G.R. No.

160132               April 17, 2009 Thereafter, Roque died. Belardo fully paid the loan secured by the second
SERAFIN, RAUL, NENITA, NAZARETO, NEOLANDA, all surnamed deed of sale. Dema-ala returned the certificates of title to Belardo, who,
NARANJA, AMELIA NARANJA-RUBINOS, NILDA NARANJA-LIMANA, in turn, gave them back to Atty. Sanicas
and NAIDA NARANJA-GICANO
vs. Unknown to Belardo, petitioners, the children of Placido and
COURT OF APPEALS, LUCILIA P. BELARDO, represented by her
GabinoNaranja, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs12 on
Attorney-in-Fact, REBECCA CORDERO, and THE LOCAL REGISTER
OF DEEDS, BACOLOD CITY October 11, 1985, adjudicating among themselves Lot No. 4. On
February 19, 1986, petitioner Amelia Naranja-Rubinos, accompanied by
Belardo, borrowed the two TCTs, together with the lease agreement with
Facts: Esso Standard Eastern, Inc., from Atty. Sanicas on account of the loan
being proposed by Belardo to her. Thereafter, petitioners had the
Roque Naranja was the registered owner of a parcel of land,Lot No. 4 Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs notarized on February 25, 1986.
i,with an area of 136 square Roque was also a co-owner of an adjacent With Roque’s copy of TCT in their possession, they succeeded in having it
lot, Lot No. 2, of the same subdivision plan, which he co-owned with his cancelled and a new certificate of title, issued in their names.
brothers, Gabino and PlacidoNaranja. When Placido died, his one-third
share was inherited by his children. 1989, Atty. Sanicas prepared a certificate of authorization, giving
Belardo’s daughter, Jennelyn P. Vargas, the authority to collect the
The two lots were being leased by Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. for 30 payments from Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. But it appeared from the
years from 1962-1992. Roque was being paid ₱200.00 per month by the company’s Advice of Fixed Payment that payment of the lease rental had
company. already been transferred from Belardo to Amelia Naranja-Rubinos
because of the Extrajudicial Settlement AmongHeirs.hence, Belardo,
In 1976, Roque, who was single and had no children, lived with his half instituted a suit for reconveyance with damages. The complaint prayed
sister, Lucilia P. Belardo (Belardo), in Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. that judgment be rendered declaring Belardo as the sole legal owner of
Who took care of him when he as sick, To show his gratitude to Belardo, Lot No. 4, declaring null and void the Extrajudicial Settlement Among
Roque sold Lot No. 4 and his one-third share in Lot No. 2 to Belardo on Heirs, and ordering petitioners to reconvey to her the subject property
August 21, 1981, through a Deed of Sale of Real Property which was duly and to pay damages.
notarized by Atty. Eugenio Sanicas for and in consideration of the sum of
TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00)

Roque’s copies of TCT were entrusted to Atty. Sanicas for registration of RTC Ruling
the deed of sale and transfer of the titles to Belardo. But the deed of sale
could not be registered because Belardo did not have the money to pay Favoured the Naranjas
for the registration fees.
Deed of Sale was defective in form since it did not contain a technical
Belardo borrowed money from Margarita Dema-ala, a neighbor.8When description of the subject properties being defective in form, the Deed of
the amount of her loan reached ₱15,000.00, Dema-ala required a Sale did not vest title in private respondent. Full and absolute ownership
security.Roque executed a deed of sale in favor of Dema-ala, covering his did not pass to private respondent because she failed to register the Deed
two properties in consideration of the ₱15,000.00 outstanding loan and of Sale. She was not a purchaser in good faith since she acted as a
an additional ₱15,000.00, for a total of ₱30,000.00. Dema-ala explained witness to the second sale of the property knowing that she had already
that she wanted Roque to execute the deed of sale himself since the purchased the property from Roque. Whatever rights private respondent
properties were still in his name. Belardo merely acted as a witness. The had over the properties could not be superior to the rights of petitioners,
titles to the properties were given to Dema-ala for safekeeping. who are now the registered owners of the parcels of land
C.A. RULING contract was simulated. We are convinced with the explanation given by
respondent’s witnesses that the deed of sale was not immediately
reversed the RTC Decision. registered because Belardo did not have the money to pay for the fees.
This explanation is, in fact, plausible considering that Belardo could
it held that the unregisterability of a deed of sale will not undermine its barely support herself and her brother, Roque. As for the second deed of
validity and efficacy in transferring ownership of the properties to private sale, Dema-ala, herself, attested before the trial court that she let Roque
respondent. The CA noted that the records were devoid of any proof sign the second deed of sale because the title to the properties were still
evidencing the alleged vitiation of Roque’s consent to the sale; hence, in his name.
there is no reason to invalidate the sale.
The Deed of Sale which states "receipt of which in full I hereby
Registration is only necessary to bind third parties, which petitioners, acknowledge to my entire satisfaction" is an acknowledgment receipt in
being the heirs of Roque Naranja, are not. itself. Moreover, the presumption that a contract has sufficient
consideration cannot be overthrown by a mere assertion that it has no
The trial court erred in applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code to the case
consideration.29
at bar since petitioners are not purchasers of the said properties. Hence,
it is not significant that private respondent failed to register the deed of Heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-
sale before the extrajudicial settlement among the heirs. interest.30 As heirs of Roque, petitioners are bound by the contract of
sale that Roque executed in favor of Belardo. Having been sold already to
ISSUE:
Belardo, the two properties no longer formed part of Roque’s estate which
WON deed of sale must contain technical description of the subject petitioners could have inherited. The deed of extrajudicial settlement that
property to be valid. petitioners executed over Lot No. 4 is, therefore, void, since the property
subject thereof did not become part of Roque’s estate.
WON Contract was simulated.

HELD:

1. No. What is important is that there is, in fact, an object that is

In the instant case, the deed of sale clearly identifies the subject
properties by indicating their respective lot numbers, lot areas, and the
certificate of title covering them. Resort can always be made to the
technical description as stated in the certificates of title covering the two
properties.

2. No. The late registration of the Deed of Sale and Roque’s execution of
the second deed of sale in favor of Dema-ala did not mean that the