You are on page 1of 5

12.1 Manongsong v.

Estimo 404 SCRA 683 June 25, 2003 Manongsong vs Estimo

FACTS:Allegedly, AgatonaGuevarra (“Guevarra”) inherited a property from Facts: Spouses Agatona Guevarra ("Guevarra") and Ciriaco Lopez had six (6) children,
Justina Navarro, which is now under possession of the heirs of Guevarra. Guevarra had namely: (1) Dominador Lopez; (2) Enriqueta Lopez-Jumaquio, the mother of respondents
six children, one of them is Vicente Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Emiliana Jumaquio Rodriguez and Felomena Jumaquio Estimo ("Jumaquio sisters"); (3)
Lopez Manongsong (“Manongsong”). The respondents, the Jumaquio sisters and Victor Lopez, married to respondent Leoncia Lopez; (4) Benigna Lopez-Ortiz, the mother of
Leoncia Lopez claimed that the property was actually sold to them by Justina Navarro respondents Narciso, Celestino, Rodolfo, Pastor Jr. and Romeo Ortiz, and Erlinda Ortiz
prior to her death. The respondents presented deed of sale dated October 11, 1957.
Ocampo; and (6) Vicente Lopez, the father of petitioner Milagros Lopez Manongsong
Milagros and CarlitoManongsong (“petitioners”) filed a Complaint on June 19, 1992
praying for the partition and award to them of an area equivalent to one-fifth (1/5), by ("Manongsong").
right of representation. The RTC ruled that the conveyance made by Justina Navarro is
subject to nullity because the property conveyed had a conjugal character and The contested property is a parcel of land on San Jose Street, Manuyo Uno, Las Piñas,
that AgatonaGuevarra as her compulsory heir should have the legal rightto participate Metro Manila with an area of approximately 152 square meters ("Property"). The records
with the distribution of the estate under question to the exclusion of others. The Deed do not show that the Property is registered under the Torrens system. Tax Declaration
of Sale did not at all provide for the reserved legitime or the heirs, and, therefore it has No. B-001-00390 was registered with the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Las Piñas on
no force and effect against AgatonaGuevarra and should be declared a nullity ab initio. 30 September 1984 in the name of "Benigna Lopez, et al".4 However, the improvements on
the portion of the Property denominated as No. 831 San Jose St., Manuyo Uno, Las Piñas
ISSUE: Whether or not the rights of the compulsory heirs were impaired by the were separately declared in the name of "Filomena J. Estimo" under Tax Declaration.
alleged sale of the property by Justina in connection with Article 1458 of the Civil Code
that enumerates the elements of a valid contract of sale.
Milagros and Carlito Manongsong ("petitioners") filed a Complaint6 on 19 June 1992,
alleging that Manongsong and respondents are the owners pro indiviso of the Property.
Invoking Article 494 of the Civil Code,7 petitioners prayed for the partition and award to
them of an area equivalent to one-fifth (1/5) of the Property or its prevailing market value,
RULING: No. Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, the elements of a valid contract of sale and for damages.
are: (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter and (3) price
certain in money or its equivalent. The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before Petitioners alleged that Guevarra was the original owner of the Property. Upon Guevarra’s
a notary public, is a public document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due death, her children inherited the Property. Since Dominador Lopez died without offspring,
execution. There is no basis for the trial court’s declaration that the sale embodied in the there were only five children left as heirs of Guevarra. Each of the five children, including
Kasulatan deprived the compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a Vicente Lopez, the father of Manongsong, was entitled to a fifth of the Property. As Vicente
disposition inter vivos by lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for Lopez’ sole surviving heir, Manongsong claims her father’s 1/5 share in the Property by
valuable consideration does not diminish the estate of the seller. When the disposition is right of representation.
for valuable consideration, there is no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution
of values, that is, the property sold is replaced by the equivalent monetary There is no dispute that respondents, who are the surviving spouses of Guevarra’s
consideration. The Property was sold in 1957 for P250.00. children and their offspring, have been in possession of the Property for as long as they
can remember
The trial court’s conclusion that the Property was conjugal, hence the sale is void ab initio
was not based on evidence, but rather on a misapprehension of Article 160 of the Civil Petitioners are the only descendants not occupying any portion of the Property.
Code, which provides: “All property of the marriage is presumed
to belong to the conjugalpartnership; unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
Most respondents entered into a compromise agreement with petitioners. Under the
husband or to the wife.” The presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code applies only
when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of Stipulation of Facts and Compromise Agreement8 dated 12 September 1992 ("Agreement"),
acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the petitioners and the Ortiz and Dela Cruz families agreed that each group of heirs would
presumption in favor of theconjugal partnership. There was no evidence presented to receive an equal share in the Property. The signatories to the Agreement asked the trial
establish that Navarro acquired the Property during her marriage. court to issue an order of partition to this effect and prayed further that "those who have
exceeded said one-fifth (1/5) must be reduced so that those who have less and those who The findings of the trial court that the subject property is conjugal in nature is not
have none shall get the correct and proper portion."9 supported by any evidence.

