VOL.
253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 391
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 105944. February 9, 1996.
SPOUSES ROMULO AND SALLY EDUARTE,
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and PEDRO CA-LAPINE (substituted by
ALEXANDER CALAPINE and ARTEMIS CALAPINE),
respondents.
Donations; Revocation of Donation; All crimes which offend
the donor show ingratitude and are causes for revocation.—As
noted in the aforecited opinion “all crimes which offend the
donor show ingratitude and are causes for revocation.”
Petitioners’ attempt to categorize the offenses according to
their classification under the Revised Penal Code is therefore
unwarranted considering that illegal detention, threats and
coercion are considered as crimes against the person of the
donor despite the fact that they are classified as crimes against
personal liberty and security under the Revised Penal Code.
Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Expert Testimony;
Handwriting Experts; The value of the opinion of a
handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of
whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he
may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice
or detection from an unpracticed observer.—In gauging the
relative weight to be given to the opinion of handwriting
experts, we adhere to the following standards: “We have held
that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends
not upon his mere state-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
392
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
ments of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the
assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice
or detection from an unpracticed observer. The test of
genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not the formation of
letters in some other specimens but to the general character of
writing, which is impressed on it as the involuntary and
unconscious result of constitution, habit or other permanent
course, and is, therefore itself permanent.”
Land Titles; Ownership; Possession; The rule is well-settled
that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a
registered torrens title to real property.—We agree with
petitioners. The rule is well-settled that mere possession
cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered torrens title to
real property. Moreover, reliance on the doctrine that a forged
deed can legally be the root of a valid title is squarely in point
in this case: “Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is
a nullity and conveys no title, however there are instances
when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a
valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of title
was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the
forger, and while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the
vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the
certificate.
Same; Sales; The fact that the vendor’s title was
fraudulently secured cannot prejudice the rights of the
purchasers absent any showing that they had knowledge or
participation in such irregularity.—When herein petitioners
purchased the subject property from Helen Doria, the same
was already covered by TCT No. T-23205 under the latter’s
name. And although Helen Doria’s title was fraudulently
secured, such fact cannot prejudice the rights of herein
petitioners absent any showing that they had any knowledge or
participation in such irregularity. Thus, they cannot be obliged
to look beyond the certificate of title which appeared to be valid
on its face and sans any annotation or notice of private
respondents’ adverse claim. Contrary therefore to the
conclusion of respondent Court, petitioners are purchasers in
good faith and for value as they bought the disputed property
without notice that some other person has a right or interest in
such property, and paid a full price for the same at the time of
the purchase or before they had notice of the claim or interest
of some other person in the property.
393
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 393
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
Same; Same; The established rule is that the rights of an
innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected
notwithstanding the fraud employed by the seller in securing
his title.—Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible
error when it affirmed the ruling of the trial court annulling
and setting aside the deed of absolute sale dated March 25,
1988 between petitioners and Helen Doria, as well as the
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27434 issued under
petitioner’s name, the established rule being that the rights of
an innocent purchaser for value must be respected and
protected notwithstanding the fraud employed by the seller in
securing his title.
Same; Same; Assurance Fund; Remedies of the owner of a
parcel of land who was prejudiced and fraudulently
dispossessed of his property.—In this regard, it has been held
that the proper recourse of the true owner of the property who
was prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of the same is to
bring an action for damages against those who caused or
employed the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action
against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for
recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of
Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Makalintal, Barot, Torres & Ibarra for petitioners.
Roberto E. Gomez for private respondents.
FRANCISCO, J.:
A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person
disposes gratuitously of1 a thing or right in favor of
another, who accepts it. On the part of the donor, it is
an exercise of one’s generosity. However, on several
occasions, instead of being accorded recognition and
appreciation for this act of beneficence, the donor ends
up as a victim of greed and ingratitude. This was the
fate that befell Pedro Calapine (herein original plaintiff)
constraining him to cause the revocation of the donation
that he made to his niece in 1984. The instant petition
_______________
1 Article 725, New Civil Code.
394
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
for certiorari is interposed by the spouses Romulo and
Sally Eduarte, assailing the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29175 which affirmed the
revocation of the donation made by Pedro Calapine to his
niece, Helen Doria, and at the same time declared
petitioners as purchasers in bad faith of the property
donated.
As set out in the appealed decision, the undisputed
facts are as follows:
“Pedro Calapine was the registered owner of a parcel of land
located in San Cristobal, San Pablo City, with an area of
12,199 square meters, as evidenced by Original Certificate of
Title No. P-2129 (Exhibits A and 1). On April 26, 1984, he
executed a deed entitled ‘Pagbibigay-Pala (Donacion Inter-
Vivos)’ ceding one-half portion thereof to his niece Helen S.
