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

183896 January 30, 2013

SYED A !AR A""AS, Petitioner, vs. G#OR$A GOO A""AS, Respondent. D %E#ASCO, JR., J.: This is a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, (uestionin) the Decision% of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, dated March %%, -../ in !*01.R. !V No. /2'2., "hich reversed the Decision- in !ivil !ase No. .30.3/-0!4M dated October $, -..$ of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!,, 5ranch %.&, Pasa6 !it6, and the !* Resolution dated 7ul6 -#, -../, den6in) petitioner8s Motion for Reconsideration of the !* Decision. The present case ste9s fro9 a petition filed b6 petitioner S6ed *:har *bbas +S6ed, for the declaration of nullit6 of his 9arria)e to 1loria 1oo0*bbas +1loria, "ith the RT! of Pasa6 !it6, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. .30.3/-0!4M, and raffled to RT! 5ranch %.&. S6ed alle)ed the absence of a 9arria)e license, as provided for in *rticle #, !hapter I, Title % of <ecutive Order No. -2&, other"ise ;no"n as the 4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines, as a )round for the annul9ent of his 9arria)e to 1loria. In the Marria)e !ontract3 of 1loria and S6ed, it is stated that Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2', issued at !ar9ona, !avite on 7anuar6 /, %&&3, "as presented to the sole9ni:in) officer. It is this infor9ation that is crucial to the resolution of this case. *t the trial court, S6ed, a Pa;istani citi:en, testified that he 9et 1loria, a 4ilipino citi:en, in Tai"an in %&&%, and the6 "ere 9arried on *u)ust &, %&&- at the Taipei Mos(ue in Tai"an. # He arrived in the Philippines in Dece9ber of %&&-. On 7anuar6 &, %&&3, at around $ o>cloc; in the afternoon, he "as at his 9other0in0la">s residence, located at -2'2 4. Mu?o: St., Malate, Manila, "hen his 9other0in0la" arrived "ith t"o 9en. He testified that he "as told that he "as )oin) to under)o so9e cere9on6, one of the re(uire9ents for his sta6 in the Philippines, but "as not told of the nature of said cere9on6. Durin) the cere9on6 he and 1loria si)ned a docu9ent. He clai9ed that he did not ;no" that the cere9on6 "as a 9arria)e until 1loria told hi9 later. He further testified that he did not )o to !ar9ona, !avite to appl6 for a 9arria)e license, and that he had never resided in that area. In 7ul6 of -..3, he "ent to the Office of the !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite, to chec; on their 9arria)e license, and "as as;ed to sho" a cop6 of their 9arria)e contract "herein the 9arria)e license nu9ber could be found. $ The Municipal !ivil Re)istrar, =eodivinia !. ncarnacion, issued a certification on 7ul6 %%, -..3 to the effect that the 9arria)e license nu9ber appearin) in the 9arria)e contract he sub9itted, Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2', "as the nu9ber of another 9arria)e license issued to a certain *rlindo 1etalado and M6ra Mabilan)an.2 Said certification reads as follo"s@ %% 7ul6 -..3 TO AHOM IT M*B !ON! RN@ This is to certif6 as per Re)istr6 Records of Marria)e =icense filed in this office, Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2' "as issued in favor of MR. *R=INDO 1 T*=*DO and MISS MBR* M*5I=*N1*N on 7anuar6 %&, %&&3. No Marria)e =icense appear CsicD to have been issued to MR. SB D *EH*R *55*S and MISS 1=ORI* 4. 1OO on 7anuar6 /, %&&3. This certification is bein) issued to Mr. S6ed *:har *bbas for "hatever le)al purpose or intents it 9a6 serve.' !ISION

On cross0e<a9ination, S6ed testified that 1loria had filed bi)a96 cases a)ainst hi9 in -..% and -..-, and that he had )one to the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite to )et certification on "hether or not there "as a 9arria)e license on advice of his counsel. / Petitioner also presented Norberto 5a)sic +5a)sic,, an e9plo6ee of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite. 5a)sic appeared under a letter of authorit6 fro9 the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite, and brou)ht docu9ents pertainin) to Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2', "hich "as issued to *rlindo 1etalado and M6ra Mabilan)an on 7anuar6 -., %&&3. & 5a)sic testified that their office issues serial nu9bers for 9arria)e licenses and that the nu9bers are issued chronolo)icall6. %. He testified that the certification dated 7ul6 %%, -..3, "as issued and si)ned b6 =eodivina ncarnacion, Re)istrar of the Municipalit6 of !ar9ona, !avite, certif6in) that Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2' "as issued for *rlindo 1etalado and M6ra Mabilan)an on 7anuar6 %&, %&&3, and that their office had not issued an6 other license of the sa9e serial nu9ber, na9el6 &&2&&2', to an6 other person.%% 4or her part, 1loria testified on her o"n behalf, and presented Reverend Mario Dau:, *tt6. =oren:o Sanche:, 4elicitas 1oo and Ma6 *nn !eriola. Reverend Mario Dau: +Rev. Dau:, testified that he "as a 9inister of the 1ospel and a baran)a6 captain, and that he is authori:ed to sole9ni:e 9arria)es "ithin the Philippines. %- He testified that he sole9ni:ed the 9arria)e of S6ed *:har *bbas and 1loria 1oo at the residence of the bride on 7anuar6 &, %&&3. %3 He stated that the "itnesses "ere *tt6. =oren:o Sanche: +*tt6. Sanche:, and Mar6 *nn !eriola. %# He testified that he had been sole9ni:in) 9arria)es since %&/-, and that he is fa9iliar "ith the re(uire9ents.%$ Rev. Dau: further testified that *tt6. Sanche: )ave hi9 the 9arria)e license the da6 before the actual "eddin), and that the 9arria)e contract "as prepared b6 his secretar6. %2 *fter the sole9ni:ation of the 9arria)e, it "as re)istered "ith the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Manila, and Rev. Dau: sub9itted the 9arria)e contract and cop6 of the 9arria)e license "ith that office. %' *tt6. Sanche: testified that he "as as;ed to be the sponsor of the "eddin) of S6ed *bbas and 1loria 1oo b6 the 9other of the bride, 4elicitas 1oo.%/ He testified that he re(uested a certain Fualin to secure the 9arria)e license for the couple, and that this Fualin secured the license and )ave the sa9e to hi9 on 7anuar6 /, %&&3.%& He further testified that he did not ;no" "here the 9arria)e license "as obtained. -. He attended the "eddin) cere9on6 on 7anuar6 &, %&&3, si)ned the 9arria)e contract as sponsor, and "itnessed the si)nin) of the 9arria)e contract b6 the couple, the sole9ni:in) officer and the other "itness, Mar6 *nn !eriola.-% 4elicitas 1oo testified that 1loria 1oo is her dau)hter and S6ed *:har *bbas is her son0in0la", and that she "as present at the "eddin) cere9on6 held on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 at her house. -- She testified that she sou)ht the help of *tt6. Sanche: at the Manila !it6 Hall in securin) the 9arria)e license, and that a "ee; before the 9arria)e "as to ta;e place, a 9ale person "ent to their house "ith the application for 9arria)e license.-3 Three da6s later, the sa9e person "ent bac; to their house, sho"ed her the 9arria)e license before returnin) it to *tt6. Sanche: "ho then )ave it to Rev. Dau:, the sole9ni:in) officer. -# She further testified that she did not read all of the contents of the 9arria)e license, and that she "as told that the 9arria)e license "as obtained fro9 !ar9ona. -$ She also testified that a bi)a96 case had been filed b6 1loria a)ainst S6ed at the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Manila, evidenced b6 an infor9ation for 5i)a96 dated 7anuar6 %., -..3, pendin) before 5ranch #' of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Manila. -2 *s to Mar6 *nn !eriola>s testi9on6, the counsels for both parties stipulated that@ +a, she is one of the sponsors at the "eddin) of 1loria 1oo and S6ed *bbas on 7anuar6 &, %&&3G +b, she "as seen in the "eddin) photos and she could identif6 all the persons depicted in said photosG and +c, her testi9on6 corroborates that of 4elicitas 1oo and *tt6. Sanche:. The respondent, 1loria, testified that S6ed is her husband, and presented the 9arria)e contract bearin) their si)natures as proof.-' She and her 9other sou)ht the help of *tt6. Sanche: in securin) a 9arria)e license, and as;ed hi9 to be one of the sponsors. * certain Fualin "ent to their house and said that he "ill )et the 9arria)e license for the9, and after several da6s returned "ith an application for 9arria)e license for the9 to si)n, "hich she and S6ed did. *fter Fualin returned "ith the 9arria)e license, the6 )ave the license to *tt6. Sanche: "ho )ave it to Rev. Dau:, the sole9ni:in) officer. 1loria testified that she and S6ed "ere 9arried on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 at their residence. -/

1loria further testified that she has a dau)hter "ith S6ed, born on 7une %$, %&&3. -& 1loria also testified that she filed a bi)a96 case a)ainst S6ed, "ho had 9arried a certain Maria !ora:on 5uenaventura durin) the e<istence of the previous 9arria)e, and that the case "as doc;eted as !ri9inal !ase No. .-*0.3#./, "ith the RT! of Manila.3. 1loria stated that she and S6ed had alread6 been 9arried on *u)ust &, %&&- in Tai"an, but that she did not ;no" if said 9arria)e had been celebrated under Musli9 rites, because the one "ho celebrated their 9arria)e "as !hinese, and those around the9 at the ti9e "ere !hinese. 3% The Rulin) of the RT! In its October $, -..$ Decision, the Pasa6 !it6 RT! held that no valid 9arria)e license "as issued b6 the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite in favor of 1loria and S6ed, as Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2' had been issued to *rlindo 1etalado and M6ra Mabilan)an, and the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite had certified that no 9arria)e license had been issued for 1loria and S6ed. 3- It also too; into account the fact that neither part6 "as a resident of !ar9ona, !avite, the place "here Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2' "as issued, in violation of *rticle & of the 4a9il6 !ode. 33 *s the 9arria)e "as not one of those e<e9pt fro9 the license re(uire9ent, and that the lac; of a valid 9arria)e license is an absence of a for9al re(uisite, the 9arria)e of 1loria and S6ed on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 "as void ab initio. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads as follo"s@ AH R 4OR , Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered in favor of the petitioner, and a)ainst the respondent declarin) as follo"s@ %. The 9arria)e on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 bet"een petitioner S6ed *:har *bbas and respondent 1loria 1oo0*bbas is hereb6 annulledG -. Ter9inatin) the co99unit6 of propert6 relations bet"een the petitioner and the respondent even if no propert6 "as ac(uired durin) their cohabitation b6 reason of the nullit6 of the 9arria)e of the parties. 3. The =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Manila and the !ivil Re)istrar 1eneral, National Statistics Office, are hereb6 ordered to cancel fro9 their respective civil re)istries the 9arria)e contracted b6 petitioner S6ed *:har *bbas and respondent 1loria 1oo0*bbas on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 in Manila. SO ORD R D.3# 1loria filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated Nove9ber ', -..$, but the RT! denied the sa9e, pro9ptin) her to appeal the (uestioned decision to the !ourt of *ppeals. The Rulin) of the !* In her appeal to the !*, 1loria sub9itted the follo"in) assi)n9ent of errors@ I TH =OA R !OIRT RR D IN D !=*RIN1 TH M*RRI*1 5 TA N TH P TITION R *ND R SPOND NT *S NI== *ND VOID DI TO TH *5S N! O4 * M*RRI*1 =I! NS D SPIT VID N! != *R=B SHOAIN1 TH*T TH R A*S ON . II TH =OA R !OIRT RR D IN NOT !ONSID RIN1, *S * R FIISIT O4 * V*=ID M*RRI*1 , TH OV RAH =MIN1 VID N! SHOAIN1 TH*T * M*RRI*1 ! R MONB TOOJ P=*! AITH TH *PP *R*N! O4 TH !ONTR*!TIN1 P*RTI S 5 4OR TH SO= MNIEIN1 O44I! R *ND TH IR P RSON*=

D !=*R*TION TH*T TH B TOOJ *!H OTH R *S HIS5*ND *ND AI4 IN TH PR S N! O4 NOT = SS TH*N TAO AITN SS S O4 = 1*= *1 . III TH =OA R !OIRT RR D IN NOT RI=IN1 ON TH ISSI O4 STOPP = 5B =*!H S ON TH P*RT O4 TH P TITION R, *N ISSI TIM =B R*IS D IN TH !OIRT 5 =OA.3$ The !* )ave credence to 1loria>s ar)u9ents, and )ranted her appeal. It held that the certification of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar failed to cate)oricall6 state that a dili)ent search for the 9arria)e license of 1loria and S6ed "as conducted, and thus held that said certification could not be accorded probative value.32 The !* ruled that there "as sufficient testi9onial and docu9entar6 evidence that 1loria and S6ed had been validl6 9arried and that there "as co9pliance "ith all the re(uisites laid do"n b6 la". 3' It )ave "ei)ht to the fact that S6ed had ad9itted to havin) si)ned the 9arria)e contract. The !* also considered that the parties had co9ported the9selves as husband and "ife, and that S6ed onl6 instituted his petition after 1loria had filed a case a)ainst hi9 for bi)a96. 3/ The dispositive portion of the !* Decision reads as follo"s@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the appeal is 1R*NT D. The Decision dated .$ October -..$ and Order dated -' 7anuar6 -..2 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Pasa6 !it6, 5ranch %.&, in !ivil !ase No. .30.3/-0!4M are R V RS D and S T *SID and the Petition for Declaration of Nullit6 of Marria)e is DISMISS D. The 9arria)e bet"een Shed CsicD *:har *bbas and 1loria 1oo *bbas contracted on .& 7anuar6 %&&3 re9ains valid and subsistin). No costs. SO ORD R D.3& S6ed then filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated *pril %, -../ #. but the sa9e "as denied b6 the !* in a Resolution dated 7ul6 -#, -../.#% Hence, this petition. 1rounds in Support of Petition I TH HONOR*5= !OIRT O4 *PP *=S !OMMITT D S RIOIS RROR O4 =*A IN !ITIN1 R PI5=I! VS. !OIRT O4 *PP *=S *S TH S*M IS DI*M TRI!*==B IN!ONSIST NT *ND !ONTR*RB TO TH !OIRT>S OAN 4INDIN1S *ND !ON!=ISIONS IN THIS !*S . II TH HONOR*5= !OIRT O4 *PP *=S 1R*V =B RR D IN R V RSIN1 *ND S TTIN1 *SID , AITHOIT *NB 4*!TI*= *ND = 1*= 5*SIS, TH D !ISION O4 TH R 1ION*= TRI*= !OIRT 1R*NTIN1 TH P TITION 4OR D !=*R*TION O4 NI==ITB O4 M*RRI*1 .#The Rulin) of this !ourt The petition is 9eritorious. *s the 9arria)e of 1loria and S6ed "as sole9ni:ed on 7anuar6 &, %&&3, <ecutive Order No. -.&, or the 4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines, is the applicable la". The pertinent provisions that "ould appl6 to this particular case are *rticles 3, # and 3$+3,, "hich read as follo"s@ *rt. 3. The for9al re(uisites of 9arria)e are@

+%, *uthorit6 of the sole9ni:in) officerG +-, * valid 9arria)e license e<cept in the cases provided for in !hapter - of this TitleG and +3, * 9arria)e cere9on6 "hich ta;es place "ith the appearance of the contractin) parties before the sole9ni:in) officer and their personal declaration that the6 ta;e each other as husband and "ife in the presence of not less than t"o "itnesses of le)al a)e. *rt. #. The absence of an6 of the essential or for9al re(uisites shall render the 9arria)e void ab initio, e<cept as stated in *rticle 3$+-,. * defect in an6 of the essential re(uisites shall render the 9arria)e voidable as provided in *rticle #$. *n irre)ularit6 in the for9al re(uisites shall not affect the validit6 of the 9arria)e but the part6 or parties responsible for the irre)ularit6 shall be civill6, cri9inall6 and ad9inistrativel6 liable. *rt. 3$. The follo"in) 9arria)es shall be void fro9 the be)innin)@ <<<< +3, Those sole9ni:ed "ithout a license, e<cept those covered b6 the precedin) !hapter. There is no issue "ith the essential re(uisites under *rt. - of the 4a9il6 !ode, nor "ith the for9al re(uisites of the authorit6 of the sole9ni:in) officer and the conduct of the 9arria)e cere9on6. Nor is the 9arria)e one that is e<e9pt fro9 the re(uire9ent of a valid 9arria)e license under !hapter -, Title I of the 4a9il6 !ode. The resolution of this case, thus, hin)es on "hether or not a valid 9arria)e license had been issued for the couple. The RT! held that no valid 9arria)e license had been issued. The !* held that there "as a valid 9arria)e license. Ae find the RT! to be correct in this instance. Respondent 1loria failed to present the actual 9arria)e license, or a cop6 thereof, and relied on the 9arria)e contract as "ell as the testi9onies of her "itnesses to prove the e<istence of said license. To prove that no such license "as issued, S6ed turned to the office of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite "hich had alle)edl6 issued said license. It "as there that he re(uested certification that no such license "as issued. In the case of Republic v. !ourt of *ppeals #3 such certification "as allo"ed, as per9itted b6 Sec. -&, Rule %3- of the Rules of !ourt, "hich reads@ S !. -/. Proof of lac; of record. K * "ritten state9ent si)ned b6 an officer havin) the custod6 of an official record or b6 his deput6 that after dili)ent search, no record or entr6 of a specified tenor is found to e<ist in the records of his office, acco9panied b6 a certificate as above provided, is ad9issible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entr6. In the case of Republic, in allo"in) the certification of the !ivil Re)istrar of Pasi) to prove the non0 issuance of a 9arria)e license, the !ourt held@ The above Rule authori:ed the custodian of the docu9ents to certif6 that despite dili)ent search, a particular docu9ent does not e<ist in his office or that a particular entr6 of a specified tenor "as not to be found in a re)ister. *s custodians of public docu9ents, civil re)istrars are public officers char)ed "ith the dut6, inter alia, of 9aintainin) a re)ister boo; "here the6 are re(uired to enter all applications for 9arria)e licenses, includin) the na9es of the applicants, the date the 9arria)e license "as issued and such other relevant data.## The !ourt held in that case that the certification issued b6 the civil re)istrar enHo6ed probative value, as his dut6 "as to 9aintain records of data relative to the issuance of a 9arria)e license. The Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite, "here the 9arria)e license of 1loria and S6ed "as alle)edl6 issued, issued a certification to the effect that no such 9arria)e license for 1loria and S6ed "as issued, and that the serial nu9ber of the 9arria)e license pertained to another couple, *rlindo 1etalado

and M6ra Mabilan)an. * certified 9achine cop6 of Marria)e =icense No. &&2&&2' "as presented, "hich "as issued in !ar9ona, !avite, and indeed, the na9es of 1loria and S6ed do not appear in the docu9ent. In reversin) the RT!, the !* focused on the "ordin) of the certification, statin) that it did not co9pl6 "ith Section -/, Rule %3- of the Rules of !ourt. The !* deduced that fro9 the absence of the "ords Ldespite dili)ent searchL in the certification, and since the certification used stated that no 9arria)e license appears to have been issued, no dili)ent search had been conducted and thus the certification could not be )iven probative value. To Hustif6 that deduction, the !* cited the case of Republic v. !ourt of *ppeals. #$ It is "orth notin) that in that particular case, the !ourt, in sustainin) the findin) of the lo"er court that a 9arria)e license "as lac;in), relied on the !ertification issued b6 the !ivil Re)istrar of Pasi), "hich 9erel6 stated that the alle)ed 9arria)e license could not be located as the sa9e did not appear in their records. No"here in the !ertification "as it cate)oricall6 stated that the officer involved conducted a dili)ent search, nor is a cate)orical declaration absolutel6 necessar6 for Sec. -/, Rule %3- of the Rules of !ourt to appl6. Inder Sec. 3+9,, Rule %3% of the Rules of !ourt, it is a disputable presu9ption that an official dut6 has been re)ularl6 perfor9ed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the contrar6. Ae held, LThe presu9ption of re)ularit6 of official acts 9a6 be rebutted b6 affir9ative evidence of irre)ularit6 or failure to perfor9 a dut6.L#2 No such affir9ative evidence "as sho"n that the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar "as la< in perfor9in) her dut6 of chec;in) the records of their office, thus the presu9ption 9ust stand. In fact, proof does e<ist of a dili)ent search havin) been conducted, as Marria)e =icense No. &&2&2' "as indeed located and sub9itted to the court. The fact that the na9es in said license do not correspond to those of 1loria and S6ed does not overturn the presu9ption that the re)istrar conducted a dili)ent search of the records of her office. It is tellin) that 1loria failed to present their 9arria)e license or a cop6 thereof to the court. She failed to e<plain "h6 the 9arria)e license "as secured in !ar9ona, !avite, a location "here, ad9ittedl6, neither part6 resided. She too; no pains to appl6 for the license, so she is not the best "itness to testif6 to the validit6 and e<istence of said license. Neither could the other "itnesses she presented prove the e<istence of the 9arria)e license, as none of the9 applied for the license in !ar9ona, !avite. Her 9other, 4elicitas 1oo, could not even testif6 as to the contents of the license, havin) ad9itted to not readin) all of its contents. *tt6. Sanche:, one of the sponsors, "ho9 1loria and 4elicitas 1oo approached for assistance in securin) the license, ad9itted not ;no"in) "here the license ca9e fro9. The tas; of appl6in) for the license "as dele)ated to a certain Fualin, "ho could have testified as to ho" the license "as secured and thus i9peached the certification of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar as "ell as the testi9on6 of her representative. *s 1loria failed to present this Fualin, the certification of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar still enHo6s probative value. It is also noted that the sole9ni:in) officer testified that the 9arria)e contract and a cop6 of the 9arria)e license "ere sub9itted to the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Manila. Thus, a cop6 of the 9arria)e license could have si9pl6 been secured fro9 that office and sub9itted to the court. Ho"ever, 1loria ine<plicabl6 failed to do so, further "ea;enin) her clai9 that there "as a valid 9arria)e license issued for her and S6ed. In the case of !ari?o v. !ari?o,#' follo"in) the case of Republic,#/ it "as held that the certification of the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar that their office had no record of a 9arria)e license "as ade(uate to prove the non0 issuance of said license. The case of !ari?o further held that the presu9ed validit6 of the 9arria)e of the parties had been overco9e, and that it beca9e the burden of the part6 alle)in) a valid 9arria)e to prove that the 9arria)e "as valid, and that the re(uired 9arria)e license had been secured. #& 1loria has failed to dischar)e that burden, and the onl6 conclusion that can be reached is that no valid 9arria)e license "as issued. It cannot be said that there "as a si9ple irre)ularit6 in the 9arria)e license that "ould not affect the validit6 of the 9arria)e, as no license "as presented b6 the respondent. No 9arria)e license "as proven to have been issued to 1loria and S6ed, based on the certification of the Municipal !ivil Re)istrar of !ar9ona, !avite and 1loria>s failure to produce a cop6 of the alle)ed 9arria)e license. To bolster its rulin), the !* cited other evidence to support its conclusion that 1loria and S6ed "ere validl6 9arried. To (uote the !*@ Moreover, the record is replete "ith evidence, testi9onial and docu9entar6, that appellant and appellee have been validl6 9arried and there "as co9pliance "ith all the re(uisites laid do"n b6 la". 5oth parties

are le)all6 capacitated to 9arr6. * certificate of le)al capacit6 "as even issued b6 the 9bass6 of Pa;istan in favor of appellee. The parties herein )ave their consent freel6. *ppellee ad9itted that the si)nature above his na9e in the 9arria)e contract "as his. Several pictures "ere presented sho"in) appellant and appellee, before the sole9ni:in) officer, the "itnesses and other 9e9bers of appellant>s fa9il6, ta;en durin) the 9arria)e cere9on6, as "ell as in the restaurant "here the lunch "as held after the 9arria)e cere9on6. Most tellin) of all is <hibit L$0!L "hich sho"s appellee si)nin) the Marria)e !ontract. <<<< The parties have co9ported the9selves as husband and "ife and has CsicD one offsprin), *liea 4ati9a 1oo *bbas, "ho "as born on %$ 7une %&&3. It too; appellee 9ore than ten +%., 6ears before he filed on .% *u)ust -..3 his Petition for Declaration of Nullit6 of Marria)e under *rticle # of the 4a9il6 !ode. Ae ta;e serious note that said Petition appears to have been instituted b6 hi9 onl6 after an Infor9ation for 5i)a96 + <hibit L%L, dated %. 7anuar6 -..3 "as filed a)ainst hi9 for contractin) a second or subse(uent 9arria)e "ith one Ma. !ora:on +Mar6a9, T. 5uenaventura. Ae are not read6 to re"ard +appellee, b6 declarin) the nullit6 of his 9arria)e and )ive hi9 his freedo9 and in the process allo" hi9 to profit fro9 his o"n deceit and perfid6. $. *ll the evidence cited b6 the !* to sho" that a "eddin) cere9on6 "as conducted and a 9arria)e contract "as si)ned does not operate to cure the absence of a valid 9arria)e license. *rticle # of the 4a9il6 !ode is clear "hen it sa6s, LThe absence of an6 of the essential or for9al re(uisites shall render the 9arria)e void ab initio, e<cept as stated in *rticle 3$+-,.L *rticle 3$+3, of the 4a9il6 !ode also provides that a 9arria)e sole9ni:ed "ithout a license is void fro9 the be)innin), e<cept those e<e9pt fro9 the license re(uire9ent under *rticles -' to 3#, !hapter -, Title I of the sa9e !ode. $% *)ain, this 9arria)e cannot be characteri:ed as a9on) the e<e9ptions, and thus, havin) been sole9ni:ed "ithout a 9arria)e license, is void ab initio.1wphi1 *s to the 9otive of S6ed in see;in) to annul his 9arria)e to 1loria, it 9a6 "ell be that his 9otives are less than pure, that he see;s to evade a bi)a96 suit. 5e that as it 9a6, the sa9e does not 9a;e up for the failure of the respondent to prove that the6 had a valid 9arria)e license, )iven the "ei)ht of evidence presented b6 petitioner. The lac; of a valid 9arria)e license cannot be attributed to hi9, as it "as 1loria "ho too; steps to procure the sa9e. The la" 9ust be applied. *s the 9arria)e license, a for9al re(uisite, is clearl6 absent, the 9arria)e of 1loria and S6ed is void ab initio. AH R 4OR , in li)ht of the fore)oin), the petition is hereb6 1R*NT D. The assailed Decision dated March %%, -../ and Resolution dated 7ul6 -#, -../ of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. /2'2. are hereb6 R V RS D and S T *SID . The Decision of the Re)ional Trial !ourt, 5ranch %.&, Pasa6 !it6 dated October $, -..$ in !ivil !ase No. .30.3/-0!4M annullin) the 9arria)e of petitioner "ith respondent on 7anuar6 &, %&&3 is hereb6 R INST*T D. No costs. SO ORD R D. PRES"$TERO J. %E#ASCO, JR. *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ D$OSDADO M. PERA#TA *ssociate 7ustice RO"ERTO A. A"AD *ssociate 7ustice JOSE CATRA# MENDO A *ssociate 7ustice

MAR%$C MAR$O %$CTOR &. #EONEN *ssociate 7ustice *TT ST*TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. PRES"$TERO J. %E#ASCO, JR. *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson8s *ttestation, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice !elia !. =ibrea0=ea)o)o and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices Re)alado . Maa9bon) and M6rna Di9aranan Vidal.
-

Penned b6 7ud)e Tin)araan I. 1uilin). Rollo, p. %3. Id. at #'. Id. Id. at %-. Id. at %.. Id. at #/. Id. at #&, L7anuar6 %&, %&&3L in so9e parts of the records. Id. Id. at #&0$.. Id. at $.. Id. Id. Id. Id. at $%. Id. Id. Id.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

Id. at $-. Id. Id. at $3. Id. at $#. Id. Id. Id. Id. at $$. Id. Id. at $2. Id. at $'. Id. Id. at $/.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

*rticle &. * Marria)e =icense shall be issued b6 the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of the cit6 or 9unicipalit6 "here either contractin) part6 habituall6 resides, e<cept in 9arria)es "here no license is re(uired in accordance "ith !hapter - of this Title.
3#

Rollo, pp. $/0$&. Id. at %--. Id. at %-/. Id. at %-&. Id. at %3.. Id. at %3%. Id. at %3$0%#2. Id. at %'30%'#. Id. at 3%. 1.R. No. %.3.#', Septe9ber -, %&&#, -32 S!R* -$'. Id. at -2-. Supra note #3. *lcantara v. *lcantara, 1.R. No. %2''#2. *u)ust -/, -..', $3% S!R* ##2, #$2. #.3 Phil. /2%, /2& +-..%,. Supra note #3.

3$

32

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

#-

#3

##

#$

#2

#'

#/

#&

Supra note #', at /'.. Rollo, pp. %-&0%3..

$.

$%

*rt. -'. In case either or both of the contractin) parties are at the point of death, the 9arria)e 9a6 be sole9ni:ed "ithout necessit6 of a 9arria)e license and shall re9ain valid even if the ailin) part6 subse(uentl6 survives. *rt. -/. If the residence of either part6 is so located that there is no 9eans of transportation to enable such part6 to appear personall6 before the local civil re)istrar, the 9arria)e 9a6 be sole9ni:ed "ithout necessit6 of a 9arria)e license. *rt. -&. In the cases provided for in the t"o precedin) articles, the sole9ni:in) officer shall state in an affidavit e<ecuted before the local civil re)istrar or an6 other person le)all6 authori:ed to ad9inister oaths that the 9arria)e "as perfor9ed in articulo 9ortis or that the residence of either part6, specif6in) the barrio or baran)a6, is so located that there is no 9eans of transportation to enable such part6 to appear personall6 before the local civil re)istrar and that the officer too; the necessar6 steps to ascertain the a)es and relationship of the contractin) parties and the absence of le)al i9pedi9ent to the 9arria)e. *rt. 3.. The ori)inal of the affidavit re(uired in the last precedin) article, to)ether "ith a le)ible cop6 of the 9arria)e contract, shall be sent b6 the person sole9ni:in) the 9arria)e to the local civil re)istrar of the 9unicipalit6 "here it "as perfor9ed "ithin the period of thirt6 da6s after the perfor9ance of the 9arria)e. *rt. 3%. * 9arria)e in articulo 9ortis bet"een passen)ers or cre" 9e9bers 9a6 also be sole9ni:ed b6 a ship captain or b6 an airplane pilot not onl6 "hile the ship is at sea or the plane is in fli)ht, but also durin) stopovers at ports of call. *rt. 3-. * 9ilitar6 co99ander of a unit, "ho is a co99issioned officer, shall li;e"ise have authorit6 to sole9ni:e 9arria)es in articulo 9ortis bet"een persons "ithin the :one of 9ilitar6 operation, "hether 9e9bers of the ar9ed forces or civilians. *rt. 33. Marria)e a9on) Musli9s or a9on) 9e9bers of the ethnic cultural co99unities 9a6 be perfor9ed validl6 "ithout the necessit6 of 9arria)e licenses, provided the6 arc sole9ni:ed in accordance "ith their custo9s, rites or practices. *rt. 3#. No license shall be necessar6 for the 9arria)e of a 9an and a "o9an "ho have lived to)ether as husband and "ife for at least five 6ears and "ithout an6 le)al i9pedi9ent to 9arr6 each other. The contractin) parties shall state the fore)oin) facts in an affidavit before an6 person authori:ed b6 la" to ad9inister oaths. The sole9ni:in) officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the (ualifications of the contractin) parties and found no le)al i9pedi9ent to the 9arria)e. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 1960*9 Jun( 26, 2013

M$NORU &UJ$+$, P TITION R, vs. MAR$A PA GA#E#A MAR$NAY, S!$N$C!$ MAE+ARA, #OCA# C$%$# REG$STRAR O& ,UE ON C$TY, AND T!E ADM$N$STRATOR AND C$%$# REG$STRAR GENERA# O& T!E NAT$ONA# STAT$ST$CS O&&$CE,R SPOND NTS. D !ISION

CARP$O, J.: The !ase This is a direct recourse to this !ourt fro9 the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!,, 5ranch %.', Fue:on !it6, throu)h a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt on a pure (uestion of la". The petition assails the Order% dated 3% 7anuar6 -.%% of the RT! in !ivil !ase No. F0%%02/$/- and its Resolution dated - March -.%% den6in) petitioner>s Motion for Reconsideration. The RT! dis9issed the petition for L7udicial Reco)nition of 4orei)n 7ud)9ent +or Decree of *bsolute Nullit6 of Marria)e,L based on i9proper venue and the lac; of personalit6 of petitioner, Minoru 4uHi;i, to file the petition. T-( &a.') Petitioner Minoru 4uHi;i +4uHi;i, is a 7apanese national "ho 9arried respondent Maria Pa: 1alela Marina6 +Marina6, in the Philippines- on -3 7anuar6 -..#. The 9arria)e did not sit "ell "ith petitioner>s parents. Thus, 4uHi;i could not brin) his "ife to 7apan "here he resides. ventuall6, the6 lost contact "ith each other. In -../, Marina6 9et another 7apanese, Shinichi Mae;ara +Mae;ara,. Aithout the first 9arria)e bein) dissolved, Marina6 and Mae;ara "ere 9arried on %$ Ma6 -../ in Fue:on !it6, Philippines. Mae;ara brou)ht Marina6 to 7apan. Ho"ever, Marina6 alle)edl6 suffered ph6sical abuse fro9 Mae;ara. She left Mae;ara and started to contact 4uHi;i.3 4uHi;i and Marina6 9et in 7apan and the6 "ere able to reestablish their relationship. In -.%., 4uHi;i helped Marina6 obtain a Hud)9ent fro9 a fa9il6 court in 7apan "hich declared the 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara void on the )round of bi)a96. # On %# 7anuar6 -.%%, 4uHi;i filed a petition in the RT! entitled@ L7udicial Reco)nition of 4orei)n 7ud)9ent +or Decree of *bsolute Nullit6 of Marria)e,.L 4uHi;i pra6ed that +%, the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent be reco)ni:edG +-, that the bi)a9ous 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara be declared void ab initiounder *rticles 3$+#, and #% of the 4a9il6 !ode of the PhilippinesG$ and +3, for the RT! to direct the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Fue:on !it6 to annotate the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent on the !ertificate of Marria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara and to endorse such annotation to the Office of the *d9inistrator and !ivil Re)istrar 1eneral in the National Statistics Office +NSO,.2 T-( Ru/0n1 o2 '-( R(10ona/ Tr0a/ Cour' * fe" da6s after the filin) of the petition, the RT! i99ediatel6 issued an Order dis9issin) the petition and "ithdra"in) the case fro9 its active civil doc;et. ' The RT! cited the follo"in) provisions of the Rule on Declaration of *bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria)es and *nnul9ent of Voidable Marria)es +*.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!,@ Sec. -. Petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 9arria)es. K +a, Who may file. K * petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 9arria)e 9a6 be filed solel6 b6 the husband or the "ife. <<<< Sec. #. Venue. K The petition shall be filed in the 4a9il6 !ourt of the province or cit6 "here the petitioner or the respondent has been residin) for at least si< 9onths prior to the date of filin), or in the case of a non0resident respondent, "here he 9a6 be found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner. < < < The RT! ruled, "ithout further e<planation, that the petition "as in L)ross violationL of the above provisions. The trial court based its dis9issal on Section $+#, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! "hich provides that LCfDailure to co9pl6 "ith an6 of the precedin) re(uire9ents 9a6 be a )round for i99ediate dis9issal of the petition.L/ *pparentl6, the RT! too; the vie" that onl6 Lthe husband or the "ife,L in this case either Mae;ara or Marina6, can file the petition to declare their 9arria)e void, and not 4uHi;i. 4uHi;i 9oved that the Order be reconsidered. He ar)ued that *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! conte9plated ordinar6 civil actions for declaration of nullit6 and annul9ent of 9arria)e. Thus, *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! does not appl6. * petition for reco)nition of forei)n Hud)9ent is a special proceedin), "hich Lsee;s to

establish a status, a ri)ht or a particular fact,L & and not a civil action "hich is Lfor the enforce9ent or protection of a ri)ht, or the prevention or redress of a "ron).L %. In other "ords, the petition in the RT! sou)ht to establish +%, the status and conco9itant ri)hts of 4uHi;i and Marina6 as husband and "ife and +-, the fact of the rendition of the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent declarin) the 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara as void on the )round of bi)a96. The petitioner contended that the 7apanese Hud)9ent "as consistent "ith *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines %% on bi)a96 and "as therefore entitled to reco)nition b6 Philippine courts. %In an6 case, it "as also 4uHi;i>s vie" that *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! applied onl6 to void 9arria)es under *rticle 32 of the 4a9il6 !ode on the )round of ps6cholo)ical incapacit6. %3 Thus, Section -+a, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! provides that La petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 9arria)es 9a6 be filed solel6 b6 the husband or the "ife.L To appl6 Section -+a, in bi)a96 "ould be absurd because onl6 the )uilt6 parties "ould be per9itted to sue. In the "ords of 4uHi;i, LCiDt is not, of course, difficult to reali:e that the part6 interested in havin) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e declared a nullit6 "ould be the husband in the prior, pre0e<istin) 9arria)e.L%# 4uHi;i had 9aterial interest and therefore the personalit6 to nullif6 a bi)a9ous 9arria)e. 4uHi;i ar)ued that Rule %./ +!ancellation or !orrection of ntries in the !ivil Re)istr6, of the Rules of !ourt is applicable. Rule %./ is the Lprocedural i9ple9entationL of the !ivil Re)ister =a" +*ct No. 3'$3,%$ in relation to *rticle #%3 of the !ivil !ode.%2 The !ivil Re)ister =a" i9poses a dut6 on the Lsuccessful petitioner for divorce or annul9ent of 9arria)e to send a cop6 of the final decree of the court to the local re)istrar of the 9unicipalit6 "here the dissolved or annulled 9arria)e "as sole9ni:ed.L%' Section - of Rule %./ provides that entries in the civil re)istr6 relatin) to L9arria)es,L LHud)9ents of annul9ents of 9arria)eL and LHud)9ents declarin) 9arria)es void fro9 the be)innin)L are subHect to cancellation or correction.%/ The petition in the RT! sou)ht +a9on) others, to annotate the Hud)9ent of the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt on the certificate of 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara. 4uHi;i>s 9otion for reconsideration in the RT! also asserted that the trial court L)ravel6 erredL "hen, on its o"n, it dis9issed the petition based on i9proper venue. 4uHi;i stated that the RT! 9a6 be confusin) the concept of venue "ith the concept of Hurisdiction, because it is lac; of Hurisdiction "hich allo"s a court to dis9iss a case on its o"n. 4uHi;i cited Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court%& "hich held that the Ltrial court cannot pre0e9pt the defendant>s prero)ative to obHect to the i9proper la6in) of the venue b6 9otu proprio dis9issin) the case.L-.Moreover, petitioner alle)ed that the trial court should not have Li99ediatel6 dis9issedL the petition under Section $ of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! because he substantiall6 co9plied "ith the provision. On - March -.%%, the RT! resolved to den6 petitioner>s 9otion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RT! stated that *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! applies because the petitioner, in effect, pra6s for a decree of absolute nullit6 of 9arria)e.-% The trial court reiterated its t"o )rounds for dis9issal, i.e. lac; of personalit6 to sue and i9proper venue under Sections -+a, and # of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!. The RT! considered 4uHi;i as a Lthird personL-- in the proceedin) because he Lis not the husband in the decree of divorce issued b6 the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt, "hich he no" see;s to be Hudiciall6 reco)ni:ed, < < <.L -3 On the other hand, the RT! did not e<plain its )round of i9propriet6 of venue. It onl6 said that LCaDlthou)h the !ourt cited Sec. # +Venue, < < < as a )round for dis9issal of this caseC,D it should be ta;en to)ether "ith the other )round cited b6 the !ourt < < < "hich is Sec. -+a, < < <.L -# The RT! further Hustified its 9otu proprio dis9issal of the petition based on Braza v. he City Civil !e"i#trar of $imamaylan City% &e"ro# 'ccidental.-$ The !ourt in 5ra:a ruled that LCiDn a special proceedin) for correction of entr6 under Rule %./ +!ancellation or !orrection of ntries in the Ori)inal Re)istr6,, the trial court has no Hurisdiction to nullif6 9arria)es < < <.L -2 5ra:a e9phasi:ed that the Lvalidit6 of 9arria)es as "ell as le)iti9ac6 and filiation can be (uestioned onl6 in a direct action seasonabl6 filed b6 the proper part6, and not throu)h a collateral attac; such as CaD petition Cfor correction of entr6D < < <.L-' The RT! considered the petition as a collateral attac; on the validit6 of 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara. The trial court held that this is a LHurisdictional )roundL to dis9iss the petition. -/ Moreover, the verification and certification a)ainst foru9 shoppin) of the petition "as not authenticated as re(uired under Section $-& of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!. Hence, this also "arranted the Li99ediate dis9issalL of the petition under the sa9e provision.

T-( Man02()'a'0on an3 Mo'0on o2 '-( O220.( o2 '-( So/0.0'or G(n(ra/ an3 '-( #(''(r) o2 Mar0nay an3 Ma(4ara On 3. Ma6 -.%%, the !ourt re(uired respondents to file their co99ent on the petition for revie". 3. The public respondents, the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Fue:on !it6 and the *d9inistrator and !ivil Re)istrar 1eneral of the NSO, participated throu)h the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral. Instead of a co99ent, the Solicitor 1eneral filed a Manifestation and Motion. 3% The Solicitor 1eneral a)reed "ith the petition. He pra6ed that the RT!>s Lpronounce9ent that the petitioner failed to co9pl6 "ith < < < *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! < < < be set asideL and that the case be reinstated in the trial court for further proceedin)s. 3- The Solicitor 1eneral ar)ued that 4uHi;i, as the spouse of the first 9arria)e, is an inHured part6 "ho can sue to declare the bi)a9ous 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara void. The Solicitor 1eneral cited (uliano)*lave v. !epublic33 "hich held that Section -+a, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! does not appl6 in cases of bi)a96. In (uliano)*lave, this !ourt e<plained@ CtDhe subse(uent spouse 9a6 onl6 be e<pected to ta;e action if he or she had onl6 discovered durin) the connubial period that the 9arria)e "as bi)a9ous, and especiall6 if the conHu)al bliss had alread6 vanished. Should parties in a subse(uent 9arria)e benefit fro9 the bi)a9ous 9arria)e, it "ould not be e<pected that the6 "ould file an action to declare the 9arria)e void and thus, in such circu9stance, the LinHured spouseL "ho should be )iven a le)al re9ed6 is the one in a subsistin) previous 9arria)e. The latter is clearl6 the a))rieved part6 as the bi)a9ous 9arria)e not onl6 threatens the financial and the propert6 o"nership aspect of the prior 9arria)e but 9ost of all, it causes an e9otional burden to the prior spouse. The subse(uent 9arria)e "ill al"a6s be a re9inder of the infidelit6 of the spouse and the disre)ard of the prior 9arria)e "hich sanctit6 is protected b6 the !onstitution. 3# The Solicitor 1eneral contended that the petition to reco)ni:e the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent 9a6 be 9ade in a Rule %./ proceedin).3$ In Corpuz v. +anto oma#,32 this !ourt held that LCtDhe reco)nition of the forei)n divorce decree 9a6 be 9ade in a Rule %./ proceedin) itself, as the obHect of special proceedin)s +such as that in Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt, is precisel6 to establish the status or ri)ht of a part6 or a particular fact.L3' AhileCorpuz concerned a forei)n divorce decree, in the present case the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent also affected the civil status of the parties, especiall6 Marina6, "ho is a 4ilipino citi:en. The Solicitor 1eneral asserted that Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt is the procedure to record LCaDcts, events and Hudicial decrees concernin) the civil status of personsL in the civil re)istr6 as re(uired b6 *rticle #.' of the !ivil !ode. In other "ords, LCtDhe la" re(uires the entr6 in the civil re)istr6 of Hudicial decrees that produce le)al conse(uences upon a person>s le)al capacit6 and status < < <.L 3/ The 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent directl6 bears on the civil status of a 4ilipino citi:en and should therefore be proven as a fact in a Rule %./ proceedin). Moreover, the Solicitor 1eneral ar)ued that there is no Hurisdictional infir9it6 in assailin) a void 9arria)e under Rule %./, citin) De Ca#tro v. De Ca#tro3& and &i,al v. Bayado"#. "hich declared that LCtDhe validit6 of a void 9arria)e 9a6 be collaterall6 attac;ed.L #% Marina6 and Mae;ara individuall6 sent letters to the !ourt to co9pl6 "ith the directive for the9 to co99ent on the petition.#- Mae;ara "rote that Marina6 concealed fro9 hi9 the fact that she "as previousl6 9arried to 4uHi;i.#3Mae;ara also denied that he inflicted an6 for9 of violence on Marina6.## On the other hand, Marina6 "rote that she had no reason to oppose the petition. #$ She "ould li;e to 9aintain her silence for fear that an6thin) she sa6 9i)ht cause 9isunderstandin) bet"een her and 4uHi;i.#2 T-( $))u() Petitioner raises the follo"in) le)al issues@ +%, Ahether the Rule on Declaration of *bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria)es and *nnul9ent of Voidable Marria)es +*.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, is applicable.

+-, Ahether a husband or "ife of a prior 9arria)e can file a petition to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) the subse(uent 9arria)e bet"een his or her spouse and a forei)n citi:en on the )round of bi)a96. +3, Ahether the Re)ional Trial !ourt can reco)ni:e the forei)n Hud)9ent in a proceedin) for cancellation or correction of entries in the !ivil Re)istr6 under Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt. T-( Ru/0n1 o2 '-( Cour' Ae )rant the petition. The Rule on Declaration of *bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria)es and *nnul9ent of Voidable Marria)es +*.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, does not appl6 in a petition to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent relatin) to the status of a 9arria)e "here one of the parties is a citi:en of a forei)n countr6. Moreover, in (uliano)*lave v. !epublic,#' this !ourt held that the rule in *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! that onl6 the husband or "ife can file a declaration of nullit6 or annul9ent of 9arria)e Ldoes not appl6 if the reason behind the petition is bi)a96.L #/ $. 4or Philippine courts to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent relatin) to the status of a 9arria)e "here one of the parties is a citi:en of a forei)n countr6, the petitioner onl6 needs to prove the forei)n Hud)9ent as a fact under the Rules of !ourt. To be 9ore specific, a cop6 of the forei)n Hud)9ent 9a6 be ad9itted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule %3-, Sections -# and -$, in relation to Rule 3&, Section #/+b, of the Rules of !ourt.#& Petitioner 9a6 prove the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent throu)h +%, an official publication or +-, a certification or cop6 attested b6 the officer "ho has custod6 of the Hud)9ent. If the office "hich has custod6 is in a forei)n countr6 such as 7apan, the certification 9a6 be 9ade b6 the proper diplo9atic or consular officer of the Philippine forei)n service in 7apan and authenticated b6 the seal of office.$. To hold that *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! applies to a petition for reco)nition of forei)n Hud)9ent "ould 9ean that the trial court and the parties should follo" its provisions, includin) the for9 and contents of the petition,$% the service of su99ons,$- the investi)ation of the public prosecutor,$3 the settin) of pre0 trial,$# the trial$$ and the Hud)9ent of the trial court.$2 This is absurd because it "ill liti)ate the case ane". It "ill defeat the purpose of reco)ni:in) forei)n Hud)9ents, "hich is Lto li9it repetitive liti)ation on clai9s and issues.L$' The interpretation of the RT! is tanta9ount to reliti)atin) the case on the 9erits. In -i.are# v. !a,ada,$/ this !ourt e<plained that LCiDf ever6 Hud)9ent of a forei)n court "ere revie"able on the 9erits, the plaintiff "ould be forced bac; on hisMher ori)inal cause of action, renderin) i99aterial the previousl6 concluded liti)ation.L$& * forei)n Hud)9ent relatin) to the status of a 9arria)e affects the civil status, condition and le)al capacit6 of its parties. Ho"ever, the effect of a forei)n Hud)9ent is not auto9atic. To e<tend the effect of a forei)n Hud)9ent in the Philippines, Philippine courts 9ust deter9ine if the forei)n Hud)9ent is consistent "ith do9estic public polic6 and other 9andator6 la"s.2. *rticle %$ of the !ivil !ode provides that LClDa"s relatin) to fa9il6 ri)hts and duties, or to the status, condition and le)al capacit6 of persons are bindin) upon citi:ens of the Philippines, even thou)h livin) abroad.L This is the rule of le/ nationalii in private international la". Thus, the Philippine State 9a6 re(uire, for effectivit6 in the Philippines, reco)nition b6 Philippine courts of a forei)n Hud)9ent affectin) its citi:en, over "ho9 it e<ercises personal Hurisdiction relatin) to the status, condition and le)al capacit6 of such citi:en. * petition to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent declarin) a 9arria)e void does not re(uire reliti)ation under a Philippine court of the case as if it "ere a ne" petition for declaration of nullit6 of 9arria)e. Philippine courts cannot presu9e to ;no" the forei)n la"s under "hich the forei)n Hud)9ent "as rendered. The6 cannot substitute their Hud)9ent on the status, condition and le)al capacit6 of the forei)n citi:en "ho is under the Hurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can onl6 reco)ni:e the forei)n Hud)9ent a) a 2a.' accordin) to the rules of evidence. Section #/+b,, Rule 3& of the Rules of !ourt provides that a forei)n Hud)9ent or final order a)ainst a person creates a Lpresu9ptive evidence of a ri)ht as bet"een the parties and their successors in interest b6 a subse(uent title.L Moreover, Section #/ of the Rules of !ourt states that Lthe Hud)9ent or final order 9a6 be repelled b6 evidence of a "ant of Hurisdiction, "ant of notice to the part6, collusion, fraud, or

clear 9ista;e of la" or fact.L Thus, Philippine courts e<ercise li9ited revie" on forei)n Hud)9ents. !ourts are not allo"ed to delve into the 9erits of a forei)n Hud)9ent. Once a forei)n Hud)9ent is ad9itted and proven in a Philippine court, it can onl6 be repelled on )rounds e<ternal to its 9erits, i.e. , L"ant of Hurisdiction, "ant of notice to the part6, collusion, fraud, or clear 9ista;e of la" or fact.L The rule on li9ited revie" e9bodies the polic6 of efficienc6 and the protection of part6 e<pectations, 2% as "ell as respectin) the Hurisdiction of other states. 2Since %&-- in Adon" v. Cheon" +en" 0ee%23 Philippine courts have reco)ni:ed forei)n divorce decrees bet"een a 4ilipino and a forei)n citi:en if the6 are successfull6 proven under the rules of evidence.2# Divorce involves the dissolution of a 9arria)e, but the reco)nition of a forei)n divorce decree does not involve the e<tended procedure under *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! or the rules of ordinar6 trial. Ahile the Philippines does not have a divorce la", Philippine courts 9a6, ho"ever, reco)ni:e a forei)n divorce decree under the second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode, to capacitate a 4ilipino citi:en to re9arr6 "hen his or her forei)n spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad. 2$ There is therefore no reason to disallo" 4uHi;i to si9pl6 prove as a fact the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent nullif6in) the 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara on the )round of bi)a96. Ahile the Philippines has no divorce la", the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent is full6 consistent "ith Philippine public polic6, as bi)a9ous 9arria)es are declared void fro9 the be)innin) under *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode. 5i)a96 is a cri9e under *rticle 3#& of the Revised Penal !ode. Thus, 4uHi;i can prove the e<istence of the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent in accordance "ith Rule %3-, Sections -# and -$, in relation to Rule 3&, Section #/+b, of the Rules of !ourt. $$. Since the reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent onl6 re(uires proof of fact of the Hud)9ent, it 9a6 be 9ade in a special proceedin) for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil re)istr6 under Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt. Rule %, Section 3 of the Rules of !ourt provides that LCaD special proceedin) is a re9ed6 b6 "hich a part6 see;s to establish a status, a ri)ht, or a particular fact.L Rule %./ creates a re9ed6 to rectif6 facts of a person>s life "hich are recorded b6 the State pursuant to the !ivil Re)ister =a" or *ct No. 3'$3. These are facts of public conse(uence such as birth, death or 9arria)e, 22 "hich the State has an interest in recordin). *s noted b6 the Solicitor 1eneral, in Corpuz v. +to. oma# this !ourt declared that LCtDhe reco)nition of the forei)n divorce decree 9a6 be 9ade in a Rule %./ proceedin) itself, as the obHect of special proceedin)s +such as that in Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt, is precisel6 to establish the status or ri)ht of a part6 or a particular fact.L2' Rule %./, Section % of the Rules of !ourt states@ Sec. %. Who may file petition. N *n6 person 0n'(r()'(3 in an6 a.', (5(n', or3(r or 3(.r(( concernin) the.050/ )'a'u) o2 6(r)on) 7-0.- -a) 8((n r(.or3(3 0n '-( .050/ r(10)'(r, 9a6 file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of an6 entr6 relatin) thereto, "ith the Re)ional Trial !ourt of the province "here the correspondin) civil re)istr6 is located. + 9phasis supplied, 4uHi;i has the personalit6 to file a petition to reco)ni:e the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt Hud)9ent nullif6in) the 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara on the )round of bi)a96 because the Hud)9ent concerns his civil status as 9arried to Marina6. 4or the sa9e reason he has the personalit6 to file a petition under Rule %./ to cancel the entr6 of 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara in the civil re)istr6 on the basis of the decree of the 7apanese 4a9il6 !ourt. There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and 9aterial interest in 9aintainin) the inte)rit6 of the 9arria)e he contracted and the propert6 relations arisin) fro9 it. There is also no doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entr6 of a bi)a9ous 9arria)e in the civil re)istr6, "hich co9pro9ises the public record of his 9arria)e. The interest derives fro9 the substantive ri)ht of the spouse not onl6 to preserve +or dissolve, in li9ited instances 2/, his 9ost inti9ate hu9an relation, but also to protect his propert6 interests that arise b6 operation of la" the 9o9ent he contracts 9arria)e. 2& These propert6 interests in 9arria)e include the ri)ht to be supported Lin ;eepin) "ith the financial capacit6 of the fa9il6L '. and preservin) the propert6 re)i9e of the 9arria)e. '% Propert6 ri)hts are alread6 substantive ri)hts protected b6 the !onstitution, '- but a spouse>s ri)ht in a 9arria)e e<tends further to relational ri)hts reco)ni:ed under Title III +LRi)hts and Obli)ations bet"een Husband and AifeL, of the 4a9il6 !ode.'3 *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! cannot Ldi9inish, increase, or 9odif6L

the substantive ri)ht of the spouse to 9aintain the inte)rit6 of his 9arria)e. '# In an6 case, Section -+a, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! preserves this substantive ri)ht b6 li9itin) the personalit6 to sue to the husband or the "ife of the union reco)ni:ed b6 la". Section -+a, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! does not preclude a spouse of a subsistin) 9arria)e to (uestion the validit6 of a subse(uent 9arria)e on the )round of bi)a96. On the contrar6, "hen Section -+a, states that LCaD petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 9arria)e 9a6 be filed )o/(/y 8y '-( -u)8an3 or '-( 702(L'$Nit refers to the husband or the "ife of the subsistin) 9arria)e. Inder *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode, bi)a9ous 9arria)es are void fro9 the be)innin). Thus, the parties in a bi)a9ous 9arria)e are neither the husband nor the "ife under the la". The husband or the "ife of the prior subsistin) 9arria)e is the one "ho has the personalit6 to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 9arria)e under Section -+a, of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!. *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode, "hich declares bi)a9ous 9arria)es void fro9 the be)innin), is the civil aspect of *rticle 3#& of the Revised Penal !ode, '2 "hich penali:es bi)a96. 5i)a96 is a public cri9e. Thus, an6one can initiate prosecution for bi)a96 because an6 citi:en has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of cri9es.''If an6one can file a cri9inal action "hich leads to the declaration of nullit6 of a bi)a9ous 9arria)e,'/ there is 9ore reason to confer personalit6 to sue on the husband or the "ife of a subsistin) 9arria)e. The prior spouse does not onl6 share in the public interest of prosecutin) and preventin) cri9es, he is also personall6 interested in the purel6 civil aspect of protectin) his 9arria)e. Ahen the ri)ht of the spouse to protect his 9arria)e is violated, the spouse is clearl6 an inHured part6 and is therefore interested in the Hud)9ent of the suit. '& (uliano)*lave ruled that the prior spouse Lis clearl6 the a))rieved part6 as the bi)a9ous 9arria)e not onl6 threatens the financial and the propert6 o"nership aspect of the prior 9arria)e but 9ost of all, it causes an e9otional burden to the prior spouse.L /. 5ein) a real part6 in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in order to declare a bi)a9ous 9arria)e void. 4or this purpose, he can petition a court to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) the bi)a9ous 9arria)e and Hudiciall6 declare as a fact that such Hud)9ent is effective in the Philippines. Once established, there should be no 9ore i9pedi9ent to cancel the entr6 of the bi)a9ous 9arria)e in the civil re)istr6. $$$. In Braza v. he City Civil !e"i#trar of $imamaylan City% &e"ro# 'ccidental , this !ourt held that a Ltrial court has no Hurisdiction to nullif6 9arria)esL in a special proceedin) for cancellation or correction of entr6 under Rule %./ of the Rules of !ourt./% Thus, the Lvalidit6 of 9arria)eCD < < < can be (uestioned onl6 in a direct actionL to nullif6 the 9arria)e. /- The RT! relied on Braza in dis9issin) the petition for reco)nition of forei)n Hud)9ent as a collateral attac; on the 9arria)e bet"een Marina6 and Mae;ara. Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e "here one of the parties is a citi:en of the forei)n countr6. To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entr6 in the civil re)istr6 cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a 9arria)e. * direct action is necessar6 to prevent circu9vention of the substantive and procedural safe)uards of 9arria)e under the 4a9il6 !ode, *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! and other related la"s. *9on) these safe)uards are the re(uire9ent of provin) the li9ited )rounds for the dissolution of 9arria)e,/3 support pendente lite of the spouses and children,/# the li(uidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses,/$ and the investi)ation of the public prosecutor to deter9ine collusion./2 * direct action for declaration of nullit6 or annul9ent of 9arria)e is also necessar6 to prevent circu9vention of the Hurisdiction of the 4a9il6 !ourts under the 4a9il6 !ourts *ct of %&&' +Republic *ct No. /32&,, as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil re)istr6 9a6 be filed in the Re)ional Trial !ourt L"here the correspondin) civil re)istr6 is located.L /' In other "ords, a 4ilipino citi:en cannot dissolve his 9arria)e b6 the 9ere e<pedient of chan)in) his entr6 of 9arria)e in the civil re)istr6. Ho"ever, this does not appl6 in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil re)istr6 entr6 based on the reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent annullin) a 9arria)e "here one of the parties is a citi:en of the forei)n countr6. There is neither circu9vention of the substantive and procedural safe)uards of 9arria)e under Philippine la", nor of the Hurisdiction of 4a9il6 !ourts under R.*. No. /32&. * reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent is not an action to nullif6 a 9arria)e. It is an action for Philippine courts to reco)ni:e the effectivit6 of a forei)n Hud)9ent, 7-0.- 6r()u66o)() a .a)( 7-0.- 7a) a/r(a3y 'r0(3 an3 3(.03(3

un3(r 2or(01n /a7. The procedure in *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! does not appl6 in a petition to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent annullin) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e "here one of the parties is a citi:en of the forei)n countr6. Neither can R.*. No. /32& define the Hurisdiction of the forei)n court. *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode confers Hurisdiction on Philippine courts to e<tend the effect of a forei)n divorce decree to a 4ilipino spouse "ithout under)oin) trial to deter9ine the validit6 of the dissolution of the 9arria)e. The second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode provides that LC"Dhere a 9arria)e bet"een a 4ilipino citi:en and a forei)ner is validl6 celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl6 obtained abroad b6 the alien spouse capacitatin) hi9 or her to re9arr6, the 4ilipino spouse shall have capacit6 to re9arr6 under Philippine la".L In!epublic v. 'rbecido,// this !ourt reco)ni:ed the le)islative intent of the second para)raph of *rticle -2 "hich is Lto avoid the absurd situation "here the 4ilipino spouse re9ains 9arried to the alien spouse "ho, after obtainin) a divorce, is no lon)er 9arried to the 4ilipino spouseL/& under the la"s of his or her countr6. The second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode onl6 authori:es Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a forei)n divorce decree precisel6 because the Philippines does not allo" divorce. Philippine courts cannot tr6 the case on the 9erits because it is tanta9ount to tr6in) a case for divorce. The second para)raph of *rticle -2 is onl6 a corrective 9easure to address the ano9al6 that results fro9 a 9arria)e bet"een a 4ilipino, "hose la"s do not allo" divorce, and a forei)n citi:en, "hose la"s allo" divorce. The ano9al6 consists in the 4ilipino spouse bein) tied to the 9arria)e "hile the forei)n spouse is free to 9arr6 under the la"s of his or her countr6. The correction is 9ade b6 e<tendin) in the Philippines the effect of the forei)n divorce decree, "hich is alread6 effective in the countr6 "here it "as rendered. The second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode is based on this !ourt>s decision in Van Dorn v. !omillo&. "hich declared that the 4ilipino spouse Lshould not be discri9inated a)ainst in her o"n countr6 if the ends of Hustice are to be served.L&% The principle in *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode applies in a 9arria)e bet"een a 4ilipino and a forei)n citi:en "ho obtains a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) the 9arria)e on the )round of bi)a96. The 4ilipino spouse 9a6 file a petition abroad to declare the 9arria)e void on the )round of bi)a96. The principle in the second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode applies because the forei)n spouse, after the forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) the 9arria)e, is capacitated to re9arr6 under the la"s of his or her countr6. If the forei)n Hud)9ent is not reco)ni:ed in the Philippines, the 4ilipino spouse "ill be discri9inatedNthe forei)n spouse can re9arr6 "hile the 4ilipino spouse cannot re9arr6. Inder the second para)raph of *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode, Philippine courts are e9po"ered to correct a situation "here the 4ilipino spouse is still tied to the 9arria)e "hile the forei)n spouse is free to 9arr6. Moreover, not"ithstandin) *rticle -2 of the 4a9il6 !ode, Philippine courts alread6 have Hurisdiction to e<tend the effect of a forei)n Hud)9ent in the Philippines to the e<tent that the forei)n Hud)9ent does not contravene do9estic public polic6. * critical difference bet"een the case of a forei)n divorce decree and a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e is that bi)a96, as a )round for the nullit6 of 9arria)e, is full6 consistent "ith Philippine public polic6 as e<pressed in *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode and *rticle 3#& of the Revised Penal !ode. The 4ilipino spouse has the option to under)o full trial b6 filin) a petition for declaration of nullit6 of 9arria)e under *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, but this is not the onl6 re9ed6 available to hi9 or her. Philippine courts have Hurisdiction to reco)ni:e a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e, "ithout preHudice to a cri9inal prosecution for bi)a96. In the reco)nition of forei)n Hud)9ents, Philippine courts are inco9petent to substitute their Hud)9ent on ho" a case "as decided under forei)n la". The6 cannot decide on the Lfa9il6 ri)hts and duties, or on the status, condition and le)al capacit6L of the forei)n citi:en "ho is a part6 to the forei)n Hud)9ent. Thus, Philippine courts are li9ited to the (uestion of "hether to e<tend the effect of a forei)n Hud)9ent in the Philippines. In a forei)n Hud)9ent relatin) to the status of a 9arria)e involvin) a citi:en of a forei)n countr6, Philippine courts onl6 decide "hether to e<tend its effect to the 4ilipino part6, under the rule of le/ nationalii e<pressed in *rticle %$ of the !ivil !ode. 4or this purpose, Philippine courts "ill onl6 deter9ine +%, "hether the forei)n Hud)9ent is inconsistent "ith an overridin) public polic6 in the PhilippinesG and +-, "hether an6 alle)in) part6 is able to prove an e<trinsic )round to repel the forei)n Hud)9ent, i.e. "ant of Hurisdiction, "ant of notice to the part6, collusion, fraud, or clear 9ista;e of la" or fact. If there is neither inconsistenc6 "ith public polic6 nor ade(uate proof to repel the Hud)9ent, Philippine courts should, b6 default, reco)ni:e the forei)n Hud)9ent as part of the co9it6 of nations. Section #/+b,, Rule 3& of the Rules of !ourt states that the forei)n Hud)9ent is alread6 Lpresu9ptive evidence of a ri)ht bet"een the parties.L Ipon reco)nition of the

forei)n Hud)9ent, this ri)ht beco9es conclusive and the Hud)9ent serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entr6 in the civil re)istr6. The reco)nition of the forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e is a subse(uent event that establishes a ne" status, ri)ht and fact &- that needs to be reflected in the civil re)istr6. Other"ise, there "ill be an inconsistenc6 bet"een the reco)nition of the effectivit6 of the forei)n Hud)9ent and the public records in the Philippines. 1wphi1 Ho"ever, the reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e is "ithout preHudice to prosecution for bi)a96 under *rticle 3#& of the Revised Penal !ode. &3 The reco)nition of a forei)n Hud)9ent nullif6in) a bi)a9ous 9arria)e is not a )round for e<tinction of cri9inal liabilit6 under *rticles /& and &# of the Revised Penal !ode. Moreover, under *rticle &% of the Revised Penal !ode, LCtDhe ter9 of prescription Cof the cri9e of bi)a96D shall not run "hen the offender is absent fro9 the Philippine archipela)o.L Since *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! is inapplicable, the !ourt no lon)er sees the need to address the (uestions on venue and the contents and for9 of the petition under Sections # and $, respectivel6, of *.M. No. .-0 %%0%.0S!. 9!ERE&ORE, "e GRANT the petition. The Order dated 3% 7anuar6 -.%% and the Resolution dated March -.%% of the Re)ional Trial !ourt, 5ranch %.', Fue:on !it6, in !ivil !ase No. F0%%02/$/are RE%ERSED and SET AS$DE. The Re)ional Trial !ourt is ORDERED to RE$NSTATE the petition for further proceedin)s in accordance "ith this Decision. SO ORDERED. "r0on, D(/ Ca)'0//o, P(r(:, an3 P(r/a);"(rna8(, JJ., .on.ur.

