Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF ROSA DUMALIANG v. DAMIANO SERBAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 140528 2011-12-07	TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has. [55] Consequently, Dr. Rosario must still prove herein his acquisition of title to Lot No. 356-A, apart from his submission of TCT No. 52751 in his name.
	GR No. 191889 2011-01-31	SPS. IRENEO T. FERNANDO v. MARCELINO T. FERNANDO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang v. Serban[29] where the therein petitioners-heirs similarly sought the annulment of a 1962 deed of extra-judicial settlement and sale upon a claim that the signatures of some of the heirs had been falsified and that the remaining signatories could not have signed the deed as they were already dead, this Court stressed in no uncertain terms that: . . . if it is established that petitioners' consent was not given to the 1962 Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement and Sale which became the basis for the issuance of the new title over the entire lot in respondent Damiano's name in 1965, the absence of such consent makes the Deed null and void ab initio and subject to attack anytime. It is recognized in our jurisprudence that a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Article 1410 of the Civil Code clearly provides that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe.
	GR No. 161237 2009-01-14	PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG BRION, J.
We have a similar ruling in Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang v. Serban.[48]
	GR NO. 152575 2007-06-29	FIL-ESTATE GOLF v. FELICIDAD NAVARRO CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, respondent impugns the validity of the deed of sale for lack of consent. Respondent alleges that she is an illiterate widow. Sometime in 1980, when respondent was about 96 years old, Layos, Paular, Diaz, and Logarta convinced respondent to hand over the titles to her properties allegedly to obtain sugar quota from the Canlubang Sugar Estate. Taking advantage of respondent's advanced age and illiteracy, Layos, Paular, Diaz, and Logarta subsequently convinced respondent to affix her thumbmark on a document which turned out to be a deed of absolute sale in favor of CRDC. In effect, respondent is impugning the validity of the deed of sale because even though she affixed her thumbmark on the document, she was unaware that the document was a deed of sale. Thus, respondent's complaint for cancellation of title alleged as basis the nullity of the deed of sale because of the absence of respondent's consent. If this is the case, then the complaint filed has not yet prescribed since under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, an action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. As held in Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang v. Damiano Serban:[7]