G.R. No. 131641 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NAPOLEON V. DILAG, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC-CAVITE, BRANCH XV, ROMEO P. NAZARENO AND ELIZA NAZARENO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Natividad executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of spouses Romeo and Eliza over the lot covered by TCT No. 51798. The sale, however, was simulated because Natividad did not receive any consideration therefor. The cinema was completed in November 1981 but despite several demands by Natividad, spouses Romeo and Eliza failed and refused to return Natividads title to the property; instead, they had the property transferred in their name. Consequently, TCT No. T-118276 was issued in their name in lieu of TCT No. 51798. Spouses Romeo and Eliza denied that the property belonged to Natividad. On the contrary, they averred that it originally formed part of the estate of the late Maximino Nazareno, Jr., father of Romeo and Natividad. According to Romeo, the property was his share in their inheritance. As regards the deed of sale, he explained that it was only resorted to for the purpose of carrying out and implementing the transfer of the property forming part of the estate of Maximino Nazareno Jr., the distribution of which was entrusted to Natividad. The trial court found for the spouses Romeo and Eliza and ruled that although the Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated, the same could be treated as an adjudication and a conveyance to Romeo of his share in the estate of his father. But the Court of Appeals ruled otherwise. It found that during pre-trial, the parties stipulated that the Deed of Absolute Sale between Natividad and spouses Romeo and Eliza was simulated as there was in fact no money consideration. Consequently, the burden of proof was shifted to Romeo to prove that the transfer was in reality a conveyance of his share in the estate of his father. But during trial, Romeo failed to prove this so-called conveyance of his share. On the other hand, Natividad satisfactorily showed that the property was previously sold to her by their late father. Romeo failed to disprove this fact. Neither did he successfully cause the deed of sale executed by Maximino Nazareno Jr. in favor of Natividad to be declared null and void. Resultingly, its authenticity and validity remained unrebutted. In short, the Court of Appeals did not sustain the trial court and set aside its Decision . The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Natividad in favor of the spouses Romeo and Eliza as well as TCT No. 118276 was declared null and void. Hence, the Register of Deeds was ordered to restore TCT No. 51798 under the name of Natividad. The case was brought to us on a Petition for Review on Certiorari but we denied the petition after having ascertained that the appellate court committed no reversible error. Thus, the Court of Appeals decision became final and executory on 13 June 1996. On 7 November 1996 Natividad filed a Manifestation and Motion with the Regional Trial Court of Naic praying for the issuance of a writ of execution as well as a writ of possession. The spouses Romeo and Eliza filed an Opposition contending that in her Complaint Natividad never prayed th