&oo'no'()
%

Penned b6 7ud)e 7ose =. 5autista 7r. In Pasa6 !it6, Metro Manila.

See rollo, p. //G Trial 4a9il6 !ourt Decree No. %$ of -..&, Decree of *bsolute Nullit6 of Marria)e bet"een Maria Pa: 1alela Marina6 and Shinichi Mae;ara dated %/ *u)ust -.%.. Translated b6 Boshia;i Jurisu, Jurisu 16oseishoshi =a"6er>s Office +see rollo, p. /&,.
#

Id. 4*MI=B !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S + .O. No. -.& as a9ended,@ *rt. 3$. The follo"in) 9arria)es shall be void fro9 the be)innin)@ <<<< +#, Those bi)a9ous or pol6)a9ous 9arria)es not fallin) under *rticle #%G <<<< *rt. #%. * 9arria)e contracted b6 an6 person durin) subsistence of a previous 9arria)e shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subse(uent 9arria)e, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive 6ears and the spouse present has a "ell0 founded belief that the absent spouse "as alread6 dead. In case of disappearance "here there is dan)er of death under the circu9stances set forth in the provisions of *rticle 3&% of the !ivil !ode, an absence of onl6 t"o 6ears shall be sufficient.

!ollo, pp. '&0/..

'

The dispositive portion stated@

AH R 4OR , the instant case is hereb6 ordered DISMISS D and AITHDR*AN fro9 the active civil doc;et of this !ourt. The RT!0O!!, Fue:on !it6 is directed to refund to the petitioner the a9ount of One Thousand Pesos +P%,..., to be ta;en fro9 the Sheriff>s Trust 4und.
/

!ollo, pp. ##0#$. Section $ of the Rule on Declaration of *bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria)es and *nnul9ent of Voidable Marria)es +*.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, provides@ Sec. $. !ontents and for9 of petition. K +%, The petition shall alle)e the co9plete facts constitutin) the cause of action. +-, It shall state the na9es and a)es of the co99on children of the parties and specif6 the re)i9e )overnin) their propert6 relations, as "ell as the properties involved. If there is no ade(uate provision in a "ritten a)ree9ent bet"een the parties, the petitioner 9a6 appl6 for a provisional order for spousal support, custod6 and support of co99on children, visitation ri)hts, ad9inistration of co99unit6 or conHu)al propert6, and other 9atters si9ilarl6 re(uirin) ur)ent action. +3, It 9ust be verified and acco9panied b6 a certification a)ainst foru9 shoppin). The verification and certification 9ust be si)ned personall6 b6 the petitioner. No petition 9a6 be filed solel6 b6 counsel or throu)h an attorne60in0fact. If the petitioner is in a forei)n countr6, the verification and certification a)ainst foru9 shoppin) shall be authenticated b6 the dul6 authori:ed officer of the Philippine e9bass6 or le)ation, consul )eneral, consul or vice0consul or consular a)ent in said countr6. +#, It shall be filed in si< copies. The petitioner shall serve a cop6 of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral and the Office of the !it6 or Provincial Prosecutor, "ithin five da6s fro9 the date of its filin) and sub9it to the court proof of such service "ithin the sa9e period. 4ailure to co9pl6 "ith an6 of the precedin) re(uire9ents 9a6 be a )round for i99ediate dis9issal of the petition.
&

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %, Sec. 3+c,. See rollo, pp. $$0$2 +Petitioner>s Motion for Reconsideration,.
%.

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %, Sec. 3+a,.

%%

4*MI=B !OD + .O. No. -.& as a9ended,, *rt. 3$. The follo"in) 9arria)es shall be void fro9 the be)innin)@ <<<< +#, Those bi)a9ous or pol6)a9ous 9arria)es not fallin) under *rticle #%G <<<<
%-

!ollo, p. $2.

%3

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. 32. * 9arria)e contracted b6 an6 part6 "ho, at the ti9e of the celebration, "as ps6cholo)icall6 incapacitated to co9pl6 "ith the essential 9arital obli)ations of 9arria)e, shall li;e"ise be void even if such incapacit6 beco9es 9anifest onl6 after its sole9ni:ation.
%#

!ollo, p. 2/. nacted -2 Nove9ber %&3..

%$

%2

!IVI= !OD , *rt. #%3. *ll other 9atters pertainin) to the re)istration of civil status shall be )overned b6 special la"s.
%'

*ct No. 3'$3, Sec. '. !e"i#tration of marria"e. 0 *ll civil officers and priests or 9inisters authori:ed to sole9ni:e 9arria)es shall send a cop6 of each 9arria)e contract sole9ni:ed b6 the9 to the local civil re)istrar "ithin the ti9e li9it specified in the e<istin) Marria)e =a". In cases of divorce and annul9ent of 9arria)e, it shall be the dut6 of the successful petitioner for divorce or annul9ent of 9arria)e to send a cop6 of the final decree of the court to the local civil re)istrar of the 9unicipalit6 "here the dissolved or annulled 9arria)e "as sole9ni:ed. In the 9arria)e re)ister there shall be entered the full na9e and address of each of the contractin) parties, their a)es, the place and date of the sole9ni:ation of the 9arria)e, the na9es and addresses of the "itnesses, the full na9e, address, and relationship of the 9inor contractin) part6 or parties or the person or persons "ho )ave their consent to the 9arria)e, and the full na9e, title, and address of the person "ho sole9ni:ed the 9arria)e. In cases of divorce or annul9ent of 9arria)es, there shall be recorded the na9es of the parties divorced or "hose 9arria)e "as annulled, the date of the decree of the court, and such other details as the re)ulations to be issued 9a6 re(uire.
%/

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %./, Sec. -. 1ntrie# #ub.ect to cancellation or correction. N Ipon )ood and valid )rounds, the follo"in) entries in the civil re)ister 9a6 be cancelled or corrected@ +a, birthsG +b, 9arria)esG +c, deathsG +d, le)al separationsG +e, Hud)9ents of annul9ents of 9arria)eG +f, Hud)9ents declarin) 9arria)es void fro9 the be)innin)G +), le)iti9ationsG +h, adoptionsG +i, ac;no"led)9ents of natural childrenG +H, naturali:ationG +;, election, loss or recover6 of citi:enshipG +%, civil interdictionG +9, Hudicial deter9ination of filiationG +n, voluntar6 e9ancipation of a 9inorG and +o, chan)es of na9e.
%&

-'3 Phil. % +%&&%,. Id. at '. +ee rollo, pp. 2$ and 2'. !ollo, p. #'. Id. at #2. Id. at #/. Id. 1.R. No. %/%%'#, # Dece9ber -..&, 2.' S!R* 23/. Id. at 2#%. Id. at 2#3. +ee rollo, p. #&. Section $ of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! states in part@ !ontents and for9 of petition. K < < < <<<< +3, It 9ust be verified and acco9panied b6 a certification a)ainst foru9 shoppin). The verification and certification 9ust be si)ned personall6 b6 the petitioner. No petition 9a6 be filed solel6 b6 counsel or throu)h an attorne60in0fact.

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

-&

If the petitioner is in a forei)n countr6, the verification and certification a)ainst foru9 shoppin) shall be authenticated b6 the dul6 authori:ed officer of the Philippine e9bass6 or le)ation, consul )eneral, consul or vice0consul or consular a)ent in said countr6. <<<< 4ailure to co9pl6 "ith an6 of the precedin) re(uire9ents 9a6 be a )round for i99ediate dis9issal of the petition.
3.

Resolution dated 3. Ma6 -.%%. !ollo% p. %.$. Inder Solicitor 1eneral 7ose *nsel9o I. !adi:.

3%

3-

!ollo, p. %3'. The L!onclusion and Pra6erL of the LManifestation and Motion +In =ieu of !o99ent,L of the Solicitor 1eneral stated@ In fine, the court a (uo>s pronounce9ent that the petitioner failed to co9pl6 "ith the re(uire9ents provided in *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S! should accordin)l6 be set aside. It is, thus, respectfull6 pra6ed that !ivil !ase No. F0%%02/$/- be reinstated for further proceedin)s. Other reliefs, Hust and e(uitable under the pre9ises are li;e"ise pra6ed for.
33

1.R. No. %2&'22, 3. March -.%%, 2#2 S!R* 23'.

3#

Id. at 2$2. Fuoted in the Manifestation and Motion of the Solicitor 1eneral, pp. /0&. +ee rollo, pp. %3-0%33.
3$

!ollo% p. %33. 1.R. No. %/2$'%, %% *u)ust -.%., 2-/ S!R* -22. Id. at -/'. !ollo% p. %33. 1.R. No. %2.%'-, %3 4ebruar6 -../, $#$ S!R* %2-. 3/# Phil. 22% +-...,. De Ca#tro v. De Ca#tro, supra note 3& at %2&. Supra note 3.. See rollo, p. %-.. Id. See rollo, p. %#2. Id. Supra note 33. Supra note 33 at 2$$.

32

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

#-

#3

##

#$

#2

#'

#/

#&

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %3-, Sec. -#. 2roof of official record. N The record of public docu9ents referred to in para)raph +a, of Section %&, "hen ad9issible for an6 purpose, 9a6 be evidenced b6 an official publication thereof or b6 a cop6 attested b6 the officer havin) the le)al custod6 of the record, or b6 his deput6, and acco9panied, if the record is not ;ept in the Philippines, "ith a certificate that such officer has the custod6. If the office in "hich the record is

;ept is in a forei)n countr6, the certificate 9a6 be 9ade b6 a secretar6 of the e9bass6 or le)ation, consul )eneral, consul, vice consul, or consular a)ent or b6 an6 officer in the forei)n service of the Philippines stationed in the forei)n countr6 in "hich the record is ;ept, and authenticated b6 the seal of his office. Sec. -$. What atte#tation of copy mu#t #tate. N Ahenever a cop6 of a docu9ent or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation 9ust state, in substance, that the cop6 is a correct cop6 of the ori)inal, or a specific part thereof, as the case 9a6 be. The attestation 9ust be under the official seal of the attestin) officer, if there be an6, or if he be the cler; of a court havin) a seal, under the seal of such court. Rule 3&, Sec. #/. 1ffect of forei"n .ud"ment# or final order#. N The effect of a Hud)9ent or final order of a tribunal of a forei)n countr6, havin) Hurisdiction to render the Hud)9ent or final order, is as follo"s@ +a, In case of a Hud)9ent or final order upon a specific thin), the Hud)9ent or final order is conclusive upon the title of the thin)G and +b, In case of a Hud)9ent or final order a)ainst a person, the Hud)9ent or final order is presu9ptive evidence of a ri)ht as bet"een the parties and their successors in interest b6 a subse(uent title. In either case, the Hud)9ent or final order 9a6 be repelled b6 evidence of a "ant of Hurisdiction, "ant of notice to the part6, collusion, fraud, or clear 9ista;e of la" or fact.
$.

+ee RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %3-, Sec. -#0-$. +ee al#o Corpuz v. +anto oma#, supra note 32 at -/-.
$%

*.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, Sec. $. Id., Sec. 2. Id., Sec. &. Id., Sec. %%0%$. Id., Sec. %'0%/. Id., Sec. %& and --0-3.

$-

$3

$#

$$

$2

$'

-i.are# v. !a,ada, #&$ Phil. 3'-, 3/2 +-..$, citin) u)ene Scoles O Peter Ha6, !onflict of =a"s &%2 +-nd ed., %&/-,.
$/

Id. Id. at 3/2. !ivil !ode, *rt. %'. < < < <<<< Prohibitive la"s concernin) persons, their acts or propert6, and those "hich have for their obHect public order, public polic6 and )ood custo9s shall not be rendered ineffective b6 la"s or Hud)9ents pro9ul)ated, or b6 deter9inations or conventions a)reed upon in a forei)n countr6.

$&

2.

2%

-i.are# v. !a,ada, supra note $' at 3/2. LOther"ise ;no"n as the polic6 of preclusion, it see;s to protect part6 e<pectations resultin) fro9 previous liti)ation, to safe)uard a)ainst the harass9ent of defendants, to insure that the tas; of courts not be increased b6 never0endin)

liti)ation of the sa9e disputes, and K in a lar)er sense K to pro9ote "hat =ord !o;e in the 4errer>s !ase of %$&& stated to be the )oal of all la"@ Prest and (uietness.>L +!itations o9itted,
2-

-i.are# v. !a,ada, supra note $' at 3/-. LThe rules of co9it6, utilit6 and convenience of nations have established a usa)e a9on) civili:ed states b6 "hich final Hud)9ents of forei)n courts of co9petent Hurisdiction are reciprocall6 respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that 9a6 var6 in different countries.L +!itations o9itted,
23

#3 Phil. #3 +%&--,.

2#

Corpuz v. +to. oma#, 1.R. No. %/2$'%, %% *u)ust -.%., 2-/ S!R* -22, -/.G 0arcia v. !ecio, #%/ Phil. '-3 +-..%,G Adon" v. Cheon" +en" 0ee, supra.
2$

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. -2. < < <

Ahere a 9arria)e bet"een a 4ilipino citi:en and a forei)ner is validl6 celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl6 obtained abroad b6 the alien spouse capacitatin) hi9 or her to re9arr6, the 4ilipino spouse shall have capacit6 to re9arr6 under Philippine la".
22

*ct No. 3'$3, Sec. %. Civil !e"i#ter. N * civil re)ister is established for recordin) the civil status of persons, in "hich shall be entered@ +a, birthsG +b, deathsG +c, 9arria)esG +d, annul9ents of 9arria)esG +e, divorcesG +f, le)iti9ationsG +), adoptionsG +h, ac;no"led)9ent of natural childrenG +i, naturali:ationG and +H, chan)es of na9e. !f. RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %./, Sec. -. 1ntrie# #ub.ect to cancellation or correction. N Ipon )ood and valid )rounds, the follo"in) entries in the civil re)ister 9a6 be cancelled or corrected@ +a, birthsG +b, 9arria)esG +c, deathsG +d, le)al separationsG +e, Hud)9ents of annul9ents of 9arria)eG +f, Hud)9ents declarin) 9arria)es void fro9 the be)innin)G +), le)iti9ationsG +h, adoptionsG +i, ac;no"led)9ents of natural childrenG +H, naturali:ationG +;, election, loss or recover6 of citi:enshipG +%, civil interdictionG +9, Hudicial deter9ination of filiationG +n, voluntar6 e9ancipation of a 9inorG and +o, chan)es of na9e.
2'

Corpuz v. +to. oma#% supra note 32 at -/'. 4*MI=B !OD , *rt. 3$02'. 4*MI=B !OD , *rt. '#0%#/. 4*MI=B !OD , *rt. %&$ in relation to *rt. %&#. See supra note 2&.

2/

2&

'.

'%

'-

!ONSTITITION, *rt. III, Sec. %@ LNo person shall be deprived of life, libert6, or propert6 "ithout due process of la" < < <.L
'3

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. 2/0'3. !ONSTITITION, *rt. VIII, Sec. $+$,. The Supre9e !ourt shall have the follo"in) po"ers@ <<<< +$, Pro9ul)ate rules concernin) the protection and enforce9ent of constitutional ri)hts, pleadin), practice, and procedure in all courts, the ad9ission to the practice of la", the inte)rated bar, and le)al assistance to the underprivile)ed. Such rules shall provide a si9plified and ine<pensive procedure for the speed6 disposition of cases, shall be unifor9 for all courts of the sa9e )rade, an3 )-a// no' 30<0n0)-, 0n.r(a)(, or <o302y )u8)'an'05( r01-'). < < < < < < < + 9phasis supplied,

'#

'$

9phasis supplied.

'2

Revised Penal !ode +*ct No. 3/%$, as a9ended,, *rt. 3#&. 5i)a96. 0 The penalt6 of prisiQn 9a6or shall be i9posed upon an6 person "ho shall contract a second or subse(uent 9arria)e before the for9er 9arria)e has been le)all6 dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presu9ptivel6 dead b6 9eans of a Hud)9ent rendered in the proper proceedin)s.
''

See III R*MON *FIINO, TH R VIS D P N*= !OD +%&&',, $%/.

'/

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %%%, Sec. %. In#titution of criminal and civil action#. N +a, Ahen a cri9inal action is instituted, the civil action for the recover6 of civil liabilit6 arisin) fro9 the offense char)ed shall be dee9ed instituted "ith the cri9inal action unless the offended part6 "aives the civil action, reserves the ri)ht to institute it separatel6 or institutes the civil action prior to the cri9inal action. <<<<
'&

!f. RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule 3, Sec. -. 2artie# in intere#t. N * real part6 in interest is the part6 "ho stands to be benefited or inHured b6 the Hud)9ent in the suit, or the part6 entitled to the avails of the suit. Inless other"ise authori:ed b6 la" or these Rules, ever6 action 9ust be prosecuted or defended in the na9e of the real part6 in interest.
/.

(uliano)*lave v. !epublic% supra note 33. Supra note -$. Supra note -$. See supra note 2/.

/%

/-

/3

/#

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. #&. Durin) the pendenc6 of the action and in the absence of ade(uate provisions in a "ritten a)ree9ent bet"een the spouses, the !ourt shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custod6 and support of their co99on children. The !ourt shall )ive para9ount consideration to the 9oral and 9aterial "elfare of said children and their choice of the parent "ith "ho9 the6 "ish to re9ain as provided to in Title IR. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation ri)hts of the other parent. !f. RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule 2%.
/$

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. $.. The effects provided for b6 para)raphs +-,, +3,, +#, and +$, of *rticle #3 and b6 *rticle ## shall also appl6 in the proper cases to 9arria)es "hich are declared ab initio or annulled b6 final Hud)9ent under *rticles #. and #$. The final Hud)9ent in such cases shall provide for the li(uidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custod6 and support of the co99on children, and the deliver6 of third presu9ptive le)iti9es, unless such 9atters had been adHudicated in previous Hudicial proceedin)s. *ll creditors of the spouses as "ell as of the absolute co99unit6 or the conHu)al partnership shall be notified of the proceedin)s for li(uidation. In the partition, the conHu)al d"ellin) and the lot on "hich it is situated, shall be adHudicated in accordance "ith the provisions of *rticles %.- and %-&. *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, Sec. %&. Decision.N +%, If the court renders a decision )rantin) the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullit6 or decree of annul9ent shall be issued b6 the court onl6 after co9pliance "ith *rticles $. and $% of the 4a9il6 !ode as i9ple9ented under the Rule on =i(uidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.

<<<<
/2

4*MI=B !OD , *rt. #/. In all cases of annul9ent or declaration of absolute nullit6 of 9arria)e, the !ourt shall order the prosecutin) attorne6 or fiscal assi)ned to it to appear on behalf of the State to ta;e steps to prevent collusion bet"een the parties and to ta;e care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. In the cases referred to in the precedin) para)raph, no Hud)9ent shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of Hud)9ent. *.M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!, Sec. &. Inve#ti"ation report of public pro#ecutor. N +%, Aithin one 9onth after receipt of the court order 9entioned in para)raph +3, of Section / above, the public prosecutor shall sub9it a report to the court statin) "hether the parties are in collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if an6. +-, If the public prosecutor finds that collusion e<ists, he shall state the basis thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective co99ents on the findin) of collusion "ithin ten da6s fro9 receipt of a cop6 of the report The court shall set the report for hearin) and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it shall dis9iss the petition. +3, If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion e<ists, the court shall set the case for pre0trial. It shall be the dut6 of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre0 trial.
/'

RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %./, Sec. %. $.& Phil. %./ +-..$,. Id. at %%#. --3 Phil. 3$' +%&/$,. Id. at 323. See RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %, Sec. 3+c,.

//

/&

&.

&%

&-

&3

See RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule '-, Sec. -. Applicability of rule# of civil action#. N In the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinar6 actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedin)s. Rule %%%, Sec. -. When #eparate civil action i# #u#pended. N < < < If the cri9inal action is filed after the said civil action has alread6 been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in "hatever sta)e it 9a6 be found before Hud)9ent on the 9erits. The suspension shall last until final Hud)9ent is rendered in the cri9inal action. Nevertheless, before Hud)9ent on the 9erits is rendered in the civil action, the sa9e 9a6, upon 9otion of the offended part6, be consolidated "ith the cri9inal action in the court tr6in) the cri9inal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence alread6 adduced in the civil action shall be dee9ed auto9aticall6 reproduced in the cri9inal action "ithout preHudice to the ri)ht of the prosecution to cross0e<a9ine the "itnesses presented b6 the offended part6 in the cri9inal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated cri9inal and civil actions shall be tried and decided Hointl6. Durin) the pendenc6 of the cri9inal action, the runnin) of the period of prescription of the civil action "hich cannot be instituted separatel6 or "hose proceedin) has been suspended shall be tolled. The e<tinction of the penal action does not carr6 "ith it e<tinction of the civil action. Ho"ever, the civil action based on delict shall be dee9ed e<tin)uished if there is a

findin) in a final Hud)9ent in the cri9inal action that the act or o9ission fro9 "hich the civil liabilit6 9a6 arise did not e<ist. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 201061 Ju/y 3, 2013

SA##Y GO;"ANGAYAN, Petitioner, vs. "ENJAM$N "ANGAYAN, JR., Respondent. D CARP$O, J.: The !ase 5efore the !ourt is a petition for revie"% assailin) the %' *u)ust -.%% Decision- and the %# March -.%Resolution3 of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. &#--2. The *ntecedent 4acts On %$ March -..#, 5enHa9in 5an)a6an, 7r. +5enHa9in, filed a petition for declaration of a non0e<istent 9arria)e andMor declaration of nullit6 of 9arria)e before the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 5ranch #3 +trial court,. The case "as doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. .#%.&#.%. 5enHa9in alle)ed that on %. Septe9ber %&'3, he 9arried *:ucena *le)re +*:ucena, in !aloocan !it6. The6 had three children, na9el6, Ri:al6n, 99a96lin, and 5enHa9in III. In %&'&, 5enHa9in developed a ro9antic relationship "ith Sall6 1o5an)a6an +Sall6, "ho "as a custo9er in the auto parts and supplies business o"ned b6 5enHa9in>s fa9il6. In Dece9ber %&/%, *:ucena left for the Inited States of *9erica. In 4ebruar6 %&/-, 5enHa9in and Sall6 lived to)ether as husband and "ife. Sall6>s father "as a)ainst the relationship. On ' March %&/-, in order to appease her father, Sall6 brou)ht 5enHa9in to an office in Santolan, Pasi) !it6 "here the6 si)ned a purported 9arria)e contract. Sall6, ;no"in) 5enHa9in>s 9arital status, assured hi9 that the 9arria)e contract "ould not be re)istered. 5enHa9in and Sall6>s cohabitation produced t"o children, 5ernice and 5entle6. Durin) the period of their cohabitation, the6 ac(uired the follo"in) real properties@ +%, propert6 under Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, No. 2%'-- re)istered in the na9es of 5enHa9in and Sall6 as spousesG +-, properties under T!T Nos. 2%'-. and %&./2. re)istered in the na9e of 5enHa9in, 9arried to Sall6G +3, properties under !ondo9iniu9 !ertificate of Title +!!T, Nos. /'/- and /'/3 re)istered in the na9e of Sall6, 9arried to 5enHa9inG and +#, properties under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and -$32/% re)istered in the na9e of Sall6 as a sin)le individual. The relationship of 5enHa9in and Sall6 ended in %&&# "hen Sall6 left for !anada, brin)in) 5ernice and 5entle6 "ith her. She then filed cri9inal actions for bi)a96 and falsification of public docu9ents a)ainst 5enHa9in, usin) their si9ulated 9arria)e contract as evidence. 5enHa9in, in turn, filed a petition for declaration of a non0e<istent 9arria)e andMor declaration of nullit6 of 9arria)e before the trial court on the )round that his 9arria)e to Sall6 "as bi)a9ous and that it lac;ed the for9al re(uisites to a valid 9arria)e. 5enHa9in also as;ed the trial court for the partition of the properties he ac(uired "ith Sall6 in !ISION

accordance "ith *rticle %#/ of the 4a9il6 !ode, for his appoint9ent as ad9inistrator of the properties durin) the pendenc6 of the case, and for the declaration of 5ernice and 5entle6 as ille)iti9ate children. * total of ## re)istered properties beca9e the subHect of the partition before the trial court. *side fro9 the seven properties enu9erated b6 5enHa9in in his petition, Sall6 na9ed 3' properties in her ans"er. *fter 5enHa9in presented his evidence, Sall6 filed a de9urrer to evidence "hich the trial court denied. Sall6 filed a 9otion for reconsideration "hich the trial court also denied. Sall6 filed a petition for certiorari before the !ourt of *ppeals and as;ed for the issuance of a te9porar6 restrainin) order andMor inHunction "hich the !ourt of *ppeals never issued. Sall6 then refused to present an6 evidence before the trial court citin) the pendenc6 of her petition before the !ourt of *ppeals. The trial court )ave Sall6 several opportunities to present her evidence on -/ 4ebruar6 -../, %. 7ul6 -../, # Septe9ber -../, %% Septe9ber -../, - October -../, -3 October -../, and -/ Nove9ber -../. Despite repeated "arnin)s fro9 the trial court, Sall6 still refused to present her evidence, pro9ptin) the trial court to consider the case sub9itted for decision. The Decision of the Trial !ourt In a Decision# dated -2 March -..&, the trial court ruled in favor of5enHa9in. The trial court )ave "ei)ht to the certification dated -% 7ul6 -..# fro9 the Pasi) =ocal !ivil Re)istrar, "hich "as confir9ed durin) trial, that onl6 Marria)e =icense Series Nos. 22#/%.. to 22#/%$. "ere issued for the 9onth of 4ebruar6 %&/- and the purported Marria)e =icense No. N0.'$2/ "as not issued to 5enHa9in and Sall6. $ The trial court ruled that the 9arria)e "as not recorded "ith the local civil re)istrar and the National Statistics Office because it could not be re)istered due to 5enHa9in>s subsistin) 9arria)e "ith *:ucena. The trial court ruled that the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as not bi)a9ous. The trial court ruled that the second 9arria)e "as void not because of the e<istence of the first 9arria)e but because of other causes, particularl6, the lac; of a 9arria)e license. Hence, bi)a96 "as not co99itted in this case. The trial court did not rule on the issue of the le)iti9ac6 status of 5ernice and 5entle6 because the6 "ere not parties to the case. The trial court denied Sall6>s clai9 for spousal support because she "as not 9arried to 5enHa9in. The trial court li;e"ise denied support for 5ernice and 5entle6 "ho "ere both of le)al a)e and did not as; for support. On the issue of partition, the trial court ruled that Sall6 could not clai9 the 3' properties she na9ed in her ans"er as part of her conHu)al properties "ith 5enHa9in. The trial court ruled that Sall6 "as not le)all6 9arried to 5enHa9in. 4urther, the 3' properties that Sall6 "as clai9in) "ere o"ned b6 5enHa9in>s parents "ho )ave the properties to their children, includin) 5enHa9in, as advance inheritance. The 3' titles "ere in the na9es of 5enHa9in and his brothers and the phrase L9arried to Sall6 1oL "as 9erel6 descriptive of 5enHa9in>s civil status in the title. *s re)ards the t"o lots under T!T Nos. 2%'-. and %&./2., the trial court found that the6 "ere bou)ht b6 5enHa9in usin) his o"n 9one6 and that Sall6 failed to prove an6 actual contribution of 9one6, propert6 or industr6 in their purchase. The trial court found that Sall6 "as a re)istered co0o"ner of the lots covered b6 T!T Nos. 2%'--, N0%&32$2, and -$32/% as "ell as the t"o condo9iniu9 units under !!T Nos. /'/- and /'/3. Ho"ever, the trial court ruled that the lot under T!T No. 2%'-- and the t"o condo9iniu9 units "ere purchased fro9 the earnin)s of 5enHa9in alone. The trial court ruled that the properties under T!T Nos. 2%'--, 2%'-., and %&./2. and !!T Nos. /'/- and /'/3 "ere part of the conHu)al partnership of 5enHa9in and *:ucena, "ithout preHudice to 5enHa9in>s ri)ht to dispute his conHu)al state "ith *:ucena in a separate proceedin). The trial court further ruled that Sall6 acted in bad faith because she ;ne" that 5enHa9in "as 9arried to *:ucena. *ppl6in) *rticle %#/ of the 4a9il6 !ode, the trial court forfeited Sall6>s share in the properties covered under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and -$32/% in favor of 5ernice and 5entle6 "hile 5enHa9in>s share reverted to his conHu)al o"nership "ith *:ucena. The dispositive portion of the trial court>s decision reads@ *!!ORDIN1=B, the 9arria)e of 5 N7*MIN 5*N1*B*N, 7R. and S*==B S. 1O on March ', %&/at Santolan, Pasi), Metro Manila is hereb6 declared NI== and VOID *5 INITIO. It is further declared NON RIST NT. Respondent>s clai9 as co0o"ner or conHu)al o"ner of the thirt6seven +3', properties under T!T Nos. %''--, %''-3, %''-#, %''-$, %-23&', RT0'3#/., and RT0/2/-%G in Manila, T!T Nos. %//&#&, %//&$., %//&$%, %&3.3$, %&#2-., %&#2-%, %&#2--, %&#2-3, %&#2-#, %&#2-$, %&#2-2, %&#2-', %&#2-/, %&#2-&,

%&#23., %&#23%, %&#23-, %&#233, %&#23#, %&#23$, %&#232, %&#23', %&#23/, %&#23&, %&/2$%, -.2-.&, -.2-%., -.2-%%, -.2-%3 and -.2-%$ is DISMISS D for lac; of 9erit. The re)istered o"ners, na9el6@ 5enHa9in 5. 5an)a6an, 7r., Roberto . 5an)a6an, Ricardo 5. 5an)a6an and Rodri)o 5. 5an)a6an are the o"ners to the e<clusion of LSall6 1oL !onse(uentl6, the Re)istr6 of Deeds for Fue:on !it6 and Manila are directed to delete the "ords L9arried to Sall6 1oL fro9 these thirt60seven +3', titles. Properties under T!T Nos. 2%'--, 2%'-. and %&./2., !!T Nos. /'/- and /'/3 are properties ac(uired fro9 petitioner>s 9one6 "ithout contribution fro9 respondent, hence, these are properties of the petitioner and his la"ful "ife. !onse(uentl6, petitioner is appointed the ad9inistrator of these five +$, properties. Respondent is ordered to sub9it an accountin) of her collections of inco9e fro9 these five +$, properties "ithin thirt6 +3., da6s fro9 notice hereof. <cept for lot under T!T No. 2%'--, respondent is further directed "ithin thirt6 +3., da6s fro9 notice hereof to turn over and surrender control and possession of these properties includin) the docu9ents of title to the petitioner. On the properties under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and N0-$32/%, these properties are under co0o"nership of the parties shared b6 the9 e(uall6. Ho"ever, the share of respondent is declared 4OR4 IT D in favor of 5ernice 1o 5an)a6an and 5entle6 1o 5an)a6an. The share of the petitioner shall belon) to his conHu)al o"nership "ith *:ucena *le)re. The li(uidation, partition and distribution of these t"o +-, properties shall be further processed pursuant to Section -% of *.M. No. .-0%%0%. of March %$, -..3. Other properties shall be adHudicated in a later proceedin) pursuant to Section -% of *.M. No. .-0%%0%.. Respondent>s clai9 of spousal support, children support and counterclai9s are DISMISS D for lac; of 9erit. 4urther, no declaration of the status of the parties> children. No other relief )ranted. 4urnish cop6 of this decision to the parties, their counsels, the Trial Prosecutor, the Solicitor 1eneral and the Re)istr6 of Deeds in Manila, Fue:on !it6 and !aloocan. SO ORD R D.2 Sall6 filed a Verified and Vi)orous Motion for Inhibition "ith Motion for Reconsideration. In its Order dated -' *u)ust -..&,' the trial court denied the 9otion. Sall6 appealed the trial court>s decision before the !ourt of *ppeals. The Decision of the !ourt of *ppeals In its %' *u)ust -.%% Decision, the !ourt of *ppeals partl6 )ranted the appeal. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that the trial court did not err in sub9ittin) the case for decision. The !ourt of *ppeals noted that there "ere si< resettin)s of the case, all 9ade at the instance of Sall6, for the initial reception of evidence, and Sall6 "as dul6 "arned to present her evidence on the ne<t hearin) or the case "ould be dee9ed sub9itted for decision. Ho"ever, despite the "arnin), Sall6 still failed to present her evidence. She insisted on presentin) 5enHa9in "ho "as not around and "as not subpoenaed despite the presence of her other "itnesses. The !ourt of *ppeals reHected Sall6>s alle)ation that 5enHa9in failed to prove his action for declaration of nullit6 of 9arria)e. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that 5enHa9in>s action "as based on his prior 9arria)e to *:ucena and there "as no evidence that the 9arria)e "as annulled or dissolved before 5enHa9in contracted the second 9arria)e "ith Sall6. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that the trial court co99itted no error in declarin) 5enHa9in>s 9arria)e to Sall6 null and void. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that the propert6 relations of 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as )overned b6 *rticle %#/ of the 4a9il6 !ode. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that onl6 the properties ac(uired b6 the parties throu)h their actual Hoint contribution of 9one6, propert6 or industr6 shall be o"ned b6 the9 in co99on in proportion to their respective contribution. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that the 3' properties bein) clai9ed b6 Sall6 ri)htfull6 belon) to 5enHa9in and his siblin)s. *s re)ards the seven properties clai9ed b6 both parties, the !ourt of *ppeals ruled that onl6 the properties under T!T Nos. 2%'-. and %&./2. re)istered in the na9e of 5enHa9in belon) to hi9 e<clusivel6 because he "as able to establish that the6 "ere ac(uired b6 hi9 solel6. The !ourt of

*ppeals found that the properties under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and -$32/% and under !!T Nos. /'/- and /'/3 "ere e<clusive properties of Sall6 in the absence of proof of 5enHa9in>s actual contribution in their purchase. The !ourt of *ppeals ruled that the propert6 under T!T No. 2%'-- re)istered in the na9es of 5enHa9in and Sall6 shall be o"ned b6 the9 in co99on, to be shared e(uall6. Ho"ever, the share of 5enHa9in shall accrue to the conHu)al partnership under his e<istin) 9arria)e "ith *:ucena "hile Sall6>s share shall accrue to her in the absence of a clear and convincin) proof of bad faith. 4inall6, the !ourt of *ppeals ruled that Sall6 failed to present clear and convincin) evidence that "ould sho" bias and preHudice on the part of the trial Hud)e that "ould Hustif6 his inhibition fro9 the case. The dispositive portion of the !ourt of *ppeals> decision reads@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the instant appeal is P*RT=B 1R*NT D. The assailed Decision and Order dated March -2, -..& and *u)ust -', -..&, respectivel6, of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 5ranch #3, in !ivil !ase No. .#0%.&#.% are hereb6 *44IRM D "ith 9odification declarin) T!T Nos. 2%'-. and %&./2. to be e<clusivel6 o"ned b6 the petitioner0appellee "hile the properties under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and -$32/% as "ell as !!T Nos. /'/- and /'/3 shall be solel6 o"ned b6 the respondent0appellant. On the other hand, T!T No. 2%'-- shall be o"ned b6 the9 and co99on and to be shared e(uall6 but the share of the petitioner0appellee shall accrue to the conHu)al partnership under his first 9arria)e "hile the share of respondent0appellant shall accrue to her. The rest of the decision stands. SO ORD R D./ Sall6 9oved for the reconsideration of the !ourt of *ppeals> decision. In its %# March -.%- Resolution, the !ourt of *ppeals denied her 9otion. Hence, the petition before this !ourt. The Issues Sall6 raised the follo"in) issues before this !ourt@ +%, Ahether the !ourt of *ppeals co99itted a reversible error in affir9in) the trial court>s rulin) that Sall6 had "aived her ri)ht to present evidenceG +-, Ahether the !ourt of *ppeals co99itted a reversible error in affir9in) the trial court>s decision declarin) the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 null and void ab initio and non0 e<istentG and +3, Ahether the !ourt of *ppeals co99itted a reversible error in affir9in) "ith 9odification the trial court>s decision re)ardin) the propert6 relations of 5enHa9in and Sall6. The Rulin) of this !ourt The petition has no 9erit. Aaiver of Ri)ht to Present vidence Sall6 alle)es that the !ourt of *ppeals erred in affir9in) the trial court>s rulin) that she "aived her ri)ht to present her evidence. Sall6 alle)es that in not allo"in) her to present evidence that she and 5enHa9in "ere 9arried, the trial court abandoned its dut6 to protect 9arria)e as an inviolable institution. It is "ell0settled that a )rant of a 9otion for continuance or postpone9ent is not a 9atter of ri)ht but is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. & In this case, Sall6>s presentation of evidence "as scheduled on-/ 4ebruar6 -../. Thereafter, there "ere si< resettin)s of the case@ on %. 7ul6 -../, # and %% Septe9ber -../, - and -/ October -../, and -/ Nove9ber -../. The6 "ere all 9ade at Sall6>s instance. 5efore the scheduled hearin) of -/ Nove9ber -../, the trial court "arned Sall6 that in case she still failed to present her evidence, the case "ould be sub9itted for decision. On the date of the scheduled hearin), despite the presence of other available "itnesses, Sall6 insisted on presentin) 5enHa9in "ho "as not even subpoenaed on that da6. Sall6>s counsel insisted that the trial court could not dictate on the

priorit6 of "itnesses to be presented, disre)ardin) the trial court>s prior "arnin) due to the nu9erous resettin)s of the case. Sall6 could not co9plain that she had been deprived of her ri)ht to present her evidence because all the postpone9ents "ere at her instance and she "as "arned b6 the trial court that it "ould sub9it the case for decision should she still fail to present her evidence on -/ Nove9ber -../. Ae a)ree "ith the trial court that b6 her continued refusal to present her evidence, she "as dee9ed to have "aived her ri)ht to present the9. *s pointed out b6 the !ourt of *ppeals, Sall6>s continued failure to present her evidence despite the opportunities )iven b6 the trial court sho"ed her lac; of interest to proceed "ith the case. 4urther, it "as clear that Sall6 "as dela6in) the case because she "as "aitin) for the decision of the !ourt of *ppeals on her petition (uestionin) the trial court>s denial of her de9urrer to evidence, despite the fact that the !ourt of *ppeals did not issue an6 te9porar6 restrainin) order as Sall6 pra6ed for. Sall6 could not accuse the trial court of failin) to protect 9arria)e as an inviolable institution because the trial court also has the dut6 to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate dela6 and refusal to proceed b6 one of the parties. %. Validit6 of the Marria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 Sall6 alle)es that both the trial court and the !ourt of *ppeals reco)ni:ed her 9arria)e to 5enHa9in because a 9arria)e could not be none<istent and, at the sa9e ti9e, null and void ab initio. Sall6 further alle)es that if she "ere allo"ed to present her evidence, she "ould have proven her 9arria)e to 5enHa9in. To prove her 9arria)e to 5enHa9in, Sall6 as;ed this !ourt to consider that in ac(uirin) real properties, 5enHa9in listed her as his "ife b6 declarin) he "as L9arried toL herG that 5enHa9in "as the infor9ant in their children>s birth certificates "here he stated that he "as their fatherG and that 5enHa9in introduced her to his fa9il6 and friends as his "ife. In contrast, Sall6 clai9s that there "as no real propert6 re)istered in the na9es of 5enHa9in and *:ucena. Sall6 further alle)es that 5enHa9in "as not the infor9ant in the birth certificates of his children "ith *:ucena. 4irst, 5enHa9in>s 9arria)e to *:ucena on %. Septe9ber %&'3 "as dul6 established before the trial court, evidenced b6 a certified true cop6 of their 9arria)e contract. *t the ti9e 5enHa9in and Sall6 entered into a purported 9arria)e on ' March %&/-, the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and *:ucena "as valid and subsistin). On the purported 9arria)e of 5enHa9in and Sall6, Teresita Oliveros +Oliveros,, Re)istration Officer II of the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Pasi) !it6, testified that there "as no valid 9arria)e license issued to 5enHa9in and Sall6. Oliveros confir9ed that onl6 Marria)e =icence Nos. 22#/%.. to 22#/%$. "ere issued for the 9onth of 4ebruar6 %&/-. Marria)e =icense No. N0.'$2/ did not 9atch the series issued for the 9onth. Oliveros further testified that the local civil re)istrar of Pasi) !it6 did not issue Marria)e =icense No. N0.'$2/ to 5enHa9in and Sall6. The certification fro9 the local civil re)istrar is ade(uate to prove the non0issuance of a 9arria)e license and absent an6 suspicious circu9stance, the certification enHo6s probative value, bein) issued b6 the officer char)ed under the la" to ;eep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a 9arria)e license. %% !learl6, if indeed 5enHa9in and Sall6 entered into a 9arria)e contract, the 9arria)e "as void fro9 the be)innin) for lac; of a 9arria)e license. %It "as also established before the trial court that the purported 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as not recorded "ith the local civil re)istrar and the National Statistics Office. The lac; of record "as certified b6 7ulieta 5. 7avier, Re)istration Officer IV of the Office of the =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of the Municipalit6 of Pasi)G%3 Teresita R. I)nacio, !hief of the *rchives Division of the Records Mana)e9ent and *rchives Office, National !o99ission for !ulture and the *rtsG %# and =ourdes 7. Hufana, Director III, !ivil Re)istration Depart9ent of the National Statistics Office. %$ The docu9entar6 and testi9onial evidence proved that there "as no 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6. *s pointed out b6 the trial court, the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 L"as 9ade onl6 in HestL %2 and La si9ulated 9arria)e, at the instance of Sall6, intended to cover her up fro9 e<pected social hu9iliation co9in) fro9 relatives, friends and the societ6 especiall6 fro9 her parents seen as !hinese conservatives.L %' In short, it "as a fictitious 9arria)e. The fact that 5enHa9in "as the infor9ant in the birth certificates of 5ernice and 5entle6 "as not a proof of the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6. This !ourt notes that 5enHa9in "as the infor9ant in 5ernice>s birth certificate "hich stated that 5enHa9in and Sall6 "ere 9arried on / March %&/- %/ "hile Sall6 "as the infor9ant in 5entle6>s birth certificate "hich also stated that 5enHa9in and Sall6 "ere 9arried on / March %&/-.%& 5enHa9in and Sall6 "ere supposedl6 9arried on ' March %&/- "hich did not 9atch the dates reflected on the birth certificates.

Ae see no inconsistenc6 in findin) the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 null and void ab initio and, at the sa9e ti9e, non0e<istent. Inder *rticle 3$ of the 4a9il6 !ode, a 9arria)e sole9ni:ed "ithout a license, e<cept those covered b6 *rticle 3# "here no license is necessar6, Lshall be void fro9 the be)innin).L In this case, the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as sole9ni:ed "ithout a license. It "as dul6 established that no 9arria)e license "as issued to the9 and that Marria)e =icense No. N0.'$2/ did not 9atch the 9arria)e license nu9bers issued b6 the local civil re)istrar of Pasi) !it6 for the 9onth of 4ebruar6 %&/-. The case clearl6 falls under Section 3 of *rticle 3$ -. "hich 9ade their 9arria)e void ab initio. The 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as also non0e<istent. *ppl6in) the )eneral rules on void or ine<istent contracts under *rticle %#.& of the !ivil !ode, contracts "hich are absolutel6 si9ulated or fictitious are Line<istent and void fro9 the be)innin).L -% Thus, the !ourt of *ppeals did not err in sustainin) the trial court>s rulin) that the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 "as null and void ab initio and non0e<istent. <cept for the 9odification in the distribution of properties, the !ourt of *ppeals affir9ed in all aspects the trial court>s decision and ruled that Lthe rest of the decision stands.L -- Ahile the !ourt of *ppeals did notdiscuss bi)a9ous 9arria)es, it can be )leaned fro9 the dispositive portion of the decision declarin) that Lthe rest of the decision standsL that the !ourt of *ppeals adopted the trial court>s discussion that the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 is not bi)a9ous. 1wphi1 The trial court stated@ On "hether or not the parties> 9arria)e is bi)a9ous under the concept of *rticle 3#& of the Revised Penal !ode, the 9arria)e is not bi)a9ous. It is re(uired that the first or for9er 9arria)e shall not be null and void. The 9arria)e of the petitioner to *:ucena shall be assu9ed as the one that is valid, there bein) no evidence to the contrar6 and there is no trace of invalidit6 or irre)ularit6 on the face of their 9arria)e contract. Ho"ever, if the second 9arria)e "as void not because of the e<istence of the first 9arria)e but for other causes such as lac; of license, the cri9e of bi)a96 "as not co99itted. In People v. De =ara C!*, $% O.1., #.'&D, it "as held that "hat "as co99itted "as contractin) 9arria)e a)ainst the provisions of la"s not under *rticle 3#& but *rticle 3$. of the Revised Penal !ode. !oncludin), the 9arria)e of the parties is therefore not bi)a9ous because there "as no 9arria)e license. The darin) and repeated stand of respondent that she is le)all6 9arried to petitioner cannot, in an6 instance, be sustained. *ssu9in) that her 9arria)e to petitioner has the 9arria)e license, 6et the sa9e "ould be bi)a9ous, civill6 or cri9inall6 as it "ould be invalidated b6 a prior e<istin) valid 9arria)e of petitioner and *:ucena.-3 4or bi)a96 to e<ist, the second or subse(uent 9arria)e 9ust have all the essential re(uisites for validit6 e<cept for the e<istence of a prior 9arria)e. -# In this case, there "as reall6 no subse(uent 9arria)e. 5enHa9in and Sall6 Hust si)ned a purported 9arria)e contract "ithout a 9arria)e license. The supposed 9arria)e "as not recorded "ith the local civil re)istrar and the National Statistics Office. In short, the 9arria)e bet"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 did not e<ist. The6 lived to)ether and represented the9selves as husband and "ife "ithout the benefit of 9arria)e. Propert6 Relations 5et"een 5enHa9in and Sall6 The !ourt of *ppeals correctl6 ruled that the propert6 relations of 5enHa9in and Sall6 is )overned b6 *rticle %#/ of the 4a9il6 !ode "hich states@ *rt. %#/. In cases of cohabitation not fallin) under the precedin) *rticle, onl6 the properties ac(uired b6 both of the parties throu)h their actual Hoint contribution of 9one6, propert6, or industr6 shall be o"ned b6 the9 in co99on in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrar6, their contributions and correspondin) shares are presu9ed to be e(ual. The sa9e rule and presu9ption shall appl6 to Hoint deposits of 9one6 and evidences of credit. If one of the parties is validl6 9arried to another, his or her share in the co0o"nership shall accrue to the absolute co99unit6 of conHu)al partnership e<istin) in such valid 9arria)e. If the part6 "ho acted in bad faith is not validl6 9arried to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the 9anner provided in the last para)raph of the precedin) *rticle. The fore)oin) rules on forfeiture shall li;e"ise appl6 even if both parties are in bad faith. 5enHa9in and Sall6 cohabitated "ithout the benefit of 9arria)e. Thus, onl6 the properties ac(uired b6 the9 throu)h their actual Hoint contribution of 9one6, propert6, or industr6 shall be o"ned b6 the9 in co99on in proportion to their respective contributions. Thus, both the trial court and the !ourt of

*ppeals correctl6 e<cluded the 3' properties bein) clai9ed b6 Sall6 "hich "ere )iven b6 5enHa9in>s father to his children as advance inheritance. Sall6>s *ns"er to the petition before the trial court even ad9itted that L5enHa9in>s late father hi9self conve6ed a nu9ber of properties to his children and their respective spouses "hich included Sall6 < < <.L-$ *s re)ards the seven re9ainin) properties, "e rule that the decision of the !ourt of *ppeals is 9ore in accord "ith the evidence on record. Onl6 the propert6 covered b6 T!T No. 2%'-- "as re)istered in the na9es of 5enHa9in and Sall6 as spouses.-2 The properties under T!T Nos. 2%'-. and %&./2. "ere in the na9e of 5enHa9in-' "ith the descriptive title L9arried to Sall6.L The propert6 covered b6 !!T Nos. /'/and /'/3 "ere re)istered in the na9e of Sall6-/ "ith the descriptive title L9arried to 5enHa9inL "hile the properties under T!T Nos. N0%&32$2 and -$32/% "ere re)istered in the na9e of Sall6 as a sin)le individual. Ae have ruled that the "ords L9arried toL precedin) the na9e of a spouse are 9erel6 descriptive of the civil status of the re)istered o"ner. -& Such "ords do not prove co0o"nership. Aithout proof of actual contribution fro9 either or both spouses, there can be no co0o"nership under *rticle %#/ of the 4a9il6 !ode.3. Inhibition of the Trial 7ud)e Sall6 (uestions the refusal of 7ud)e Ro6 1. 1ironella +7ud)e 1ironella, to inhibit hi9self fro9 hearin) the case. She cited the failure of 7ud)e 1ironella to acco99odate her in presentin) her evidence. She further alle)ed that 7ud)e 1ironella practicall6 labeled her as an opportunist in his decision, sho"in) his partialit6 a)ainst her and in favor of 5enHa9in. Ae have ruled that the issue of voluntar6 inhibition is pri9aril6 a 9atter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the Hud)e.3% To Hustif6 the call for inhibition, there 9ust be e<trinsic evidence to establish bias, bad faith, 9alice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error "hich 9a6 be inferred fro9 the decision or order itself.3-In this case, "e have sufficientl6 e<plained that 7ud)e 1ironella did not err in sub9ittin) the case for decision because of Sall6>s continued refusal to present her evidence. Ae revie"ed the decision of the trial court and "hile 7ud)e 1ironella 9a6 have used unco9pli9entar6 "ords in "ritin) the decision, the6 are not enou)h to prove his preHudice a)ainst Sall6 or sho" that he acted in bad faith in decidin) the case that "ould Hustif6 the call for his voluntar6 inhibition. AH R 4OR , "e *44IRM the %' *u)ust -.%% Decision and the %# March -.%- Resolution of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. &#--2. SO ORD R D. ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ ARTURO D. "R$ON *ssociate 7ustice #UCAS P. "ERSAM$NS *ssociate 7ustice MAR$ANO C. DE# CAST$##O *ssociate 7ustice

JOSE PORTUGA# PERE *ssociate 7ustice *TT ST*TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt>s Division. ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson

RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson8s *ttestation, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
S

Desi)nated additional 9e9ber per Raffle dated / October -.%-. Inder Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt.

