Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

L-26699 March 16, 1976 BENITA SALAO, assis !" #$ h!r h%s#a&", GREGORIO MARCELO' ALMARIO ALCURI(A, ARTURO ALCURI(A, OSCAR ALCURI(A a&" ANITA ALCURI(A, h! )a !r *o #!i&+ ,i&ors ar! r!-r!s!& !" #$ +%ar"ia& ad litem, ARTURO ALCURI(A, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. .UAN S. SALAO, )a !r s%#s i % !" #$ PABLO P. SALAO, A",i&is ra or o/ h! I& !s a ! o/ .UAN S. SALAO' &o* MERCE0ES P. 10A. 0E SALAO, ROBERTO P. SALAO, MARIA SALAO 10A. 0E SANTOS, LUCIANA P. SALAO, ISABEL SALAO 0E SANTOS, a&" PABLO P. SALAO, as s%cc!ssors-i&-i& !r!s o/ h! )a ! .UAN S. SALAO, o+! h!r *i h PABLO P. SALAO, A",i&is ra or, defendants-appellants. Eusebio V. Navarro for plaintiffs-appellants. Nicolas Belmonte & Benjamin T. de Peralta for defendants-appellants. -/. One-half inte"est in a fishpond 'hich she had inhe"ited f"o% he" pa"ents, 8eliciano I!nacio and Da%iana Mendo)a, and the othe" half of 'hich 'as o'ned b# he" co-o'ne", ,osefa Sta. *na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/,9:: -4. 8ishpond inhe"ited f"o% he" pa"ents . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,6/0 -;. 8ishpond inhe"ited f"o% he" pa"ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,505 -6. 8ishpond 'ith a bode!a fo" salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:,625

Area in

square me

-1. 8ishpond 'ith an a"ea of one hecta"e, /4 a"es and 1 centa"es pu"chased f"o% &e"nabe and $ono"ata I!nacio b# Valentina I!nacio on Nove%be" 5, /051 'ith a bode!a fo" salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . //,4:1 -2. 8ishpond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,::: -9. One-half inte"est in a fishpond 'ith a total a"ea of /:,646 s<ua"e %ete"s, the othe" half 'as o'ned b# *. *!uinaldo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,4/9 -0. Riceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:,616

A2UINO, J.:
his liti!ation "e!a"din! a fo"t#-seven-hecta"e fishpond located at Sitio Calunu"an, $e"%osa, &ataan involves the la' of t"usts and p"esc"iption. he facts a"e as follo's( he spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina I!nacio of &a""io Da%palit, Malabon, Ri)al be!ot fou" child"en na%ed Pat"icio, *le+and"a, ,uan -&anli. and *%b"osia. Manuel Salao died in /001. $is eldest son, Pat"icio, died in /002 su"vived b# his onl# child. Valentin Salao. he"e is no docu%enta"# evidence as to 'hat, p"ope"ties fo"%ed pa"t of Manuel Salao3s estate, if an#. $is 'ido' died on Ma# 40, /5/6. *fte" he" death, he" estate 'as ad%iniste"ed b# he" dau!hte" *%b"osia. It 'as pa"titioned e7t"a+udiciall# in a deed dated Dece%be" 45, /5/0 but nota"i)ed on Ma# 44, /5/5 -E7h. 4/.. he deed 'as si!ned b# he" fou" le!al hei"s, na%el#, he" th"ee child"en, *le+and"a, ,uan and *%b"osia, and he" !"andson, Valentin Salao, in "ep"esentation of his deceased fathe", Pat"icio. he lands left b# Valentina I!nacio, all located at &a""io Da%palit 'e"e as follo's( Nature of Land

-5. Riceland pu"chased b# Valentina I!nacio f"o% Edua"do Salao on ,anua"# 49, /05: 'ith a house and t'o ca%a"ins the"eon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0,:21 -/:. Riceland in the na%e of *%b"osia Salao, 'ith an a"ea of //,290 s<ua"e %ete"s, of 'hich 4,/9; s<ua"e %ete"s 'e"e sold to ,usta =on!co . . . . . . . . . .5,1:1 O *> . . . . . . . . . . . . .. /95,:44 s<ua"e %ete"s o each of the le!al hei"s of Valentina I!nacio 'as ad+udicated a dist"ibutive sha"e valued at P0,/;1.41. In satisfaction of his dist"ibutive sha"e, Valentin Salao -'ho 'as then al"ead# fo"t#-ei!ht #ea"s old. 'as !iven the bi!!est fishpond 'ith an a"ea of 1:,625 s<ua"e %ete"s, a s%alle" fishpond 'ith an a"ea of 2,505 s<ua"e %ete"s and the "iceland 'ith a net a"ea of 5,5:1 s<ua"e %ete"s. hose pa"cels of land had an a!!"e!ate app"aised value of P/;,1:/ 'hich e7ceeded Valentin3s dist"ibutive sha"e. So in the deed of pa"tition he 'as di"ected to pa# to his co-hei"s the su% of P1,;21.91. hat a""an!e%ent, 'hich 'as obviousl# intended to avoid the f"a!%entation of the lands, 'as beneficial to Valentin. In that deed of pa"tition -E7h. 4/. it 'as noted that ?desde la %ue"te de Valentina I!nacio # Mendo)a, ha venido ad%inist"ando sus bienes la "efe"ida *%b"osia Salao? ?cu#a

