ModinavCA

F:
RamonChiangexecutedasaleof3parcelsoflandunderhisnametoSerafinModina.He
theorizedthatsubjectpropertiesweresoldtohimbyhiswife,MerlindaPlanaChiang,as
evidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedDecember17,1975.Asstated,itwassubsequently
soldbyRamontopetitionerSerafinModina,asshownbytheDeedsofSale,datedAugust3,
1979andAugust24,1979,respectively.

MODINAbroughtaComplaintforRecoveryofPossessionwithDamagesagainsttheprivate
respondentsErnestoHontarciego,PaulFigueroaandTeodoroHipallabeforetheIloiloCityRTC.
ThethreearethelesseesofthepropertyofMerlinda.Uponlearningthatasuitwasfiled,
MerlindapresentedaComplaintinintervention,seekingthedeclarationofnullityoftheDeedof
SalebetweenherhusbandandMODINAonthegroundthatthetitlesoftheparcelsofland
indisputewereneverlegallytransferredtoherhusband.
Merlindaalsoadmittedthatsaidparcelsoflandareadministeredbyherasadministratrixofthe
estateofherfirsthusbandNelsonPlana.
RTCruledinfavorofMerlinda:1)itdeclarednullandvoidthesaleofsubjectlotsbetween
MerlindaandRamonChiang,2)Italsodeclaredvoidandinexistentthesaleofthesame
propertiesbyRamontoModina.
CAaffirmedthedecisionintoto.
Issues:
1)WONMerlindaisguiltyofbeinginparidelictoandthusbepreventedfromattackingthesale
andrecoveringtheproperty?
Modinasargument:SalebetweenRamonandMerlindaisnullandvoidashusbandsandwives
cannotsellpropertiesinfavorofeachotherbutsincebothareinparidelicto,theycannotrecover
fromeachotherandrightsofthirdpersonswhoacquiresthepropertymustberespected.
MerlindacannotattackthesalebetweenhimandRamonbecauseshewasalsoaguiltyparty.
ThereisnosufficientevidenceestablishingfaultonthepartofMerlinda,thereforetheprinciple
ofinparidelictoisinapplicableintheircase.Ineffect,Merlindacanrecoverthepropertyfrom
herhusbandwhichhadbeensoldtoModinaasshewasnotaguiltypartyinthesaidtransaction.
Besides,Art.1411and1412concerningtheinparidelictoprinciplecannotapplyinthecaseat
barforthesimplereasonthatthereisnocontractbetweenRamonandMerlinda.Inparidelicto
doctrineappliesonlytocontractwithillegalconsiderationorsubjectmatter(howcanitthen
applytothiscasewhenthereisinfactnocontracttospeakof?).
MerlindacanrecoverthepropertysincethecontractbetweenModinaandRamonisvoid.Itdoes
notproduceanyeffect,assuchModinaneveracquiredtitlethereof.

2)WONModinaisapurchaseringoodfaith?

Asageneralrule,inasaleundertheTorrenssystem,avoidtitlecannotgiverisetoavalidtitle.
Theexceptioniswhenthesaleofapersonwithavoidtitleistoathirdpersonwhopurchasedit
forvalueandingoodfaith.
Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnoticethatsomeother
personhasarighttoorinterestinsuchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceatthetimeofthe
purchaseorbeforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsomeotherpersonintheproperty.
Fromtheattendantfactsofthecaseatbar,itisclearthatModinaisnotapurchaseringoodfaith.
CAfoundthattherewerecircumstancesknowntoModinawhichrenderedtheirtransaction
fraudulentundertheattendantcircumstances.Thecircumstancesare:1)heaskedhisnephew,
PlacidoMatta,toinvestigatetheoriginofthepropertyandthelatterlearnedthatthepropertyis
ownedbyMerlindaandherfirsthusband,2)upninspectionModinametallthelesseesandhe
wasinformedthatthelandbelongtoMerlinda.