SECOND DIVISION
|
PEDRO GENEROSA, DECEASED, NOW SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
HEIRS, VIDA R. GENEROSA, ROBERT R. GENEROSA, EDMUNDO R. GENEROSA, PEDRO R.
GENEROSA, JR., AMALIA R. GENEROSA, LIZA R. GENEROSA, MELODY R. GENEROSA and
FIDEL R. GENEROSA,
Petitioners, -
versus - PACITA
PRANGAN-VALERA, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 166521 Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 31, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
This recourse, styled as a “Partial
Petition for Review on Certiorari,” seeks the modification of the Decision[1]
dated September 29, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as reiterated in its
Resolution[2] of
December 1, 2004, in CA-G.R. CV No. 79749,
reversing and setting aside an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 47, in an action for annulment of
documents, recovery of possession and damages with application for a writ of
preliminary injunction thereat commenced by the herein respondent Pacita
Prangan-Valera against, among others, Pedro Generosa, now substituted by his
widow Vida R. Generosa and their children.
The petition is casts against the
following factual backdrop:
Following the death of the spouses Maximo
Soriano and Manuela Delatre, their two children, namely, Maria and Felipa,
inherited from them two (2) adjoining parcels of land with an aggregate area of
9,838 square meters, situated in Licsi, Manaoag, Pangasinan and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 9825 in the name of Maximo Soriano. One parcel has an area of
5,219 square meters, while the other, an area of 4,619 square meters. On
The land subject of this case is the
5,219 square meter parcel representing Maria’s share in the property left by the
parents. It was declared in Maria’s name
under Tax Declaration No. 17723 (1960) and 17730.
Maria was married to Eleuterio
Valera, while her sister Felipa, to Fidel Generosa.
Maria and Eleuterio were childless,
while Felipa and Fidel had three (3) children, namely, Alfonso, Pedro and Florencio,
all surnamed Generosa.
Maria died on
On
On
On
Such was the state of things when, on
November 25, 1991, in the RTC of Urdaneta City, herein respondent Pacita
Prangan-Valera filed the complaint in this case against the brothers Pedro,
Alfonso and Florencio. Docketed in said court as Civil Case No. V-5268 and
raffled to Branch 47 thereof, the complaint prayed for the annulment of the
aforesaid Deed of Extrajudicial Partition With Sale executed by the
defendant brothers and the recovery of possession and ownership of the property
in dispute, plus damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
In gist, the complaint alleged that the
brothers Alfonso, Pedro, and Florencio were never legitimate heirs of the plaintiff’s
deceased husband, Eleuterio Valera, nor are they related to the latter; that
when her husband’s first wife Maria died in 1971, Eleuterio continued in
possession of the subject property even after he married her (plaintiff) in
1984; that when Eleuterio died in 1990, she continued in possession of the same
property until her possession thereof was interrupted when the defendant
brothers surreptitiously took possession
of the property in 1991, after arrogating unto themselves the very same
property on the basis of a falsified Deed of Extrajudicial Partition With Sale
wherein said defendants made it appear that they are the sole heirs of her
husband, Eleuterio Valera; that on account of the misrepresentation committed
by the three, she filed against them a criminal complaint for falsification of
public document, docketed as Criminal Case No. D-11039; that the brothers
Alfonso and Florencio were convicted in said case and subsequently applied for probation
while their brother Pedro was dropped from the case on account of his death
during the pendency thereof.
In their Answer, the defendant
brothers basically sought refuge on their claim of prescription, alleging that
they have been in possession of the disputed property for more than thirty (30)
years.
During the pendency of the suit, defendant
Pedro Generosa died and was accordingly substituted by his widow, Vida
Generosa, and their children, to wit: Robert, Edmundo, Pedro, Jr., Amalia,
Liza, Melody and Fidel, all surnamed Generosa, the petitioners herein.
