautista v Pastrana
GR No. 175994, 8 December 2009
Del Castillo, J.:
FACTS:
This is the third case between essentially the same parties and the second among those cases to reach this Court on appeal, spanning a period of close to three decades.The first case arose from the refusal of Carlito Campos (Carlito), the father of herein petitioners, to surrender the possession of a fishpond he leased from respondents’ mother, Salvacion Buenvenida, despite the expiration of their contract of lease in 1980. Alleging that he was an agricultural lessee, Carlito filed an agrarian case against his lessor. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 14, found that Carlito was not an agricultural tenant. He then appealed to the CA and subsequently to this Court, but was unsuccessful. While the appeal in the Agrarian Case was pending before the CA, herein respondents filed the second case, Civil Case No. V-5417, against Carlito for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (Possession Case) involving the same fishpond subject of the earlier agrarian case. On November 27, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16, rendered a Decision finding Carlito to have retained possession of the fishpond notwithstanding the expiration of the contract of lease and ordering him to pay rentals, the value of the produce and damages to the herein respondents. The Decision became final and executory and a Writ of Execution was issued on February 7, 1995. Subsequently, on September 19, 1995, an Alias Writ of Execution was also issued. Both were returned unsatisfied as per Sheriff’s Return of Service dated November 14, 1995. When the respondents were about to levy these properties to satisfy the judgment in the Possession Case, they discovered that spouses Carlito and Margarita Campos transferred these lots to their children Rosemarie and Jesus Campos, herein petitioners, by virtue of Deeds of Absolute Sale dated October 18, 1985 and November 2, 1988. Specifically, spouses Campos sold the residential lots (Lots 3715-A and 3715-B-2), with a total area of 1,393 square meters, to their daughter Rosemarie for P7,000.00 and the agricultural lots (Lots 850 and 852) with a combined area of 7,972 square meters, to their son Jesus for P5,600.00. On February 18, 1997, respondents instituted the third case, Civil Case No.V7028 (Nullity of Sale Case), subject of this appeal, seeking to declare as null the aforesaid deeds of sale and the transfer certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. They alleged that the contracts of sale between spouses Campos and petitioners were simulated for the sole purpose of evading the levy of the abovementioned properties in satisfaction of a money judgment that might be rendered in the Possession Case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Deeds of Absolute Sale executed by spouses Campos to their children are rescissible contracts.
HELD:
No. The subject Deeds of Absolute Sale executed by the Spouses Campos to their children (herein petitioners) are absolutely simulated and fictitious. The CA correctly held that the assailed Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed when the Possession Case was already pending, evidently to avoid the properties subject thereof from being attached or levied upon by the respondents. While the sales in question transpired on October 18, 1985 and November 2, 1988, as reflected on the Deeds of Absolute Sale, the same were registered with the Registry of Deeds only on October 25, 1990 and September 25, 1990. The findings of the CA that petitioners failed to explain the reasons for the delay in the registration of the sale, leading the appellate court to conclude that the conveyances were made only in 1990 or sometime just before their actual registration and that the corresponding Deeds of Absolute Sale were antedated. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the supposed notary public before whom the deeds of sale were acknowledged had no valid notarial commission at the time of the notarization of said documents. Indeed, the Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed for the purpose of putting the lots in question beyond the reach of creditors. First, the Deeds of Absolute Sale were registered exactly one month apart from each other and about another one month from the time of the promulgation of the judgment in the Possession Case. The Deeds of Absolute Sale were antedated and that the same were executed when the Possession Case was already pending. Second, there was a wide disparity in the alleged consideration specified in the Deeds of Absolute Sale and the actual zonal valuation of the subject properties as per the BIR Certification. As correctly noted by the CA, the appraised value of the properties subject of this controversy may be lower at the time of the sale in 1990 but it could not go lower than P7,000.00 and P5,600.00. We likewise find the considerations involved in the assailed contracts of sale to be inadequate considering the market values presented in the tax declaration and in the BIR zonal valuation. It appears on record that the money judgment in the Possession Case has not been discharged with. Per Sheriff’s Service Return dated November 14, 1995, the Alias Writ of Execution and Sheriff’s Demand for Payment dated September 19, 1995 remain unsatisfied. Finally, spouses Campos continue to be in actual possession of the properties in question. The issuance of transfer certificates of title to petitioners did not vest upon them ownership of the properties. The fact that petitioners were able to secure titles in their names did not operate to vest upon them ownership over the subject properties. That act has never been recognized as a mode of acquiring ownership. The Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only confirms and records title already existing and vested. It does not protect a usurper from the true owner. It cannot be a shield for the commission of fraud. This issue had already been settled several decades ago when the Supreme Court held that "an action to rescind is founded upon and presupposes the existence of a contract". A contract which is null and void is no contract at all and hence could not be the subject of rescission. In the instant case, the Supreme Court have declared the Deeds of Absolute Sale to be fictitious and inexistent for being absolutely simulated contracts.