Doria (Exhibit B).
“On July 26, 1984, another deed identically entitled was
purportedly executed by Pedro Calapine ceding unto Helen S.
Doria the whole of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-
2129 (Exhibits C and D), on the basis of which said original
certificate was cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-23205 was issued in her name
(Exhibits G and 2).
“On February 26, 1986, Helen S. Doria donated a portion of
157 square meters of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-
23205 to the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc.
(Exhibit H), on the basis of which said transfer certificate of
title was cancelled and TCT No. T-24444 was issued in its
name covering 157 square meters (Exhibit 2-A) and TCT No. T-
24445, in the name of Helen S. Doria covering the remaining
portion of 12,042 square meters (Exhibit 3).
“On March 25, 1988, Helen S. Doria sold, transferred and
conveyed unto the spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte the
parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-24445, save the portion of
700 square meters on which the vendor’s house had been
erected (Exhibits 1 and 3-F), on the basis of which TCT No.
24445 was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-27434,
issued in the name of the vendees (Exhibit 4).
“Claiming that his signature to the deed of donation
(Exhibits C and D) was a forgery and that she was unworthy of
his liberality, Pedro Calapine brought suit against Helen S.
Doria, the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. and the
spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte to revoke the donation
made in favor of Helen S. Doria
395
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 395
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
(Exhibit B), to declare null and void the deeds of donation and
sale that she had executed in favor of the Calauan Christian
Reformed Church, Inc. and the spouses Romulo and Sally
Eduarte (Exhibits H, I and 3-F) and to cancel TCT Nos. T-
24444, 24445 and T-27434.
“Answering the complaint, the defendants spouses denied
knowledge of the first deed of donation and alleged that after a
part of the property was donated to the defendant Calauan
Christian Reformed Church, Inc., the remaining portion
thereof was sold to them by the defendant Helen S. Doria; and
that the plaintiff’s purported signature in the second deed of
donation was his own, hence genuine. They prayed that the
complaint against them be dismissed; that upon their
counterclaim, the plaintiff be ordered to pay them moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; and that upon their
cross-claim the defendant Helen S. Doria be ordered to
reimburse them the purchase price of P110,000 and to pay
them moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees (pp.
23-31, rec.).
“The defendant Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc.
manifested in its answer the willingness to reconvey to the
plaintiff that part of the property donated to it by Helen S.
Doria (pp. 36-38, rec.). And having executed the corresponding
deed of reconveyance, the case as against it was dismissed (pp.
81-83; 84, rec.).
“The defendants Helen S. Doria and the City Assessor and
the Registrar of Deeds of San Pablo City did not file answers to
the plaintiff’s complaint.
“After the plaintiff’s death on August 27, 1989, on motion,
he was substituted by his nephews Alexander and Artemis
Calapine upon order of the Court (pp. 147-152; 250, rec.).
“After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial
Region, Branch 30, San Pablo City rendered judgment, the
dispositive part of which provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by
the Court in the instant case in favor of plaintiff and against
defendant Eduartes to wit:
1. DECLARING as it is hereby declared, the revocation of the
Deed of Donation dated April 26, 1984;
2. ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no force
and effect the Deed of Donation dated July 26, 1984, the deed
of absolute sale executed on March 25, 1988 by and between
spouses Eduartes and Helen Doria, and the Transfer
396
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
Certificate of Title No. T-27434 issued under the name of spouses
Romulo and Sally Eduarte;
3. ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San Pablo
City, to cancel TCT No. T-27434 or any other adverse title
emanating from OCT No. P-2129 and in lieu thereof, to issue a
new transfer certificate of title covering the subject property
under the names of the substitute-plaintiffs Alexander and
Artemis both surnamed Calapine, after payment of the
corresponding fees and taxes therefor; and
4. ORDERING defendant Helen Doria to pay substitute-
plaintiffs the sum of P200,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.
Judgment on the cross-claim of defendant Eduartes against Helen
Doria is further rendered by ordering the latter to pay the former the
sum of P110,000.00 with legal interest thereon starting from March
25, 1988 until full payment, and the further sum of P20,000.00 as and
for attorney’s fees.
The counterclaim of defendant Eduartes against plaintiff is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit.
Costs against defendant Helen Doria in both the complaint and the
cross-claim (pp. 11-12, decision, pp. 264-265, rec.).