the Jumaquio sisters and Leoncia Lopez – who each occupy 50 square meter portions of To the contrary, records show that in 1949 the subject property was declared, for taxation
the Property – and Joselito dela Cruz, did not sign the Agreement.10 However, only the purposes under the name of Justina Navarro alone. This indicates that the land is the
Jumaquio sisters actively opposed petitioners’ claim. The Jumaquio sisters contended paraphernal property of Justina Navarro.
that Justina Navarro ("Navarro"), supposedly the mother of Guevarra, sold the Property to
Guevarra’s daughter Enriqueta Lopez Jumaquio. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, thus:

The Jumaquio sisters presented provincial Tax Declaration No. 91111 for the year 1949 in Issue: 1. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS NO COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE ON THE
the sole name of Navarro. Tax Declaration ALLEGED SALE BY ONE JUSTINA NAVARRO;

Jumaquio sisters also presented a notarized KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG LUPA 2. WHETHER THERE IS PRETERITION AND THE ISSUES RAISED ARE REVIEWABLE;

BOUNDARIES: 3. WHETHER THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP PRO INDIVISO;

NORTH: JUAN GALLARDO SOUTH: I. GUEVARRA ST. EAST: RIZAL ST., WEST: SAN 4. WHETHER THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY CO-OWNERS ON THE LAND SHOULD
JOSE ST., PREVAIL;

na may sukat na 172.51 metros cuadrados na may TAX DECLARATION BILANG 911. 5. WHETHER THE ALLEGED SALE IS VALID AND BINDS THE OTHER CO-HEIRS;

The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila certified on 1 June 1994 that the 6. WHETHER PRESCRIPTION APPLIES AGAINST THE SHARE OF PETITIONERS.21
"‘KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG LUPA’, between Justina Navarro (Nagbili) and Enriqueta
Lopez (Bumili), was notarized by Atty. Ruperto Q. Andrada on 11 October 1957 and Ruling: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of the Kasulatan sa
entered in his Notarial Register Bilihan ng Lupa

Because the Jumaquio sisters were in peaceful possession of their portion of the Property Petitioners anchor their action for partition on the claim that Manongsong is a co-owner
for more than thirty years, they also invoked the defense of acquisitive prescription or co-heir of the Property by inheritance, more specifically, as the heir of her father,
against petitioners, and charged that petitioners were guilty of laches. Vicente Lopez. Petitioners likewise allege that the Property originally belonged to
Guevarra, and that Vicente Lopez inherited from Guevarra a 1/5 interest in the Property.
RTC- the trial court in its Decision14 of 10 April 1995 ruled in favor of petitioners. The trial As the parties claiming the affirmative of these issues, petitioners had the burden of proof
to establish their case by preponderance of evidence.
court held that the Kasulatan was void, even absent evidence attacking its validity.

To trace the ownership of the Property, both contending parties presented tax
CA-The Court of Appeals further held that the trial court erred in assuming that the declarations and the testimonies of witnesses. However, the Jumaquio sisters also
Property was conjugal in nature when Navarro sold it. The appellate court reasoned as presented a notarized KASULATAN SA BILIHAN NG LUPA which controverted petitioners’
follows: claim of co-ownership.

