1. Maximino Carantes vs. CA, G.R. No. L-33360, April 25, 1977

7/25/2019 1. Maximino Carantes vs. CA, G.R. No. L-33360, April 25, 1977

1/5

G.R. No. L-33360 April 25, 1977

MAXIMINO CARANTES (S!"#i##$% !& E'r)*i) M)!)'#) C)r)'#$"+, petitioner,vs.CORT O AEALS, /ILA CARANTES, LARO CARANTES, EARO CARANTES )'% MICAELTMAO, respondents,

CASTRO, C.J:

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. 360!-R promul"atedon #ecember $3, %&0 reversin" the 'ud"ment of the Court of (irst )nstance of *a"uio City, *ranch )), inCivil Case !0+, and from the appellate courts resolution dated arch , %&% denyin" herein petitionersmotion for reconsideration.

ateo Carantes as the ori"inal oner of /ot o. ++ situated at /oa1an, *a"uio City, as evidenced by2ri"inal Certicate of Title o. 3 issued in his name on 4eptember $$, %&%0 by virtue of (ree 5atent o. "ranted to him on the same date. )n %&%3 ateo died. 7e as survived by his ido 2"asia and si8children, namely, *ilad, /auro, Crispino, a8imino, Apun" and 4ianan", all surnamed Carantes.

)n %&30 construction of the /oa1an Airport as commenced by the Government. *ecause a portion of /oto. ++ as needed for the landin" eld, the Government instituted proceedin"s 9Civil Case 33!: for itse8propriation. (or the purpose, /ot o. ++ as subdivided into /ots os. ++-A, ++-*, ++-C, ++-# and ++-;.

The portion e8propriated by the Government as /ot o. ++-A.

)n %&33 4pecial 5roceedin"s os. +0& to +%3 ere led ith the court for the settlement of the estate ofthe late ateo Carantes. 2ne of his sons, herein petitioner a8imino Carantes, as appointed andAssi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> as e8ecuted by four of

ateo Carantes children, namely, *ilad, 4ianan", /auro and Crispino, and the heirs of Apun" Carantes9also a son of ateo ho died in %&$3:, namely, 5ita", *ill, Alson, ;duardo and =uan, assi"nin" to a8iminoCarantes their ri"hts to inheritance in /ot o. ++. The stated monetary consideration for the assi"nmentas 5%.00. 7oever, the document contains a recital to the e?ect that the said lots, >by a"reement of allthe direct heirs and heirs by representation of the deceased ateo Carantes as e8pressed and conveyedverbally. by him durin" his lifetime, ri"htly and e8clusively belon" to the particular heir, a8iminoCarantes, no and in the past in the e8clusive, continuous, peaceful and notorious possession of the samefor more than ten years.>

2n the same date a8imino Carantes sold to the Government /ots os. ++-* and ++-C and divided theproceeds of the sale amon" himself and the other heirs of ateo.

2n (ebruary 6, %&+0, upon 'oint petition of the heirs of ateo Carantes, the Court of (irst )nstance of

*a"uio City issued an 2rder in another proceedin" @ Administrative Case o. 36! @ cancellin" 2.C.T. o3. 5ursuant thereto the said title as cancelled, and in its place Transfer Certicate of Title o. $33 asissued in the 'oint names of the ve children of ateo Carantes and the children of Apun" Carantes9representin" their deceased father: as co-onerspro indiviso, or one-si8th share for each child.

2n arch %6, %&+0 a8imino Carantes re"istered the deed of >Assi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance.>Accordin"ly, T.C.T. o. $33 in the names of the heirs as cancelled, and in lieu thereof Transfer Certicateof Title o. $+0 as issued on the same date in the name of a8imino Carantes. Also on the same datea8imino, actin" as e8clusive oner of the land covered by T.C.T. o. $+0, e8ecuted a formal deed of salein favor of the Government over /ots os. ++-* and ++-C.


