ERNESTO
V. YU and ELSIE O. YU, Petitioners,
vs.BALTAZAR PACLEB, Respondent.
NATURE OF THE CASE: This petition was filed to set aside
the decision made by the Court of Appeals in ruling that the respondent has the
better right over the subject property and is the true owner thereof.
FACTS: Respondent Baltazar Pacleb and his late
first wife, Angelita Chan, are the owners of parcel of land in Langcaan,
Dasmarinas, Cavite covered by a transfer certificate of title.
Sometime in September 1992, Ruperto Javier
offered the said land to spouses Ernesto and Elsie Yu. Javier claimed that he
purchased the property from Rebecca Del Rosario who bought it from spouses
Baltazar Pacleb and Angelita Chan. Despite the alleged sales being
unregistered, the spouses Yu accepted the offer and made a down payment and
entered into an Agreement for the sale of the property. After giving the
amount, the spouses Yu discovered that a portion of the property was tenanted
by Ramon Pacleb, one of the respondent's sons. The petitioners then demanded
the cancellation of their agreement and the return of their initial payment.
Javier then made arrangements with Ramon to
vacate the property and to pay Ramon for his disturbance compensation. With
that, Javier and the spouses YU proceeded to enter into a Contract to Sell.
But, Javier failed to comply with his obligations. So, on April 23, 1993, the
petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint for specific performance and damages
against Javier to compel Javier to deliver to them ownership and possession,
and the title to the property.
However, Javier did not appear in
the proceedings and was declared in default, so, the trial court rendered a
decision in favor of the petitioners. The decision and its Certificate of
Finality were annotated in the title of the property.
On March 10, 1995, the petitioners
and Ramon and his wife entered into an agreement that the spouses will pay
Ramon P500,000 in exchange for the waiver of his tenancy rights over the land.
On October 12, 1995, the respondent
filed a Complaint for annulment of deed of sale and other documents arising
from it claiming that the deed of sale supposedly executed between him and his
late first wife and Del Rosario was spurious and the signatures were forged. He
also moved for the summons to be served upon Del Rosario via publication since
her address cannot be found, but was denied. So, respondent moved to dismiss
the case which was granted by the trial court.
On November 23, 1995, the
petitioners filed an action for forcible entry against the respondent with the
MTC. They contend that they had prior physical possession over the property
through their trustee Ramon Pacleb, until the respondent ousted them in
September 1995. The MTC and the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the
Court of Appeals set aside the decisions of the lower courts. The CA decided
that it was the respondent who had prior physical possession of the property
which was shown by his payment of real estate taxes thereon.
On May 29, 1996, respondent filed an
instant case for removal of cloud from title with damages alleging that the
deed of sale between him and his late first wife could not have been executed
on the date appearing thereon. He claimed that he was residing in the US at
that time and that his late first wife died 20 years ago.
On May 28, 1997, while the case was
still pending, the respondent died, hence, he was substituted by his surviving
spouse and some of his children.
On December 27, 2002, the
respondent's case was dismissed and the petitioners were held to be purchasers
in good faith. The trial court also held that the petitioners' action for
specific performance against Javier was already final, and the trial court also
ordered the respondents' heirs and all other persons claiming under them to surrender the possession of the
property to the petitioners. Upon appeal by the respondent, the CA reversed the
trial court's decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the action for specific performance
filed by the petitioners against Javier is not merely an action in personam,
but an action in rem, and is thus, conclusive and binding upon respondent even
if he was not a party thereto since it involves a question of possession and
ownership of real property.
HELD: The action for specific performance and damages filed by
petitioners against Javier to compel him to perform his obligations under their
Contract to Sell is an action in personam.
The purpose of the action is to compel Javier
to accept the full payment of the purchase price, and to execute a deed of
absolute sale over the property in favor of the petitioners. The obligations of
Javier mentioned attach to Javier alone and do not burden the property. Thus,
the complaint filed by the petitioners is an action in personam and is binding
only upon the parties properly impleaded therein and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. So, the action cannot bind the respondent since he was
not a party therein and considering the fact that his signature and that of his
late first wife were forged in the deed of sale. Hence, the petition is denied
and the Court affirms the ruling of the CA finding the respondent having a
better right over the property as the true owner thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment