G.R. No. 96412 - ANICETA RAMIREZ, AGUSTIN RAMIREZ, JR., LORNA RAMIREZ, NESTOR RAMIREZ, ROMEO RAMIREZ, CHITO RAMIREZ, PANCHO RAMIREZ, MARLON RAMIREZ, OSCAR RAMIREZ, SPOUSES VICENTE AND BALDOMERA ANIÑON, AND SPOUSES ELMER AND BENG TEE SUNBANUM, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES BENEDICTO AND EVANGE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for utter lack of cause of action and in view of the foregoing considerations, the complaint is ordered dismissed, as the same is hereby dismissed. The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to vacate the premises in question (Lot 1584 of the Cebu Cadastral Survey) and to deliver and surrender the possession thereof to spouses Vicente C. Aniñon and Baldomera Echivarre. The said Order of dismissal was premised on a finding that the private respondents (plaintiffs) were deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner Vicente Aniñon, as a result of their failure to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of subject Deed. On March 24, 1986, from the challenged Order of Dismissal, private respondents filed with the trial court their Notice of Appeal [14] to the Court of Appeals. And on April 18, 1990, the Court of Appeals came out with a Decision [15] the dispositive portion of which, reads: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and a new one entered : 1) Declaring the deed, Exhibits 1-A and F to be an equitable mortgage: 2) Ordering plaintiffs-appellants to pay defendant-appellee Vicente C. Aniñon the sum of P20,000.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of this judgment; 3) Declaring the deed of sale portion (Exh. D) in the Settlement and Extra Judicial Adjudication of Estate of Agustin Ramirez by the Undersigned Heirs with Deed of Sale (Exh. 4) as null and void and without effect; 4) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Cebu City to cancel; (a) TCT No. 92295 issued in the names of Aniceta, Agustin, Lorna, Ester, Romeo, Chito, Pancho, Marlon, and Oscar, all surnamed Ramirez; (b) TCT No. 92796 issued in the names of the spouses Vicente C. Aniñon and Baldomera Echivarre; (c) TCT No. 93448 issued in the names of Elmer Sunbanum and Beng Tee U. Sunbanum; restore TCT No. 21560 issued in the names of the spouses Agustin Ramirez and Aniceta Ramirez and thereafter cancel the same and issue a new one in the names of the spouses Benedicto Ramos and Evangeline Ramos. In its said Decision, the Court of Appeals opined that there was substantial compliance with the rule requiring denial under oath of an actionable document [16] considering that the Reply of private respondents (plaintiffs below) had verified attachments, like the verified Answer aforesaid, and a Counter-Affidavit [17] of Benedicto Ramos in a case of estafa filed against him by Vicente Aniñon, which counter-affidavit and verified pleading contained the same allegations of the Reply in question. The Court of Appeals adjudged the second deed of sale sued upon as an equitable mortgage because of the unusually inadequate price of the property supposedly conveyed thereunder, let alone the fact that vendor Benedicto Ramos continued possessing subject property even after the execution of such contract. Guided by the said observations, the respondent Court concluded that the attendant facts and circumstances afo