G.R. No. 200558 - CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN AND ANNABELLA V. BORROMEO, VS. CRISTINA DISONGLO-ALMAZORA, RENILDA ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN, RODOLFO CASUBUAN, SUSANA ALMOZORA-MENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO ALMAZARO AND NEN1TA ALMAZORA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TCT No. T-35280 was issued in the name of Aurora [5] after TCT No. T-18729 was cancelled. On February 7, 1972, Conrado passed away. Sometime in 1994, Aurora learned from Cristina Almazora ( Cristina ), the widowed spouse of Conrado, that the title of the subject property had long been transferred in the name of Conrado and that the subject property had been sold to Fullway Development Corporation ( Fullway ) by the heirs of Conrado in consideration of P4,000,000.00. [6] Aurora was shocked to learn that the subject property was already transferred to Conrado and sold for a meager amount. On October 30, 1995, she sent a letter to the heirs of Conrado demanding the delivery of the payment they received for the sale of the subject property; but it was unheeded. On May 9, 1996, Aurora together with her husband, Arturo, filed a complaint for damages [7] against Cristina and the other heirs of Conrado ( respondents ) before the RTC. They contended that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-18729 was only given to Conrado for safekeeping. The complaint, however, admitted that the family of Conrado had been staying on, and using, the subject property since 1912 with the permission and generosity of Aquilina and Leoncia. [8] Aurora asserted that, through the years, she repeatedly asked Conrado to return the owner's copy of the title but the latter procrastinated, giving all kinds of excuses, until he died in 1972; that thereafter, Aurora asked Cristina for the copy of the title but the latter also ignored her request; that the subsequent sale of the subject property to Fullway was without Aurora's authorization, and, thus, the payment received by respondents for the sale of the subject property should be turned over to her; and that she prayed for moral and exemplary damages. [9] On June 24, 1996, respondents filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim. They countered that the subject property was properly transferred to Conrado under TCT No. 35282, and, thereafter, in the names of the heirs of Conrado under TCT No. T-114352. Respondents averred that the imputation of fraud on the part of Conrado in the registration of the subject property was baseless and this assertion of fraud was not transmissible from Conrado to his heirs, who merely acquired the property through succession. [10] Respondents raised some special and affirmatives defenses, among others, that the complaint stated no cause of action and was barred by prescription. A preliminary hearing for the said defenses was set by the RTC. [11] In the Order, [12] dated May 27, 1999, the RTC ruled that the complaint stated a cause of action. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari [13] to assail the said interlocutory order of the RTC before the CA. In its Decision, [14] dated February 24, 1999, the CA denied the same and held that the complaint stated a cause of action, which was an action for damages arising from fraud committed by Conrado, as trustee, against Aurora, as cestui