Close Reader

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 646

Information | Reference

Loading...

G.R. No. 164693. March 23, 2011.*

JOSEFA S. ABALOS** AND THE
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. SPS.
LOMANTONG DARAPA AND SINAB
DIMAKUTA, respondents.

Appeals; Questions of Law; Words and

Phrases; A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts·this is in contradistinction from a question
of fact which arises from doubt as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts.·It is fundamental
procedural law that a petition for review on
certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure shall, as a general
rule, raise only questions of law. A question of law
arises when there is doubt as to what the law is
on a certain state of facts·this is in
contradistinction from a question of fact which
arises from doubt as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. A question of law does not involve
an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them
and the resolution of the issue must rest solely on
what the law provides on the given set of
circumstances.
Same; The Court of AppealsÊ factual findings,
affirming that of the trial court, are final and
conclusive on the Supreme Court and

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

** The CourtÊs Resolution dated 13 February 2006

dropped Josefa S. Abalos participation as party-petitioner
due to her abandonment pending appeal with the Court of
Appeals.

201

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 201

Abalos vs. Darapa

may not be reviewed on appeal, except for the most

compelling of reasons.·Petitioners ought to
remember that the Court of AppealsÊ factual
findings, affirming that of the trial court, are final
and conclusive on this Court and may not be
reviewed on appeal, except for the most
compelling of reasons, such as when: (1) the
conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises
or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave
abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific
evidence on which the factual findings are based;
(7) the findings of absence of facts are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on
record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the Court
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
and undisputed facts that, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; (10) the
findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the
issues of the case; and (11) such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both parties. None
of the exceptions is present in this petition.
Equity; Estoppel; Elements.·In Pacific Mills,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 477 SCRA 414 (2005), we
laid down the requisites of estoppel as follows: (a)
conduct amounting to false representation or
concealment of material facts or at least
calculated to convey the impression that the facts
are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those
which the party subsequently attempts to assert;
(b) intent, or at least expectation that this conduct
shall be acted upon, or at least influenced by the
other party; and (c) knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the factual facts.
Same; Laches; Laches is a doctrine meant to
bring equity·not to further oppress those who
already are; The elements of laches must be proved
positively because it is evidentiary in nature and
cannot be established by mere allegations in the
pleadings.·Laches, on the other hand, is a
doctrine meant to bring equity·not to further
oppress those who already are. Laches has been
defined as neglect or omission to assert a right,
taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other
circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse
party, as will operate as a bar in equity. It is a
delay in the assertion of a right which works
disadvantage to another because of the inequity
founded on some change in the condition or
relations of the property or parties. The elements
of laches must, however, be proved posi-

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Abalos vs. Darapa

tively because it is evidentiary in nature and

cannot be established by mere allegations in the
pleadings. These are but factual in nature which
the Court cannot grant without violating the basic
procedural tenet that, as discussed, the Court is
not trier of facts. Yet again, the records as
established by the trial court show that it was
rather the DBPÊs tactic which delayed the
institution of the action. DBF made the spouses
believe that there was no need to institute any
action for the land would be returned to the
spouses soon, only to be told, after ten (10) years
of naiveté, that reconveyance would no longer be
possible for the same land was already sold to
Abalos, an alleged purchaser in good faith and for
value.
Reconveyance; Prescription; The 10-year
prescriptive period applies only when the
reconveyance is based on fraud which makes a
contract voidable (and that the aggrieved party is
not in possession of the land whose title is to be
actually reconveyed)·it does not apply to an
action to nullify a contract which is void ab initio.
·The DBP contends that the prescriptive period
for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered
real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title.
While the above disquisition of the DBP is true,
the 10-year prescriptive period applies only when
the reconveyance is based on fraud which makes a
contract voidable (and that the aggrieved party is
not in possession of the land whose title is to be
actually, reconveyed). It does not apply to an
action to nullify a contract which is void ab initio,
as in the present petition. Article 1410 of the Civil
Code categorically states that an action for the
declaration of the inexistence of a contract does
not prescribe.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a

decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Benilda A. Tajena, Mariano S.
Guerrero, Jr. and Wilson C. Namocot for
petitioner.
Federico R. Maranda for respondents.

