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 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