CARANTES v. CA



CARANTES v. CA 
G.R. No. L-33360 April 25, 1977

FACTS

MATEO CARANTES, the father of both parties, was the original owner of Lot No. 44 situated at Baguio City.

The lot was subdivided into 5 (A,B,C,D,E). In 1930, Lot 44-A was expropriated by the Government for the construction of an airport.

In the settlement of the estate of the late Mateo, his sons PETIONER MAXIMINO was appointed and qualified as judicial administrator of the estate.

In 1939, a deed denominated "ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO INHERITANCE" was executed by four of MATEO Carantes' children assigning to Maximino their rights to inheritance in Lot No. 44. The stated monetary consideration for the assignment was P1.00.

In 1940, Maximino registered the deed of "Assignment of Right to Inheritance." On the same date, Maximino, acting as exclusive owner of the land executed a formal deed of sale in favor of the Government over Lots Nos. 44-B and 44-C.

Maximino remained as the registered owner of Lots 44-D and E.

The present complaint was filed by respondents, three children of the late Mateo Carantes, against their brother and petitioner Maximino.

RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS:
  •        executed the deed of "Assignment of Right to Inheritance only because they were made to believe by the Maximino that the said instrument embodied it merely authorized the defendant Maximino to convey portions of Lot No. 44 to the Government in their behalf to minimize expenses and facilitate the transaction;
  •         it was only in 1958, when they came to know that the same purported to assign in favor of Maximino their rights to inheritance from their father
  • .       prayed that the deed of Assignment of Right to Inheritance be declare null and void


PETITIONER MAXIMINO’s CONTENTION: filed motion to dismiss
1.       respondents’ cause of action is barred by prescription

TRIAL COURT: DISMISSED, action has prescribed
COURT OF APPEALS: REVERSED RTC ruling



ISSUES:

1.   W/N the deed of “Assignment of Right to Inheritance” is void ab initio because the consideration was only P1.00
2.       W/N the deed of “Assignment of Right to Inheritance” can be annulled on the ground of fraud.
3.       W/N express trust was created in favor of private respondents
4.       W/N petitioner Maximino is merely holding the property in trust


RULING
1. NO.  The deed of "Assignment of Right to Inheritance" is NOT void ab initio on the ground the consideration of P1.00 is so shocking to the conscience.

In the case at bar, consideration was not absent. The sum of P1.00 appears in the document as one of the considerations for the assignment of inheritance.

In addition, the document recites that the decedent Mateo Carantes had, during his lifetime, expressed to the signatories to the contract that the property subject-matter thereof rightly and exclusively belonged to the petitioner Maximino Carantes. This acknowledgment by the signatories definitely constitutes valuable consideration for the contract.

2. NO. IT CANNOT BE ANNULLED ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO FILE ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED.
Its prescriptive period is four years from the time of the discovery of the fraud.

The registration of an instrument in the Office of the Register of Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and, therefore, discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of the registration.

·         MARCH 1940 - Deed of assignment registered
·         SEPTEMBER 1958 – filing of complaint
barred by prescription


3. NO. THERE WAS ONLY “CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST”, AND THE RIGHT TO FILE ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED.
Constructive trust means there is neither promise nor fiduciary relations; the so-called trustee does not recognize any trust and has no intent to hold the property for the beneficiary.

Constructive trust is PRESCRIPTIBLE. It prescribes in 10 years.
·         MARCH 1940 - Deed of assignment registered
·         SEPTEMBER 1958 – filing of complaint
still barred by prescription

4. NO. PETITIONER MAXIMINO IS MERELY HOLDING THE PROPERTY IN TRUST.
There was no continuing and subsisting trust.

From March 16, 1940, when the petitioner registered the deed of assignment and had the certificate of title in the names of the heirs cancelled and a new certificate of title issued in his own name, he began to hold the property in open and clear repudiation of any trust.

Petitioner also sold portions of Lot No. 44 to the Government and even mortgaged another to PNB.

The petitioner's exercise of such rights of dominion is anathema to the concept of a continuing and subsisting trust.


DISMISSED

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more