203

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 203

Abalos vs. Darapa

PEREZ, J.:
The petitioner, Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP), files the present petition
for review on certiorari via Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court,1 asking us to reverse and
set aside the Court of AppealsÊ decision in
CA-G.R. CV. No. 70693 dated 26 September
20032 which affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3,
Iligan City.3

Background Facts

On 25 June 1962, petitioner DBP,

Ozamis Branch, granted a P31,000.00 loan
to respondent spouses Lomantong Darapa
and Sinab Dimakuta (spouses) who
executed therefore a real and chattel
mortgage contract, which covered, among
others, the following:

„A warehouse to house the rice and corn mill,

xxx constructed on a 357 square meter lot
situated at poblacion, Linamon, Lanao del
Norte which lot is covered by Tax Declaration No.
A-148 of Linamon, Lanao del Norte.
The equity rights, participation, and interest
of the mortgagors over the above-mentioned
parcel of land on which the bodega is
constructed situated in the Municipality of
Linamon, Province of Lanao del Norte,
containing an area of 357 square meters,
more or less, declared for tax purposes in
the name of Sinab Dimakuta and assessed at
P2,430.00 per Tax Declaration No. A-148 for the
year 1961 and bounded as follows: on the North
by Rafael Olaybar; on the South, by National
Road[;] on the East by Ulpiano Jimenez; on the
West, by Rafael Olaybar; of which property the
mortgagors are in complete and absolute
possession, xxx.
The aforesaid equity rights, participation and
interest of the mortgagors in said parcel of land
are not registered under the

_______________

1 Petition. Rollo, pp. 9-36.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes with
Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and
Regalado E. Maambong, concurring. Id., at pp. 39-54.
3 Id., at p. 54.

204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

Spanish Mortgage Law nor under Act 496 and the

parties hereto hereby agree that this instrument
shall be registered under Act 3344, as amended.
It is further the agreement of the parties that
immediately after the mortgagors acquire
absolute ownership of the land above-mentioned
on which the aforementioned building is erected
by means of a free or sales patent or any other
title vesting them with ownership in fee simple,
the Mortgagors shall execute a Real Estate
Mortgage thereon in favor of the Mortgagee, the
Development Bank of the Philippines, to replace
and substitute only, this portion of the herein
mortgage contract.‰4

The assignment of the spousesÊ equity

rights over the land covered by Tax
Declaration No. A-148 in DBPÊs favor was
embedded in the Deed of Assignment of
Rights and Interests5 which the spouses
executed simultaneous with the real and
chattel mortgage contract.
In 1970, the spouses applied for the
renewal and increase of their loan using
Sinab DimakutaÊs (Dimakuta) Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1,997 as
additional collateral. The DBP disapproved
the loan application without returning,
however, DimakutaÊs TCT.
When the spouses failed to pay their
loan, DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the
mortgages on 16 September 1971, which,
unknown to the spouses, included the TCT
No. T-1,997. The spouses failed to redeem
the land under TCT No. T-1,997 which led
to its cancellation, and, the eventual
issuance of TCT No. T-7746 in DBPÊs name.
In 1984, the spouses discovered all these
and they immediately consulted a lawyer
who forthwith sent a demand letter to the
bank for the reconveyance of the land. The
bank assured them of the return of the
land. In 1994, however, a bank officer told
them that such is no longer possible as the

