Alino v Heirs of Angelica Lorenzo

A 1,745 sq m. of land in Sinsuat Avenue, Rosary Heights Cotabato City a TCT was registered in the name of Lucia.

Angelica Lorenzo (Lucia's daughter) bought the loat for P10,000 under a Deed of Absolute Sale. The TCT in the name of Lucia was cancelled and was issued in Angelica's name. The lot was declared for taxation purposes in Angelica's name

Although the tax declaration was in Angelica's name, Lucia continued to pay, under her name the real estate taxes from 1980-1987. Lucia then designated Vivian as caretaker of the lot and Vivian even built a house on the lot and resided.

Angelica died leaving her husband and children. They executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of her estate and the subject lot was adjudicated to Angelica's minor children and a TCT was issued in their name.

Lucia executed a document authorizing Bautista to look for a buyer for her lots. Lucia offered to Central Bank of the Philippines including the lot which was registered in Angelica's name. Lucia wrote to the husband (Servillano, Sr) to return the lot but he refused.

Angelica filed for the declaration of nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale. During the pendency of the case, Lucia died and was substituted by

her heirs (petitioner's in this case

Petitioner's contend that the sale was simulated and there was absence on the part of Angelica or her husband to assert dominical rights over the property, Lucia remained in continuous possession of the lot and even paid for the real property taxed due.

Respondent heirs contend that the sale was not simulated and Lucia did not take any concrete steps to recover the subject lot.

RTC & CA held that the sale was simulated

ISSUE: Is the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Lucia in favor of her daughter Angelica, valid and binding upon the parties? NO

HELD: The intention of the parties shall be accorded primordial

consideration, which is determined from the express terms of the agreement as well as their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.

In this case, Angelica and her husband did not attempt to exercise any act of dominion over the lot from the sale was made until the institution of the complaint by Lucia. They did not enter the subject property not occupy the premises and even the respondent heirs did not take possession of the lot.

Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it in a way that a person would naturally exercise over his own property. It is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the property because someone in his name may perform the act.

In this case, Lucia was in actual possession of the property and she designated Vivian as a caretaker of the subject lot and Vivian even constructed a house on the lot and has been residing since then.

Notes connected to the topic:

In this case, Lucia religiously paid the realty taxes on the lot from 1980-1987. Although they are not incontrovertible evidence, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession

An action for reconveyance prescribes in 10 years from the date of registration of deed or issuance of certificate of title. BUT if the person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. Because one who is in actual possession of the a piece of land claiming to be the owner may wait until his possession is disturbed before taking steps to vindicate his right. In this case, Lucia continuously possessed the subject lot, her right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over her title cannot be barred by statute of limitations

As for the issue on simulated contracts, the Court held that inadequacy or non-payment of price is irreconcilable with the concept of simulation; if there exists an actual consideration (in this case, only P10k). No matter how inadequate it may be, the transaction could not a "simulated sale".

As to filial relationship, A sale between a mother and daughter cannot be considered an indication of simulation absent an indication of the absence of intent to be bound by the contract which was shown by the subsequent acts of the parties in this case.

WHEREFORE, The Deed of Absolute Sale is null and void ab initio. And the respondents are ordered to reconvey the subject lot to the petitioners.