JESUS SAN AGUSTIN, petitioner,
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO MENEZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 121940. December 4, 2001]
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) sold to a certain Macaria Vda. de Caiquep a parcel of residential land evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. The following encumbrance was annotated at the back of the title, not to sell, convey, lease or sublease, or otherwise encumber the property. A day after the issuance of TCT Macaria Vda. de Caiquep sold the subject lot to private respondent, Maximo Menez, Jr., as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Said TCT was lost, but private respondent subsequently obtained a duplicate after judicial proceedings. Petitioner was not notified. Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of private respondent.
Whether or not the petitioner is correct that Deed of Sale between Macaria Vda. de Caiquep and private respondent is null and void in accordance with Par.7 Art.1409 of the New Civil Code.
NO. Petitioner’s contention is less than meritorious. In this case, the GSIS, the proper party, has not filed any action for the annulment of Deed of Sale between them and Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, nor for the forfeiture of the lot in question. The contract of sale remains valid between the parties, unless and until annulled in the proper suit filed by the rightful party, the GSIS. The said contract of sale is binding upon the heirs of Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, including petitioner who alleges to be one of her heirs, in line with the rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest. Since, both were aware of the existence of the stipulated condition in favor of the original seller, GSIS, yet both entered into an agreement violating said condition and nullifying its effects, said parties should be held in estoppel to assail and annul their own deliberate acts.