_______________

4 Mortgage of Contract. Id., at p. 134 (at the back

page).
5 Records, p. 206. Exhibit „II.‰

205

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 205

Abalos vs. Darapa

land has already been bought by Abalos,

daughter of the then provincial governor.
On 12 May 1994,6 the DBP sold the land
to its co-petitioner Josefa Abalos (Abalos).
The TCT No. T-7746 (originally TCT No. T-
1,997) was cancelled and on 6 July 1994, T-
16,280 was issued in AbalosÊ name.7
On 20 August 1994,8 the spouses filed
with the RTC of Iligan City, a Complaint for
Annulment of Title, Recovery of Possession
and Damages, against DBP and Abalos.9
The spouses averred that TCT No. T-
1,997 was not one of the mortgaged
properties, and, thus, its foreclosure by
DBP and its eventual sale to Abalos was
null and void.
On the other hand, DBP countered that
TCT No. T-1,997 had its roots in Tax
Declaration No. A-148, which the spouses
mortgaged with the DBP in 1962 as
evidenced by the Real Estate Mortgage and
the Deed of Assignment. Abalos, on her
part, contended that she was an innocent
purchaser for value who relied in good faith
on the cleanliness of the DBPÊs Title.
The RTC, in a Decision dated 29
November 2000, annulled the DBPÊs
foreclosure sale of the land under TCT No.
T-1,997 and its sale to Abalos; further, it
declared Dimakuta as the landÊs lawful
owner. Thus:

„WHEREFORE, premises all considered

Judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the foreclosure of TCT No. T-
1,997, the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale dated
September 20, 1971 as far as TCT No. T-1,997
is concerned and the Affidavit of Consolidation
of Ownership dated October 19, 1978, also
insofar as it included TCT No. T-1,997 null
and void ab initio;

_______________

6 Petition. Rollo, p. 15.

7 Transfer of Certificate of Title No. T-16,280. Id.,
at p. 133.
8 Records, p. 7.
9 Id., at pp. 1-8.

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

2. Annulling TCT No. T-7746 in the name of

DBP and TCT No. T-16,280 in the name of
defendant Josepha S. Abalos;
3. Declaring plaintiff Sinab Dimakuta the lawful
owner of the land covered by TCT No. T-1,997.
For this purpose, the Registrar of Deeds of
Lanao del Norte is ordered to reinstate TCT
No. T-1,997 in the name of Sinab Dimakuta
and perforce cancel TCT No. T-16,280 in the
 name of Josefa Abalos and the latter to
surrender possession of the lot covered by TCT
No. 1,997 to plaintiff Sinab Di[m]akuta;
4. Ordering DBP to pay plaintiffs P50,000.00
moral damages; P20,000.00 exemplary
damages and P20,000.00 attorneyÊs fees;
5. Directing DBP to pay defendant Josefa Abalos
the current fair market value of TCT No. T-
1,997 plus actual damages of P50,000.00;
moral damages of P50,000.00, exemplary
damages of P20,000.00 and attorneyÊs fees of
P20,000.00.10

The DBP and Abalos assailed the RXC

decision before the Court of Appeals;
Abalos, however, later abandoned her
appeal.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition
in a Decision dated 26 September 2003. It
ratiocinated that DBP had no right to
foreclose the land under TCT No. T-1,997, it
not having been mortgaged:11

„WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The assailed 29 November 2000 Decision of
the court is hereby AFFIRMED.‰12

Hence, this petition for review on

certiorari.

_______________

10 Decision of the RTC. Id., at pp. 263-264.

11 Rollo, p. 51.
12 Id., at p. 54.

207

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 207

Abalos vs. Darapa

In the main, DBP wants to convince this

Court that the land covered by Tax
Declaration No. A-148 mortgaged in 1962,
then untitled, is the same land now covered
by TCT No. T-1,99713 and that DBP came to
its possession when the spouses voluntarily
delivered the title in 1970 to the bankÊs
manager, Tauti R. Derico, who executed an
affidavit which stated that:

„x x x the land covered by Tax Declaration No. A-

148 and TCT No. T-1,997 are one and the same
parcel of land which was mortgaged to the
Development Bank of the Philippines.‰14

Our Ruling

We find the petition unmeritorious, and

thus, affirm the Court of Appeals.
It is fundamental procedural law that a
petition for review on certiorari filed with
this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure shall, as a general rule,
raise only questions of law.15
A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts16·this is in contradistinction
from a question of fact which arises from
doubt as to the truth

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 19-23.