Rollo, pp. -&0#.. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice +no" Supre9e !ourt *ssociate 7ustice, stela M. Perlas5ernabe "ith *ssociate 7ustices 5ienvenido =. Re6es +no" also a Supre9e !ourt *ssociate 7ustice, and Sa9uel H. 1aerlan, concurrin).
3

Id. at $-. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Sa9uel H. 1aerlan "ith *ssociate 7ustices *9elita 1. Tolentino and Ra9on R. 1arcia, concurrin).
#

Id. at %.'0%-3. Penned b6 Presidin) 7ud)e Ro6 1. 1ironella. Records, Vol. -, p. #2%. Id. at %--0%-3. Id. at %-#0%-/. Id. at #.. See 5autista v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %$'-%&, -/ Ma6 -..#, #3. S!R* 3$3. Id. Nicdao !ari?o v. Bee !ari?o, #.3 Phil. /2% +-..%,. *rticle 3$ of the 4a9il6 !ode states@ *rt. 3$. The follo"in) 9arria)es shall be void fro9 the be)innin)@ +%, Those contracted b6 an6 part6 belo" ei)hteen 6ears of a)e even "ith the consent of parents or )uardiansG +-, Those sole9ni:ed b6 an6 person not le)all6 authori:ed to perfor9 9arria)es unless such 9arria)es "ere contracted "ith either or both parties believin) in )ood faith that the sole9ni:in) officer had the le)al authorit6 to do soG +3, Those sole9ni:ed "ithout a license, e<cept those covered b6 the precedin) !hapterG +#, Those bi)a9ous or pol6)a9ous 9arria)es not fallin) under *rticle #%G +$, Those contracted throu)h 9ista;e of one contractin) part6 as to the identit6 of the otherG and

'

&

%.

%%

%-

+2, Those subse(uent 9arria)es that are void under *rticle $3.
%3

Records, Vol. -, p. #$/. Id. at #$&. Id. at #2.. Rollo, p. %%-. Id. Records, Vol. %, p. 2$. Id. at 22. Supra note %-. *rticle %#.&. The follo"in) contracts are ine<istent and void fro9 the be)innin)@ <<<< +-, Those "hich are absolutel6 si9ulated or fictitiousG <<<<

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

Rollo, p. #.. Id. at %%-0%%3. See Nollora, 7r. v. People, 1.R. No. %&%#-$, ' Septe9ber -.%%, 2$' S!R* 33.. Records, Vol. %, p. $.. Id. at -3. Id. at -#0-2. Id. at -'0-/. *cre v. Butti;;i, $2. Phil. #&$ +-..',. Id. Jilosba6an 4oundation v. 7anolo, 7r., 1.R. No. %/.$#3, -' 7ul6 -.%., 2-$ S!R* 2/#. Ra9iscal, 7r. v. Hernande:, 1.R. Nos. %'3.$'0'#, -' Septe9ber -.%., 23% S!R* 3%Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 4IRST DIVISION

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

G.R. No. 20*169

S(6'(<8(r 11, 2013

YASUO $9ASA9A, P TITION R, vs. &E#$SA CUSTOD$O GANGAN1 =A.+.A &E#$SA GANGAN ARAM"U#O, AND &E#$SA

GANGAN $9ASA9A> AND T!E #OCA# C$%$# REG$STRAR O& PASAY C$TY, R SPOND NTS. D %$##ARAMA, JR., J.: 5efore us is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, as a9ended, assailin) the Septe9ber #, -.%- Decision- and October %2, -.%- Order3 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!,, 5ranch #3, of Manila in !ivil !ase No. %%0%-2-.3. The RT! denied the petition for declaration of nullit6 of the 9arria)e of petitioner Basuo I"asa"a "ith private respondent 4elisa !ustodio 1an)an due to insufficient evidence. The antecedents follo"@ Petitioner, a 7apanese national, 9et private respondent so9eti9e in -..- in one of his visits to the Philippines. Private respondent introduced herself as Lsin)leL and Lhas never 9arried before.L Since then, the t"o beca9e close to each other. =ater that 6ear, petitioner ca9e bac; to the Philippines and 9arried private respondent on Nove9ber -/, -..- in Pasa6 !it6. *fter the "eddin), the couple resided in 7apan. # In 7ul6 -..&, petitioner noticed his "ife beco9e depressed. Suspectin) that so9ethin) 9i)ht have happened in the Philippines, he confronted his "ife about it. To his shoc;, private respondent confessed to hi9 that she received ne"s that her previous husband passed a"a6. $ Petitioner sou)ht to confir9 the truth of his "ife>s confession and discovered that indeed, she "as 9arried to one Ra69ond Ma)lon:o *ra9bulo and that their 9arria)e too; place on 7une -., %&&#. 2 This pro9pted petitioner to file a petition' for the declaration of his 9arria)e to private respondent as null and void on the )round that their 9arria)e is a bi)a9ous one, based on *rticle 3$+#, in relation to *rticle #% of the 4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines. Durin) trial, aside fro9 his testi9on6, petitioner also offered the follo"in) pieces of docu9entar6 evidence issued b6 the National Statistics Office +NSO,@ +%, !ertificate of Marria)e/ bet"een petitioner and private respondent 9ar;ed as <hibit L*L to prove the fact of 9arria)e bet"een the parties on Nove9ber -/, -..-G +-, !ertificate of Marria)e& bet"een private respondent and Ra69ond Ma)lon:o *ra9bulo 9ar;ed as <hibit L5L to prove the fact of 9arria)e bet"een the parties on 7une -., %&&#G +3, !ertificate of Death%. of Ra69ond Ma)lon:o *ra9bulo 9ar;ed as <hibits L!L and L!0%L to prove the fact of the latter>s death on 7ul6 %#, -..&G and +#, !ertification%% fro9 the NSO to the effect that there are t"o entries of 9arria)e recorded b6 the office pertainin) to private respondent 9ar;ed as <hibit LDL to prove that private respondent in fact contracted t"o 9arria)es, the first one "as to a Ra69ond Ma)lon:o *ra9bulo on 7une -., %&&#, and second, to petitioner on Nove9ber -/, -..-. The prosecutor appearin) on behalf of the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral +OS1, ad9itted the authenticit6 and due e<ecution of the above docu9entar6 e<hibits durin) pre0trial. %On Septe9ber #, -.%-, the RT! rendered the assailed decision. It ruled that there "as insufficient evidence to prove private respondent>s prior e<istin) valid 9arria)e to another 9an. It held that "hile !ISION

petitioner offered the certificate of 9arria)e of private respondent to *ra9bulo, it "as onl6 petitioner "ho testified about said 9arria)e. The RT! ruled that petitioner>s testi9on6 is unreliable because he has no personal ;no"led)e of private respondent>s prior 9arria)e nor of *ra9bulo>s death "hich 9a;es hi9 a co9plete stran)er to the 9arria)e certificate bet"een private respondent and *ra9bulo and the latter>s death certificate. It further ruled that petitioner>s testi9on6 about the NSO certification is li;e"ise unreliable since he is a stran)er to the preparation of said docu9ent. Petitioner filed a 9otion for reconsideration, but the sa9e "as denied b6 the RT! in an Order dated October %2, -.%-. Hence this petition raisin) the sole le)al issue of "hether the testi9on6 of the NSO records custodian certif6in) the authenticit6 and due e<ecution of the public docu9ents issued b6 said office "as necessar6 before the6 could be accorded evidentiar6 "ei)ht. Petitioner ar)ues that the docu9entar6 evidence he presented are public docu9ents "hich are considered self0authenticatin) and thus it "as unnecessar6 to call the NSO Records !ustodian as "itness. He cites *rticle #%. of the !ivil !ode "hich provides that boo;s 9a;in) up the civil re)ister and all docu9ents relatin) thereto shall be considered public docu9ents and shall be pri9a facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Moreover, the trial prosecutor hi9self also ad9itted the authenticit6 of said docu9ents. The OS1, in its !o99ent,%3 sub9its that the findin)s of the RT! are not in accord "ith la" and established Hurisprudence. It contends that both Republic *ct No. 3'$3, other"ise ;no"n as the =a" on Re)istr6 of !ivil Status, and the !ivil !ode elaborated on the character of docu9ents arisin) fro9 records and entries 9ade b6 the civil re)istrar and cate)oricall6 declared the9 as public docu9ents. 5ein) public docu9ents, said docu9ents are ad9issible in evidence even "ithout further proof of their due e<ecution and )enuineness and conse(uentl6, there "as no need for the court to re(uire petitioner to present the records custodian or officer fro9 the NSO to testif6 on the9. The OS1 further contends that public docu9ents have probative value since the6 are pri9a facie evidence of the facts stated therein as provided in the above0(uoted provision of the !ivil !ode. Thus, the OS1 sub9its that the public docu9ents presented b6 petitioner, considered to)ether, co9pletel6 establish the facts in issue. In her letter%# dated March %&, -.%3 to this !ourt, private respondent indicated that she is not a)ainst her husband>s petition to have their 9arria)e declared null and void. She li;e"ise ad9itted therein that she contracted 9arria)e "ith *ra9bulo on 7une -., %&&# and contracted a second 9arria)e "ith petitioner on Nove9ber -/, -..-. She further ad9itted that it "as due to povert6 and Hoblessness that she 9arried petitioner "ithout tellin) the latter that she "as previousl6 9arried. Private respondent also confir9ed that it "as "hen she found out that *ra9bulo passed a"a6 on 7ul6 %#, -..& that she had the )uts to confess to petitioner about her previous 9arria)e. Thereafter, she and petitioner have separated. Ae )rant the petition. There is no (uestion that the docu9entar6 evidence sub9itted b6 petitioner are all public docu9ents.1wphi1 *s provided in the !ivil !ode@ *RT. #%.. The boo;s 9a;in) up the civil re)ister and all docu9ents relatin) thereto shall be considered public docu9ents and shall be pri9a facie evidence of the facts therein contained. *s public docu9ents, the6 are ad9issible in evidence even "ithout further proof of their due e<ecution and )enuineness.%$ Thus, the RT! erred "hen it disre)arded said docu9ents on the sole )round that the petitioner did not present the records custodian of the NSO "ho issued the9 to testif6 on their authenticit6 and due e<ecution since proof of authenticit6 and due e<ecution "as not an69ore necessar6. Moreover, not onl6 are said docu9ents ad9issible, the6 deserve to be )iven evidentiar6 "ei)ht because the6 constitute pri9a facie evidence of the facts stated therein. *nd in the instant case, the facts stated therein re9ain unrebutted since neither the private respondent nor the public prosecutor presented evidence to the contrar6. This !ourt has consistentl6 held that a Hudicial declaration of nullit6 is re(uired before a valid subse(uent 9arria)e can be contractedG or else, "hat transpires is a bi)a9ous 9arria)e, %2 "hich is void fro9 the be)innin) as provided in *rticle 3$+#, of the 4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines. *nd this is "hat transpired in the instant case.

*s correctl6 pointed out b6 the OS1, the docu9entar6 e<hibits ta;en to)ether concretel6 establish the nullit6 of the 9arria)e of petitioner to private respondent on the )round that their 9arria)e is bi)a9ous. The e<hibits directl6 prove the follo"in) facts@ +%, that private respondent 9arried *ra9bulo on 7une -., %&&# in the !it6 of ManilaG +-, that private respondent contracted a second 9arria)e this ti9e "ith petitioner on Nove9ber -/, -..- in Pasa6 !it6G +3, that there "as no Hudicial declaration of nullit6 of the 9arria)e of private respondent "ith *ra9bulo at the ti9e she 9arried petitionerG +3, that *ra9bulo died on 7ul6 %#, -..& and that it "as onl6 on said date that private respondent>s 9arria)e "ith *ra9bulo "as dee9ed to have been dissolvedG and +#, that the second 9arria)e of private respondent to petitioner is bi)a9ous, hence null and void, since the first 9arria)e "as still valid and subsistin) "hen the second 9arria)e "as contracted. AH R 4OR , the petition for revie" on certiorari is 1R*NT D. The Septe9ber #, -.%- Decision and October %2, -.%- Order of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 5ranch #3, in !ivil !ase No. %%0%-2-.3 are hereb6 S T *SID . The 9arria)e of petitioner Basuo I"asa"a and private respondent 4elisa !ustodio 1an)an is declared NI== and VOID. The =ocal !ivil Re)istrar of Pasa6 !it6 and the National Statistics Office are hereb6 ORD R D to 9a;e proper entries into the records of the above9entioned parties in accordance "ith this Decision. No pronounce9ent as to costs. SO ORD R D. MART$N S. %$##ARAMA, JR. *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice TERES$TA J. #EONARDO;DE CASTRO *ssociate 7ustice #UCAS P. "ERSAM$N *ssociate 7ustice

"$EN%EN$DO #. REYES *ssociate 7ustice ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the %&/' !onstitution, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt>s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

*lso spelled as L1a?)anL in so9e parts of the records. Rollo, pp. 3/0#.. Penned b6 Presidin) 7ud)e Ro6 1. 1ironella. Id. at #%0#-. Id. at ##. Id. at #$.

Id. Id. at #30#'0*. Id. at $/. Id. at $&. Id. at 2.02%. Id. at 2-. Id. at $-. Id. at %.%0%%%. Id. at &&.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

Salas v. Sta. Mesa Mar;et !orporation, $$# Phil. 3#3, 3#/ +-..',. See also RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule %3-, Secs. -3, -#, -$, -' and 3..
%2

Teves v. People, 1.R. No. %//''$, *u)ust -#, -.%%, 2$2 S!R* 3.', 3%303%#, citin) Re@ !o9plaint of Mrs. !ora:on S. Salvador a)ainst Spouses Noel and *9elia Serafico, *.M. No. -../0-.0S!, March %$, -.%., 2%$ S!R* %/2, %&/0%&&, further citin) Mori)o v. People, #22 Phil. %.%3, %.-# +-..#,G Do9in)o v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %.#/%/, Septe9ber %', %&&3, --2 S!R* $'-G Terre v. Terre, *.!. No. -3#&, 7ul6 3, %&&-, -%% S!R* 2G Aie)el v. Se9pio0 Di6, No. =0$3'.3, *u)ust %&, %&/2, %#3 S!R* #&&G Vda. De !onsue)ra v. 1overn9ent Service Insurance S6ste9, No. =0-/.&3, 7anuar6 3., %&'%, 3' S!R* 3%$G 1o9e: v. =ipana, No. =0 -3-%#, 7une 3., %&'., 33 S!R* 2%$. G.R. No. 1?190*, Au1u)' 0?, 2013 "O""Y TAN, 2etitioner, v. GRACE ANDRADE, PROCESO ANDRADE, JR., C!AR$TY A. SANT$AGO, !ENRY ANDRADE, ANDRE9 ANDRADE, JASM$N "#A A, G#ORY ANDRADE, M$R$AM ROSE ANDRADE, AND JOSEP! ANDRADE, !e#pondent#. G.R. No. 1?201? GRACE ANDRADE, C!AR$TY A. SANT$AGO, !ENRY ANDRADE, ANDRE9 ANDRADE, JASM$N "#A A, M$R$AM ROSE ANDRADE, AND JOSEP! ANDRADE, 2etitioner#, v. "O""Y TAN,!e#pondent. DEC$S$ON PER#AS;"ERNA"E, J.@

5efore the !ourt are consolidated petitions for revie" on certiorari% assailin) the Decision- dated 7ul6 -2, -..$ and Resolution3 dated March 3, -..2 of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. '%&/' "hich affir9ed "ith 9odification the 7ud)9ent # dated *pril 2, -..% of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it6, 5ranch %& +RT!, in !ivil !ase No. ! 5 -.&2&. T-( &a.') Rosario Vda. De *ndrade +Rosario, "as the re)istered o"ner of four parcels of land ;no"n as =ots %', %/, %&, and -.$ situated in !ebu !it6 +subHect properties, "hich she 9ort)a)ed to and subse(uentl6 foreclosed b6 one Si9on2 Diu +Si9on,.' Ahen the rede9ption period "as about to e<pire, Rosario sou)ht the assistance of 5obb6 Tan +5obb6, "ho a)reed to redee9 the subHect properties. /Thereafter, Rosario sold the sa9e to 5obb6 and her son, Proceso *ndrade, 7r. +Proceso, 7r.,, for P%..,...... as evidenced b6

a Deed of *bsolute Sale& dated *pril -&, %&/3 +subHect deed of sale,. On 7ul6 -2, %&/3, Proceso, 7r. e<ecuted a Deed of *ssi)n9ent, %. cedin) unto 5obb6 his ri)hts and interests over the subHect properties in consideration of P$.,....... The Deed of *ssi)n9ent "as si)ned b6, a9on) others, Henr6 *ndrade +Henr6,, one of Rosario>s sons, as instru9ental "itness. Not"ithstandin) the afore9entioned Deed of *ssi)n9ent, 5obb6 e<tended an Option to 5u6%% the subHect properties in favor of Proceso, 7r., )ivin) the latter until '@.. in the evenin) of 7ul6 3%, %&/# to purchase the sa9e for the su9 of P3%.,....... Ahen Proceso, 7r. failed to do so, 5obb6 consolidated his o"nership over the subHect properties, and the T!Ts%- therefor "ere issued in his na9e. On October ', %&&', Rosario>s children, na9el6, 1race, Proceso, 7r., Henr6, *ndre", 1lor6, Miria9 Rose, 7oseph +all surna9ed *ndrade,, 7as9in 5la:a, and !harit6 *. Santia)o +*ndrades,, filed a co9plaint%3 for reconve6ance and annul9ent of deeds of conve6ance and da9a)es a)ainst 5obb6 before the RT!, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. ! 5 -.&2&. In their co9plaint, the6 alle)ed that the transaction bet"een Rosario and 5obb6 +subHect transaction, "as not one of sale but "as actuall6 an e(uitable 9ort)a)e "hich "as entered into to secure Rosario>s indebtedness "ith 5obb6. The6 also clai9ed that since the subHect properties "ere inherited b6 the9 fro9 their father, Proceso *ndrade, Sr. +Proceso, Sr.,, the subHect properties "ere conHu)al in nature, and thus, Rosario had no ri)ht to dispose of their respective shares therein. In this li)ht, the6 ar)ued that the6 re9ained as co0o"ners of the subHect properties to)ether "ith 5obb6, despite the issuance of the T!Ts in his na9e. In his defense, 5obb6 contended that the subHect properties "ere solel6 o"ned b6 Rosario per the T!Ts issued in her na9e%# and that he had validl6 ac(uired the sa9e upon Proceso, 7r.>s failure to e<ercise his option to bu6 bac; the subHect properties.%$ He also interposed the defenses of prescription and laches a)ainst the *ndrades.%2crala" virtuala" librar6 T-( RTC Ru/0n1 On *pril 2, -..%, the RT! rendered a 7ud)9ent %' dis9issin) the *ndrades> co9plaint. It ruled that the subHect transaction "as a bona fide sale and not an e(uitable 9ort)a)e as can be )leaned fro9 its ter9s and conditions, notin) further that the subHect deed of sale "as not even (uestioned b6 the *ndrades at the ti9e of its e<ecution. *s Proceso, 7r. failed to e<ercise his option to bu6 bac; the subHect properties, the titles thereto "ere validl6 consolidated in 5obb6>s favor, resultin) to the issuance of T!Ts in his na9e "hich are dee9ed to be conclusive proof of his o"nership thereto. %/ *s re)ards the nature of the subHect properties, the RT! found that the6 Tappeared to be the e<clusive properties of Rosario.U%& 4inall6, it found that the *ndrades> clai9 over the subHect properties had alread6 prescribed and that lache# had alread6 set in.-.crala" virtuala" librar6 Dissatisfied, the *ndrades elevated the 9atter on appeal. T-( CA Ru/0n1 On 7ul6 -2, -..$, the !* rendered the assailed Decision-% upholdin) in part the RT!>s rulin). It found that the subHect deed of sale "as indeed "hat it purports to be, i.e., a bona fide contract of sale. In this accord, it denied the *ndrades> clai9 that the subHect transaction "as an e(uitable 9ort)a)e since their alle)ation that the purchase price "as unusuall6 lo" "as left unsupported b6 an6 evidence. *lso, their aver9ent that the6 have been in continuous possession of the subHect properties "as belied b6 the testi9on6 of *ndre" *ndrade +*ndre", "ho stated that 5obb6 "as alread6 in possession of the sa9e. --crala" virtuala" librar6 Nevertheless, the !* ruled that the subHect properties belon) to the conHu)al partnership of Rosario and her late husband, Proceso, Sr., and thus, she co0o"ned the sa9e to)ether "ith her children, the *ndrades.-3 In this respect, the sale "as valid onl6 "ith respect to Rosario>s pro0indiviso share in the subHect properties and it cannot preHudice the share of the *ndrades since the6 did not consent to the sale.-# In effect, a resultin) trust "as created bet"een 5obb6 and the *ndrades -$ and, as such, prescription andMor laches has 6et to set in so as to bar the9 fro9 institutin) the instant case. -2*ccordin)l6, the !* ordered 5obb6 to reconve6 to the *ndrades their share in the subHect properties. -'crala" virtuala" librar6 In vie" of the !*>s pronounce9ent, the parties filed their respective 9otions for reconsideration. 4or the *ndrades> part, the6 sou)ht the reconsideration of the !*>s findin) as to its characteri:ation of the subHect transaction as one of sale, insistin) that it is actuall6 an e(uitable 9ort)a)e. -/ *s for 5obb6>s part,

he 9aintained that the sale should have covered the entiret6 of the subHect properties and not onl6 Rosario>s pro0indiviso share.-& 5oth 9otions for reconsideration "ere, ho"ever, denied b6 the !* in a Resolution3. dated March 3, -..2. Hence, the present consolidated petitions. $))u() "(2or( '-( Cour' The present controvers6 revolves around the !*>s characteri:ation of the subHect properties as "ell as of the subHect transaction bet"een Rosario and 5obb6. In 1.R. No. %'-.%', the *ndrades sub9it that the !* erred in rulin) that the subHect transaction is in the nature of a sale, "hile in 1.R. No. %'%&.#, 5obb6 contends that the !* erred in rulin) that the subHect properties are conHu)al in nature. T-( Cour'A) Ru/0n1 A. Characterization of the subject transaction. Settled is the rule that "hen the trial court8s factual findin)s have been affir9ed b6 the !*, said findin)s are )enerall6 conclusive and bindin) upon the !ourt, and 9a6 no lon)er be revie"ed on Rule #$ petitions.3% Ahile there e<ists e<ceptions to this rule K such as "hen the !*>s and RT!>s findin)s are in conflict "ith each other3- K the !ourt observes that none applies "ith respect to the rulin) that the subHect transaction "as one of sale and not an e(uitable 9ort)a)e. Records readil6 reveal that both the RT! and the !* observed that there is no clear and convincin) evidence to sho" that the parties a)reed upon a 9ort)a)e. Hence, absent an6 )larin) error therein or an6 other co9pellin) reason to hold other"ise, this findin) should no" be dee9ed as conclusive and perforce 9ust stand. *s echoed in the case of Ampo v. CA@33crala" virtuala" librar6 < < < 4actual findin)s of the !ourt of *ppeals are conclusive on the parties and not revie"able b6 this !ourt K and the6 carr6 even 9ore "ei)ht "hen the !ourt of *ppeals affir9s the factual findin)s of the trial court, and in the absence of an6 sho"in) that the findin)s co9plained of are totall6 devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that the6 are so )larin)l6 erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findin)s 9ust stand.3#crala" virtuala" librar6 !onse(uentl6, the *ndrades> petition in G.R. No. 1?201? 9ust therefore be denied. B. Characterization of the subject properties. Aith respect to the nature of the subHect properties, the courts a 3uo "ere at variance such that the RT!, on the one hand, ruled that the said properties "ere e<clusive properties of Rosario, 3$ "hile the !*, on the other hand, pronounced that the6 are conHu)al in nature. 32 In this re)ard, the conse(uent course of action "ould be for the !ourt to conduct a re0e<a9ination of the evidence if onl6 to deter9ine "hich a9on) the t"o is correct, 3' as an e<ception to the proscription in Rule #$ petitions. Pertinent to the resolution of this second issue is *rticle %2. of the !ivil !ode 3/ "hich states that TCaDll propert6 of the 9arria)e is presu9ed to belon) to the conHu)al partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains e<clusivel6 to the husband or to the "ife.U 4or this presu9ption to appl6, the part6 invo;in) the sa9e 9ust, ho"ever, preli9inaril6 prove that the propert6 "as indeed ac(uired durin) the 9arria)e. *s held in 0o v. 4amane@3&crala" virtuala" librar6 < < < *s a condition #ine 3ua non for the operation of C*rticle %2.D in favor of the conHu)al partnership, the part6 "ho invo;es the presu9ption 9ust first prove that the propert6 "as ac(uired durin) the 9arria)e. In other "ords, the presu9ption in favor of conHu)alit6 does not operate if there is no sho"in) of when the propert6 alle)ed to be conHu)al "as ac(uired. Moreover, the presu9ption 9a6 be rebutted onl6 "ith stron), clear, cate)orical and convincin) evidence. There 9ust be strict proof of the e<clusive o"nership of one of the spouses, and the burden of proof rests upon the part6 assertin) it. #. +!itations o9itted, !orollaril6, as decreed in Valdez v. CA,#% the presu9ption under *rticle %2. cannot be 9ade to appl6 "here there is no sho"in) as to "hen the propert6 alle)ed to be conHu)al "as ac(uired@ < < < The issuance of the title in the na9e solel6 of one spouse is not deter9inative of the conHu)al nature of the propert6, since there is no sho"in) that it "as ac(uired durin) the 9arria)e of the Spouses !arlos Valde:, Sr. and 7osefina =. Valde:. The presu9ption under *rticle %2. of the Ne" !ivil !ode, that

propert6 ac(uired durin) 9arria)e is conHu)al, does not appl6 "here there is no sho"in) as to "hen the propert6 alle)ed to be conHu)al "as ac(uired. The presu9ption cannot prevail "hen the title is in the na9e of onl6 one spouse and the ri)hts of innocent third parties are involved. Moreover, "hen the propert6 is re)istered in the na9e of onl6 one spouse and there is no sho"in) as to "hen the propert6 "as ac(uired b6 sa9e spouse, this is an indication that the propert6 belon)s e<clusivel6 to the said spouse. In this case, there is no evidence to indicate "hen the propert6 "as ac(uired b6 petitioner 7osefina. Thus, "e a)ree "ith petitioner 7osefina>s declaration in the deed of absolute sale she e<ecuted in favor of the respondent that she "as the absolute and sole o"ner of the propert6. < < <. #-crala" virtuala" librar6 In this case, records reveal that the conHu)al partnership of Rosario and her husband "as ter9inated upon the latter>s death on *u)ust ', %&'/#3 "hile the transfer certificates of title over the subHect properties "ere issued on Septe9ber -/, %&'& and solel6 in the na9e of TRosario Vda. de *ndrade, of le)al a)e, "ido", 4ilipino.U## Other than their bare alle)ation, no evidence "as adduced b6 the *ndrades to establish that the subHect properties "ere procured durin) the coverture of their parents or that the sa9e "ere bou)ht "ith conHu)al funds. Moreover, Rosario>s declaration that she is the absolute o"ner of the disputed parcels of land in the subHect deed of sale #$ "as not disputed b6 her son Proceso, 7r., "ho "as a part6 to the sa9e. Hence, b6 virtue of these incidents, the !ourt upholds the RT!>s findin) #2 that the subHect properties "ere e<clusive or sole properties of Rosario. 5esides, the !ourt observes that lache# had alread6 set in, thereb6 precludin) the *ndrades fro9 pursuin) their clai9. !ase la" defines lache# as the Tfailure to assert a ri)ht for an unreasonable and une<plained len)th of ti9e, "arrantin) a presu9ption that the part6 entitled to assert it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.U#'crala" virtuala" librar6 Records disclose that the *ndrades too; %# 6ears before filin) their co9plaint for reconve6ance in %&&'. The ar)u9ent that the6 did not ;no" about the subHect transaction is clearl6 belied b6 the facts on record. It is undisputed that Proceso, 7r. "as a co0vendee in the subHect deed of sale, #/ "hile Henr6 "as an instru9ental "itness to the Deed of *ssi)n9ent #& and Option to 5u6$. both dated 7ul6 -2, %&/3. =i;e"ise, Rosario>s sons, Proceso, 7r. and *ndre", did not (uestion the e<ecution of the subHect deed of sale 9ade b6 their 9other to 5obb6. $% These incidents can but onl6 lead to the conclusion that the6 "ere "ell0a"are of the subHect transaction and 6et onl6 pursued their clai9 %# 6ears after the sale "as e<ecuted. Due to the above0stated reasons, 5obb6>s petition in G.R. No. 1?190* is hereb6 )ranted. 9!ERE&ORE, the !ourt hereb6 +a, GRANTS the petition of 5obb6 Tan in 1.R. No. %'%&.#G and +b,DEN$ES the petition of 1race *ndrade, !harit6 *. Santia)o, Henr6 *ndrade, *ndre" *ndrade, 7as9in 5la:a, Miria9 Rose *ndrade, and 7oseph *ndrade in 1.R. No. %'-.%'. *ccordin)l6, the Decision dated 7ul6 -2, -..$ and Resolution dated March 3, -..2 of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. '%&/' are hereb6 RE%ERSED and SET AS$DE, and the *pril 2, -..% Decision of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it6, 5ranch %& in !ivil !ase No. ! 5 -.&2& is RE$NSTATED. SO ORDERED. Carpio% 5Chairper#on6% Brion% Del Ca#tillo, and 2erez% ((., concur. Endnotes@
%

!ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. %#0-&G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. &0-'.

!ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. 2/0'/G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. 3%0#%. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice *rsenio 7. Ma)pale, "ith *ssociate 7ustices Sesinando . Villon and nrico *. =an:anas, concurrin).
3

!ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. %3.0%3%G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. #.0#%. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice *rsenio 7. Ma)pale, "ith *ssociate 7ustices nrico *. =an:anas and *polinario D. 5ruselas, 7r., concurrin).
#

!ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. $&023G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. $&023. Penned b6 7ud)e Ra9on 1. !odilla, 7r.
$

Records, pp. /30&/. !overed b6 Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, Nos. '$'$2, '$'$$, '$'$/, and '$'$', respectivel6.

TSi9eonU in the !* Decision. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 2.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, p. 2.. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. 2&0'.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. 3-033.nadcrala"librar6 !ollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. 2#02'.redcrala" Id. at 2/0'%. Id. at '-0'$. The Option to 5u6 "as also si)ned b6, a9on) others, Henr6, as instru9ental "itness. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. #%0#/. T!T Nos. //#./, //#.&, //#%., and //#%%. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. 3.0#.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. #-0$-. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. $-G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. $3. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. $#0$$G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. $$0$2. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. $$G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. $2. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. $&023G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. $&023. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. 2-023G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. 2-023. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 2.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 2.. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 23G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 23. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. 2/0'/G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. 3%0#%. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. '%0'#G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. 3#03'. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. '#G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 3'. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. '$G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 3/.red crala"librar6 !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. '2G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 3&. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. '20''G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. 3&0#.. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. '/G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. #%. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. &%0%.#. Id. at '&0&.. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, pp. %3.0%3%G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', pp. #%a0#%b. -edalla v. *a/a, 1.R. No. %&332-, 7anuar6 %/, -.%-, 223 S!R* #2%, #2$.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

See 1.4. Indu#trial +ale#% Inc. v. +hen Dar 1lectricity and -achinery Co.% *td. , 1.R. No. %/#/$., October -., -.%., 23# S!R* 323, 3'#03'$.
33

1.R. No. %2&.&%, 4ebruar6 %2, -..2, #/- S!R* $23. Id. at $'.. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 2.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, p. 2..

3#

3$

32

!ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. '#G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, p. 3'.crala"

3'

TIt is a settled rule that in the e<ercise of the Supre9e !ourt>s po"er of revie", the !ourt is not a trier of facts and does not nor9all6 underta;e the re0e<a9ination of the evidence presented b6 the contendin) parties durin) the trial of the case considerin) that the findin)s of facts of the !* are conclusive and bindin) on the !ourt. Ho"ever, the !ourt had reco)ni:ed several e<ceptions to this rule, to "it@ < < < +$, "hen the findin)s of facts are conflictin)G < < < +', "hen the findin)s are contrar6 to the trial courtG < < <.U +Insular =ife *ssurance !o9pan6, =td. v. !*, 1.R. No. %-2/$., *pril -/, -..#, #-/ S!R* '&, /$0 /2.,
3/

This is the la" "hich applies to the present case since the incidents in this case disclose that the 9arria)e bet"een Rosario and Proceso, Sr. "as entered into before the effectivit6 of <ecutive Order No. -.&, other"ise ;no"n as the T4a9il6 !ode of the Philippines.U
3&

1.R. No. %2.'2-, Ma6 3, -..2, #/& S!R* %.'. Id. at %%20%%'. 1.R. No. %#.'%$, Septe9ber -#, -..#, #3& S!R* $$. Id. at '%. TSN, 4ebruar6 %, -..., p. '. Records, pp. /3, /', &% and &$. !ollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, pp. 2#02'. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 2.G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 2.. Vda. de !i"onan v. Derecho, 1.R. No. %$&$'%, 7ul6 %$, -..$, #23 S!R* 2-', 2#/. !ollo +1.R. No. %'-.%',, p. 22. Id. at '.. Id. at '#. !ollo +1.R. No. %'%&.#,, p. 2-G rollo +1.R. No. %'-.%', p. 2-. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 4IRST DIVISION

#.

#%

#-

#3

##

#$

#2

#'

#/

#&

$.

$%

G.R. No. 180269

&(8ruary 20, 2013

JOSE . CAS$#ANG, SR., )u8)'0'u'(3 8y -0) -(0r), na<(/y@ &E#$C$DAD CUD /AMA T %DA. DE CAS$#ANG, JOSE C. CAS$#ANG, JR., R$CARDO C. CAS$#ANG, MAR$A #OURDES C. CAS$#ANG, C!R$STOP!ER C. CAS$#ANG, "EN C. CAS$#ANG, DANTE C. CAS$#ANG, GREGOR$O C. CAS$#ANG, !ERA#D C. CAS$#ANGB an3 &E#$C$DAD . CAS$#ANG, MARCE#$NA . CAS$#ANG, JAC$NTA . CAS$#ANG, "ON$&AC$O . CAS$#ANG, #EONORA . CAS$#ANG, an3 &#ORA . CAS$#ANG, Petitioners, vs. ROSAR$O . CAS$#ANG;D$ ON, MAR$O A. CAS$#ANG, ANGE#O A. CAS$#ANG, RODO#&O A. CAS$#ANG, an3 ATTY. A#$C$A ". &A"$A, 0n -(r .a6a.0'y a) C/(r4 o2 Cour' an3 EC;O220.0o S-(r022 o2 Pan1a)0nan an3Dor -(r 3u/y au'-or0:(3 r(6r()(n'a'05(, Respondents. D !ISION

REYES, J.: 5efore us is a petition for revie" of the Decision % dated 7ul6 %&, -..' of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. '&2%&, "hich reversed and set aside the Decision - dated *pril -%, -..3 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Da)upan !it6, 5ranch #%, in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D. An'(.(3(n' &a.') The late spouses =iborio !asilan) +=iborio, and 4rancisca Eacarias +4rancisca, had ei)ht +/, children, na9el6@ 4elicidad !asilan) +4elicidad,, Ireneo !asilan) +Ireneo,, Marcelina !asilan) +Marcelina,, 7acinta !asilan) +7acinta,, 5onifacio !asilan) +5onifacio,, =eonora !asilan) +=eonora,, 7ose !asilan) +7ose, and 4lora !asilan) +4lora,. =iborio died intestate on October %%, %&/- at the a)e of /3, follo"ed not lon) after b6 his "ife 4rancisca on Dece9ber -$, %&/-. Their son 5onifacio also died in %&/2, survived b6 his child 5ernabe !asilan) +5ernabe,, "hile son Ireneo died on 7une %%, %&&-, survived b6 his four +#, children, na9el6@ Mario !asilan) +Mario,, *n)elo !asilan) +*n)elo,, Rosario !asilan)0Di:on +Rosario, and Rodolfo !asilan) +Rodolfo,, herein respondents. The estate of =iborio, "hich left no debts, consisted of three +3, parcels of land located in Baran"ay Talibae", !alasiao, Pan)asinan, na9el6@ +%, =ot No. #2'2, "ith an area of #,%2# s(uare 9etersG +-, =ot No. #'.#, containin) %,%2# s( 9G and +3, =ot No. #2%/, "ith /&' s( 9. On Ma6 -2, %&&', respondent Rosario filed "ith the Municipal Trial !ourt +MT!, of !alasiao, Pan)asinan a co9plaint for unla"ful detainer, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. /#', to evict her uncle, petitioner 7ose fro9 =ot No. #2%/. Rosario clai9ed that =ot No. #2%/ "as o"ned b6 her father Ireneo, as evidenced b6 Ta< Declaration +TD, No. $$$ issued in %&&# under her father>s na9e. On *pril 3, %&&', the respondents e<ecuted a Deed of 1/tra.udicial 2artition with Fuitclai93 "hereb6 the6 adHudicated =ot No. #2%/ to the9selves. In the sa9e instru9ent, respondents Mario, *n)elo and Rodolfo renounced their respective shares in =ot No. #2%/ in favor of Rosario. In his *ns"er, 7ose raised the defense that he "as the Lla"ful, absolute, e<clusive o"ner and in actual possessionL of the said lot, and that he ac(uired the sa9e Lthrou)h intestate succession fro9 his late father.L# 4or so9e reason, ho"ever, he and his la"6er, "ho "as fro9 the Public *ttorne6>s Office, failed to appear at the scheduled pre0trial conference, and 7ose "as declared in defaultG thus, the adverse Hud)9ent a)ainst hi9.$ On 4ebruar6 %/, %&&/, the MT! rendered Hud)9ent findin) Rosario to be the o"ner of =ot No. #2%/, and orderin) 7ose to re9ove his house, vacate =ot No. #2%/, and pa6 Rosario P$..... in 9onthl6 rentals fro9 the filin) of the co9plaint until she "as placed in possession, plus attorne6>s fees of P$,......, liti)ation e<penses and costs. On March -3, %&&/, the MT! issued a "rit of e<ecutionG and on *u)ust -/, %&&/, a Arit of De9olition2 "as issued. On 7une -, %&&/, the petitioners, countin) ' of the / children of =iborio and 4rancisca, ' filed "ith the RT! of Da)upan !it6 a !o9plaint,/ doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D for L*nnul9ent of Docu9ents, O"nership and Peaceful Possession "ith Da9a)esL a)ainst the respondents. On 7une %., %&&/, the petitioners 9oved for the issuance of a "rit of preli9inar6 inHunction or te9porar6 restrainin) order, "hich the RT! ho"ever denied on 7une -3, %&&/. *9on) the docu9ents sou)ht to be annulled "as the %&&' Deed of <traHudicial Partition e<ecuted b6 Ireneo>s children over =ot No. #2%/, as "ell as TD No. $$$, and b6 necessar6 i9plication its derivatives, TD No. %$%'' +for the lot, and TD No. %$%'2 +for the house,, both of "hich "ere issued in %&&/ in the na9e of Rosario !asilan)0Di:on.& The petitioners alle)ed in their co9plaint that all ei)ht +/, children of =iborio entered into a verbal partition of his estate, pursuant to "hich 7ose "as allotted =ot No. #2%/ as his shareG that Ireneo never clai9ed o"nership of =ot No. #2%/, nor too; possession of it, because his share "as the south"estern %M$ portion of =ot No. #2'2, containin) an area of %,3./ s( 9, %. of "hich he too; e<clusive possession durin) his lifeti9eG that 7ose has al"a6s resided in =ot No. #2%/ since childhood, "here he built his fa9il6>s se9i0concrete house Hust a fe" steps a"a6 fro9 his parents> old ba9boo hutG that he too; in and cared for his a)ed parents in his house until their deaths in %&/-G that one of his children has also built a house on the lot.%% 7ose, said to be the 9ost educated of the !asilan) siblin)s, "or;ed as an insurance a)ent. %- The co9plete disposition of the intestate estate of =iborio per the parties> verbal partition appears as follo"s@

%. =ot No. #2'2, "ith #,%2# s( 9, declared under TD No. $3# in =iborio>s na9e, %3 "as verball6 partitioned a9on) Marcelina +-32 s( 9,, =eonora +%,&2$ s( 9,, 4lora +2$$ s( 9,, and Ireneo, represented b6 his children, the herein respondents0defendants +%,3./ s( 9,, as sho"n in a Deed of 1/tra.udicial 2artition with 7uitclaim dated 7anuar6 /, %&&/, subse(uentl6 e<ecuted b6 all the !asilan) siblin)s and their representatives. -. =ot No. #'.#, "ith %,%2# s( 9, declared under TD No. -'2 in =iborio>s na9e, %# "as divided a9on) 7acinta and 5onifacio, "ho died in %&/2 and is no" represented b6 his son 5ernabeG and 3. =ot No. #2%/, containin) /&' s( 9, declared since %&&# under TD No. $$$ in Ireneo>s na9e,%$ is no" the subHect of the controvers6 belo". 7ose insists that he succeeded to it per verbal partition, and that he and his fa9il6 have al"a6s occupied the sa9e peacefull6, adversel6 and e<clusivel6 even "hile their parents "ere alive. %2 4or her part, Rosario alle)ed in her ans"er "ith counterclai9, %' "hich she filed on Septe9ber %$, %&&/, that@ a, She is the actual and la"ful o"ner of =ot No. #2%/ "ith an area of /&' s(uare 9eters, havin) ac(uired the sa9e b6 "a6 of a Deed of <tra Hudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 dated 3 *pril %&&' "hich "as dul6 e<ecuted a9on) herein *ppellant ROS*RIO and her brothers, na9el6, M*RIO, *N1 =O and RODO=4O, all surna9ed !*SI=*N1G b, Her o"nership over subHect propert6 could be traced bac; to her late father IRC DN O "hich the latter inherited b6 "a6 of intestate succession fro9 his deceased father =I5ORIO so9eti9e in %&&-G that the residential house described in herein *ppellee 7OS >s co9plaint is an ille)al structure built b6 hi9 in %&&' "ithout her +ROS*RIO>s, ;no"led)e and consentG that in fact, an eHect9ent suit "as filed a)ainst *ppellee 7OS "ith the Municipal Trial !ourt in !alasiao, Pan)asinan in !ivil !ase No. /#'G c, The subHect lot is never a portion of *ppellee 7OS >s share fro9 the intestate of his deceased father, =I5ORIOG that on the contrar6, the lot is his deceased brother IRC DN O>s share fro9 the late =I5ORIO>s intestate estateG that in fact, the propert6 has lon) been declared in the na9e of the late IR N O as sho"n b6 Ta< Declaration No. $$$ lon) before his children ROS*RIO DIEON, M*RIO, *N1 =O and RODO=4O, all surna9ed !*SI=*N1, e<ecuted the Deed of Partition dated %/ 4ebruar6 %&&/G that *ppellee 7OS had actuall6 consu9ed his shares "hich he inherited fro9 his late father, and after a series of sales and dispositions of the sa9e 9ade b6 hi9, he no" "ants to ta;e *ppellants> propert6G d, *ppellee 7OS is never the ri)htful o"ner of the lot in (uestion and has not sho"n an6 convincin) proof of his supposed o"nershipG that the i9prove9ents introduced b6 hi9, specificall6 the structures he cited are the subHect of a Arit of De9olition dated -/ *u)ust %&&/ pursuant to the Order dated %' *u)ust %&&/ of the MT! of !alasiao, Pan)asinanG e, No protestation or obHection "as ever 9ade b6 *ppellee 7OS in !ivil !ase No. /#' +8nlawful Detainercase, "here he "as the defendantG that the truth "as that his possession of the subHect propert6 "as upon the tolerance and benevolence of his late brother IR N O durin) the latter>s lifeti9e and that *ppellant ROS*RIOG f, The RT! !ler; of !ourt and <0officio Provincial Sheriff "ould Hust be doin) her Hob if she and her deputies "ould i9ple9ent the "rit of e<ecutionMde9olition issued b6 the MT! of !alasiao, Pan)asinan since it is its 9inisterial dut6 to do soG ), The *ppellees have no cause of actionG not havin) sho"n in their co9plaint the basis, the reason and the ver6 core of their clai9 as to "h6 the (uestioned docu9ent should be nullified.%/ +!itation o9itted, In their repl6%& to Rosario>s aforesaid ans"er, the petitioners asserted that the MT! co99itted a )rave error in failin) to consider a 9aterial fact0that 7ose had lon) been in prior possession under a clai9 of title "hich he obtained b6 partition.

*t the pre0trial conference in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D, the parties entered into the follo"in) stipulations@ %. That the late =I5ORIO is the father of 4 =I!ID*D, M*R! =IN*, 7I*NIT*, = ONOR*, 4=OR* and IR N O, all surna9ed !*SI=*N1G -. That the late =I5ORIO died in %&/-G That the late =I5ORIO and his fa9il6 resided on =ot CNo.D #2%/ up to his death in %&/-G That the house of the late =I5ORIO is located on =ot CNo.D #2%/G 3. That Plaintiff 7OS used to reside on the lot in (uestion because there "as a case for eHect9ent filed a)ainst hi9G #. That the house "hich "as de9olished is the fa9il6 house of the late =I5ORIO and 4R*N!IS!* E*!*RI*S "ith the (ualification that it "as )iven to the defendantsG $. That the action involves 9e9bers of the sa9e fa9il6G and 2. That no earnest efforts "ere 9ade prior to the institution of the case in court. -. Ru/0n1 o2 '-( RTC *fter a full trial on the 9erits, the RT! in its Decision -% dated *pril -%, -..3 decreed as follo"s@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and a)ainst the defendants as follo"s@ %. Declarin) the Deed of <traHudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 dated *pril 3, %&&' null and voidG -. Declarin) plaintiff 7ose E. !asilan) Sr. as the la"ful o"ner and possessor of the subHect =ot No. #2%/ and as such, entitled to the peaceful possession of the sa9eG 3. Orderin) the defendants to pa6 to plaintiff 7ose E. !asilan) Sr. attorne6>s fees in the a9ount ofP-.,...... and liti)ation e<penses in the a9ount of P$,......, and to pa6 the costs of suit. SO ORD R D.-The RT! affir9ed 7ose>s o"nership and possession of =ot No. #2%/ b6 virtue of the oral partition of the estate of =iborio b6 all the siblin)s. In the Deed of 1/tra.udicial 2artition with 7uitclaim-3 dated 7anuar6 /, %&&/, subse(uentl6 e<ecuted b6 all the ei)ht +/, !asilan) siblin)s and their le)al representativesV"ith Ireneo represented b6 his four +#, children, and 5onifacio b6 his son 5ernabeVpetitioners 7ose, 4elicidad, 7acinta and 5ernabe, ac;no"led)ed that the6 had T already received their re#pective #hare# of inheritance in advance,L-# and therefore, r(noun.(3 their clai9s over =ot No. #2'2 in favor of co0heirs Marcelina, =eonora, 4lora and Ireneo, as follo"s@ Ae hereb6 R NOIN! D, A*IV D *ND FIIT!=*IM, all our ri)hts, interests and participations over the AHO= parcel of land C=ot No. #2'2D, left b6 the late, =I5ORIO !*SI=*N1, in favor of our coheirs, na9el6@ M*R! =IN* E. !*SI=*N10P*R*BNO, = ONOR* E. !*SI=*N10S*RMI NTO, 4=OR* E. !*SI=*N1, M*RIO *. !*SI=*N1, *N1 =O *. !*SI=*N1, ROS*RIO *. !*SI=*N1DIEON *ND RODO=4O *. !*SI=*N1.-$ Thus, 7ose e<pressl6 renounced his share in =ot No. #2'2, "hich has an area of #,%2# s( 9, because he had alread6 received in advance his share in his father>s estate, =ot No. #2%/ "ith /&' s( 9@ To the 9ind of the court, 7ose !asilan) could have not CsicD renounced and "aived his ri)hts and interests over =ot CNo.D #2'2 if he believes that =ot CNo.D #2%/ is not his, "hile the other lot, =ot CNo.D #'.C#D, "as divided bet"een sister 7acinta !asilan) and brother 5onifacio !asilan)C,D Sr., "ho "as represented b6 his son. In the sa9e C"a6D as testified to b6 plaintiffs 4elicidad !asilan) and 7acinta !asilan), the6 si)ned the Deed of <traHudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 "herein the6 "aived and renounced their ri)hts

and interests over =ot CNo.D #2'2 because the6 have alread6 received their share, "hich is =ot CNo.D #'.C#D.-2 The RT! found baseless the clai9 of Rosario that =ot No. #2%/ "as an inheritance of her father Ireneo considerin) that a ta< declaration is not conclusive proof of o"nership. The RT! even noted that the ta< declaration of Ireneo started onl6 in %&&#, althou)h he had been dead since %&&-. LSuch bein) the case, the heirs of IrCeDneo !asilan) has CsicD no basis in adHudicatin) unto the9selves =ot No. #2%/ and partitionin) the sa9e b6 e<ecutin) the Deed of <traHudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9.L -' A66(a/ 'o '-( CA Indeterred, Rosario appealed to the !* averrin) that@ +%, the lo"er court erred in declarin) the Deed of <traHudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 dated *pril 3, %&&' as null and voidG and +-, the lo"er court erred in declarin) 7ose as the la"ful o"ner and possessor of the subHect =ot No. #2%/. -/ In the no" assailed decision, the !* reversed the RT! b6 rel6in) 9ainl6 on the factual findin)s and conclusions of the MT! in !ivil !ase No. /#', viz@ Per the records, the above described propert6 "as subHect of !ivil !ase No. /#' decided b6 the MT! of !alasiao, 4irst 7udicial Re)ion, Province of Pan)asinan "hich rendered a Hud)9ent, #upra, in favor of *ppellant ROS*RIO orderin) herein *ppellee 7OS and all persons clai9in) ri)hts under hi9 to vacate the land of *ppellant ROS*RIO. It "as found b6 the MT! that the latter is the o7n(r of the subHect parcel of land located at Talibae", !alasiao, Pan)asinanG that the for9er o"ner of the land is the late IR N O +"ho died on %% 7une %&&-,, father of *ppellant ROS*RIOG that <tra 7udicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 "as e<ecuted b6 and a9on) the heirs of the late IR N OG that M*IRO CsicD, *N1 =O and RODO=4O, all surna9ed !*SI=*N1 "aived and (uitclai9ed their respective shares over the subHect propert6 in favor of *ppellant ROS*RIOG that *ppellee 7OS "as allo"ed b6 the late IR N O durin) his lifeti9e to occup6 a portion of the land "ithout a contract of lease and no rentals bein) paid b6 the for9erG that *ppellant ROS*RIO allo"ed *ppellee 7OS to continue occup6in) the land after the <tra 7udicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 "as e<ecuted.-& Moreover, notin) that the decision in !ivil !ase No. /#' in favor of Rosario "as issued on 4ebruar6 %/, %&&/ "hile the petitioners> co9plaint in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D "as filed on 7une -, %&&/, the !* concluded that the latter case "as a 9ere afterthou)ht@ If the latter has reall6 a stron) and valid reason to (uestion the validit6 of the Deed of <tra 7udicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9, #upra, he could have done it soon after the said Deed "as e<ecuted on 3 *pril %&&'. Ho"ever, curiousl6 enou)h, it "as onl6 "hen the MT! ordered his eviction fro9 the subHect propert6 that he decided to file the instant case a)ainst the *ppellants. 3. P('0'0on 2or R(50(7 0n '-( Su6r(<( Cour' No" in this petition for revie" on certiorari, petitioners 9aintain that@ IN IPHO=DIN1 TH = 1*=ITB CO4D TH D D O4 RTR*7IDI!I*= P*RTITION *ND FIIT!=*IM D*T D *PRI= 3, %&&', TH HONOR*5= !OIRT O4 *PP *=S 1ROSS=B VIO=*T D TH SI5ST*NTIV RI1HT O4 7OS E. !*SI=*N1, SR. *S DIR !T !OMPI=SORB H IR.3% Our Ru/0n1 an3 D0).u))0on) There is 9erit in the petition. $n2(r0or .our') ar( (<6o7(r(3 'o ru/( on '-( Eu()'0on o2 o7n(r)-06 ra0)(3 8y '-( 3(2(n3an' 0n an (F(.'<(n' )u0', 8u' on/y 'o r()o/5( '-( 0))u( o2 6o))())0onB 0') 3('(r<0na'0on 0) no' .on./u)05( on '-( 0))u( o2 o7n(r)-06. It is "ell to be re9inded of the settled distinction bet"een a su99ar6 action of eHect9ent and a plenar6 action for recover6 of possession andMor o"nership of the land. Ahat reall6 distin)uishes an action for unla"ful detainer fro9 a possessor6 action +accion publiciana, and fro9 a reinvindicator6 action +accion reinvindicatoria, is that the first is li9ited to the (uestion of po##e##ion de facto. Inla"ful detainer suits

+accion interdictal, to)ether "ith forcible entr6 are the t"o for9s of eHect9ent suit that 9a6 be filed to recover possession of real propert6. *side fro9 the su99ar6 action of eHect9ent, accion publiciana or the plenar6 action to recover the ri)ht of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover o"nership "hich also includes recover6 of possession, 9a;e up the three ;inds of actions to Hudiciall6 recover possession.3Inder Section 3 of Rule '. of the Rules of !ourt, the Su99ar6 Procedure )overns the t"o for9s of eHect9ent suit, the purpose bein) to provide an e<peditious 9eans of protectin) actual possession or ri)ht to possession of the propert6. The6 are not processes to deter9ine the actual title to an estate. If at all, inferior courts are e9po"ered to rule on the (uestion of o"nership raised b6 the defendant in such suits, onl6 to resolve the issue of possession and its deter9ination on the o"nership issue is not conclusive. 33 *s thus provided in Section %2 of Rule '.@ Sec. %2. !e#olvin" defen#e of owner#hip.VAhen the defendant raises the defense of o"nership in his pleadin)s and the (uestion of possession cannot be resolved "ithout decidin) the issue of o"nership, the issue of o"nership shall be resolved onl6 to deter9ine the issue of possession. It is apropos, then, to note that in contrast to !ivil !ase No. /#', "hich is an eHect9ent case, !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D is for L*nnul9ent of Docu9ents, O"nership and Peaceful PossessionGL it is an accion reinvindicatoria, or action to recover o"nership, "hich necessaril6 includes recover6 of possession 3# as an incident thereof. 7ose asserts his o"nership over =ot No. #2%/ under a partition a)ree9ent "ith his co0 heirs, and see;s to invalidate Ireneo>s Lclai9L over =ot No. #2%/ and to declare TD No. $$$ void, and conse(uentl6, to annul the Deed of <traHudicial Partition and Fuitclai9 e<ecuted b6 Ireneo>s heirs. $' 0) 0<6(ra'05( 'o r(50(7 '-( CAA) 2a.'ua/ .on./u)0on) )0n.( '-(y ar( (n'0r(/y .on'rary 'o '-o)( o2 '-( RTC, '-(y -a5( no .0'a'0on o2 )6(.020. )u66or'0n1 (503(n.(, an3 ar( 6r(<0)(3 on '-( )u66o)(3 a8)(n.( o2 (503(n.(, 6ar'0.u/ar/y on '-( 6ar'0()A 5(r8a/ 6ar'0'0on, 8u' ar( 30r(.'/y .on'ra30.'(3 8y '-( (503(n.( on r(.or3. It 9ust be noted that the factual findin)s of the MT!, "hich the !* adopted "ithout (uestion, "ere obtained throu)h Su99ar6 Procedure and "ere based solel6 on the co9plaint and affidavits of Rosario, after 7ose had been declared in default. 5ut since a full trial "as had in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D, the !* should have pointed out the specific errors and "ea;nesses in the RT!>s factual conclusions before it could rule that 7ose "as unable to present Lan6 evidentiar6 supportL to establish his title, and that his continued possession of =ot No. #2%/ "as b6 9ere tolerance of Rosario. *t 9ost, ho"ever, the !* onl6 opined that it "as conHectural for the RT! to conclude, that 7ose had alread6 received his inheritance "hen he renounced his share in =ot No. #2'2. It then ruled that the RT! erred in not considerin) the findin)s of the MT! in !ivil !ase No. /#'0that 7ose>s possession over subHect propert6 "as b6 9ere tolerance. Said the appellate court@ 1iven the clai9 of the *ppellee that =ot CNo.D #2%/ "as ora//y )ivenMassi)ned to hi9 b6 his deceased father =I5ORIO, or that his clai9 "as corroborated b6 his sisters +his co0plaintiffs0*ppellees,, or that their clai9 is indubitabl6 tied up "ith the Deed of <traHudicial Partition "ith Fuitclai9 over =ot No. #2'2, still Ae cannot full6 a)ree "ith the pronounce9ent of the court a 3uo that *ppellee 7OS could not have renounced and "aived his ri)hts and interest over =ot CNo.D #2'2 if he believes that =ot CNo.D #2%/ is not his. Aantin) an6 evidentiar6 support, Ae find this stance as conHectural bein) unsubstantiated b6 la" or convincin) evidence. *t the 9ost and ta;in) the factual or le)al circu9stances as sho"n b6 the records, Ae hold that the court a 3uo erred in not considerin) the findin)s of the MT! in !ivil !ase No. /#' rulin) that herein *ppellee 7OS >s possession over subHect propert6 "as b6 9ere tolerance. 5ased as it is on 9ere tolerance, *ppellee 7OS >s possession therefore could not, in an6 "a6, ripen into o"nership.3$ +!itations o9itted, 56 rel6in) solel6 on the MT!>s findin)s, the !* co9pletel6 i)nored the testi9onial, docu9entar6 and circu9stantial evidence of the petitioners, obtained b6 the RT! after a full trial on the 9erits. More i9portantl6, the !* did not point to an6 evidence of Rosario that Ireneo had inherited =ot No. #2%/ fro9 =iborio. *ll it did "as adopt the findin)s of the MT!. The Supre9e !ourt is not a trier of facts, and unless the case falls under an6 of the "ell0defined e<ceptions, the Supre9e !ourt "ill not delve once 9ore into the findin)s of facts. In +p#. +ta. -aria v. CA%32 this !ourt stated@

