SPOUSES DOMINGO v.

ROCES
G.R. No.147468
April 9, 2003

DOCTRINE
The annotation at the title of a property pursuant to Rule 74, Sec. 4 is not confined to the heirs or original
distributes of the estate properties.

Facts:
1. Cesar and Lilia Roces were owners of two contiguous parcels of land. In 1962, the GSIS caused
the annotation of an adverse claim on their titles, alleging that the spouses had mortgaged the
same to it. Later on, when the titles were to be surrendered to GSIS, the spouses failed to do so,
and the GSIS had such title duplicates in their possession declared null and void.
2. Cesar Roces died intestate. He was survived by his widow and their children.
3. In 1992, a certain Reynaldo Montinola, a nephew of Lilia Roces, executed an affidavit of self-
adjudication over the subject properties. A year later, he filed a petition against GSIS for the
cancellation of the title which was in the possession of GSIS. GSIS lost the case, and it’s titles were
cancelled, and ownership awarded to Montinola.
4. Later in the same year, Montinola sold the property in favor of the Petitioners, the Domingo
Spouses. Such sale was subject to the provision of Section 4 of Rule 74:

“Subject to the provision of Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the RoC with respect to the inheritance left by the
deceased Sps. Cesar Roces and Lilia Montinola”

5. Now came the Defendants Roces siblings. They alleged that the affidavit of selfadjudication
Montinola executed was null and void for Lilia Roces was not even dead. Because of this, the sale
of the property was done without authority, and therefore null and void as well.
6. But the Domingo Spouses, the buyers, contended that despite the annotation of the provision of
Rule 74, they were buyers in good faith, and by that very fact, in addition to the siblings’ being in
estoppel and guilty of laches, the sale was valid.

Issue:
Could the sale have been valid, in light of a fact that the Spouses Domingo were not covered by the Rule
74 annotation? (AKA: Were the spouses buyers in good faith? )

Were the respondents guilty of laches and estoppel?

Held:
1. Rule 74 clearly covers transfers of real property to any person.
2. Contrary to petitioner's’ contention, the effects of this provision are not confined to the heirs or
original distributes of the estate properties;
3. As the provision provides, such effects affect any transferee of the property. There is no doubt the
Spouses Domingo were covered by ―any transferee
4. Therefore, buyers of real property the title of which contains an annotation pursuant to Section 4,
Rule 74 cannot be considered innocent purchasers for value;
5. The presence of an irregularity in the title which excites or arouses suspicion should prompt the
buyer to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor;
6. This the spouses did not do, and hence cannot at all be considered buyers in good faith.
7. As to the claim that the respondents were guilty of laches and estoppel, it is untenable.
8. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined
to assert it.
9. In the case at bar, only four months elapsed from the time respondents discovered Montinolas
fraudulent acts, sometime in May 1993, to the time they filed their complaint on September 6, 1993.
This relatively short span of time can hardly be called unreasonable, especially considering that
respondents used this period of time to investigate the transfers of the property