14 Id., at p. 13.
15 The 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 45.
Section 1. Filing of petition with the Supreme
Court.·A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from
a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial
Court or other courts whenever authorized by law,
may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition
for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise
only questions of law which must be distinctly
set forth.
16 Marcelo v. Bunguhong, G.R. No. 175201, 23
April 2008, 552 SCRA 589, 605.
 208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

or falsity of the alleged facts.17 A question

of law does not involve an examination of
the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them18
and the resolution of the issue must rest
solely on what the law provides on the
given set of circumstances.19
The DBPÊs insistence that TCT No. T-
1,997 is the same land covered by Tax
Declaration No. A-148 is to ask the Court to
evaluate the pieces of evidence passed upon
by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. To
grant this petition will entail the CourtÊs
review and determination of the weight,
credence, and probative value of the
evidence presented at the trial court·
matters which, without doubt, are factual
and, therefore, outside the ambit of Rule
45.
Petitioners ought to remember that the
Court of AppealsÊ factual findings, affirming
that of the trial court, are final and
conclusive on this Court and may not be
reviewed on appeal, except for the most
compelling of reasons, such as when: (1) the
conclusion is grounded on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) there is no citation of specific evidence
on which the factual findings are based; (7)
the findings of absence of facts are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on
record; (8) the findings of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed
facts that, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (10) the
findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond
the issues of the case; and (11) such
findings are con-

_______________

17 Vector Shipping Corporation v. Macasa, G.R.

No. 160219, 21 July 2008, 97 SCRA 105.
18 Binay v. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, 8 June 2007,
524 SCRA 248, 255-256.
19 Id.

209

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 209

Abalos vs. Darapa

trary to the admissions of both parties.20

None of the exceptions is present in this
petition.
In any event, we have meticulously
reviewed the caseÊs records and found no
reason to disturb the findings of the RTC as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The
records reveal that the land covered by TCT
No. T-1,997 was not among the properties,
the spouses mortgaged with the DBP in
1962.21
No less than the 1962 mortgage contract
and its accompanying deed of assignment
show that the land covered by Tax
Declaration No. A-148 is located in
Linamon, Lanao del Norte with an area of
357 square meters and bounded „on the
north by Rafael Olaybar; on the south, by
National Road; on the east by Ulpiano
Jimenez; and, on the west, by Rafael
Olaybar.‰22
On the other hand, the land covered by
TCT No. T-1,997 is situated in Barrio Buru-
an, Municipality of lligan, Lanao del Norte
and contains an area of 342 square
meters.23 TCT No. T-1,997 traces its roots
in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
RP-407 (244), pursuant to a Homestead
patent granted by the President of the
Philippines in 1933 under Act No. 2874,
and which was registered as early as 26
June 1933 as recorded in Registration Book
No. 1, page 137 of the Office of the Register
of Deeds, Lanao del Norte.24
That TCT No. T-1,997 was not included
in the 1962 mortgage was also admitted by
the DBPÊs former property examiner and
appraiser, Mamongcarao Blo, who testified
that he was the person who examined and
appraised the lands which the spouses
mortgaged with the DBP, and that he never
ex-

_______________

20 International Container Terminal Services, Inc.

v. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 161539, 28
June 2008, 556 SCRA 194, 119.
21 Rollo, p. 53.
22 Id., at p. 11.
23 Id., at p. 125.
24 Id., at p. 125.