Settled is the rule that the Hurisdiction of this !ourt in cases brou)ht before it fro9 the !ourt of *ppeals via Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt is li9ited to revie"in) errors of la". 4indin)s of fact of the latter are conclusive, e<cept in the follo"in) instances@ +%, "hen the findin)s are )rounded entirel6 on speculation, sur9ises, or conHecturesG +-, "hen the inference 9ade is 9anifestl6 9ista;en, absurd, or i9possibleG +3, "hen there is )rave abuse of discretionG +#, "hen the Hud)9ent is based on a 9isapprehension of factsG +$, "hen the findin)s of fact are conflictin)G +2, "hen in 9a;in) its findin)s the !ourt of *ppeals "ent be6ond the issues of the case, or its findin)s are contrar6 to the ad9issions of both the appellant and the appelleeG +', "hen the findin)s are contrar6 to those of the trial courtG +/, "hen the findin)s are conclusions "ithout citation of specific evidence on "hich the6 are basedG +&, "hen the facts set forth in the petition as "ell as in the petitioner>s 9ain and repl6 briefs are not disputed b6 the respondentG and +%., "hen the findin)s of fact are pre9ised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted b6 the evidence on record.3' +!itation o9itted, In the instant case, the factual findin)s of the !* and the RT! are star;l6 contrastin). Moreover, "e find that the !* decision falls under e<ceptions +',, +/, and +%., above, "hich "arrants another revie" of its factual findin)s. The evidence supportin) Rosario>s clai9 of sole o"nership of =ot No. #2%/ is the Deed of 1/tra.udicial 2artition with 7uitclaim, "hich she e<ecuted "ith her brothers Mario, *n)elo and Rodolfo. There is no (uestion that b6 itself, the said docu9ent "ould have full6 conve6ed to Rosario "hatever ri)hts her brothers 9i)ht have in =ot No. #2%/. 5ut "hat needs to be established first is "hether or not Ireneo did in fact o"n =ot No. #2%/ throu)h succession, as Rosario clai9s. *nd here no" lies the ver6 cru< of the controvers6. A r(50(7 o2 '-( 6ar'0()A (503(n.( )-o7) '-a' '-(y (n'(r(3 0n'o an ora/ 6ar'0'0on, 1050n1 #o' No. *618 'o Jo)( a) -0) )-ar(, 7-(r(a) Ro)ar0o 6r()(n'(3 no 6roo2 7-a')o(5(r '-a' -(r 2a'-(r 0n-(r0'(3 #o' No. *618 2ro< -0) 2a'-(r #08or0o. Rosario>s onl6 proof of Ireneo>s o"nership is TD No. $$$, issued in his na9e, but she did not bother to e<plain "h6 it "as dated %&&#, althou)h Ireneo died on 7une %%, %&&-. =iborio>s o"nership of =ot No. #2%/ is ad9itted b6 all the parties, but it 9ust be as;ed "hether in his lifeti9e =iborio did in fact trans9it it to Ireneo, and if not, "hether it "as conve6ed to hi9 b6 =iborio>s heirs. It is i9perative for Rosario to have presented proof of this transfer to Ireneo, in such a for9 as "ould have vested o"nership in hi9. Ae find, instead, a preponderance of contrar6 evidence. %. In his testi9on6, 7ose clai9ed that his parents> ba9boo house in =ot No. #2%/ disinte)rated fro9 "ear and tearG so he too; the9 in to his se9i0concrete house in the sa9e lot, "hich "as Hust a fe" steps a"a6, and he cared for the9 until the6 diedG shortl6 before =iborio>s death, and in the presence of all his siblin)s, his father =iborio assi)ned =ot No. #2%/ to hi9 as his inheritanceG his house "as de9olished in %&&/ as a result of the eHect9ent case filed a)ainst hi9G but his fa9il6 continued to live thereat after reconstructin) the houseG Ireneo and his fa9il6 did not live in =ot No. #2%/G althou)h 7ose>s Hob as an insurance a)ent too; hi9 around Pan)asinan, he al"a6s ca9e ho9e to his fa9il6 in his house in =ot No. #2%/, "hich he used as his per9anent addressG onl6 =ot No. #2'2 "as included in the Deed of <traHudicial Partition dated 7anuar6 /, %&&/ because =ot No. #2%/ had alread6 been distributed to 7ose, and =ot No. #'.# had alread6 been assi)ned to 7acinta and 5onifacio as their share in their father>s estate. 3/ -. 7ose>s testi9on6 "as corroborated b6 petitioners 4elicidad, 3& 7acinta,#. =eonora,#% and 4lora,#- "ho all confir9ed that their brother 7ose has al"a6s resided in =ot No. #2%/ fro9 his childhood up to the present, that he too; their a)ed parents into his house after their ba9boo house "as destro6ed, and he attended to their needs until the6 died in %&/-. The sisters "ere also one in sa6in) that their father =iborio verball6 "illed =ot No. #2%/ to 7ose as his share in his estate, and that their actual partition affir9ed their father>s dispositions. 7acinta clai9ed that she and 5onifacio have since ta;en possession of =ot No. #'.# pursuant to their partition, and have also declared their respective portions for ta< purposes. #3 4lora corroborated 7acinta on their ta;in) possession of =ot No. #'.#, as "ell as that 7ose built his house on =ot No. #2%/ ne<t to his parents and the6 ca9e to live "ith hi9 in their old a)e. 4lora affir9ed that <hibit L4L correctl6 reflects their verbal partition of =ot No. #2'2, and that she "as full6 in accord "ith it. She added that 4elicidad and Marcelina had since constructed their o"n houses on the portions of =ot No. #2'2 assi)ned to the9. ##4elicidad 9entioned that in their partition, Ireneo "as )iven a portion of =ot No. #2'2, "hile =ot No. #'.# "as divided bet"een 7acinta and 5onifacio, and 7ose alone )ot

=ot No. #2%/. =eonora confir9ed that the6 "ere all present "hen their father 9ade his above dispositions of his estate. 3. 5enHa9in =oren:o, a lon)0ti9e nei)hbor of the !asilan)s testified that 7ose>s house stands on =ot No. #2%/ and Ireneo did not live "ith his fa9il6 on the said lot but "as a tenant in another far9 so9e distance a"a6. #$ #. 4or her part, Rosario 9erel6 asserted that her father Ireneo succeeded to =ot No. #2%/ fro9 =iborio, as sho"n in TD No. $$$ + <hibit L%L,G that she and her brothers e<tra0Hudiciall6 settled Ireneo>s estate, and that the6 each "aived their shares in her favorG and, that she has been pa6in) ta<es on =ot No. #2%/. Rosario ad9itted, ho"ever, that 7ose has lived in the lot since he "as a child, and he has reconstructed his house thereon after its court0ordered de9olition. #2 5ut Rosario on cross0e<a9ination bac;trac;ed b6 clai9in) that it "as her father Ireneo and )randfather =iborio "ho built the old house in =ot No. #2%/, "here Ireneo resided until his deathG he even planted various fruit trees. Bet, there is no 9ention "hatsoever to this effect b6 an6 of the "itnesses. Rosario also contradicted herself "hen she denied that 7ose lived there because his Hob as insurance a)ent too; hi9 a"a6 often and 6et ad9itted that 7ose>s house stands there, "hich he reconstructed after it "as ordered de9olished b6 the MT!. Ine<plicabl6, Rosario disclai9ed ;no"led)e of Ireneo>s share in =ot No. #2'2, althou)h she "as a si)nator6, alon) "ith her brothers and all the petitioners, in the deed of partition of the said lot, "hereb6 she )ot %,3./ s( 9. Rosario also ad9itted that ta<es "ere paid on the lot onl6 be)innin) in %&&', not before. #' $. 5enHa9in Di:on, husband of Rosario, testified that Rosario "as losin) appetite and sleep because of the case filed b6 7oseG that Ireneo died in another far9G that Ireneo had a house in =ot No. #2%/ but 7ose too; over the house after he died in %&&-. #/ Respondent *n)elo, brother of Rosario, clai9ed that "hen he "as %3 or %# 6ears old, he heard his )randfather tell his father Ireneo that he "ould inherit =ot No. #2%/. On cross0e<a9ination, *n)elo insisted that his father had al"a6s lived "ith his fa9il6 in his )randfather>s house in =ot No. #2%/, that 7ose did not live there but "as )iven another lot, althou)h he could not sa6 "hich lot it "asG he ad9itted that his )rand9other lived "ith 7ose "hen she died, and Ireneo>s share "as in =ot No. #2'2. #& 2. On rebuttal, 7ose recounted that after his four children "ere 9arried, Ireneo lived as a tenant in another far9G that durin) a period of illness he lived in Manila for so9e ti9e, and later resided in !a)a6an "ith his t"o 9arried sonsG and lastl6 on his return, "or;ed as a tenant of the Manin)din) fa9il6 for about %. 6ears in !alasiao, sta6in) in a hut one ;ilo9eter a"a6. 7ose also clai9ed that Ireneo had as;ed =iborio for a portion of =ot No. #2'2, a lot "hich is bi))er than =ot No. #2%/ b6 several hundreds of s(uare 9eters. $. '. On sur0rebuttal, Rosario clai9ed that her )randparents, father and 9other lived in =ot No. #2%/ "hen she "as a child until she 9arried and left in %&'2G that her uncle 7ose as;ed per9ission fro9 =iborio to be allo"ed to sta6 there "ith his fa9il6. She ad9itted that 7ose built his house in %&/$, three 6ears after =iborio died, but as if to correct herself, she also clai9ed that 7ose built his house in =ot No. #2'2, and not in =ot No. #2%/. +!ontraril6, her aunt =eonora testified that 7ose built his house in =ot No. #2%/ "hile their parents "ere alive., $% Moreover, if such "as the case, Rosario did not e<plain "h6 she filed !ivil !ase No. /#', if she thou)ht her uncle built his house in =ot No. #2'2, and not in =ot No. #2%/.$- Rosario also clai9ed that Ireneo al"a6s ca9e ho9e in the evenin)s to his father =iborio>s house fro9 the Manin)din) far9, "hich he tenanted for %. 6ears, but obviousl6, b6 then =iborio>s house had lon) been )one. *)ain, confusedl6, Rosario denied that she ;ne" of her father>s share in =ot No. #2'2. 4ro9 the testi9onies of the parties, "e are convinced that the conclusion of the RT! is "ell0supported that there "as indeed a verbal partition a9on) the heirs of =iborio, pursuant to "hich each of his ei)ht children received his or her share of his estate, and that 7ose>s share "as =ot No. #2%/. T-( 6ar'0()A 5(r8a/ 6ar'0'0on 0) 5a/03, an3 -a) 8((n ra'020(3 8y '-(0r 'a40n1 6o))())0on o2 '-(0r r()6(.'05( )-ar(). The validit6 of an oral partition is "ell0settled in our Hurisdiction. In Vda. de 1#pina v. Abaya%$3 this !ourt declared that an oral partition is valid@

*nent the issue of oral partition, Ae sustain the validit6 of said partition. L*n a)ree9ent of partition 9a6 be 9ade orall6 or in "ritin). *n oral a)ree9ent for the partition of the propert6 o"ned in co99on is valid and enforceable upon the parties. The Statute of 4rauds has no operation in this ;ind of a)ree9ents, for partition is not a conve6ance of propert6 but si9pl6 a se)re)ation and desi)nation of the part of the propert6 "hich belon) to the co0o"ners.L$# In -ae#trado v. CA%$$ the Supre9e !ourt upheld the partition after it found that it confor9ed to the alle)ed oral partition of the heirs, and that the oral partition "as confir9ed b6 the notari:ed (uitclai9s e<ecuted b6 the heirs subse(uentl6.$2 In -a"lucot)Aw v. -a"lucot,$' the Supre9e !ourt elaborated on the validit6 of parol partition@ On )eneral principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of e(uit6 have enforce CsicD oral partition "hen it has been co9pletel6 or partl6 perfor9ed. Re)ardless of "hether a parol partition or a)ree9ent to partition is valid and enforceable at la", e(uit6 "ill CinD proper cases, "here the parol partition has actuall6 been consu99ated b6 the ta;in) of possession in severalt6 and the e<ercise of o"nership b6 the parties of the respective portions set off to each, reco)ni:e and enforce such parol partition and the ri)hts of the parties thereunder. Thus, it has been held or stated in a nu9ber of cases involvin) an oral partition under "hich the parties "ent into possession, e<ercised acts of o"nership, or other"ise partl6 perfor9ed the partition a)ree9ent, that e(uit6 "ill confir9 such partition and in a proper case decree title in accordance "ith the possession in severalt6. In nu9erous cases it has been held or stated that parol partition 9a6 be sustained on the )round of estoppel of the parties to assert the ri)hts of a tenant in co99on as to parts of land divided b6 parol partition as to "hich possession in severalt6 "as ta;en and acts of individual o"nership "ere e<ercised. *nd a court of e(uit6 "ill reco)ni:e the a)ree9ent and decree it to be valid and effectual for the purpose of concludin) the ri)ht of the parties as bet"een each other to hold their respective parts in severalt6. * parol partition 9a6 also be sustained on the )round that the parties thereto have ac(uiesced in and ratified the partition b6 ta;in) possession in severalt6, e<ercisin) acts of o"nership "ith respect thereto, or other"ise reco)ni:in) the e<istence of the partition. * nu9ber of cases have specificall6 applied the doctrine of part perfor9ance, or have stated that a part perfor9ance is necessar6, to ta;e a parol partition out of the operation of the statute of frauds. It has been held that "here there "as a partition in fact bet"een tenants in co99on, and a part perfor9ance, a court of e(uit6 "ould have re)ard to and enforce such partition a)reed to b6 the parties. $/ 7ose>s possession of =ot No. #2%/ under a clai9 of o"nership is "ell borne out b6 the records. It is also consistent "ith the clai9ed verbal partition "ith his siblin)s, and full6 corroborated b6 his sisters 4elicidad, 7acinta, =eonora, and 4lora, "ho further testified that the6 each had ta;en possession of their o"n shares and built their houses thereon. * possessor of real estate propert6 is presu9ed to have title thereto unless the adverse clai9ant establishes a better ri)ht.$& Moreover, under *rticle $#% of the !ivil !ode, one "ho possesses in the concept of o"ner has in his favor the le)al presu9ption that he possesses "ith a Hust title, and he cannot be obli)ed to sho" or prove it. Si9ilarl6, *rticle #33 of the !ivil !ode provides that actual possession under a clai9 of o"nership raises a disputable presu9ption of o"nership. Thus, actual possession and e<ercise of do9inion over definite portions of the propert6 in accordance "ith an alle)ed partition are considered stron) proof of an oral partition2. "hich the !ourt "ill not hesitate to uphold. TaC 3(./ara'0on) an3 'aC r(.(06') ar( no' .on./u)05( (503(n.( o2 o7n(r)-06. It is settled that ta< declarations and ta< receipts alone are not conclusive evidence of o"nership. The6 are 9erel6indicia of a clai9 of o"nership,2% but "hen coupled "ith proof of actual possession of the propert6, the6 can be the basis of clai9 of o"nership throu)h prescription. 2- In the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for ta< purposes does not prove o"nership.23 Ae have seen that there is no proof that =iborio, or the !asilan) siblin)s conve6ed =ot No. #2%/ to Ireneo. There is also no proof that Ireneo hi9self declared =ot No. #2%/ for ta< purposes, and even if he or his heirs did, this is not enou)h basis to clai9 o"nership over the subHect propert6. The !ourt notes that TO No. $$$ "as issued onl6 in %&&#, t"o 6ears after Ireneo8s death. Rosario even

ad9itted that she be)an pa6in) ta<es onl6 in %&&'. 2# More i9p9iantl6, Ireneo never clai9ed =ot No. #2%/ nor too; possession of it in the concept of o"ner. 9!ERE&ORE, pre9ises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 7ul6 %&, -..' of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. '&2%& is hereb6 RE%ERSED an3 SET AS$DE, and the Decision dated *pril -%, -..3 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Da)upan !it6, 5ranch #% in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D is RE$NSTATED. SO ORD R D. "$EN%EN$DO #. REYES *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice TERES$TA J. #EONARDO;DE CASTRO *ssociate 7ustice #UCAS P. "ERSAM$N *ssociate 7ustice

MART$N S. %$##ARAMA, JR. *ssociate 7ustice ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice M6rna Di9aranan Vidal, "ith *ssociate 7ustices 7ose =. Sabio, 7r. and 7ose !. Re6es, 7r., concurrin)G rollo% pp. #-0$#.
-

Rendered b6 Presidin) 7ud)e 99a M. TorioG id. at $$02.. <hibit L-L, folder of e<hibits +for the defendants,, pp. -03. !* rollo, p. //. Id. Records, p. '3.

'

5onifacio died in %&/2 and "as represented b6 his son 5ernabeG 7ose died in -..2 and "as substituted in !ivil !ase No. &/0.-3'%0D b6 his "ife and children. Ireneo died in %&&- and his interest is bein) defended b6 his children, na9el6@ Rosario, Mario, *n)elo, and Rodolfo.
/

Records, pp. %0'. <hibits -, # and #0*, folder of e<hibits +for the defendants,, pp. -03, ', /. Records, pp. %/0%&.

&

%.

%%

Id. at -03. TSN, 7ul6 -/, %&&&, p. %3. <hibit L L, folder of e<hibits +for the plaintiffs,, p. $. <hibit L1L, id. at &. <hibit L%L, folder of e<hibits +for the defendants,, p. %. Records, p. %'. Id. at $&022. !ollo, pp. #'0#/. Records, pp. '#0'2. !ollo% pp. #/0#&. Id. at $$02.. Id. at 2.. <hibit L4 O 40%,L folder of e<hibits +for the plaintiffs,, pp. 20'. <hibit L40%,L id. at '. Id. !ollo, p. $&. Id. at $&02.. !* rollo, p. --. !ollo, p. $%. Id. at $-. Id. at %'. Cu#todio v. Corrado, #'& Phil. #%$, #-2 +-..#,. De *eon v. CA% 3%$ Phil. %#., %$- +%&&$,. 0anila v. Court of Appeal#, $.. Phil. -%-, --% +-..$,. !ollo, pp. $30$#. 3#& Phil. -'$ +%&&/,. Id. at -/-0-/3. TSN, 7ul6 -/, %&&&, pp. 30%$, %/, -#. TSN, March 3., -..., pp. #0$, '0&. TSN, Septe9ber -&, %&&&, pp. $, &.

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

3#

3$

32

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

TSN, 7une &, -..., pp. 30'. TSN, Dece9ber -., %&&&, pp. $, 2, %.0%-, %', %/. TSN, Septe9ber -&, %&&&, p. '. TSN, Dece9ber -., %&&&, p. $. TSN, *u)ust 3%, -..., pp. 20'. TSN, March -%, -..%, p. 30%., %30%#G #ee al#o TSN, Ma6 -#, -..%, p. 3. Id. at %#0%2. TSN, Ma6 -#, -..%, pp. 20/. TSN, 7anuar6 -3, -..-, pp. 30#, '0/. TSN, October 3, -..-, pp. #0'. TSN, 7une &, -..., p. 2. TSN, Nove9ber -$, -..-, pp. $, /, &, %- , %30%#. 1.R. No. #$%#-, *pril -2, %&&%, %&2 S!R* 3%-.

#-

#3

##

#$

#2

#'

#/

#&

$.

$%

$-

$3

$#

Id. at 3%&, citin) olentino, !OMM NT*RI S *ND 7IRISPRID N! ON TH !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, Vol. II, %&/3 dition, pp. %/-0%/3.
$$

3/# Phil. #%/ +-...,. Id. at #33. 3/$ Phil. '-. +-...,. Id. at '3/0'3&. -arcelo v. -ani3ui# and De la Cruz, 3$ Phil. %3#, %#. +%&%2,.

$2

$'

$/

$&

2.

$eir# of -ario 2acre# v. $eir# of Cecilia 4"o,a, 1.R. No. %'#'%&, Ma6 $, -.%., 2-. S!R* -%3, --2.
2%

$eir# of Bru#a# v. CA, 3'- Phil. #', $$ +%&&&,. $eir# of 2lacido -iranda v. CA, 3-$ Phil. 2'#, 2/3 +%&&2,. +eri,a v. Caballero, #/. Phil. -'', -/& +-..#,. TSN, March -%,-..%, p. %2. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 4IRST DIVISION

2-

23

2#

G.R. No. 1G133*

&(8ruary 13, 2013

CARO#$NA =CAR#$NA> %DA. DE &$GURAC$ON, !E$RS O& E#ENA &$GURAC$ON; ANC!ETA, na<(/y@ #EONC$O ANC!ETA, JR., an3 ROMU#O ANC!ETA, !E$RS O& !$#AR$A A. &$GURAC$ON, na<(/y@ &E#$PA &$GURAC$ON;MANUE#, MARY &$GURAC$ON;G$NE , an3 EM$#$A &$GURAC$ON;GER$##A, AND !E$RS O& ,U$NT$N &$GURAC$ON, na<(/y@ #$NDA M. &$GURAC$ON, #EANDRO M. &$GURAC$ON, $$, an3 A##AN M. &$GURAC$ON,Petitioners, vs. EM$#$A &$GURAC$ON;GER$##A, Respondent. D REYES, J.: *t bar is a Petition for Revie" on Certiorari% under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt, assailin) the Decision- dated Dece9ber %%, -..% of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. $/-&., "hich reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated 7une -2, %&&' of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Irdaneta, Pan)asinan, 5ranch #&. The RT! decision +%, dis9issed respondent 9ilia 4i)uracion01erilla>s + 9ilia, co9plaint for partition, annul9ent of docu9ents, reconve6ance, (uietin) of title and da9a)es, and +-, annulled the Affidavit of +elf)Ad.udicatione<ecuted b6 petitioner !arolina +!arlina, Vda. De 4i)uracion +!arolina,. T-( &a.') The parties are the heirs of =eandro 4i)uracion +=eandro, "ho died intestate in Ma6 %&$/. Petitioner !arolina is the survivin) spouse. The other petitioners K lena 4i)uracion0*ncheta, Hilaria *. 4i)uracion +Hilaria,, 4elipa 4i)uracion0Manuel +4elipa,, Fuintin 4i)uracion, and Mar6 4i)uracion01ine: K and respondent 9ilia "ere !arolina and =eandro>s children. # SubHect of the dispute are t"o parcels of land both situated in Irdaneta, Pan)asinan, "hich "ere ac(uired b6 =eandro durin) his lifeti9e. These properties "ere@ +%, =ot No. --&& "ith a land area of ',$#' s(uare 9eters ori)inall6 covered b6 Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, No. #--%0PG $ and +-, =ot No. '.$ 9easurin) -,&.. s(uare 9eters and covered b6 T!T No. #--.0P. 5oth lands "ere re)istered in the na9e of L=eandro 4i)uracion 9arried to !arolina *dvientoL. =eandro e<ecuted a Deed of Fuitclai9 over the above real properties in favor of his si< +2, children on *u)ust -3, %&$$. Their shares, ho"ever, "ere not delineated "ith particularit6 because spouses =eandro and !arolina reserved the lots and its fruits for their e<penses. *lso involved in the controvers6 is =ot No. '.' of the !adastral Surve6 of Irdaneta, Pan)asinan, "ith an area of 3,%2# s(uare 9eters ori)inall6 o"ned b6 ulalio *dviento + ulalio,, covered b6 Ori)inal !ertificate of Title +O!T, No. %$/2' issued in his na9e on *u)ust -%, %&%'. ulalio be)ot *)ripina *dviento +*)ripina, "ith his first "ife Marcela stio;o +Marcela,, "ho9 ulalio survived. Ahen he re9arried, ulalio had another dau)hter, herein petitioner !arolina, "ith his second "ife, 4austina scabesa +4austina,.2 On Nove9ber -/, %&2%, *)ripina' e<ecuted a Deed of 7uitclaim/ over the eastern half of =ot No. '.' in favor of her niece, herein respondent 9ilia. Soon thereafter or on Dece9ber %%, %&2-, petitioner !arolina e<ecuted an Affidavit of +elf) Ad.udication&adHudicatin) unto herself the entire =ot No. '.' as the sole and e<clusive heir of her deceased parents, ulalio and 4austina.%. On the sa9e date, !arolina also e<ecuted a Deed of Ab#olute +ale%% over =ot No. '.' in favor of petitioners Hilaria and 4elipa, "ho in turn i99ediatel6 caused the cancellation of O!T No. %$/2' and the issuance of T!T No. #--## in their na9es. %In %&'%, 9ilia and her fa9il6 "ent to the Inited States and returned to the Philippines onl6 in %&/%. Ipon her return and rel6in) on the Deed of 7uitclaim, she built a house on the eastern half of =ot No. '.'.%3 The le)al debacle of the 4i)uracions started in %&&# "hen Hilaria and her a)ents threatened to de9olish the house of 9ilia "ho, in retaliation, "as pro9pted to see; the partition of =ot No. '.' as "ell as =ot Nos. --&& and '.$. The 9atter "as initiall6 brou)ht before the 9atarun"an" 2ambaran"ay, but no a9icable settle9ent "as reached b6 the parties. %# On Ma6 -3, %&&#, respondent 9ilia instituted the !ISION

herein !o9plaint%$ for the partition of =ot Nos. --&&, '.$ and '.', annul9ent of the Affidavit of +elf) Ad.udication, Deed of Ab#olute +ale and T!T No. #--##, reconve6ance of eastern half portion of =ot No. '.', (uietin) of title and da9a)es. In opposition, the petitioners averred the follo"in) special and affir9ative defenses@ +%, the respondent>s cause of action had lon) prescribed and that she is )uilt6 of laches hence, no" estopped fro9 brin)in) the suitG +-, T!T No. #--## in the na9e of 4elipa and Hilaria have alread6 attained indefeasibilit6 and conclusiveness as to the true o"ners of =ot No. '.'G and +3, an action for partition is no lon)er tenable because 4elipa and Hilaria have alread6 ac(uired ri)hts adverse to that clai9ed b6 respondent 9ilia and the sa9e a9ount to a repudiation of the alle)ed co0o"nership. %2 Durin) pre0trial conference, the issues "ere si9plified into@ +%, "hether or not =ot Nos. --&& and '.$ are the e<clusive properties of =eandroG and +-, "hether or not respondent 9ilia is the o"ner of the eastern half of =ot No. '.'.%' On the basis of the evidence adduced b6 the parties, the RT! rendered its Decision dated 7une -2, %&&' disposin) as follo"s@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the co9plaint for partition, reconve6ance, (uietin) of title and da9a)es is hereb6 ordered dis9issed "hereas the affidavit of self0adHudicationC,D deed of sale and the transfer certificate of title involvin) =ot '.' are hereb6 declared null and void. No costs. SO ORD R D.%/ The RT! ruled that a partition of =ot Nos. --&& and '.$ "ill be pre9ature since their o"nership is 6et to be trans9itted fro9 =eandro to his heirs "hose respective shares thereto 9ust still be deter9ined in estate settle9ent proceedin)s. *nent =ot No. '.', the RT! held that petitioner !arolina transferred onl6 her one0half +W, share to 4elipa and Hilaria and an6 conve6ance of the other half pertainin) to *)ripina "as void. Ahile the RT! nullified the Affidavit of +elf)Ad.udication% Deed of Ab#olute +ale and T!T No. #--##, it refused to adHudicate the o"nership of the lot>s eastern half portion in favor of respondent 9ilia since a settle9ent of the estate of ulalio is 6et to be underta;en. %& Respondent 9ilia appealed to the !*, "hich, in its Decision dated Dece9ber %%, -..%, ruled that the RT! erred in refusin) to partition =ot No. '.'. The !* e<plained that there is no necessit6 for placin) =ot No. '.' under Hudicial ad9inistration since !arolina had lon) sold her W pro indivi#o share to 4elipa and Hilaria. Thus, "hen !arolina sold the entire =ot No. '.' on Dece9ber %%, %&2- as her o"n, the sale affected onl6 her share and not that belon)in) to her co0o"ner, *)ripina. The proper action in such case is not the nullification of the sale, or for the recover6 of possession of the propert6 o"ned in co99on fro9 the third person, but for a division or partition of the entire lot. Such partition should result in se)re)atin) the portion belon)in) to the seller and its deliver6 to the bu6er. The !*, ho"ever, a)reed "ith the RT! that a partition of =ot Nos. --&& and '.$ is indeed pre9ature considerin) that there is a pendin) le)al controvers6 "ith respect to =ot No. '.$ and the accountin) of the inco9e fro9 =ot No. --&& and of the e<penses for the last illness and burial of =eandro and !arolina, for "hich the lots appear to have been intended. *ccordin)l6, the decretal portion of the !* decision reads@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the present appeal is hereb6 1R*NT D and the decision appealed fro9 in !ivil !ase No. I0$/-2 is hereb6 V*!*T D and S T *SID . * ne" Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered declarin) =ot No. '.' covered b6 T!T No. #--## to be o"ned b6 appellant 9ilia 4i)uracion0 1erilla Cherein respondentD, W pro indivi#o share, appellee 4elipa 4i)uracion Cherein petitionerD, X pro indivi#o share, and appellee Hilaria 4i)uracion Cherein petitionerD, X pro indivi#o share, "ho are hereb6 directed to partition the sa9e and if the6 could not a)ree on a partition, the6 9a6 petition the trial court for the appoint9ent of a co99issioner to prepare a proHect of partition, in accordance "ith the procedure as provided in Rule 2& of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, as a9ended. No pronounce9ent as to costs.

SO ORD R D.-. Respondent 9ilia appealed the !*>s decision to the !ourt, doc;eted as 1.R. No. %$#3--. In a Decision pro9ul)ated on *u)ust --, -..2, the !ourt denied the appeal, concurrin) "ith the !*>s rulin) that a partition of =ot Nos. --&& and '.$ "ould be inappropriate considerin) that@ +%, the o"nership of =ot No. '.$ is still in disputeG and +-, there are still unresolved issues as to the e<penses char)eable to the estate of =eandro. The present petition involves the appeal of the petitioners "ho attribute this sole error co99itted b6 the !*@ TH D !ISION R ND R D 5B TH HONOR*5= !OIRT O4 *PP *=S IS !ONTR*RB TO =*A *ND RISTIN1 7IRISPRID NTI*= DI!T* =*ID DOAN 5B TH HONOR*5= SIPR M !OIRT.-% In vie" of the !ourt>s rulin) in 1.R. No. %$#3--, the ensuin) discussion shall concern onl6 =ot No. '.'. T-( Ar1u<(n') o2 '-( Par'0() The petitioners ar)ue that respondent 9ilia has no valid basis for her clai9 of o"nership because the Deed of 7uitclaim e<ecuted in her favor b6 *)ripina "as in fact a deed of donation that contained no acceptance and thus, void. The petitioners attached a cop6 of the Deed of 7uitclaim and stressed on the follo"in) portions, viz@ I, AGR$P$NA EST$O+O AD%$ENTO, of leC)aDl a)e, 4ilipino citi:en, sin)le and a resident CofD San Vicenter +sic,, Irdaneta !it6, Pan)asinan, for and in consideration of the su9 of ON P SO +CPD%...,, Philippine !urrenc6 and the services rendered b6 96 niece MI=I* 4I1IR*!ION, -. 6ears old, sin)le, 4ilipino citi:en and a resident of San Vicente, Irdaneta !it6, Pan)asinan, do hereb6 b6 these presents" +sic, R NOIN! , R = *S and forever FIIT!=*IM in favor of MI=I* 4I1IR*!ION, her heirs, and assi)ns the ON C0DH*=4 +%M-, eastern portion of the follo"in) parcel of land 9ore particularl6 described and bounded as follo"s to "itC.D-The6 further aver that the Deed of 7uitclaim is riddled "ith defects that evo;e (uestions of la", because@ 5a6 it has not been re)istered "ith the Re)ister of Deeds, albeit, alle)edl6 e<ecuted as earl6 as %&2%G 5b6 a certification dated 7une 3, -..3 issued b6 the Office of the !ler; of !ourt +O!!, of the RT! of Irdaneta, Pan)asinan, sho"s that it does not have a cop6 of the Deed of 7uitclaimG 5c6 the Office of the National *rchives "hich is the depositor6 of old and ne" notari:ed docu9ents has no record of the Deed of 7uitclaim as evidenced b6 a certification dated Ma6 %&, -..3G -3 and 5d6 *tt6. 4elipe V. *benoHar, "ho supposedl6 notari:ed the Deed of 7uitclaim "as not co99issioned to notari:e in %&2% per the certification dated 7une &, -..3 fro9 the O!! of the RT! of Irdaneta, Pan)asinan. -# Respondent 9ilia, on the other hand, contends that the Deed of 7uitclaim should be considered an onerous donation that re(uires no acceptance as it is )overned b6 the rules on contracts and not b6 the for9alities for a si9ple donation.-$ T-( Cour'A) Ru/0n1 $))u() no' ra0)(3 8(2or( '-( .our') a quo .anno' 8( ra0)(3 2or '-( 20r)' '0<( 0n a 6('0'0on 20/(3 un3(r Ru/( *G Records sho" that there is a palpable shift in the defense raised b6 the petitioners before the RT! and the !*. In the Pre0Trial Order-2 of the RT! dated *pril #, %&&$, the parties a)reed to li9it the issue "ith re)ard to =ot No. '.' as follo"s@ "hether or not respondent 9ilia is the o"ner of the eastern half portion of =ot No. '.'. The petitioners> supportin) theor6 for this issue "as that Lthe Deed of 7uitclaim dated Nove9ber -/, %&2% "as rendered ineffective b6 the issuance of CT!T No. #--##D in the na9e of 4elipa and Hilaria.L-' On appeal to the !*, ho"ever, the petitioners raised a ne" theor6 b6 (uestionin) the e<ecution and enforceabilit6 of the Deed ofFuitclai9. The6 clai9ed that it is actuall6 a donation that "as not accepted in the 9anner re(uired b6 la".-/

The inconsistent postures ta;en b6 the petitioners breach the basic procedural tenet that a part6 cannot chan)e his theor6 on appeal as e<pressl6 adopted in Rule ##, Section %$ of the Rules of !ourt, "hich reads@ Sec. %$. 7ue#tion# that may be rai#ed on appeal. Ahether or not the appellant has filed a 9otion for ne" trial in the court belo", he 9a6 include in his assi)n9ent of errors an6 (uestion of la" or fact that has been raised in the court belo" and "hich is "ithin the issues fra9ed b6 the parties. 4ortif6in) the rule, the !ourt had repeatedl6 e9phasi:ed that defenses not pleaded in the ans"er 9a6 not be raised for the first ti9e on appeal. Ahen a part6 deliberatel6 adopts a certain theor6 and the case is decided upon that theor6 in the court belo", he "ill not be per9itted to chan)e the sa9e on appeal, because to per9it hi9 to do so "ould be unfair to the adverse part6. -& The !ourt had li;e"ise, in nu9erous ti9es, affir9ed that points of la", theories, issues and ar)u9ents not brou)ht to the attention of the lo"er court need not be, and ordinaril6 "ill not be, considered b6 a revie"in) court, as these cannot be raised for the first ti9e at such late sta)e. 5asic considerations of due process underlie this rule. It "ould be unfair to the adverse part6 "ho "ould have no opportunit6 to present further evidence 9aterial to the ne" theor6, "hich it could have done had it been a"are of it at the ti9e of the hearin) before the trial court.3. Ahile a part6 9a6 chan)e his theor6 on appeal "hen the factual bases thereof "ould not re(uire presentation of an6 further evidence b6 the adverse part6 in order to enable it to properl6 9eet the issue raised in the ne" theor6, 3% this e<ception does not, ho"ever, obtain in the case at hand. !ontrar6 to the petitioners> assertion, the !ourt finds that the issues on the supposed defects and actual nature of the Deed of 7uitclaim are (uestions of fact that re(uire not onl6 a revie" or re0evaluation of the evidence alread6 adduced b6 the parties but also the reception of ne" evidence as the petitioners the9selves have ac;no"led)ed "hen the6 attached in the petition several certifications 3- in support of their ne" ar)u9ent. It is settled that (uestions of fact are be6ond the province of a Rule #$ petition since the !ourt is not a trier of facts.33 *ccordin)l6, the !ourt "ill not )ive due course to the ne" issues raised b6 the petitioners involvin) the nature and e<ecution of the Deed of 7uitclaim. 4or their failure to advance these (uestions durin) trial, the petitioners are no" barred b6 estoppel3# fro9 i9plorin) an e<a9ination of the sa9e. T-( r()6on3(n' .an .o<6(/ '-( 6ar'0'0on o2 #o' No. ?0? The first sta)e in an action for partition is the settle9ent of the issue of o"nership. Such an action "ill not lie if the clai9ant has no ri)htful interest in the subHect propert6. In fact, the parties filin) the action are re(uired b6 the Rules of !ourt to set forth in their co9plaint the nature and the e<tent of their title to the propert6. It "ould be pre9ature to effect a partition until and unless the (uestion of o"nership is first definitel6 resolved.3$ Here, the respondent traces her o"nership over the eastern half of =ot No. '.' fro9 the Deed of 7uitclaime<ecuted b6 *)ripina, "ho in turn, "as the co0o"ner thereof bein) one of the le)iti9ate heirs of ulalio. It is "ell to recall that the petitioners failed to cate)oricall6 dispute the e<istence of the Deed of 7uitclaim. Instead, the6 averred that it has been rendered ineffective b6 T!T No. #--## in the na9e of 4elipa and HilariaVthis contention is, of course, fla"ed. Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the na9e of an6 person does not foreclose the possibilit6 that the real propert6 9a6 be under coo"nership "ith persons not na9ed in the certificate, or that the re)istrant 9a6 onl6 be a trustee, or that other parties 9a6 have ac(uired interest over the propert6 subse(uent to the issuance of the certificate of title. 32 Stated differentl6, placin) a parcel of land under the 9antle of the Torrens s6ste9 does not 9ean that o"nership thereof can no lon)er be disputed. The certificate cannot al"a6s be considered as conclusive evidence of o"nership. 3' $n '-0) .a)(, .o;o7n(r)-06 o2 #o' No. ?0? 7a) 6r(.0)(/y 7-a' r()6on3(n' E<0/0a 7a) a8/( 'o )u..())2u//y ()'a8/0)-, a) .orr(.'/y 2oun3 8y '-( RTC an3 a220r<(3 8y '-( CA. The status of *)ripina and !arolina as the le)iti9ate heirs of ulalio is an undisputed fact. *s such heirs, the6 beca9e co0o"ners of =ot No. '.' upon the death of ulalio on 7ul6 -., %&3.. Since 4austina "as predeceased b6 ulalio, she li;e"ise beca9e a co0o"ner of the lot upon ulalio>s death. 4austina>s share,

ho"ever, passed on to her dau)hter !arolina "hen the for9er died on October %/, %&#&. The Affidavit of +elf)Ad.udication e<ecuted b6 !arolina did not preHudice the share of *)ripina because it is not le)all6 possible for one to adHudicate unto hi9self an entire propert6 he "as not the sole o"ner of. * co0o"ner cannot alienate the shares of her other co0o"ners K nemo dat 3ui non habet.3/ Hence, =ot No. '.' "as a co0o"ned propert6 of *)ripina and !arolina. *s co0o"ners, each of the9 had full o"nership of her part and of the fruits and benefits pertainin) thereto. ach of the9 also had the ri)ht to alienate the lot but onl6 in so far as the e<tent of her portion "as affected. 3& Thus, "hen !arolina sold the entire =ot No. '.' on Dece9ber %%, %&2- to Hilaria and 4elipa "ithout the consent of her co0o"ner *)ripina, the disposition affected onl6 !arolina>s pro indivi#o share, and the vendees, Hilaria and 4elipa, ac(uired onl6 "hat corresponds to !arolina>s share. * co0o"ner is entitled to sell his undivided shareG hence, a sale of the entire propert6 b6 one co0o"ner "ithout the consent of the other co0o"ners is not null and void and onl6 the ri)hts of the co0o"nerMseller are transferred, thereb6 9a;in) the bu6er a co0o"ner of the propert6. #. *ccordin)l6, the deed of sale e<ecuted b6 !arolina in favor of Hilaria and 4elipa "as a valid conve6ance but onl6 insofar as the share of !arolina in the co0o"nership is concerned. *s !arolina>s successors0in0 interest to the propert6, Hilaria and 4elipa could not ac(uire an6 superior ri)ht in the propert6 than "hat !arolina is entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition. In a contract of sale of co0o"ned propert6, "hat the vendee obtains b6 virtue of such a sale are the sa9e ri)hts as the vendor had as co0o"ner, and the vendee 9erel6 steps into the shoes of the vendor as co0 o"ner.#% Hilaria and 4elipa did not ac(uire the undivided portion pertainin) to *)ripina, "hich has alread6 been effectivel6 be(ueathed to respondent 9ilia as earl6 as Nove9ber -/, %&2% thru the Deed of 7uitclaim. In turn, bein) the successor0in0interest of *)ripina>s share in =ot No. '.', respondent 9ilia too; the for9er>s place in the co0o"nership and as such co0o"ner, has the ri)ht to co9pel partition at an6 ti9e.#T-( r()6on3(n'A) r01-' 'o 3(<an3 2or 6ar'0'0on 0) no' 8arr(3 8y a.Eu0)0'05( 6r().r06'0on or /a.-() The petitioners posit that the issuance of T!T No. #--## in the na9e of Hilaria and 4elipa over =ot No. '.' on Dece9ber %%, %&2- "as an e<press repudiation of the co0o"nership "ith respondent 9ilia. !onsiderin) the period of ti9e that has alread6 lapsed since then, ac(uisitive prescription has alread6 set in and the respondent is no" barred b6 laches fro9 see;in) a partition of the subHect lot. The contention is specious. !o0heirs or co0o"ners cannot ac(uire b6 ac(uisitive prescription the share of the other co0heirs or co0 o"ners absent a clear repudiation of the co o"nership. #3 The act of repudiation, as a 9ode of ter9inatin) co0o"nership, is subHect to certain conditions, to "it@ +%, a co0o"ner repudiates the co0o"nershipG +-, such an act of repudiation is clearl6 9ade ;no"n to the other co0o"nersG +3, the evidence thereon is clear and conclusiveG and +#, he has been in possession throu)h open, continuous, e<clusive, and notorious possession of the propert6 for the period re(uired b6 la". ## The petitioners failed to co9pl6 "ith these conditions. The act of Hilaria and 4elipa in effectin) the re)istration of the entire =ot No. '.' in their na9es thru T!T No. #--## did not serve to effectivel6 repudiate the co0o"nership. The respondent built her house on the eastern portion of the lot in %&/% "ithout an6 opposition fro9 the petitioners. Hilaria also paid realt6 ta<es on the lot, in behalf of the respondent, for the 6ears %&/30%&/'.#$ These events indubitabl6 sho" that Hilaria and 4elipa failed to assert e<clusive title in the9selves adversel6 to 9ilia. Their acts clearl6 9anifest that the6 reco)ni:ed the subsistence of their co0o"nership "ith respondent 9ilia despite the issuance of T!T No. #--## in %&2-. Their acts constitute an i9plied reco)nition of the co0o"nership "hich in turn ne)ates the presence of a clear notice of repudiation to the respondent. To sustain a plea of prescription, it 9ust al"a6s clearl6 appear that one "ho "as ori)inall6 a Hoint o"ner has repudiated the clai9s of his co0o"ners, and that his co0o"ners "ere apprised or should have been apprised of his clai9 of adverse and e<clusive o"nership before the alle)ed prescriptive period be)an to run. #2

In addition, "hen Hilaria and 4elipa re)istered the lot in their na9es to the e<clusion of 9ilia, an i9plied trust "as created b6 force of la" and the t"o of the9 "ere considered a trustee of the respondent>s undivided share.#' *s trustees, the6 cannot be per9itted to repudiate the trust b6 rel6in) on the re)istration. In !in"or v. !in"or,#/ the !ourt had the occasion to e<plain the reason for this rule@ A 'ru)'(( 7-o o8'a0n) a Torr(n) '0'/( o5(r a 6ro6(r'y -(/3 0n 'ru)' 2or -0< 8y ano'-(r .anno' r(6u30a'( '-( 'ru)' 8y r(/y0n1 on '-( r(10)'ra'0on. * Torrens !ertificate of Title in 7ose>s na9e did not vest o"nership of the land upon hi9. The Torrens s6ste9 does not create or vest title. It onl6 confir9s and records title alread6 e<istin) and vested. It does not protect a usurper fro9 the true o"ner. The Torrens s6ste9 "as not intended to fo9ent betra6al in the perfor9ance of a trust. It does not per9it one to enrich hi9self at the e<pense of another. Ahere one does not have a ri)htful clai9 to the propert6, the Torrens s6ste9 of re)istration can confir9 or record nothin). Petitioners cannot rel6 on the re)istration of the lands in 7ose>s na9e nor in the na9e of the Heirs of 7ose M. Rin)or, Inc., for the "ron) result the6 see;. 4or 7ose could not repudiate a trust b6 rel6in) on a Torrens title he held in trust for his co0 heirs.1wphi1 The beneficiaries are entitled to enforce the trust, not"ithstandin) the irrevocabilit6 of the Torrens title. The intended trust 9ust be sustained. #& +!itations o9itted and e9phasis ours, 4urther, records do not reflect conclusive evidence sho"in) the 9anner of occupation and possession e<ercised b6 Hilaria and 4elipa over the lot fro9 the ti9e it "as re)istered in their na9es. The onl6 evidence of possession e<tant in the records dates bac; onl6 to %&/$ "hen Hilaria and 4elipa declared the lot in their na9es for ta<ation purposes.$. Prescription can onl6 produce all its effects "hen acts of o"nership, or in this case, possession, do not evince an6 doubt as to the ouster of the ri)hts of the other co0o"ners. Hence, prescription a9on) co0o"ners cannot ta;e place "hen acts of o"nership e<ercised are va)ue or uncertain.$% Moreover, the evidence relative to the possession, as a fact upon "hich the alle)ed prescription is based, 9ust be clear, co9plete and conclusive in order to establish said prescription "ithout an6 shado" of doubtG and "hen upon trial it is not sho"n that the possession of the clai9ant has been adverse and e<clusive and opposed to the ri)hts of the others, the case is not one of o"nership, and partition "ill lie.$- The petitioners failed to 9uster ade(uate evidence of possession essential for the rec;onin) of the %.06ear period for ac(uisitive prescription. The e<press disavo"al of the co0o"nership did not happen on Dece9ber %%, %&2- "hen T!T No. #--## "as issued but in %&&# "hen Hilaria atte9pted to de9olish 9ilia>s house thus e<plicitl6 e<cludin) her fro9 the co0o"nership. It "as the onl6 ti9e that Hilaria and 4elipa 9ade ;no"n their denial of the co0 o"nership. On the sa9e 6ear, the respondent instituted the present co9plaint for partitionG hence, the period re(uired b6 la" for ac(uisitive period to set in "as not 9et. *nent laches, the !ourt finds it unavailin) in this case in vie" of the pro<i9it6 of the period "hen the co0 o"nership "as e<pressl6 repudiated and "hen the herein co9plaint "as filed. =aches is the ne)li)ence or o9ission to assert a ri)ht "ithin a reasonable ti9e, "arrantin) a presu9ption that the part6 entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it. $3 More so, laches is a creation of e(uit6 and its application is controlled b6 e(uitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat Hustice or perpetrate fraud and inHustice. Neither should its application be used to prevent the ri)htful o"ners of a propert6 fro9 recoverin) "hat has been fraudulentl6 re)istered in the na9e of another. $# Par'0'0on o2 #o' No. ?0? Inder the Old !ivil !ode$$ "hich "as then in force at the ti9e of ulalio and Marcela>s 9arria)e, =ot No. '.' "as their conHu)al propert6. $2 Ahen Marcela died, one0half of the lot "as auto9aticall6 reserved to ulalio, the survivin) spouse, as his share in the conHu)al partnership. $' Marcela>s ri)hts to the other half, in turn, "ere trans9itted to her le)iti9ate child, *)ripina and survivin) spouse ulalio. $/ Inder *rticle /3# of the Old !ivil !ode, ulalio "as entitled onl6 to the usufruct of the lot "hile the na;ed o"nership belon)ed to *)ripina. Ahen he re9arried, ulalio>s one half portion of the lot representin) his share in the conHu)al partnership and his usufructuar6 ri)ht over the other half "ere brou)ht into his second 9arria)e "ith 4austina.$& Ahen ulalio died on 7ul6 -., %&3., X portion of the lot "as reserved for 4austina as her share in the conHu)al partnership.2. The re9ainin) X "ere trans9itted e(uall6 to the "ido" 4austina and ulalio>s children, !arolina and *)ripina.2% Ho"ever, 4austina is onl6 entitled to the usufruct of the third available for better9ent.2-

The usufructuar6 of ulalio over the W portion inherited b6 *)ripina earlier "as 9er)ed "ith her na;ed o"nership.23 Ipon the death of 4austina, the shares in =ot No. '.' "hich represents her share in the conHu)al partnership and her inheritance fro9 ulalio "ere in turn inherited b6 !arolina 2# includin) 4austina>s usufructuar6 ri)hts "hich "ere 9er)ed "ith !arolina>s na;ed o"nership. 2$ !onse(uentl6, *)ripina is entitled to $M/ portion of =ot No. '.' "hile the re9ainin) 3M/ pertains to !arolina. Thus, "hen !arolina sold =ot No. '.' to Hilaria and 4elipa, the sale affected onl6 3M/ portion of the subHect lot. Since theDeed of 7uitclaim, be(ueathed onl6 the W eastern portion of =ot No. '.' in favor of 9ilia instead of *)ripina>s entire $M/ share thereof, the re9ainin) %M/ portion shall be inherited b6 *)ripina>s nearest collateral relative, 22"ho, records sho", is her sister !arolina. In su9, the !* co99itted no reversible error in holdin) that the respondent is entitled to have =ot No. '.' partitioned. The !* Hud)9ent 9ust, ho"ever, be 9odified to confor9 to the above0discussed apportion9ent of the lot a9on) !arolina, Hilaria, 4elipa and 9ilia. 9!ERE&ORE, the petition is DEN$ED. The Decision of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. $/-&. dated Dece9ber %%, -..%, is A&&$RMED 70'- MOD$&$CAT$ONS as follo"s@ +%, 3M/ portion of =ot No. '.' shall pertain in e(ual shares to Hilaria 4i)uracion and 4elipa 4i)uracion0ManuelG +-, W portion of =ot. No. '.' shall pertain to 9ilia 4i)uracion01erillaG and +3, %M/ portion of =ot No. '.' shall pertain to the estate of !arolina +!arlina, Vda. De 4i)uracion. The case is REMANDED to the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Irdaneta, Pan)asinan, 5ranch #&, "ho is directed to conduct a P*RTITION 5B !OMMISSION RS and effect the actual ph6sical partition of the subHect propert6, as "ell as the i9prove9ents that lie therein, in the fore)oin) 9anner. The trial court is D$RECTED to appoint not 9ore than three +3, co9petent and disinterested persons, "ho should deter9ine the technical 9etes and bounds of the propert6 and the proper share appertainin) to each co0o"ner, includin) the i9prove9ents, in accordance "ith Rule 2& of the Rules of !ourt. Ahen it is 9ade to appear to the co99issioners that the real estate, or a portion thereof, cannot be divided "ithout )reat preHudice to the interest of the parties, the court a 3uo9a6 order it assi)ned to one of the parties "illin) to ta;e the sa9e, provided he pa6s to the other parties such su9 or su9s of 9one6 as the co99issioners dee9 e(uitable, unless one of the parties interested as; that the propert6 be sold instead of bein) so assi)ned, in "hich case the court shall order the co99issioners to sell the real estate at public sale, and the co99issioners shall sell the sa9e accordin)l6, and thereafter distribute the proceeds of the sale appertainin) to the Hust share of each co0 o"ner. No pronounce9ent as to costs. SO ORD R D. "$EN%EN$DO #. REYES *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice !hairperson TERES$TA J. #EONARDO;DE CASTRO *ssociate 7ustice #UCAS P. "ERSAM$N *ssociate 7ustice

JOSE CATRA# MENDO AS *ssociate 7ustice ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
S

*dditional 9e9ber per Raffle dated 4ebruar6 %3, -.%3. !ollo% pp. %%0-$.

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Martin S. Villara9a, 7r. +no" a 9e9ber of this !ourt,, "ith *ssociate 7ustices !onchita !arpio Morales +no" retired, and Ser)io =. Pestaflo, concurrin)G id. at -203-.
3

Id. at 3'0#2.

*s culled fro9 the related case entitled 1milia :i"uracion)0erilla v. Carolina Vda. De :i"uracion% 1lena :i"uracion)Ancheta% $ilaria A. :i"uracion% :elipa :i"uracion)-anuel% 7uintin :i"uracion and -ary :i"uracion)0inez; $3% Phil. /% +-..2,.
$

T!T No. #--%0P "as later cancelled and replaced b6 T!T No. %.%33% in vie" of =eandro>s sale of the %2-0s(uare 9eter portion of the land to =a:aro *dviento.
2

Supra note #. *)ripina died on 7ul6 -/, %&23, sin)le and "ithout issueG records, p. -2&. Id. at -22. Id. at -2'. ulalio died on 7ul6 -., %&3. "hile 4austina died October %/, %&#&. Records, p. -'%. Id. at -'-. Inifor9 factual findin)s of the RT! and !*G rollo, pp. -203- and 3'0#2. Records, p. %-. Id. at %0$. Id. at %&0-3. Pre0trial Order dated *pril #, %&&$G id. at 2/02&. !ollo, p. #2. Id. at #30#$. Id. at 3-. Id. at %2. Id. at %'. Id. at %&#0-... Id. at -.%0-.2.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

Id. at ''0/2. Records, pp. 2/02&. Id. at -..

-2

-'

-/

OppositionM!o99ent to the respondent>s 9otion for reconsideration of the !*>s Decision dated Dece9ber %%, -..%G !* rollo% pp. %&%0-...
-&

Commi##ioner of Internal !evenue v. -irant 2a"bilao Corporation% $3$ Phil. #/%, #&. +-..2,. 2hilippine 2ort# Authority v. City of Iloilo, #$3 Phil. &-', &3# +-..3,. Id. at &3$. !ollo, pp. %&&0-.. and -.2. -an"uiob v. Arcan"el% 1.R. No. %$--2-, 4ebruar6 %$, -.%-, 222 S!R* 3&, $%. See Cuyo v. 2eople of the 2hilippine#% 1.R. No. %&-%2#, October %-, -.%%, 2$& S!R* 2&, '2. 'campo v. 'campo, #'% Phil. $%&, $3# +-..#,. *acbayan v. +amoy% (r.% 1.R. No. %2$#-', March -%, -.%%, 2#$ S!R* 2'', 2&.. Id. at 2/&02&.. Aromin v. :lore#ca% $-/ Phil. %%2$, %%&$ +-..2,. N A !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, *rticle #&3. A"uirre v. Court of Appeal#% #22 Phil. 3-, #/ +-..#,. 2an"aniban v. 'amil, 1.R. No. %#&3%3, 7anuar6 --, -../, $#- S!R* %22, %'2.

3.

3%

3-

33

3#

3$

32

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

#-

N A !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, *rticle #&#. No co0o"ner shall be obli)ed to re9ain in the co0o"nership. ach co0o"ner 9a6 de9and at an6 ti9e the partition of the thin) o"ned in co99on, insofar as his share is concerned.
#3

*rticle #&#. <<<< No prescription shall run in favor of a co0o"ner or co0heir a)ainst his co0o"ners or co0 heirs as lon) as he e<pressl6 or i9pliedl6 reco)ni:es the co0o"nership.

##

+anto# v. +anto#% 3&2 Phil. &-/, &#' +-...,, citin) Adille v. Court of Appeal#, -#% Phil. #/', #&#0 #&$ +%&//,.
#$

Records, pp. -/%0-/$. 0alvez v. Court of Appeal#, $-. Phil. -%', --$ +-..2,.

#2

#'

N A !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, *rticle %#$2. If propert6 is ac(uired throu)h 9ista;e or fraud, the person obtainin) it is b6 force of la" considered a trustee of an i9plied trust for the benefit of the person fro9 "ho9 the propert6 co9es.
#/

#/. Phil. %#% +-..#,.

#&

Id. at %2%0%2-. Records, pp. -'30-'#. $eir# of -anin"din" v. CA% 3#- Phil. $2', $'' +%&&',. Id. Cruz v. Cri#tobal% $-& Phil. 2&$, '%$ +-..2,. Supra note #2, at --/0--&.

