Trinidad v.

Court of Appelas
G.R. 75579 – September 30, 1991
J. Paras

Topic: Rule 73 (Venue and Process) - Exceptions

Doctrine: Questions of title to any property apparently still belonging to estate of the deceased may be passed upon in the
Probate Court, with consent of all the parties, without prejudice to third persons such as Trinidad. In fact, third persons may
intervene in the testate or intestate proceedings to protect their interest.
Petitioner: Tomas Trinidad
Respondents: Court of Appeals

Case Summary: Francisca Dimabuyo had paid for a lot in Antipolo which she purchased from Trinidad, the administrator
and manager of the estate of Nicolai Drepin and the latter’s development corporation. However, even after several
demands for the certificate of title for the lot in question, Trinidad still refused to turn over such title for reasons such as
Dimabuyo’s non-payment of taxes and that the buyer should have gone to the Probate Court for redress rather than regular
courts. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the sale was fully effected, and that non-payment of taxes
should not have been a proper reason to avoid giving the buyer the title. However, the Court further ruled that Trinidad
was correct in claiming that Dimabuyo should have gone to the Probate Court, for it was the proper court to settle the
estate of the deceased. Lastly, the Court ruled that if the probate proceedings were still ongoing, that the proper remedy
would be to file before said court her claim for the delivery of the title of the lot purchased. That if on the other hand, said
proceedings are already closed and terminated, that the MERDC is ordered to cause the delivery of said title to Dimabuyo,
within the shortest possible time and as soon as all the requirements therefore have been complied with.

Facts:
 This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the IAC affirming the decision of the RTC of Manila
which convicted Trinidad of violation of Section 251 in relation to Section 392 of PD 957
o After accused arraigned, he plead not guilty and thereafter, the prosecution only presented one witness,
namely Francisca Dimabuyu
o She is a 49-year-old public school teacher
 During her cross examination, she testified that she had filed a case against the accused of Tomas
Trinidad with the task force of the ministry of justice for violation of PD 957 for non-delivery of
title
 That the contract was executed for the total price of the lot (located at Antipolo Rizal) at P4,000;
wherein she would pay P38.68 monthly until the full payment was made; that she was given
receipts for such payments; and that she was able to pay P7,000 including amortization; lastly, she
also had receipts to prove payments to the Mother Earth Realty Development Corporation, of
which the accused is the President and GM and owner developer of the Munting Baguio Village
 Dimabuyo further stated that she never met the accused in his office and that he had avoided her
calls and her visits to the office
 Dimabuyo went to the NHA and a hearing was set but the accused did not appear
 A Resolution of the Ministry of Justice was rendered in her favor. She did not approach
any lawyer for she could not afford to pay a lawyer  That whenever she comes to
manila to claim her title and confront Trinidad, she used to spend P50 per day… that she
felt frustrated and was mad with Trinidad 
 Dimabuyo admitted that she had not paid the real estate taxes of the land and that she had
not gone to the Probate Court.
1
SECTION 25. Issuance of Title. - The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit.
No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the
event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the
mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be
secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith.

2
SECTION 39. Penalties. - Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that may be issued
pursuant to this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of
not more than ten years: Provided, That in the case of corporations, partnership, cooperatives, or associations, the President, Manager or
Administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally responsible for any violation of this Decree
and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto
 - That she did not pay such taxes because she was not notified about the demand
of payment
o Trinidad’s direct testimony and cross
 He stated the fact that in the Intestate Proceedings of the estate of Nicolai Drepin, he became the
Judicial Administrator
 That he took hold of the property in question including the Mother Earth Development
Corporation
 That in 1978, the NGA stopped the lots for sale, and his corporation was told to stop
operating the property
 That Dimabuyo had not complied with all the requirements for the she had not paid the
taxes
 That he had asked the Probate Court to allow him as administrator to execute deeds of
sale to his lot buyers and that he was allowed in November 1982
 He added that the Coporation is not in business now, and that he is no longer the
administrator
 He added that he was not able to deliver any title to Dimabuyo for she had not paid all
the obligations because there is no adjustment considering the value of the peso which
has declined these days + non-payment of taxes
o The RTC of Manila found Trinidad guilty