ad%inist"acion lo ha sido a satisfaccion de todos los he"ede"os # po" desi!nacion los %is%os?. It 'as e7p"essl# stipulated that *%b"osia Salao 'as not obli!ated to "ende" an# accountin! of he" ad%inist"ation ?en conside"acion al "esultado satisfacto"io de sus !estiones, %e+o"adas los bienes # pa!odas po" ella las cont"ibusiones -pa!es 4 and //, E7h. 4/.. &# vi"tue of the pa"tition the hei"s beca%e ?due@os absolutos de sus "espectivas p"opiedadas, # pod"an in%ediata%ente to%a" posesion de sus bienes, en la fo"%a co%o se han dist"ibuido # llevado a cabo las ad+udicaciones? -pa!e 4:, E7h. 4/.. he docu%enta"# evidence p"oves that in /5// o" p"io" to the death of Valentina I!nacio he" t'o child"en, ,uan =. Salao, S". and *%b"osia Salao, secu"ed a o""ens title, OC No. /01 of the Re!ist"# of Deeds of Pa%pan!a, in thei" na%es fo" a fo"t#-seven-hecta"e fishpond located at Sitio Calunu"an, >ubao, Pa%pan!a -E7h. /6.. It is also Ano'n as >ot No. 16: of the $e"%osa cadast"e because that pa"t of >ubao late" beca%e a pa"t of &ataan. he Calunu"an fishpond is the bone of contention in this case. Plaintiffs3 theo"# is that ,uan =. Salao, S". and his siste" *%b"osia had en!a!ed in the fishpond business. Bhe"e the# obtained the capital is not sho'n in an# docu%enta"# evidence. Plaintiffs3 ve"sion is that Valentin Salao and *le+and"a Salao 'e"e included in that +oint ventu"e, that the funds used 'e"e the ea"nin!s of the p"ope"ties supposedl# inhe"ited f"o% Manuel Salao, and that those ea"nin!s 'e"e used in the ac<uisition of the Calunu"an fishpond. he"e is no docu%enta"# evidence to suppo"t that theo"#. On the othe" hand, the defendants contend that the Calunu"an fishpond consisted of lands pu"chased b# ,uan =. Salao, S". and *%b"osia Salao in /5:1, /5:2, /5:9 and /5:0 as, sho'n in thei" E7hibits 0, 5, /: and /;. &ut this point is disputed b# the plaintiffs. $o'eve", the"e can be no cont"ove"s# as to the fact that afte" ,uan =. Salao, S". and *%b"osia Salao secu"ed a o""ens title fo" the Calunu"an fishpond in /5// the# e7e"cised do%inical "i!hts ove" it to the e7clusion of thei" nephe', Valentin Salao. hus, on Dece%be" /, /5// *%b"osia Salao sold unde" pacto de retro fo" P0:: the Calunu"an fishpond to Vicente Villon!co. he pe"iod of "ede%ption 'as one #ea". In the deed of sale -E7h/5. *%b"osia confi"%ed that she and he" b"othe" ,uan 'e"e the due os proindivisos of the said pesqueria. On Dece%be" 9, /5// Villon!co, the vendee a "et"o, conve#ed the sa%e fishpond to *%b"osia b# 'a# of lease fo" an anual canon of P/40 -E7h. /5-a.. *fte" the fishpond 'as "edee%ed f"o% Villon!co o" on ,une 0, /5/6 *%b"osia and ,uan sold it unde" pacto de retro to Eli!io Naval fo" the su% of P;,;2:. he pe"iod of "ede%ption 'as also one #ea" -E7h. 4:.. he fishpond 'as late" "edee%ed and Naval "econve#ed it to the vendo"s a retro in a docu%ent dated Octobe" 1, /5/2 -E7h. 4:-a.. he /5;: su"ve# sho'n in the co%putation sheets of the &u"eau of >ands "eveals that the Calunu"an fishpond has an a"ea of 695,4:1 s<ua"e %ete"s and that it 'as clai%ed b# ,uan Salao and *%b"osia Salao, 'hile the Pinan!anacan fishpond -subse<uentl# ac<ui"ed b# ,uan and *%b"osia. has an a"ea of 591,514 s<ua"e %ete"s -E7h. 44..

>iAe'ise, the"e is no cont"ove"s# as to the fact that on Ma# 49, /5// *%b"osia Salao bou!ht fo" fou" thousand pesos f"o% the hei"s of En!"acio Santia!o a pa"cel of s'a%pland planted to baca!an and nipa 'ith an a"ea of 52 hecta"es, 19 a"es and 9; centa"es located at Sitio >e'a, &a""io Pinan!anacan, >ubao, Pa%pan!a -E7h. /9-d.. he "eco"d of Civil Case No. /;2, Cene"al >and Re!ist"ation Office Reco"d No. /4/66, Cou"t of 8i"st Instance of Pa%pan!a sho's that *%b"osia Salao and ,uan Salao filed an application fo" the "e!ist"ation of that land in thei" na%es on ,anua"# /1, /5/2. he# alle!ed in thei" petition that ?han ad<ui"ido dicho te""eno po" partes i"uales # po" la co%p"a a los he"ede"os del finado, Don En!"acio Santia!o? -E7h. /9-a.. *t the hea"in! on Octobe" 42, /5/2 befo"e ,ud!e Pe"c# M. Moi", *%b"osia testified fo" the applicants. On that sa%e da# ,ud!e Moi" "ende"ed a decision, statin!, inter alia# that the hei"s of En!"acio Santia!o had sold the land to *%b"osia Salao and ,uan Salao. ,ud!e Moi" ?o"dena la ad+udicacion # "e!ist"o del te""eno solicitado a no%b"e de ,uan Salao, %a#o" de edad # de estado casado # de su esposa Die!a Santia!o # *%b"osia Salao, de estado solte"a # %a#o" de edad, en participaciones i"uales$ -E7h. /9-e.. On Nove%be" 40, /5/2 ,ud!e Moi" o"de"ed the issuance of a dec"ee fo" the said land. he dec"ee 'as issued on 8eb"ua"# 4/, /5/9. On Ma"ch /4, /5/9 O"i!inal Ce"tificate of itle No. 694 of the Re!ist"# of Deeds of Pa%pan!a 'as issued in the na%es of ,uan Salao and *%b"osia Salao. hat Pinan!anacan o" >e'a fishpond late" beca%e Cadast"al >ot No. 166 of the $e"%osa cadast"e -E7h. 4;.. It ad+oins the Calunu"an fishpond -See sAetch, E7h. /.. ,uan =. Salao, S". died on Nove%be" ;, /5;/ at the a!e of ei!ht# #ea"s -E7h. C.. $is nephe', Valentin Salao, died on 8eb"ua"# 5, /5;; at the a!e of si7t# #ea"s acco"din! to the death ce"tificate -E7h. *. $o'eve", if acco"din! to E7hibit 4/, he 'as fo"t#-ei!ht #ea"s old in /5/0, he 'ould be si7t#-th"ee #ea"s old in /5;;.. he intestate estate of Valentin Salao 'as pa"titioned e7t"a+udiciall# on Dece%be" 40, /5;6 bet'een his t'o dau!hte"s, &enita Salao-Ma"celo and Victo"ina Salao-*lcu"i)a -E7h. ;4.. $is estate consisted of the t'o fishponds 'hich he had inhe"ited in /5/0 f"o% his !"and%othe", Valentina I!nacio. If it 'e"e t"ue that he had a one-thi"d inte"est in the Calunu"an and >e'a fishponds 'ith a total a"ea of /61 hecta"es "e!iste"ed in /5// and /5/9 in the na%es of his aunt and uncle, *%b"osia Salao and ,uan =. Salao, S"., "espectivel#, it is st"an!e that no %ention of such inte"est 'as %ade in the e7t"a+udicial pa"tition of his estate in /5;6. It is "elevant to %ention that on *p"il 0, /56: *%b"osia Salao donated to he" !"andniece, plaintiff &enita Salao, th"ee lots located at &a""io Da%palit 'ith a total a"ea of 1,0;4 s<ua"e %ete"s -E7it. >.. *s donee &enita Salao si!ned the deed of donation. On that occasion she could have asAed *%b"osia Salao to delive" to he" and to the child"en of he" siste", Victo"ina, the Calunu"an fishpond if it 'e"e t"ue that it 'as held in t"ust b# *%b"osia as the sha"e of &enita3s fathe" in the alle!ed +oint ventu"e.