$.

$%

$-

$3

$#

$$

5ased on the facts on record, 4austina, ulalio>s second "ife and ulalio hi9self respectivel6 died on 7ul6 -., %&3. and October %/, %&#&. =o)icall6 then, their 9arria)e and ulalio>s first 9arria)e "ith Marcela occurred prior to the said dates. !onsiderin) that the N A !IVI= !OD too; effect onl6 in %&$., the above 9arria)es, the distribution of the conHu)al partnership therein and the successional ri)hts of the heirs shall be )overned b6 the provisions of the O=D !IVI= !OD .
$2

O=D !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, *rticle %#.'. *ll the propert6 of the spouses shall be dee9ed partnership propert6 in the absence of proof that it belon)s e<clusivel6 to the husband or to the "ife.
$'

*rticle %3&-. 56 virtue of the conHu)al partnership the earnin)s or profits obtained b6 either of the spouses durin) the 9arria)e belon) to the husband and the "ife, share and share ali;e, upon its dissolutionG $erbon v. 2alad, $-/ Phil. %3., %#$ +-..2,.
$/

*rticle /.'. The follo"in) are forced heirs@ %. =e)iti9ate children and descendants, "ith respect to their le)iti9ate parents and ascendants. -. In default of the fore)oin), le)iti9ate parents and ascendants, "ith respect to their le)iti9ate children and descendants. 3. The "ido"er or "ido", natural children le)all6 ac;no"led)ed, and the father or the 9other of the latter, in the 9anner, and to the e<tent established b6 *rticles /3#, /3$, /32, /3', /#%, /#- and /#2G id.

$&

Id. at %#2. Supra note $2. Supra note $'.

2.

2%

2-

*rticle /3#. * "ido"er or "ido" "ho, on the death of his or her spouse, is not divorced, or should be so b6 the fault of the deceased, shall be entitled to a portion in usufruct e(ual to that correspondin) b6 "a6 of le)iti9e to each of the le)iti9ate children or descendants "ho has not received an6 better9ent. If onl6 one le)iti9ate child or descendant survives, the "ido"er or "ido" shall have the usufruct of the third available for better9ent, such child or descendant to have the na;ed o"nership until, on the death of the survivin) spouse, the "hole title is 9er)ed in hi9.
23

Id. Supra note $'. Supra note 2-.

2#

2$

22

N A !IVI= !OD O4 TH PHI=IPPIN S, *rticle %..3. If there are no descendants, ascendants, ille)iti9ate children, or a survivin) spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. *rticle %..'. In case brothers and sisters of the half blood, so9e on the father>s and so9e on the 9other>s side, are the onl6 survivors, all shall inherit in e(ual shares "ithout distinction as to the ori)in of the propert6. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION G.R. No. 2023?0 S(6'(<8(r 23, 2013

JUAN SE%$##A SA#AS, JR., Petitioner, vs. EDEN %$##ENA AGU$#A, Respondent. D CARP$O, J.: The !ase This petition for revie" on certiorari% assails the %2 March -.%- Decision- and the -/ 7une -.%Resolution3 of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. &$3--. The !* affir9ed the -2 Septe9ber -../ Order# of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Nasu)bu, 5atan)as, 5ranch %# +RT!,, in !ivil !ase No. '/'. The 4acts On ' Septe9ber %&/$, petitioner 7uan Sevilla Salas, 7r. +Salas, and respondent den Villena *)uila +*)uila, "ere 9arried. On ' 7une %&/2, *)uila )ave birth to their dau)hter, 7oan 7iselle. 4ive 9onths later, Salas left their conHu)al d"ellin). Since then, he no lon)er co99unicated "ith *)uila or their dau)hter. On ' October -..3, *)uila filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullit6 of Marria)e +petition, citin) ps6cholo)ical incapacit6 under *rticle 32 of the 4a9il6 !ode. The petition states that the6 Lhave no conHu)al properties "hatsoever.L$ In the Return of Su99ons dated %3 October -..3, the sheriff narrated that Salas instructed his 9other =uisa Salas to receive the cop6 of su99ons and the petition. 2 On ' Ma6 -..', the RT! rendered a Decision' declarin) the nullit6 of the 9arria)e of Salas and *)uila +RT! Decision,. The RT! Decision further provides for the Ldissolution of their conHu)al partnership of )ains, if an6.L/ On %. Septe9ber -..', *)uila filed a Manifestation and Motion& statin) that she discovered@ +a, t"o -..0 s(uare09eter parcels of land "ith i9prove9ents located in San 5artolo9e, Fue:on !it6, covered b6 Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, No. N0-$&-&&0* and T!T No. N0-$$#&'G and +b, a %./0s(uare09eter parcel of land "ith i9prove9ent located in Tondo, Manila, covered b6 T!T No. -#33'3 +collectivel6, LDiscovered PropertiesL,. The re)istered o"ner of the Discovered Properties is L7uan S.Salas, 9arried to Rubina !. Salas.L The 9anifestation "as set for hearin) on -% Septe9ber -..'. Ho"ever, Salas> notice of hearin) "as returned unserved "ith the re9ar;, LRTS Refused To Receive.L On %& Septe9ber -..', Salas filed a Manifestation "ith ntr6 of *ppearance %. re(uestin) for an ntr6 of 7ud)9ent of the RT! Decision since no 9otion for reconsideration or appeal "as filed and no conHu)al propert6 "as involved. On -% Septe9ber -..', the hearin) for *)uila>s 9anifestation ensued, "ith *)uila, her counsel and the state prosecutor present. Durin) the hearin), *)uila testified that on %' *pril -..' so9eone infor9ed her !ISION

of the e<istence of the Discovered Properties. Thereafter, she verified the infor9ation and secured copies of T!Ts of the Discovered Properties. Ahen as;ed to clarif6, *)uila testified that Rubina !. Salas +Rubina, is Salas> co99on0la" "ife.%% On / 4ebruar6 -../, Salas filed an Opposition to the Manifestation %- alle)in) that there is no conHu)al propert6 to be partitioned based on *)uila>s petition. *ccordin) to Salas, *)uila>s state9ent "as a Hudicial ad9ission and "as not 9ade throu)h palpable 9ista;e. Salas clai9ed that *)uila "aived her ri)ht to the Discovered Properties. Salas li;e"ise enu9erated properties he alle)edl6 "aived in favor of *)uila, to "it@+%, parcels of land "ith i9prove9ents located in Su)ar =andin) Subdivision, *lan)ilan, 5atan)as !it6G No. %'2 5rias Street, Nasu)bu, 5atan)asG P. Sa9anie)o Street, Silan)an, Nasu)bu, 5atan)asG and 5atan)as !it6, financed b6 4ilinvestG +-, cash a9ountin) toP-..,......G and +3, 9otor vehicles, specificall6 Honda !it6 and To6ota Ta9ara" 4R+collectivel6, LAaived PropertiesL,. Thus, Salas contended that the conHu)al properties "ere dee9ed partitioned. The Rulin) of the Re)ional Trial !ourt In its -2 Septe9ber -../ Order, the RT! ruled in favor of *)uila. The dispositive portion of the Order reads@ AH R 4OR , fore)oin) pre9ises bein) considered, the petitioner and the respondent are hereb6 directed to partition bet"een the9selves b6 proper instru9ents of conve6ance, the follo"in) properties, "ithout preHudice to the le)iti9e of their le)iti9ate child, 7oan 7isselle *)uila Salas@ +%, * parcel of land re)istered in the na9e of 7uan S. Salas 9arried to Rubina !. Salas located in San 5artolo9e, Fue:on !it6 and covered b6 T!T No. N0-$&-&&0* 9ar;ed as <hibit L*L and its i9prove9entsG +-, * parcel of land re)istered in the na9e of 7uan S.Salas 9arried to Rubina !. Salas located in San 5artolo9e, Fue:on !it6 and covered b6 T!T No. N0-$$#&' 9ar;ed as <hibit L5L and its i9prove9entsG +3, * parcel of land re)istered in the na9e of 7uan S.Salas 9arried to Rubina !orte: Salas located in Tondo and covered b6 T!T No. -#33'30Ind. 9ar;ed as <hibit LDL and its i9prove9ents. Thereafter, the !ourt shall confir9 the partition so a)reed upon b6the parties, and such partition, to)ether "ith the Order of the !ourt confir9in) the sa9e, shall be recorded in the Re)istr6 of Deeds of the place in "hich the propert6 is situated. SO ORD R D.%3 The RT! held that pursuant to the Rules,%# even upon entr6 of Hud)9ent )rantin) the annul9ent of 9arria)e, the court can proceed "ith the li(uidation, partition and distribution of the conHu)al partnership of )ains if it has not been Hudiciall6 adHudicated upon, as in this case. The RT! found that the Discovered Properties are a9on) the conHu)al properties to be partitioned and distributed bet"een Salas and *)uila. Ho"ever, the RT! held that Salas failed to prove the e<istence of the Aaived Properties. On %% Nove9ber -../, Rubina filed a !o9plaint0in0Intervention, clai9in) that@ +%, she is Rubina !orte:, a "ido" and un9arried to SalasG +-, the Discovered Properties are her paraphernal propertiesG +3, Salas did not contribute 9one6 to purchase the Discovered Properties as he had no per9anent Hob in 7apanG +#, the RT! did not ac(uire Hurisdiction over her as she "as not a part6 in the caseG and +$, she authori:ed her brother to purchase the Discovered Properties but because he "as not "ell0versed "ith le)al docu9entation, he re)istered the properties in the na9e of L7uan S. Salas, 9arried to Rubina !. Salas.L In its %2 Dece9ber -..& Order, the RT! denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed b6 Salas. The RT! found that Salas failed to prove his alle)ation that *)uila transferred the Aaived Properties to third persons. The RT! e9phasi:ed that it cannot )o be6ond the T!Ts, "hich state that Salas is the re)istered o"ner of the Discovered Properties. The RT! further held that Salas and Rubina "ere at fault for failin) to correct the T!Ts, if the6 "ere not 9arried as the6 clai9ed. Hence, Salas filed an appeal "ith the !*.

The Rulin) of the !ourt of *ppeals On %2 March -.%-, the !* affir9ed the order of the RT!. %$ The !* ruled that *)uila>s state9ent in her petition is not a Hudicial ad9ission. The !* pointed out that the petition "as filed on ' October -..3, but *)uila found the Discovered Properties onl6 on %' *pril -..' or before the pro9ul)ation of the RT! decision. Thus, the !* concluded that *)uila "as palpabl6 9ista;en in her petition and it "ould be unfair to punish her over a 9atter that she had no ;no"led)e of at the ti9e she 9ade the ad9ission. The !* also ruled that Salas "as not deprived of the opportunit6 to refute *)uila>s alle)ations in her 9anifestation, even thou)h he "as not present in its hearin). The !* li;e"ise held that Rubina cannot collaterall6 attac; a certificate of title. In a Resolution dated -/ 7une -.%-,%2 the !* denied the Motion for Reconsideration%' filed b6 Salas. Hence, this petition. The Issues Salas see;s a reversal and raises the follo"in) issues for resolution@ %. The !ourt of *ppeals erred in affir9in) the trial court>s decision orderin) the partition of the parcels of land covered b6 T!T Nos. N0-$&-&&0* and N0-$$#&' in Fue:on !it6 and as "ell as the propert6 in Manila covered b6 T!T No. -#33'3 bet"een petitioner and respondent. -. The !ourt of *ppeals erred in affir9in) the trial court>s decision in not allo"in) Rubina !. !orte: to intervene in this case%/ The Rulin) of the !ourt The petition lac;s 9erit. Since the ori)inal 9anifestation "as an action for partition, this !ourt cannot order a division of the propert6, unless it first 9a;es a deter9ination as to the e<istence of a co0o"nership. %& Thus, the settle9ent of the issue of o"nership is the first sta)e in this action. -. 5asic is the rule that the part6 9a;in) an alle)ation in a civil case has the burden of provin) it b6 a preponderance of evidence.-% Salas alle)ed that contrar6 to *)uila>s petition statin) that the6 had no conHu)al propert6, the6 actuall6 ac(uired the Aaived Properties durin) their 9arria)e. Ho"ever, the RT! found, and the !* affir9ed, that Salas failed to prove the e<istence and ac(uisition of the Aaived Properties durin) their 9arria)e@ * perusal of the record sho"s that the docu9ents sub9itted b6 CSalasD as the properties alle)edl6 re)istered in the na9e of C*)uilaD are 9erel6 photocopies and not certified true copies, hence, this !ourt cannot ad9it the sa9e as part of the records of this case. These are the follo"in)@ +%, T!T No. T02$/'2 K a parcel of land located at Poblacion, Nasu)bu, 5atan)as, re)istered in the na9e of den *. Salas, 9arried to 7uan Salas 7r. "hich is cancelled b6 T!T No. T0%.$##3 in the na9e of 7oan 7iselle *. Salas, sin)leG +-, T!T No. T02/.22 K a parcel of land situated in the 5arrio of =andin), Nasu)bu, 5atan)as, re)istered in the na9e of den *. Salas, 9arried to 7uan S. Salas 7r. Moreover, C*)uilaD sub9itted ori)inal cop6 of !ertification issued b6 Ms. rlinda *. Dasal, Municipal *ssessor of Nasu)bu, 5atan)as, certif6in) that C*)uilaD has no real propert6 +land and i9prove9ent, listed in the *ssess9ent Roll for ta<ation purposes, as of Septe9ber %', -../. Such evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrar6, has the presu9ption of re)ularit6. < < <. Suffice it to sa6 that such real properties are e<istin) and re)istered in the na9e of C*)uilaD, certified true copies thereof should have been the ones sub9itted to this !ourt. Moreover, there is also a presu9ption that properties re)istered in the Re)istr6 of Deeds are also declared in the *ssess9ent Roll for ta<ation purposes.--

On the other hand, *)uila proved that the Discovered Properties "ere ac(uired b6 Salas durin) their 9arria)e.1wphi15oth the RT! and the !* a)reed that the Discovered Properties re)istered in Salas> na9e "ere ac(uired durin) his 9arria)e "ith *)uila. The T!Ts of the Discovered Properties "ere entered on - 7ul6 %&&& and -& Septe9ber -..3, or durin) the validit6 of Salas and *)uila>s 9arria)e. In Villanueva v. !ourt of *ppeals,-3 "e held that the (uestion of "hether the properties "ere ac(uired durin) the 9arria)e is a factual issue. 4actual findin)s of the RT!, particularl6 if affir9ed b6 the !*, are bindin) on us, e<cept under co9pellin) circu9stances not present in this case. -# On Salas> alle)ation that he "as not accorded due process for failin) to attend the hearin) of *)uila>s 9anifestation, "e find the alle)ation untenable. The essence of due process is opportunit6 to be heard. Ae hold that Salas "as )iven such opportunit6 "hen he filed his opposition to the 9anifestation, sub9itted evidence and filed his appeal. On both Salas and Rubina>s contention that Rubina o"ns the Discovered Properties, "e li;e"ise find the contention un9eritorious. The T!Ts state that L7uan S. Salas, 9arried to Rubina !. SalasL is the re)istered o"ner of the Discovered Properties. * Torrens title is )enerall6 a conclusive evidence of the o"nership of the land referred to, because there is a stron) presu9ption that it is valid and re)ularl6 issued.-$ The phrase L9arried toL is 9erel6 descriptive of the civil status of the re)istered o"ner.-2 4urther9ore, Salas did not initiall6 dispute the o"nership of the Discovered Properties in his opposition to the 9anifestation. It "as onl6 "hen Rubina intervened that Salas supported Rubina>s state9ent that she o"ns the Discovered Properties. !onsiderin) that Rubina failed to prove her title or her le)al interest in the Discovered Properties, she has no ri)ht to intervene in this case. The Rules of !ourt provide that onl6 La person "ho has a le)al interest in the 9atter in liti)ation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest a)ainst both, or is so situated as to be adversel6 affected b6 a distribution or other disposition of propert6 in the custod6 of the court or of an officer thereof 9a6, "ith leave of court, be allo"ed to intervene in the action.L -' In Di?o v. Di?o,-/ "e held that *rticle %#' of the 4a9il6 !ode applies to the union of parties "ho are le)all6 capacitated and not barred b6 an6 i9pedi9ent to contract 9arria)e, but "hose 9arria)e is nonetheless declared void under *rticle 32 of the 4a9il6 !ode, as in this case. *rticle%#' of the 4a9il6 !ode provides@ *RT. %#'. Ahen a 9an and a "o9an "ho are capacitated to 9arr6 each other, live e<clusivel6 "ith each other as husband and "ife "ithout the benefit of 9arria)e or under a void 9arria)e, their "a)es and salaries shall be o"ned b6 the9 in e(ual shares and the propert6 ac(uired b6 both of the9 throu)h their "or; or industr6 shall be )overned b6 the rules on co0o"nership. In the absence of proof to the contrar6, properties ac(uired "hile the6 lived to)ether shall be presu9ed to have been obtained b6 their Hoint efforts, "or; or industr6, and shall be o"ned b6 the9 in e(ual shares. 4or purposes of this *rticle, a part6 "ho did not participate in the ac(uisition b6 the other part6 of an6 propert6 shall be dee9ed to have contributed Hointl6 in the ac(uisition thereof if the for9er>s efforts consisted in the care and 9aintenance of the fa9il6 and of the household. Neither part6 can encu9ber or dispose b6 acts inter vivos of his or her share in the propert6 ac(uired durin) cohabitation and o"ned in co99on, "ithout the consent of the other, until after the ter9ination of their cohabitation. Ahen onl6 one of the parties to a void 9arria)e is in )ood faith, the share of the part6 in bad faith in the co0o"nership shall be forfeited in favor of their co99on children. In case of default of or "aiver b6 an6 or all of the co99on children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belon) to the respective survivin) descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belon) to the innocent part6. In all cases, the forfeiture shall ta;e place upon ter9ination of the cohabitation. + 9phasis supplied, Inder this propert6 re)i9e, propert6 ac(uired durin) the 9arria)e is pri9a facie presu9ed to have been obtained throu)h the couple>s Hoint efforts and )overned b6 the rules on co0o"nership. -& In the present case, Salas did not rebut this presu9ption. In a si9ilar case "here the )round for nullit6 of 9arria)e "as also ps6cholo)ical incapacit6, "e held that the properties ac(uired durin) the union of the parties, as found b6 both the RT! and the !*, "ould be )overned b6 co0o"nership. 3. *ccordin)l6, the partition of the Discovered Properties as ordered b6 the RT! and the !* should be sustained, but on the basis of co0 o"nership and not on the re)i9e of conHu)al partnership of )ains.

AH R 4OR , "e D NB the petition. Ae *44IRM the Decision dated%2 March -.%- and the Resolution dated -/ 7une -.%- of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. &$3--. SO ORD R D. ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ ARTURO D. "R$ON *ssociate 7ustice MAR$ANO C. DE# CAST$##O *ssociate 7ustice JOSE PORTUGA# PERE *ssociate 7ustice

ESTE#A M. PER#AS;"ERNA"E *ssociate 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

Inder Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure.

Rollo, pp. %.0-%. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Ro9eo 4. 5ar =a "ith *ssociate 7ustices Noel 1. TiHa9 and d"in D. Soron)on, concurrin).
3

Id. at 3Y03-. Id. at ''0/'. Penned b6 7ud)e Ailfredo De 7o6a Ma6or. Id. at $&. Records, p. -%. Rollo, pp. 2%0'.. Penned b6 7ud)e lihu *. Iba?e:. Id. at '.. The dispositive portion reads@ AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered D !=*RIN1 TH NI==ITB of the 9arria)e of petitioner den Villena *)uila Salas and respondent 7uan Sevilla Salas, 7r. "hich "as celebrated on Septe9ber ', %&/$ and the DISSO=ITION of their conHu)al partnership of )ains, if an6. SO ORD R D.

'

&

Id. at '%0'-. Records, pp. %//0%/&. Id. at %'#. TSN, -% Septe9ber -..', p. '. Rollo, pp. '30'2. Id. at /'.

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

Rule on Declaration of *bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria)es and *nnul9ent of Voidable Marria)es +*. M. No. .-0%%0%.0S!,, Section -%.
%$

Rollo, pp. -.0-%. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads@

AH R 4OR , in li)ht of the fore)oin), the instant appeal is hereb6 D NI D for lac; of 9erit. The appealed orders of the lo"er court dated Septe9ber -2, -../ and Dece9ber %2, -..& are hereb6 *44IRM D.SO ORD R D.
%2

Id. at 3%03-. Id. at --0-&. Id. at ##0#$.

%'

%/

%&

=acba6an v. Sa9o6, 7r., 1.R. No. %2$#-', -% March -.%%, 2#$ S!R* 2''G Oca9po v. Oca9po, #'% Phil. $%& +-..#, citin) Heirs of Velas(ue: v. !ourt of *ppeals, 3/- Phil. #3/ +-..., and !atapusan v. !ourt of *ppeals, 33- Phil. $/2 +%&&2,.
-.

Id. Rules of !ourt, Rule %33, Sec. %. Rollo, pp. /$0/2. #'% Phil. 3&# +-..#,.

-%

--

-3

-#

=and 5an; of the Philippines v. Poblete, 1.R. No. %&2$'', -$ 4ebruar6 -.%3, 2&% S!R* 2%3 citin) Montecillo v. Re6nes, #3# Phil. #$2 +-..-,.
-$

Rodri)ue: v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %/#$/&, %3 7une -.%3.

-2

De =eon v. Rehabilitation 4inance !orp., %#2 Phil. /2- +%&'., citin) =ita9 v. spiritu, %.. Phil.32# +%&$2,.
-'

Rules of !ourt, Rule %&, Sec. %.

-/

1.R. No. %'/.##, %& 7anuar6 -.%%, 2#. S!R* %'/ citin) Mercado04ehr v. 5runo 4ehr, #2. Phil.##$ +-..3,.
-&

Valdes v. RT!, 5ranch %.-, Fue:on !it6, 3-/ Phil. %-/& +%&&2,. 5uenaventura v. !ourt of *ppeals, #&# Phil. -2# +-..$,. SECOND D$%$S$ON G.R. No. 1?*191 @ January 30, 2013

3.

NEN$TA ,UA#$TY &OODS CORPORAT$ON, 2etitioner, v. CR$SOSTOMO GA#A"O, ADE#A$DA GA#A"O, an3 ENA$DA GA#A"O;A#MAC"AR, !e#pondent. DEC$S$ON "R$ON, J.@ Ae resolve the petition for revie" on certiorari % of petitioner Nenita Fualit6 4oods !orporation +NF4!, to nullit6 the 4ebruar6 --, -..2 Decision- and the 7ul6 %3, -..2 resolution3 of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. SP No. ''..2. The !* reversed the decision# of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Davao !it6, 5ranch %', "hich affir9ed in toto the decision$ of the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities +MT!!,, Davao !it6, 5ranch $, in !ivil !ase No. %.,&$/0 0.%. The MT!! dis9issed the co9plaint for forcible

entr6 and da9a)es, "hich respondents !risosto9o 1alabo, *delaida 1alabo, and Eenaida 1alabo0 *l9achar filed a)ainst NF4!. The 4actual *ntecedents The dispute in the case relates to the possession of a parcel of land described as =ot No. %.-, PSD0#..2., the for9er *ra;a;i Plantation in Marapan)i, Toril, Davao !it6 "ith an area of si< thousand sevent60four s(uare 9eters +2,.'# s(. 9.,. *s the !* su99ari:ed in the assailed decision, the respondents are the heirs of Donato 1alabo. In %&#/, Donato obtained =ot No. '--, !ad0%.-, a portion of the *ra;a;i Plantation in Marapan)i, Toril, Davao !it6, o"ned b6 National *baca and Other 4ibers !orporation. Donato and the respondents assu9ed that =ot No. '-- included =ot No. %.-, per the ori)inal surve6 of %&%2 to %&-.. Ahen the 5oard of =i(uidators +5O=, too; over the ad9inistration of the *ra;a;i Plantation in the %&$.s, it had =ot No. '-- resurve6ed. *lle)edl6, the resurve6 did not include =ot No. %.-G thus, "hen Donato ac(uired Transfer !ertificate of Title No. T0-%#&2 2 for =ot No. '-- on *pril -2, %&$3, =ot No. %.- "as not included. The respondents, ho"ever, continue to posses, occup6 and cultivate =ot No. %.-. Ahen NF4! opened its business in Marapan)i, Toril, Davao !it6 in the late %&$.s, it alle)edl6 offered to bu6 =ot No. %.-. Donato declined and to "ard off further offers, put up LNot 4or SaleL and LNo Trespassin)L si)ns on the propert6. In the %&'.s, !risosto9o fenced off the entire peri9eter of =ot No. %.- and built his house on it. On *u)ust %&, %&&#, the respondents received a letter fro9 Santos Nantin de9andin) that the6 vacate =ot No. %.-. Santos clai9ed o"nership of this lot per the Deed of Transfer of Ri)hts +Deed of Transfer,' dated 7ul6 %., %&'-, "hich the respondents and their 9other alle)edl6 e<ecuted in Santos favor. The respondents denied this clai9 and 9aintained that the6 had been occup6in) =ot No. %.-, "hich the 5O= itself reco)ni:ed per its letters/ and the !ertification& dated *pril %-, -... confir9in) Donato as the lon)0ti9e occupant and a"ardee of the propert6. To perfect their title, the respondents applied for free patent over =ot No. %.- on Septe9ber 2, -.... On 7anuar6 3, -..% and a)ain on a later date, NF4!s "or;ers, "ith ar9ed police9en of Toril, Davao !it6, entered b6 force =ot No. %.- to fence it. The respondents reported the entr6 to the authorities. On *pril %2, -..%, !risosto9o received a letter fro9 NF4!s counsel de9andin) that he re9ove his house fro9 =ot No. %.-. NF4! subse(uentl6 re9oved the e<istin) fence and cut do"n various trees that the respondents had planted on the propert6. NF4!, for its part, clai9ed that Santos i99ediatel6 occupied and possessed =ot No. %.- after he purchased it fro9 the respondents in %&'- and declared it under his na9e for ta<ation purposes. Santos "as also )ranted 4ree Patent over the propert6 b6 the 5ureau of =ands, and obtained Ori)inal !ertificate of Title No. +O!T, P0#.3$%. on 7une %/, %&'#. On Dece9ber -&, -..., the heirs of Santos conve6ed =ot No. %.- to NF4! via the Deed of *bsolute Sale%% of even date. NF4! then filed a petition for cancellation of the respondents patent application over =ot No. %.-, "hich the 5O=0Manila )ranted on *pril %&, -..%, on the )round that Donato failed to perfect his title over =ot No. %.- "hich has lon) been titled in Santos na9e. Ahen conciliation failed, the respondents filed on Septe9ber %', -..% a co9plaint %- for forcible entr6 "ith da9a)es before the MT!! a)ainst NF4!, alle)in) that@ +%, the6 had been in prior ph6sical possession of =ot No. %.-G and +-, NF4! deprived the9 of possession throu)h force, inti9idation, strate)6, threats and stealth. The Rulin) of the MT!! Rel6in) on the rulin) of the 5O=0Manila, the MT!! dis9issed the respondents co9plaint, %3 e<plainin) that the (uestions raised before it re(uired technical deter9ination b6 the ad9inistrative a)enc6 "ith the e<pertise to deter9ine such 9atters, "hich the 5O=0Manila did in this case. %#ZrZl% The MT!! held that the pieces of evidence NF4! presented the Deed of Transfer the respondents e<ecuted in Santos favor, Santos O!T P0#.3$ over =ot No. %.-, the Deed of *bsolute Sale in NF4!s favor, and the findin)s of the 5O=0Manila established NF4!s ri)htful possession over the propert6. It

further held that@ +%, the respondents relin(uished their ri)hts over =ot No. %.- "hen the6 e<ecuted the Deed of Transfer in Santos favorG +-, the certificate of title over =ot No. %.- in Santos na9e sho"s that he "as in actual ph6sical possession since actual occupation is re(uired before an application for free patent can be approvedG and +3, NF4! validl6 ac(uired o"nership over =ot No. %.- "hen it purchased it fro9 Santos, entitlin) it to the ri)ht, a9on) others, to possess the propert6 as ancillar6 to such o"nership. The Rulin) of the RT! The respondents appealed the MT!! decision to the RT! but the latter court denied the appeal. %$ *s the MT!! did, the RT! relied on the findin)s of the 5O=0Manila. It held that@ +%, the respondents failed to perfect "hatever ri)ht the6 9i)ht have had over =ot No. %.-G and +-, the6 are estopped fro9 assertin) an6 ri)ht over =ot No. %.- since the6 have lon) transferred the propert6 and their ri)ht thereto, to Santos in %&'-. In resolvin) the issue of possession of =ot No. %.-, the RT! also resolved the (uestion of o"nership, as Hustified under the Rules, e<plainin) that the NF4!s possession of =ot No. %.- "as anchored on a Deed of *bsolute Sale, "hile that of the respondents "as based 9erel6 on the alle)ation of possession and occupation b6 Donato, and not on an6 title.%2ZrZl% Thus, the (uestion of concurrent possession of =ot No. %.- bet"een NF4! and the respondents should tilt in NF4!s favor. Ahen the RT! denied the respondents 9otion for reconsideration in an order %' dated March $, -..3, the respondents elevated their case to the !* via a petition for revie". %/ZrZl% The Rulin) of the !* The respondents clai9ed before the !* that the RT! erred "hen it held that NF4! had prior possession of =ot No. %.-, based solel6 on its Deed of *bsolute Sale. The6 ar)ued, a9on) others, that@ +%, Santos should have ta;en the necessar6 steps to oust the respondents had he been in possession of =ot No. %.be)innin) %&'-G +-, Santos could not have validl6 obtained title over =ot No. %.- since it "as still in the na9e of the Republic of the Philippines +Republic, as of %&/.G %& and +3, NF4! no lon)er had to forcibl6 evict the respondents in 7anuar6 -..% if it had been in possession of =ot No. %.- after it bou)ht this land fro9 Santos in -.... The !* found reversible error in the RT!s decisionG thus, it )ranted the respondents petition and ordered NF4! to vacate =ot No. %.-. The !* e<plained that a plaintiff, in a forcible entr6 case, onl6 has to prove prior 9aterial and ph6sical possession of the propert6 in liti)ation and undue deprivation of it b6 9eans of force, inti9idation, threat, strate)6 or stealth. These, the respondents averred in the co9plaint and sufficientl6 proved, thus entitlin) the9 to recover possession of =ot No. %.-. Rel6in) on the doctrine of presu9ption of re)ularit6 in the perfor9ance of official dut6, the !* especiall6 too; note of the letters and the !ertification "hich the 5O= sent to the respondents ac;no"led)in) Donato as the a"ardee of =ot No. %.- and the respondents as the actual occupants and possessors. In brushin) aside the RT!s findin)s, the !* ruled that@ +%, Donatos failure to perfect his title over =ot No. %.- should not "ei)h a)ainst the respondents as the issue in a forcible entr6 case is one of possession de facto and not of possession de HureG and +-, NF4!s o"nership of =ot No. %.- is beside the point as o"nership is be6ond the purvie" of an eHect9ent case. The title or ri)ht of possession, it stressed, is never an issue in a forcible entr6 suit. The !*, ho"ever, denied the respondents pra6er for 9oral da9a)es and attorne6s fees, and reHected the other issues raised for bein) irrelevant. In its 7ul6 %3, -..2 resolution,-. the !* denied NF4!s 9otion for reconsideration, pro9ptin) the NF4!s present recourse. The Petition NF4! ar)ues that the !* erred in holdin) that the respondents had prior ph6sical possession of =ot No. %.-.-% It clai9s that, first, in reversin) the RT! findin)s, the !* relied solel6 on the letters and the !ertification of the 5O=,-- "hich has been controverted b6 the follo"in) pieces of evidence, a9on) others@ +%, the Deed of Transfer that the respondents e<ecuted in favor of SantosG +-, the order of the

5ureau of =ands approvin) Santos patent applicationG +3, Santos O!T P0#.3$G and +#, the Deed of *bsolute Sale that Santos e<ecuted in favor of NF4!. NF4! 9aintains that the 5ureau of =ands "ould not have )ranted Santos free patent application had he not been in possession of =ot No. %.- because continued occupation and cultivation, either b6 hi9self or b6 his predecessor0in0interest, of the propert6 is a re(uire9ent for such )rant under the Public =and *ct. 56 the ver6 definition of Loccup6,L Santos is therefore dee9ed to have possessed =ot No. %.- prior to %&'#, the 6ear his free patent application "as )ranted, -3 and under the principle of tac;in) of possession, he is dee9ed to have had possession of =ot No. %.- not onl6 fro9 %&'-, "hen the respondents transferred it to hi9, but also fro9 the ti9e Donato ac(uired the lot in %&#/. Thus, Santos had no reason to oust the respondents since he had been in possession of =ot No. %.- be)innin) %&'-, b6 virtue of the transfer.-#ZrZl% Second, the respondents had no docu9ents to prove that the6 "ere in actual occupation and cultivation of =ot No. %.- the reason the6 did not heed the 5O=s re(uest to perfect their title over it. 4inall6, citin) Hurisprudence,-$ NF4! ar)ues that the RT! ri)htl6 ruled on the issue of its o"nership over =ot No. %.- in decidin) the issue of prior ph6sical possession as the Rules allo" this, b6 "a6 of e<ception. -2ZrZl% The !ase for Respondents The respondents ar)u9ents closel6 adhere to the !*s rulin). The6 ar)ue that NF4!, rather than 9eetin) the issues, focused on its alle)ed o"nership of =ot No. %.- and the possession flo"in) out of its o"nership. The6 den6 ever 9eetin) Santos and the6 9aintain that their continued possession and occupation of =ot No. %.- belie this supposed sale. ven )rantin) that this sale occurred, Santos could still not have ac(uired an6 ri)ht over =ot No. %.- for as of %&/., it "as still in the na9e of the Republic.-' Thus, the6 could not have transferred o"nership of =ot No. %.- to Santos, and he cannot clai9 o"nership of =ot No. %.- b6 reason of this sale. -/ZrZl% On the other hand, the respondents open, continuous, e<clusive, notorious and adverse possession of =ot No. %.- for three decades, coupled b6 a clai9 of o"nership, )ave the9 vested ri)ht or interest over the propert6.-& This vested ri)ht is e(uivalent to an actuall6 issued certificate of title so that the e<ecution and deliver6 of the title is a 9ere for9alit6. To sa6 the least, NF4! did not have to send the9 a for9al de9and to vacate3. and violentl6 oust the9 fro9 the pre9ises had it been in actual possession of the propert6 as clai9ed.3%ZrZl% =astl6, the respondents invo;ed the settled rule that the !ourts Hurisdiction in a Rule #$ petition is li9ited onl6 to revie"in) errors of la". NF4! failed to sho" 9isapprehension of facts in the !*s findin)s to Hustif6 a departure fro9 this rule.3-ZrZl% The !ourts Rulin) Ae first address the procedural issue raised. Resolvin) the contentions raised necessaril6 re(uires us to delve into factual issues, a course not proper in a petition for revie" on certiorari, for a Rule #$ petition resolves onl6 (uestions of la", not (uestions of fact. 33 This rule is read "ith the e(uall6 settled dictu9 that factual findin)s of the !* are )enerall6 conclusive on the parties and are therefore not revie"able b6 this !ourt.3# 56 "a6 of e<ception, "e resolve factual issues "hen, as here, conflict attended the findin)s of the MT!! and of the RT!, on one hand, and of the !*, on the other. Of 9inor note, but "hich "e dee9 i9portant to point, the petition needlessl6 i9pleaded the !*, in breach of Section #, Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt.3$ZrZl% Substantivel6, the ;e6 issue this case presents is prior ph6sical possession "hether NF4! had been in prior ph6sical possession of =ot No. %.-. Ae rule in the ne)ative. 4irst, on the reliance on the 5O= letters and !ertification and the !*s alle)ed disre)ard of NF4!s evidence. To prove prior ph6sical possession of =ot No. %.-, NF4! presented the Deed of Transfer, Santos O!T P0#.3$, the Deed of *bsolute Sale, and the Order of the 5ureau of =ands approvin) Santos free patent application. In presentin) these pieces of evidence, NF4! is apparentl6 9ista;en as it 9a6 have e(uated possession that is at issue as an attribute of o"nership to actual possession. The latter t6pe of possession is, ho"ever, different fro9 and has different le)al i9plications than the for9er. Ahile these

docu9ents 9a6 bear "ei)ht and are 9aterial in contests over o"nership of =ot No. %.-, the6 do not per se sho" NF4!s actual possession of this propert6. Ae a)ree that o"nership carries the ri)ht of possession, but the possession conte9plated b6 the concept of o"nership is not e<actl6 the sa9e as the possession in issue in a forcible entr6 case. Possession in forcible entr6 suits refers onl6 to possession de facto, or actual or 9aterial possession, and not possession flo"in) out of o"nershipG these are different le)al concepts 32 for "hich the la" provides different re9edies for recover6 of possession.3' *s "e e<plained in PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals,3/ and a)ain in the 9ore recent cases of 1on:a)a v. !ourt of *ppeals, 3& De 1rano v. =acaba,#. and =a)a:o v. Soriano,#% the "ord LpossessionL in forcible entr6 suits refers to nothin) 9ore than prior ph6sical possession or possession de facto, not possession de Hure#- or le)al possession in the sense conte9plated in civil la".#3 Title is not the issue,## and the absence of it Lis not a )round for the courts to "ithhold relief fro9 the parties in an eHect9ent case.L#$ZrZl% Thus, in a forcible entr6 case, La part6 "ho can prove prior possession can recover such possession even a)ainst the o"ner hi9self. Ahatever 9a6 be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in ti9e, he has the securit6 that entitles hi9 to re9ain on the propert6 until a person "ith a better ri)ht la"full6 eHects hi9.L #2 He cannot be eHected b6 force, violence or terror 00 not even b6 its o"ners.#' 4or these reasons, an action for forcible entr6 is su99ar6 in nature ai9ed onl6 at providin) an e<peditious 9eans of protectin) actual possession. #/ Hect9ent suits are intended to Lprevent breach of < < < peace and cri9inal disorder and to co9pel the part6 out of possession to respect and resort to the la" alone to obtain "hat he clai9s is his.L#& Thus, lest the purpose of these su99ar6 proceedin)s be defeated, an6 discussion or issue of o"nership is avoided unless it is necessar6 to resolve the issue of de facto possession. Ae a)ree "ith the respondents that instead of s(uarel6 addressin) the issue of possession and presentin) evidence sho"in) that NF4! or Santos had been in actual possession of =ot No. %.-, the for9er 9erel6 narrated ho" it ac(uired o"nership of =ot No. %.- and presented docu9ents to this effect. Its alle)ation that Santos occupied =ot No. %.- in %&'- is uncorroborated. ven the ta< declarations under Santos na9e are hardl6 of "ei)htG Lta< declarations and realt6 ta< pa69ents are not conclusive proof of possession. The6 are 9erel6 )ood indicia of possession in the concept of o"nerL $. but not necessaril6 of the actual possession re(uired in forcible entr6 cases. Section %, Rule '. of the Rules of !ourt provides "hen an action for forcible entr6, and unla"ful detainer, is proper@crala"librar6 S !TION %. Aho 9a6 institute proceedin)s, and "hen. SubHect to the provisions of the ne<t succeedin) section, a person deprived of the possession of an6 land or buildin) b6 force, inti9idation, threat, strate)6, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person a)ainst "ho9 the possession of an6 land or buildin) is unla"full6 "ithheld after the e<piration or ter9ination of the ri)ht to hold possession, b6 virtue of an6 contract, e<press or i9plied, or the le)al representatives or assi)ns of an6 such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person 9a6 at an6 ti9e "ithin one +%, 6ear after such unla"ful deprivation or "ithholdin) of possession, brin) an action in the proper Municipal Trial !ourt a)ainst the person or persons unla"full6 "ithholdin) or deprivin) of possession, or an6 person or persons clai9in) under the9, for the restitution of such possession, to)ether "ith da9a)es and costs. Ce9phasis oursG italics suppliedD Inder this provision, for a forcible entr6 suit to prosper, the plaintiff 9ust alle)e and prove@ +%, prior ph6sical possession of the propert6G and +-, unla"ful deprivation of it b6 the defendant throu)h force, inti9idation, strate)6, threat or stealth.$% *s in an6 civil case, the burden of proof lies "ith the co9plainants +the respondents in this case, "ho 9ust establish their case b6 preponderance of evidence. In the present case, the respondents sufficientl6 alle)ed and proved the re(uired ele9ents. To support its position, NF4! invo;es the principle of tac;in) of possession, that is, "hen it bou)ht =ot No. %.- fro9 Santos on Dece9ber -&, -..., its possession is, b6 operation of la", tac;ed to that of Santos and even earlier, or at the ti9e Donato ac(uired =ot No. %.- in %&#/. NF4!s reliance on this principle is 9isplaced. True, the la" $- allo"s a present possessor to tac; his possession to that of his predecessor0in0interest to be dee9ed in possession of the propert6 for the period re(uired b6 la". Possession in this re)ard, ho"ever, pertains to possession de Hure and the tac;in) is 9ade for the purpose of co9pletin) the ti9e re(uired for ac(uirin) or losin) o"nership throu)h prescription.

Ae reiterate possession in forcible entr6 suits refers to nothin) 9ore than ph6sical possession, not le)al possession. The !* brushed aside NF4!s ar)u9ent on the respondents failure to perfect their title over =ot No. %.-. It held that the issue in this case is not of possession de Hure, let alone o"nership or title, but of possession de facto. Ae a)ree "ith the !*G the discussions above are clear on this point. Ae a)ree, too, as "e have indicated in passin) above, that the issue of o"nership can be 9aterial and relevant in resolvin) the issue of possession. The Rules in fact e<pressl6 allo" this@ Section %2, Rule '. of the Rules of !ourt$3 provides that the issue of o"nership shall be resolved in decidin) the issue of possession if the (uestion of possession is intert"ined "ith the issue of o"nership. 5ut this provision is onl6 an e<ception and is allo"ed onl6 in this li9ited instance00 to deter9ine the issue of possession and onl6 if the (uestion of possession cannot be resolved "ithout decidin) the issue of o"nership. $# Save for this instance, evidence of o"nership is not at all 9aterial, as in the present case. $$ZrZl% *s a final reiterative note, this Decision deals onl6 "ith de facto possession and is "ithout preHudice to an appropriate action for recover6 of possession based on o"nership. AH R 4OR , in li)ht of these considerations, "e hereb6 D NB the petitionG the decision dated 4ebruar6 --, -..2 and the resolution dated 7ul6 %3, -..2 of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. SP No. ''..2 are hereb6 *44IRM D. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes@

Dated Septe9ber '. -..2 and filed on Septe9ber %%, -..2 under Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, rollo. pp. %'03-.
-

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Rodri)o 4. =i9. 7r., and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices Teresita D60 =iacco 4lores. Ro9ulo V. 5orHa, Ra9on R. 1arcia, and Ricardo R. RosarioG id. at -'20-&-.
3

Id. at 3&0#-.

Dated Nove9ber -&, -..-. The case "as doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. -&, %3&0-..-G id. at %#30%$%. Penned b6 7ud)e Renato *. 4uentes.
$

Dated 4ebruar6 -., -..-G id. at %%-0%--. Penned b6 Presidin) 7ud)e Da6de"s D. Villa9or. Id. at %2'. Id. at 2/02&. Id. at 2$022. Id. at 2'. Id. at '%0'3. Id. at '#0'2. Id. at #30$-. Supra note $. Id. at %%/0%%&.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

Supra note #. Id. at %#'0%#/. Id. at %$&. Inder Rule #- of the %&&' Rules of !ivil ProcedureG id. at %-30%#.. Id. at ''. See also the MT!!s findin)sG id. at %%/0%%&. Supra note 3. Rollo, p. -3. Id. at -/03.. Id. at -'0-/G cf. pa)e 33$. Id. at 33#.

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

Fuoted portions of the Supre9e !ourt rulin) in Refu)ia v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %%/-/#, 7ul6 $, %&&2, -$/ S!R* 3#'G id. at 3.03%.
-2

SupraG cf. pp. 3#303#$. Supra note %&. Id. at 3%'03%&. Id. at 3%&. !op6 of the Notice to VacateG id. at %//. Id. at 3%&03-.. Id. at 3-.03-%.

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

See Dr. Seri?a v. !aballero, #/. Phil. -'', -/# +-..#,G 1o Je !hon), 7r. v. !han, 1.R. No. %$3'&%, *u)ust -#, -..', $3% S!R* '-, /.0/%, citin) 5arcenas v. To9as, 1.R. No. %$.3-%, March 3%, -..$, #$# S!R* $&3, 2.2G and =a)a:o v. Soriano, 1.R. No. %'./2#, 4ebruar6 %2, -.%., 2%- S!R* 2%2, 2-..
3#

Dr. Seri?a v. !aballero, supra, at -/#.

3$

S !. #. !ontents of petition. The petition shall be filed in ei)hteen +%/, copies, "ith the ori)inal cop6 intended for the court bein) indicated as such b6 the petitioner, and shall +a, state the full na9e of the appealin) part6 as the petitioner and the adverse part6 as respondent, "ithout i9pleadin) the lo"er courts or Hud)es thereof either as petitioners or respondents. Citalics suppliedG e9phasis oursD cf. Dela !ru: v. !* and Te, $3& Phil. %$/, %2& +-..2,.
32

1on:a)a v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %3./#%, 4ebruar6 -2, -../, $#2 S!R* $3-, $#-. Ibid. 1.R. No. %#232#, 7une 3, -..#, #3. S!R* #&-, $.&0$%.. Supra note 32, at $#.. 1.R. No. %$//'', 7une %2, -..&, $/& S!R* %#/, %$/0%$&, citin) 1on:a)a v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra.

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

Supra note 33, at 2-%, citin) De 1rano v. =acaba, supra.

#-

See also 5arrientos v. Rapal, 1.R. No. %2&$&#, 7ul6 -., -.%%, 2$# S!R* %2$, %'.0%'%, citin) !arbonilla v. *biera, 1.R. No. %''23', 7ul6 -2, -.%., 2-$ S!R* #2%, #2&.
#3

See De 1rano v. =acaba, supra note #., at %$&, citin) Sps. Tirona v. Hon. *leHo, #%& Phil. -/$, -&/ +-..%,G cf. =a)a:o v. Soriano, supra note 33, at 2-%.
##

Heirs of Pedro =aurora v. Sterlin) Technopar; III, 1.R. No. %#2/%$, *pril &, -..3, #.% S!R* %/%, %/#G and 1on:a)a v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 32, at $#%, citin) Heirs of Pedro =aurora v. Sterlin) Technopar; III, at %/#.
#$

Mu?o: v. Babut, 7r., 1.R. Nos. %#-2'2 and %#2'%/, 7une 2, -.%%, 2$. S!R* 3##, 3'2, citin) PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 3/.
#2

PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 3/, at $%.0$%%, citin) Rubio v. The Hon. Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities, 3-- Phil. %'& +%&&2,G and *nta:o v. Doblada, 1.R. No. %'/&./, 4ebruar6 #, -.%., 2%% S!R* $/2, $&3, citin) PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 3/.
#'

Heirs of Pedro =aurora v. Sterlin) Technopar; III, supra note ##, at %/$, citin) Mu?o: v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %.-2&3, Septe9ber -3, %&&-, -%# S!R* -%2G 7oven v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. /.'3&, *u)ust -., %&&-, -%- S!R* '..G 1er9an Mana)e9ent and Services, Inc. v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. Nos. '2-%2 and '2-%', Septe9ber %#, %&/&, %'' S!R* #&$G and Supia and 5atioco v. Fuintero and *6ala, $& Phil. 3%- +%&33,.
#/

See PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 3/, at $%%0$%-G David v. !ordova, $.- Phil 2-2, 2#$02#2 +-..$,, citin) PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, at $%%0$%-G and Pa)adora v. Ilao, 1.R. No. %2$'2&, Dece9ber %-, -.%%, 22- S!R* %#, -&03..
#&

PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra, at $%-.

$.

De 1rano v. =acaba, supra note #., citin) strella v. Robles, 7r., 1.R. No. %'%.-&, Nove9ber --, -..', $3/ S!R* 2., '#G and 1anila v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %$.'$$, 7une -/, -..$, #2% S!R* #3$.
$%

See 1on:a)a v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 32, at $#., citin) 5eHar v. !alua), 1.R. No. %'%-'', 4ebruar6 %$, -..', $%2 S!R* /#, &%.
$-

*rticle %%3/ of the !ivil !ode provides@crala"librar6

*rt. %%3/. In the co9putation of ti9e necessar6 for prescription, the follo"in) rules shall be observed@crala"librar6 +%, The present possessor 9a6 co9plete the period necessar6 for prescription b6 tac;in) his possession to that of his )rantor or predecessor in interest. ZZZ?rZblZ[ ZZr\ZZl lZZ lZbrZr]
$3

S !. %2. Resolvin) defense of o"nership. Ahen the defendant raises the defense of o"nership in his pleadin)s and the (uestion of possession cannot be resolved "ithout decidin) the issue of o"nership, the issue of o"nership shall be resolved onl6 to deter9ine the issue of possession. +e9phasis ours,
$#

PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, supra note 3/, at $%..

$$

See De 1rano v. =acuba, supra note #., at %$&, citin) Haba)at 1rill v. DM!0Irban Propert6 Developer, Inc., 1.R. No. %$$%%., March 3%, -..$, #$# S!R* 2$3, 2'.G and PaHu6o v. !*, supra note 3/. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1?*8**

Mar.- 20, 2013

%E%ENC$A EC!$N PA"A#AN, ET A#., Petitioner, vs. T!E !E$RS O& S$MEON A.". MAAMO, SR., Respondents. D PERE , J.: 4iled pursuant to Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure, the petition for revie" at bench pri9aril6 assails the Decision% dated -- Ma6 -..2 rendered b6 the T"entieth Division of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. 2.'2&,- reversin) the Decision dated -. *u)ust %&&' in turn rendered b6 the Re)ional Trial !ourt, 5ranch -2, Southern =e6te +RT!, in !ivil !ase No. R0-23. 3 On 3% Dece9ber %&%., Onofre Palapo sold in favor of Placido S60!anso6 a parcel of land situated in the then 5arrio !alapian +no" 5aran)a6 stela,, =iloan, =e6te +no" Southern,, for the stated consideration of P/2.... Dra"n in Spanish, the notari:ed =e6te Deed of Sale the for9er e<ecuted in favor of the latter identified the propert6 as enclosed b6 the follo"in) boundaries@ on the North, b6 the 5arrio !hurchG on the South and ast, b6 the propert6 of Matias Si9a)alaG and, on the Aest, b6 the propert6 of Mi)uel Maa9o.# On -& October %&3#, Placido, in turn, e<ecuted a notari:ed deed in Spanish, affir9in) a %October %&%- sale of the sa9e parcel for the su9 of P%..... in favor of Mi)uel>s "ife, *ntonia 5a6on.$ 4aultin) Si9plecio Palapo "ith forcible entr6 into the propert6 on %' October %&3#, *ntonia, represented b6 Si9eon Maa9o, later filed the # Dece9ber %&3# eHect9ent co9plaint "hich "as doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. -&/ before the then !ourt of the 7ustice of the Peace of =iloan, =e6te. 2 Served "ith su99ons, Si9plecio filed an ans"er dated 2 Dece9ber %&3#, assertin) that, as one of the heirs of !oncepcion Palapo, he had been in le)al possession of the propert6 for 9an6 6ears "ithout once bein) disturbed b6 an6one.' On the stren)th of the aforesaid docu9ents of transfer as "ell as the evidence of prior possession adduced b6 *ntonia, ho"ever, the !ourt of the 7ustice of the Peace of =iloan, =e6te "ent on to render a Decision dated %' Dece9ber %&3#, brushin) aside Si9plecio>s defense for lac; of evidentiar6 basis and orderin) hi9 to vacate the parcel in liti)ation. / *s 9a6 be )leaned fro9 the $ Dece9ber %&/3 certification later issued b6 =iloan, =e6te Municipal Trial 7ud)e Patricio S. de los Re6es Sr., it appears that the -# Dece9ber %&3# "rit of e<ecution issued in the case "as later returned dul6 served.& On & Dece9ber %&/%, Si9eon Sr., 4abian Sr., 7uliana, Olivo, Silvestre Sr., *n)ela, 5onifacia and stelita, all surna9ed Maa9o +plaintiffs Maa9o,, co99enced the instant suit "ith the filin) of their co9plaint for recover6 of real propert6 and da9a)es a)ainst Si9plecio>s children, !rispiniano, 7uanito Sr., *rsenia and Roberto, all surna9ed Palapo +defendants Palapo,. %. In their a9ended co9plaint, plaintiffs Maa9o alle)ed that, as children and heirs of the Spouses Mi)uel and *ntonia, the6 "ere the co0 o"ners of the parcel of land sold b6 Placido "hich, "hile reported in ta< declarations to contain an area of %,2%- s(uare 9eters, actuall6 9easured %3,/%3 s(uare 9eters. Invo;in) the decision redee9ed in favor of *ntonia in !ivil !ase No. -&/, plaintiffs Maa9o 9aintained that their parents later relented to Si9plecio>s entreat6 to be allo"ed to sta6 on the propert6 as ad9inistrator. Plaintiffs Maa9o further averred that, havin) ille)all6 clai9ed o"nership over the "estern portion of the propert6 after Si9plecio>s death in %&'%, defendants Palapo unHustifiabl6 refused to heed their de9ands for the return of the liti)ated section 9easurin) ',.$$ s(uare 9eters. %% On %. 4ebruar6 %&/-, defendants Palapo filed their ans"er, specificall6 den6in) the 9aterial alle)ations of plaintiffs Maa9o>s co9plaint. Maintainin) that the6 inherited the liti)ated portion fro9 Si9plecio, defendants Palapo asserted that their father, in turn, inherited the sa9e fro9 his brother, !rispiniano Palapo, "ho also succeeded to the ri)hts of !oncepcion, the ta< declarant as earl6 as %&.2. 56 the9selves and thru their said predecessors0in0interest, defendants Palapo insisted that the6 had been in open, continuous and adverse possession of the liti)ated portion in the concept of o"ner since %&.2, pa6in) the realt6 ta<es due thereon lon) before the Second Aorld Aar. ven assu9in) that *ntonia prevailed in the eHect9ent suit she filed a)ainst Si9plecio in %&3#, defendants Palapo ar)ued that the causes of action of plaintiffs Maa9o>s "ere alread6 barred b6 prescription, estoppel and laches. %*t pre0trial, a co99issioner "as appointed to conduct an ocular inspection of the liti)ated portion and to sub9it a s;etch sho"in), a9on) other 9atters, the 9etes and bounds thereof. On %$ *u)ust %&/-, the !ISION

court0appointed co99issioner sub9itted a report and s;etch, 9appin) out the ',.$$ s(uare 9eter portion in liti)ation and identif6in) its boundaries as follo"s@ on the North, b6 Maa9o St.G on South b6 Peter 5urset St.G on the ast, b6 the Provincial RoadG and, on the Aest, b6 *n) 5a6on St. %3 *s noted in the -& Nove9ber %&/3 pre0trial order issued in the case, the identit6 of the portion in liti)ation "as ad9itted b6 the parties.%# *t the trial of the case on the 9erits, Si9eon Sr. too; the "itness stand %$ and sub9itted the deeds e<ecuted b6 Onofre and Placido, the docu9ents pertainin) to !ivil !ase No. -&/, the ta< declarations +TDs, and receipts pertainin) to the propert6 datin) bac; to the 6ear %&%/ and the certification to file action b6 the 5aran)a6 stela =upon secretar6. %2 56 "a6 of defense evidence, defendants Palapo presented the testi9onies of 7uanito Palapo and 5albina 1al)a" Madlos, %' to)ether "ith the TDs and receipts "hich the6 traced to the TD filed b6 !oncepcion in %&.2. %/ On -. *u)ust %&&', the RT! rendered a decision, declarin) defendants Palapo to be the le)al o"ners and possessors of the liti)ated portion. 4indin) that Si9plecio>s supposed %' October %&3# forcible entr6 into the propert6 preceded the -& October %&3# deed Placido e<ecuted in favor of *ntonia, the RT! brushed aside plaintiffs Maa9o>s clai9 on the further )round that the ',.$$ s(uare 9eter area of the liti)ated portion far e<ceeded the %,2%- s(uare 9eters declared in their TDs "hich, as a rule, cannot prevail over defendants Palapo>s actual possession of the propert6. Havin) possessed the liti)ated portion in the concept of o"ner for 9ore than thirt6 6ears, defendants Palapo "ere also declared to have ac(uired the propert6 b6 9eans of prescription, "ithout need of title or )ood faith. Ordered to respect defendants Palapo>s o"nership and possession of the portion in liti)ation, the RT! held plaintiffs Maa9o liable to pa6 the for9er the total su9 of P$.,...... b6 "a6 of actual and 9oral da9a)es as "ell attorne6>s fees and liti)ation e<penses.%& On appeal, the fore)oin) Decision "as reversed and set aside in the herein assailed -- Ma6 -..2 Decision rendered b6 the !*>s T"entieth Division in !*01.R. !V No. 2.'2&. The !* ruled that plaintiffs Maa9o "ere the true and la"ful o"ners of the liti)ated portion, upon the follo"in) findin)s and conclusions@ +a, the -& October %&3# deed Placido e<ecuted in favor of *ntonia "as a 9ere affir9ation of an earlier sale 9ade on %- October %&%-, hence, the ac(uisition of the liti)ated portion b6 plaintiffs Maa9o>s predecessor0in0interest predated Si9plecio>s %' October %&3# entr6 thereonG +b, defendants Palapo traced their clai9 to !oncepcion>s %&.2 TD "hich pertained to a different parcel situated in 5arrio Pandan, =iloan, =e6teG +c, the clai9 that the liti)ated portion "as inherited fro9 !oncepcion had been reHected in the %' Dece9ber %&3# Decision rendered in !ivil !ase No. -&/ "hich appears to have been returned dul6 served and e<ecutedG and, +e, since the possessor6 ri)hts of plaintiffs Maa9o>s predecessor0in0interest had been affir9ed and restored, Si9plecio>s continued possession of the portion in liti)ation "as b6 9ere tolerance and could not, therefore, ripen into o"nership ac(uired b6 prescription, laches or estoppel.-. In the 9eanti9e, the death of so9e of the ori)inal parties to the case resulted in their substitution b6 their respective heirs. Si9eon, Sr. "as substituted b6 his "ife and children, respondents !rispina, Si9eon, 7r., *selita, Re9edios, vansueda, !ar9elita, Manuel, li:abeth, *delaida and Mi)uel II, all surna9ed Maa9o. *s a conse(uence, the6 "ere Hoined in the case "ith the survivin) plaintiffs Maa9o, +no" respondents, 4abian Sr., 7uliana, Olivo, Silvestre Sr., *n)ela, 5onifacia and stelita, all surna9ed Maa9o. On defendants Palapo>s side, Roberto "as substituted b6 petitioners =6dia Veronica, *lil6, 5everl6 and Maricar, all surna9ed Palapo. -% 7uanito "as, li;e"ise, substituted b6 petitioners 1eneroso, Perla, 7uanito 7r., Delia, Raul, ditha and lvira, all surna9ed Palapo. *rsenia "as, in turn, substituted b6 her children, petitioners VCeDvencia, Ro)elio, li:abeth, 7osefina, usebio, 1avina and *9elita, all surna9ed nchin. !rispiniano "as, finall6, substituted b6 his children, petitioners *n)elita, Nor9ita, *polonia, 5inin) and Inda6, all surna9ed Palapo.-On ' Septe9ber -..2, the !* issued the second assailed resolution of the sa9e date, den6in) for lac; of 9erit petitioners> 9otion for reconsideration of its -- Ma6 -..2 Decision. *))rieved, petitioners filed the petition at bench, on the follo"in) )rounds@ %. TH !* S RIOIS=B RR D IN R V RSIN1 TH RT!>S D !ISION *ND IN D !=*RIN1 TH R SPOND NTS IN !ONTINI D POSS SSION O4 TH PROP RTB IN DISPIT 4ROM %&%/ TO %&/., NOTAITHST*NDIN1 P TITION RS> VID N! TO TH !ONTR*RB AHI!H PR POND R*NT=B ST*5=ISH D TH*T, 5B TH MS =V S *ND THRI TH IR PR D ! SSORS0IN0INT R ST, TH B H*V 5 N

