GR L 24606; (August, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24606 August 31, 1968
JOSE T. JAMANDRE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA JAMANDRE-YANSON, respondents.
FACTS
Maria Jamandre-Yanson filed a complaint against her brother, Jose T. Jamandre, and their mother, intervenor Magdalena Tejico. She sought to recover possession of the “Marivic” store and to annul a deed of sale (Exhibit Y) covering her house and lot. Maria alleged that she owned and operated the store, which was registered in her name, and that she was forced to abandon it due to family trouble. She further claimed that Jose procured her signature on Exhibit Y through fraud, misrepresenting it as a contract for the sale of her truck when it was actually for the sale of her house and lot. Jose and Magdalena countered that the store’s capital belonged to them, with Maria merely managing it, and that the deed of sale for the house and lot was genuine and supported by consideration. The trial court ruled in favor of Maria, declaring Exhibit Y null and void and ordering the defendants to deliver the properties to her. On appeal, the Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court, upholding the deed of sale and declaring Jose and Magdalena as the owners of the store. However, upon Maria’s motion for reconsideration, to which were annexed conflicting affidavits of retraction from Magdalena, the Court of Appeals set aside its first decision. After a re-examination of the evidence, it promulgated a new resolution declaring Maria the absolute owner of both the store and the house and lot, annulling Exhibit Y as fictitious and without consideration, and ordering Jose to pay attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
The core issues were the ownership of the “Marivic” store and the validity of the deed of sale (Exhibit Y) for the house and lot.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Court of Appeals. It held that the Court of Appeals did not err in re-examining the evidence, as the conflicting affidavits merely prompted a more careful review, and its subsequent factual findings are generally conclusive. On the merits, the Court found that the evidence established Maria’s ownership of the store, as it was registered in her name and she had managed it with her own funds. Regarding Exhibit Y, the evidence demonstrated that Maria’s signature was obtained through fraud and deceit, and the contract was fictitious and without consideration, rendering it null and void ab initio. Therefore, Maria was declared the exclusive and absolute owner of both properties.