&ut she did not %aAe an# such de%and. It 'as onl# afte" *%b"osia Salao3s death that she thou!ht of filin! an action fo" the "econve#ance of the Calunu"an fishpond 'hich 'as alle!edl# held in t"ust and 'hich had beco%e the sole p"ope"t# of ,uan Salao # Santia!o -,uani.. On Septe%be" ;:, /566 o" du"in! the ,apanese occupation and about a #ea" befo"e *%b"osia Salao3s death on Septe%be" /6, /561 due to senilit# -she 'as alle!edl# ei!ht#-five #ea"s old 'hen she died., she donated he" one-half proindiviso sha"e in the t'o fishponds in <uestion to he" nephe', ,uan S. Salao, ,". -,uani. *t that ti%e she 'as livin! 'ith ,uani3s fa%il#. $e 'as al"ead# the o'ne" of the the othe" half of the said fishponds, havin! inhe"ited it f"o% his fathe", ,uan =. Salao, S". -&anli. he deed of denotion included othe" pieces of "eal p"ope"t# o'ned b# *%b"osia. She "ese"ved fo" he"self the usuf"uct ove" the said p"ope"ties du"in! he" lifeti%e -E7h. 4 o" M.. he said deed of donation 'as "e!iste"ed onl# on *p"il 1, /51: -pa!e ;5, Defendants3 Reco"d on *ppeal.. he la'#e" of &enita Salao and the Child"en of Victo"ina Salao in a lette" dated ,anua"# 42, /51/ info"%ed ,uan S. Salao, ,". that his clients had a one-thi"d sha"e in the t'o fishponds and that 'hen ,uani tooA possession the"eof in /561, he "efused to !ive &enita and Victo"ina3s child"en thei" one-thi"d sha"e of the net f"uits 'hich alle!edl# a%ounted to P4::,::: -E7h. D.. ,uan S. Salao, ,". in his ans'e" dated 8eb"ua"# 2, /51/ cate!o"icall# stated that Valentin Salao did not have an# inte"est in the t'o fishponds and that the sole o'ne"s the"eof his fathe" &anli and his aunt *%b"osia, as sho'n in the o""ens titles issued in /5// and /5/9, and that he ,uani 'as the donee of *%b"osia3s one-half sha"e -E7h. D-/.. &enita Salao and he" nephe's and niece filed thei" o"i!inal co%plaint a!ainst ,uan S. Salao, ,". on ,anua"# 5, /514 in the Cou"t of 8i"st Instance of &ataan -E7h. ;2.. he# a%ended thei" co%plaint on ,anua"# 40, /511. he# asAed fo" the annul%ent of the donation to ,uan S. Salao, ,". and fo" the "econve#ance to the% of the Calunu"an fishpond as Valentin Salao3s supposed one-thi"d sha"e in the /61 hecta"es of fishpond "e!iste"ed in the na%es of ,uan =. Salao, S". and *%b"osia Salao. ,uan S. Salao, ,". in his ans'e" pleaded as a defense the indefeasibilit# of the o""ens title secu"ed b# his fathe" and aunt. $e also invoAed the Statute of 8"auds, p"esc"iption and laches. *s counte"-clai%s, he asAed fo" %o"al da%a!es a%ountin! to P4::,:::, atto"ne#3s fees and liti!ation e7penses of not less than P44,::: and "ei%bu"se%ent of the p"e%iu%s 'hich he has been pa#in! on his bond fo" the liftin! of the "eceive"ship ,uan S. Salao, ,". died in /510 at the a!e of sevent#-one. $e 'as substituted b# his 'ido', Me"cedes Pascual and his si7 child"en and b# the ad%inist"ato" of his estate. In the intestate p"oceedin!s fo" the settle%ent of his estate the t'o fishponds in <uestion 'e"e ad+udicated to his seven le!al hei"s in e<ual sha"es 'ith the condition that the p"ope"ties 'ould "e%ain unde" ad%inist"ation du"in! the pendenc# of this case -pa!e /0/, Defendants3 Reco"d on *ppeal.. *fte" t"ial the t"ial cou"t in its decision consistin! of one hund"ed ten p"inted pa!es dis%issed the a%ended co%plaint and the counte"-clai%. In si7t#-seven p"inted pa!es it %ade a labo"ious

