Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84306:60169&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:34:54+00:00

Document:
JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. NUEGA, Respondent.
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated May 14, 2010 and the Resolution2 dated July 21, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 70235, which affirmed with modification the assailed Decision3 dated February 14, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City, Branch 273, in Civil Case No. 96-274-MK.
Respondent Shirley B. Nuega (Shirley) was married to Rogelio A. Nuega (Rogelio) on September 1, 1990.4 Sometime in 1988 when the parties were still engaged, Shirley was working as a domestic helper in Israel. Upon the request of Rogelio, Shirley sent him money5 for the purchase of a residential lot in Marikina where they had planned to eventually build their home. Rogelio was then also working abroad as a seaman. The following year, or on September 13, 1989, Rogelio purchased the subject house and lot for One Hundred Two Thousand Pesos (P102,000.00)6 from Rodeanna Realty Corporation. The subject property has an aggregate area of one hundred eleven square meters (111 sq. m.) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-133844.7 Shirley claims that upon her arrival in the Philippines sometime in 1989, she settled the balance for the equity over the subject property with the developer through SSS8 financing. She likewise paid for the succeeding monthly amortizations. On October 19, 1989, TCT No. 1719639 over the subject property was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Marikina, Rizal solely under the name of Rogelio.
On September 1, 1990, Shirley and Rogelio got married and lived in the subject property. The following year, Shirley returned to Israel for work. While overseas, she received information that Rogelio had brought home another woman, Monica Escobar, into the family home. She also learned, and was able to confirm upon her return to the Philippines in May 1992, that Rogelio had been introducing Escobar as his wife.
In June 1992, Shirley filed two cases against Rogelio: one for Concubinage before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal, and another for Legal Separation and Liquidation of Property before the RTC of Pasig City. Shirley later withdrew the complaint for legal separation and liquidation of property, but re-filed10 the same on January 29, 1993. In between the filing of these cases, Shirley learned that Rogelio had the intention of selling the subject property. Shirley then advised the interested buyers - one of whom was their neighbor and petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza (petitioner) - of the existence of the cases that she had filed against Rogelio and cautioned them against buying the subject property until the cases are closed and terminated. Nonetheless, under a Deed of Absolute Sale11 dated December 29, 1992, Rogelio sold the subject property to petitioner without Shirley's consent in the amount of Three Hundred Eighty Thousand Pesos (P380,000.00), including petitioner's undertaking to assume the existing mortgage on the property with the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation and to pay the real property taxes due thereon.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the instant petition for legal separation between the subject spouses with all its legal effects as provided for in Art. 63 of the Family Code. Their community property is consequently dissolved and must be liquidated in accordance with Art. 102 of the New Family Code. The respondent is thus hereby enjoined from selling, encumbering or in any way disposing or alienating any of their community property including the subject house and lot before the required liquidation. Moreover, he, being the guilty spouse, must forfeit the net profits of the community property in favor of the petitioner who is the innocent spouse pursuant to Art. 43 of the aforesaid law. Finally, in the light of the claim of ownership by the present occupants who have not been impleaded in the instant case, a separate action must be instituted by the petitioner against the alleged buyer or buyers thereof to determine their respective rights thereon.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila and the National Statistics Office (NSO), sta. Mesa, Manila.
to pay plaintiff Shirley Nuega attorney's fees in the sum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
For lack of merit, defendant's counterclaim is hereby DENIED.
WHEREFORE, subject to the foregoing disquisition, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 14 February 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 273 in Civil Case No. 96-274-MK is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 29 December 1992 is hereby declared null and void in its entirety, and defendant-appellant Josefina V. Nobleza is ordered to reconvey the entire subject property to plaintiff-appellee Shirley B. Nuega and defendant Rogelio Nuega, without prejudice to said defendant-appellant's right to recover from defendant Rogelio whatever amount she paid for the subject property. Costs against defendant-appellant Nobleza.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BY SUSTAINING THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH.
Petitioner is not a buyer in good faith.
A buyer cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value by merely relying on the TCT of the seller while ignoring all the other surrounding circumstances relevant to the sale.
