Set 5 No. 14
Set 5 No. 14
Set 5 No. 14
_______________
** Designated additional Member of the Third Division, effective May 17,
2010, per Special Order No. 843 dated May 17, 2010.
* THIRD DIVISION.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
342
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
343
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1
filed by petitioners Anselmo Taghoy and the heirs of
Vicenta T. Apa (petitioners) to challenge the decision2 and
the resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 54385.4 The CA decision set aside the decision5 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City in
Civil Case No. 2247. The CA resolution denied the
petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Factual Background
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
344
Spouses Filomeno Taghoy and Margarita Amit6 owned
an 11,067 square meter parcel of land, known as Lot 3635-
B of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-212881 (subject property),
located in Barrio Agus, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu under
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6466 of the Lapu-
Lapu City Register of Deeds.7
On August 6, 1975, Filomeno and Margarita8 executed a
special power of attorney, appointing Felixberto Tigol, Jr.
as their attorney-in-fact.9 On August 21, 1975, Felixberto,
as attorney-in-fact, executed a real estate mortgage over
the subject property to secure a loan of P22,000.00 with the
Philippine National Bank (PNB).10 Filomeno and
Margarita obtained the loan to finance the shellcraft
business of their children.11
Filomeno died intestate on February 12, 1976. On July
27, 1979, his widow, Margarita, and their seven children,
namely, Vicenta, Felisa, Pantaleon, Gaudencio, Anselmo,
Anastacia and Rosita, as heirs of the deceased, executed a
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale, adjudicating to
themselves the subject property and selling the same to
Rosita and her husband Felixberto (respondents) for
P1,000.00.12
Subsequently, on September 7, 1981 and August 10,
1982, Filomeno’s heirs executed two (2) Deeds of
Confirmation of Sale, confirming the supposed sale of the
subject property by Filomeno and Margarita in favor of the
respondents for
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
345
_______________
346
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
_______________
347
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
The CA Ruling
The Petition
_______________
24 Supra note 3.
25 CA Rollo, pp. 76-82.
26 Rollo, pp. 106-119.
27 Id., at pp. 81-94.
348
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
The Issue
Our Ruling
_______________
349
“2. That the truth of the matter is that the deed of sale and
the confirmation of said sale by the legal heirs are executed for
the purpose of securing a loan in our name but which amount
of said loan shall be divided equally among the legal heirs, and
that every heir shall pay his corresponding share in the
amortization poayment of said loan;
3. That said sale was without any consideration, and
that we executed this affidavit to establish the aforestated facts
for purposes of loan only but not for conveyance and transfer
in our name absolutely and forever but during the duration of
the terms of the loan;
4. That we executed this affidavit voluntarily and freely in
order to establish this facts (sic) above-mentioned and to
undertake to return the said land to the legal heirs of the
late spouse, Filomeno Taghoy, survived by his widow, Rita Amit-
Taghoy, upon full payment of our intended loan.”35
_______________
intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true
agreement.
33 Heirs of the Late Spouses Balite v. Lim, 487 Phil. 281, 293; 446
SCRA 56, 67 (2004); Sps. Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 193,
200; 345 SCRA 468, 473 (2000).
34 Valerio v. Refresca, supra note 29, at 500; Loyola v. Court of Appeals,
383 Phil. 171, 182; 326 SCRA 285, 293 (2000).
35 Original Records, p. 48.
350
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
11/16/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 626
“3. That the truth of the matter is that said Lot No. 3635-B
was sold without any purchase price or consideration paid
to said Filomeno Taghoy, but for the purpose of securing a
loan in our name but which amount of said loan shall be divided
equally among us, the legal heirs of Filomeno Taghoy;
4. That in case the loan will be fully paid, we shall obligate
ourselves to resell, reconvey the said Lot No. 3635-B in favor of
the Heirs of Filomeno Taghoy and Rita Amit, and in case, the said
loan will not be post (sic) through.
5. That we executed this affidavit voluntarily and freely in
order to establish the aforestated facts and to attest the fact that
said deed of confirmation of sale is only for purposes of
convenience in securing the loan and not for absolute
conveyance or sale.”36
_______________
36 Id., at p. 11.
37 Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 417, 428; 418
SCRA 60, 67 (2003); Yuliongsiu v. PNB, 130 Phil. 575, 580; 22 SCRA 585,
588-589 (1968).
38 Republic v. Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, September 11, 2007, 532
SCRA 598, 609; Bon v. People, 464 Phil. 125, 138; 419 SCRA 101, 111
(2004).
39 Rufina Patis Factory v. Alusitain, 478 Phil. 544, 558; 434 SCRA 418,
429 (2004).
351
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ceb5ced72dfd585e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11