"ecital of the testi%onies of plaintiffs3 fou"teen 'itnesses, C"e!o"io Ma"celo, No"be"to C"isosto%o, >eona"do Man!ali 8idel de la C"u), Dionisio Manalili, *%b"osio Manalili, Polica"pio Sapno, Elias Manies &asilio *tien)a, &enita Salao, E%ilio Ca!ui Da%aso de la Pe@a, *"tu"o *lcu"i)a and 8"ancisco &uensuceso, and the testi%onies of defendants3 si7 'itnesses, Ma"cos Calicia, ,uan Calicia, ibu"cio >in!ad, Docto" Benceslao Pascual, Ci"iaco Ra%i"e) and Pablo P. Salao. -Plaintiffs p"esented Re!ino Nicode%us as a fifteenth 'itness, a "ebuttal 'itness.. he t"ial cou"t found that the"e 'as no co%%unit# of p"ope"t# a%on! ,uan =. Salao, S"., *%b"osia Salao and Valentin Salao 'hen the Calunu"an and Pinan!anacan ->e'a. lands 'e"e ac<ui"edE that a co-o'ne"ship ove" the "eal p"ope"ties of Valentina I!nacio e7isted a%on! he" hei"" afte" he" death in /5/6E that the co-o'ne"ship 'as ad%iniste"ed b# *%b"osia Salao and that it subsisted up to /5/0 'hen he" estate 'as pa"titioned a%on! he" th"ee child"en and he" !"andson, Valentin Salao. he t"ial cou"t su"%ised that the co-o'ne"ship 'hich e7isted f"o% /5/6 to /5/0 %isled the plaintiffs and thei" 'itnesses and caused the% to believe e""oneousl# that the"e 'as a coo'ne"ship in /5:1 o" the"eabouts. he t"ial cou"t speculated that if valentin had a hand in the conve"sion into fishponds of the Calunu"an and >e'a lands, he %ust have done so on a sala"# o" p"ofit- sha"in! basis. It con+ectu"ed that Valentin3s child"en and !"andchild"en 'e"e !iven b# *%b"osia Salao a po"tion of the ea"nin!s of the fishponds as a "e'a"d fo" his se"vices o" because of *%b"osia3s affection fo" he" !"andnieces. he t"ial cou"t "ationali)ed that Valentin3s o%ission du"in! his lifeti%e to assail the o""ens titles of ,uan and *%b"osia si!nified that ?he 'as not a co-o'ne"? of the fishponds. It did not !ive c"edence to the testi%onies of plaintiffs3 'itnesses because thei" %e%o"ies could not be t"usted and because no st"on! docu%enta"# evidence suppo"ted the decla"ations. Mo"eove", the pa"ties involved in the alle!ed t"ust 'e"e al"ead# dead. It also held that the donation 'as validl# e7ecuted and that even if it 'e"e void ,uan S. Salao, ,"., the donee, 'ould neve"theless be the sole le!al hei" of the dono", *%b"osia Salao, and 'ould inhe"it the p"ope"ties donated to hi%. &oth pa"ties appealed. he plaintiffs appealed because thei" action fo" "econve#ance 'as dis%issed. he defendants appealed because thei" counte"clai% fo" da%a!es 'as dis%issed. he appeals, 'hich deal 'ith factual and le!al issues, 'e"e %ade to the Cou"t of *ppeals. $o'eve", as the a%ounts involved e7ceed t'o hund"ed thousand pesos, the Cou"t of *ppeals elevated the case to this Cou"t in its "esolution of Octote" ;, /522 -C*-C.R. No. ;::/6-R.. Plaintiffs% appeal. F *n appellant3s b"ief should contain ?a sub+ect inde7 inde7 of the %atte" in the b"ief 'ith a di"est of t&e ar"ument and pa"e references$ to the contents of the b"ief -Sec. /2 GaH, Rule 62, /526 Rules of Cou"tE Sec. /9, Rule 60, /56: Rules of Cou"t.. he plaintiffs in thei" appellants3 b"ief consistin! of ;:4 pa!es did not co%pl# 'ith that "e<ui"e%ent. hei" state%ents of the case and the facts do not contain ?pa!e "efe"ences to the "eco"d? as "e<ui"ed in section /2GcH and GdH of Rule 62, fo"%e"l# section /9, Rule 60 of the /56: Rules of Cou"t.

>a'#e"s fo" appellants, 'hen the# p"epa"e thei" b"iefs, 'ould do 'ell to "ead and "e-"ead section /2 of Rule 62. If the# co%pl# st"ictl# 'ith the fo"%al "e<ui"e%ents p"esc"ibed in section /2, the# %i!ht %aAe a co%petent and lu%inous p"esentation of thei" clients3 case and li!hten the bu"den of the Cou"t. Bhat ,ustice 8ishe" said in /5/0 is still t"ue no'( ? he p"essu"e of 'o"A upon this Cou"t is so !"eat that 'e cannot, in +ustice to othe" liti!ants, unde"taAe to %aAe an e7a%ination of the volu%inous t"ansc"ipt of the testi%on# -/,11; pa!es in this case, t'ent#-one 'itnesses havin! testified., unless the atto"ne#s 'ho desi"e us to %aAe such e7a%ination have the%selves taAen the t"ouble to "ead the "eco"d and b"ief it in acco"dance 'ith ou" "ules? -Pala"a vs. &a!uisi ;0 Phil. /99, /0/.. *s noted in an old case, this Cou"t decides hund"eds of cases eve"# #ea" and in addition "esolves in %inute o"de"s an e7ceptionall# conside"able nu%be" of petitions, %otions and inte"locuto"# %atte"s -*l)ua and *"nalot vs. ,ohnson, 4/ Phil. ;:0, ;51E See 'n re Almacen# >-49216, 8eb"ua"# /0, /59:, ;/ SCR* 124, 19;.. Plaintiffs3 fi"st assi!n%ent of e""o" "aised a p"ocedu"al issue. In pa"a!"aphs / to /6 of thei" fi"st cause of action the# %ade ce"tain ave"%ents to establish thei" theo"# that Valentin Salao had a one-thi"d inte"est in the t'o fishponds 'hich 'e"e "e!ist"e"ed in the na%es of ,uan =. Salao, S". -&anli. and *%b"osia Salao. ,uan S. Salao, ,". -,uani. in his ans'e" ?specificall#? denied each and all the alle!ations? in pa"a!"aphs I to /: and /4 of the fi"st cause of action 'ith the <ualification that O"i!inal ce"tificates of itle Nos. /01 and 694 'e"e issued ?%o"e than ;9 #ea"s a!o? in the na%es of ,uan -&anli. and *%b"osia unde" the ci"cu%stances set fo"th in ,uan S. Salao, ,".3s ?positive defenses? and ?not unde" the ci"cu%stances stated in the in the a%ended co%plaint?. he plaintiffs contend that the ans'e" of ,uan S. Salao, ,". 'as in effect tin ad%ission of the alle!ations in thei" fi"st cause of action that the"e 'as a co-o'ne"ship a%on! *%b"osia, ,uan, *Ie+and"a and Valentin, all su"na%ed Salao, "e!a"din! the Da%palit p"ope"t# as ea"l# as /5:6 o" /5:1E that the co%%on funds 'e"e invested the ac<uisition of the t'o fishpondsE that the 69-hecta"e Calunu"an fishpond 'as ve"ball# ad+udicated to Valentin Salao in the l5/5 pa"tition and that the"e 'as a ve"bal stipulation to to "e!iste" ?said lands in the na%e onl# of ,uan =. Salao?. hat contention is unfounded. Inde" section 2, Rule 5 of the /56: of Rules of Cou"t the ans'e" should ?contain eithe" a specific dinial a state%ent of %atte"s in acco"dance of the cause o" causes of action asse"ted in the co%plaint?. Section 9 of the sa%e "ule "e<ui"es the defendant to ?deal specifical# 'ith each %ate"ial alle!ation of fact the t"uth of 'ihich he does not ad%it and, 'heneve" p"acticable shall set fo"th the substance of the %atte"s 'hich he 'ill "el# upon to suppo"t his denial?. ?Mate"ial ave"%ents in the co%plaint, othe" than those as to the a%ount da%a!e, shall be dee%ed ad%itted 'hen specificall# denied? -Sec. 0.. ? he defendant %a# set fo"th set fo"th b# ans'e" as %an# affi"%ative defenses as he %a# have. *ll !"ounds of defenses as 'ould "aise issues of fact not a"isin! upon the p"ecedin! pleadin! %ust be specificall# pleaded? -Sec. 5.. Bhat defendant ,uan S. Salao, ,". did in his ans'e" 'as to set fo"th in his ?positive defenses? the %atte"s in avoidance of plaintiffs3 fi"st cause of action 'hich 'hich suppo"ted his denials of pa"a!"aphs 6 to /: and /4 of the fi"st cause of action. Obviousl#, he did so because he found it i%p"acticable to state pie"ceneal his o'n ve"sion as to the ac<uisition of the t'o