In the present case, the records show that Arrofo failed to act as a prudent buyer. True, she asked her daughter to verify from the Register of Deeds if the title to the Property is free from encumbrances. However, Arrofo admitted that the Property is within the neighborhood and that she conducted an ocular inspection of the Property. She saw the house constructed on the Property. Yet, Arrofo did not even bother to inquire about the occupants of the house. Arrofo also admitted that at the time of the sale, Myrna was occupying a room in her house as her lessee. The fact that Myrna was renting a room from Arrofo yet selling a land with a house should have put Arrofo on her guard. She knew that Myrna was not occupying the house. Hence, someone else must have been occupying the house.
An analogous situation obtains in the case at bar.
The TCT of the subject property states that its sole owner is the seller Rogelio himself who was therein also described as "single". However, as in the cases of Spouses Raymundo and Arrofo, there are circumstances critical to the case at bar which convince us to affirm the ruling of both the appellate and lower courts that herein petitioner is not a buyer in good faith.
First, petitioner's sister Hilda Bautista, at the time of the sale, was residing near Rogelio and Shirley's house - the subject property - in Ladislao Diwa Village, Marikina City. Had petitioner been more prudent as a buyer, she could have easily checked if Rogelio had the capacity to dispose of the subject property. Had petitioner been more vigilant, she could have inquired with such facility - considering that her sister lived in the same Ladislao Diwa Village where the property is located - if there was any person other than Rogelio who had any right or interest in the subject property.
Second, issues surrounding the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale also pose question on the claim of petitioner that she is a buyer in good faith. As correctly observed by both courts a quo, the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and dated on December 29, 1992. However, the Community Tax Certificates of the witnesses therein were dated January 2 and 20, 1993.31 While this irregularity is not a direct proof of the intent of the parties to the sale to make it appear that the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on December 29, 1992 - or before Shirley filed the petition for legal separation on January 29, 1993 - it is circumstantial and relevant to the claim of herein petitioner as an innocent purchaser for value.
It puzzles the Court that while petitioner has repeatedly claimed that Rogelio is "single" under TCT No. 171963 and Tax Declaration Nos. D-012-04723 and D-012-04724, his civil status as seller was not stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale - further creating a cloud on the claim of petitioner that she is an innocent purchaser for value.
As to the second issue, we rule that the appellate court did not err when it modified the decision of the trial court and declared that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992 is void in its entirety.
However, the nullity of the sale made by Rogelio is not premised on proof of respondent's financial contribution in the purchase of the subject property. Actual contribution is not relevant in determining whether a piece of property is community property for the law itself defines what constitutes community property.
When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife becomes joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each spouse brings into the marriage, and those acquired during the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code) form the common mass of the couple's properties. And when the couple's marriage or community is dissolved, that common mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one may have originally owned.
Since the subject property does not fall under any of the exclusions provided in Article 92, it therefore forms part of the absolute community property of Shirley and Rogelio. Regardless of their respective contribution to its acquisition before their marriage, and despite the fact that only Rogelio's name appears in the TCT as owner, the property is owned jointly by the spouses Shirley and Rogelio.
Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for a proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 14, 2010 and July 21, 2010, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 70235 are AFFIRMED.
1Rollo, pp. 30-52. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
2Id. at 54-55. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
3 Id. at 95-103. Penned by Judge Olga Palanca Enriquez.
4 Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
5 Respondent initially sent US$3,500.00 and added P50,000.00 or a total of P150.000.00, rollo, pp. 33, 96.
6 TSN, December 9, 1997, pp. 29 & 34.
7 Deed of Absolute Sale, records, pp. 309 & 363.
10 Docketed as JDRC Case No. 2510, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 18-20.
12 Rendered in JDRC Case No. 2510, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 21-24.
15 Entitled "Shirley B. Nuega v. Josefina V. Nobleza and Rogelio Nuega" and docketed] as Civil Case No. 96-274-MK, rollo, pp. 84-87; records, pp. 24-27.
19Spouses Raymundo v. Spouses Bandong, 553 Phil. 480, 495 (2007), citing Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation, 514 Phil. 605, 613 (2005). Emphasis supplied.
20 Id., citing Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 410 (2003).
21Sia Tio, et al. v. Abayata, et al., 578 Phil. 731, 747 (2008).
22PNB v. Heirs of Estanislao and Deogracias Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 796-797 (2006).
30Palon v. Nino, 405 Phil. 670, 682 (2001).
33 Folder of Exhibits, p. 24.
34 G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 642, 667. Emphasis and underscoring omitted.
36Rollo, pp. 45-46. Citations omitted. Underscoring in the original.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 Art. 63
 Art. 102
 Art. 43
 V. 

Art. 96
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.