However, it is a settled rule that the party who invokes the presumption that all property The Kasulatan, being a document acknowledged before a notary public, is a public
of marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, must first prove that the property was document and prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. To assail the
acquired during the marriage. authenticity and due execution of a notarized document, the evidence must be clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.24 Otherwise the authenticity and due
In this case, not a single iota of evidence was submitted to prove that the subject property execution of the document should be upheld.25 The trial court itself held that "(n)o
was acquired by Justina Navarro during her marriage. xxx
countervailing proof was adduced by plaintiffs to overcome or impugn the document’s presented these documents for the first time on appeal without any explanation. For
legality or its validity."26 reasons of their own, petitioners did not formally offer in evidence these documents before
the trial court as required by Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
Even if the Kasulatan was not notarized, it would be deemed an ancient document and
thus still presumed to be authentic. The Kasulatan is: (1) more than 30 years old, (2) Since the notarized Kasulatan is evidence of greater weight which petitioners failed to
found in the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any refute by clear and convincing evidence, this Court holds that petitioners were not able to
circumstance of suspicion. It appears, on its face, to be genuine prove by preponderance of evidence that the Property belonged to Guevarra’s estate. There
is therefore no legal basis for petitioners’ complaint for partition of the Property.
The trial court’s conclusion that the Property was conjugal was not based on evidence,
but rather on a misapprehension of Article 160 of the Civil Code, which provides: WHEREFORE, the Decision of 26 June 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
51643, dismissing the complaint of petitioners against Felomena Jumaquio Estimo and
All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it Emiliana Jumaquio, is AFFIRMED.
be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, the presumption under Article 160 of the
Civil Code applies only when there is proof that the property was acquired during the Yuson vs Vitan
marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the
operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.28 Facts: Yuson was a taxi driver with eight children. In October 2002, he received a sum of
money by way of inheritance. According to him, he and his wife intended to use the
There was no evidence presented to establish that Navarro acquired the Property during money to purchase a taxi, repair their dilapidated house, and hold a debut party for their
her marriage. There is no basis for applying the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil daughter.
Code to the present case. On the contrary, Tax Declaration No. 911 showed that, as far
back as in 1949, the Property was declared solely in Navarro’s name. 29 This tends to They were able to purchase a secondhand taxi, and Atty. Vitan helped him with all the
support the argument that the Property was not conjugal legal matters concerning this purchase. Regrettably, their other plans were put on hold,
because the lawyer borrowed P100,000 from them in December 2002. It was agreed that
We likewise find no basis for the trial court’s declaration that the sale embodied in the the loan would be repaid before the end of the following year, 8 in time for the debut on
Kasulatan deprived the compulsory heirs of Guevarra of their legitimes. As opposed to a November 24, 2003.
disposition inter vivos by lucrative or gratuitous title, a valid sale for valuable
consideration does not diminish the estate of the seller. When the disposition is for
To guarantee payment, respondent executed in favor of complainant several postdated
valuable consideration, there is no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution of
values,30 that is, the property sold is replaced by the equivalent monetary checks to cover the loaned amount. Those checks, however, turned out to be worthless,
consideration.1âwphi1 because they had been drawn against the lawyer's closed account. The six dishonored
checks were presented during the hearing before the IBP commissioner.
Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, the elements of a valid contract of sale are: (1)
consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter and (3) price certain in Respondent had given an undisclosed amount covered by the checks dated January and
money or its equivalent.31 The presence of these elements is apparent on the face of the February 2003.11 The amounts covered by the dishonored checks remained unpaid.
Kasulatan itself. The Property was sold in 1957 for ₱250.00
This development prompted complainant to seek the aid of the IBP National Committee on
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting the documents presented by petitioners Legal Aid (NCLA) in obtaining payment.
for the first time on appeal
Upon receipt13 of the letter, he again gave assurances that he would pay the loan in time
We find no error in the Court of Appeals’ refusal to give any probative value to the alleged for the debut.14
birth certificate of Guevarra and the affidavit of Benjamin dela Cruz, Sr. Petitioners
belatedly attached these documents to their appellee’s brief. Petitioners could easily have
offered these documents during the proceedings before the trial court. Instead, petitioners
When the date passed without any payment, complainant demanded a collateral to secure Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. They are expected to maintain
the loan. Thus, in his favor, Atty. Vitan executed a document denominated as a Deed of not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of ethics, honesty, integrity and fair
Absolute Sale, covering the latter's parcel of land located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. dealing. In this way, the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.
According to complainant, their intention was to transfer the title of the property to
him temporarily, so that he could either sell or mortgage15 it. It was further agreed that, if Atty. Vitan undoubtedly owed money to complainant. In a letter33 to IBP Deputy Director
it was mortgaged, respondent would redeem it as partial or full payment of the loan. de la Cruz, respondent admitted having incurred the P100,000 loan. It was only in his
Answer34 that the lawyer suddenly denied that he had personally incurred this obligation.
complainant was able to mortgage18 the property for P30,000.19 Contrary to their earlier This time, he pointed to his employee, Estur, as the true debtor. We find his version of the
agreement, respondent did not redeem it from the mortgagee and, instead, simply sent facts implausible.
complainant a letter20dated July 7, 2004, promising to pay on or before July 12, 2004. As
this promise was not fulfilled, the mortgagee demanded payment from complainant and First, the story involving a certain Evelyn Estur was clearly a mere afterthought, conjured
thereby allegedly exposed the latter to shame and ridicule. simply to escape his liability. If it were true that it was she who owed the money, he
should have mentioned this alleged fact in his letter to the IBP NCLA deputy director.
Respondent was informed that an administrative case would be filed against him, unless Instead, respondent was completely silent about Estur and merely asserted that he had
he settled his obligations by July 30, 2004, the date given by complainant. already settled his debt with complainant.