Issues + Held:
1. W/N there was GAD in expanding the term in PD 957 to include that which is not specifically provided therein – NO
 As provided by Section 25 and 39 of PD 957, it is clear that any person who violates the former by non-delivery of
the title upon full payment of the lot or in case of a corporation, partnership, cooperative, or association, then the
president, manager or administrator shall be criminally responsible
o ITC, Mother Earth Realty is the developer in question which belongs to deceased Drepin
o As administrator of the estate of decedent, Trinidad took over the administration including the property in
question
o Thus, undeniably he is also the administrator of the Corporation
o In his appeal, he did not deny that he was the administrator of the said corporation and property in behalf of
Drepin  therefore, the provisions clearly apply to him
2. W/N the conclusion of the IAC was also a GAD amounting to lack of jurisdiction – NO
 From the foregoing it is apparent that whatever rights or remedies accruing to a lot buyer, in this case Ms.
Dimabuyo, under other laws do not foreclose the application of PD957
o It is uncontroverted that she had fully paid the monthly installments and the agreed purchase price for the
lot. Notwithstanding this, Trinidad has failed and refused to deliver the certificate of title despite numerous
demands
o On the non-payment of taxes  The SolGen was quoted saying this:
 “Likewise, under PD 957, it is not required that the buyer should pay the taxes. The buyer is
only required to pay for the registration of the Deed of Sale with the Register of Deeds for the
issuance of the title, but it does not mention the payment of taxes…”
3. W/N enforcing PD957 is violative of the bill of rights for being and ex post facto law – NO
 The act made punishable is the failure of the owner-developer or administrator to deliver the title upon full payment,
not the execution of a deed of sale or contract to sell over such lot before the passage of the law
o In the case at bar, although the contract to sell was executed long before enactment of PD957, the failure of
Trinidad to deliver the title upon full payment transpired when the decree was already in effect. Such law is
NOT an ex post facto law
4. W/N serious error on part of IAC not to countenance the specific provision of law on the exclusive jurisdiction of the
probate court in reference to the settlement of the estate of a decedent – YES [RELEVANT]
 Trinidad could not have given the deed of sale without the go-signal of the Probate Court because it would be
recreant to his sworn duty as administrator, as well as to render void his actuations done without the permission of
the Probate Court
o Because owner-seller of property was already deceased and there were ongoing proceedings in the Probate
Court, such court should first give authorization to the administrator of the estate to deliver titles of lots
which had previously been sold
o The decedent after all, can be considered the alter ego of the MERDC
 o Dimabuyo was duly instructed by Trinidad to file the proper petition or motion with the probate court, but
such was disregarded
o Questions of title to any property apparently still belonging to estate of the deceased may be passed
upon in the Probate Court, with consent of all the parties, without prejudice to third persons such as
Trinidad. In fact, third persons may intervene in the testate or intestate proceedings to protect their
interest.
o Just as ordinary complainants against estate of the deceased are duty bound to present a claim before the
Probate Court, so was Dimabuyo required to file her claim for redress in the same court
 In the ascertainment of claims against the estate of the decedent, the Probate Court mush weight
the extent of the liability of the estate when compared vis-à-vis its solvency
o Trinidad was caught between the horns of a dilemma of which was not his own making  therefore, we
see no criminal intent whatsoever and the judgment of the appellate court is hereby reversed and set aside
 If the probate proceedings are still ongoing, Dimabuyo should file before said court. If on the other hand, said
proceedings are already closed and terminated, MERDS is hereby ordered to cause the delivery of the title to Ms.
Dimabuyo within the shortest possible time, as soon as all requirements have been complied with

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Ad Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration is denied with finality.

Dissenting Opinions:

J. Melencio-Herrera
 It should not be the obligation of the buyer to file before the Probate Court the claim for delivery of title against the
estate of the decedent!
o That was Trinidad’s obligation as administrator not only for the estate of decedent, but also as
administrator/manager of the development corporation
o Art. 1945 of the Civil Code mandates that the vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as
well as warrant the thing which is the object of the sale
 Vendee has right to receive, and vendor has the corresponding obligation to transfer to former not
only the possession and enjoyment of land, but also the certificate of title
 Also, Trinidad was not devoid of criminal intent in not immediately delivering the certificate of title
o He had his own reasons of not delivering  he himself stated that he did not deliver the title for the reason
that she had unpaid obligations  payment of such taxes, however, is not required by PD957

J. Padilla
 It seems ironical that after Dimabuyo, a public-school teacher who must have invested her life-time savings in the
small lot in question, should still get the blame from this Court for not having asked the probate court to authorize the
petitioner to execute the deed of sale in her favor 
o We seem to overlook the fact that the gravamen of the offense – a special offense – under PD957 is that the
petitioner, as manager of the subdivision developer, accepted the installment payments until purchase price
was fully paid without being able to deliver the title to the buyer
o If there was any one require or duty bound to seek and obtain the authority of the probate court to execute the
deed of sale in favor of Dimabuyo, it was Trinidad and NONE OTHER.