This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| In support of their argument for the dismissal of petitioners’ action, ARC Marketing cites our rulings in Rone v. Claro[37] and Cultura v. Tapucar[38] where we affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of an action for annulment of a fraudulent deed of sale. There, we held: It may be that the recovery of title and possession of the lot was the ultimate objective of plaintiffs, but to attain that goal, they must needs [sic] first travel over the road of relief on the ground of fraud; otherwise even if the present action were to be regarded as a direct action to recover title and possession, it would, nevertheless, be futile and could not prosper for the reason that the defendants could always defeat it by merely presenting the deed of sale, which is good and valid to legalize and justify the transfer of the land to the defendants, until unnulled [sic] unless the action of [sic] annul had been filed within four years after the discovery of the fraud in 1941. So, from whatever angle we view the case, the claimed [sic] of plaintiffs-appellants must fail.[39] | |||||