IN OP N, PI5=I!, *DV RS *ND !ONTINIOIS POSS SSION TH R O4 IN TH !ON! PT O4 OAN RS SIN! -. 7I=B %&.2. -. TH !* 1R*V =B RR D IN DISR 1*RDIN1 SIM ON SR.>S *DMISSION IN OP N !OIRT TH*T R SPOND NTS H*V NOT 5 N IN POSS SSION O4 TH PROP RTB 4ROM %&3$ INTI= TH 4I=IN1 O4 TH IR !OMP=*INT IN %&/%, S*ID *DMISSION 5 IN1 * != *R INDI!*TION TH*T TH IR !OMP=*INT IS 5*RR D 5B STOPP = *ND =*!H S. 3. TH !* 1R*V =B RR D IN D !=*RIN1 R SPOND NTS *S OAN RS O4 TH PROP RTB 5B VIRTI O4 PR S!RIPTION IND R TH !IVI= !OD . #. TH !* S RIOIS=B RR D IN R =BIN1 ON TH 7ID1M NT R ND R D IN !IVI= !*S NO. -&/ *S 5*SIS 4OR R SPOND NTS> POSS SSION. $. TH !* *=SO RR D IN D !=*RIN1 TH*T SIMP= !IO>S POSS SSION A*S IPON TH TO= R*N! O4 R SPOND NTS> PR D ! SSORS0IN0INT R ST.-3 Ae find the petition bereft of 9erit. 4or the 9ost part, petitioners raise (uestions of fact "hich, as a )eneral rule, are not proper subHects of appeal b6 certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt as this 9ode of appeal is confined to (uestions of la".-# This !ourt is not a trier of facts and cannot, therefore, be tas;ed to )o over the proofs presented b6 the parties in the lo"er courts and anal6:e, assess and "ei)h the9 to ascertain if the court a (uo and the appellate court "ere correct in their appreciation of the evidence. -$ *9on) the reco)ni:ed e<ceptions to this rule, ho"ever is "hen the factual findin)s of the trial court are, as here, different fro9 those of the !*.-2 ven then, a re0evaluation of factual issues "ould onl6 be "arranted "hen the assailed findin)s are totall6 bereft of support in the records or are so patentl6 erroneous as to a9ount to )rave abuse of discretion. So lon) as such findin)s are supported b6 the record, the findin)s of the !ourt of *ppeals are conclusive and bindin) on this !ourt, even if contrar6 to those of the trial court. -' Our perusal of the record sho"s that the !* correctl6 ruled that the land to "hich the liti)ated portion pertains "as purchased fro9 Placido b6 respondents> predecessor0in0interest, *ntonia, on %- October %&%- and not on -& October %&3#, the date of the docu9ent in "hich the for9er ac;no"led)ed the transaction in "ritin).-/ !ontrar6 to the RT!>s findin), therefore, *ntonia alread6 o"ned the propert6 "hen petitioners> o"n predecessor0in0interest, Si9plecio, "as alle)ed to have forcibl6 entered into the propert6 on %' October %&3#. !onsiderin) that Placido "as, in turn, established to have purchased the propert6 fro9 Onofre on 3% Dece9ber %&%.,-& it "as fro9 the latter date that respondents ri)htfull6 traced their o"nership and possession thereof. Reference to the aforesaid transactions in the bod6 of the # Dece9ber %&3# eHect9ent co9plaint *ntonia filed a)ainst Si9plecio before the !ourt of the 7ustice of the Peace of =iloan, =e6te3. also leave no doubt that the sa9e propert6 "as the subHect 9atter of !ivil !ase No. -&/. The area of the propert6 that *ntonia ac(uired in %&%- "as, of course, not specified but "as si9pl6 identified b6 the follo"in) boundaries@ on the North, b6 the 5arrio !hurchG on the South and ast, b6 the propert6 of Matias Si9a)alaG and, on the Aest, b6 the propert6 of Mi)uel Maa9o. 56 the ti9e that the propert6 "as declared for ta<ation purposes in the na9e of *ntonia>s husband, Mi)uel, for the 6ears %&%/, %&#/, %&'%, %&'#, %&'2 and %&/., the boundaries enclosin) the sa9e "ere, ho"ever, alread6 stated as follo"s@ on the North, b6 Maa9o St.G on the South, b6 Peter 5urset St.G on the ast, b6 Inion St.G and, on the Aest, b6 *n) 5a6on St.3% These apparent variances in the boundaries of the propert6 "ere, ho"ever, elucidated durin) the direct e<a9ination of Si9eon Sr. "ho e<plained the per9utations said boundaries under"ent over the 6ears. These included the destruction of the 5arrio church in %&%- and its subse(uent relocation, the construction of Maa9o St., Peter 5urset St. and *n) 5a6on St. and the donation 9ade b6 his parents, Mi)uel and *ntonia, of portions of the propert6 for street construction. 3On the other hand, petitioners trace their clai9 of o"nership and possession to !oncepcion "ho declared a t"o0hectare parcel of land for ta<ation purposes in %&.2 under TD /3- and fro9 "ho9 her brother, !rispiniano, "as alle)ed in the ans"er to have inherited the sa9e. !ontradictin) their initial clai9 that Si9plecio, in turn, inherited the propert6 fro9 !rispiniano, 33 petitioners later asserted that Si9plecio directl6 inherited the propert6 fro9 !oncepcion "ho "as un9arried and died "ith issue. 3# *s a perusal thereof "ould readil6 reveal, ho"ever, TD /3- "as filed b6 !oncepcion on -. 7ul6 %&.2 "ith respect to a

parcel of land situated in 5arrio of Pandan and identified b6 the follo"in) boundaries@ on the North, b6 la Pla6a +the seashore,G on the South, b6 Patrecio =ano)G on the ast, b6 Si9eon 5aHanG and on the Aest, b6 Placido !i9a)ala.3$ *ccordin) to the testi9on6 of 7uanito, said propert6 "as eventuall6 subdivided into three parcels "hich "ere all eventuall6 declared for ta<ation purposes in the na9e of Si9plecio. 32 Instead of 5arrio Pandan "hich "as stated as the location of !oncepcion>s propert6 in TD /3-, our perusal of the TDs that petitioners adduced a (uo sho"s that the three parcels into "hich said propert6 "as supposedl6 divided are, ho"ever, situated in 5arrio stela. The first parcel "as declared in the na9es of !oncepcion and 7ustiniano Palapo under TDs #%'3 and $#.% in the 6ears %&-- and %&$/, respectivel6, and "as identified b6 the follo"in) boundaries@ on the North, b6 !uares St.G on the South, b6 5ahan St.G on the ast, b6 Palapo St.G and on the Aest b6 Inion St.3' The fore)oin) boundaries "ere reproduced in TDs %22'. and %&&' in the na9e of !oncepcion for the 6ears %&'% and %&'#, respectivel6. 3/ It "as onl6 in %&'$ and %&/., "hen the propert6 "as declared in the na9e of Si9plecio under TDs $%-$ and #-.-, respectivel6, that the boundaries of the propert6 "ere stated as follo"s@ on the North, b6 the !hurch SiteG on the South, b6 !uares St.G on the ast, b6 the Provincial RoadG and on the Aest, b6 the School Site. 3& Declared for ta<ation purposes in the na9e of !oncepcion under TDs #%'$, $#%%, %222' and %&&# in the 6ears %&--, %&#/, %&'% and %&'#, respectivel6, the second parcel "as, on the other hand, described as deli9ited b6 the follo"in) boundaries@ on the North b6 Sarvida St.G on the South, b6 !uares St.G on the ast, b6 Inion St.G and on the Aest, b6 the propert6 of *ntonia 5a6on. #. Ahen the sa9e parcel "as, ho"ever, declared in Si9plecio>s na9e in %&'$ and %&/. under TDs $%-3 and #-.#, the boundaries "ere ine<plicabl6 altered in the follo"in) "ise@ on the North, b6 !uares and Sarvida St.G on the South, b6 the propert6 of De9etrio PalapoG on the ast, b6 the SeashoreG and on the Aest, b6 the Provincial Road. #% The third parcel "as, finall6, declared in the na9es of !oncepcion and 7ustiniano in the 6ears %&--, %&#/, %&'% and %&'# under TDs #%'&, $#%., %222# and %&&3, respectivel6. Its boundaries "ere identified as follo"s@ on the North, b6 the propert6 of !oncepcion PalapoG on the South, b6 the propert6 of Si9eon 5aHanG on the ast, b6 Palapo St.G and on the Aest, b6 Inion St. #- 56 the ti9e this parcel "as declared for ta<ation purposes in Si9plecio>s na9e in %&'$ and %&/. under TDs $%-% and #-.$, the boundaries "ere once a)ain altered in the follo"in) "ise@ on the North, b6 the 5arrio Road and the propert6 of Mi)uel Maa9oG on the South, b6 the !hurch SiteG on the ast, b6 the Provincial RoadG and on the Aest, b6 the School Site and 5arrio Road.#3 *s noted, the provenance of the fore)oin) TDs "ere all traced to TD /3- "hich pertained to a propert6 situated in 5arrio Pandan and not 5arrio stela, the location of the propert6 in liti)ation. Since both Si9eon, Sr. and 7uanito testified that 5arrio Pandan is 9ore than one ;ilo9eter to about t"o ;ilo9eters a"a6 fro9 5arrio stela,## "e find that the !* correctl6 ruled that petitioners cannot trace their clai9 of possession and o"nership to TD /3- that !oncepcion obtained in %&.2. In contrast, respondents "ere able to trace their clai9 to Onofre>s 3% Dece9ber %&%. sale of the propert6 to Placido "ho, in turn, sold the sa9e to *ntonia on %- October %&%-. The TDs Mi)uel filed "ith respect to the propert6 also date bac; to %&%/#$ or four 6ears ahead of the TD>s filed in %&-- in the na9es of !oncepcion and 7ustiniano, over the three parcels into "hich the propert6 "as purportedl6 subdivided. 1wphi1 ven 9ore i9portantl6, the stated boundaries of the propert6 declared in Mi)uel>s na9e are identical to the boundaries of the propert6 identified in the s;etch sub9itted b6 the court0appointed co99issioner. This cannot be said of the properties declared in the na9es of !oncepcion and 7ustiniano, the boundaries of "hich "ere further altered "hen the6 "ere declared in Si9plecio>s na9e in %&'$ and %&/.. *s deter9ined b6 the court0appointed co99issioner, the total area of the parcel clai9ed b6 respondents 9easures %#,#33 s(uare 9eters, of "hich ',.$$ s(uare 9eters are, in turn, clai9ed b6 petitioners. #2 In decidin) a)ainst respondents, the RT! ruled that the areas of said parcel and, for that 9atter, the portion in liti)ation, "ere disproportionatel6 lar)er than the %,2%- s(uare 9eters stated in the TDs adduced b6 respondents. It 9ust be borne in 9ind, ho"ever, that "hat defines the land is not the nu9erical data indicated as its si:e or area but, rather, the boundaries or L9etes and boundsL specified in its description as enclosin) the land and indicatin) its li9its.#' To repeat, the evidence adduced a (uo sho"s that the boundaries of the parcel of land purchased b6 *ntonia are consistent "ith the boundaries of the parcel of land in Mi)uel>s TDs and the s;etch sub9itted b6 the court0appointed co99issioner. Petitioners ne<t fault the !* for supposedl6 disre)ardin) their evidence to the effect that Si9plecio had been in possession of the propert6 since %&%- as "ell as Si9eon Sr.>s ad9ission that respondents have not been in possession thereof since %&3$. *side fro9 the fact that the TDs the6 presented pertain to a different propert6, ho"ever, petitioners convenientl6 overloo; *ntonia>s filin) of an eHect9ent co9plaint

a)ainst Si9plecio in %&3# "ith respect to the propert6 herein liti)ated. In the %' Dece9ber %&3# Decision rendered in the case, the !ourt of the 7ustice of the Peace of =iloan =e6te si)nificantl6 deter9ined *ntonia>s prior possession of the propert6 and upheld her ri)ht to ta;e possession thereof. #/ Ahile it is true that a Hud)9ent rendered in a forcible entr6 case "ill not bar an action bet"een the sa9e parties respectin) title or o"nership,#& the rule is settled that such a Hud)9ent is conclusive "ith respect to the issue of 9aterial possession.$. *lthou)h it does not have the sa9e effect as res Hudicata in the for9 of bar b6 for9er Hud)9ent "hich prohibits the prosecution of a second action upon the sa9e clai9, de9and, or cause of action, the rule on conclusiveness of Hud)9ent bars the reliti)ation of particular facts or issues in another liti)ation bet"een the sa9e parties and their privies on a different clai9 or cause of action. $% To Our 9ind, the fact that the "rit of e<ecution issued in !ivil !ase No. -&/ "as returned dul6 served$- also lends credence to respondents> clai9 that Si9plecio>s possession of the propert6 "as upon Mi)uel>s tolerance.$3 Since acts of a possessor6 character e<ecuted due to license or b6 9ere tolerance of the o"ner are inade(uate for purposes of ac(uisitive prescription, $# petitioners cannot clai9 to have ac(uired o"nership of the propert6 b6 virtue of their possession thereof since %&3$. Inder *rticles ###$$ and %&#-$2 of the old !ivil !ode, possession of real propert6 is not affected b6 acts of a possessor6 character "hich are 9erel6 tolerated b6 the possessor, or "hich are due to his license. $' 1ranted that lon), continued occupation, acco9panied b6 acts of a possessor6 character, affords so9e evidence that possession has been e<erted in the character of o"ner and under clai9 of ri)ht, $/ this inference is unavailin) to petitioners since Si9plecio>s continued possession of the propert6 after his defeat in the eHect9ent suit "as clearl6 upon the tolerance of respondents> predecessors0in0interest. Vie"ed in the li)ht of the fore)oin) considerations, petitioners> reliance on Sections #. $& and #%2. of *ct No. %&. or the !ode of !ivil Procedure is, at the ver6 least, 9isplaced. Inas9uch as possession 9ust be adverse, public, peaceful and uninterrupted in order to consolidate prescription, it stands to reason that acts of a possessor6 character done b6 virtue of a license or 9ere tolerance on the part of the real o"ner are not sufficient.2% It has been ruled that this principle is applicable not onl6 "ith respect to the prescription of the do9iniu9 as a "hole, but, to the prescription of ri)ht in re9. 2- !onsiderin) that *rticle %%%& of the present !ivil !ode also provides that L+a,cts of possessor6 character e<ecuted in virtue of license or b6 9ere tolerance of the o"ner shall not be available for the purposes of possession,L the error petitioners i9pute a)ainst the !* for appl6in) the ne" !ivil !ode provisions on prescription is 9ore apparent than real. Then as no", possession 9ust be en concepto de due?o or adverse in order to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive ri)ht. If not, such possessor6 acts, no 9atter ho" lon), do not start the runnin) of the period of prescription.23 *s for the supposed fact that possession b6 tolerance "as not a9on) the issues si9plified durin) the pre0 trial of the case, suffice it to sa6 that the sa9e is subsu9ed in the second issue identified in the RT!>s -& Nove9ber %&/3 pre0trial order, i.e., L+",hether or not petitioners and their predecessors0in0interest had been in the actual, ph6sical possession of the land in (uestion in the concept of o"ners since %&.2 up to the present.L2# Since Si9plecio8s possession of the subHect parcel "as b6 9ere tolerance, "e find that the !* correctl6 brushed aside petitioners8 reliance on estoppel "hich cannot be sustained b6 9ere ar)u9ent or doubtful inference.2$ The sa9e 9a6 be said of the !*8 s reHection of laches, an e(uitable doctrine the application of "hich is controlled b6 e(uitable considerations. 22 It operates not reall6 to penali:e ne)lect or sleepin) on one8s ri)hts, but rather to avoid reco)ni:in) a ri)ht "hen to do so "ould result in a clearl6 ine(uitable situation.2' Infortunatel6 for petitioners8 cause, no such situation obtains in the case. AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the instant petition for revie" on certiorari is D NI D for lac; of 9erit. SO ORD R D. JOSE PORTUGA# PERE *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice

ARTURO D. "R$ON *ssociate 7ustice

MAR$ANO C. DE# CAST$##O *ssociate 7ustice

ESTE#A M. PER#AS;"ERNA"E *ssociate 7ustice *TT ST*TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached 9 consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson, Second Division ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson8s *ttestation, it is hereb6 certified that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

Penned b6 !* *ssociate 7ustice Pa9pio *. *barintos and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices nrico *. =an:anas and *polinario D. 5rusclas, 7r. !* rollo, -- Ma6 -..2 Decision in !*01.R. !V No. 2.'2&, pp. -.$0-%&. Records, pp. /-$0/3#, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,, -. *u)ust %&&' RT! Decision. <hibit L5L and sub9ar;in)s, folder of e<hibits, pp. -03. <hibit L*,L id. at %. <hibits L L and sub9ar;in)s, id. at #20#'. <hibit L4,L id. at #/ <hibit L1,L id. at #&. <hibit LHL and sub9ar;in)s, id. at $.. Records, pp. %02, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,, 3 Dece9ber %&/% !o9plaint. -- 7ul6 %&/3 *9ended !o9plaint, id. at %#20%$.. -& 7anuar6 %&/- *ns"er, id. at %$0-.. %$ *u)ust %&/- !o99issioner>s Report and S;etch, id. at 2%02#. -& Nove9ber %&/3 Pre0Trial Order, id. at %'30%'$. TSN, 3 7ul6 %&/#.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

<hibits L*L to LJL and sub9ar;in)s, folder of e<hibits, pp. %0$-G &%0&3. TSNs, -/ Ma6 %&/$, %/ Nove9ber %&/2, -- *u)ust %&&2. <hibits L%L to L2L and sub9ar;in)s, folder of e<hibits, pp. $30&.. Records, pp. /-$0/3#, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,, RT! Decision dated -. *u)ust %&&.. !* rollo, +!*01.R. No. 2.'2&,, pp. -.$0-%&. Records, pp. '3$0'32G '#.G ''30''#, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,. !* rollo, +!*01.R. !V No. 2.'2&,, pp. %#-0%#3G %2$0%22G %2&0%'.. Rollo, pp. %30%#. 1o6ena v. =edes9a01ustilo, ##3 Phil. %$., %$/ +-..3,.

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

7MM Pro9otions and Mana)e9ent, Inc. v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %3&#.%, - October -..-, 3&. S!R* --3, --&0-3..
-2

Manila lectric !o9pan6 v. !ourt of *ppeals, #%3 Phil. 33/, 3$# +-..%,. 1on:ales v. !ourt of *ppeals, #%% Phil. -3-, -#- +-..%,. <hibit L*,L folder of e<hibits, p. %. <hibt L5,L and sub9ar;in)s, id. at -03. <hibits L!,L and sub9ar;in)s, id. at #20#'. <hibits L!,L L!0%,L L!0-,L L!03,L L!0#L and L!0$,L id. at #0&. TSN, 3 7ul6 %&/#, pp. --03/. Records, p. %', +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,. TSN, -/ Ma6 %&/$, p. %.G TSN, %/ 7ul6 %&&2, p. 3. <hibit L%04,L folder of e<hibits, p. $&. TSN, %3 7une %&/2G TSN, %/ 7ul6 %&&2, p. -#. <hibits L%0DL and L%0 ,L folder of e<hibits, pp. $'0$/. <hibits L%05L and L%0!,L id. at $$0$2. <hibits L%L and L%0*,L id. at $30$#. <hibits L305,L L30!,L L30DL and L30 ,L id. at '.0'3. <hibits L3L and L30*,L id. at 2/02&. <hibits L#05,L L#0!,L L#0D,L L#0 ,L id. at /.0/3. <hibits L#L and L#0*,L id. at '/0'&. TSN, -# Septe9ber %&/#, p. $, TSN, %/ 7ul6 %&&2, p. '.

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

3#

3$

32

3'

3/

3&

#.

#%

#-

#3

##

#$

<hibits L!,L L!0%,L L!0-,L L!03,L L!0#L and L!0$,L folder of e<hibits, pp. #0&.

#2

Records, pp. 2%02#, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,, %$ *u)ust %&/- !o99issioner>s Report and S;etch.
#'

Tabuso v. !ourt of *ppeals, #%% Phil. ''$, '/' +-..%,. <hibit L1,L folder of e<hibits, p. #&. S.7.Vda. De Villanueva v. !ourt of *ppeals, #.3 Phil. '-%, '3. +-..%,. 5ua:on v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. &''#&, %& March %&&3, --. S!R* %/-, %&.. Heirs of *badilla v. 1alarosa, $-' Phil. -2#, -'/ +-..2,. <hibit LHL and sub9ar;in)s, folder of e<hibits, p. $.. TSN, 3 7ul6 %&/#, p. 3#. =a9sis v. Don)0e, 1.R. No. %'3.-%, -. October -.%., 23# S!R* %$#, %'-.

#/

#&

$.

$%

$-

$3

$#

$$

*rt. ###. *cts "hich are 9erel6 tolerated and those clandestinel6 e<ecuted, "ithout ;no"led)e of the possessors of a thin), or b6 force, do not affect the possession.
$2

*rt. %&#-. *cts of a possessor6 character, perfor9ed b6 virtue of the license, or b6 9ere tolerance on the part of the o"ner, are of no effect for establishin) possession.
$'

!ua6on) v. 5enedicto, 3' Phil. '/%, '&3 +%&%/,. !orporacion de PP. Do9inicos v. =a:aro, #- Phil. %%&, %-' +%&-%,.

$/

$&

S !TION #.. Period of Prescription as to Real state. N *n action for recover6 of the title to, or possession of, real propert6, or an interest therein, can onl6 be brou)ht "ithin ten 6ears after the cause of such action accrues.
2.

S !TION #%. Title to =and b6 Prescription. N Ten 6ears actual adverse possession b6 an6 person clai9in) to be the o"ner for that ti9e of an6 land or interest in land, uninterruptedl6 continued for ten 6ears b6 occupanc6, descent, )rants, or other"ise, in "hatever "a6 such occupanc6 9a6 have co99enced or continued, shall vest in ever6 actual occupant or possessor of such land a full and co9plete title, savin) to the persons under disabilities the ri)hts secured b6 the ne<t section. In order to constitute such title b6 prescription or adverse possession, the possession b6 the clai9ant or b6 the person under or throu)h "ho9 he clai9s 9ust have been actual, open, public, continuous, under a clai9 of title e<clusive of an6 other ri)ht and adverse to all other clai9ants. 5ut failure to occup6 or cultivate land solel6 b6 reason of "ar shall not be dee9ed to constitute an interruption of possession of the clai9ant, and his title b6 prescription shall be co9plete, if in other respects perfect, not"ithstandin) such failure to occup6 or cultivate the land durin) the continuance of "ar.
2%

Se9inar6 of San !arlos v. Municipalit6 of !ebu, %& Phil. 3-, #- +%&%%,. !ua6con) v. 5enedicto, supra, note $' at '&-0'&3. s)uerra v. Manantan, 1.R. No. %$/3-/, -3 4ebruar6 -..', $%2 S!R* $2%, $'3. Records, +!ivil !ase No. R0-23,, p. %'$.

2-

23

2#

2$

=i)a v. *lle)ro Resources !orp., 1.R. No. %'$$$#, -3 Dece9ber -../, $'$ S!R* 3%., 3-.0 3-%.
22

Heirs of !le9ente r9ac v. Heirs of Vicente r9ac, #$% Phil. 32/,3'& +-..3,.

2'

Maestrado v. !ourt of *ppeals, 3/# Phil. #%/, #3. +-...,. SECOND D$%$S$ON G.R. NO. 1?2G88 @ Mar.- 13, 2013 $SA"E# N. GU MAN, 2etitioner, v. AN$ANO N. GU MAN an3 PR$M$T$%A G. MONTEA#TO,!e#pondent#. DEC$S$ON "R$ON, J.@

Ae resolve the petition for revie" on certiorari,% filed b6 petitioner Isabel N. 1u:9an, assailin) the 4ebruar6 3, -..2 decision- and the *pril %', -..2 resolution3 of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. SP No. &.'&&. The !* decision dis9issed the petitioner8s petition for certiorari for bein) the "ron) 9ode of appeal and for lac; of 9erit. The !* resolution denied the petitioner8s 9otion for reconsideration for lac; of 9erit. TH 4*!TI*= *NT ! D NTS On 7une %$, -..., the petitioner filed "ith the Municipal Trial !ourt +MT!, of Tu)ue)arao !it6, !a)a6an, 5ranch #, a co9plaint for eHect9ent a)ainst her children, respondents *niano N. 1u:9an and Pri9itiva 1. Montealto.# The petitioner alle)ed that she and *rnold N. 1u:9an o"ned the 2M'th and %M'th portions, respectivel6, of a %,##20s(uare 9eter parcel of land, ;no"n as =ot No. -#%&05, in Tu)ue)arao !it6, !a)a6an, under Transfer !ertificate of Title No. T0'#'.'G $ the respondents occupied the land b6 toleranceG the respondents did not co9pl6 "ith her 7anuar6 %', -... "ritten de9and to vacate the propert6G2 and subse(uent baran)a6 conciliation proceedin)s failed to settle the differences bet"een the9.'chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 In their ans"er,/ the respondents countered that the petitioner transferred, in a Dece9ber -/, %&&2 docu9ent,& all her propert6 ri)hts in the disputed propert6, e<cept her usufructuar6 ri)ht, in favor of her children, and that the petitioner en)a)ed in foru9 shoppin) since she alread6 raised the issue of o"nership in a petition for cancellation of adverse clai9 a)ainst the respondents, pendin) "ith 5ranch # of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Tu)ue)arao !it6, !a)a6an. %.chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 TH MT!8s RI=IN1 In a Nove9ber -', -..- decision,%% the MT! found the petitioner to be the la"ful o"ner of the land "ith a ri)ht to its possession since the respondents had no vested ri)ht to the land since the6 are 9erel6 the petitioner8s children to "ho9 no o"nership or possessor6 ri)hts have passed. It held that the petitioner co99itted no foru9 shoppin) since she asserted o"nership onl6 to establish her ri)ht of possession, and the lo"er courts can provisionall6 resolve the issue of o"nership to deter9ine "ho has the better ri)ht of possession. The MT! directed the respondents to vacate the land and surrender possession to the petitioner, and to pa6 P$,...... as 9onthl6 rental fro9 7anuar6 -... until possession is surrendered, plus P%$,...... as 9oral and e<e9plar6 da9a)es. The respondents appealed to the RT! of Tu)ue)arao !it6, !a)a6an, 5ranch %. %- The6 ar)ued that@ +a, the MT! had no Hurisdiction over the caseG +b, the petitioner has no cause of action a)ainst the respondentsG +c, the petitioner en)a)ed in foru9 shoppin)G and +d, the MT! erred in decidin) the case in the petitioner8s favor.%3chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 TH RT!8s RI=IN1 In its Ma6 %&, -..$ decision,%# the RT! reHected the respondents8 ar)u9ents, findin) that the MT! has Hurisdiction over eHect9ent cases under Section 33+-, of 5atas Pa9bansa 5ilan) %-&G %$ the petitioner has a valid cause of action a)ainst the respondents since the co9plaint alle)ed the petitioner8s o"nership, the respondents8 possession b6 tolerance, and the respondents8 refusal to vacate upon the petitioner8s de9andG and, the petitioner did not en)a)e in foru9 shoppin) since the petition for the cancellation of adverse clai9 has a cause of action totall6 different fro9 that of eHect9ent.

The RT!, ho"ever, still ruled for the respondents and set aside the MT! rulin). It too; into account the petitioner8s transfer of ri)hts in the respondents8 favor "hich, it held, could not be unilaterall6 revo;ed "ithout a court action. It also noted that the petitioner failed to alle)e and prove that earnest efforts at a co9pro9ise have been e<erted prior to the filin) of the co9plaint. %2 Thus, the RT! ordered the petitioner to pa6 the respondents P-$,...... as attorne68s fees and P-$,...... as liti)ation e<penses. On 7une %2, -..$, the petitioner received a cop6 of the RT! decision. %' On 7une 3., -..$, the petitioner filed her first 9otion for reconsideration.%/ In its 7ul6 2, -..$ order,%& the RT! denied the petitioner8s 9otion for reconsideration for lac; of the re(uired notice of hearin). -.chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 On 7ul6 %#, -..$, the petitioner filed a second 9otion for reconsideration. -% In its 7ul6 %$, -..$ order,-- the RT! denied the second 9otion for reconsideration for havin) been filed out of ti9e. On 7ul6 -., -..$, the petitioner filed a third 9otion for reconsideration. -3 In its 7ul6 --, -..$ order,-#the RT! denied the third 9otion for reconsideration "ith finalit6. On *u)ust /, -..$, the petitioner filed a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari "ith the !*, alle)in) that the RT! co99itted a )rave abuse of discretion@ +a, in decidin) the case based on 9atters not raised as issues on appealG +b, in findin) that the transfer of ri)hts could not be unilaterall6 revo;ed "ithout a court actionG +c, in holdin) that the petitioner failed to prove that earnest efforts at a co9pro9ise have been e<erted prior to the filin) of the co9plaintG and +d, in den6in) the petitioner8s 9otion for reconsideration on a 9ere technicalit6. TH !*8s RI=IN1 In its 4ebruar6 3, -..2 decision,-$ the !* dis9issed the petition. The !* noted that a Rule #- petition for revie", not a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari, "as the proper re9ed6 to assail an RT! decision rendered in the e<ercise of its appellate Hurisdiction. It found that the petitioner lost her chance to appeal "hen she filed a second 9otion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleadin) under Section $, Rule 3' of the Rules of !ourt. The !* also held that the petitioner cannot validl6 clai9 that the respondents occupied the properties throu)h 9ere tolerance since the6 "ere co0o"ners of the propert6 as co9pulsor6 heirs of *lfonso 1u:9an, the ori)inal o"ner. Ahen the !* denied-2 the 9otion for reconsideration-' that follo"ed, the petitioner filed the present Rule #$ petition. TH P TITION The petitioner Hustifies the filin) of a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari "ith the !* b6 clai9in) that the RT! Hud)e acted "ith )rave abuse of discretion in passin) on issues not raised in the appeal and in not rela<in) the rule on the re(uired notice of hearin) on 9otions. She further ar)ues that the !*8s findin) of co0 o"nership is bereft of factual and le)al basis. TH !*S 4OR TH R SPOND NTS The respondents sub9it that the proper re9ed6 for appealin) a decision of the RT!, e<ercisin) appellate Hurisdiction, is a Rule #- petition for revie", and that a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. TH ISSI The case presents to us the issue of "hether the !* co99itted a reversible error in dis9issin) the petitioner8s petition for certiorari. TH !OIRT8s RI=IN1 The petition lac;s 9erit. The petitioner availed of the "ron) re9ed6

The petitioner8s resort to a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari to assail the RT! decision and orders is 9isplaced. Ahen the RT! issued its decision and orders, it did so in the e<ercise of its appellate HurisdictionG the proper re9ed6 therefro9 is a Rule #- petition for revie". -/ Instead, the petitioner filed a second 9otion for reconsideration and thereb6 lost her ri)ht to appealG a second 9otion for reconsideration bein) a prohibited pleadin) pursuant to Section $, Rule 3' of the Rules of !ourt. -&The petitioner8s subse(uent 9otions for reconsideration should be considered as 9ere scraps of paper, not havin) been filed at all, and unable to toll the re)le9entar6 period for an appeal. The RT! decision beca9e final and e<ecutor6 after fifteen +%$, da6s fro9 receipt of the denial of the first 9otion for reconsideration. It is ele9entar6 that once a decision beco9es final and e<ecutor6, it is Li99utable and unalterable, and can no lon)er be 9odified in an6 respect, even if the 9odification is 9eant to correct "hat is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or la", and re)ardless of "hether the 9odification is atte9pted to be 9ade b6 the court renderin) it or b6 the hi)hest court of the land.L3. Thus, the RT! decision, even if alle)edl6 erroneous, can no lon)er be 9odified. *pparentl6, to resurrect her lost appeal, the petitioner filed a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari, i9putin) )rave abuse of discretion on the RT! for decidin) the case a)ainst her. Certiorari, b6 its ver6 nature, is proper onl6 "hen appeal is not available to the a))rieved part6G the re9edies of appeal and certiorari are 9utuall6 e<clusive, not alternative or successive. 3% It cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especiall6 if one8s o"n ne)li)ence or error in one8s choice of re9ed6 occasioned such loss or lapse.3-chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 No )rave abuse of discretion In an6 case, even )rantin) that the petition can be properl6 filed under Rule 2$ of the Rules of !ourt, "e hold that it "as bound to fail. It should be noted that as a le)al recourse, certiorari is a li9ited for9 of revie".33 It is restricted to resolvin) errors of Hurisdiction and )rave abuse of discretion, not errors of Hud)9ent. 3# Indeed, as lon) as the lo"er courts act "ithin their Hurisdiction, alle)ed errors co99itted in the e<ercise of their discretion "ill a9ount to 9ere errors of Hud)9ent correctable b6 an appeal or a petition for revie".3$chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 In this case, the i9puted errors pertained to the RT!8s appreciation of 9atters not raised as errors on appeal, specificall6, the transfer of ri)hts and subse(uent unilateral revocation, and the strictl6 enforced rule on notice of hearin). These 9atters involve onl6 the RT!8s appreciation of facts and its application of the la"G the errors raised do not involve the RT!8s Hurisdiction, but 9erel6 a9ount to a clai9 of erroneous e<ercise of Hud)9ent. 5esides, the RT! acted "ithin its Hurisdiction in considerin) the 9atter of the petitioner8s transfer of ri)hts, even if it had not been raised as an error. Inder Section %/, Rule '. of the Rules of !ourt, 32the RT! is 9andated to decide the appeal based on the entire record of the MT! proceedin)s and such pleadin)s sub9itted b6 the parties or re(uired b6 the RT!. Nonetheless, even "ithout this provision, an appellate court is clothed "ith a9ple authorit6 to revie" 9atters, even if the6 are not assi)ned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessar6 in arrivin) at a Hust decision of the case, or is closel6 related to an error properl6 assi)ned, or upon "hich the deter9ination of the (uestion raised b6 error properl6 assi)ned is dependent.3' The 9atter of the petitioner8s transfer of ri)hts, "hich "as in the records of the case, "as the basis for the RT!8s decision. The RT! did not also co99it a )rave abuse of discretion in strictl6 enforcin) the re(uire9ent of notice of hearin). The re(uire9ent of notice of hearin) is an inte)ral co9ponent of procedural due process that see;s to avoid Lsurprises that 9a6 be sprun) upon the adverse part6, "ho 9ust be )iven ti9e to stud6 and 9eet the ar)u9ents in the 9otion before a resolution b6 the court.L 3/ 1iven the purpose of the re(uire9ent, a 9otion unacco9panied b6 a notice of hearin) is considered a 9ere scrap of paper that does not toll the runnin) of the period to appeal. This re(uire9ent of notice of hearin) e(uall6 applies to the petitioner8s 9otion for reconsideration.3& The petitioner8s alle)ed absence of counsel is not a valid e<cuse or reason for non0co9pliance "ith the rules. * final point

Hect9ent cases are su99ar6 proceedin)s intended to provided an e<peditious 9eans of protectin) actual possession or ri)ht of possession of propert6. Title is not involved, hence, it is a special civil action "ith a special procedure. The onl6 issue to be resolved in eHect9ent cases is the (uestion of entitle9ent to the ph6sical or 9aterial possession of the pre9ises or possession de facto. Thus, an6 rulin) on the (uestion of o"nership is onl6 provisional, 9ade solel6 for the purpose of deter9inin) "ho is entitled to possession de facto.#. *ccordin)l6, an6 rulin) on the validit6 of the petitioner8s transfer of ri)hts is provisional and should be resolved in a proper proceedin). AH R 4OR , "e hereb6 D NB the appeal. The 4ebruar6 3, -..2 decision and the *pril %', -..2 resolution of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*0 1.R. SP No. &.'&& are *44IRM D. !osts a)ainst petitioner Isabel N. 1u:9an. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes@

Desi)nated as *ctin) Me9ber in lieu of *ssociate 7ustice 7ose P. Pere: per Special Order No. %#-2 dated March /, -.%3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
%

Inder Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourtG rollo, pp. &03%.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice *ndres 5. Re6es, 7r., and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices Ros9ari D. !arandan) and Monina *revalo0EenarosaG id. at 320##.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3

Id. at #2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. -.&$G records pp. %03.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at #0$.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at '.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %'-0%''.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %'&0%/..ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %/30%/#.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at -##0-#2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. 2%%'G id. at -'..ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at -''0-'/.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 3%%03%$.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] The 7udiciar6 Reor)ani:ation *ct of %&/..ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Pursuant to *rticle %$% of the 4a9il6 !ode.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Records, p. 3%$ +bac; pa)e,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 3%/03-%.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

Id. at 3-'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Inder Sections # and $, Rule %$ of the Rules of !ourt.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Records, pp. 33.0333.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 3$.03$%.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 3$-03$3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

Id. at 3$'. The petitioner received a cop6 of the 7ul6 --, -..$ order on 7ul6 -&, -..$G id. at 3$' +bac; pa)e,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
-$

Supra note -.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Supra note 3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] !* rollo, pp. %--0%3%.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

-2

-'

-/

Section %. Ho" appeal ta;enG ti9e for filin). * part6 desirin) to appeal fro9 a decision of the Re)ional Trial !ourt rendered in the e<ercise of its appellate Hurisdiction 9a6 file a verified petition for revie" "ith the !ourt of *ppeals <<<. The petition shall be filed and served "ithin fifteen +%$, da6s fro9 notice of the decision sou)ht to be revie"ed or of the denial of petitioner8s 9otion for ne" trial or reconsideration filed in due ti9e after Hud)9ent. Citalics suppliedDZrZlZZlZbrZr]
-&

Section $. Second 9otion for ne" trial. <<< <<<<

No part6 shall be allo"ed a second 9otion for reconsideration of a Hud)9ent or final order. Citalics suppliedD
3.

=and 5an; of the Philippines v. Sunta6, 1.R. NO. %//3'2, Dece9ber %#, -.%%, 22- S!R* 2%#, 2#3. See 1allardo0!orro v. 1allardo, #.3 Phil. #&/, $%% +-..%,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3%

Philippine *9use9ent and 1a9in) !orporation v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. NO. %/$22/, Dece9ber %3, -.%%, 22- S!R* -&#, 3.#G and !atindi) v. Vda. De Meneses, 1.R. Nos. %2$/$% and %2//'$, 4ebruar6 -, -.%%, 2#% S!R* 3$., 323.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3-

Teh v. Tan, 1.R. NO. %/%&$2, Nove9ber --, -.%., 23$ S!R* $&3, 2.#.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

33

Ho9e Develop9ent Mutual 4und +HDM4, v. See, 1.R. NO. %'.-&-, 7une --, -.%%, 2$- S!R* #'/, #//G and Heirs of =ourdes Padilla v. !ourt of *ppeals, #2& Phil. %&2, -.# +-..#,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3#

Pilipino Telephone !orporation v. Radio9arine Net"or;, Inc., 1.R. NO. %$-.&-, *u)ust #, -.%., 2-2 S!R* '.-, '3-G and *postol v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. NO. %#%/$#, October %$, -../, $2& S!R* /., &-.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3$

Pilipino Telephone !orporation v. Radio9arine Net"or;, Inc., supra, at '3-.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

32

Section %/. 7ud)9ent conclusive onl6 on possessionG not conclusive in actions involvin) title or o"nership. <<< The Hud)9ent or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Re)ional Trial !ourt "hich shall decide the sa9e on the basis of the entire record of the proceedin)s had in the court of ori)in and such 9e9oranda andMor briefs as 9a6 be sub9itted b6 the parties or re(uired b6 the Re)ional Trial !ourt. Ctalics suppliedDZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3'

Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of 4ortunato Doronio, 1.R. NO. %2&#$#, Dece9ber -', -..', $#% S!R* #'&, $.3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3/

7ehan Shippin) !orporation v. National 4ood *uthorit6G $%# Phil. %22, %'3 +-..$,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

3&

Se9brano v. 7ud)e Ra9ire:, -#/ Phil. -2., -220-2' +%&//,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] 1o, 7r. v. !ourt of *ppeals, #%$ Phil. %'-, %/30%/# +-..%,. &$RST D$%$S$ON HG.R. No. 18GG18, A6r0/ 1?, 2013I

#.

SPOUSES &E#$J C!$NG+OE AND ROS$TA C!$NG+OE, 2etitioner#, v. SPOUSES &AUST$NO C!$NG+OE AND G#OR$A C!$NG+OE, !e#pondent#. DEC$S$ON ERENO, C.J.@ This Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt assails the 3 7ul6 -../ Decision of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, annullin) the 3. March -..' Decision o+the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Fue:on !it6. % The RT! affir9ed- the Metropolitan Trial !ourt8s +MT!, dis9issal 3 of the !o9plaint for unla"ful detainer filed b6 herein respondents. The facts, as culled fro9 the records, are as follo"s@crala" Respondents are the re)istered o"ners of a real propert6 covered b6 Transfer !ertificate of Title No. /-/3# of the Re)istr6 of Deeds of Fue:on !it6. The6 clai9 that so9eti9e in %&&., out of tolerance and per9ission, the6 allo"ed respondent 4austino>s brother, 4eli<, and his "ife, Rosita, to inhabit the subHect propert6 situated at No. $/ =ope: 7aena Street, *6ala Hei)hts, Fue:on !it6. Due to the intercession of their 9other, Tan Po !hu, 4austino a)reed to sell the propert6 to 4eli< on condition that the title shall be delivered onl6 after 4eli< and Rosita>s pa69ent of the full purchase price, and after respondents> settle9ent of their 9ort)a)e obli)ations "ith the Ri:al !o99ercial 5an;in) !orporation +R!5!,. *fter further proddin) fro9 their 9other, ho"ever, and at 4eli<>s re(uest, 4austino a)reed to deliver in advance an inco9plete draft of a Deed of *bsolute Sale, "hich had not 6et been notari:ed. Ahile respondents the9selves drafted the deed, the parties a)ain a)reed that the docu9ent "ould onl6 be co9pleted after full pa69ent.$crala"vllred On -# 7ul6 -..%, respondents sent a de9and letter2 to petitioners as;in) the9 to vacate the pre9ises. To this date, petitioners have refused to do so, pro9ptin) respondents to file a co9plaint 'for unla"ful detainer "ith the MT! of Fue:on !it6. In their *ns"er, petitioners presented a cop6 of a co9pleted Deed of *bsolute Sale dated %. October %&&#, clai9in) that respondents had sold the propert6 for P3,%3.,..., "hich petitioners had paid in full and in cash on the sa9e da6. Due to respondents> ada9ant refusal to surrender the title to the9 as bu6ers, petitioners "ere alle)edl6 constrained to file an action for specific perfor9ance "ith 5ranch &2 of the Fue:on !it6 RT! on 3% 7anuar6 %&&$. /crala"vllred The MT! )ave "ei)ht to the Deed of Sale presented b6 petitioners and dis9issed the !o9plaint, as follo"s@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 The defendants herein assert that Tsince October %&&#, "hen the6 bou)ht their propert6 in !*SH, their sta6 thereat is b6 virtue of their absolute o"nership thereof as provided for in the *bsolute Deed of Sale,U < < <. The fore)oin) "ould ri)ht a"a6 tell us that this !ourt is barred fro9 orderin) the eHect9ent of the defendants fro9 the pre9ises in (uestion so 9uch so that "hat is at sta;e onl6 in cases of this nature as above stated is as re)ards possession onl6. Aith the e<ecution of the Deed of *bsolute Sale "hereb6 the Vendors never reserved their ri)hts and interests over the propert6 after the sale, and the transfer appears to be absolute, beside the fact that the propert6 is no" under the control and custod6 of the defendants, "e could conclude that instant case unla"ful detainer +#ic, is destined to fail,& < < <. The RT! affir9ed the findin)s of the MT! in toto, reasonin) thus@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 < < < +T,here e<ists a Deed presented in evidence on the sale of the subHect propert6 entered into b6 the herein parties. The Deed of Sale renders "ea; the clai9 of tolerance or per9ission.

*lthou)h the plaintiffs0appellants (uestioned the validit6 and authenticit6 of the Deed of Sale, this "ill not chan)e the nature of the action as an unla"ful detainer, in the li)ht of our pre9ise of the principal issue in unla"ful detainer K po##e##ion de facto.%. The !* reversed the findin)s of the lo"er courts and ruled that a 9ere plea of title over disputed land b6 the defendant cannot be used as sound basis for dis9issin) an action for recover6 of possession. !itin) !efu"ia v. Court of Appeal#, the appellate court found that petitioners> sta6 on the propert6 "as 9erel6 a tolerated possession, "hich the6 "ere no lon)er entitled to continue. The deed the6 presented "as not one of sale, but a Tdocu9ent preparator6 to an actual sale, prepared b6 the petitioners upon the insistence and proddin) of their 9other to soothe in te9per respondent 4eli< !hin);oe.U %%crala"vllred Petitioners no" co9e before this !ourt, raisin) the follo"in) ar)u9ents@crala" a. The !* co99itted reversible error "hen it ad9itted and )ave "ei)ht to testi9on6 )iven in a different proceedin) +action for specific perfor9ance, pendin) before the Re)ional Trial !ourt in resolvin) the issue herein +unla"ful detainer,G and b. The !* co99itted reversible error "hen it ruled on the validit6 of a notari:ed Deed of Sale in a su99ar6 eHect9ent action. 9( 3(ny '-( 6('0'0on. *nent the first ar)u9ent, petitioners fault the !* for citin) and )ivin) credence to the testi9on6 of Tan Po !hu, "ho "as presented as a "itness in another case, the action for specific perfor9ance filed b6 petitioners. The !* stated@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 In the case instituted b6 the respondents a)ainst herein petitioner for Specific Perfor9ance entitled T^I_4eli< !hin);oe and Rosita !hin);oe v. 4austino !hin);oe and 1loria !hin);oe,^MI_U doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$ pendin) before 5ranch &2 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Fue:on !it6, Tan Po !hu testified on -$ Nove9ber %&&& to shed li)ht on the 9atter once and for all, to "it@ <<<< *tt6. Nicolas@ F Bou 9entioned that this is the second cop6 of the deed of absolute sale, 6ou identified the si)nature appearin) here as the si)nature of 4eli<, ho" do 6ou ;no" that this is the si)nature of 4eli<Z * Aell, he is 96 son. I a9 fa9iliar "ith his si)nature and besides that he si)ned it in 96 presence. F *nd this is the ver6 docu9ent and not as photocop6 +sic, of the second docu9ent "hich 6ou brou)ht to 4eli<Z *tt6. 4lores@ *)ain, Bour Honor, ver6 leadin). !ourt@ I "ill allo". * I a9 not ver6 sure no" but I thin; this is the real one, I thin; this is the one because I sa" hi9 si)ned +sic, this. *tt6. Nicolas@ Ma6 I re(uest that this be 9ar;ed as <hibit T%U and the si)nature of 4eli< be si)ned as <hibit T%0*UZ !ourt@ Mar;. *tt6. 4lores@ 7ust a 9o9ent, no basis, Bour Honor, please. *tt6. Nicolas@ Bour Honor, the "itness said that there "as a deed of absolute sale, I "as as;in) if she ;no"s ho" 9uch 4eli< paid for the propert6 "hen she delivered the docu9ent.

!ourt@ She never testified that there "as a sale, she onl6 said that there "as a deed of sale. *tt6. Nicolas@ I "ill refor9, Bour Honor. F Ahen 6ou delivered this docu9ent to 4eli<, "hat did he )ive 6ou in return, if an6Z * He did not )ive 9e an6thin), he had never paid 9e an6 sin)le cent. F Ahen 6ou delivered the deed of saleZ * There "as no pa69ent "hatsoever. F *s far as 6ou ;no", Ms. Aitness, "as the propert6 paid for b6 4eli< to 4austinoZ * I s"ear to 1od, no pa69ent, there "as no pa69ent at all, I s"ear. <<<< *s clearl6 sho"n in the testi9on6 )iven in open court "hich "as above0(uoted, petitioners 9erel6 delivered to their 9other a draft of the deed, "hich the6 si)ned to appease her and respondent 4eli< !hin);oe.%- + 9phases supplied., The !* indeed (uoted at len)th fro9 the testi9on6 of Tan Po !hu, and culled therefro9 the factual findin) that the purported contract of sale had never been consu99ated bet"een the parties. The !* cited as basis her testi9on6 fro9 !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$@ that she "itnessed 4eli< si)nin) the blan; deed, and that upon its si)nin), there "as no pa69ent for the propert6. This account directl6 contradicts petitioners> clai9 that pa69ent "as 9ade si9ultaneousl6 "ith the perfection of the contract. Petitioners clai9 that the !* erroneousl6 considered this testi9on6 in !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$. The6 cite the )eneral rule that courts are not authori:ed to ta;e Hudicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases. This rule, ho"ever, ad9its of e<ceptions. *s earl6 as 8nited +tate# v. Claveria, this !ourt has stated@ TIn the absence of obHection and as a 9atter of convenience, a court 9a6 properl6 treat all or part of the ori)inal record of a for9er case filed in its archives, as read into the record of a case pendin) before it, "hen, "ith the ;no"led)e of the opposin) part6, reference is 9ade to it for that purpose b6 na9e and nu9ber or in so9e other 9anner b6 "hich it is sufficientl6 desi)nated.U %3crala"vllred Ae reiterated this stance in Adiarte v. Domin"o,%# in "hich the trial court decided the action pendin) before it b6 ta;in) Hudicial notice of the records of a prior case for a su9 of 9one6. The Supre9e !ourt affir9ed the trial court>s dis9issal of the !o9plaint, after it considered evidence clearl6 sho"in) that the subHect 9atter thereof "as the sa9e as that in the prior liti)ation. In a %&&3 case, 'ccidental *and ran#portation Company% Inc. v. Court of Appeal#, the !ourt ruled@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 The reasons advanced b6 the respondent court in ta;in) Hudicial notice of !ivil !ase No. 3%$2 are valid and not contrar6 to la". *s a )eneral rule, Tcourts are not authori:ed to ta;e Hudicial notice, in the adHudication of cases pendin) before the9, of the contents of the records of other cases, even "hen such cases have been tried or are pendin) in the sa9e court, and not"ithstandin) the fact that both cases 9a6 have been heard or are actuall6 pendin) before the sa9e Hud)e.U The )eneral rule ad9its of e<ceptions as enu9erated in abuena v. Court of Appeal#, the !ourt, citin) 8.+. v. Claveria, "hich Ae (uote@crala" < < < +I,n the absence of obHection, and as a 9atter of convenience to all parties, a court 9a6 properl6 treat all or an6 part of the ori)inal record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pendin) before it, "hen, "ith the ;no"led)e of the opposin) part6, reference is 9ade to it for that purpose, b6 na9e and nu9ber or in so9e other 9anner b6 "hich it is sufficientl6 desi)natedG or "hen the ori)inal record of the for9er case or an6 part of it, is actuall6 "ithdra"n fro9 the archives b6 the court8s direction, at the re(uest or "ith the consent of the parties, and ad9itted as a part of the record of the case then pendin). $' 0) ./(ar, '-ou1-, '-a' '-0) (C.(6'0on 0) a66/0.a8/( on/y 7-(n, in the absence of objection, with the know ed!e of the opposin! part", or at the request or with the consent of the parties the case is c ear " referred to or the ori!ina or part of the records of the case are actua " withdrawn fro# the archi$es% and %ad#itted as part of the record of the case then pendin!. A <<<< An3 un/04( '-( 2a.'ua/ )0'ua'0on 0n &abuena $. CA, '-( 3(.0)0on 0n C050/ Ca)( No. 31G6 2or<(3 6ar' o2 '-( r(.or3) o2 '-( 0n)'an' .a)( =C050/ Ca)( No. 2?28> 70'- '-( 4no7/(31( o2 '-( 6ar'0() an3 0n '-( a8)(n.( o2 '-(0r o8F(.'0on.+ 9phases supplied, citations o9itted,.%$ This doctrine "as restated in !epublic v. +andi"anbayan% viz< T*s a 9atter of convenience to all the

parties, a court 9a6 properl6 treat all or an6 part of the ori)inal record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pendin) before it, "hen, "ith the ;no"led)e of, and absent an obHection fro9, the adverse part6, reference is 9ade to it for that purpose, b6 na9e and nu9ber or in so9e other 9anner b6 "hich it is sufficientl6 desi)natedG or "hen the ori)inal record of the for9er case or an6 part of it, is actuall6 "ithdra"n fro9 the archives at the court>s direction, at the re(uest or "ith the consent of the parties, and ad9itted as a part of the record of the case then pendin).U %2+Inderscorin) supplied, In the case at bar, as the !* ri)htl6 points out in its Resolution dated -/ Nove9ber -../, %'petitioners never obHected to the introduction of the Transcript of Steno)raphic Notes containin) the testi9on6 of Tan Po !hu, "hich "ere records of !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$. *s sho"n b6 the records and as petitioners ad9itted in their Repl6, the testi9on6 "as alread6 introduced on appeal before the RT!. In fact, it "as petitioners the9selves "ho specificall6 cited !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$, referrin) to it both b6 na9e and nu9ber, purportedl6 to bolster the clai9 that the6 "ere constrained to sue, in order to co9pel deliver6 of the title.%/crala"vllred 1iven these facts, the !* co99itted no reversible error in ta;in) Hudicial notice of the records of !ivil !ase No. F0&$0--/2$. In an6 case, the said testi9on6 "as not the onl6 basis for reversin) the RT!>s Decision. Independent of the testi9on6, the !* K throu)h its perusal and assess9ent of other pieces of evidence, specificall6 the Deed of *bsolute Sale K concluded that petitioners> sta6 on the pre9ises had beco9e unla"ful. !oncernin) the second issue, petitioners obHect to the assess9ent of the Deed of Sale b6 the !*, clai9in) such a deter9ination is i9proper in su99ar6 proceedin)s. It should be noted that it "as petitioners "ho introduced the Deed of Sale in evidence before the MT! and the RT!, as evidence of their clai9ed ri)ht to possession over the propert6. The6 attached the deed to their *ns"er as *nne< T%.U%& The !* discovered that the6 falsified their cop6 of the docu9ent deno9inated as Deed of *bsolute Sale in this "ise@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 Said draft of the deed "as undated and bears the si)nature of one "itness, as can be clearl6 noticed upon its ver6 careful perusal. Notabl6, respondents 9ade it appear in the draft of the Deed of *bsolute Sale that there indeed "as a valid and consu99ated sale "hen in truth and in fact, there "as none. The docu9ent acco9plished b6 the respondents +herein petitioners, )ave the9 so9e se9blance, albeit hi)hl6 (uestionable, of o"nership over the propert6 b6 affi<in) their si)natures, affi<in) the si)nature of one !ora Hi:on as "itness and superi9posin) the si)nature of 7ane !han "ith that of one Noral6n !ollado. -. 5atas Pa9bansa 5l). %-& states that "hen the defendant raises the (uestion of o"nership in unla"ful detainer cases and the (uestion of possession cannot be resolved "ithout decidin) the issue of o"nership, the issue of o"nership shall be resolved onl6 to deter9ine the issue of possession. -% This !ourt has repeatedl6 ruled that althou)h the issue in unla"ful detainer cases is ph6sical possession over a propert6, trial courts 9a6 provisionall6 resolve the issue of o"nership for the sole purpose of deter9inin) the issue of possession.-- TThese actions are intended to avoid disruption of public order b6 those "ho "ould ta;e the la" in their hands purportedl6 to enforce their clai9ed ri)ht of possession. In these cases, the issue is pure ph6sical or de facto possession, and pronounce9ents 9ade on (uestions of o"nership are provisional in nature. The provisional deter9ination of o"nership in the eHect9ent case cannot be clothed "ith finalit6.L-3crala"vllred Trial courts 9ust necessaril6 delve into and "ei)h the evidence of the parties in order to rule on the ri)ht of possession, as "e have discussed in +p#. 1#ma3uel and +ordevilla v. Coprada@chanroblesvirtualla"librar6 In unla"ful detainer cases, the possession of the defendant "as ori)inall6 le)al, as his possession "as per9itted b6 the plaintiff on account of an e<press or i9plied contract bet"een the9. Ho"ever, defendant8s possession beca9e ille)al "hen the plaintiff de9anded that defendant vacate the subHect propert6 due to the e<piration or ter9ination of the ri)ht to possess under their contract, and defendant refused to heed such de9and. The sole issue for resolution in an unla"ful detainer case is ph6sical or 9aterial possession of the propert6 involved, independent of an6 clai9 of o"nership b6 an6 of the parties. Ahere the issue of o"nership is raised b6 an6 of the parties, the courts 9a6 pass upon the sa9e in order to deter9ine "ho has the ri)ht to possess the propert6. The adHudication is, ho"ever, 9erel6 provisional and "ould not bar or preHudice an action bet"een the sa9e parties involvin) title to the propert6. Since the issue of

o"nership "as raised in the unla"ful detainer case, its resolution boils do"n to "hich of the parties8 respective evidence deserves 9ore "ei)ht. -# + 9phasis supplied, citations o9itted., 9!ERE&ORE, in vie" of the fore)oin), "e den6 the instant Petition for lac; of 9erit. The Decision of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. SP No. %..../ +dated 3 7ul6 -../, is A&&$RMED. Ae 9a;e no pronounce9ent as to attorne68s fees for lac; of evidence. SO ORDERED. +ereno% C.(.% 5Chairper#on6% *eonardo)De Ca#tro% Villarama% (r.% 2erez% = and !eye#% ((., concur. Endnotes@
S

Desi)nated as additional 9e9ber per raffle dated %3 Septe9ber -.%. in lieu of *ssociate 7ustice =ucas P. 5ersa9in.
%

Doc;eted as !*01.R. SP No. %..../G penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice *rturo 1. Ta6a) and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices Ha;i9 S. *bdul"ahid and 7ose !. Mendo:aG rollo, pp. #%02/.
-

Doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. F0.30$.3&.G penned b6 7ud)e 5e9elito R. 4ernande: on 3. March -..'G id. at -/-0-/'.
3

Doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. -'-&/G penned b6 4ernando T. Sa)un, 7r. on - 7ul6 -..3G id. at %.#0%%%. Id. at 33/03#.. Id. at #30#$. Id. at 3#%. Id. at /20&'.

