Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83944:58777&catid=1590&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:40:48+00:00

Document:
FLORENTINO W. LEONG AND ELENA LEONG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. EDNA C. SEE, Respondent.
This petition originated from two civil complaints involving the sale of a parcel of land in favor of respondent Edna C. See (Edna). Before us is a petition for review3 assailing the Court of Appeals’ (a) May 19, 2010 decision affirming in toto the trial court's July 9, 2008 decision granting Edna possession and ownership over the land upon finding her to be a buyer in good faith and for value, and (b) August 25, 2010 resolution denying reconsideration.
In response, Elena alleged the title’s legal infirmity for lack of Florentino's conformity to its sale.25 She argued that Carmelita's non-compliance with the proviso in the property agreement — that the Quiapo property “may not be alienated without Florentino first obtaining a clean title over the Malabon property”26 — annulled the transfer to Edna.
On April 23, 1997, Florentino filed a complaint27 for declaration of nullity of contract, title, and damages against Carmelita Leong, Edna C. See, and the Manila Register of Deeds, alleging that the sale was without his consent.28 The two cases were consolidated.
(c) Defendant Carmelita Leong is ordered to pay plaintiff, Florentino Leong his one-half (1/2) or P2 Million with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of conveyance on November 12, 1996, up to the finality of this Decision; the sum of PhP 50,000.00 as moral damages; the sum of PhP 50,000.00 for attorney’s fees; and, the costs of the suit.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision31 dated May 19, 2010, affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision.32 It likewise denied reconsideration.
Thus, this petition for review was filed.
The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent Edna C. See is a buyer in good faith and for value.
First. Liens, claims or rights arising or existing under the laws and Constitution of the Philippines which are not by law required to appear of record in the Registry of Deeds in order to be valid against subsequent purchasers or encumbrances of record.
By her overt acts, Edna See with her father verified the authenticity of Carmelita’s land title at the Registry of Deeds of Manila. There was no annotation on the same thus deemed a clean title (page 19, TSN, 12 January 2005). Also, she relied on the duly executed and notarized Certificate of Authority issued by the State of Illinois and Certificate of Authentication issued by the Consul of the Republic of the Philippines for Illinois in support to the Waiver of Interest incorporated in the Deed of Absolute Sale presented to her by Carmelita (Exhibit 2). Examination of the assailed Certificate of Authority shows that it is valid and regular on its face. It contains a notarial seal. . . .
Generally, factual findings of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon this court.66 No cogent reason exists to overturn the findings of both lower courts.
The question of whether Florentino and Carmelita were already American citizens at the time of the property’s sale to Edna — thus no longer covered by our laws relating to family rights and duties77 — involves a factual question outside the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari.
In any event, respondent exerted due diligence when she ascertained the authenticity of the documents attached to the deed of sale such as the marital settlement agreement with Florentino’s waiver of interest over the property. She did not rely solely on the title. She even went to the Registry of Deeds to verify the authenticity of the title.78 These further inquiries were considered by the lower courts in finding respondent to be an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value.
Thus, respondent had every right to pursue her claims as she did.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 92289 is AFFIRMED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,* and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1888 dated November 28, 2014.
1Sps. Villamil v. Villarosa, 602 Phil. 932, 940 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing Sigaya v. Mayuga, 504 Phil. 600, 611 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division], citing Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 331 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Sps. Uy v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 788, 798 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Third Division]; Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 15, 24 (2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].
2PNB v. Heirs of Estanislao and Deogracias Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 794 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division], citing Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals, 418 Phil. 451, 456 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
3 This petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
14 Id. at 162. The RTC decision states the date as November 12, 1996.
15 Id. at 12 and 33.
22 This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-82757.
23Rollo, pp. 12 and 33.
27 This case was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-83036.
29 CA rollo, pp. 24–27. The decision was penned by Presiding Judge Antonio I. De Castro of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 3.
31Rollo, pp. 31–38. The decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92289, was penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Rodil V. Zalameda of the Ninth Division.
36 CIVIL CODE, art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
37 CIVIL CODE, art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
38 FAMILY CODE, art. 87. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the spouse during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
39 FAMILY CODE, art. 134. In the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlements, the separation of property between spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order. Such judicial separation of property may either be voluntary or for sufficient cause.
44 G.R. No. 165803, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 562 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
57Casimiro Development Corporation v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 676, 686 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; Republic of the Philippines v. Guerrero, 520 Phil. 296, 307 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, Second Division], citing J. Barredo, concurring opinion, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 183 Phil. 426, 434 (1979) [Per J. Aquino, Second Division].
58 Casimiro Development Corporation v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 676, 689 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 48, 60 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division]; Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90380, September 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 550, 558 [Per J. Gancayco, First Division]; Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, 244 Phil. 733, 739 (1988) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division]; Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, 243 Phil. 888, 898 (1988) [Per J. Cortes, Third Division]; Director of Lands v. Abad, 61 Phil. 479, 487 (1935) [Per J. Goddard, En Banc]; Quimson v. Suarez, 45 Phil. 901, 906 (1924) [Per J. Ostrand, En Banc].
59 Pres. Decree No. 1529 (1978), sec. 44.
60 Sps. Villamil v. Villarosa, 602 Phil. 932, 941 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing Sps. Domingo v. Reed, 513 Phil. 339, 353 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
61 Id., citing Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 410 (2003) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
62 See Oliver E. Williamson, Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations, 22 Journal of Law and Economics 233, 239–242 (1979).
63Rollo, pp. 34 and 164.
65 Sps. Villamil v. Villarosa, 602 Phil. 932, 940 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]. See also Rules of Court, rule 45, sec. 1.
66Sps. Villamil v. Villarosa, 602 Phil. 932, 940 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citing Sigaya v. Mayuga, 504 Phil. 600, 611 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division], citing Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 331 (2002) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Sps. Uy v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 788, 798 (2001) [Per J. Melo, Second Division]; Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 15, 24 (2000) [Per J. Buena, Second Division].
74 CA rollo, p. 62.
76 Id. CIVIL CODE, art. 1308. The contracts must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them.
77 See CIVIL CODE, art. 15.
80PNB v. Heirs of Estanislao and Deogracias Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 794 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division], citing Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals, 418 Phil. 451, 456 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
82 CIVIL CODE, art. 428.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 art. 3
 art. 15
 art. 87
 art. 134
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1308
 art. 15
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 428