G.R. No. 161382 - MANUEL DACUBA, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, EVANGELINE BRAGAIS PURI, JANE BRAGAIS, EDMUNDO BRAGAIS, BENJAMIN BRAGAIS, REBECCA B. TUPOS, NORMA B. ELAURZA, RAUL BRAGAIS, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NORLY M. BRAGAIS.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: 1) Declaring the Deed of Sale (Exhibit E) as null and void and as cancelled. 2) Declaring TCT No. 9626 issued in the name of Manuel Dacuba as null and void also the same having been issued on the basis of a falsified deed of sale. Consequently, the Registrar of Deeds of Camarines Sur is hereby directed to cancel the same and all the other copies thereof and that Original Certificate of Title No. RP-7612 (8095) in the name of Fermina Morandarte be revived and/or reinstated in the registration book together with the owners duplicate certificate which the registrar of deeds should deliver only to the duly appointed judicial administrator of the estate of Fermina Morandarte ; 3) Declaring the sale by Orlando Bragais of his share to the land in question in favor of the defendant as valid and effective; consequently, the heirs of Orlando Bragais are hereby directed to execute in favor of Manuel Dacuba the deed of conveyance based on the approved deed of partition and approved technical description of the subdivided lots of Lot No. 1776, or, if physical division of the land in question into small lots be impracticable, for the plaintiffs to exercise the rights granted them under Articles 1088 and 1620 of the New Civil Code by paying/reimbursing the defendant the amount of P5,000.00; 4) Directing the defendant to turn over to the plaintiffs the possession of the land in question, except the 1/9th portion thereof which Orlando Bragais has already sold to the former, immediately after the property is partitioned by the legal heirs of Fermina Morandarte; and 5) For the defendant to pay costs. The plaintiffs claim for actual, and moral damages, as well as attorneys fees and litigation expenses cannot be awarded for lack of merit. On the other hand, defendants compulsory counterclaim for lack of legal and factual basis is also dismissed. SO ORDERED.