'

Id. at %#0%$. * cop6 of the !o9plaint therein is attached as T*nne< TTU to the PetitionG rollo, pp. $'20 $/%.
&

Id. at %.&. Id. at -/'. Id. at $$. Id. at $$023. -& Phil. $-', $3- +%&%$,. '% Phil. 3&# +%&#%,. 1.R. No. &2'-%, %& March %&&3, --. S!R* %2', %'$0%'2.

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

!epublic of the 2hilippine# v. +andi"anbayan, 1.R. No. %$-3'$, %3 Dece9ber -.%%, 22- S!R* %$-, %$3.
%'

!ollo, pp. '.0/#. Id. at -/#, p. 3 of the RT! Decision, (uotin) pertinent portions of the *ns"er. Id. at -/3. Id. at 2302#. Sec. 33, par. -.

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

Barriento# v. !apal, 1.R. No. %2&$%#, -. 7ul6 -.%%, 2$# S!R* %2$. +amonte v. Centwy +avin"# Ban>, 1.R. No. %'2#%3, -$ Nove9ber -..&, 2.$ S!R* #'/, #/2. 1.R. No. %$-#-3, %$ Dece9ber -.%., 23/ S!R* #-/, #32. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

-3

-#

G.R. No. 1?9011

A6r0/ 1G, 2013

REY CAST$GADOR CATEDR$##A, Petitioner, vs. MAR$O an3 MARG$E1 #AURON, Respondents. D PERA#TA, J.: *ssailed in this petition for revie" on certiorari is the Decision - dated 4ebruar6 -/, -..' of the !ourt of *ppeals ++*, in !*01.R. SP No. ..&3&, as "ell as its Resolution 3dated 7ul6 %%, -..' "hich denied petitioner8s 9otion for reconsideration. On 4ebruar6 %-, -..3, petitioner Re6 !asti)ador !atedrilla filed "ith the Municipal Trial !ourt +MT!, of =a9bunao, Iloilo a !o9plaint# for eHect9ent a)ainst the spouses Mario and Mar)ie =auron alle)in) as follo"s@ that =oren:a =i:ada is the o"ner of a parcel of land ;no"n as =ot %/3, located in Mabini Street, =a9bunao, Iloilo, "hich "as declared for ta<ation purposes in her na9e under Ta< Declaration No. .323G$ that on 4ebruar6 %3, %&'-, =oren:a died and "as succeeded to her properties b6 her sole heir 7esusa =i:ada =osa?es, "ho "as 9arried to Hilarion !asti)ador +!asti)ador,G that the spouses 7esusa and Hilarion !asti)ador had a nu9ber of children, "hich included =ilia !asti)ador +=ilia,, "ho "as 9arried to Ma<i9o !atedrilla +Ma<i9o,G that after the death of the spouses !asti)ador, their heirs a)reed a9on) the9selves to subdivide =ot %/3 and, pursuant to a consolidation subdivision plan 2 dated 7anuar6 -%, %&/#, the parcel of lot deno9inated as =ot No. $ therein "as to be apportioned to the heirs of =ilia since the latter alread6 died on *pril &, %&'2G =ilia "as succeeded b6 her heirs, her husband Ma<i9o and their children, one of "ho9 is herein petitionerG that petitioner filed the co9plaint as a co0o"ner of =ot No. $G that so9eti9e in %&/., respondents Mario and Mar)ie =auron, throu)h the tolerance of the heirs of =ilia, constructed a residential buildin) of stron) 9aterials on the north"est portion of =ot No. $ coverin) an area of one hundred s(uare 9etersG that the heirs of =ilia 9ade various de9ands for respondents to vacate the pre9ises and even e<erted earnest efforts to co9pro9ise "ith the9 but the sa9e "as unavailin)G and that petitioner reiterated the de9and on respondents to vacate the subHect lot on 7anuar6 %$, -..3, but respondents continued to unla"full6 "ithhold such possession. In their *ns"er,' respondents clai9ed that petitioner had no cause of action a)ainst the9, since the6 are not the o"ners of the residential buildin) standin) on petitioner8s lot, but Mildred Jascher +Mildred,, sister of respondent Mar)ie, as sho"n b6 the ta< declaration in Mildred8s na9eG / that in %&&-, Mildred had alread6 paid P%.,...... as do"npa69ent for the subHect lot to Teresito !asti)adorG & that there "ere several instances that the heirs of =ilia offered the subHect =ot %/3 for sale to respondents and Mildred and de9anded pa69ent, ho"ever, the latter "as onl6 interested in as;in) 9one6 "ithout an6 intention of deliverin) or re)isterin) the subHect lotG that in %&&/, Ma<i9o, petitioner8s father, and respondent Mar)ie entered into an a9icable settle9ent %. before the 5aran)a6 =upon of Poblacion Ila"od, =a9bunao, Iloilo "herein Ma<i9o offered the subHect lot to the spouses *lfons and Mildred Jascher in the a9ount of P&.,...... "ith the a)ree9ent that all docu9ents related to the transfer of the subHect lot to Ma<i9o and his children be prepared b6 Ma<i9o, but the latter failed to co9pl6G and that the a9icable settle9ent should have the force and effect of a final Hud)9ent of a court, hence, the instant suit is barred b6 prior Hud)9ent. Respondents counterclai9ed for da9a)es. On Nove9ber %#, -..3, the MT! rendered its Decision,%% the dispositive portion of "hich reads@ !ISION

AH R 4OR , in vie" of the fore)oin), Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered in favor of the plaintiff orderin) the defendants@ %. To vacate the lot in (uestion and restore possession to the plaintiffG -. To pa6 plaintiff in the reduced a9ount of TA NTB THOIS*ND P SOS +P-.,......, as *tt68s fees, plus ON THOIS*ND +P%,......, per !ourt appearanceG 3. To pa6 plaintiff reasonable co9pensation for the use of the lot in (uestion ON THOIS*ND +P%,......, pesos 6earl6 counted fro9 the date of de9andG #. To pa6 the cost of liti)ation. No a"ard of 9oral and e<e9plar6 da9a)es. Defendants8 counterclai9 is hereb6 dis9issed for lac; of sufficient evidence. %The MT! found that fro9 the alle)ations and evidence presented, it appeared that petitioner is one of the heirs of =ilia !asti)ador !atedrilla, the o"ner of the subHect lot and that respondents are occup6in) the subHect lotG that petitioner is a part6 "ho 9a6 brin) the suit in accordance "ith *rticle #/' %3 of the !ivil !odeG and as a co0o"ner, petitioner is allo"ed to brin) this action for eHect9ent under Section %, Rule '.%# of the Rules of !ourtG that respondents are also the proper part6 to be sued as the6 are the occupants of the subHect lot "hich the6 do not o"nG and that the MT! assu9ed that the house standin) on the subHect lot has been standin) thereon even before %&&- and onl6 upon the ac(uiescence of the petitioner and his predecessor0in0interest. The MT! found that respondents "ould li;e to focus their defense on the )round that Mildred is an indispensable part6, because she is the o"ner of the residential buildin) on the subHect lot and that there "as alread6 a perfected contract to sell bet"een Mildred and Ma<i9o because of an a9icable settle9ent e<ecuted before the Office of the Punon) 5aran)a6. Ho"ever, the MT!, "ithout dealin) on the validit6 of the docu9ent and its interpretation, ruled that it "as clear that respondent Mar)ie "as representin) her parents, Mr. and Mrs. 5ienvenido =ora?a, in the dispute presented "ith the Punon) 5aran)a6. It also found that even Mildred8s letter to petitioner8s father Ma<i9o reco)ni:ed the title of petitioner8s father over the subHect lot and that it had not been established b6 respondents if Teresito !asti)ador, the person "ho si)ned the receipt evidencin) Mildred8s do"npa69ent of P%.,...... for the subHect lot, is also one of the heirs of =ilia. The MT! concluded that respondents could not be allo"ed to deflect the conse(uences of their continued sta6 over the propert6, because it "as their ver6 occupation of the propert6 "hich is the obHect of petitioner8s co9plaintG that in an action for eHect9ent, the subHect 9atter is 9aterial possession or possession de facto over the real propert6, and the side issue of o"nership over the subHect lot is tac;led here onl6 for the purpose of deter9inin) "ho has the better ri)ht of possession "hich is to prove the nature of possessionG that possession of =ot %/3 should be relin(uished b6 respondents to petitioner, "ho is a co0o"ner, "ithout foreclosin) other re9edies that 9a6 be availed upon b6 Mildred in the furtherance of her supposed ri)hts. Respondents filed their appeal "ith the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of Iloilo !it6, raffled off to 5ranch -2. On March --, -..$, the RT! rendered its Order, %$ the dispositive portion of "hich reads@ AH R 4OR , circu9stances herein0above considered, the decision of the court dated Nove9ber %#, -..3 is hereb6 *44IRM D, e<cept for the pa69ent of P-.,...... as attorne68s fees. SO ORD R D.%2 The RT! found that petitioner, bein) one of the co0o"ners of the subHect lot, is the proper part6 in interest to prosecute a)ainst an6 intruder thereon. It found that the a9icable settle9ent si)ned and e<ecuted b6 the representatives of the re)istered o"ner of the pre9ises before the =upon is not bindin) and unenforceable bet"een the parties. It further ruled that even if Mildred has her na9e in the ta< declaration si)nif6in) that she is the o"ner of the house constructed on the subHect lot, ta< declarations are not evidence of o"nership but 9erel6 issued to the declarant for purposes of pa69ent of ta<esG that she cannot be considered as an indispensable part6 in a suit for recover6 of possession a)ainst respondentsG that Mildred should have intervened and proved that she is an indispensable part6 because the records sho"ed that she

"as not in actual possession of the subHect lot. The RT! deleted the attorne68s fees, since the MT! decision 9erel6 ordered the pa69ent of attorne68s fees "ithout an6 basis. Respondents8 9otion for reconsideration "as denied in an Order %' dated 7une /, -..$. Dissatisfied, respondents filed "ith the !* a petition for revie". Petitioner filed his !o99ent thereto. On 4ebruar6 -/, -..', the !* issued its assailed decision, the dispositive portion of "hich reads@ IN =I1HT O4 *== TH 4OR 1OIN1, this petition for revie" is 1R*NT D. The assailed decision of the Re)ional Trial !ourt, 5r. -2, Iloilo !it6, dated March --, -..$, that affir9ed the MT! Decision dated Nove9ber %#, -..3, is R V RS D and S T *SID . !onse(uentl6, the co9plaint for eHect9ent of the respondent is DISMISS D. %/ The !* found that onl6 petitioner filed the case for eHect9ent a)ainst respondents and ruled that the other heirs should have been i9pleaded as plaintiffs citin) Section %, %& Rule ' and Section ',-. Rule 3 of the Rules of !ourtG that the presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine (ua non for the e<ercise of Hudicial po"erG that "hen an indispensable part6 is not before the court, the action should be dis9issed as "ithout the presence of all the other heirs as plaintiffs, the trial court could not validl6 render Hud)9ent and )rant relief in favor of the respondents. The !* also ruled that "hile petitioner asserted that the proper parties to be sued are the respondents as the6 are the actual possessors of the subHect lot and not Mildred, petitioner still cannot disclai9 ;no"led)e that it "as to Mildred to "ho9 his co0o"ners offered the propert6 for sale, thus, he ;ne" all alon) that the real o"ner of the house on the subHect lot is Mildred and not respondentsG that Mildred even paid P%.,...... out of the total consideration for the subHect lot and re(uired respondents8 relatives to secure the docu9ents that proved their o"nership over the subHect lotG that Ma<i9o and Mildred had previousl6 settled the 9atter re)ardin) the sale of the subHect lot before the 5aran)a6 as contained in an a9icable settle9ent si)ned b6 Ma<i9o and respondent Mar)ie. Thus, the (uestion in this case e<tends to 9ere possessor6 ri)hts and non0inclusion of indispensable parties 9ade the co9plaint fatall6 defective. 4ro9 the facts obtainin) in this case, eHect9ent bein) a su99ar6 re9ed6 is not the appropriate action to file a)ainst the alle)ed deforciant of the propert6. Hence, this petition for revie" "herein petitioner raises the follo"in) issues@ I TH !OIRT O4 *PP *=S RR D *ND 1R*V =B *5IS D ITS DIS!R TION AH N IT H =D TH*T TH D !ISION O4 TH TRI*= !OIRT A*S * NI==ITB . II TH !OIRT O4 *PP *=S RR D *ND 1R*V =B *5IS D ITS DIS!R TION AH N IT H =D TH*T P TITION R JN A *== *=ON1 TH*T MI=DR D J*S!H R, *ND NOT R SPOND NTS, A R TH R *= OAN RS O4 TH R SID NTI*= 5II=DIN1. -% The !* found that petitioner8s co0heirs to the subHect lot should have been i9pleaded as co0plaintiffs in the eHect9ent case a)ainst respondents, since "ithout their presence, the trial court could not validl6 render Hud)9ent and )rant relief in favor of petitioner. Ae do not concur. Petitioner can file the action for eHect9ent "ithout i9pleadin) his co0o"ners. In Aee v. De !astro,-- "herein petitioner therein ar)ued that the respondent cannot 9aintain an action for eHect9ent a)ainst hi9, "ithout Hoinin) all his co0o"ners, "e ruled in this "ise@ *rticle #/' of the Ne" !ivil !ode is e<plicit on this point@ *RT. #/'. *n6 one of the co0o"ners 9a6 brin) an action in eHect9ent.

This article covers all ;inds of action for the recover6 of possession, i.e., forcible entr6 and unla"ful detainer +accion interdictal,, recover6 of possession +accion publiciana,, and recover6 of o"nership +accion de reivindicacion,. *s e<plained b6 the reno"ned civilest, Professor *rturo M. Tolentino@ * co0o"ner 9a6 brin) such an action, "ithout the necessit6 of Hoinin) all the other co0o"ners as co0 plaintiffs, because the suit is dee9ed to be instituted for the benefit of all. If the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he clai9s possession for hi9self and not for the co0o"nership, the action "ill not prosper. In the 9ore recent case of !arandan) v. Heirs of De 1u:9an, this !ourt declared that a co0o"ner is not even a necessar6 part6 to an action for eHect9ent, for co9plete relief can be afforded even in his absence, thus@ In su9, in suits to recover properties, all co0o"ners are real parties in interest. Ho"ever, pursuant to *rticle #/' of the !ivil !ode and the relevant Hurisprudence, an6 one of the9 9a6 brin) an action, an6 ;ind of action for the recover6 of co0o"ned properties. Therefore, onl6 one of the co0o"ners, na9el6 the co0o"ner "ho filed the suit for the recover6 of the co0o"ned propert6, is an indispensable part6 thereto. The other co0o"ners are not indispensable parties. The6 are not even necessar6 parties, for a co9plete relief can be afforded in the suit even "ithout their participation, since the suit is presu9ed to have been filed for the benefit of all co0o"ners.-3 In this case, althou)h petitioner alone filed the co9plaint for unla"ful detainer, he stated in the co9plaint that he is one of the heirs of the late =ilia !asti)ador, his 9other, "ho inherited the subHect lot, fro9 her parents. Petitioner did not clai9 e<clusive o"nership of the subHect lot, but he filed the co9plaint for the purpose of recoverin) its possession "hich "ould redound to the benefit of the co0o"ners. Since petitioner reco)ni:ed the e<istence of a co0o"nership, he, as a co0o"ner, can brin) the action "ithout the necessit6 of Hoinin) all the other co0o"ners as co0plaintiffs. Petitioner contends that the !* co99itted a reversible error in findin) that Mildred Jascher is an indispensable part6 and that her non0inclusion as a part6 defendant in the eHect9ent case 9ade the co9plaint fatall6 defective, thus, 9ust be dis9issed. Ae a)ree "ith petitioner. The !* based its findin)s that Mildred is an indispensable part6 because it found that petitioner ;ne" all alon) that Mildred is the o"ner of the house constructed on the subHect lot as sho"n in the affidavits -# of Ma<i9o and petitioner statin) that petitioner8s co0o"ners had offered for sale the subHect lot to Mildred, and that Ma<i9o, petitioner8s father, and Mildred had previousl6 settled before the 5aran)a6 the 9atter re)ardin) the sale of the subHect lot to the latter as contained in the a9icable settle9ent. Ae find that the affidavits of Ma<i9o and petitioner 9erel6 stated that the lot "as offered for sale to Mildred, but no"here did it ad9it that Mildred is the o"ner of the house constructed on the subHect lot. *lso, it appears that the a9icable settle9ent -$ before the 5aran)a6 "herein it "as stated that Ma<i9o "ill sell the subHect lot to the spouses *lfons and Mildred Jascher "as si)ned b6 Ma<i9o on behalf of his children and respondent Mar)ie on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. 5ienvenido =ora?a. Thus, there is no basis for the !*8s conclusion that it "as Mildred and Ma<i9o "ho had previousl6 settled the sale of the subHect lot. Moreover, it appears ho"ever, that "hile there "as a settle9ent, =iah !. !atedrilla, one of petitioner8s co0 heirs, "rote a letter-2 dated October 3., -..-, to the Spouses =ora?a and respondent Mar)ie statin) that the latter had 9ade a chan)e on the purchase price for the subHect lot "hich "as different fro9 that a)reed upon in the a9icable settle9ent. Records neither sho" that respondent Mar)ie had ta;en steps to 9eet "ith =iah or an6 of her co0heirs to settle the 9atter of the purchase price nor rebut such alle)ation in the letter if it "as not true. The letter-' dated 7ul6 $, -..3 of respondent Mar)ie8s counsel addressed to petitioner8s counsel, statin) that his client is a9enable in the a9ount as proposed in the a9icable settle9ent, "ould not alter the fact of respondents8 non0co9pliance "ith the settle9ent since the letter "as sent after the eHect9ent case had alread6 been filed b6 petitioner. In !have: v. !ourt of *ppeals,-/ "e e<plained the nature of the a9icable settle9ent reached after a baran)a6 conciliation, thus@

Indeed, the Revised Jatarun)an) Pa9baran)a6 =a" provides that an a9icable settle9ent reached after baran)a6 conciliation proceedin)s has the force and effect of a final Hud)9ent of a court if not repudiated or a petition to nullif6 the sa9e is filed before the proper cit6 or 9unicipal court "ithin ten +%., da6s fro9 its date. It further provides that the settle9ent 9a6 be enforced b6 e<ecution b6 the lupon) ta)apa9a6apa "ithin si< +2, 9onths fro9 its date, or b6 action in the appropriate cit6 or 9unicipal court, if be6ond the si<09onth period. This special provision follo"s the )eneral precept enunciated in *rticle -.3' of the !ivil !ode, vi:.@ * co9pro9ise has upon the parties the effect and authorit6 of res HudicataG but there shall be no e<ecution e<cept in co9pliance "ith a Hudicial co9pro9ise. 1wphi1 Thus, "e have held that a co9pro9ise a)ree9ent "hich is not contrar6 to la", public order, public polic6, 9orals or )ood custo9s is a valid contract "hich is the la" bet"een the parties the9selves. It has upon the9 the effect and authorit6 of res Hudicata even if not Hudiciall6 approved, and cannot be li)htl6 set aside or disturbed e<cept for vices of consent and for)er6. Ho"ever, in Heirs of Eari, et al. v. Santos, "e clarified that the broad precept enunciated in *rt. -.3' is (ualified b6 *rt. -.#% of the sa9e !ode, "hich provides@ If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide b6 the co9pro9ise, the other part6 9a6 either enforce the co9pro9ise or re)ard it as rescinded and insist upon his ori)inal de9and. Ae e<plained, vi:.@ 5efore the onset of the ne" !ivil !ode, there "as no ri)ht to rescind co9pro9ise a)ree9ents. Ahere a part6 violated the ter9s of a co9pro9ise a)ree9ent, the onl6 recourse open to the other part6 "as to enforce the ter9s thereof. Ahen the ne" !ivil !ode ca9e into bein), its *rticle -.#% < < < created for the first ti9e the ri)ht of rescission. That provision )ives to the a))rieved part6 the ri)ht to Leither enforce the co9pro9ise or re)ard it as rescinded and insist upon his ori)inal de9and.L *rticle -.#% should obviousl6 be dee9ed to (ualif6 the broad precept enunciated in *rticle -.3' that La co9pro9ise has upon the parties the effect and authorit6 of res Hudicata. In e<ercisin) the second option under *rt. -.#%, the a))rieved part6 9a6, if he chooses, brin) the suit conte9plated or involved in his ori)inal de9and, as if there had never been an6 co9pro9ise a)ree9ent, "ithout brin)in) an action for rescission. This is because he 9a6 re)ard the co9pro9ise as alread6 rescinded b6 the breach thereof of the other part6. -& Ahile the a9icable settle9ent e<ecuted bet"een Ma<i9o and respondent Mar)ie before the 5aran)a6 had the force and effect of a final Hud)9ent of a court, it appears that there "as non0co9pliance thereto b6 respondent Mar)ie on behalf of her parents "hich 9a6 be construed as repudiation. The settle9ent is considered rescinded in accordance "ith the provision of *rticle -.#% of the !ivil !ode. Since the settle9ent "as rescinded, petitioner, as a co0o"ner, properl6 instituted the action for eHect9ent to recover possession of the subHect lot a)ainst respondents "ho are in possession of the sa9e. ven the receipt3. si)ned b6 a certain Teresito !asti)ador, ac;no"led)in) havin) received fro9 Mildred the a9ount of P%.,...... as do"npa69ent for the purchase of the subHect lot, "ould not also prove respondents8 alle)ation that there "as alread6 a perfected contract to sell the subHect lot to Mildred, since the authorit6 of Teresito to sell on behalf of the heirs of =ilia !asti)ador "as not established. In eHect9ent cases, the onl6 issue to be resolved is "ho is entitled to the ph6sical or 9aterial possession of the propert6 involved, independent of an6 clai9 of o"nership set forth b6 an6 of the part60 liti)ants.3% In an action for unla"ful detainer, the real part60in0interest as part60defendant is the person "ho is in possession of the propert6 "ithout the benefit of an6 contract of lease and onl6 upon the tolerance and )enerosit6 of its o"ner.3- Aell settled is the rule that a person "ho occupies the land of another at the latter>s tolerance or per9ission, "ithout an6 contract bet"een the9, is bound b6 an i9plied pro9ise that he "ill vacate the sa9e upon de9and, failin) "hich a su99ar6 action for eHect9ent is the proper re9ed6 a)ainst hi9.33 His status is analo)ous to that of a lessee or tenant "hose ter9 of lease has e<pired but "hose occupanc6 continued b6 tolerance of the o"ner. 3#

Here, records sho" that the subHect lot is o"ned b6 petitioner8s 9other, and petitioner, bein) an heir and a co0o"ner, is entitled to the possession of the subHect lot. On the other hand, respondent spouses are the occupants of the subHect lot "hich the6 do not o"n. Respondents8 possession of the subHect lot "as "ithout an6 contract of lease as the6 failed to present an6, thus lendin) credence to petitioner8s clai9 that their sta6 in the subHect lot is b6 9ere tolerance of petitioner and his predecessors. 1wphi1 It is indeed respondents spouses "ho are the real parties0in0interest "ho "ere correctl6 i9pleaded as defendants in the unla"ful detainer case filed b6 petitioner. AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the petition is hereb6 1R*NT D. The Decision dated 4ebruar6 -/, -..' and the Resolution dated 7ul6 %%, -..' of the !ourt of *ppeals are hereb6 R V RS D and S T *SID . The Order dated March --, -..$ of the Re)ional Trial !ourt, 5ranch -2, Iloilo !it6, in !ivil !ase No. .#0-'&'/, is hereb6 R INST*T D. SO ORD R D. D$OSDADO M. PERA#TA *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ PRES"$TERO J. %E#ASCO, JR. *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson RO"ERTO A. A"AD *ssociate 7ustice JOSE CATRA# MENDO A *ssociate 7ustice

MAR%$C MAR$O %$CTOR &. #EONEN *ssociate 7ustice *TT ST*TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. PRES"$TERO J. %E#ASCO, JR. *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson, Third Division ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson8s *ttestation, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

So9eti9es spelled as Mer)ie in so9e pleadin)s.

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Pa9pio *. *barintos, "ith *ssociate 7ustices *ntonio =. Villa9or and Stephen !. !ru:, concurrin)G rollo, pp. --03-.
3

Id. at -%.

Doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. $%2, records, pp. $0/. Rollo, p. %$/. Id. at %$'. Id. at -'03.. Id. at ''. Id. at &3. Id. at &#. Per 7ud)e *u)usto =. Noble:aG rollo, pp. %3'0%#-. Id. at %#-. +!itations o9itted, *rt. #/'. *n6one of the co0o"ners 9a6 brin) an action in eHect9ent. Rule '.. 4orcible ntr6 and Inla"ful Detainer Section %. Aho 9a6 institute proceedin)s, and "hen. K SubHect to the provisions of the ne<t succeedin) section, a person deprived of the possession of an6 land or buildin) b6 force, inti9idation, threat, strate)6, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person a)ainst "ho9 the possession of an6 land or buildin) is unla"full6 "ithheld after the e<piration or ter9ination of the ri)ht to hold possession, b6 virtue of an6 contract, e<press or i9plied, or the le)al representatives or assi)ns of an6 such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, 9a6, at an6 ti9e "ithin one +%, 6ear after such unla"ful deprivation or "ithholdin) of possession, brin) an action in the proper Municipal Trial !ourt a)ainst the person or persons unla"full6 "ithholdin) or deprivin) of possession, or an6 person or persons clai9in) under the9, for the restitution of such possession, to)ether "ith da9a)es and costs.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

Per 7ud)e *ntonio M. Natino, rollo, pp. 2$0'$. Id. at '$. Id. at '2. Id. at 3%.

%2

%'

%/

%&

Section %. !aption. K The caption sets forth the na9e of the court, the title of the action, and the doc;et nu9ber if assi)ned. The title of the action indicates the na9es of the parties. The6 shall all be na9ed in the ori)inal co9plaint or petitionG but in subse(uent pleadin)s, it shall be sufficient if the na9e of the first part6 on each side be stated "ith an appropriate indication "hen there are other parties. Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
-.

Section '. !o9pulsor6 Hoinder of indispensable parties. K Parties in interest "ithout "ho9 no final deter9ination can be had of an action shall be Hoined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
-%

Rollo, p. %.. 1.R. No. %'2#.$, *u)ust -., -../, $2- S!R* 2&$. Id. at '%.0'%%.

--

-3

-#

Rollo, pp. %2.0%2%G %2/0%2&, respectivel6. /. M6 fa9il6 offered the lot bein) occupied no" b6 the =aurons for sale to the9 and 9ore particularl6 to her sister, Mildred Jascher, ho"ever, ne)otiations for the sale failed. +Rollo, p. %2%,

-$

Id. at &#. Ae, co9plainants and respondents in the above0captioned case, do hereb6 a)ree to settle our dispute as follo"s@ %. The co9plainantMo"ner, Mr. Ma<i9o !atedrilla, in behalf of his children a)ree to sell =ot. No. $# to spouses *lfons and Mildred Jascher in the a9ount of P&.,....... -. The bu6er a)rees to bu6 at the price stated, pa69ent "ill be 9ade at the ti9e the docu9ents sho"in) his o"nership and the Deed of Sale shall have been finished. 3. In case the o"ner fails to )ather the necessar6 docu9ents pertainin) to his o"nership on ti9e, he has the option to e<tend the ti9e of e<ecution of the Deed of Sale until such ti9e that the docu9ents have been co9pleted. #. In case the bu6er fails to pa6 the a9ount at the ti9e that the Deed of Sale is read6 for e<ecution the6 "ill lose their ri)ht to purchase and the o"ner shall )ive a "arnin) to re9ove all the i9prove9ents the6 have 9ade on the said lot. $. Date of e<ecution of the Deed of Sale shall be on Septe9ber 3., %&&/.

-2

Rollo, p. &'. Id. at &2. 1.R. No. %$&#%%, March %/, -..$, #$3 S!R* /#3. Id. at /#&0/$%. Rollo, p. &3. =ao v. =ao, 1.R. No. %#&$&&, Ma6 %2, -..$, #$/ S!R* $3&, $#2. Id. at $#'.

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

*ra9bulo v. 1un)ab, $./ Phil. 2%-, 2-%02-- +-..$,, citin) 5o6 v. !ourt of *ppeals, #'% Phil. %.-, %%# +-..#,.
3#

=ao v. =ao, supra note 3%, at $#'. G.R. NO. 1838G8 @ A6r0/ 1?, 2013

!O#Y TR$N$TY REA#TY DE%E#OPMENT CORPORAT$ON, r(6r()(n'(3 8y JENN$&ER R. MAR,UE , 2etitioner, v. SPOUSES CAR#OS AND E#$ A"ET! A"ACAN, !e#pondent#. DEC$S$ON SERENO, C.J.@ This is a Petition for Revie" under Rule #$ assailin) the Decision % and Resolution- of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. SP No. &'/2-.

The !* recalled and set aside the Order3 of the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities +MT!!,, 5ranch -, Malo los !it6, and )ranted respondents8 Motion to Fuash *lias Arit of Possession and De9olition # in !ivil !ase Nos. .30%#. to .30%#3. The 4acts of the case are as follo"s@chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 * parcel of land located in Su9apan), Malolos !it6 is re)istered in the na9e of 4reddie Santia)o +Santia)o, under Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, No. %.32&'. $ On -3 *u)ust %&&&, petitioner Hol6 Trinit6 Realt6 Develop9ent !orporation +HTRD!, ac(uired the propert6 fro9 Santia)o, but later found that the lot "as alread6 occupied b6 so9e individuals, a9on) the9 respondent0spouses !arlos and li:abeth *bacan.2chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 HTRD! then filed a co9plaint for forcible entr6 a)ainst respondent0spouses and the other occupants. It "ithdre" the co9plaint, ho"ever, because it needed to verif6 the e<act location of the propert6, "hich the occupants clai9ed "as covered b6 e9ancipation patents issued b6 the Depart9ent of *)rarian Refor9 *dHudication 5oard +D*R*5,. HTRD! co99enced a co9plaint "ith the D*R*5 for cancellation of e9ancipation patents a)ainst so9e of the occupants of the land. Durin) the pendenc6 of the D*R*5 case, the occupants8 possession "as tolerated.' On 3. *pril -..-, the provincial adHudicator ordered the cancellation of the e9ancipation patents of the occupants of the land./ The D*R*5 later affir9ed the decision of the provincial adHudicator.&chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 On # Nove9ber -..3, HTRD! filed a co9plaint for unla"ful detainer and da9a)es "ith the MT!! of Malolos a)ainst the occupants of the subHect land, a)ain includin) respondent spouses. %. Petitioner alle)ed that fro9 the ti9e it purchased the propert6 in %&&& until the pendenc6 of the D*R*5 case, it had no i99ediate need for the subHect parcel of land. Ahen the need arose, it 9ade both verbal and "ritten de9ands on the occupants to vacate the propert6. Despite its final de9and on %' 7une -..3, the occupants failed to vacate the propert6. Thus, HTRD! had to resort to the filin) of an eHect9ent case a)ainst the9. Proceedin)s in the MT!! ensued, cul9inatin) in a Decision in favor of HTRD!. The trial court ordered the occupants to vacate the pre9ises and to pa6 reasonable rent, attorne68s fees and costs of suit. %% Respondents 9oved to reconsider the decision, but their 9otion for reconsideration "as denied for bein) a prohibited pleadin) in su99ar6 proceedin)s. The MT!! then ordered the issuance of a "rit of e<ecution.%- Respondents appealed on %$ *u)ust -..$, but their appeal "as denied due course for bein) filed out of ti9e, as the period to appeal had not been sta6ed b6 the filin) of the 9otion for reconsideration.%3 Thus, the Decision beca9e final and e<ecutor6. Mean"hile, the provincial a)rarian refor9 officer +P*RO, filed an action for annul9ent of sale a)ainst HTRD!.%# Respondents thereafter 9oved to sta6 e<ecution on the )round that a supervenin) event had transpired.%$ The MT!! denied the 9otion, rulin) that the 9ere filin) of an action b6 the P*RO did not 9ateriall6 chan)e the situation of the parties, and hence, 9a6 not be considered as a supervenin) event.%2chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 In order to prevent the enforce9ent of the "rit of e<ecution and de9olition, respondents filed several actions in the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!,, to "it@ +%, !ivil !ase No. -#$0M0-..2 for annul9ent of Hud)9entG%' +-, Special !ivil *ction No. 32#0M0-..2 for certiorariG%/ and +3, !ivil !ase No. $&0M0-..' for (uietin) of title.%& !ivil !ase No. -#$0M0-..2 and Special !ivil *ction No. 32#0M0-..2 "ere both dis9issed b6 the RT! on the )rounds of foru9 shoppin) and i99utabilit6 of final Hud)9ent, -. "hile !ivil !ase No. $&0M0-..' "as dis9issed on the )round of finalit6 of Hud)9ent. -% Respondents did not appeal an6 of the adverse rulin)s. The MT!! issued an *lias Arit of <ecution on -$ October -..2, -- and an *lias Special Order of De9olition on -/ October -..2.-3 Respondents 9oved to (uash both "rits on the )round that 9ancipation Patent Nos. ..'/.#/& and ..'/.#&. had been issued in their favor durin) the pendenc6 of the case. *s such, the6 ar)ued that the6 had no" ac(uired o"nership of relevant portions of the subHect propert6.-# The MT!! denied their 9otion on the )round that respondents8 ac(uisition of o"nership is not a supervenin) event that "ill bar the e<ecution of the Hud)9ent in the unla"ful detainer case.-$chanroblesvirtuala"librar6

4ro9 the Order of the MT!! den6in) their 9otion to (uash, respondents filed directl6 "ith the !* a Special !ivil *ction for Certiorari "ith Pra6er for a Te9porar6 Restrainin) Order and Arit of Preli9inar6 InHunction.-2chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 The appellate court issued a Arit of Preli9inar6 InHunction -' and ulti9atel6 )ranted the petition for certiorari in a Decision dated -' March -../. The !* held that the MT!! had no Hurisdiction over the unla"ful detainer case, and disposed of the case as follo"s@chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 IN VI A O4 *== TH 4OR 1OIN1, the instant petition is hereb6 1R*NT D and the Order dated 7anuar6 %', -..' of the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities +MT!!,, 5ranch - of Malolos !it6, 5ulacan, issued in !ivil !ase No. .30%#., is R !*== D and S T *SID and, in lieu thereof, the Motion to Fuash *lias Arit of Possession CsicD and De9olition of the petitioners in said case is 1R*NT D. The "rit of preli9inar6 inHunction earlier issued is thus 9ade per9anent. No pronounce9ent as to costs. SO ORD R D.-/chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 *))rieved b6 the decision of the !*, petitioner HTRD! filed the instant petition for revie" before this !ourt. T-( Cour'K) Ru/0n1 Ae find 9erit in the instant petition. 5efore proceedin) to the 9erits of the case, "e first deal "ith a procedural issue. HTRD! correctl6 ar)ued that respondents erred in filin) the special civil action for certiorari directl6 "ith the !* instead of the RT!. In doin) so, the6 violated the ti9e0honored principle of respect for the hierarch6 of courts. Ahile this !ourt, the !*, and the RT! have concurrent Hurisdiction to issue "rits of certiorari the parties to a suit are not )iven unbridled freedo9 to choose bet"een court foru9s. -& 7udicial hierarch6 indicates that Lpetitions for the issuance of e<traordinar6 "rits a)ainst first level +LinferiorL, courts should be filed "ith the RT!, and those a)ainst the latter, "ith the !*.L 3. Therefore, respondents8 petition for certiorari "as dis9issible outri)ht on procedural )rounds. Turnin) no" to the 9erits of the petition, "e find that the !* co99itted reversible error in rulin) that the MT!! had no Hurisdiction over the unla"ful detainer case. Ahat "as before it "as a petition for certiorari a)ainst the MT!!8s denial of respondents8 9otion to (uash. The petition "as not directed at the MT!!8s !onsolidated Decision of -$ Ma6 -..$, nor could it be, because a Rule 2$ petition for certiorari 9ust be filed not later than 2. da6s fro9 notice of the Hud)9ent. 3% Since respondents failed to ti9el6 appeal the !onsolidated Decision, it has lon) attained finalit6 and has beco9e i99utable and unalterable pursuant to the doctrine on finalit6 of Hud)9ent.3- Thus, as respondents8 sole ar)u9ent in their 9otion to (uash "as the e<istence of a 9aterial supervenin) event, and as the MT!!8s denial of their 9otion "as pre9ised on the conclusion that their subse(uent ac(uisition of o"nership "as not a supervenin) event, the resolution of the present case should be li9ited to that issue. Did the MT!! co99it )rave abuse of discretion in den6in) respondents8 9otion to (uashZ Ae rule in the ne)ative. The ter9 L)rave abuse of discretionL has a specific 9eanin) in Hurisprudence. In =itton Mills v. 1alleon Traders,33 "e e<plained@chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 *n act of a court or tribunal 9a6 onl6 be considered as co99itted in )rave abuse of discretion "hen the sa9e "as perfor9ed in a capricious or "hi9sical e<ercise of Hud)9ent "hich is e(uivalent to lac; of Hurisdiction. The abuse of discretion 9ust be so patent and )ross as to a9ount to an evasion of positive dut6 or to a virtual refusal to perfor9 a dut6 enHoined b6 la", or to act at all in conte9plation of la", as "here the po"er is e<ercised in an arbitrar6 and despotic 9anner b6 reason of passion and personal hostilit6. < < <. +!itation o9itted, In this case, the 9otion to (uash "as )rounded on the sole ar)u9ent that the Hud)9ent should no lon)er be enforced because of the occurrence of a 9aterial supervenin) event. Respondents alle)ed that before the alias "rits "ere issued, but after the MT!! rendered Hud)9ent in the unla"ful detainer case, the6 had

ac(uired o"nership over the subHect propert6 as evidenced b6 9ancipation Patent Nos. ..'/.#/& and ..'/.#&..3#chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 The MT!! correctl6 denied their 9otion, citin) our rulin) in Oblea v. !ourt of *ppeals 3$ and !hua v. !ourt of *ppeals32 to the effect that the subse(uent ac(uisition of o"nership is not a supervenin) event that "ill bar the e<ecution of the Hud)9ent in the unla"ful detainer case. *ccordin) to the MT!!@chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 This court )ives due "ei)ht to the rulin) of the Supre9e !ourt in the cases of Oblea vs. !ourt of *ppeals +-## S!R* %.%, and !hua vs. !ourt of *ppeals +-'% S!R* $2#,, "herein it 9ade a cate)orical pronounce9ent that the subse(uent ac(uisition of o"nership b6 an6 person is not a supervenin) event that "ill bar the e<ecution of the Hud)9ent in the unla"ful detainer case. True it is that the sole issue in an action for unla"ful detainer < < < is ph6sical or 9aterial possession. Such issue of ph6sical or 9aterial possession "as alread6 passed upon b6 this court durin) trial. *s held in the case of Di:on vs. !oncina +3. S!R* /&',, the Hud)9ent rendered in an action for forcible entr6 or detainer shall be effective "ith respect to the possession onl6 and in no "ise bind the title or affect the o"nership of the land or buildin). Such Hud)9ent shall not bar an action bet"een the parties respectin) title to the land or buildin). +Sec. %/, Rule '., %&&' Rules of !ivil Procedure,3'chanroblesvirtuala"librar6 It is "ell0settled that the sole issue in eHect9ent cases is ph6sical or 9aterial possession of the subHect propert6, independent of an6 clai9 of o"nership b6 the parties. 3/ The ar)u9ent of respondent0spouses that the6 subse(uentl6 ac(uired o"nership of the subHect propert6 cannot be considered as a supervenin) event that "ill bar the e<ecution of the (uestioned Hud)9ent, as unla"ful detainer does not deal "ith the issue of o"nership. *s the case no" stands, both parties are clai9in) o"nership of the subHect propert6@ petitioner, b6 virtue of a Deed of Sale e<ecuted in its favor b6 the re)istered land o"nerG and respondents, b6 subse(uentl6 issued e9ancipation patents in their na9es. This issue "ould 9ore appropriatel6 be ventilated in a full0 blo"n proceedin), rather than in a 9otion to sta6 the e<ecution of the Hud)9ent rendered in the instant su99ar6 eHect9ent proceedin). To reiterate, the sole issue in the present case is de facto possession of the subHect propert6, and this "as conclusivel6 settled b6 the MT!! in HTRD!8s favor in its final and e<ecutor6 !onsolidated Decision of -$ Ma6 -..$. Ae therefore rule that the !* co99itted reversible error in rulin) that the MT!! co99itted )rave abuse of discretion in den6in) respondents8 9otion to (uash the alias "rits of e<ecution and de9olition. AH R 4OR , the instant Petition for Revie" is 1R*NT D. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. SP No. &'/2- dated -' March -../ and %# 7ul6 -../, respectivel6, are hereb6 S T *SID and R V RS D. The Order dated %' 7anuar6 -..' of the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities, 5ranch -, Malolos !it6, in !ivil !ase Nos. .30%#. to .30%#3 is hereb6 R INST*T D. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes@

Rollo, pp. 3#0#/G !* D.@cision dated -' March -../, penned b6 Presidin) 7ustice !onrado M. Vas(ue:, 7r. and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices *9elita 1. Tolentino and =ucenito N. Ta)le.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
-

ld. at $.0$%G !* Resolution dated %# 7ul6 -../, penned b6 Presidin) 7ustice !onrado M. Vas(ue:, 7r. and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices *9elita 1. Tolentino and Marlene 1on:ales0Sison.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
3

Id. at %&30%&$G MT!! Order dated %' 7anuar6 -..', penned b6 Presidin) 7ud)e Ne9esio B. Manlan)it.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
#

Id. at %/#0%/2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at $'0$/.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

Id. at %#.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %%..ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at 2-0'#G Decision of the Provincial *dHudicator dated 3. *pril -..-.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at '&0/'G Decision of the D*R*5 dated %& Septe9ber -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at //0&$G !o9plaint dated -3 October -..3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

'

&

%.

%%

Id. at %.&0%%2G !onsolidated Decision dated -$ Ma6 -..$, penned b6 7ud)e Ne9esio V. Manlan)it.ZrZ lZZlZbrZr]
%-

Id. at %%'G Order dated / 7ul6 -..$.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %--G Order dated %/ *u)ust -..$.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

%3

%#

Id. at %-30%-#G Motion to Sta6 <ecution Includin) the Special De9olition Order dated 3. Ma6 -..2.Z rZlZZlZbrZr]
%$

Id. at %-30%-2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %-'0%-&G Order dated $ 7une -..2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %3.0%3&G Petition dated -% *pril -..2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %#.0%$%G Petition dated %# 7une -..2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %$-0%2.G Petition dated -& 7anuar6 -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %2#0%'.G Order dated 3% 7ul6 -..2.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %'%0%''G Order dated 3% 7anuar6 -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %'/0%/%.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %/-0%/3.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

Id. at %/#0%/2G Motion to Fuash *lias Arit of Possession O De9olition dated 3. Nove9ber -..2 +should be LMotion to Fuash *lias Arit of <ecution O De9olitionL,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]
-$

Id. at %&30%&$G Order dated %' 7anuar6 -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at %&20--%G Petition dated / 4ebruar6 -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at --$0--2G Arit of Preli9inar6 InHunction dated %2 *u)ust -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Id. at #'G !* Decision dated -' March -../.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Ra6os v. !it6 of Manila, 1.R. NO. %&2.23, %# Dece9ber -.%%, 22- S!R* 2/#, 2/&.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] People v. !uares9a, -$# Phil. #%/, #-' +%&/&,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] RI= S O4 !OIRT, Rule 2$, Section #.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] 1allardo0!orro v. 1allardo, #.3 Phil. #&/ +-..%,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] -#2 Phil. $.3, $.& +%&//,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr]

-2

-'

-/

-&

3.

3%

3-

33

3#

Id. at %/#0%/2G Motion to Fuash *lias Arit of Possession O De9olition dated 3. Nove9ber -..2.ZrZ lZZlZbrZr]
3$

3%3 Phil. /#. +%&&$,.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] 33/ Phil. -2- +%&&',.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] Rollo, p. %&#G Order dated %' 7anuar6 -..'.ZrZlZZlZbrZr] !arbonilla v. *biera, 1R. No. %''23', -2 7ul6 -. I ., 2-$ S!R* #2%, #2&. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila S !OND DIVISION

32

3'

3/

G.R. No.1?1GGG

A6r0/ 1?, 2013

E%ANGE#$NE R$%ERA;CA#$NGASAN an3 E. R$CA# ENTERPR$SES, Petitioners, vs. 9$#&REDO R$%ERA, )u8)'0'u'(3 8y MA. #YD$A S. R/%ERA, &RE$DA #EA! S. R$%ERA an3 9$#&REDO S. R$%ERA, .JR., Respondents. D "R$ON, J.: Ae resolve the petition for revie" on certiorari, % filed b6 petitioners van)eline Rivera0!alin)asan and . Rical nterprises,- assailin) the 4ebruar6 %., -..2 decision3 of the !ourt of *ppeals + !*, in !*01.R. SP No. &.'%'. The !* decision affir9ed "ith 9odification the *pril 2, -..$ Decision # and the 7ul6 /, -..$ order$ of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of =ipa !it6, 5ranch /$, in !ivil !ase No. -..30.&/-. T-( &a.'ua/ An'(.(3(n') Durin) their lifeti9e, respondent Ailfredo Rivera and his "ife, =oreto Incion), ac(uired several parcels of land in =ipa !it6, 5atan)as, t"o of "hich "ere covered b6 Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, Nos. T0 ---&. and T03.$$'.2 On 7ul6 -&, %&/-, =oreto died, leavin) Ailfredo and their t"o dau)hters, van)eline and 5ri)ida =i:a, as her survivin) heirs. ' *bout eleven +%%, 6ears later, or on March -&, %&&3, =oreto>s heirs e<ecuted an e<traHudicial settle9ent of her one0half share of the conHu)al estate, adHudicatin) all the properties in favor of van)eline and 5ri)ida =i:aG Ailfredo "aived his ri)hts to the properties, "ith a reservation of his usufructuar6 ri)hts durin) his lifeti9e./ On Septe9ber -3, %&&3, the Re)ister of Deeds of =ipa !it6, 5atan)as cancelled T!T Nos. T0---&. and T03.$$' and issued T!T Nos. T0/'#&# and T0/'#&$ in the na9es of van)eline and 5ri)ida =i:a, "ith an annotation of Ailfredo>s usufructuar6 ri)hts. & *l9ost a decade later, or on March %3, -..3,%. Ailfredo filed "ith the Municipal Trial !ourt in !ities +MT!!, of =ipa !it6 a co9plaint for forcible entr6 a)ainst the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc., doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. ..%&0.3. Ailfredo clai9ed that he la"full6 possessed and occupied the t"o +-, parcels of land located alon) !.M. Recto *venue, =ipa !it6, 5atan)as, covered b6 T!T Nos. T0/'#&# and T0/'#&$, "ith a buildin) used for his furniture business. Ta;in) advanta)e of his absence due to his hospital confine9ent in Septe9ber -..-, the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. too; possession and caused the renovation of the buildin) on the propert6. In Dece9ber -..-, the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc., "ith the aid of ar9ed 9en, barred hi9 fro9 enterin) the propert6. %% 5oth the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. countered that Ailfredo voluntaril6 renounced his usufructuar6 ri)hts in a petition for cancellation of usufructuar6 ri)hts dated March #, %&&2, %- and that another action !ISION

bet"een the sa9e parties is pendin) "ith the RT! of =ipa !it6, 5ranch %3 +an action for the annul9ent of the petition for cancellation of usufructuar6 ri)hts filed b6 Ailfredo,, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. &&0 .''3. T-( MTCC Ru/0n1 In its Dece9ber -, -..3 decision,%3 the MT!! dis9issed the co9plaint. It found no evidence of Ailfredo>s prior possession and subse(uent dispossession of the propert6. It noted that Ailfredo ad9itted that both . Rical nterprises and Star Honda, Inc. occupied the propert6 throu)h lease contracts fro9 van)eline and her husband 4erdinand. Ailfredo appealed to the RT!. T-( RTC Ru/0n1 In its Nove9ber 3., -..# decision,%# the RT! affir9ed the MT!!>s findin)s. It held that Ailfredo lac;ed a cause of action to evict the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. since van)eline is the re)istered o"ner of the propert6 and Ailfredo had voluntaril6 renounced his usufructuar6 ri)hts. Ailfredo sou)ht reconsideration of the RT!>s decision and, in due course, attained this obHectiveG the RT! set aside its ori)inal decision and entered another, "hich ordered the eviction of the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. In its *pril 2, -..$ decision,%$ the RT! held that Ailfredo>s renunciation of his usufructuar6 ri)hts could not be the basis of the co9plaint>s dis9issal since it is the subHect of liti)ation pendin) "ith the RT! of =ipa !it6, 5ranch %3. The RT! found that the MT!! overloo;ed the evidence provin) Ailfredo>s prior possession and subse(uent dispossession of the propert6, na9el6@ +a, van)eline>s Hudicial ad9ission of L7. 5elen Street, Rosario, 5atan)asL as her residence since Ma6 -..-G +b, the =ipa !it6 Prosecutor>s findin)s, in a cri9inal case for (ualified trespass to d"ellin), that the petitioners are not residents of the propert6G +c, the affidavit of Ric;6 5riones, 5aran)a6 !aptain of 5aran)a6 &, =ipa !it6 "here the propert6 is located, attestin) to Ailfredo>s prior possession and the petitioners> entr6 to the propert6 durin) Ailfredo>s hospital confine9entG and +d, the petitioners, "ith the aid of ar9ed 9en, destro6ed the padloc; of the buildin) on the propert6. The RT! ordered the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. to pa6 P2-.,...... as reasonable co9pensation for the use and occupation of the propert6, and P-.,...... as attorne6>s fees. The petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. filed separate 9otions for reconsideration. In its 7ul6 /, -..$ order,%2 the RT! 9odified its *pril 2, -..$ decision b6 absolvin) Star Honda, Inc. fro9 an6 liabilit6. It found no evidence that Star Honda, Inc. participated in the dispossession. The petitioners then filed a Rule #- petition for revie" "ith the !*. T-( CA Ru/0n1 In its 4ebruar6 %., -..2 decision,%' the !* affir9ed "ith 9odification the RT!>s findin)s, notin) that@ +a, van)eline>s ad9ission of L7. 5elen Street, Rosario, 5atan)asL as her residence +a place different and distinct fro9 the propert6, rendered i9probable her clai9 of possession and occupationG and +b, van)eline>s entr6 to the propert6 +on the prete<t of repairin) the buildin), durin) Ailfredo>s hospital confine9ent had been done "ithout Ailfredo>s prior consent and "as done throu)h strate)6 and stealth. The !*, ho"ever, deleted the a"ard of P-.,...... as attorne6>s fees since the RT! decision did not contain an6 discussion or Hustification for the a"ard. The petitioners then filed the present petition. Ailfredo died on Dece9ber -', -..2 and has been substituted b6 his second "ife, Ma. =6dia S. Rivera, and their children, 4reida =eah S. Rivera and Ailfredo S. Rivera, 7r. +respondents,. %/ T-( P('0'0on

The petitioners sub9it that the !* erred in e(uatin) possession "ith residence since possession in forcible entr6 cases 9eans ph6sical possession "ithout (ualification as to the nature of possession, i.e., "hether residin) or not in a particular place. The6 contend that the pronounce9ents of the RT! of =ipa !it6, 5ranch %3, in !ivil !ase No. &&0.''3, in the March %%, -..3 order, %& that the6 have been Loccup6in) the pre9ises since %&&'L-. and Ailfredo>s o"n ad9ission that he padloc;ed the doors of the buildin) contradict Ailfredo>s clai9 of prior possession. T-( Ca)( 2or '-( R()6on3(n') The respondents counter that the petitioners 9ista;enl6 relied on the state9ents of the RT! of =ipa !it6, 5ranch %3, in !ivil !ase No. &&0.''3 on the petitioners> occupation since %&&'G such state9ents had been rendered in an interlocutor6 order, and should not prevail over van)eline>s ad9ission in her ans"er of LPoblacion, Rosario, 5atan)asL-% as her residence, co9pared to Ailfredo>s ad9ission in his co9plaint of L!.M. Recto *venue, =ipa !it6, 5atan)asL as his residence, the e<act address of the disputed propert6.-T-( $))u( The case presents to us the issue of "ho, bet"een the petitioners and Ailfredo, had been in prior ph6sical possession of the propert6. Our Ru/0n1 The petition lac;s 9erit. Hect9ent cases involve onl6 ph6sical possession or possession de facto. L Hect9ent cases 0 forcible entr6 and unla"ful detainer 0 are su99ar6 proceedin)s desi)ned to provide e<peditious 9eans to protect actual possession or the ri)ht to possession of the propert6 involved. The onl6 (uestion that the courts resolve in eHect9ent proceedin)s is@ "ho is entitled to the ph6sical possession of the pre9ises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de Hure. It does not even 9atter if a part68s title to the propert6 is (uestionable.L -3 Thus, Lan eHect9ent case "ill not necessaril6 be decided in favor of one "ho has presented proof of o"nership of the subHect propert6.L -# Indeed, possession in eHect9ent cases L9eans nothin) 9ore than actual ph6sical possession, not le)al possession in the sense conte9plated in civil la".L-$ In a forcible entr6 case, Lprior ph6sical possession is the pri9ar6 consideration.L-2 L* part6 "ho can prove prior possession can recover such possession even a)ainst the o"ner hi9self. Ahatever 9a6 be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in ti9e, he has the securit6 that entitles hi9 to re9ain on the propert6 until a person "ith a better ri)ht la"full6 eHects hi9.L -' LThe part6 in peaceable, (uiet possession shall not be thro"n out b6 a stron) hand, violence, or terror.L-/ The respondents have proven prior ph6sical possession of the propert6. In this case, "e are convinced that Ailfredo had been in prior possession of the propert6 and that the petitioners deprived hi9 of such possession b6 9eans of force, strate)6 and stealth. The !* did not err in e(uatin) residence "ith ph6sical possession since residence is a 9anifestation of possession and occupation. Ailfredo had consistentl6 alle)ed that he resided on L!.M. Recto *venue, =ipa !it6, 5atan)as,L the location of the propert6, "hereas van)eline has al"a6s ad9itted that she has been a resident of L7. 5elen Street, Rosario, 5atan)as.L The petitioners failed to prove that the6 have occupied the propert6 throu)h so9e other person, even if the6 have declared their residence in another area. Ae note that in another proceedin), a cri9inal co9plaint for (ualified trespass to d"ellin), the =ipa !it6 Prosecutor also observed that the petitioners did not reside on or occup6 the propert6 on Dece9ber %2, -..-,-& about three +3, 9onths before Ailfredo filed the co9plaint for forcible entr6 on March %3, -..3. The petitioners also alle)ed therein that the6 are residents of L7. 5elen St., Rosario, 5atan)asL and not LNo. 3. !.M. Recto *ve., =ipa !it6.L 3.

