CARMELITA FUDOT, Petitioner,

G.R. No.
171008
vs.
September 13, 2007
CATTLEYA LAND, INC., VELASCO, JR., JJ. Respondent.
Facts:
Sometime in July 1992, Cattleya Land, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as respondent)
asked someone to check, on its behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subject land
included, which it intended to buy from the spouses Troadio and Asuncion Tecson.
Finding no defect on the titles, respondent purchased the nine lots through a Deed of
Conditional Sale on 6 November 1992. Subsequently, on 30 August 1993, respondent
and the Tecsons executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties. The Deed
of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were registered with the Register of
Deeds on 06 November 1992 and 04 October 1993, respectively. The Register of
Deeds refused to actually annotate the deed of sale on the titles because of the existing
notice of attachment pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The attachment
was eventually cancelled by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons
and their attaching creditor which was brokered by respondent. Titles to six (6) of the
nine (9) lots were issued, but the Register of Deeds refused to issue titles to the
remaining three (3) lots , because the titles covering the same were still unaccounted
for.
Later, respondent learned that the Register of Deeds had already registered the deed of
sale in favor of petitioner and issued a new title herein.
The respondent filed its Complaintfor Quieting Of Title &/Or Recovery Of Ownership,
Cancellation Of Title With Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City.
Issue:
Is the issuance of Deed of Sale valid?
Held:
On 31 October 2001, the trial court rendered its decision: (i) quieting the title or
ownership of the subject land in favor of respondent; (ii) declaring the deed of sale
between petitioner and spouses Tecson invalid; (iii) ordering the registration of the
subject land in favor of respondent; (iv) dismissing respondents claim for damages
against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence; (v) dismissing
Asuncions claim for damages against petitioner for lack of factual basis; and (vi)
dismissing petitioners counterclaim for lack of the required preponderance of
evidence.