G.R. No. 184193 - SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN, VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs as against the defendants. Ordering defendant Segundo Dimaranan or his representatives to desist from committing the acts complained of and installing a perimeter fence over the plaintiff's property and ordering the Register of Deeds of Cavite to hereby declare Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (T-115904) RT-004 in the name of Segundo Dimaranan as null and void; and To pay the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos as attorney's fees and the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos as moral damages. [16] The trial court found that the date alleged by respondents when the property was sold to their parents, which was in 5 September 1955, coincided with that of the conveyance by the government in favor of petitioner in 1954. Hence, it lent credence to the claim of respondents that petitioner sold the property to Spouses Arayata. The trial court held that the allegation of forgery was not substantiated by petitioner. [17] The trial court noted that the court order granting reconstitution of title to petitioner is tainted with fraud because the order was handed down in a short span of time without publication in the Official Gazette and without the intervention of the Office of Solicitor General. Moreover, petitioner did not actively participate in the hearing of said case when he merely relied on a certain Abling Lungkay to prepare and file his petition. [18] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In his brief, petitioner assigned the following errors: I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AFTER THE CONVEYANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, THE LATTER SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE PLAINTIFF; II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE PLAINTIFFS IS A FORGERY WHICH IS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY CLEAR, CONVINCING AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TITLE ISSUED TO THE DEFENDANT WHICH VESTED OWNERSHIP TO HIM OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT ORDER GRANTING HIS PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION WAS TAINTED WITH FRAUD; IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE PROPERTY WHICH BELONGS TO THE DEFENDANT; V. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE TITLE OF THE PLAINTIFFS OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT EXISTING IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAVITE AND LIKEWISE ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY ATTY. VILLANUEVA DATED JANUARY 9, 1981 THAT THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE OF THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY TITLED TO THE PLAINTIFFS; VI. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECISION ISSUED BY THEN JUDGE PABLO SUAREZ OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 23, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, NULLIFIED THE FINAL DEED OF CONVEYANCE AND TITLE ISSUED TO THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS