19. Maxima Hemedes vs CA DIGESTS

Hemedes v. CA

G.R. No. 107132, October 8, 1999 Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

FACTS:

A parcel of land was originall owned b t!e late "ose #e$edes, fat!er of %a&i %a&i$a $a #e$e #e$ede des s and and 'nri 'nri() ()e e #e$e #e$ede des. s. "ose "ose #e$e #e$ede des s e&ec)t ec)ted ed a doc) doc)$e $ent nt enti entitl tled ed *+ona +onati tion on nte nterr -ios ios wit! wit! Resol esol)t )tor or  /ond /ondit itio ions ns w!ereb !e coneed owners!ip oer t!e s)bect land, toget!er wit! all its i$pr i$pro oe$ e$en ents ts,, in faor faor of !is !is t!ir t!ird d wife wife,, ")st ")sta a a)ap a)apin in,, s)be s)bect ct to t!e t!e following resol)tor conditions 4a5 6pon t!e deat! or re$arriage of t!e +ON'', t!e title to t!e prope propert rt donated donated s!all s!all reer reertt to an of t!e c!ildr c!ildren, en, or t!eir t!eir !eirs, of t!e +ONOR e&pressl designated b t!e +ON'' in a p)blic doc)$ent coneing t!e propert to t!e latter or 4b5 n absence of s)c! an e&press designation $ade b t!e +ON'' +ON'' befor before e !er deat! or re$ar re$arri riage age contai contained ned in a p)blic p)blic instr instr)$e )$ent nt as aboe aboe proi proided ded,, t!e title title to t!e prope propert rt  s!all s!all a)to$aticall reert reert to t!e legal !eirs of t!e +ONOR in co$$on. )rs ) rs)an )antt to t!e t!e rst rst cond condit itio ion n abo aboe e $ent $entio ione ned, d, ")st ")sta a a)s a)sap apin in e&ec)t ec)ted ed a *+eed +eed of /on /one ean ance ce of 6nr 6nregis egiste terred Real eal roper opert t b Reersion coneing to %a&i$a #e$edes t!e s)bect propert. An O/: was iss)ed in t!e na$e of %a&i$a #e$edes b t!e Registr of +eeds of ;ag)na, wit! t!e annotation t!at *")sta a)sapin s!all !ae t!e )s)fr)ct)ar rig!ts oer t!e parcel of land !erein described d)ring !er lifeti$e or widow!ood. %a&i$a #e$edes and !er !)sband Ra)l Rodrig)e< constit)ted a real estate $ortgage oer t!e s)bect propert in its faor to sere as sec)rit for a loan w!ic! t!e obtained in t!e a$o)nt of =,000.00 fro$ > ? ns)rance.  :!e latter e&tra)diciall e&tra)diciall foreclosed t!e $ortgage since %a&i$a #e$edes failed to pa t!e loan een after it beca$e d)e. :!e land was sold at a p)blic a)ction wit! R > ? ns)rance as t!e !ig!est bidder and a certicate of sale

was iss)ed b t!e s!eri@ in its faor. :!e annotation of )s)fr)ct in faor of   ")sta a)sapin was $aintained in t!e new title. +espite t!e earlier coneance of t!e s)bect land in faor of %a&i$a #e$edes, ")sta a)sapin e&ec)ted a *as)nd)an w!ereb s!e transferred t!e sa$e land to !er stepson 'nri()e #e$edes, p)rs)ant to t!e resol)tor condition in t!e deed of donation e&ec)ted in !er faor b !er late !)sband  "ose #e$edes. 'nri()e #e$edes later sold t!e propert to +o$ini)$ Realt and /onstr)ction /orporation 4+o$ini)$5. ")sta a)sapin e&ec)ted an adait ar$ing t!e coneance of t!e s)bect propert in faor of 'nri()e #e$edes as e$bodied in t!e *as)nd)an, and at t!e sa$e ti$e dening t!e coneance $ade to %a&i$a #e$edes. +o$ini)$ leased t!e propert to its sister corporation Asia ?rewer, nc. 4Asia ?rewer5 w!o, een before t!e signing of t!e contract of lease, constr)cted two ware!o)ses $ade of steel and asbestos costing abo)t 10,000,000.00 eac!. 6pon learning of Asia ?rewerBs constr)ctions )pon t!e s)bect propert, R > ? ns)rance sent it a letter infor$ing t!e for$er of  its owners!ip of t!e propert and of its rig!t to appropriate t!e constr)ctions since Asia ?rewer is a b)ilder in bad fait!. A conference was !eld between R > ? ns)rance and Asia ?rewer b)t t!e failed to arrie at an a$icable settle$ent. %a&i$a #e$edes also wrote a letter addressed to Asia ?rewer w!erein s!e asserted t!at s!e is t!e rig!tf)l owner of t!e s)bect propert and t!at, as s)c!, s!e !as t!e rig!t to appropriate Asia ?rewerBs constr)ctions, to de$and its de$olition, or to co$pel Asia ?rewer to p)rc!ase t!e land. n anot!er letter of t!e sa$e date addressed to R > ? ns)rance, %a&i$a #e$edes denied t!e e&ec)tion of an real estate $ortgage in faor of t!e latter. ISSUE:

w!et!er or not R > ? ns)rance s!o)ld be considered an innocent p)rc!aser of t!e land in ()estion

HELD:

 Ces. :!e annotation of )s)fr)ct)ar rig!ts in faor of ")sta a)sapin )pon %a&i$a #e$edesB O/: dose not i$pose )pon R > ? ns)rance t!e obligation to inestigate t!e alidit of its $ortgagorBs title. 6s)fr)ct gies a rig!t to eno t!e propert of anot!er wit! t!e obligation of presering its for$ and s)bstance. :!e )s)fr)ct)ar is entitled to all t!e nat)ral, ind)strial and ciil fr)its of t!e propert and $a personall eno t!e t!ing in )s)fr)ct, lease it to anot!er, or alienate !is rig!t of )s)fr)ct, een b a grat)ito)s title, b)t all t!e contracts !e $a enter into as s)c! )s)fr)ct)ar s!all ter$inate )pon t!e e&piration of t!e )s)fr)ct. /learl, onl t!e  jus utendi  and jus fruendi oer t!e propert is transferred to t!e )s)fr)ct)ar. :!e owner of t!e propert $aintains t!e  jus disponendi or t!e power to alienate, enc)$ber, transfor$, and een destro t!e sa$e. :!is rig!t is e$bodied in t!e /iil /ode, w!ic! proides t!at t!e owner of propert t!e )s)fr)ct of w!ic! is !eld b anot!er, $a alienate it, alt!o)g! !e cannot alter t!e propertBs for$ or s)bstance, or do ant!ing w!ic! $a be pre)dicial to t!e )s)fr)ct)ar.  :!ere is no do)bt t!at t!e owner $a alidl $ortgage t!e propert in faor of a t!ird person and t!e law proides t!at, in s)c! a case, t!e )s)fr)ct)ar s!all not be obliged to pa t!e debt of t!e $ortgagor, and s!o)ld t!e i$$oable be attac!ed or sold )diciall for t!e pa$ent of t!e debt, t!e owner s!all be liable to t!e )s)fr)ct)ar for w!ateer t!e latter $a lose b reason t!ereof. ?ased on t!e foregoing, t!e annotation of )s)fr)ct)ar rig!ts in faor of ")sta a)sapin is not s)cient ca)se to re()ire R > ? ns)rance to inestigate %a&i$a #e$edesB title, contrar to p)blic respondentBs r)ling, for t!e reason t!at %a&i$a #e$edesB owners!ip oer t!e propert re$ained )ni$paired despite s)c! enc)$brance. R > ? ns)rance !ad a rig!t to rel on t!e certicate of title and was not in bad fait! in accepting t!e propert as a sec)rit for t!e loan it e&tended to %a&i$a #e$edes.

HEMEDES vs CA

316 SCRA 347

FACTS :

Jose Hemedes executed a document entitled “Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory

Conditions” conveying ownershi a arcel o! land" together with all its imrovements" in !avor o! his third wi!e" Justa #auain" su$%ect to the resolutory condition tha t uon the latter&s death or remarriage" the title to the roerty donated shall revert to any o! the children" or heirs" o! the D'('R exressly designated $y the D'())* +ursuant to said condition" Justa #ausain executed a “Deed o! Conveyance o! ,nregistered Real +roerty $y Reversion” conveying to -axima Hemedes the su$%ect roerty* -axima Hemedes and her hus$and Raul Rodrigue. constituted a real estate mortgage over the su$%ect roerty in !avor o! R / 0 Insurance to serve as security !or a loan which they o$tained* R / 0 Insurance extra%udicially !oreclosed the mortgage since -axima Hemedes !ailed to ay the loan even* 1he land was sold at a u$lic auction with R / 0 Insurance as the highest $idder* 2 new title was su$se3uently issued in !avor the R/0* 1he annotation o! usu!ruct in !avor o! Justa #ausain was maintained in the new title* Desite the earlier conveyance o! the su$%ect land in !avor o! -axima Hemedes" Justa #ausain executed a “#asunduan” where$y she trans!erred the same land to her steson )nri3ue D* Hemedes" ursuant to the resolutory condition in the deed o! donation executed in her !avor $y her late hus$and Jose Hemedes* )nri3ue D* Hemedes o$tained two declarations o! real roerty" when the assessed value o! the roerty was raised* 2lso" he has $een aying the realty taxes on the roerty !rom the time Justa #ausain conveyed the roerty to him* In the cadastral survey" the roerty was assigned in the name o! )nri3ue Hemedes* )nri3ue Hemedes is also the named owner o! the roerty in the records o! the -inistry o! 2grarian Re!orm o!!ice at Calam$a" 4aguna* )nri3ues D* Hemedes sold the roerty to Dominium Realty and Construction Cororation 5Dominium6* Dominium leased the roerty to its sister cororation 2sia 0rewery" Inc* 52sia 0rewery6 who made constructions therein* ,on learning o! 2sia 0rewery&s constructions" R / 0 Insurance sent it a letter in!orming the !ormer o! its ownershi o! the roerty* 2 con!erence was held  $etween R / 0 Insurance and 2sia 0rewery $ut they !ailed to arrive at an amica$le settlement*

-axima Hemedes also wrote a letter addressed to 2sia 0rewery asserting that she is the right!ul owner o! the su$%ect roerty and denying the execution o! any real estate mortgage in !avor o! R/0* Dominium and )nri3ue D* Hemedes !iled a comlaint with the C7I !or the annulment o! 1C1 issued in !avor o! R / 0 Insurance and8or the reconveyance to Dominium o! the su$%ect roerty alleging that Dominion was the a$solute owner o! the land* 1he trial court ruled in !avor o! Dominium and )nri3ue Hemedes* ISSUE:

W8( the donation in !avor o! )nri3ue Hemedes wa s valid9

HELD:

('* )nri3ue D* Hemedes and his trans!eree" Dominium" did not ac3uire any rights over

the su$%ect roerty* Justa #ausain sought to trans!er to her steson exactly what she had earlier trans!erred to -axima Hemedes  the ownershi o! the su$%ect roerty ursuant to the !irst condition stiulated in the deed o! donation executed $y her hus$and* 1hus" the donation in !avor o! )nri3ue D* Hemedes is null and void !or the urorted o$%ect thereo! did not exist at the time o! the trans!er" having already $een trans!erred to his sister* ;imilarly" the sale o! the su$%ect  roerty $y )nri3ue D* Hemedes to Dominium is also a nullity !or the latter cannot ac3uire more rights than its redecessor? ins)rance for %a&i$aBs fail)re to pa t!e loan s!e obtained.

•

%eanw!ile, despite t!e earlier coneance b "6D:A to %AE%A, "6D:A e&ec)ted a *as)nd)an coneing t!e sa$e propert to !er stepson 'NRF6'. 'nri()e t!en sold t!e propert to +O%N6% R'A;:C.

ISSUE

!ic! of t!e two coneances $ade b "6D:A 41 st in faor of %a&i$a 2 nd in

faor of 'nri()e5 e@ectiel transferred owners!ip oer t!e land. HELD:  

%AE%A.

RATIO

 :!e allegation t!at t!e *+eed of /oneance b Reersion e&ec)ted b ")sta in

•

faor of %a&i$a is sp)rio)s is not s)pported b eidence. D)c! is $erel gro)nded on t!e denial of ")sta a)sapin !erself.  ")sta is a biased witness. D!e is 80 ears old, s)@ering fro$ worsening p!sical

•

inr$ities, and co$pletel dependent on 'nri()e for s)pport. •

/A erred w!en it declared t!e *+eed of /oneance b Reersion in faor of  %a&i$a oid for fail)re to co$pl wit! // 1332 4// 1332 !en one of t!e parties is )nable to read, or if t!e contract is in a lang)age not )nderstood b !i$, and $istaHe or fra)d is alleged, t!e person enforcing t!e contract $)st s!ow t!at t!e ter$s t!ereof !ae been f)ll e&plained to t!e for$er5. n t!is case, ")sta denies Hnowledge of t!e deed of coneance. #ence, // 1332 is inapplicable as it was )seless to deter$ine w!et!er or not ")sta was ind)ced to e&ec)te t!e doc)$ent b $eans of fra)d w!en s!e denies Hnowledge of  e&istence in t!e rst place.

•

#ence, t!e donation in faor of 'NRF6' is n)ll and oid for t!e p)rported obect

t!ereof did not e&ist at t!e ti$e of t!e transfer, !aing alread been transferred to !is sister.