“Only the defendants Eduarte spouses took an appeal (p.
266, rec.), claiming that the trial court erred—
1. In annulling, voiding, setting aside, and declaring of no
force and effect—
(a) the deed of donation (Exhibit C and 1-A), dated July 26,
1984;
(b) the deed of absolute sale (Exhibit 1 and 3-E) executed
on March 25, 1988 by and between Spouses Eduartes
and Helen Doria;
(c) TCT No. T-27434 (Exhibit 4) issued in the name of
spouses Romulo Eduarte and Sally Eduarte; and in
revoking the deed of donation (Exhibit B) dated April
26, 1984;
2. In declaring the appellants Eduartes buyers in bad
faith;
3. In not finding the plaintiffs guilty of estoppel by silence
and/or guilty of suppression of evidence instead of find-
397
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 397
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
ing the appellants Eduartes guilty of suppression of
evidence; and
4. In finding that the signature of Pedro Calapine in the
deed of donation (Exhibits C and 1-A) dated July 26,
1984 a forgery based on the opposite findings of the
hand writing experts presented by each party and in
the absence of the testimony of Pedro Calapine 2
who
was then still alive (pp. 1-2, appellants’ brief.)”
3
In its decision dated April 22, 1992, respondent Court of
Appeals dismissed petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Respondent court was in
complete accord with the trial court in giving more
credence to the testimony of private respondents’ expert
witness, NBI document examiner Bienvenido Albacea,
who found Pedro Calapine’s signature in the second deed
of donation to be a forgery. It also ruled that by
falsifying Pedro Calapine’s signature, Helen Doria
committed an act of ingratitude which is a valid ground
for revocation of the donation made in her favor in
accordance with Article 765 of the Civil Code.
Furthermore, respondent court upheld the trial court’s
finding that petitioners are not buyers in good faith of
the donated property as they failed to exercise due
diligence in verifying the true ownership of the property
despite the existence of circumstances that should have
aroused their suspicions.
Petitioners are now before us taking exception to the
foregoing findings of respondent Court of Appeals and
contending that the same are not in accord with the law
and evidence on record.
Anent the revocation of the first deed of donation,
petitioners submit that paragraph (1) of Article 765 of
the Civil Code does not apply in this case because the
acts of ingratitude referred to therein pertain to offenses
committed by the donee against the person or property of
the donor. Petitioners argue that as the offense imputed
to herein donee Helen Doria—falsification of a public
document—is neither a crime against
_______________
2 Decision, pp. 1-5, Rollo, pp. 32-36.
3 Rollo, p. 32.
398
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
the person nor property of the donor but is a crime
against public interest under the Revised Penal Code,
the same is not a ground for revocation.
In support of this contention, petitioners cite the
following portions found in Tolentino’s Commentaries
and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code:
“Offense against Donor—x x x. The crimes against the person
of the donor would include not only homicide and physical
injuries, but also illegal detention, threats and coercion; and
those against honor include offenses against chastity and those
against the property, include robbery, theft, usurpation,
4
swindling, arson, damages, etc. (5 Manresa 175-176).”
This assertion, however, deserves scant consideration.
The full text of the very same commentary cited by
petitioners belies their claim that falsification of the
deed of donation is not an act of ingratitude, to wit:
“Offense Against Donor.—All crimes which offend the donor
show ingratitude and are causes for revocation. There is no
doubt, therefore, that the donee who commits adultery with the
wife of the donor, gives cause for revocation by reason of
ingratitude. The crimes against the person of the donor would
include not only homicide and physical injuries, but also illegal
detention, threats, and coercion; those against honor include
offenses against chastity; and those against the property,
include robbery, theft, usurpation,
5
swindling, arson, damages,
etc. [Manresa 175-176]. (Italics supplied).
Obviously, the first sentence was deleted by petitioners
because it totally controverts their contention. As noted
in the aforecited opinion “all crimes which offend the
donor show ingratitude and are causes for revocation.”
Petitioners’ attempt to categorize the offenses according
to their classification under the Revised Penal Code is
therefore unwarranted considering that illegal
detention, threats and coercion are considered as crimes
against the person of the donor despite
_______________
4 Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 23, citing Vol. II, ed., p. 550.
5 Vol. II, 1983 Ed., p. 538.
399
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 399
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
the fact that they are classified as crimes against
personal
6
liberty and security under the Revised Penal
Code.