fishponds o" to %aAe a tedious and "epetitious "ecital of the ulti%ate facts cont"adictin! alle!ations of the fi"st cause of action. Be hold that in doin! so he substantiall# co%plied 'ith Rule 5 of the /56: Rules of Cou"t. It %a# be noted that unde" the p"esent Rules of Cou"t a ?ne!ative defense is the specific denial of t the %ate"ial fact o" facts alle!ed in the co%plaint essential to plaintiff3s cause of causes of action?. On the othe" hand, ?an affi"%ative defense is an alle!ation of ne' %atte" 'hich, 'hile ad%ittin! the %ate"ial alle!ations of the co%plaint, e7p"essl# o" i%pliedl#, 'ould neve"theless p"event o" ba" "ecove"# b# the plaintiff.? *ffi"%ative defenses include all %atte"s set up ?b# of confession and avoidance?. -Sec. 1, Rule 2, Rules of Cou"t.. he case of El (o"ar )ilipino vs. *antos 'nvestments# 96 Phil. 95 and si%ila" cases a"e distin!uishable f"o% the instant case. In the El (o"ar case the defendant filed a laconic ans'e" containin! the state%ent that it denied ?!ene"all# ans specificall# each and eve"# alle!ation contained in each and eve"# pa"a!"aph of the co%plaint?. It did not set fo"th in its ans'e" an# %atte"s b# 'a# of confession and avoidance. It did not inte"pose an# %atte"s b# 'a# of confession and avoidance. It did not inte"pose an# affi"%ative defenses. Inde" those ci"cu%stances, it 'as held that defendant3s specific denial 'as "eall# a !ene"al denial 'hich 'as tanta%ount to an ad%ission of the alle!ations of the co%plaint and 'hich +ustified +ud!%ent on the pleadin!s. hat is not the situation in this case. he othe" nine assi!n%ents of e""o" of the plaintiffs %a# be "educed to the decisive issue of 'hethe" the Calunu"an fishpond 'as held in t"ust fo" Valentin Salao b# ,uan =. Salao, S". and *%b"osia Salao. hat issue is tied up 'ith the <uestion of 'hethe" plaintiffs3 action fo" "econve#ance had al"ead# p"esc"ibed. he plaintiffs contend that thei" action is ?to enfo"ce a t"ust 'hich defendant? ,uan S. Salao, ,". alle!edl# violated. he e7istence of a t"ust 'as not definitel# alle!ed in plaintiffs3 co%plaint. he# %entioned t"ust fo" the fi"st ti%e on pa!e 4 of thei" appelants3 b"ief. o dete"%ine if the plaintiffs have a cause of action fo" the enfo"ce%ent of a t"ust, it is necessa"# to %aeA so%e e7e!esis on the natu"e of t"usts +fideicomosis,. "usts in *n!lo*%e"ican +u"isp"udence 'e"e de"ived f"o% thefideicommissa of the Ro%an la' -Cove"n%ent of the Philippine Islands vs. *badilla, 62 Phil. 264, 262.. ?In its technical le!al sense, a t"ust is defined as the "i!ht, enfo"ceable solel# in e<uit#, to the beneficial en+o#%ent of p"ope"t#, the le!al title to 'hich is vested in anothe", but the 'o"d 3t"ust3 is f"e<uentl# e%plo#ed to indicate duties, "elations, and "esponsibilities 'hich a"e not st"ictl# technical t"usts? -05 C.,.S. 9/4.. * pe"son 'ho establishes a t"ust is called the t"usto"E one in 'ho% confidence is "eposed as "e!a"ds p"ope"t# fo" the benefit of anothe" pe"son is Ano'n as the t"usteeE and the pe"son fo" 'hose benefit the t"ust has been c"eated is "efe""ed to as the beneficia"#? -*"t. /66:, Civil Code.. he"e is a fiducia"# "elation bet'een the t"ustee and the cestui que trust as "e!a"ds ce"tain p"ope"t#, "eal, pe"sonal, %one# o" choses in action -Pacheco vs. *""o, 01 Phil. 1:1.. ? "usts a"e eithe" e7p"ess o" i%plied. E7p"ess t"usts a"e c"eated b# the intention of the t"usto" o" of the pa"ties. I%plied t"usts co%e into bein! b# ope"ation of la'? -*"t. /66/, Civil Code..

