The Rocas children filed a case to annul the sale of land from their father Tarciano to the Fuentes spouses, claiming Rosario's signature consenting to the sale was forged. The RTC dismissed the case, but the CA ruled the sale was void as it violated the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the signature was forged as it differed from authentic samples, and the sale being void cannot prescribe. As the rightful heirs, the Rocas could exclude anyone from the property.
The Rocas children filed a case to annul the sale of land from their father Tarciano to the Fuentes spouses, claiming Rosario's signature consenting to the sale was forged. The RTC dismissed the case, but the CA ruled the sale was void as it violated the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the signature was forged as it differed from authentic samples, and the sale being void cannot prescribe. As the rightful heirs, the Rocas could exclude anyone from the property.
The Rocas children filed a case to annul the sale of land from their father Tarciano to the Fuentes spouses, claiming Rosario's signature consenting to the sale was forged. The RTC dismissed the case, but the CA ruled the sale was void as it violated the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the signature was forged as it differed from authentic samples, and the sale being void cannot prescribe. As the rightful heirs, the Rocas could exclude anyone from the property.
The Rocas children filed a case to annul the sale of land from their father Tarciano to the Fuentes spouses, claiming Rosario's signature consenting to the sale was forged. The RTC dismissed the case, but the CA ruled the sale was void as it violated the Family Code. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the signature was forged as it differed from authentic samples, and the sale being void cannot prescribe. As the rightful heirs, the Rocas could exclude anyone from the property.
Fuentes v. Conrado Roca, G.R. 178902, April 2010 Post under case digests, Civil Law at Friday, December 16, 2011 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind HAD8J5EKCNKC FACTS: On, Oct 11, 1982, Tarciano Roca bought a 358-square meter lot in Zambales from his mother. Six years later in 1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to the petitioners Fuentes spouses through the help of Atty. Plagata who would prepare the documents and requirements to complete the sale. In the agreement between Tarciano and Fuentes spouses there will be a Php 60,000 down payment and Php 140,000 will be paid upon the removal of Tarciano of certain structures on the land and after the consent of the estranged wife of Tarciano, Rosario, would be attained. Atty. Plagata thus went about to complete such tasks and claimed that he went to Manila to get the signature of Rosario but notarized the document at Zamboanga . The deed of sale was executed January 11, 1989. As time passed, Tarciano and Rosario died while the Fuentes spouses and possession and control over the lot. Eight years later in 1997, the children of Tarciano and Rosario filed a case to annul the sale and reconvey the property on the ground that the sale was void since the consent of Rosario was not attained and that Rosarios signature was a mere forgery. The Fuentes spouses claim that the action has prescribed since an action to annul a sale on the ground of fraud is 4 years from discovery. The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses ruling that there was no forgery, that the testimony of Atty. Plagata who witnessed the signing of Rosario must be given weight, and that the action has already prescribed. On the other hand, the CA reversed the ruling of the CA stating that the action has not prescribed since the applicable law is the 1950 Civil Code which provided that the sale of Conjugal Property without the consent of the other spouse is voidable and the action must be brought within 10 years. Given that the transaction was in 1989 and the action was brought in 1997 hence it was well within the prescriptive period. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not Rosarios signature on the document of consent to her husband Tarcianos sale of their conjugal land to the Fuentes spouses was forged; Share FOLLOW BY EMAI L Subscribe in a reader CATEGORI ES bar exam questionnaire (8) case digests (612) Civil Law (123) Commercial Law (89) Criminal Law (102) labor law (95) Legal Ethics (89) MCQ (28) personal (6) Political Law (163) promo/discounts/freebies (56) Psychiatry (5) Remedial Law (112) Taxation (85) villarama doctrines (103) There was an error in this gadget Followers (9) Follow this blog Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE! HOME POSTS RSS COMMENTS RSS EDIT enter your keywords here... 0
Higit Pa
Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog
Mag-sign in Email address... Submit 2. Whether or not the Rocas action for the declaration of nullity of that sale to the spouses already prescribed; and 3. Whether or not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not had, could bring the action to annul that sale. RULING: 1. The SC ruled that there was forgery due to the difference in the signatures of Rosario in the document giving consent and another document executed at the same time period. The SC noted that the CA was correct in ruling that the heavy handwriting in the document which stated consent was completely different from the sample signature. There was no evidence provided to explain why there was such difference in the handwriting. 2. Although Tarciano and Rosario was married during the 1950 civil code, the sale was done in 1989, after the effectivity of the Family Code. The Family Code applies to Conjugal Partnerships already established at the enactment of the Family Code. The sale of conjugal property done by Tarciano without the consent of Rosario is completely void under Art 124 of the family code. With that, it is a given fact that assailing a void contract never prescribes. On the argument that the action has already prescribed based on the discovery of the fraud, that prescriptive period applied to the Fuentes spouses since it was them who should have assailed such contract due to the fraud but they failed to do so. On the other hand, the action to assail a sale based on no consent given by the other spouse does not prescribe since it is a void contract. 