Petitioners also impute grave error to respondent
Court of Appeals in finding that the second deed of
donation dated July 26, 1984 was falsified. Petitioners
deplore the fact that more credence was given to the
testimony of the NBI handwriting expert who found
Pedro Calapine’s signature in the second deed of
donation to be a forgery despite the existence of
controverting testimony by PC-INP Crime Laboratory
(PCCL) Chief Document Examiner which petitioners
adduced as evidence on their part.
We are not persuaded. Respondent Court of Appeals
and the trial court cannot be faulted for giving more
weight and credence to the testimony of the NBI
handwriting expert considering that the examination of
the said witness proved to be complete, thorough and
scientific.
In gauging the relative weight to be given to the
opinion of handwriting experts, we adhere to the
following standards:
“We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting
expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a
writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may
afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and
discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of
writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from
an unpracticed observer. The test of genuineness ought to be
the resemblance, not the formation of letters in some other
specimens but to the general character of writing, which is
impressed on it as the involuntary and unconscious result of
constitution, habit7 or other permanent course, and is, therefore
itself permanent.”
_______________
6 See Revised Penal Code, Title Nine—Crimes Against Personal
Liberty and Security; Articles 267, 268, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289.
7 People vs. Domasian, 219 SCRA 245, 252 (1993) citing Alcos v.
IAC, 162 SCRA 823, Moran, Comments on Rules of Court, 434, Nolasco
ed., 1980; People v. Bustos, 45 Phil. 9 (1983).
400
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
Confronted with contradicting testimonies from two
handwriting experts, the trial court and respondent
Court of Appeals were convinced by the opinion of the
NBI handwriting expert as it was more exhaustive, in
contrast with the testimony of petitioners’ witness from
the PCCL which was discarded on account of the
following flaws:
“The Court is not convinced with Cruz’s explanations. Apart
from the visual inconsistencies, i.e., the strokes with which
some letters were made, the variety in the sizes of the letters,
the depth, the difference in the slant which the Court itself
observed in its own examination of both the questioned
signatures and those standard specimen signatures, there is
evidence showing that Cruz did not make a thorough
examination of all the signatures involved in this particular
issue. Thus even in the report submitted by the PCCL it was
admitted that they omitted or overlooked the examination of at
least three (3) standard specimen signatures of Pedro Calapine
which were previously subject of the NBI examination marked
as Exhibits ‘S-9,’ ‘S-10’ and ‘S-11.’ When questioned regarding
this oversight, Cruz testified that in his opinion, the inclusion
or non-inclusion of said exhibits in their examination will not
affect the same and they would have arrived at the same
conclusion anyway. Again, when asked why they did not bother
to have the original copies of the documents being questioned
(Exhs. ‘Q-1’ through ‘Q-3’) for their examination, Cruz replied
that they are using a special film so it will not matter whether
the documents being examined are the original or a mere
photocopy (TSN 8, 10, 12 and 26, Hearing of Nov. 23, 1989).
“The Court will not attempt to make its own conclusion or
resolution on such a technical issue as the matter at hand in
the light of the cavalier attitude of Cruz. In fine, between the
examinations made by the two witnesses, that of Albacea’s
proved to be complete,
8
thorough and scientific and is worthy of
credence and belief.”
The afore-quoted findings confirm beyond doubt the
failure of petitioners’ expert witness to satisfy the above-
mentioned criteria for evaluating the opinion of
handwriting experts. At the same time, petitioners’
witness failed to rebut the convincing testimony of the
NBI handwriting expert presented by
_______________
8 Decision, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 36-37.
401
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 401
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
private respondents. We therefore find no reason to
deviate from the assailed conclusions as the same are
amply supported by the evidence on record.
Finally, proceeding to the crucial issue that directly
affects herein petitioners, it is reiterated that petitioners
are buyers in good faith of the donated property, and
therefore, it was grave error to annul and set aside the
deed of sale executed between petitioners and donee
Helen Doria.
In adjudging petitioners as buyers in bad faith,
respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
finding that the attendant circumstances, that is, the
presence of other occupants as well as houses built of
strong materials and fruit bearing trees in the subject
land, should have aroused the suspicion of petitioners
and impelled them to exercise due diligence in verifying
the true ownership of the property being sold.
Petitioners dispute the lower court’s conclusion and
argue that although there were other occupants in the
subject property, no adverse claim was made by the
latter as they were mere tenants therein, thus,
petitioners were not obliged to make any further inquiry
because the property being sold was covered by a
certificate of title under Helen Doria’s name.