?No e7p"ess t"usts conce"nin! an i%%ovable o" an# inte"est the"ein %a# be p"oven b# pa"ol evidence. *n i%plied t"ust %a# be p"oven b# o"al evidence? - 'bid# *"ts. /66; and /619.. ?No pa"ticula" 'o"ds a"e "e<ui"ed fo" the c"eation of an e7p"ess t"ust, it bein! sufficient that a t"ust is clea"l# intended? -'bid# *"t. /666E uason de Pe"e) vs. Calua!, 52 Phil. 50/E ,ulio vs. Dalandan, >-/5:/4, Octobe" ;:, /529, 4/ SCR* 16;, 162.. ?E7p"ess t"usts a"e those 'hich a"e c"eated b# the di"ect and positive acts of the pa"ties, b# so%e '"itin! o" deed, o" 'ill, o" b# 'o"ds eithe" e7p"essl# o" i%pliedl# evincin! an intention to c"eate a t"ust? -05 C.,.S. 94.. ?I%plied t"usts a"e those 'hich, 'ithout bein! e7p"essed, a"e deducible f"o% the natu"e of the t"ansaction asmatters of intent# o" 'hich a"e supe"induced on the t"ansaction b# operation of la! as matter of equit-#independentl# of the pa"ticula" intention of the pa"ties? -05 C.,.S. 946.. he# a"e o"dina"il# subdivided into "esultin! and const"uctive t"usts -05 C.,.S. 944.. ?* "esultin! t"ust. is b"oadl# defined as a t"ust 'hich is "aised o" c"eated b# the act o" const"uction of la', but in its %o"e "est"icted sense it is a t"ust "aised b# implication of la! and presumed to &ave been contemplated b- t&e parties# the intention as to 'hich is to be found in the natu"e of thei" t"ansaction, but not e7p"essed in the deed o" inst"u%ent of conve#ance -05 C.,.S. 941.. E7a%ples of "esultin! t"usts a"e found in a"ticles /660 to /611 of the Civil Code. -See Padilla vs. Cou"t of *ppeals, >-;/125, Septe%be" 40, /59;, 1; SCR* /20, /95E Ma"tine) vs. C"a@o 64 Phil. ;1.. On the othe" hand, a const"uctive t"ust is -a t"ust ?"aised b# const"uction of la', o" a"isin! b# ope"ation of la'?. In a %o"e "est"icted sense and as cont"a-distin!uished f"o% a "esultin! t"ust, a const"uctive t"ust is ?a t"ust not c"eated b# an# 'o"ds, eithe" e7p"essl# o" i%pliedl# evincin! a di"ect intension to c"eate a t"ust, but b# t&e construction of equit- in order to satisf- t&e demands of justice.$ It does not a"ise ?b# a!"ee%ent o" intention, but b# ope"ation of la'.? -05 C.,.S. 942-949.. hus, ?if p"ope"t# is ac<ui"ed th"ou!h %istaAe o" f"aud, the pe"son obtainin! it is, b# fo"ce of la', conside"ed a t"ustee of an i%plied t"ust fo" the benefit of the pe"son f"o% 'ho% the p"ope"t# co%es? -*"t. /612, Civil Code.. O" ?if a pe"son obtains le!al title to p"ope"t# b# f"aud o" conceal%ent, cou"ts of e<uit# 'ill i%p"ess upon the title a so-called const"uctive t"ust in favo" of the def"auded pa"t#?. Such a const"uctive t"ust is not a t"ust in the technical sense. -Ca#ondato vs. "easu"e" of the P. I., 65 Phil. 466.. Not a scintilla of docu%enta"# evidence 'as p"esented b# the plaintiffs to p"ove that the"e 'as an e7p"ess t"ust ove" the Calunu"an fishpond in favo" of Valentin Salao. Pu"el# pa"ol evidence 'as offe"ed b# the% to p"ove the alle!ed t"ust. hei" clai% that in the o"al pa"tition in /5/5 of the t'o fishponds the Calunu"an fishpond 'as assi!ned to Valentin Salao is le!all# untenable. It is le!all# indefensible because the te"%s of a"ticle /66; of the Civil Code -al"ead# in fo"ce 'hen the action he"ein 'as instituted. a"e pe"e%pto"# and un%istaAable( pa"ol evidence cannot be used to p"ove an e7p"ess t"ust conce"nin! "ealt#. Is plaintiffs3 %assive o"al evidence sufficient to p"ove an i%plied t"ust, "esultin! o" const"uctive, "e!a"din! the t'o fishpondsJ

Plaintiffs3 pleadin!s and evidence cannot be "elied upon to p"ove an i%plied t"ust. he t"ial cou"t3s fi"% conclusion that the"e 'as no co%%unit# of p"ope"t# du"in! the lifeti%e of ValentinaE I!nacio o" befo"e /5/6 is substantiated b# defendants3 docu%enta"# evidence. he e7istence of the alle!ed co-o'ne"ship ove" the lands supposedl# inhe"ited f"o% Manuel Salao in /001 is the basis of plaintiffs3 contention that the Calunu"an fishpond 'as held in t"ust fo" Valentin Salao. &ut that co-o'ne"ship 'as not p"oven b# an# co%petent evidence. It is <uite i%p"obable because the alle!ed estate of Manuel Salao 'as liAe'ise not satisfacto"il# p"oven. he plaintiffs alle!ed in thei" o"i!inal co%plaint that the"e 'as a co-o'ne"ship ove" t!o hecta"es of land left b# Manuel Salao. In thei" a%ended co%plaint, the# alle!ed that the co-o'ne"ship 'as ove" seven hecta"es of fishponds located in &a""io Da%palit, Malabon, Ri)al. In thei" b"ief the# alle!ed that the fishponds, "icelands and saltbeds o'ned in co%%on in &a""io Da%palit had an a"ea oft!ent--ei"&t hecta"es, of 'hich si7teen hecta"es pe"tained to Valentina I!nacio and eleven hecta"es "ep"esented Manuel Salao3s estate. he# theo"i)ed that the eleven hecta"es ?'e"e, and necessa"il#, the nucleus, na# the ve"# "oot, of the p"ope"t# no' in liti!ation -pa!e 2, plaintiffs-appellants3 b"ief.. &ut the eleven hecta"es 'e"e not p"oven b# an# t"ust'o"th# evidence. &enita Salao3s testi%on# that in /5/0 o" /5/5 ,uan, *%b"osia, *le+and"a and Valentin pa"titioned t'ent#-ei!ht hecta"es of lands located in &a""io Da%palit is not c"edible. *s noted b# the defendants, .anuel *alao !as not even mentioned in plaintiffs% complaints. he /5/5 pa"tition of Valentina I!nacio3s estate cove"ed about seventeen hecta"es of fishponds and "icelands -E7h. 4/.. If at the ti%e that pa"tition 'as %ade the"e 'e"e eleven hecta"es of land in &a""io Da%palit belon!in! to Manuel Salao, 'ho died in /001, those eleven hecta"es 'ould have been pa"titioned in '"itin! as in the case of the seventeen hecta"es belon!in! to Valentina I!nacio3s estate. It is inc"edible that the fo"t#-seven-hecta"e Calunu"an fishpond 'ould be ad+udicated to Valentin Salao %e"e b# b# 'o"d of %outh. Inc"edible because fo" the pa"tition of the seventeen hecta"es of land left b# Valentina I!nacio an elabo"ate ?Esc"itu"a de Pa"ticion? consistin! of t'ent#-t'o pa!es had to be e7ecuted b# the fou" Salao hei"s. Su"el#, fo" the pa"tition of one hund"ed fo"t#-five hecta"es of fishponds a%on! th"ee of the sa%e Salao hei"s an o"al ad+udication 'ould not have sufficed. he i%p"obabilit# of the alle!ed o"al pa"tition beco%es %o"e evident 'hen it is bo"ne in %ind that the t'o fishponds 'e"e "e!iste"ed land and ?the act of "e!ist"ation? is ?the ope"ative act? that conve#s and affects the land -Sec. 1:, *ct No. 652.. hat %eans that an# t"ansaction affectin! the "e!iste"ed land should be evidenced b# a "e!iste"able deed. he fact that Valentin Salao and his successo"s-in-inte"est, the plaintiffs, neve" bothe"ed fo" a pe"iod of nea"l# fo"t# #ea"s to p"ocu"e an# docu%enta"# evidence to establish his supposed inte"est o7 pa"ticipation in the t'o fishponds is ve"# su!!estive of the absence of such inte"est. he %atte" %a# be vie'ed f"o% anothe" an!le. *s al"ead# stated, the deed of pa"tition fo" Valentina I!nacio3s estate 'a! nota"i)ed in /5/5 -E7h. 4/.. he plaintiffs asse"t that the t'o fishponds 'e"e ve"ball# pa"titioned also in /5/5 and that the Calunu"an fishpond 'as assi!ned to Valentin Salao as his sha"e.