On August 30, 2004, the IBP-NCLA received the reply23 dated July 30, 2004, submitted Second, the promise of Atty. Vitan to settle his obligations on particular dates is contained
by Atty. Vitan who explained that he had already settled his obligation. He maintained in two handwritten notes signed by him and worded as follows:
that he had in fact executed, in complainant's favor, a Deed of Absolute Sale over his 203-
square-meter residential property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. He clarified that "[their] "I undertake to settle the financial obligations of P100,000 – plus before the end
understanding was that [complainant] ha[d] the option to use, mortgage or sell [the of the year."35
property] and return to me the excess of the proceeds after obtaining his money
represented by my six (6) dishonored checks.
"Mar:
He admitted having given several postdated checks amounting to P100,000, supposedly to
guarantee the indebtedness of Estur to complainant. Atty. Vitan argued for the first time "We will settle on July 12, 2004, on or before said date."36
that it was she who had incurred the debts, and that he had acted only as a "character
reference and/or guarantor."29 He maintained that he had given in to the one-sided The wordings of these promissory notes disclose that he had a personal obligation to
transactions, because he was "completely spellbound by complainant's seeming sincerity complainant, without any mention of Estur at all. If it were true that Atty. Vitan had
and kindness."30 To corroborate his statements, he attached Estur's Affidavit. executed those notes for the account of his liaison officer, he should have used words to
that effect. As a lawyer, he was aware that the preparation of promissory notes was not a
Report of the Investigating Commissioner "mere formality;" it had legal consequences.