3. It is argued by the Spouses Fuentes that it is only the spouse, Rosario, who can file such a case to assail the validity of the sale but given that Rosario was already dead no one could bring the action anymore. The SC ruled that such position is wrong since as stated above, that sale was void from the beginning. Consequently, the land remained the property of Tarciano and Rosario despite that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership of the property to their heirs, namely, the Rocas. As lawful owners, the Rocas had the right, under Article 429 of the Civil Code, to exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal. 0 COMMENTS: ON "FUENTES V. CONRADO ROCA, G. R. 178902, APRI L 2010" 367,162 RECOMMENDED READS bethere2day blog-links-exchange BLOG-PH.com Maruism NURSINGnle Philippine Case Digests Databank Scire Licet The Digester Uberdigests ARCHI VE Archive Live Trafc Feed Real-time view Menu A visitor from Philippines viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Fuentes v. Conrado Roca, G.R. 178902, April 2010" 24 secs ago A visitor from Tuguegarao City, Cagayan viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Reyes vs. National Housing Authority (NHA) (January 20, 2003)" 2 mins ago A visitor from Buting, Rizal viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 476 SCRA 168 (2005)" 3 mins ago A visitor from Manila viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: City Government of QC vs. Bayantel" 7 mins ago A visitor from Quezon, Nueva Ecija viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Mario Siochi vs. Alfredo Gozon, Winifred Gozon, Elvira Gozon Inter- Deimensional Realty, Inc; GR No. 169900; March 18, 2010" 9 mins ago A visitor from Zamboanga City, Zamboanga viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Galido vs. COMELEC" 11 mins ago A visitor from Philippines viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board" 13 mins ago A visitor from Quezon City viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 , August 1, 2007" 14 mins ago A visitor from Philippines viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Djumantan vs. Domingo" 25 mins ago A visitor from Quezon City viewed "Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind: Philippine School of Business Administration vs. CA [205 POST A COMMENT Newer Post Older Post Enter your comment... Comment as: Google Account Publish Publish
Preview Preview Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) DI SCLAI MER All contents provided on this blog are for informational/educational purposes only. Coffeeafficionado makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not also be liable for any errors or omissions on the information provided nor for the availability of this information. Coffeeafficionado claims no credit for any image/video/ads featured on this blog. They are all copyrighted to its site owners. If you own rights to any of the images/videos featured on this blog, and do not wish them to appear on this site, contact Coffeeafficionado thru email and they will be immediately removed. POPULAR POSTS BANAT vs. COMELEC , GR 17927 [ April 21, 2009 ] Facts: Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petitio... Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. PBM, 51 SCRA 189 Facts: Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacaang to express their gri... Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita Facts: On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the law took effect on July 1, 2005,... Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil 726 Facts: Pursuant to the power delegated to it by the Legislature, the Director of Public Works promulgated rules and regulations pertainin... Garcia vs. Mata Facts: Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who was reversed to inactive status. He filed an action for FOLLOWERS
Home Civil Law Fuentes v. Conrado Roca, G.R. 178902, April 2010 Fuentes v. Conrado Roca, G.R. 178902, April 2010 Post under case digests, Civil Law HAD8J5EKCNKC FACTS: On, Oct 11, 1982, Tarciano Roca bought a 358-square meter lot in Zambales from his mother. Six years later in 1988, Tarciano offered to sell the lot to the petitioners Fuentes spouses through the help of Atty. Plagata who would prepare the documents and requirements to complete the sale. In the Tarciano and Fuentes spouses payment and Php 140,000 will be paid upon the removal of Tarciano of certain structures on the land and after the consent of the estranged wife of Tarciano, Rosario, would be attained. Atty. Plagata thus went about to complete such tasks and claimed that he went to Manila to get the signature Zamboanga . The deed of sale time passed, Tarciano and Rosario died while the Fuentes spouses and possession and control over the lot. Eight years later in 1997, the children of Tarciano and Rosario filed a case to annul the sale and reconvey the property on the ground that the sale was void since the consent of Rosario was not attained and that Rosarios signature was a mere action has prescribed since an action to annul a sale on the ground of fraud is 4 years from discovery. The RTC ruled in favor of the Fuentes spouses ruling that there was no forgery, that the testimony of Atty. Plagata who witnessed the signing of Rosario must be given weight, and that the action has already prescribed. On the other hand, the CA reversed the ruling of the CA stating that the action has not prescribed since the applicable law is the 1950 Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind I'M A SCHIZOPHRENIC! I'M HAPPY! I'M PROUD TO BE ONE! HOME POSTS RSS mandamus to compel the DND ... Copyright 2009. Scribbles of a Lunatic Mind - WPBoxedTech Theme Design by Technology Tricks for Health Coupons. Bloggerized by Free Blogger Template - Sponsored by Graphic ZONe and Technology Info