2/5

2n (ebruary $%, %&+, as a result of the approval of the 4ubdivision 4urvey 5lan psd-%6!6, and pursuantto the deed of sale e8ecuted in %&+0 by a8imino Carantes in favor of the Government, T.C.T. o. $+0 ina8iminos name as cancelled, and in lieu thereof Transfer Certicate of Title o. T&!, coverin" /ots os++-A, ++-* arid ++-C, as issued in the name of the Government, hile Transfer Certicate of Title o. T-&&,coverin" the remainin" /ots os. ++-# 9%00, 3+ sAssi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> on 2ctober $3, %&3&, only because they ere made tobelieve by the defendant a8imino Carantes that the said instrument embodied the understandin" amon"the parties that it merely authoriBed the defendant a8imino to convey portions of /ot o. ++ to theGovernment in their behalf to minimiBe e8penses and facilitate the transaction and that it as only on(ebruary %!, %&!, hen the plainti?s secured a copy of the deed, that they came to 1no that the samepurported to assi"n in favor of a8imino their ri"hts to inheritance from ateo Carantes. The plainti?sprayed that the deed of >Assi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> be declared null and void that /ots os. ++-#

and ++-; covered by T.C.T. o. T&& be ordered partitioned into si8 96: eAssi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> as anac1noled"ment of the fact of desi"nation of the property therein described as specically pertainin" obelon"in" by ri"ht of inheritance to the defendant a8imino CarantesD that there as never anya"reement beteen the assi"nors and the assi"nee authoriBin" the latter to merely represent his co-heirsin ne"otiations ith the Government and that the assi"nors 1ne fully ell that the deed of assi"nmentcontained hat, on its face, it represented, *y ay of special defenses, the defendants alle"ed that any

supposed a"reement beteen the plainti?s andor their predecessors-in-interest and the defendanta8imino Carantes, other than the deed of assi"nment, is barred by the statute of frauds and is null andvoid because not in ritin", much less, in a public instrument that the only a"reement beteen theparties is hat appears in the deed of assi"nment that the plainti?s ri"ht of action has alreadyprescribed that the defendant a8imino Carantes ac


3/5

and corrective dama"es, includin" attorneys fees and e8penses of liti"ation. The defendants prayed forthe dismissal of the complaint and payment of dama"es to them.

An anser to the counterclaim as led by the plainti?s on ovember , %&! denyin" the materiaalle"ations of the counterclaim.

After trial, the court rendered its decision on =anuary $!, %&6. )t as the trial courts opinion that since anaction based on fraud prescribes in four years from the discovery of the fraud, and in this case the fraudalle"edly perpetrated by the defendant a8imino Carantes must be deemed to have been discovered on

arch %6, %&+0 hen the deed of assi"nment as re"istered, the plainti?s ri"ht of action had alreadyprescribed hen they led the action in %&! and even assumin" that the land remained the commonproperty of the plainti?s and the defendant a8imino Carantes notithstandin" the e8ecution of the deedof assi"nment, the co-onership as completely repudiated by the said defendant by performance ofseveral acts, the rst of hich as his e8ecution of a deed of sale in favor of the Government on 2ctober$3, %&3&, hence, onership had vested in the defendant a8imino Carantes by ac


4/5

The respondents action may not be considered as one to declare the ine8istence of a contract for lac1 oconsideration. )t is total absence of cause or consideration that renders a contract absolutely void andine8istent.5)n the case at bar consideration as not absent. The sum of 5%.00 appears in the document asone of the considerations for the assi"nment of inheritance. )n addition @ and this of "reat le"al import @the document recites that the decedent ateo Carantes had, durin" his lifetime, e8pressed to thesi"natories to the contract that the property sub'ect-matter thereof ri"htly and e8clusively belon"ed to thepetitioner a8imino Carantes. This ac1noled"ment by the si"natories denitely constitutes valuableconsideration for the contract.

- ))) -

The present action is one to annul the contract entitled >Assi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> on the "roundof fraud.

Article %3&0 of the ne Civil code provides that a contract >here the consent is vitiated by mista1e,violence, intimidation, undue inFuence or fraud,> is voidable or annullable. ;ven article %3&, hich dealson reformation of instruments, provides in its para"raph $ that >)f mista1e, fraud, ineAssi"nment of Ri"ht to )nheritance> as re"istered bythe petitioner in the 2Hce of the Re"ister of #eeds

The ei"ht of authorities is to the e?ect that the re"istration of an instrument in the 2Hce of the Re"isteof #eeds constitutes constructive notice to the hole orld, and, therefore, discovery of the fraud isdeemed to have ta1en place at the time of the re"istration. 9)n this case the deed of assi"nment asre"istered on arch %6, %&+0, and in fact on the same date T.C.T. o. $33 in the names of the heirs ofateo Carantes as cancelled, and T.C.T. o. $+0 in the name of the petitioner as issued in lieu thereof.

The four-year period ithin hich the private respondents could have led the present action conse


5/5

'udicial orders suHced as notice to the other heirs, for the rule is that 1noled"e of hat mi"ht have beenrevealed by proper in

Documents

1. Maximino Carantes vs. CA, G.R. No. L-33360, April 25, 1977