G.R. No. 166858; January 18, 2012
SOLEDAD TUCKER, joined by her husband DELMER TUCKER, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MANUEL P. OPPUS AND MARIA PAZ M. OPPUS, and CARLOS OPPUS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Soledad and Delmer Tucker filed an action for a Sum of Money with Damages and Preliminary Attachment against respondent Spouses Manuel and Maria Paz Oppus and their son, Carlos Oppus. The Tuckers alleged that in January 1987, Maria Paz Oppus, accompanied by Acela Peralta, obtained a loan of ₱400,000.00 from Soledad Tucker, secured by a mortgage on a house and lot covered by TCT No. N-120581. Maria Paz represented she had a Special Power of Attorney from her husband and delivered an Agreement, a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 13, 1988, and the owner’s copy of the title. The loan, payable in six months with 4% monthly compounded interest, was renewed twice. After the second renewal, the Oppuses failed to pay interest for July to September 1989. Soledad Tucker then discovered the Oppuses no longer resided on the property, which was occupied by Spouses Diomedes and Melinda Liganor, who had executed a Contract to Sell (March 25, 1988) and a Deed of Absolute Sale (April 7, 1989) with the Oppuses. When Soledad Tucker tried to register her Deed of Absolute Sale, she found an annotation of an Affidavit of Loss of the title. After securing the cancellation of this annotation and registering her deed, TCT No. 172138 was issued in her name. The Tuckers subsequently filed a suit for Reconveyance/Quieting of Title against the Liganors, who in turn filed to annul TCT No. 172138. The consolidated cases resulted in a 1995 RTC decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Tuckers null and void (due to being a pactum commisorium) and ordering reconveyance to the Liganors.
As the Oppuses failed to pay their loan, the Tuckers filed the present suit on November 9, 1995, seeking payment of the principal, interest, and damages. They also alleged that between 1989 and 1993, the Oppuses bought a house and lot from their nephew Philip Gamboa but, in fraud of creditors, had it registered in their son Carlos’s name (TCT No. 241862). An Amended Complaint prayed for the declaration of nullity of that sale to Carlos and that the property be held answerable for the Oppuses’ debt. The Oppuses and Carlos moved to dismiss, citing no cause of action against Carlos and splitting a single cause of action.
The RTC, in a Decision dated August 6, 2001, ordered the Spouses Oppus to pay the Tuckers the ₱400,000.00 principal with 12% legal interest per annum from the filing of the complaint, actual damages (real estate taxes), moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. However, it dismissed the case against Carlos Oppus for lack of merit. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Oppuses’ appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief, making the RTC judgment final as to them. The Tuckers appealed, assigning errors that the trial court erred in dismissing the case against Carlos without clearly stating the facts and law, and in not ruling that the sale to Carlos was documented in his name to defraud the Tuckers as creditors of the Oppuses.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated July 28, 2004, denied and dismissed the Tuckers’ appeal. It held the trial court complied with the constitutional requirement to state facts and law, as it mentioned the conflicting testimonies of Soledad Tucker and the Oppuses and gave credence to the Oppuses’ version. The CA found no merit in the Tuckers’ claim of fraudulent transfer.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals considered the evidence submitted by petitioners in affirming the trial court’s decision; and (2) Whether the evidence on record supports the decision of the Court of Appeals. Specifically, the issue revolves around whether the sale of the property from Philip Gamboa to Carlos Oppus was fraudulent and intended to defeat the claims of the Oppuses’ creditors, particularly the Tuckers.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no substantial reason to overturn the CA’s findings. It held that the CA did not abandon its duty to consider the evidence. The CA noted that the trial court had mentioned the testimony of Soledad Tucker and the countervailing testimonies of Maria Paz and Carlos Oppus, and had given credence to the Oppuses’ testimonies. The Supreme Court emphasized that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding and conclusive. It found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the petitioners failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the transfer to Carlos was fraudulent. The evidence on record was deemed to support the conclusion that there was no fraud in the registration of the property in Carlos Oppus’s name. Therefore, the dismissal of the case against Carlos Oppus was upheld.