No' in the pa"tition of Valentina I!nacio3s estate, Valentin 'as obli!ated to pa# P;,;11.41 to *%b"osia Salao. If, acco"din! to the plaintiffs, *%b"osia ad%iniste"ed the t'o fishponds and 'as the custodian of its ea"nin!s, then it could have been easil# stipulated in the deed pa"titionin! Valentina I!nacio3s estate that the a%ount due f"o% Valentin 'ould +ust be deducted b# *%b"osia f"o% his sha"e of the ea"nin!s of the t'o fishponds. he"e 'as no such stipulation. Not a sh"ed of docu%enta"# evidence sho's Valentin3s pa"ticipation in the t'o fishponds. he plaintiffs utte"l# failed to %easu"e up to the #a"dsticA that a t"ust %ust be p"oven b# clea", satisfacto"# and convincin! evidence. It cannot "est on va!ue and unce"tain evidence o" on loose, e<uivocal o" indefinite decla"ations -De >eon vs. Molo-PecAson, //2 Phil. /429, /49;.. Trust and trustee/ establis&ment of trust b- parol evidence/ certaint- of proof. F Bhe"e a t"ust is to be established b# o"al p"oof, the testi%on# suppo"tin! it %ust be sufficientl# st"on! to p"ove the "i!ht of the alle!ed beneficia"# 'ith as %uch ce"taint# as if a docu%ent p"ovin! the t"ust 'e"e sho'n. A trust cannot be establis&ed# contrar- to t&e recitals of a Torrens title# upon va"ue and inconclusive proof. -S#llabus, Sua"e) vs. i"a%bulo, 15 Phil. ;:;.. Trusts/ evidence needed to establis& trust on parol testimon-. F In o"de" to establish a t"ust in "eal p"ope"t# b# pa"ol evidence, the p"oof should be as full# convincin! as if the act !ivin! "ise to the t"ust obli!ation 'e"e p"oven b# an authentic docu%ent. Such a t"ust cannot be established upon testi%on# consistin! in la"!e pa"t of insecu"e su"%ises based on ancient hea"sa#. -S#llabus, Santa ,uana vs. Del Rosa"io 1: Phil. //:.. he fo"e!oin! "ulin!s a"e !ood unde" a"ticle /619 of the Civil Code 'hich, as al"ead# noted, allo's an i%plied t"ust to be p"oven b# o"al evidence. "ust'o"th# o"al evidence is "e<ui"ed to p"ove an i%plied t"ust because, o"al evidence can be easil# fab"icated. On the othe" hand, a o""ens title is !ene"all# a conclusive of the o'ne"ship of the land "efe""ed to the"ein -Sec. 69, *ct 652.. * st"on! p"esu%ption e7ists. that o""ens titles 'e"e "e!ula"l# issued and that the# a"e valid. In o"de" to %aintain an action fo" "econve#ance, p"oof as to the fiducia"# "elation of the pa"ties %ust be clea" and convincin! -=u%ul vs. Rive"a and Di)on, 26 Phil. /;, /9-/0.. he "eal pu"pose of the o""ens s#ste% is, to <uiet title to land. ?Once a title is "e!iste"ed, the o'ne" %a# "est secu"e, 'ithout the necessit# of 'aitin! in the po"tals of the cou"t, o" sittin! in the mirador de su casa# to avoid the possibilit# of losin! his land? ->e!a"da and P"ieto vs. Saleeb#, ;/ Phil. 15:, 15;.. he"e 'as no "esultin! t"ust in this case because the"e neve" 'as an# intention on the pa"t of ,uan =. Salao, S"., *%b"osia Salao and Valentin Salao to c"eate an# t"ust. he"e 'as no const"uctive t"ust because the "e!ist"ation of the t'o fishponds in the na%es of ,uan and *%b"osia 'as not vitiated b# f"aud o" %istaAe. his is not a case 'he"e to satisf# the de%ands of +ustice it is necessa"# to conside" the Calunu"an fishpond ? bein! held in t"ust b# the hei"s of ,uan =. Salao, S". fo" the hei"s of Valentin Salao.

