CORNELIA BALADAD VS SERGIO RUBLICO AND SPS LAUREANO YUPANO

G.R.NO. 160743, 4 August 2009, THIRD DIVISION, (Nachura, J.)

FACTS:

Corazon and Julian Rublico got married at 65yo after cohabiting for some time. Julian died
leaving Corazon and his son, Epitacio as his compulsory heirs. Upon Corazons deathbed, she and
Epitacio adjudicated Julians 2 parcels of land and sold the same to Epitacios daughter thru a deed
entitled Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale. The sale was made for P107,750 and
Corazons thumb mark was imprinted therein with Epitacios son, Vincent, signing in behalf of his father
by virtue of a power of attorney. Corazon died 2 days later and the titles remained in Julians name.

After 2 years, Sergio, Corazons son with Teofilo Rublico, adjudicated unto himself the same
parcels of land and was able to obtain TCTs in his name, claiming that he is the sole heir of Corazon. He
subsequently sold it to the Spouses Yupano. The Yupanos then demanded rent from the tenants therein
but the latter refused stating that they have been paying rent to Vincent and that the former has no right to
demand rentals from them as he does not own the property. The tenants filed a complaint for interpleader
and the RTC declared the Yupanos as the legal and lawful owners of the lots.

Prior to the promulgation of the decision, Cornelia filed a complaint for annulment off sale and
cancellation of the title. The RTC decided in Cornelias favor but the CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale is valid.

HELD:

Yes. When the terms of a contract are lawful, clear and unambiguous, facial challenge cannot be
allowed. The subject deed is, on its face, unambiguous because it clearly stated and complied with the
requisites for its validity. The respondents failed to prove that the deed executed was void, therefore,
validity of the deed should be upheld.

A contract of sale is perfected the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is
the object of the contract and upon the price. Since Cornelia herself brought the lawyer to notarize the
deed shows that she consented to the contract. It is immaterial that her signature does not appear on the
deed. Furthermore, Cornelias subsequent act of exercising dominion over the properties strengthens her
claim.

Sergio Rublico, on the other hand, never had the right to sell the subject properties to the
Yupanos because he never owned them to begin with. Even before Sergio could inherit any share of the
properties from his mother, the latter already sold them to Cornelia.

The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. Decision of the RTC reinstated with
modification.