In a decision[3]
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. The Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
with sale dated
2. Tax Declaration No. 5428 in the names of Pedro Generosa and Vida Rosario (Exh. “E”) is hereby CANCELLED and ANNULLED;
3. Tax Declaration No. 4528 (Exh. “C”) in
the name of Eleuterio Valera is hereby ordered to be reinstated. The Municipal assessor of Manaoag, Pangasinan
is ordered to reinstate the same in the name of Eleuterio Valera. Likewise, the Provincial Assessor of the
4. Defendants Alfonso Generosa, Florencio Generosa, Vida Generosa and the heirs of deceased Pedro Generosa, namely: Beda Generosa, Robert Generosa, Edmundo Generosa, Pedro Generosa, Jr., Amalia Generosa, Liza Generosa, Melody Generosa and Fidel Generosa, are directed to deliver, reconvey the possession and ownership of that property located in Licsi, Manaoag, Pangasinan containing an area of 5,319 square meters, more or less, bounded on North by Maximo Soriano; East by Road; South by Pedro Rous and Crispin Buessa; West by Mariano Soriano, declared under Tax Decl. No. 4528 and assessed at P1,900.00 to the plaintiff;
5. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees, P5,000.00 as expenses of litigation and the additional sum of P30,000.00 for and as moral damages.
Costs against the defendants.
SO
ORDERED.
From the aforementioned decision of
the trial court, the defendants, now petitioners, went on appeal to the CA
whereat their appellate recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79749.
As stated at the threshold hereof,
the CA, in its decision[4] of
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the present appeal is hereby GRANTED and the appeal decision in Civil Case No. U-5268 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby entered declaring that the
legal heirs of Maria Soriano Valera are her surviving spouse, the late
Eleuterio Valera (succeeded by his widow, herein plaintiff-appellee), who is
entitled to one-half (1/2) of the subject property; and her brothers (sic), Alfonso,
Pedro (deceased) and Florencio, or their children, herein appellants, who are
entitled to the other half of the property.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO
ORDERED.
In decreeing the division of the
subject property between the petitioners and the respondent in equal shares,
the CA ruled that the conviction of the brothers Alfonso and Florencio in the
criminal case for falsification of public document filed against them and their
brother Pedro at the instance of the respondent “is a concern of the authorities”
… and “will not result in the nullification of their rights as co-owners [of
the respondent] where such act does not fall under any of the legal grounds for
disqualification to succeed as heirs under Articles 1027 and 1032 of the Civil
Code.” To the CA, the rightful heirs of Maria Soriano-Valera to whom the
property involved in the case originally belonged are, on the one hand, the
petitioners herein, in representation of Maria’s nephews, and on the other
hand, her deceased husband Eleuterio
Valera, represented by his second wife, the herein respondent Pacita
Prangan-Valera, which two (2) sets of heirs are entitled to ½ each of the
property left by Maria.
In time, the petitioners moved for a
reconsideration claiming that to them alone belong the entire property left by
Maria. With their motion having been denied by the CA in its Resolution of
THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT PETITIONERS ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY
WITH RESPECT TO THE ONE-HALF (1/2) AWARDED TO RESPONDENT BY ACQUISITIVE
PRESCRIPTION HAVING BEEN IN POSSESSION THEREOF FOR MORE THAN TWENTY (20) YEARS.
No similar recourse was taken by the
respondent.
We DENY.
The evidence on record belies the petitioners’
pretension of possession for more than twenty (20) years. As found by the trial
court and borne by the evidence:
xxx xxx xxx
“It
was only in 1991, after the death of [respondent’s] husband that the said
defendants [i.e., the brothers
Alfonso, Pedro and Florencio] on the basis of the falsified deed of
extra-judicial partition with sale took possession of the property. The claim that they were in possession of the
property for more than thirty (30) years appears unsupported. In fact, their own evidence (EXHIBITS “5” and
“6”) belies their claims of prescription and possession of the property. It was
only in 1971, after the death of MARIA, former wife of ELEUTERIO, that
defendants were entitled to successional rights over the property in question
in conjunction with ELEUTERIO as surviving spouse.
xxx xxx xxx
It
appearing that the property under litigation was transferred in the names of
the defendant spouses [Pedro Generosa and Vida Generosa] in 1991 and the action
for annulment of document and reconveyance of ownership and recovery of
possession was filed in 1993, the action has not yet prescribed.” (Words in
brackets supplied.)
