Usufruct Case Digests

HEMEDES VS. CA G.R. No. 108472 October 8, 1999 Facts: The disagreement involves a question of ownership over an unregistered parcel of land. The late Jose Hemedes originally owned the land, father of Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. On March 22, 1947 Jose Hemedes executed a document entitled “Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory Conditions” whereby he conveyed ownership over the subject land, together with all its improvements, in favor of his third wife, Justa Kausapin. Maxima Hemedes, through her counsel, filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over the subject unregistered land. Subsequently, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in the name of Maxima Hemedes married to Raul Rodriguez by the Registry of Deeds of Laguna on June 8, 1962, with the annotation that “Justa Kausapin shall have the usufructuary rights over the parcel of land herein described during her lifetime or widowhood.” However, Enrique D. Hemedes subsequently sold the property to Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation (Dominium). Justa Kausapin also executed and affidavit confirming the conveyance of the subject property in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes as embodied in the “Kasunduan” dated May 27, 1971, and at the same time denying the conveyance made to Maxima Hemedes. A complaint was filed by Enrique D. Hemedes for the annullment of the TCT issued in favor of R&B Insurance and/or the reconveyance to Dominium of the subject property. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Dominium has become the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of the February 28, 1979 deed of sale executed by Enrique D. Hemedes, who in turn obtained ownership of the land from Justa Kausapin, as evidenced by the “Kasunduan”. The Plaintiffs contend that Justa Kausapin never transferred the land to Maxima Hemedes and that Enrique D. Hemedes had no knowledge of the registration proceedings initiated by Maxima Hemedes. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs Dominium and Enrique D. Hemedes. Both R&B Insurance and Maxima Hemedes appealed from the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision in toto. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the conveyance by Justa Kausapin in favour of Enrique D. Hemedes transferred ownership over the subject land? Ruling: The Supreme Court held that petitioner R & B Insurance’s assertion of ownership over the property in dispute, as evidenced by TCT No. 41985, subject to the usufructuary rights of Justa Kausapin, which encumbrance has been properly annotated upon the said certificate of title. The finding of the public respondent’s that the “Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property By Reversion” executed by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes is false and not supported by the factual findings in this case. It is grounded upon the mere denial of the same by Justa Kausapin. A party to a contract cannot just evade compliance with his contractual obligations by the simple expedient of denying the execution of such contract. If, after a perfect and binding contract has been executed between the parties, it occurs to one of them to allege some defect therein as a reason for annulling it, the alleged defect must be conclusively proven, since the validity and fulfilment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties. In upholding the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes, the Court must concomitantly rule that Enrique D. Hemedes and his transferee, Dominium, did not acquire any rights over the subject property. Justa Kausapin sought to transfer to her stepson exactly what she had earlier transferred to Maxima Hemedes – the ownership of the subject property pursuant to the first condition stipulated in the deed of donation executed by her husband. Thus, the donation in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes is null and void for the purported object thereof did not exist at the time of the transfer, having already been transferred to his sister. Similarly, the sale of the subject property by Enrique D. Hemedes to Dominium is also a nullity for the latter cannot acquire more rights than its predecessor-in-interest and is definitely not an innocent purchaser for value since Enrique D. Hemedes did not present any certificate of title upon which it relied.