We agree with petitioners. The rule is well-settled
that mere possession cannot defeat the title 9of a holder
of a registered torrens title to real property. Moreover,
reliance on the doctrine that a forged deed can legally be
the root of a valid title is squarely in point in this case:
“Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity
and conveys no title, however there are instances when such a
fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title. One
such instance is where the certificate of title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and
while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to
an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to
rely upon what appeared in the certificate.
_______________
9 Abad vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 817, 826 (1989) citing J.M.
Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 146 (1979).
402
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
“Where there was nothing in the certificate of title to indicate
any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any
encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore
further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in
quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were
otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of
title which the Torrens10System seeks to insure would entirely
be futile and nugatory.”
When herein petitioners purchased the subject property
from Helen Doria, the same was already covered by TCT
No. T-23205 under the latter’s name. And although
Helen Doria’s title was fraudulently secured, such fact
cannot prejudice the rights of herein petitioners absent
any showing that they had any knowledge or
participation in such irregularity. Thus, they cannot be
obliged to look beyond the certificate of title which
appeared to be valid on its face and sans any annotation
or notice of private respondents’ adverse claim. Contrary
therefore to the conclusion of respondent Court,
petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for value as
they bought the disputed property without notice that
some other person has a right or interest in such
property, and paid a full price for the same at the time of
the purchase or before they had notice of the 11
claim or
interest of some other person in the property.
Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible
error when it affirmed the ruling of the trial court
annulling and setting aside the deed of absolute sale
dated March 25, 1988 between petitioners and Helen
Doria, as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
27434 issued under petitioner’s name, the established
rule being that the rights of an innocent purchaser for
value must be respected and protected
_______________
10 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 187 SCRA
735, 740 (1990) citing Fule vs. Legare, 7 SCRA 351.
11 Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 550, 556 (1994)
citing De Santos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 157 SCRA
295; Co, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 196 SCRA 705; Casupit, et
al. vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 684.
403
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 9, 1996 403
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
notwithstanding 12the fraud employed by the seller in
securing his title.
In this regard, it has been held that the proper
recourse of the true owner of the property who was
prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of the same is
to bring an action for damages against those who caused
or employed the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an
action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be
filed for
13
recovery of damages against the Assurance
Fund.
Conformably with the foregoing, having established
beyond doubt that Helen Doria fraudulently secured her
title over the disputed property which she subsequently
sold to petitioners, Helen Doria should instead be
adjudged liable to private respondents, and not to
petitioners as declared by the trial court and respondent
Court of Appeals, for the resulting damages to the true
owner and original plaintiff, Pedro Calapine.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the
appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED. The portions of
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo
City, Branch 30, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 29175 which ordered the following:
“x x x x x x x x x;
“2. ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of
no force and effect x x x, the deed of absolute sale
executed on March 25, 1988 by and between spouses
Eduartes and Helen Doria, and the Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-27434 issued under the name of spouses
Romulo and Sally Eduarte;
“3. ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San
Pablo City, to cancel TCT No. T-27434 or any other
adverse title emanating from OCT No. P-2129 and in
lieu thereof, to issue a new transfer certificate of title
covering the subject property under the names of the
substitute-plaintiffs Alexander and Artemis both
surnamed Ca-
_______________
12 Pino vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 434, 440 citing Director of Lands vs.
Abache, et al., 73 Phil. 606.
13 Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra, citing
Blanco, et al. vs. Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494; Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.
404
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals
lapine, after payment of the corresponding fees and
taxes therefor; and
“4. x x x x x x x x x. “Judgment on the cross-claim of
defendant Eduartes against Helen Doria is further
rendered by ordering the latter to pay the former the
sum of P110,000.00 with legal interest thereon starting
from March 25, 1988 until full payment, x x x.”
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Instead, Helen Doria is hereby ordered to pay herein
private respondents the sum of P110,000.00 with legal
interest counted from March 25, 1988 until full payment,
as damages for the resulting loss to original plaintiff
Pedro Calapine.
In all other respects, the appealed decision is hereby
affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and
Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment modified.
Notes.—It would be manifestly unfair for the
Republic, as donee, alleged to have violated the
conditions under which it received gratuitously certain
property, thereafter to put as a barrier the concept of
non-suability. That would be a purely one-sided
arrangement offensive to one’s sense of justice. Such
conduct, whether proceeding from an individual or
governmental agency, is to be condemned. As a matter of
fact, in case it is the latter that is culpable, the affront to
decency is even more manifest. (Santiago vs. Republic,
87 SCRA 294 [1978])
Only the donor or his heirs have the personality to
question the violation of any restriction in the deed of
donation. (Gar-rido vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 450
[1994])
——o0o——
405
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