In any event, and as correctly
pointed out by the CA, acquisitive prescription, as laches, is based on the doctrine
equity. It cannot be invoked to defeat justice or to perpetuate an injustice.
Equity, which has been aptly described as “justice outside legality,” should be
applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Aequetas
nunguam contravenit legis.[6] The positive mandate of Article 494[7] of
the Civil Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions of a co-owner or
co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs should preempt and prevail over all
abstract arguments based only on equity. Certainly, laches cannot be set up to
resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right, and the herein
respondent can validly vindicate her inheritance despite the lapse of time.
To reiterate, the herein parties are
co-owners of the property subject of the controversy. Surely, in order that
title may prescribe in favor of one of the co-owners, it must be clearly shown
that he has repudiated the claims of the others, and that they were apprised of
his claim of adverse and exclusive ownership, before the prescriptive period
begins to run.[8] The
evidence relative to the possession, as a fact, upon which the alleged
prescription is based, must be clear, complete and conclusive in order to
establish said prescription without shadow of doubt.[9] This
is not the case here. To stress, the petitioners’ claim that they were in
possession of the property for more than thirty (30) years appears
unsupported. In fact, their own evidence
belied their claim of prescription and possession of the property. As found by
the trial court, it was only in 1991, after the death of the respondent’s
husband Eleuterio that the petitioners on the basis of the falsified deed of
extrajudicial partition with sale took possession of the property. As it is, the
petitioners could neither invoke acquisitive prescription because their mode of
acquisition was illegal and void.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good
faith and with just title of the time fixed by law.
It may also be added that the
possession of co-owners is like that of a trustee. In order that his possession
may be deemed adverse to the cestui que
trust or the other co-owners, the following requisites must concur: (1)
that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of
the cestui que trust or other
co-owners, (2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to
the cestui que trust or other
co-owners, and (3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.
Even granting, arguendo, that the falsified deed of extrajudicial partition with
sale could be taken as a positive act of repudiation of the co-ownership
existing between the respondent and the
petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, there is clearly no showing that
prescription has set in, given the fact the property under litigation was
transferred in the names of the petitioners in 1991 and the action for
annulment of documents, reconveyance of ownership and recovery of possession was
filed by the respondent in 1991. The action has not yet prescribed. Article
1456 of the Civil Code provides that if a property is acquired through mistake
or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes. This provision, in conjunction
with Article 1144, gives the respondent a prescriptive period of ten years, for
an obligation under an implied trust is one created by law. Accordingly, an action for reconveyance of a
parcel of land based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the
date of the registration of the deed of sale or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property.
All told, the Court rules and so hold that the CA correctly adjudicated the
disputed parcel of land in such a way that one-half (1/2) thereof shall pertain
to the respondent as successor of Eleuterio Valera, while the other one-half (1/2)
to the petitioners, in accordance with Article 1001 of the Civil Code.[10]
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Cost against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
(ON LEAVE) RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S . PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Japar B. Dimaampao concurring; Rollo, pp. 20-36.
[2]
[3]
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] Supra note 2.
[6] Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Heirs of Aniceto Augusto & Petrona
Calipan, G.R. No. 140417, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 156.
[7] Art. 494. xxx
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. (400a)
[8] Cortes v. Oliva, 33 Phil. 480 (1916); Jardin v. Hallasco, G.R. No. L-55225,
[9]
[10] Art. 1001. xxx
Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. (953,837a)