PLAINTIFF ISSUE DEFENDANT

[Opening statement]: [Opening statement]:

Mr. Agcaoili is entitled to In support of the plaintiff’s
reconvey the alleged property proposition that Mr. Agcaoili
since the title was transferred is entitled to reconvey the
through fraud and property and recover
misrepresentation. damages thereof, the plaintiff
Furthermore, he prays for claims that the title to such
_____ actual damages. property was transferred
through fraud and
misrepresentation. The
respondents rebut the
foregoing arguments,

[The Rule]: Section 53(3) of [The Rule]: Section 53(3) of

Presidential Decree No. 1529 Presidential Decree No. 1529
states that registration states that registration
procured by fraud gives the Whether or not Elpidio procured by fraud gives the
owner a right to pursue all Agcaoili can recover the owner a right to pursue all
legal and equitable remedies alleged property legal and equitable remedies
against the parties to such against the parties to such
fraud without prejudice. Any fraud without prejudice. Any
subsequent registration subsequent registration
procured by the presentation procured by the presentation
of a forged duplicate of a forged duplicate
certificate of title, or a forged certificate of title, or a forged
deed or other instrument, deed or other instrument,
shall be null and void. shall be null and void, is not
applicable in this case. Article
[The Case Fact]: When the 1431 of the New Civil Code
Deed of Absolute Sale was provides that through
executed on June 25, 2012, estoppel, an admission or
plaintiff claims that his wife, representation is rendered
who is the co-owner of the conclusive upon the person
alleged property, was already making it, and cannot be
dead as evidenced by the denied on disproved as
death certificate. In this case, against the person relying
the signature appearing on thereon.
the said document was not
personally authored by his [The case facts:] Since
wife. Agcaoili represented/
introduced the old lady who
[Conclusion statement]: accompanied him is his wife
Therefore, the defendant’s (co-owner), such
contention that the Deed of representation if proven
Absolute Sale was valid holds wrong shall not be used by
no merit since the signature the plaintiff against the
of his wife was forged.
 defendant who relied on such
representation.

[The Rule]: Article 1346 of [The conclusion:] the

the New Civil Code provides Plaintiff claim that her wife
that an absolutely simulated was already dead when the
or fictitious contract is void. In contract was executed can no
Intac v. Court of Appeals, the longer be admitted.
Court ruled that an absolute
simulation provides a [The Rule] Section 9 of Rule
colorable contract which has 130 of Rules of Evidence
no substance as the parties provides that when the terms
had no intention to be bound of an agreement have been
by it. “The main characteristic reduced to writing, it is
of an absolute simulation is considered as containing all
that the apparent contract is the terms agreed upon and
not really desired or intended these can be, between the
to produce legal effect or in parties. Furthermore,
any way alter the juridical acknowledgement or
situation of the parties”. As a certification of a document as
result, the parties may provided by law such as
recover from each other what notarization serves as prima
they may have given under facie evidence of execution
the contract. thereof and carry with it the
presumption of regularity.
[The Case Fact]: The blank
Deed of Absolute Sale was Case fact: The transfer of the
signed by the plaintiff as part property of Agcaoli to the
of the loan application defendant is evidenced by a
process. However, the said valid Deed of Sale signed by
loan was not approved by the both parties that was duly
defendants. notarized. The Deed of Sales
shows the parties’ intention to
[Conclusion statement]: transfer the ownership of
Therefore, the questioned such property and the
Deed of Absolute Sale was consideration thereof.
only for the purpose of
securing the loan. There can [The Conclusion] Hence, the
be no doubt that the contract plaintiff’s arguments that the
lacked the intention to sell the sale is void since there was
property. Moreover, the no intention to sell such
element of consideration was property is not amenable
absent since the price given that the Deed of Sale
purportedly paid as indicated
was simulated for no signed by both parties shows
payment was made, hence, otherwise.
the sale is void.

[The Rule]: In Intac v. Court

of Appeals, the petitioners did [The Rule] In Arambulo v
not become the owners of the Gungab, the Court ruled that
subject property even after a it is a well established rule
TCT had been issued in their that Torrens title is evidence
names. After all, registration of indefeasible title to
does not vest title. property in favor of the
Certificates of title merely person in whose name the
confirm or record title already title appears. It is conclusive
existing and vested. They evidence with respect to the
cannot be used to protect a ownership of the land
usurper from the true owner, described therein. It is also
nor can they be used as a settled that the title holder is
shield for the commission of entitled to all the attributes of
fraud, or to permit one to owners of the property
enrich oneself at the expense including possession.
of others. Hence,
reconveyance of the subject Fact: The title of said property
property is warranted. was successfully transferred
Moreover, the Court finds that under the name of the
one of the most striking defendants even if the actual
badges of absolute simulation possession of such is still
is the complete absence of with the plaintiff.
any attempt on the part of a
vendee to assert his or her Conclusion : Under Torrens
right of dominion over the System, the name that
property. appears in the title is a
conclusive evidence of
[The Case Fact]: Plaintiff has ownership thereof, regadless
continued possession of the of the actual possession
alleged property on the thereof
grounds that he is still living
there and he intended to pay
the real property taxes due
thereon. Whereas, the
defendants did not claim
ownership and take actual
possession nor did they pay
the real property tax.

[Conclusion Statement]:
Therefore, it is a clear
indication that the plaintiff is
the rightful owner because he
was not demanded by the
defendants to vacate the
property, thus, defeating the
purpose of the alleged sale. Whether or not Elpidio
In addition, the intention to Agcaoili can recover
pay the real property tax is a damages for the alleged
positive act indicating fraudulent transfer of the
ownership. property

[The Rule]: Article 2208 (5)

of the New Civil Code,
attorney’s fees and expenses
of litigation, other than judicial
costs, can be recovered
when the defendant acted in
gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the
plaintiff’s valid and
demandable claim.

[The Case Fact]: Plaintiff has

suffered damages in filing the
case against the defendants
amounting to P50,000 as
attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses of P3,000 per court
appearance.