7/29/2019 Vda de Cabalu v Tabu Digest
1/2
MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS. ANGELA
CABALU and RODOLFO
TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS, Petitioners,
vs.
SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAXAMANA, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Tarlac City, Branch II,
Respondents.
Mendoza J
Sept 24, 2012
FACTS:
Property in question is 9000 sq m, a portion of property of
Faustina Maslum with a total area of 140,211
sq m.
Faustina died without children. She left a holographic will
assigning her property to her nephews and
nieces. This will was not however probated
Benjamin Laxamana, father of Domingo Laxamana, was an heir. He
died in 1960
in 1975 Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided
parcel of land (9,000 sq m)in favour of
Laureano Cabalu.
In 1994, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a
deed of extra judicial succession with
partition to give effect to the will.
The deed imparted the 9,000 to Domingo.Domingo sold half of his
land to Eleazar Tabamo and half was registered under his name under
TCT
281353
1996 domingo died
2 months after, domingo purportedly executed a deed of absolute
sale ofTCT 281353 to Renato Tabu,
who together with his wife, Dolores Laxamana divided the lit
into two
The Laxamanas, Heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer
action against Cabalu and all claiming
rights under them. They claim that the defendants were merely
allowed to occupy the subject lot by
their late father but refused to vacate
The case was decided in favour of Domingos heirs
2002, Cabalus (petitioners) filed a case for declaration of
nullity of deed of absolute sale, joint affidavit
of nullity of transfert of TCTs. Quieting of title,
reconveyance, application for restraining order,injunction and
damages against respondent spouses
petitioners claimed that they were the lawful owners of the
subject property because it was sold to their
father, Laureano Cabalu, by Domingo in 1975
Respondents: void as in 1975, Domingo was not yet owner and only
became such in 1994. Domingo was
also of unsound mind then.
RTC: dismissed the complaint. Deed of absolute sale null and
void for lack of capacity to sell of domingo
Likewise, sale to Tabu is ineffective as Domingo was dead
then
Both appealed to CA. according to petitioner, Domingo was a
co-owner of property left by Benjamin and
could therefore dispose of the portion he owned. According to
respondents, the sale was spurious and
simulated as the signature, PTR and document number of the
notary public were different from the
notarized docs. Also there was no consent as Domingo was of
unsound mind then
CA: modified: sale of Domingo to Cabalu void. Although he was of
sound mind, the deed was simulated.
Sale to Tabu valid.
ISSUE:
WON sale to Cabalu valid (no)
WON sale to tabu valid (no)
1. Petitioners invoke the presumption of validity of the deed.
However, such cannot prevail over the
facts proven. Deed in favour of Cabalu was simulated