In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner San Juan recommended that Atty. Failure to honor just debts, particularly from clients, constitutes dishonest conduct that
Vitan be suspended until his restitution of the amount he had borrowed. She held that does not speak well of a member of the bar.39 It is vital that a lawyer's conduct be kept
respondent, having taken advantage of complainant and thus shown dishonesty and beyond reproach and above suspicion at all times. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
untrustworthiness, did not deserve to retain his membership in the bar. Responsibility clearly provides that lawyers must not engage in unlawful, immoral or
deceitful conduct. They must comport themselves in a manner that will secure and
preserve the respect and confidence of the public for the legal profession.
The Court's Ruling
Going over the records of this case, we find the contention of Atty. Vitan undeserving of
We agree with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but reduce the period of credence. The records reveal that he did not really intend to sell and relinquish ownership
suspension to six months. over his property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, notwithstanding the execution of a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of complainant. The second Deed of Absolute Sale, which
reconveyed the property to respondent, is proof that he had no such intention. This
second Deed, which he referred to as his "safety net,"44 betrays his intention to counteract approached GPS. After some negotiations, it was agreed between the parties that GPS
the effects of the first one . would order sound reproducing equipment from Starr Piano Company and that Arco
would pay GPS, in addition to the price of the equipment, a 10% commission, plus all
In a manner of speaking, Atty. Vitan was taking back with his right hand what he had expenses such as freight, insurance, etc. When GPS inquired Starr Piano the price
given with his left. The second Deed of Absolute Sale returned the parties right back (without discount) of the equipment, the latter quoted such at $1,700. Being agreeable to
where they started, as if there were no sale in favor of complainant to begin with. In effect, the price (plus 10% commission plus all other expenses), Arco formally authorized the
on the basis of the second Deed of Sale, respondent took back and asserted his ownership order. The following year, both parties agreed for another order of sound reproducing
over the property despite having allegedly sold it. Thus, he fails to convince us that there equipment on the same terms as the first at $1,600 plus 10% plus all other expenses.
was a bona fide dation in payment or sale that took place between the parties; that is,
that there was an extinguishment of obligation. Three years later, Arco discovered that the prices quoted to them by GPS with regard to
their first 2 orders mentioned were not the net prices, but rather the list price, and that it
had obtained a discount from Starr Piano. Moreover, Arco alleged that the equipments
It appears that the true intention of the parties was to use the Bulacan property were overpriced. Thus, being its agent, GPS had to reimburse the excess amount it
to facilitate payment. They only made it appear that the title had been transferred to received from Arco.
complainant to authorize him to sell or mortgage the property.45 Atty. Vitan himself
admitted in his letter dated July 30, 2004, that their intention was to convert the property ISSUE:
into cash, so that payment could be obtained by complainant and the excess returned to W/N there was a contract of agency, not of sale
respondent.46The records, however, do not show that the proceeds derived were sufficient
to discharge the obligation of the lawyer fully; thus, he is still liable to the extent of the HELD:
deficiency. The letters containing Arco's acceptance of the prices for the equipment are clear in their
terms and admit no other interpretation that the prices are fixed and determinate. While
The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover them -- or, worse, the letters state that GPS was to receive a 10% commission, this does not necessarily
drawn against a closed account --constitutes such willful dishonesty and unethical mean that it is an agent of Arco, as this provision is only an additional price which it
conduct as to undermine the public confidence in the law and in lawyers. 50 The act also bound itself to pay, and which stipulation is not incompatible with the contract of sale.
manifests a low regard for the Oath taken by the lawyer upon joining the profession, The facts and circumstances show that Arco entered into a contract of sale with GPS, the
whose image should be held in high esteem, not seriously and irreparably tarnished exclusive agent of Starr Piano. As such, it is not duty bound to reveal the private
arrangement it had with Starr Piano relative to the 25% discount. Being the exclusive
We have also held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of agent of Starr, Arco could not have secured this discount with Starr and neither is GPS
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct,53 for which a lawyer may be sanctioned willing to waive the discount for Arco. Thus, GPS is not bound to reimburse Arco for any
with one year's suspension from the practice of law,54or a suspension of six months upon difference between the cost price and the sales price, which represents the profit realized
partial payment of the obligation.55 by GPS out of the transaction.

In the instant case, complainant himself admits that respondent had already paid the
amounts covered by the January and February checks.56 Thus, there has been a partial
payment that justifies a modification of IBP's recommended penalty.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct


and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months.

GONZALO PUYAT AND SONS, INC. V ARCO AMUSEMENT COMPANY


FACTS:
Arco Amusement was engaged in the business of operating cinematographs. Gonzalo
Puyat& Sons Inc (GPS) was the exclusive agent in the Philippines for the Starr Piano
Company. Desiring to equip its cinematograph with sound reproducing devices, Arco

You might also like