GR 176448; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176448 ; July 28, 2008
JOSE S. DAILISAN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE HEIRS OF THE LATE FEDERICO PUGAO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Dailisan filed a complaint for partition before the RTC, alleging he purchased one-fourth of a lot from Federico Pugao. He claimed that after an initial agreement and installment payments, they executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage to secure a loan, which petitioner later paid. Subsequently, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on February 5, 1979. Petitioner demanded partition, but Pugao refused and even sent a notice of eviction. Pugao, in his defense, admitted the mortgage but claimed the loan was paid and the mortgage cancelled. He denied voluntarily executing the deed of absolute sale, alleging it was procured through fraud when he was seriously ill in 1992. Pugao died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his heirs.
The RTC ruled in favor of Dailisan, ordering partition and awarding damages, finding the respondents failed to disprove the deed’s validity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that petitioner should have filed an action for specific performance, which had already prescribed. It further ruled the sale was invalid due to alleged lack of consent from Pugao and absence of proof of payment of the purchase price.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale invalid and in dismissing the action for partition on the grounds of prescription and improper remedy.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that an action for partition was the proper remedy. Petitioner, claiming co-ownership by virtue of the deed of sale, correctly sought to segregate his definite portion from the whole property. The action is imprescriptible as long as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized.
On the validity of the sale, the Court ruled that the deed, being a public document, enjoys the presumption of regularity and due execution. The burden to prove its invalidity, such as through vitiation of consent, lay with the respondents. They failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption. Federico Pugao’s bare allegation of fraud, unsupported by corroborative evidence and raised only belatedly, was insufficient. The Court also found that the consideration was established through the deed itself and the surrounding circumstances, including the prior mortgage transaction. Consequently, the deed was valid and transmitted ownership, making the action for partition meritorious.