*nd even assu%in! that the"e 'as an i%plied t"ust, plaintiffs3 action is clea"l# ba""ed b# p"esc"iption o" laches -Ra%os vs. Ra%os, >-/5094, Dece%be" ;, /596, 2/ SCR* 406E Kuiniano vs. Cou"t of *ppeals, >-4;:46, Ma# ;/, /59/, ;5 SCR* 44/E Va"sit# $ills, Inc. vs. Nava""o, 5, 8eb"ua"# 45, /594, 6; SCR* 1:;E *l)ona vs. Capunitan and Re#es, //6 Phil. ;99.. Inde" *ct No. /5:, 'hose statute of li%itation 'ould appl# if the"e 'e"e an i%plied t"ust in this case, the lon!est pe"iod of e7tinctive p"esc"iption 'as onl# ten #ea" -Sec. 6:E Dia) vs. Co""icho and *!uado, /:; Phil. 42/, 422.. he Calunu"an fishpond 'as "e!iste"ed in /5//. he '"itten e7t"a+udicial de%and fo" its "econve#ance 'as %ade b# the plaintiffs in /51/. hei" action 'as filed in /514 o" afte" the lapse of %o"e than fo"t# #ea"s f"o% the date of "e!ist"ation. he plaintiffs and thei" p"edecesso"-in-inte"est, Valentin Salao, slept on thei" "i!hts if the# had an# "i!hts at all. Vi"ilanti prospiciunt jura o" the la' p"otects hi% 'ho is 'atchful of his "i!hts -54 C.,.S. /://, citin! Es!ue""a vs. ecson, 4/ Phil. 1/0, 14/.. ?Indue dela# in the enfo"ce%ent of a "i!ht is st"on!l# pe"suasive of a lacA of %e"it in the clai%, since it is hu%an natu"e fo" a pe"son to asse"t his "i!hts %ost st"on!l# 'hen the# a"e th"eatened o" invaded?. ?>aches o" un"easonable dela# on the pa"t of a plaintiff in seeAin! to enfo"ce a "i!ht is not onl# pe"suasive of a 'ant of %e"it but %a#, acco"din! to the ci"cu%stances, be dest"uctive of the "i!ht itself.? -&uenaventu"a vs. David, ;9 Phil. 6;1, 66:66/.. $avin! "eached the conclusion that the plaintiffs a"e not entitled to the "econve#ance of the Calunu"an fishpond, it is no lon!e" n to Pass upon the validit# of the donation %ade b# *%b"osia Salao to ,uan S. Salao, ,". of he" one-half sha"e in the t'o fishponds he plaintiffs have no "i!ht and pe"sonalit# to assil that donation. Even if the donation 'e"e decla"ed void, the plaintiffs 'ould not have an# successional "i!hts to *%b"osia3s sha"e. he sole le!al hei" of *%b"osia 'as he" nephe', ,uan, ,"., he" nea"est "elative 'ithin the thi"d de!"ee. Valentin Salao, if livin! in /561 'hen *%b"osia died, 'ould have been also he" le!al hei", to!ethe" 'ith his fi"st cousin, ,uan, ,". -,uani.. &enita Salao, the dau!hte" of Valentin, could not "ep"esent hi% in the succession to the estate of *%b"osia since in the collate"al line, "ep"esentation taAes place onl# in favo" of the child"en of b"othe"s o" siste"s 'hethe" the# be of the full o" half blood is -*"t 594, Civil Code.. he nephe' e7cludes a !"andniece liAe &enita Salao o" !"eat-!andnephe's liAe the plaintiffs *lcu"i)a -Pavia vs. Itu""alde 1 Phil. /92.. he t"ial cou"t did not e"" in dis%issin! plaintiffs3 co%plaint. 0efendants% appeal. F he defendants dispute the lo'e" cou"t3s findin! that the plaintiffs filed thei" action in !ood faith. he defendants contend that the# a"e entitled to da%a!es because the plaintiffs acted %aliciousl# o" in bad faith in suin! the%. he# asA fo" P41,::: atto"ne#s fees and liti!ation e7penses and, in addition, %o"al da%a!es. Be hold that defe%da%ts3 appeal is not %e"ito"ious. he "eco"d sho's that the plaintiffs p"esented fifteen 'itnesses du"in! the p"ot"acted t"ial of this case 'hich lasted f"o% /516 to /515. he# fou!ht tenaciousl#. he# obviousl# incu""ed conside"able e7penses in p"osecutin!

thei" case. *lthou!h thei" causes of action tu"ned out to be unfounded, #et the pe"tinacit# and vi!o" 'ith 'hich the# p"essed thei" clai% indicate thei" since"it# and !ood faith. he"e is the fu"the" conside"ation that the pa"ties 'e"e descendants of co%%on ancesto"s, the spouses Manuel Salao and Valentina I!nacio, and that plaintiffs3 action 'as based on thei" honest supposition that the funds used in the ac<uisition of the lands in liti!ation 'e"e ea"nin!s of the p"ope"ties alle!edl# inhe"ited f"o% Manuel Salao. Conside"in! those ci"cu%stances, it cannot be concluded 'ith ce"titude that plaintiffs3 action 'as %anifestl# f"ivolous o" 'as p"i%a"il# intended to ha"ass the defendants. *n a'a"d fo" da%a!es to the defendants does not appea" to be +ust and p"ope". he 'o""ies and an7iet# of a defendant in a liti!ation that 'as not %aliciousl# instituted a"e not the %o"al da%a!es conte%plated in the la' -Solis L =a"isantos vs. Salvado", >-/9:44, *u!ust /6, /521, /6 SCR* 009E Ra%os vs. Ra%os, supra.. he instant case is not a%on! the cases %entioned in a"ticles 44/5 and 444: of the Civil Code 'he"ein %o"al da%a!es %a# be "ecove"ed. No" can it be "e!a"ded as analo!ous to an# of the cases %entioned in those a"ticles. he adve"se "esult of an action does not per se %aAe the act '"on!ful and sub+ect the acto" to the pa#%ent of %o"al da%a!es. he la' could not have %eant to i%pose a penalt# on the "i!ht to liti!ateE such "i!ht is so p"ecious that %o"al da%a!es %a# not be cha"!ed on those 'ho %a# e7e"cise it e""oneousl#. -&a""eto vs. *"evalo, 55 Phil. 99/. 995.. he defendants invoAe a"ticle 44:0 -6. -//. of the Civil Code 'hich p"ovides that atto"ne#3s fees %a# be "ecove"ed ?in case of a clea"l# unfounded civil action o" p"oceedin! a!ainst the plaintiff? -defendant is a plaintiff in his counte"clai%. o" ?in an# othe" case 'he"e the cou"t dee%s it +ust and e<uitable? that atto"ne#3s fees should he a'a"ded. &ut once it is conceded that the plaintiffs acted in !ood faith in filin! thei" action the"e 'ould be no basis fo" ad+ud!in! the% liable to the defendants fo" atto"ne#3s fees and liti!ation e7penses -See Ri)al Su"et# L Insu"ance Co., Inc. vs. Cou"t of *ppeals, >-4;945, Ma# /2, /529, 4: SCR* 2/.. It is not sound public polic# to set a p"e%iu% on the "i!ht to liti!ate. *n adve"se decision does not ipso facto +ustif# the a'a"d of atto"ne#3s fees to the 'innin! pa"t# -$e""e"a vs. >u# Di% Cuan, //: Phil. /:4:, /:40E $ei"s of ,ustiva vs. Custilo, 2/ O. C. 2515.. he t"ial cou"t3s +ud!%ent is affi"%ed. No p"onounce%ent as to costs. SO ORDERED. Barredo +1&airman,# Antonio# 1oncepcion# 2r. and .artin# 22.# concur. )ernando +1&airman# *econd 0ivision,# 2.# too3 no part. .artin# 2.# !as desi"nated to sit in t&e *econd 0ivision.