G.R. No. 194548 , February 10, 2016
JUANA VDA. DE ROJALES, Substituted by her heirs, represented by CELERINA ROJALES-SEVILLA, Petitioner, vs. MARCELINO DIME, Substituted by his heirs, represented by BONIFACIA MANIBAY, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Juana Vda. de Rojales was the registered owner of Lot 4-A. Respondent Marcelino Dime filed a petition for consolidation of ownership, alleging that on May 16, 1999, petitioner conveyed the lot to him under a pacto de retro sale for P2,502,932.10, with a right to repurchase within nine months from March 24, 1999, which she failed to exercise. Petitioner denied executing the pacto de retro sale, claimed the document was falsified, and filed criminal charges. During pre-trial, the parties agreed petitioner was the registered owner and had mortgaged the property. The RTC ordered an NBI examination of the thumbmark on the contract. The NBI report concluded the questioned thumbmark and petitioner’s specimen were from the same person. Respondent died and was substituted by his compulsory heirs. These heirs later filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss, stating that Rufina Villamin (respondent’s common-law wife) provided the purchase funds, and a ruling for respondent would unjustly enrich the heirs and prejudice Villamin. The RTC initially dismissed the case with prejudice, citing the absence of indispensable party Villamin. Respondent’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging the heirs were tricked into signing the dismissal motion. The judge inhibited himself. A new judge set aside the dismissal order and, after further proceedings, ruled in favor of petitioner, dismissing the case for lack of merit, primarily on the ground that it was not filed by the indispensable party (Villamin) and giving credence to the heirs’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ordered consolidation of ownership in favor of respondent, and ruled Villamin was not an indispensable party. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the appeal despite the heirs’ manifestation to dismiss the case.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the lack of verification of the respondents in the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the RTC.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing consolidation of title despite the heirs’ admission it would constitute unjust enrichment.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of the pacto de retro sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition devoid of merit.
1. & 3. On the issues concerning the heirs’ motion to dismiss and unjust enrichment: While a client has exclusive control over the subject matter and may settle, the Court found the rationale for the filing of the motion to dismiss by the heirs was not sufficiently established in the provided text. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the person who provided the funds (Villamin) is not an indispensable party in an action for consolidation of title filed by the vendee a retro (Dime) in whose favor the property was sold.
2. On the issue of verification: The provided text does not contain a complete ruling on this specific procedural issue.
4. On the presumption of regularity: The provided text references rules on evidence of written agreements but does not contain the Court’s complete final analysis on this issue. The NBI report had concluded the thumbmark on the pacto de retro contract was petitioner’s.
*(Based strictly on the provided text, the ruling section is incomplete as the excerpt cuts off. The final disposition of the Supreme Court is not contained in the provided text.)*