HEMEDES VS.

CA
G.R. No. 108472 October 8, 1999
Facts: The disagreement involves a question of ownership over an
unregistered parcel of land. The late Jose Hemedes originally
owned the land, father of Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D.
Hemedes. On March 22, 1947 Jose Hemedes executed a document
entitled Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory Conditions whereby
he conveyed ownership over the subject land, together with all its
improvements, in favor of his third wife, Justa Kausapin. Maxima
Hemedes, through her counsel, filed an application for registration
and confirmation of title over the subject unregistered land.
Subsequently, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued in
the name of Maxima Hemedes married to Raul Rodriguez by the
Registry of Deeds of Laguna on June 8, 1962, with the annotation
that Justa Kausapin shall have the usufructuary rights over the
parcel of land herein described during her lifetime or widowhood.
However, Enrique D. Hemedes subsequently sold the property to
Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation (Dominium). Justa
Kausapin also executed and affidavit confirming the conveyance of
the subject property in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes as embodied
in the Kasunduan dated May 27, 1971, and at the same time
denying the conveyance made to Maxima Hemedes.
A complaint was filed by Enrique D. Hemedes for the annullment of
the TCT issued in favor of R&B Insurance and/or the reconveyance
to Dominium of the subject property. Specifically, the complaint
alleged that Dominium has become the absolute owner of the
subject property by virtue of the February 28, 1979 deed of sale
executed by Enrique D. Hemedes, who in turn obtained ownership
of the land from Justa Kausapin, as evidenced by the Kasunduan.
The Plaintiffs contend that Justa Kausapin never transferred the
land to Maxima Hemedes and that Enrique D. Hemedes had no
knowledge of the registration proceedings initiated by Maxima
Hemedes.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
Dominium and Enrique D. Hemedes. Both R&B Insurance and
Maxima Hemedes appealed from the trial courts decision. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision in toto. Hence, this
petition.

Issue: Whether or not the conveyance by Justa Kausapin in favour

of Enrique D. Hemedes transferred ownership over the subject
land?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that petitioner R & B Insurances
assertion of ownership over the property in dispute, as evidenced
by TCT No. 41985, subject to the usufructuary rights of Justa
Kausapin, which encumbrance has been properly annotated upon
the said certificate of title.
The finding of the public respondents that the Deed of
Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property By Reversion executed
by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes is false and not
supported by the factual findings in this case. It is grounded upon
the mere denial of the same by Justa Kausapin.
A party to a contract cannot just evade compliance with his
contractual obligations by the simple expedient of denying the
execution of such contract. If, after a perfect and binding contract
has been executed between the parties, it occurs to one of them to
allege some defect therein as a reason for annulling it, the alleged
defect must be conclusively proven, since the validity and
fulfilment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the
contracting parties. In upholding the deed of conveyance in favor
of Maxima Hemedes, the Court must concomitantly rule that
Enrique D. Hemedes and his transferee, Dominium, did not acquire
any rights over the subject property.
Justa Kausapin sought to transfer to her stepson exactly what she
had earlier transferred to Maxima Hemedes the ownership of the
subject property pursuant to the first condition stipulated in the
deed of donation executed by her husband. Thus, the donation in
favor of Enrique D. Hemedes is null and void for the purported
object thereof did not exist at the time of the transfer, having
already been transferred to his sister. Similarly, the sale of the
subject property by Enrique D. Hemedes to Dominium is also a
nullity for the latter cannot acquire more rights than its
predecessor-in-interest and is definitely not an innocent purchaser
for value since Enrique D. Hemedes did not present any certificate
of title upon which it relied.