4urther9ore, the petitioners failed to rebut the affidavit of 5aran)a6 !aptain 5riones attestin) to Ailfredo>s prior possession and the petitioners> unla"ful entr6 to the propert6 durin) Ailfredo>s hospital confine9ent.3% The petitioners> clai9 of ph6sical possession cannot find support in the March %%, -..3 order 3- of the RT! of =ipa !it6, 5ranch %3, in !ivil !ase No. &&0.''3 statin) that the petitioners Lhave been occup6in) the pre9ises since %&&'.L Ae note that the order "as a 9ere interlocutor6 order on Ailfredo>s 9otion for the issuance of a cease and desist order. *n interlocutor6 order does not end the tas; of the court in adHudicatin) the parties8 contentions and deter9inin) their ri)hts and liabilities a)ainst each other. LIt is basicall6 provisional in its application.L33 It is the nature of an interlocutor6 order that it is subHect to 9odification or reversal that the result of further proceedin)s 9a6 "arrant. Thus, the RT!>s pronounce9ent on the petitioners> occupation Lsince %&&'L is not res Hudicata on the issue of actual ph6sical possession. In su9, "e find no reversible error in the decision appealed fro9 and, therefore, affir9 it. Ailfredo>s death did not render 9oot the forcible entr6 case. The death of Ailfredo introduces a see9in) co9plication into the case and on the disposition "e shall 9a;e. To )o bac; to basics, the petition before us involves the recover6 of possession of real propert6 and is a real action that is not e<tin)uished b6 the death of a part6. The Hud)9ent in an eHect9ent case is conclusive bet"een the parties and their successors0in0interest b6 title subse(uent to the co99ence9ent of the actionG hence, it is enforceable b6 or a)ainst the heirs of the deceased. 1wphi1 This Hud)9ent entitles the "innin) part6 to@ +a, the restitution of the pre9ises, +b, the su9 Hustl6 due as arrears of rent or as reasonable co9pensation for the use and occupation of the pre9ises, and +c, attorne6>s fees and costs. The co9plicatin) factor in the case is the nature and basis of Ailfredo>s possessionG he "as holdin) the propert6 as usufructuar6, althou)h this ri)ht to de Hure possession "as also disputed before his death, hand in hand "ith the de facto possession that is subHect of the present case. Aithout need, ho"ever, of an6 further dispute or liti)ation, the ri)ht to the usufruct is no" rendered 9oot b6 the death of Ailfredo since death e<tin)uishes a usufruct under *rticle 2.3+%, of the !ivil !ode. This develop9ent deprives the heirs of the usufructuar6 the ri)ht to retain or to reac(uire possession of the propert6 even if the eHect9ent Hud)9ent directs its restitution. Thus, "hat actuall6 survives under the circu9stances is the a"ard of da9a)es, b6 "a6 of co9pensation, that the RT! ori)inall6 a"arded and "hich the !* and this !ourt affir9ed. This a"ard "as co9puted as of the ti9e of the RT! decision +or rou)hl6 about a 6ear before Ailfredo>s death, but "ill no" have to ta;e into account the co9pensation due for the period bet"een the RT! decision and Ailfredo>s death. The co9putation is a 9atter of e<ecution that is for the RT!, as court of ori)in, to underta;e. The heirs of Ailfredo shall succeed to the co9puted total a"ard under the rules of succession, a 9atter that is not "ithin the authorit6 of this !ourt to deter9ine at this point. AH R 4OR , "e hereb6 D NB the appeal and accordin)l6 *44IRM the 4ebruar6 %., -..2 decision of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. SP No. &.'%' "ith the MODI4I!*TION that, "ith the ter9ination, upon his death, of respondent Ailfredo Rivera>s usufructor6 over the disputed propert6, the issue of restitution of possession has been rendered 9oot and acade9icG on the other hand, the 9onetar6 a"ard of P2-.,......, as reasonable co9pensation for the use and occupation of the propert6 up to the ti9e of the Re)ional Trial !ourt decision on *pril 2, -..$, survives and accrues to the estate of the deceased respondent Ailfredo Rivera, to be distributed to his heirs pursuant to the applicable la" on succession. *dditional co9pensation accrues and shall be added to the co9pensation fro9 the ti9e of the Re)ional Trial !ourt decision up to respondent Ailfredo Rivera>s death. 4or purposes of the co9putation of this additional a9ount and for the e<ecution of the total a9ount due under this Decision, "e hereb6 re9and the case to the Re)ional Trial !ourt, as court of ori)in, for appropriate action. !osts a)ainst petitioners van)eline Rivera0!alin)asan and . Rical nterprises. SO ORD R D. ARTURO D. "R$ON *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@

ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson MAR$ANO C. DE# CAST$##O *ssociate 7ustice JOSE PORTUGA# PERE *ssociate 7ustice

ESTE#A M. PER#AS;"ERNA"E *ssociate 7ustice *TT ST*TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. ANTON$O T. CARP$O *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson, Second Division ! RTI4I!*TlON

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson8s *ttestation, I ce%iif6 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
%

Inder Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourtG rollo, pp. &0%/. van)eline is doin) business under the tradena9e . Rical nterprisesG !* rollo, p. %2.

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice =ucas P. 5ersa9in +no" a 9e9ber of this !ourt,, and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices Renato !. Decudao and !elia !. =ibrea0=ea)o)oG rollo, pp. --03..
#

!* rollo, pp. 3'0#%. Penned b6 7ud)e *velino 1. De9etria. Id. at 3$032. Id. at #-0#$. Id. at #-. Id. at ##. Id. at #20#/. Id. at %&. Id. at $&02.. Id. at #&. Id. at $&02$. Penned b6 Presidin) 7ud)e 7ai9e M. 5orHa.

'

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

Id. at '.0'%. Supra note #. Supra note $. Supra note 3. Rollo, p. /$. !* rollo, pp. 2/02&. Rollo, p. %#. Id. at &2. Ibid.

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

5arrientos v. Rapal, 1.R. No. %2&$&#, 7ul6 -., -.%%, 2$# S!R* %2$, %'.0%'%G e9phasis ours, italics supplied. See also David v. !ordova, $.- Phil. 2-2, 2#$ +-..$,.
-#

!arbonilla v. *biera, 1.R. No. %''23', 7ul6 -2, -.%., 2-$ S!R* #2%, #2&.

-$

*nta:o v. Doblada, 1.R. No. %'/&./, 4ebruar6 #, -.%., 2%% S!R* $/2, $&-G and *rbi:o v. Santillan, 1.R. No. %'%3%$, 4ebruar6 -2, -../, $#2 S!R* 2%., 2--. 9phasis ours.
-2

*nta:o v. Doblada, supra, at $&3G e9phasis ours.

-'

Ibid. See also PaHu6o v. !ourt of *ppeals, 1.R. No. %#232#, 7une 3, -..#, #3. S!R* #&-, $%.0$%%.
-/

=ee v. Dela Pa:, 1.R. No. %/32.2, October -', -..&, 2.# S!R* $--, $#-. See also Fui:on v. 7uan, 1.R. No. %'%##-, 7une %', -../, $$# S!R* 2.%, 2%#.
-&

Rollo, pp. #'0$.. Id. at #' and #&. Id. at $%0$3. Supra note %&.

3.

3%

3-

33

Republic of the Philippines v. Sandi)anba6an +4ourth Division,, et al., 1.R. No. %$-3'$, Dece9ber %2, -.%%G and To9acru:0=actao v. speHo, #'/ Phil. '$$, '23 +-..#,. 9phasis ours. SECOND D$%$S$ON G.R. No. 16G01*, Ju/y 31, 2013 !E$RS O& A#EJANDRA DE#&$N, NAME#Y@ #EOPO#DO DE#&$N =DECEASED>, REPRESENTED "Y !$S SPOUSE, #U C. DE#&$N, AND C!$#DREN, #E#ANE C. DE#&$N AND ANASTAC$A C. DE#&$N, MARCE#$TO1 DE#&$N, &RANC$SCO2 DE#&$N, APO##O DE#&$N, A"R$#ES DE#&$N, #YD$A D. DACU#AN, O#$%$A D. CA"A##ERO, A#EJANDRO DE#&$N, JU#$TO DE#&$N, AND CAND$DO DE#&$N, JR., 2etitioner#, v. A%E#$NA RA"ADON, PAC$ANO PANOGA#$NG,3 !$#AR$A RA"ADON, PA"#O "O,U$##A, CATA#$NA RA"ADON, PAC$ANO RA"AYA, &E RA"ADON, GON A#O DA"ON, AND RO"ERTO RA"ADON, !e#pondent#. DEC$S$ON

PER#AS;"ERNA"E, J.@

*ssailed in this petition for revie" on certiorari# are the Decision$ dated 4ebruar6 -/, -..% and Resolution2 dated *u)ust -, -..# of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. $''-3 "hich reversed and set aside the Decision' dated 7une -', %&&' of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it6, 5ranch $/ +RT!, in !ivil !ase No. ! 50%#/.%, orderin) petitioners to surrender the o"nership and possession of =ot No. /-%', a #,#$- s(uare 9eter parcel of land situated in Ina"a6an, Pardo, !ebu !it6 +subHect propert6,, in favor of respondents and to render an accountin) of the fruits received. T-( &a.') On October %&, %&&3, respondents filed before the RT! an action to recover the o"nership and possession of the subHect propert6 fro9 petitioners, see;in) as "ell the pa69ent of da9a)es. 5ased on their co9plaint and the testi9onies of their "itnesses durin) trial, respondents alle)ed that@ + a, the subHect propert6 "as o"ned b6 their predecessor0in0interest, / 9iliana 5acalso + 9iliana,, pursuant to Decree No. &/&&-G& +b, "hile the fore)oin) decree "as lost durin) the last Aorld Aar, its e<istence could still be sho"n b6 a certification +=R* certification, issued b6 the =and Re)istration *uthorit6 +=R*,, and a certified cop6 fro9 pa)e %& of the da6boo; of cadastral lots issued b6 the Re)ister of Deeds +RD, of !ebu !it6 +da6boo; entr6,G %. +c, after 9iliana>s death, 1enaro Rabadon too; over the possession of the subHect propert6 and upon his death, his children, herein respondents, too; over its possession until %&//G%% +d, in %&/&, the6 discovered that the said propert6 "as alread6 in the possession of petitioner *leHandra Delfin +*leHandra, and so9e of her children and their fa9ilies alread6 constructed their houses thereonG%- and +e, "hen the6 confronted *leHandra, she clai9ed that petitioners> predecessor0in0interest, Re9e)io Navares +Re9e)io, previousl6 bou)ht the said propert6G ho"ever, "hen the6 as;ed to see a cop6 of the deed of sale, she could not produce the sa9e. %3crala" virtuala" librar6 4or their part, petitioners countered that@ +a, the6 inherited the subHect propert6 fro9 their predecessor0in0 interest, Re9e)io, "ho bou)ht the fore)oin) even before the second Aorld AarG + b, the subHect propert6 "as issued a certificate of title in the na9e of Re9e)io, ho"ever, the said title "as lostG %# +c, *leHandra inherited the subHect propert6 b6 virtue of an e<tra0Hudicial settle9ent and after its e<ecution, she and her children, petitioners =eopoldo, 4rancisco and Marcelito Delfin, too; over the possession of the sa9eG %$ and +d, the subHect propert6 had been declared b6 the9 for ta<ation purposes and the6 paid the correspondin) realt6 ta<es due thereon.%2 56 "a6 of affir9ative defense, petitioners further contended, inter alia, that respondents> de9ands "ere alread6 barred b6 lache#, )iven that the6 too; about $$ 6ears to file their co9plaint.%'crala" virtuala" librar6 T-( RTC Ru/0n1 In a Decision%/ dated 7une -', %&&', the RT! ruled that petitioners had the better ri)ht to the o"nership and possession of the subHect propert6. It based its conclusion on the fact that the subHect propert6 "as declared b6 petitioners for ta<ation purposes and that the6 paid the realt6 ta<es due thereon. It held that "hile ta< declarations and ta< receipts are not incontrovertible evidence of o"nership, the6 beco9e proof of o"nership "hen acco9panied b6 proof of actual possession such as petitioners> continuous declaration of the subHect propert6 for ta<ation purposes, their pa69ents of the correspondin) ta<es, and the construction of their respective houses thereon. It also noted that *leHandra filed a petition for the reconstitution of Re9e)io>s title, i.e., Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, No. -.&%. in =R! No. &#2& before the Re)ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it6, 5ranch %2. %&crala" virtuala" librar6 On the other hand, the RT! observed that "hile it is undisputed that the subHect propert6 has been issued Decree No. &/&&- and for "hich an ori)inal certificate of title "as issued to 9iliana, respondents have not sho"n an6 efforts to locate the said title nor to reconstitute the sa9e. Neither have the6 atte9pted to declare the subHect propert6 for ta<ation purposes nor have the6 sho"n an6 proof that the6 paid the realt6 ta<es due thereon, thereb6 ne)atin) their clai9 of o"nership. -. Moreover, the RT! pronounced that respondents "ere )uilt6 of lache#.-% *))rieved, respondents elevated the 9atter on appeal. T-( CA Ru/0n1 In a Decision-- dated 4ebruar6 -/, -..%, the !* reversed the RT!>s pronounce9ent, holdin) that respondents had the better ri)ht of o"nership and possession over the subHect propert6. It observed that, apart fro9 the self0servin) testi9onies of so9e of the petitioners, the onl6 evidence adduced b6 the9 in

support of their clai9 are 9ere copies of ta< declarations and ta< receipts over the subHect propert6 and a Report dated 7ul6 %#, %&&3 of one Director Silverio 1. Pere: of the Depart9ent of Re)istration of the =R* +=R* Report, to the effect that the propert6 in (uestion is covered b6 T!T No. -.&%.. The !* stressed that ta< declarations and ta< receipts are not conclusive evidence of o"nership or of the ri)ht to possess the land "hen not supported b6 other evidence of actual possession "hich re9ained "antin) in this case. In this relation, it found that the =R* Report could not (ualif6 as proof of possession since the report failed to 9ention that the subHect propert6 actuall6 belon)s to petitioners> predecessor0in0interest. In fact, the =R* Report even affir9ed that the subHect propert6 "as covered b6 a decree issued to 9iliana and her husband, Dionisio Rabadon. 4urther, "hen T!T No. -.&%. "as sou)ht to be reconstituted b6 *leHandra, one 7uanito Montene)ro +RD representative, of the !ebu !it6 RD testified that the said title does not cover the subHect propert6 and that the !ebu !it6 RD has no record available for =ot No. /-%'. These findin)s led to the dis9issal of *leHandra>s petition for reconstitution and considerin) these circu9stances, the !* stated that the =R* Report is inferior to the testi9on6 of the RD representative.-3crala" virtuala" librar6 *lso, the !* observed that petitioners offered no credible e<planation as to "h6 the subHect propert6 "as declared in the na9e of their predecessor0in0interest, Re9e)io, and that the ta< declarations "ere onl6 allo"ed on the supposition that the subHect propert6 "as covered b6 T!T No. -.&%. in the na9e of Re9e)io, "hich entr6 "as, as earlier 9entioned, sho"n to be erroneous. -# *nent the issue of prescription, the !* pronounced that petitioners "ere unable to prove that the6 have been in possession of the subHect propert6 since %&3/. Neither are respondents )uilt6 of lache# since there is no evidence on record "hich "ould sho" that the6 o9itted to assert their clai9 over the subHect propert6. -$ Respondents "ere, ho"ever, ordered to rei9burse petitioners of the ta<es paid b6 the9 durin) the period of their possession, includin) le)al interest. Dissatisfied, petitioners 9oved for reconsideration "hich "as denied in a Resolution-2 dated *u)ust -, -..#. Hence, the instant petition. T-( $))u( "(2or( '-( Cour' The essential issue in this case is "hether or not respondents have the better ri)ht to the o"nership and possession of the subHect propert6. T-( Cour'A) Ru/0n1 The petition is bereft of 9erit. *t the outset, it bears notin) that the !ourt 9a6 proceed to evaluate the evidence on record even on a Rule #$ petition for revie" in the event that the findin)s of the !* are contrar6 to that of the RT!, -' as in this case. *fter such evaluation, the !ourt finds that the respondents have sho"n a better ri)ht to the o"nership and possession of the subHect propert6. *s 9a6 be )leaned fro9 the records, the probative value of petitioners> evidence, "hich consist of ta< declarations and ta< receipts, pales in co9parison to that of respondents> evidence "hich consists of a decree of o"nership, i.e.% Decree No. &/&&-, under the na9e of their predecessor0in0interest, 9iliana. Ahile the actual cop6 of the said decree "as lost, the e<istence of the said decree "as actuall6 proven b6 the =R* certification and the da6boo; entr6. =i;e"ise, the RT! itself observed that it is undisputable that the subHect propert6 has been issued Decree No. &/&&-, for "hich an ori)inal certificate of title "as issued to 9iliana.-/ It is an ele9ental rule that a decree of re)istration bars all clai9s and ri)hts "hich arose or 9a6 have e<isted prior to the decree of re)istration. 56 the issuance of the decree, the land is bound and title thereto (uieted, subHect onl6 to certain e<ceptions -& under the propert6 re)istration decree.3. In the case of :errer)*opez v. CA,3% the !ourt ruled that as a)ainst an arra6 of proofs consistin) of ta< declarations andMor ta< receipts "hich are not conclusive evidence of o"nership nor proof of the area covered therein, an ori)inal certificate of title, "hich indicates true and le)al o"nership b6 the re)istered o"ners over the disputed pre9ises, 9ust prevail. *ccordin)l6, respondents> Decree No. &/&&for "hich an ori)inal certificate of title "as issued should be accorded )reater "ei)ht as a)ainst the ta< declarations and ta< receipts presented b6 petitioners in this case. 5esides, ta< declarations and ta< receipts 9a6 onl6 beco9e the basis of a clai9 for o"nership "hen the6 are coupled "ith proof of actual possession of the propert6. 3- In this case, records are bereft of an6 sho"in) that petitioners, or an6 of their predecessors0in0interest, have been in actual possession of the subHect propert6 prior to %&/& as the6 clai9. The ta< declarations and ta< receipts are insufficient to prove

their proffered theor6 that their predecessor0in0interest, Re9e)io, "as the la"ful possessor and o"ner of the fore)oin) propert6 even before the last Aorld Aar. In fact, petitioners alto)ether failed to prove the le)iti9ac6 of Re9e)io>s possession and o"nership since the6 failed to present the pertinent deed of sale or an6 other evidence of the latter>s title. On the contrar6, aside fro9 the =R* certification and da6boo; entr6 "hich prove the e<istence of Decree No. &/&&-, respondents> possession of the subHect propert6 prior to petitioners> entr6 in %&/& "as attested to b6 one Marcelina Tabora 33 "ho, as the !* notes, appears to be an unbiased "itness.3# *ll told, b6 sheer preponderance of evidence, respondents have sho"n a better ri)ht to the o"nership and possession of the subHect propert6 and hence, 9ust be a"arded the sa9e. *s to the issue of lache#, suffice it to state that petitioners "ere not able to adduce an6 sufficient evidence to de9onstrate that respondents undul6 slept on their ri)hts for an unreasonable len)th of ti9e. Fuite the contrar6, records reveal that respondents and their predecessors0in0interest have been in possession of the subHect propert6 since the %&$.>s and that the6 filed their co9plaint on October %&, %&&3, "hich is onl6 four 6ears re9oved fro9 the ti9e petitioners entered the propert6 in %&/&. 3$ *s such, lache# does not e<ist. In vie" of the pronounce9ents 9ade herein, the !ourt dee9s it unnecessar6 to delve on the other ancillar6 issues in this case. 9!ERE&ORE, the petition is DEN$ED. *ccordin)l6, the Decision dated 4ebruar6 -/, -..% and Resolution dated *u)ust -, -..# of the !ourt of *ppeals in !*01.R. !V No. $''-3 are hereb6 A&&$RMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio% 5Chairper#on6% Brion% Del Ca#tillo% and 2erez% ((., concur. Endnotes@
%

TMarlitoU or TManuelitoU in so9e parts of the records. T4ranciscaU in so9e parts of the records. TPanu)alin)U in so9e parts of the records. !ollo, pp. $0-#.

Id. at #%0#/. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Re9edios *. Sala:ar04ernando, "ith *ssociate 7ustices Ro9eo *. 5ra"ner and 7uan F. nri(ue:, 7r., concurrin).
2

Id. at #&0$%. Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice Re9edios *. Sala:ar04ernando, "ith *ssociate 7ustices d)ardo P. !ru: and 7uan F. nri(ue:, 7r., concurrin). Id. at -$0#.. Penned b6 7ud)e 7ose P. Serrano, 7r.

'

Id. at -'. Durin) trial, respondents presented, as their "itness, respondent Paciano Pano)alin) "ho testified, inter alia% that the husband of 9iliana "as Dionisio Rabadon and one of the children of the said couple "as 1enaro Rabadon "ho, in turn, "as the father of Paciano>s "ife, respondent *velina Rabadon, as "ell as of the other respondents 4e, !atalina, Hilaria and Roberto, all surna9ed Rabadon.nadcrala"librar6
&

Id. at -', 3., #2 and %/#. The proper entr6 appears to be Decree No. &/&&- and not &//&33 as sho"n in other parts of the records.redcrala"
%.

Id. at -$. Id. at -/. Id.

%%

%-

%3

Id. at -$ and -/.

%#

Id. at 3%03-. Durin) trial, respondents presented, as their "itnesses, 7ovito and !elestino Navares "ho both testified, inter alia% that Re9e)io bou)ht the subHect propert6 and a certificate of title "as issued in the latter>s favor.
%$

Id. at -20-'. Id. at -2 and 3%03-. Id. at -'. Id. at -$0#. Id. at 3& and #$. Id. Id. at 3&0#.. Id. at #%0#/. Id. at ##0#$. Id. at #$.red crala"librar6 Id. at #20#'. Id. at #&0$%.

%2

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

See Decalen" v. Bi#hop of the -i##ionary Di#trict of the 2hilippine I#land# of 2rote#tant 1pi#copal Church in the 8nited +tate# of America% 1.R. No. %'%-.&, 7une -', -.%-, 2'$ S!R* %#$, %2.0%2%.
-/

!ollo% p. 3&.

-&

See Section 3& of *ct #&2, no" Section ## of Presidential Decree No. +PD, %$-&, as cited in Cure" v. Intermediate Appellate Court +#th !ivil !ases Div.,, -$/ Phil. %.#. See also Section 3%of PD %$-&.
3.

Cure" v. Intermediate Appellate Court% id. at %%%. -3# Phil. 3//, 3&203&' +%&/',, cited in Cure" v. Intermediate Appellate Court% id. at %%.0%%%. See Ce3ue,a v. Bolante% 1.R. No. %3'&##, *pril 2, -..., 33. S!R* -%2, --20--'.

3%

3-

33

!ollo, p. -&03.. Durin) trial, Marcelina Tabora testified, inter alia, that@ +a, durin) the lifeti9e of 9iliana, she "as the one "ho bou)ht the fruits of the coconut trees on the subHect propert6G +b, since the ti9e she "as bu6in) the products of the subHect propert6, 9iliana "as in possession of the sa9eG +c, after 9iliana>s death, the latter "as succeeded b6 1enaro Rabadon and later his children, "ho sold to her the fruits until %&/$G and +d, durin) the ti9e "hen she "as )atherin) the fruits, no one ever obHected to "hat she "as doin).
3#

Id. at #2.

3$

7urisprudence dictates that TClDaches is the failure of or ne)lect for an unreasonable and une<plained len)th of ti9e to do that "hich b6 e<ercisin) due dili)ence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a ri)ht "ithin reasonable ti9e, "arrantin) a presu9ption that the part6 entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it.U +Velez% +r. v. Demetrio, 1.R. No. %-/$'2, *u)ust %3, -..-, 3/' S!R* -3-., Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

4IRST DIVISION G.R. No. 16G838 A6r0/ 3, 2013

NEMES$O &$RA A, SR., Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES C#AUD$O an3 EU&RECENA UGAY, Respondents. R REYES, J.: *ssailed in this petition% for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt is the Decision dated 7anuar6 3., -..# of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !.*. 1.R. SP No. '3#&$, affir9in) the Orders dated *u)ust -., -..%3 and 7ul6 -, -..-# of the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of 5a6u)an, *)usan del Sur, 5ranch ', "hich disallo"ed petitioner Ne9esio 4ira:a, Sr. +petitioner, fro9 propoundin) (uestions attac;in) the validit6 of Spouses !laudio and ufrecena I)a68s +respondents, land title durin) the trial in !ivil !ase No. ##-. =i;e"ise assailed is the !* Resolution $ dated Septe9ber -#, -..# den6in) reconsideration. T-( An'(.(3(n') !ivil !ase No. ##- "as co99enced b6 a co9plaint for Fuietin) of Title filed b6 the respondents "ho alle)ed that the6 are the re)istered o"ners of =ot No. -//'0* as evidenced b6 Ori)inal !ertificate of Title +O!T, No. P0%2./.. The co9plaint pra6ed for the annul9ent of Ta< Declaration No. !0--0./$' dated 4ebruar6 %/, %&&3 issued in the na9e of the petitioner on the )round that it creates a cloud upon the respondents> title.2 In his ans"er,' the petitioner set up the affir9ative defense that the respondents obtained their title throu)h fraud and 9isrepresentation perpetrated durin) the processin) of their 4ree Patent *pplication before the Office of the !o99unit6 nviron9ent and Natural Resources Officer of 5a6u)an, *)usan del Sur. The respondents purportedl6 connived "ith =and Mana)e9ent Officer =ourdes Tade9 +Tade9, "ho favorabl6 reco99ended their application despite the petitioner>s prior clai9 and continuous possession of the subHect lot. On the basis of the said affir9ative defense, the petitioner also filed a counterclai9 pra6in) for the@ +%, nullification of O!T No. P0%2./.G +-, reconve6ance to hi9 of the o"nership of the subHect lotG and +3, pa69ent of 9oral and e<e9plar6 da9a)es, and attorne6>s fees. / The RT! thereafter set the affir9ative defense for preli9inar6 hearin) as if a 9otion to dis9iss had been filed pursuant to Section 2, Rule %2 of the Rules of !ourt. & The RT! li;e"ise ordered the parties to sub9it their respective 9e9orandu9 to "hich the respondents dul6 co9plied. Instead of si9ilarl6 co9pl6in), ho"ever, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dispense "ith the 4ilin) of the Petitioner>s Me9orandu9 reasonin) that his affir9ative defense cannot be proven ade(uatel6 throu)h a "ritten pleadin).%. On October -, %&&/, the RT! issued an Order%% den6in) the petitioner>s affir9ative defense on the )round that the sa9e can be better ventilated alon) "ith the alle)ations of the co9plaint and ans"er in a full0 blo"n trial. Thus, trial on the 9erits ensued durin) "hich =and Mana)e9ent Officer Tade9 "as presented as a hostile "itness for the respondents. Ahile on direct e<a9ination, the petitioner>s counsel propounded (uestions pertainin) to the circu9stances attendin) the issuance b6 Tade9 of a reco99endation for the respondents> 4ree Patent *pplication. !ounsel for the respondents obHected to the (uestionin) on the )round that the sa9e constitutes a collateral attac; to the respondents> land title. In response, the petitioner ar)ued that the (uestions are necessar6 for hi9 to establish his defenses of fraud and 9isrepresentation and to substantiate his counterclai9 for reconve6ance. To full6 thresh out the issue, the RT! re(uired the parties to file, as the6 did so file, their respective position papers on "hether the petitioner>s counterclai9 constitutes a direct or a collateral attac; to the validit6 of the respondents> title. %SO=ITION

On *u)ust -., -..%, the RT! issued an Order%3 disallo"in) an6 issue pertainin) to the petitioner>s counterclai9 "hich in turn "as adHud)ed as a direct attac; to the validit6 of the respondents> title, hence, prohibited, vi:@ *fter an in0depth readin) of the facts e<tant fro9 the records, the !ourt is of the opinion and so holds that the !ounterclai9 is a direct attac; on the validit6 of the title. Proverbial it is that actions to nullit6 CsicD 4ree Patents should be at the behest of the Director of =ands +Ja6aban vs. Republic, $- S!R* 3$',. *lon) this plain, since the counterclai9 is a direct attac; on the validit6 of the title and the proper a)encies, li;e the =and Mana)e9ent 5ureau of the D NR "ere not included, an6 issue presented to prove the ille)alit6 of the title, shall not be allo"ed. SO ORD R D.%# Ahen his 9otion for reconsideration "as denied b6 the RT! in an Order %$ dated 7ul6 -, -..-, the petitioner sou)ht recourse "ith the !* via a special civil action for certiorari. In its herein assailed Decision%2 dated 7anuar6 3., -..#, the !* affir9ed the RT!>s Hud)9ent albeit pre9ised on the different findin) that the petitioner>s counterclai9 "as a collateral attac; to the validit6 of the respondent>s title. The !* stated@ LCtheD petitioner>s atte9pt to introduce evidence on the alle)ed fraud co99itted b6 the respondents in securin) their title to the subHect land constitutes a collateral attac; on the title "hich is not allo"ed b6 la".L%' The petitioner 9oved for reconsideration but his 9otion "as denied in the !* Resolution %/ dated Septe9ber -#, -..# hence, the present appeal 9oored on this le)al (uestion@ Ahether the petitioner>s counterclai9 constitutes a collateral attac; of the respondents> land title and thus bars the for9er fro9 introducin) evidence thereon in the latter>s civil action for (uietin) of titleZ T-( Cour'A) Ru/0n1 The appeal is i9pressed "ith 9erit. Section #/ of Presidential Decree No. %$-&%& or the Propert6 Re)istration Decree proscribes a collateral attac; to a certificate of title and allo"s onl6 a direct attac; thereof, vi:@ Sec. #/. !ertificate not subHect to collateral attac;. * certificate of title shall not be subHect to collateral attac;. It cannot be altered, 9odified or cancelled e<cept in a direct proceedin)s in accordance "ith la".1wphi1 In *ran)ote v. Ma)lunob,-. the !ourt, after distin)uishin) bet"een direct and collateral attac;, classified a counterclai9 under for9er, vi:@ The attac; is considered direct "hen the obHect of an action is to annul or set aside such proceedin), or enHoin its enforce9ent. !onversel6, an attac; is indirect or collateral "hen, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attac; on the proceedin) is nevertheless 9ade as an incident thereof. Such action to attac; a certificate of title 9a6 be an ori)inal action or a counterclai9, in "hich a certificate of title is assailed as void.-% +!itation o9itted and e9phasis supplied, In the recent case of Sa9paco v. =antud, -- the !ourt applied the fore)oin) distinction and held that a counterclai9, specificall6 one for annul9ent of title and reconve6ance based on fraud, is a direct attac; on the Torrens title upon "hich the co9plaint for (uietin) of title is pre9ised. -3 arlier in, Develop9ent 5an; of the Philippines v. !*,-# the !ourt ruled si9ilarl6 and e<plained thus@ Nor is there an6 obstacle to the deter9ination of the validit6 of T!T No. %.%.%. It is true that the indefeasibilit6 of torrens title cannot be collaterall6 attac;ed. In the instant case, the ori)inal co9plaint is for recover6 of possession filed b6 petitioner a)ainst private respondent, not an ori)inal action filed b6 the latter to (uestion the validit6 of T!T No. %.%.% on "hich petitioner bases its ri)ht. To rule on the issue of

validit6 in a case for recover6 of possession is tanta9ount to a collateral attac;. Ho"ever, it should not CbDe overloo;ed that private respondent filed a counterclai9 a)ainst petitioner, clai9in) o"nership over the land and see;in) da9a)es. Hence, "e could rule on the (uestion of the validit6 of T!T No. %.%.% for the counterclai9 can be considered a direct attac; on the sa9e. < < <. -$ The above pronounce9ents "ere based on the "ell0settled principle that a counterclai9 is essentiall6 a co9plaint filed b6 the defendant a)ainst the plaintiff and stands on the sa9e footin) as an independent action.-2 4ro9 the fore)oin), it is i99ediatel6 apparent that the courts a (uo erred in their conclusions. 1wphi1 The !* erroneousl6 classified the herein counterclai9 as a collateral attac;. On the other hand, the RT! correctl6 adHud)ed the sa9e as a direct attac; to the respondents> land title but 9ista;enl6 declared it as a prohibited action. *s clearl6 pronounced in the above0cited Hurisprudence, the petitioner>s counterclai9 is a per9issible direct attac; to the validit6 of respondents> torrens title. *s such counterclai9, it involves a cause of action separate fro9 that alle)ed in the co9plaintG it has for its purpose the vindication of a ri)ht in as 9uch as the co9plaint si9ilarl6 see;s the redress of one. -' *s the plaintiff in his o"n counterclai9, the petitioner is e(uall6 entitled to the opportunit6 )ranted the plaintiff in the ori)inal co9plaint, to establish his cause of action and to prove the ri)ht he asserts. The courts a (uo deprived the petitioner of such opportunit6 "hen the6 barred hi9 fro9 propoundin) (uestions relatin) to the validit6 of the respondents> titleG the6 unHustifiabl6 precluded hi9 fro9 presentin) evidence of fraud and 9isrepresentation upon "hich his counterclai9 is )rounded. The courts a (uo, the RT! especiall6, should have instead dealt "ith such issues and allo"ed the presentation of the facts and evidence necessar6 for a co9plete deter9ination of the controvers6. AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the petition is 1R*NT D. The Decision dated 7anuar6 3., -..# of the !ourt of *ppeals in !.*. 1.R. SP No. '3#&$ and the Orders dated *u)ust -., -..% and 7ul6 -, -..of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of 5a6u)an, *)usan del Sur, 5ranch ', in !ivic !ase No. ##- are hereb6 R V RS D and S T *SID . The trial court is ORD R D to proceed "ith the trial of !ivil !ase No. ##- and to allo" petitioner Ne9esio 4ira:a, Sr. to propound (uestions pertainin) to8 the validit6 of Ori)inal !ertificate of Title No. P0%2./. and present such other evidence, testi9onial or docu9entar6, substantiatin) his counterclai9 SO ORD R D. "$EN%EN$DO #. REYES *ssociate 7ustice A !ON!IR@ MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO *ssociate 7ustice !hairperson PRES"$TERO J. %E#ASCO, JR.S *ssociate 7ustice #UCAS P. "ERSAM$N *ssociate 7ustice

MART$N S. %$##ARAMA, JR. *ssociate 7ustice ! RTI4I!*TION

Pursuant to Section %3, *rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif6 that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt8s Division. MAR$A #OURDES P. A. SERENO !hief 7ustice

&oo'no'()
S

*dditional 9e9ber per Raffle dated *pril %, -.%3. Rollo, pp. -$0#&.

Penned b6 *ssociate 7ustice lo6 R. 5ello, 7r., "ith *ssociate 7ustices *9elita 4. Tolentino and *rturo D. 5rion +no" a 9e9ber of this !ourt,, concurrin)G id. at. 2.02$.
3

Id. at $/. Id. at $&. Id. at 22. Id. at 2.. Id. at $.0$2. Id.

'

&

Sec. 2. Pleadin) )rounds as affir9ative defenses.VIf no 9otion to dis9iss has been filed, an6 of the )rounds for dis9issal provided for in this Rule 9a6 be pleaded as an affir9ative defense in the ans"er and, in the discretion of the court, a preli9inar6 hearin) 9a6 be had thereon as if a 9otion to dis9iss had been filed.
%.

Rollo, p. 2%. Id. at $'. Id. at 2%02-. Id. at $/. Id. Id. at $&. Id. at 2.02$. Id. at 2#. Id. at 22.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

%'

%/

%&

*N *!T *M NDIN1 *ND !ODI4BIN1 TH =*AS R =*TIV TO R 1ISTR*TION O4 PROP RTB *ND 4OR OTH R PIRPOS S.
-.

1.R. No. %'/&.2, 4ebruar6 %/, -..&, $'& S!R* 2-.. Id. at 2#.. 1.R. No. %23$$%, 7ul6 %/, -.%%, 2$# S!R* 32. Id. at $#. 3/' Phil. -/3 +-...,.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

Id. at 3... Supra note -%, note -3, and note -$. See Pin)a v. Heirs of 1er9an Santia)o, $-2 Phil /2/, /&-0/&3 +-..2,.

-2

-'

SPOUSES JESUS #. CA"A!UG AND CORONAC$ON M. CA"A!UG, 2etitioner#, v. NAT$ONA# PO9ER CORPORAT$ON, !e#pondent. DEC$S$ON PERE , J.@ This Rule #$ Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari see;s the reversal of +a, the %2 Ma6 -..' Decision % rendered b6 the i)hteenth Division of the !ourt of *ppeals +!*, in !*01.R. !V No. 2'33% "hich reversed the %# March -... Decision rendered b6 the Re)ional Trial !ourt +RT!,, 5ranch %', Palo9pon, =e6te, in !ivil !ase No. PN0.-%3 and ordered the dis9issal of the co9plaint for Hust co9pensation tiled b6 petitioners Spouses 7esus =. !abahu) and !oronacion M. !abahu) +Spouses !abahu), a)ainst respondent National Po"er !orporation +NP!,G- and +b, the !*8s Resolution dated & 7anuar6 -..&, den6in) the 9otion for reconsideration of the %2 Ma6 -..' Decision for lac; of 9erit. 3ZrZl% The facts are not in dispute. The Spouses !abahu) are the o"ners of t"o parcels of land situated in 5aran)a6 !apo;po;, Taban)o, =e6te, re)istered in their na9es under Transfer !ertificate of Title +T!T, Nos. T0&/%3 and T0%$&& of the =e6te provincial re)istr6. # The6 "ere a9on) the defendants in Special !ivil *ction No. ..%&0PN, a suit for e<propriation earlier filed b6 NP! before the RT!, in connection "ith its =e6te0!ebu Interconnection ProHect. The suit "as later dis9issed "hen NP! opted to settle "ith the lando"ners b6 pa6in) an ease9ent fee e(uivalent to %.` of value of their propert6 in accordance "ith Section 30* of Republic *ct +R*, No. 23&$.$ In vie" of the conflictin) land values presented b6 the affected lando"ners, it appears that the =e6te Provincial *ppraisal !o99ittee, upon re(uest of NP!, fi<ed the valuation of the affected properties at P#$... per s(uare 9eter. 2ZrZl% On & Nove9ber %&&2, 7esus !abahu) e<ecuted t"o docu9ents deno9inated as Ri)ht of Aa6 1rant in favor of NP!. 4or and in consideration of the ease9ent fees in the su9s of P%%-,--$.$. and P-%,3'$..., 7esus !abahu) )ranted NP! a continuous ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 for the latters trans9issions lines and their appurtenances over -#,&3& and #,'$. s(uare 9eters of the parcels of land covered b6 T!T Nos. T0 &/%3 and T0%$&&, respectivel6. 56 said )rant, 7esus !abahu) a)reed not to construct an6 buildin) or structure "hatsoever, nor plant in an6 area "ithin the Ri)ht of Aa6 that "ill adversel6 affect or obstruct the trans9ission line of NP!, e<cept a)ricultural crops, the )ro"th of "hich "ill not e<ceed three 9eters hi)h. Inder para)raph # of the )rant, ho"ever, 7esus !abahu) reserved the option to see; additional co9pensation for ease9ent fee, based on the Supre9e !ourts %/ 7anuar6 %&&% Decision in 1.R. No. 2..'', entitled National Po"er !orporation v. Spouses Misericordia 1utierre: and Ricardo Malit, et al. +1utierre:,.'ZrZl% On -% Septe9ber %&&/, the Spouses !abahu) filed the co9plaint for the pa69ent of Hust co9pensation, da9a)es and attorne6s fees a)ainst NP! "hich "as doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. PN0.-%3 before the RT!. !lai9in) to have been totall6 deprived of the use of the portions of land covered b6 T!T Nos. T0&/%3 and T0%$&&, the Spouses !abahu) alle)ed, a9on) other 9atters, that in accordance "ith the reservation provided under para)raph # of the aforesaid )rant, the6 have de9anded fro9 NP! pa69ent of the balance of the Hust co9pensation for the subHect properties "hich, based on the valuation fi<ed b6 the =e6te Provincial *ppraisal !o99ittee, a9ounted to P%,-.-,#.#.$../ In its ans"er, on the other hand, NP! averred that it alread6 paid the full ease9ent fee 9andated under Section 30* of R* 23&$ and that the reservation in the )rant referred to additional co9pensation for ease9ent fee, not the full Hust co9pensation sou)ht b6 the Spouses !abahu).&ZrZl% *ctin) on the 9otion for Hud)9ent on the pleadin)s that "as filed b6 the Spouses !abahu), the RT! "ent on to render a Decision dated %# March -.... 5rushin) aside NP!s reliance on Section 30* of R* 23&$, the RT! applied the rulin) handed do"n b6 this !ourt in 1utierre: to the effect that NP!s ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 "hich indefinitel6 deprives the o"ner of their proprietar6 ri)hts over their

propert6 falls "ithin the purvie" of the po"er of e9inent do9ain. %. *s a conse(uence, the RT! disposed of the co9plaint in the follo"in) "ise@crala"librar6 AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, Hud)9ent is hereb6 rendered for the Spouses !abahu) and a)ainst NP!, orderin) NP!@crala"librar6 %. To pa6 the Spouses !abahu) the su9 of ON MI==ION THR HINDR D THIRTB SIR THOIS*ND and 4IV P SOS +P%,332,..$..., to)ether "ith the le)al rate of interest thereon per annu9 rec;oned fro9 7anuar6 3, %&&' less the a9ount previousl6 paid b6 NP! to the Spouses !abahu) for ease9ent fee onl6G -. To pa6 the Spouses !abahu) the su9 e(uivalent to 4IV +$`, P R! NT of the a9ount 9entioned in the ne<t precedin) para)raph for attorne6s feesG and 3. To pa6 the Spouses !abahu) the su9 of TA NTB THOIS*ND +P-.,......, P SOS for actual da9a)es and liti)ation e<penses plus costs of the proceedin)s. ZZZ?rZblZ[ ZZr\ZZl lZZ lZbrZr] SO ORD R D.%%ZrZl% *))rieved b6 the fore)oin) decision, the NP! perfected the appeal "hich "as doc;eted as !*01.R. !V No. 2'33% before the !* "hich, on %2 Ma6 -..', rendered the herein assailed decision, reversin) and settin) aside the RT!s appealed decision. 4indin) that the facts of a case are different fro9 those obtainin) in 1utierre: and that Section 30* of R* 23&$ onl6 allo"s NP! to ac(uire an ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 over properties traversed b6 its trans9ission lines, %- the !* succinctl6 ruled as follo"s@crala"librar6 Infortunatel6, the Spouses !abahu) had alread6 accepted the pa69ent of ease9ent fee, pursuant to R.*. 23&$, as a9ended, "a6 bac; in %&&2. Therefore, NP!s ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 has for all le)al intents and purposes, been established as far bac; as %&&2. Since vested ri)ht has alread6 accrued in favor of NP!, to allo" the Spouses !abahu) to pursue this case "hen the ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 had alread6 been consu99ated "ould be in violation of the contract. The contractin) parties, the Spouses !abahu) and NP! had alread6 confor9ed "ith the ter9s and conditions of the a)ree9ent. To allo" the Spouses !abahu) to a)ain collect fro9 NP! pa69ent of Hust co9pensation "ould a9ount to unHust enrich9ent at the e<pense of NP! and "ould sanction violation of the parties contract, "hich the Spouses !abahu) cannot do in the case at bench. 4urther, the a"ard of attorne6s fees and liti)ation e<penses and the costs of suit in favor of the Spouses !abahu) cannot be Hustified in the case at bar since it appears that the co9plaint actuall6 has no le)al basis.%3ZrZl% The Spouses !abahu)s 9otion for reconsideration of the %2 Ma6 -..' Decision %# "as denied for lac; of 9erit in the !*s Resolution dated & 7anuar6 -..&. Hence, this petition for revie" on certiorari. %$ In ur)in) the reversal of the !*s assailed Decision and Resolution, the Spouses !abahu) ar)ue that the !* erred@ +a, in disre)ardin) para)raph # of the 1rant of Ri)ht of Aa6 "hereb6 7esus !abahu) reserved the ri)ht to see; additional co9pensation for ease9ent feeG and +b, in not appl6in) this !ourts rulin) in 1utierre: case.%2 In representation of NP!, on the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor 1eneral +OS1, ar)ues that the su9s paid in %&&2 b6 "a6 of ease9ent fees represent the full a9ount allo"ed b6 la" and a)reed upon b6 the parties. !onsiderin) that 1utierre: concerned the pa69ent of Hust co9pensation for propert6 e<propriated b6 the NP!, the OS1 9aintains the !* did not err in accordin) scant consideration to the Spouses !abahu)s invocation of the rulin) in said case. %'ZrZl% Ae find the petition i9pressed "ith 9erit. The !* re)arded the 1rant of Ri)ht of Aa6 e<ecuted b6 7esus !abahu) in favor of NP! as a valid and bindin) contract bet"een the parties, a fact affir9ed b6 the OS1 in its / October -..& !o99ent to the petition at bench.%/ 1iven that the parties have alread6 a)reed on the ease9ent fee for the portions of the subHect parcels traversed b6 NP!s trans9issions lines, the !* ruled that the Spouses !abahu)s atte9pt to collect further su9s b6 "a6 of additional ease9ent fee andMor Hust co9pensation is violative of said contract and tanta9ount to unHust enrich9ent at the e<pense of NP!. *s correctl6 pointed out b6 the Spouses !abahu), ho"ever, the !*s rulin) totall6 disre)ards the fourth para)raph of the 1rant e<ecuted b6 7esus !abahu) "hich e<pressl6 states as follo"s@crala"librar6

That I hereb6 reserve the option to see; additional co9pensation for ase9ent 4ee, based on the Supre9e !ourt Decision in 1.R. No. 2..'', pro9ul)ated on 7anuar6 %/, %&&%, "hich Hurisprudence is desi)nated as LNP! v. 1utierre:L case.%&ZrZl% 4ro9 the fore)oin) reservation, it is evident that the Spouses !abahu)s receipt of the ease9ent fee did not bar the9 fro9 see;in) further co9pensation fro9 NP!. ven b6 the basic rules in the interpretation of contracts, "e find that the !* erred in holdin) that the pa69ent of additional su9s to the Spouses !abahu) "ould be violative of the parties contract and a9ount to unHust enrich9ent. Indeed, the rule is settled that a contract constitutes the la" bet"een the parties "ho are bound b6 its stipulations -. "hich, "hen couched in clear and plain lan)ua)e, should be applied accordin) to their literal tenor. -% !ourts cannot suppl6 9aterial stipulations, read into the contract "ords it does not contain -- or, for that 9atter, read into it an6 other intention that "ould contradict its plain i9port. -3 Neither can the6 re"rite contracts because the6 operate harshl6 or ine(uitabl6 as to one of the parties, or alter the9 for the benefit of one part6 and to the detri9ent of the other, or b6 construction, relieve one of the parties fro9 the ter9s "hich he voluntaril6 consented to, or i9pose on hi9 those "hich he did not. -#ZrZl% !onsiderin) that 1utierre: "as specificall6 9ade the point of reference for 7esus !abahu)s reservation to see; further co9pensation fro9 NP!, "e find that the !* li;e"ise erred in findin) that the rulin) in said case does not appl6 to the case at bench. !oncededl6, the NP! "as constrained to file an e<propriation co9plaint in 1utierre: due to the failure of the ne)otiations for its ac(uisition of an ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6 for its trans9ission lines. The issue that "as eventuall6 presented for this !ourts resolution, ho"ever, "as the propriet6 of 9a;in) NP! liable for the pa69ent of the full 9ar;et value of the affected propert6 despite the fact that transfer of title thereto "as not re(uired b6 said ease9ent. In upholdin) the lando"ners ri)ht to full Hust co9pensation, the !ourt ruled that the po"er of e9inent do9ain 9a6 be e<ercised althou)h title is not transferred to the e<propriator in an ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6. 7ust co9pensation "hich should be neither 9ore nor less than the 9one6 e(uivalent of the propert6 is, 9oreover, due "here the nature and effect of the ease9ent is to i9pose li9itations a)ainst the use of the land for an indefinite period and deprive the lando"ner its ordinar6 use. ven "ithout the reservation 9ade b6 7esus !abahu) in the 1rant of Ri)ht of Aa6, the application of 1utierre: to this case is not i9proper as NP! represents it to be. Ahere the ri)ht of "a6 ease9ent, as in this case, si9ilarl6 involves trans9ission lines "hich not onl6 endan)ers life and li9b but restricts as "ell the o"ner8s use of the land traversed thereb6, the rulin) in 1utierre: re9ains doctrinal and should be applied.-$ It has been ruled that the o"ner should be co9pensated for the 9onetar6 e(uivalent of the land if, as here, the ease9ent is intended to perpetuall6 or indefinitel6 deprive the o"ner of his proprietar6 ri)hts throu)h the i9position of conditions that affect the ordinar6 use, free enHo69ent and disposal of the propert6 or throu)h restrictions and li9itations that are inconsistent "ith the e<ercise of the attributes of o"nership, or "hen the introduction of structures or obHects "hich, b6 their nature, create or increase the probabilit6 of inHur6, death upon or destruction of life and propert6 found on the land is necessar6. -2 Measured not b6 the ta;ers )ain but the o"ners loss, Hust co9pensation is defined as the full and fair e(uivalent of the propert6 ta;en fro9 its o"ner b6 the e<propriator. -'ZrZl% Too, the !* reversibl6 erred in sustainin) NP!s reliance on Section 30* of R* 23&$ "hich states that onl6 %.` of the 9ar;et value of the propert6 is due to the o"ner of the propert6 subHect to an ease9ent of ri)ht of "a6. Since said ease9ent falls "ithin the purvie" of the po"er of e9inent do9ain, NP!s utili:ation of said provision has been repeatedl6 struc; do"n b6 this !ourt in a nu9ber of cases. -/ The deter9ination of Hust co9pensation in e9inent do9ain proceedin)s is a Hudicial function and no statute, decree, or e<ecutive order can 9andate that its o"n deter9ination shall prevail over the court8s findin)s. -& *n6 valuation for Hust co9pensation laid do"n in the statutes 9a6 serve onl6 as a )uidin) principle or one of the factors in deter9inin) Hust co9pensation, but it 9a6 not substitute the court8s o"n Hud)9ent as to "hat a9ount should be a"arded and ho" to arrive at such a9ount. 3. Hence, Section 3* of R.*. No. 23&$, as a9ended, is not bindin) upon this !ourt.3%ZrZl% In this case, the =e6te Provincial *ppraisal !o99ittee fi<ed the valuation of the affected properties at P#$... per s(uare 9eter at the instance of NP!. !onsiderin) that the installation of the latters trans9ission lines a9ounted to the ta;in) of -#,&3& and #,'$. s(uare 9eters fro9 the parcels of land covered b6 T!T Nos. T0&/%3 and T0%$&& or a total of -&,2/& s(uare 9eters, the RT! correctl6 deter9ined that the Spouses !abahu) are entitled to P%,332,..$... +-&,2/& < P#$..., b6 "a6 of Hust co9pensation for their properties. Inas9uch as NP! had alread6 paid the su9s of P%%-,--$.$. and P-%,3'$... as ease9ent fee, the su9 of P%33,2...$. should be deducted fro9 P%,332,..$... for a re9ainin) balance of P%,-.-,#.#.$.. To this latter su9, the RT! also correctl6 i9posed le)al interest since the Spouses !abahu), as lando"ners, are entitled to the pa69ent of le)al interest on the

co9pensation for the subHect lands fro9 the ti9e of the ta;in) of their possession up to the ti9e that full pa69ent is 9ade b6 petitioner. In accordance "ith Hurisprudence, the le)al interest allo"ed in pa69ent of Hust co9pensation for lands e<propriated for public use is si< percent +2`, per annu9. 3-ZrZl% 4or "ant of a state9ent of the rationale for the a"ard in the bod6 of the RT!s %# March -... Decision, "e are constrained, ho"ever, to disallo" the )rant of attorne6s fees in favor of the Spouses !abahu) in an a9ount e(uivalent to $` of the Hust co9pensation due as "ell as the le)al interest thereon. !onsidered the e<ception rather than the )eneral rule, the a"ard of attorne6s fees is not due ever6 ti9e a part6 prevails in a suit because of the polic6 that no pre9iu9 should be set on the ri)ht to liti)ate. 33 The RT!8s a"ard of liti)ation e<penses should li;e"ise be deleted since, li;e attorne68s fees, the a"ard thereof re(uires that the reasons or )rounds therefor 9ust be set forth in the decision of the court. 3# This is particularl6 true in this case "here the liti)ation e<penses a"arded "ere alternativel6 cate)ori:ed b6 the RT! as actual da9a)es "hich, b6 Hurisprudence, should be pleaded and ade(uatel6 proved. Ti9e and a)ain, it has been ruled that the fact and a9ount of actual da9a)es cannot be based on speculation, conHecture or )uess "or;, but 9ust depend on actual proof. 3$ZrZl% AH R 4OR , pre9ises considered, the petition is 1R*NT D and the !*8s assailed %2 Ma6 -..' Decision and & 7anuar6 -..& Resolution are, accordin)l6, R V RS D and S T *SID . In lieu thereof, another is entered R INST*TIN1 the RT!8s %# March -... Decision, subHect to the MODI4I!*TION that the a"ards of attorne68s fees, actual da9a)es andMor liti)ation e<penses are D = T D. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes@

Penned b6 !* *ssociate 7ustice *)ustin S. Di:on and concurred in b6 *ssociate 7ustices *rsenio 7. Ma)pale and 4rancisco P. *costa.
-

!*8s %2 Ma6 -..' Decision, rollo, pp. 3.03$. !*s & 7anuar6 -..& Resolution, id. at //a0/&. T!T Nos. T0&/%3 and T0%$&&, id. at $.0$-. *n *ct Revisin) the !harter of the National Po"er !orporation. Rollo, pp. ##0#$G $'0$/ and ''.

'

& Nove9ber %&&2 Ri)ht of Aa6 1rant in 4avor of NP!, id. at $30$2G 1.R. No. 2..'', %/ 7anuar6 %&&%, %&3 S!R* %.
/

Spouses !abahu)s %/ Septe9ber %&&/ !o9plaint, id. at ##0#/. NP!s & October %&&/ *ns"er, id at 230'.. RT!s %# March -... Decision, id. at '%0/.. Id. at /.. Id. at 3.03$. Rollo, p. 3#. Spouses !abahu)s 2 7une -../ Motion for Reconsideration, id. at /%0//. !*s & 7anuar6 -..& Resolution, id. at //a0/&.

&

%.

%%

%-

%3

%#

%$

%2

Id. at --0-3. Id. at %-30%-2. Id. at %-2. Id. at $$. ROM 1eneral Merchandise, Inc. v. !ourt of *ppeals, #%& Phil. %3%, %#- +-..%,. *ntipolo Properties, Inc. v. Nu6da, 1.R. No. %'%/3-, %- October -..&, 2.3 S!R* 3'2, 3/%. Sps. 5arrera v. Sps. =oren:o, #3/ Phil. #-, #& +-..-,. 1er9an Marine *)encies, Inc. v. N=R!, #.3 Phil. $'-, $/& +-..%,. 5autista v. !ourt of *ppeals, 3'& Phil. 3/2, 3&& +-...,. National Po"er !orporation v. Tua:on, 1.R. No. %&3.-3, -& 7une -.%%, 2$3 S!R* /#, &#. National Po"er !orporation v. Tian)co, 1.R. No. %'./#2, 2 4ebruar6 -..', $%# S!R* 2'#, 2/202/'. NP! v. Manuba6 *)ro0Industrial Develop9ent !orp., #/. Phil. #'., #'& +-..#,.

%'

%/

%&

-.

-%

--

-3

-#

-$

-2

-'

-/

National Po"er !orporation v. Villa9or, 1.R. No. %2../., %& 7une -..&, $&. S!R* %%, -.0-%G National Po"er !orporation v. Tian)co, $#3 Phil. 23', 2#& +-..',G National Po"er !orporation v. San Pedro, $3# Phil. ##/, #'. +-..2,G Didipio arth Savers Multi0Purpose *ssociation, Inc. +D S*M*, v. Sec. 1o:un, $-. Phil. #$' +-..2,G National Po"er !orporation v. *)uirre0Paderan)a, $.- Phil. '-+-..$,G National Po"er !orporation v. I)9edio, #$- Phil. 2#&, 22- +-...,G !a9arines Norte lectric !ooperative Inc. v. !ourt of *ppeals, 3&/ Phil. //2, /&& +-...,G National Po"er !orporation v. 1utierre:, supra, note '.
-&

National Po"er !orporation v. 5on)bon), 1.R. %2#.'&, 3 *pril -..', $-. S!R* -&., 3.'. Republic v. =ibunao, 1.R. No. %22$$3, 3. 7ul6 -..&, $&# S!R* 323, 3'/. National Po"er !orporation v. Saludares, 1.R. No. %/&%-', -$ *pril -.%-, 2'% S!R* -22, -''. Republic v. Spouses =ibunao, supra, note -&, at 3'&. !ountr6 5an;ers Ins. !orp. v. =ian)a 5a6, #-$ Phil. $%%, $-$ +-..-,. Mercur6 Dru) !orporation v. 5a;in), 1.R. No. %$2.3', -$ Ma6 -..',$-3 S!R* %/#, %&-. 1overn9ent Service Insurance S6ste9 v. Sps. 1on:alo and =abun)0Dean), #%' Phil. 22-, 2'% +-..%,.

3.

3%

3-

33

3#

3$