G.R. No. 165851 and G.R. No. 168875; February 2, 2011
Case Parties/Title:

G.R. No. 165851 : MANUEL CATINDIG, represented by his legal representative EMILIANO CATINDIG-RODRIGO, Petitioner, vs. AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 168875: SILVINO ROXAS, SR., represented by FELICISIMA VILLAFUERTE ROXAS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA IRENE VDA. DE MENESES, Respondents.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve a parcel of land in Malolos, Bulacan, known as the Masusuwi Fishpond, titled in the name of the late Rosendo Meneses, Sr. under TCT No. T-1749. Respondent Aurora Irene Vda. de Meneses, the surviving spouse and administratrix of the estate, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Sum of Money and Damages against petitioners Manuel Catindig and Silvino Roxas, Sr. before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. Respondent alleged that in September 1975, petitioner Catindig, her husband’s first cousin, deprived her of possession of the fishpond through fraud, undue influence, and intimidation, and subsequently leased it to petitioner Roxas. Despite verbal and written demands, petitioners refused to vacate.
In his Answer, petitioner Catindig claimed he bought the property from respondent and her children in January 1978, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale, and argued that respondent’s cause of action had prescribed. Petitioner Roxas asserted that respondent had no cause of action against him as Catindig was the lawful owner, and he had paid rentals in advance until 2001.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioners to vacate the fishpond, pay unearned income, attorney’s fees, and costs. The trial court found the Deed of Absolute Sale to be simulated and fictitious, lacking consideration, and incomplete (unfilled items, unwitnessed, unnotarized). It held that ownership never transferred to Catindig, so he had no right to lease it to Roxas, who could not claim good faith. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. In G.R. No. 165851 (Catindig’s Petition under Rule 45): Whether the CA erred in (a) not holding that respondent’s cause of action was for annulment of a voidable contract under Articles 1390 and 1391 of the Civil Code, which had prescribed; (b) not holding that the action based on alleged fraud/intimidation had not prescribed; and (c) disregarding the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
2. In G.R. No. 168875 (Roxas’s Petition under Rule 65): Whether the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner jointly and solidarily liable and in not considering him a lessee in good faith.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the CA decisions.
1. On the Nature of the Deed and Prescription ( G.R. No. 165851 ): The Court upheld the factual findings of the RTC and CA that the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated (void ab initio), not merely voidable. The deed was incomplete (with unfilled blanks, unwitnessed, and unnotarized), and respondent and her children never received the purported purchase price of PhP150,000.00. As a simulated or fictitious contract, it produced no legal effect. Consequently, an action for annulment under Articles 1390 and 1391 (which applies to voidable contracts) was inapplicable, and the four-year prescriptive period for such actions did not apply. Respondent’s action for recovery of possession, filed within the requisite period, was proper. The Court declined to re-evaluate these factual findings, as they are binding when affirmed by the CA.
2. On the Liability of Roxas and Good Faith (G.R. No. 168875): The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. Petitioner Roxas could not be considered a lessee in good faith. A Torrens title (TCT No. T-1749 in the name of Rosendo Meneses, Sr.) serves as constructive notice to the whole world of the true owner. Roxas relied on an incomplete and unnotarized Deed of Sale, which was insufficient to establish Catindig’s ownership. His failure to verify the title and the defective deed negated any claim of good faith. Therefore, he was properly held jointly and solidarily liable with Catindig for turning over possession and paying damages.
The Court also noted that Roxas’s Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was improper, as it raised questions of fact and law, not jurisdictional errors, and a Rule 45 petition was the correct remedy. However, it addressed the merits in the interest of justice, ultimately finding no merit in his claims.