G.R. No. 241774, September 25, 2019
FRANCISCO C. DELGADO, REPRESENTED BY JOSE MARI DELGADO, PETITIONER, VS. GQ REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., MA. ROSARIO G. MEYER, KARL KURT EDWARD MEYER, AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco C. Delgado (petitioner Francisco), represented by his son Jose Mari Delgado, filed a Complaint for Reconveyance, Declaration of Nullity of Sale, and Damages against respondents. He claimed an implied trust over a condominium unit (subject property) registered under respondent GQ Realty Development Corporation (GQ Realty). Petitioner Francisco alleged he purchased the property using his own funds to help his then-partner, Victoria Quirino Gonzales (Victoria), by having the naked title placed under GQ Realty, a corporation owned by Victoria and her children from a prior marriage, to attract investors. He lived in the property. Petitioner Francisco and Victoria later married on June 20, 1987. Before their marriage, they executed an Ante-Nuptial Agreement dated June 15, 1987, stipulating complete separation of properties and stating that neither would acquire any interest in the properties of the other. Victoria passed away in 2006. Petitioner Francisco later discovered the subject property had been transferred from GQ Realty to respondent Ma. Rosario G. Meyer (Victoria’s daughter). Respondents countered that Victoria purchased the property using her own funds for respondent Rosario, but due to its unsuitability for a paraplegic, Victoria kept it and registered it under GQ Realty, her family holding company. They argued petitioner Francisco’s claim was barred by prescription and waived by the Ante-Nuptial Agreement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Complaint based on these affirmative defenses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the Complaint based on the affirmative defenses of prescription and waiver/abandonment/extinguishment of claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the Complaint was correctly dismissed based on the affirmative defense that the claim had been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by virtue of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement. The Court found that, hypothetically admitting the material allegations of the Complaint, petitioner Francisco expressly agreed in the Ante-Nuptial Agreement that all of Victoria’s properties would remain her absolute property and that he would not acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, over them. By executing this agreement after the alleged purchase of the property, petitioner Francisco effectively waived any implied trust claim over the subject property, which he alleged was held for his benefit but registered under Victoria’s corporation. The Court noted that the Ante-Nuptial Agreement was a public document with a presumption of regularity, and petitioner Francisco failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption or to prove the agreement was simulated. The Court did not find it necessary to rule definitively on the issue of prescription.