Santos v. Santos (G.R. No.
133895, October 2, 2001)
Facts:
1. Ownership Background:
o Jesus and Rosalia Santos owned a parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Manila, covered by TCT No. 27571, where a
four-door apartment was built and rented out.
o They had five children: Salvador, Calixto, Alberto, Antonio, and Rosa.
2. Property Transfers:
o In 1959, Jesus and Rosalia executed a Deed of Sale transferring the property to Salvador and Rosa,
leading to TCT No. 60819.
o In 1973, Rosa sold her ½ share to Salvador, resulting in TCT No. 113221 under Salvador’s name.
o Despite the sales, Rosalia continued to lease the apartment units and collect rents.
3. Series of Deaths and Dispute:
o 1979: Jesus passed away.
o 1985: Salvador passed away.
o 1986: Rosalia passed away.
o Shortly after Rosalia’s death, Zenaida (Salvador’s widow) demanded rental payments, leading to an
ejectment case against a tenant (Antonio Hombrebueno).
o In 1989, Salvador’s siblings (respondents) filed an action for reconveyance, alleging the deeds of sale
were simulated and fictitious, executed only to financially accommodate Salvador.
4. Trial Court Ruling (RTC, 1993):
o The deeds of sale were declared null and void, citing Salvador never exercised control or possession
over the property.
o Ownership remained with Rosalia and Jesus, as they continued to lease, collect rent, and pay realty
taxes.
o TCT No. 113221 was ordered canceled, and TCT No. 27571 was reinstated for proper partition among
the heirs.
5. Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA, 1998):
o The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling, stating that mere execution of a deed of sale does not constitute
delivery, especially when possession remains with the seller.
o CA emphasized that tradition (delivery) requires actual control over the property under Article 1498 of
the Civil Code.
Issues and Rulings:
1. Does continued possession and payment of realty taxes indicate ownership remained with Jesus and Rosalia?
- YES.
• Despite the deeds of sale, the original owners remained in control, leasing the property and collecting rent.
• Rosalia retained the owner’s duplicate title and paid realty taxes, proving she still exercised ownership rights.
2. Is execution of a public instrument equivalent to delivery under Article 1498 of the Civil Code?
- NO.
• Execution of a deed of sale is NOT conclusive proof of delivery.
• Delivery (tradition) requires actual control and possession of the thing sold.
• Since Salvador never took possession, ownership was never transferred.
3. Did the action for reconveyance prescribe due to lapse of time?
- NO.
• An action to declare a contract void for simulation is imprescriptible (Lacsamana v. CA).
• Even 16 years after the sale, reconveyance was valid because a fictitious contract does not prescribe.
4. Did the Dead Man’s Statute disqualify Rosa Santos-Carreon from testifying?
- NO.
• Petitioner failed to appeal the trial court’s ruling allowing Rosa to testify.
• Petitioner’s counsel cross-examined Rosa on events occurring during Salvador’s lifetime, effectively waiving
any objection.
Final Ruling:
- Petition DENIED.
- RTC and CA rulings AFFIRMED.
• Deeds of sale declared NULL and VOID.
• Property reconveyed to Rosalia’s heirs for partition.
Key Takeaways:
• Ownership is not a conclusive presumption of delivery of possession.
• A deed of sale does NOT automatically transfer ownership if possession remains with the seller.
• Void contracts due to simulation do NOT prescribe.
• Failure to timely object to a witness’s testimony waives any claim under the Dead Man’s Statute.