210

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

amined any land in Barrio Buru-an,

Linamon, as described in TCT No. T-
1,997.25 Even the bankÊs own witness,
Marie Magsangcay (Magsangcay), the
DBPÊs Executive Officer, claimed during the
direct examination that the questioned TCT
originated from OCT No. P-1485, an
entirely different land as the trial court
would later discover.26 MagsangcayÊs
testimony contradicted the bankÊs
consistent claim that TCT No. T-1,997
originated from Tax Declaration No. A-148.
These blatant inconsistencies make the
DBPÊs contention incredulous. Other than
the questionable annotation at the back of
DimakutaÊs TCT No. T-1,997, claiming that
this TCT originated from Tax Declaration
No. A-148, DBP submitted nothing more to
substantiate its claim that these two
documents refer to the land mortgaged in
1962; DBP did not even bother to submit
the Tax Declaration, under which its claim
is based. The annotation of such unilateral
claim at the back of DimakutaÊs TCT
cannot improve petitionersÊ position. This
undated annotation should have been
disallowed outright for being violative of
Sections 6027 in relation to Section 54, and
Section 6128 of the Presidential Decree No.
1529,29 otherwise

_______________

25 Records, p. 13.
26 Id., at p. 33.
27 Sec. 60. Mortgage or lease of registered land.·
Mortgages and leases shall be registered in the
manner provided in Section 54 of this Decree. The
owner of the registered land may mortgage or lease it
by executing the deed in a form sufficient in law. Such
deed of mortgage or lease and all instruments which
assign, extend discharge or otherwise deal with the
mortgage or lease shall be registered, and shall take
effect upon the title only from time of registration.
28 Sec. 61. Registration.·Upon presentation for
registration of the deed of mortgage or lease together
with the ownerÊs duplicate, the Register of Deeds
shall enter upon the Original Certificate of title and
also upon the ownerÊs duplicate certificate a
memorandum thereof, the date and time of filing and
the file number assigned to the deed, and shall sign
the said memorandum. He shall also note on

211

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 211

Abalos vs. Darapa

known as the Property Registration Decree

·basic provisions, which every Register of
Deeds is presumed to know. The DBPÊs
annotation that the property originally
covered by Tax Declaration No. A-148 is
now covered by TCT No. T-1,99730 is
neither the deed nor the instrument
referred to by Sections 60 and 61 of the
above quoted law and such annotation will
in no way change the fact that the two
documents refer to different lands: one,
which was indeed a subject of the mortgage
contract; and two, which Dimakuta had
delivered to DBP in 1970 supposedly for
another loan, but, which was, however,
disapproved. It should be underscored that
it was this annotation, albeit irregular, that
paved to the sale of the land now in
question.
Needless to say, the bank utterly failed
to establish, by preponderance of evidence,
that TCT No. T-1,997 originated from Tax
Declaration No. A-148.
Thus, we find no reversible error in the
RTC and the Court of Appeals findings that
the DBPÊs foreclosure sale of the land under
TCT No. T-1,997 was null and void.
The Court also finds unmeritorious the
DBPÊs contention that the spousesÊ cause of
action is barred by estoppel, laches and
prescription. DBP claims that the failure of
the spouses to redeem their property
estopped them from questioning the validity
of the foreclosure sale; and, that laches and
prescription have already set in because the
spouses filed their action only after the
lapse of 16 years31 from the issuance of
DBPÊs title.

_______________

the deed the date and time of filing and a reference to

the volume and page of the registration book in which
it is registered.

29 AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO

REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Signed into law on June 11, 1978.
30 Rollo, p. 125 (at the back page).
31 Id., at p. 130.

