G.R. No. 184193 March 29, 2010
Segundo G. Dimaranan, Petitioner, vs. Heirs of Spouses Hermogenes Arayata and Flaviana Arayata, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, heirs of Spouses Hermogenes and Flaviana Arayata, claimed that on September 5, 1955, the spouses purchased a 28,496-square meter lot in Trece Martires City, Cavite, from petitioner Segundo Dimaranan through a notarized “Bilihan ng Lupa.” As a result, TCT No. T-8672 in Dimaranan’s name was cancelled, and TCT No. T-8718 (later reconstituted as TCT No. (T-8718) RT-7973) was issued to the spouses. In 1980, respondents discovered that Dimaranan had secured TCT No. T-115904 covering the same property. They filed a case, and on December 29, 1981, the trial court ordered the cancellation of Dimaranan’s title, but the writ of execution was not enforced. In December 1996, respondents applied for a cockpit franchise, and Dimaranan objected, presenting a reconstituted title, TCT No. (T-115904) RT-004, which he obtained via a petition granted on April 1, 1996, just 14 days after filing and without publication. Respondents then filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages. Dimaranan countered that he purchased the property from the government in 1954, acquired title only on December 2, 1980, and alleged the “Bilihan ng Lupa” was spurious and the respondents’ title fake. He also argued the 1981 decision was void for lack of summons. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled for respondents, declaring Dimaranan’s title void and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed but deleted the damages awards.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which declared Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-115904) RT-004 in the name of petitioner Segundo Dimaranan null and void, upheld the validity of the sale to the Spouses Arayata, and found that Dimaranan obtained his reconstituted title through fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s findings, which affirmed the RTC’s judgment. The Court of Appeals correctly sustained the trial court’s findings that the sale between Dimaranan and the Spouses Arayata was valid and binding, as Dimaranan failed to substantiate his claim of forgery. The appellate court also correctly found that Dimaranan obtained his reconstituted title through fraudulent means, as the reconstitution was granted in an unusually short period (14 days) without the required publication and despite his knowledge of the prior court order cancelling his original title. The Court upheld the deletion of moral damages and attorney’s fees for lack of substantiation. The issues raised by petitioner were a mere rehash of arguments already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.