212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

In Pacific Mills, Inc. v. Court of

Appeals,32 we laid down the requisites of
estoppel as follows: (a) conduct amounting
to false representation or concealment of
material facts or at least calculated to
convey the impression that the facts are
otherwise than, and inconsistent with,
those which the party subsequently
attempts to assert; (b) intent, or at least
expectation that this conduct shall be acted
upon, or at least influenced by the other
party; and (c) knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the factual facts.33
In the present petition, it cannot be
concluded that the spouses are guilty of
estoppel for the requisites are not
attendant.
Laches, on the other hand, is a doctrine
meant to bring equity·not to further
oppress those who already are. Laches has
been defined as neglect or omission to
assert a right, taken in conjunction with
lapse of time and other circumstances
causing prejudice to an adverse party, as
will operate as a bar in equity.34 It is a
delay in the assertion of a right which
works disadvantage to another because of
the inequity founded on some change in the
condition or relations of the property or
parties.35
The elements of laches must, however,
be proved positively because it is
evidentiary in nature and cannot be
established by mere allegations in the
pleadings.36 These are but factual in nature
which the Court cannot grant without
violating the basic procedural tenet that, as
discussed, the Court is not trier of facts. Yet
again, the records as established by the
trial court show that it was rather the
DBPÊs tactic which delayed

_______________

32 513 Phil. 534; 477 SCRA 414 (2005).

33 Id., at p. 544; p. 425 .
34 De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, G.R. No. 144103, 31
August 2005. 468 SCRA 506, 518.
35 Id.
36 Department of Education v. Oñate, G.R. No.
161758, 8 June 2007, 524 SCRA 200, 216.

213

VOL. 646, MARCH 23, 2011 213

Abalos vs. Darapa

the institution of the action. DBF made the

spouses believe that there was no need to
institute any action for the land would be
returned to the spouses soon, only to be
told, after ten (10) years of naiveté, that
reconveyance would no longer be possible
for the same land was already sold to
Abalos, an alleged purchaser in good faith
and for value.
The Court also disagrees with the DBPÊs
contention that for failure to institute the
action within ten years from the accrual of
the right thereof, prescription has set in,
barring the spouses from vindicating their
transgressed rights.
The DBP contends that the prescriptive
period for the reconveyance of fraudulently
registered real property is ten (10) years
reckoned from the date of the issuance of
the certificate of title.37
While the above disquisition of the DBP
is true, the 10-year prescriptive period
applies only when the reconveyance is
based on fraud which makes a contract
voidable (and that the aggrieved party is
not in possession of the land whose title is
to be actually, reconveyed). It does not
apply to an action to nullify a contract
which is void ab initio, as in the present
petition. Article 1410 of the Civil Code
categorically states that an action for the
declaration of the inexistence of a contract
does not prescribe.38
The spousesÊ action is an action for
„Annulment of Title, Recovery of Possession
and Damages,‰39 grounded on the theory
that the DBP foreclosed their land covered
by TCT No. T-1,997 without any legal right
to do so, rendering the sale and the
subsequent issuance of TCT in DBPÊs name
void ab initio and subject to attack at any
time conformably to the rule in Article 1410
of the Civil Code.

_______________

37 Rollo, p. 30.
38 Art. 1410. The action or defense for the
declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not
prescribe.
39 Rollo, p. 58.
 214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED
Abalos vs. Darapa

In finis, the Court notes that Abalos,

DBPÊs co-defendant, was ordered by the
RTC to return to the spouses the land she
bought from DBP; the RTC also ordered the
cancellation of AbalosÊ title. Abalos,
however, abandoned her appeal then
pending before the Court of Appeals,
resulting in its dismissal. In this CourtÊs
Resolution dated 13 February 2006, she
was subsequently dropped as party-
petitioner. By abandoning her appeal, the
RTC decision with respect to her, thus,
became final.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 70693
dated 26 September 2003 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,

Leonardo-De Castro and Del Castillo, JJ.,
concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.·The doctrine of apparent

authority is a species of the doctrine of
estoppel. (Nogales vs. Capitol Medical
Center, 511 SCRA 204 [2006])
Unless there are intervening rights of
third persons which may be affected or
prejudiced by a decision ordering the return
of the lots to the registered owner, the
equitable defense of laches will not apply as
against the latter. (DÊOro Land Realty and
Development Corporation vs. Claunan, 516
SCRA 681 [2007])
 ··o0o··

© Copyright 2010 CentralBooks Inc. All rights reserved.