maura pascual, Petitioner, - versus
- conrado fajardo, substituted by ANTONIO, CONRADO, JR., ALICIA,
CORAZON, and LEONIDA, all surnamed FAJARDO and DANIEL T. GREGORIO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 146721 Present: puno, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us for
resolution is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
dated
The facts as
found by the Court of Appeals are:
From 1971 to 1991, Conrado Fajardo, herein
respondent, and Maura Pascual, petitioner,
lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. On
October 15, 1982, respondent purchased from Josefina Jacinto a parcel of land[2]
located in Sta. Barbara, Baliuag, Bulacan, with an area of 13,929 square
meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-41670. The
parties executed the corresponding Deed of Sale witnessed, among others, by
Daniel T. Gregorio, also a respondent. It was executed in Malolos, Bulacan and
notarized by Atty. Elenita A. Corpus.
Sometime in 1991, respondent Fajardo
found several falsified documents perpetrated by petitioner transferring the ownership
of his property. These are:
a) Deed
of Absolute Sale dated
b) Deed of Absolute Sale dated
c) Deed
of Absolute Sale dated
d) Deed of Absolute Sale dated
All these documents were executed in
Upon investigation, respondent also
found that petitioner caused the registration in her name of TCT No. 288789
issued by the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on
Enraged by such findings, respondent,
in January 1991, decided to separate from petitioner. Thereafter, he filed with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan a complaint against her. In turn, the Provincial Prosecutor, finding
probable cause, charged her with falsification of private documents before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), same Province.
Subsequently, respondents Conrado
Fajardo and Daniel Gregorio filed with the RTC, Branch 11, Malolos, Bulacan, a complaint
for nullification of the questioned Deeds of Sale, cancellation of TCT No.
288789, and damages against petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No. 276-M-91.
On
On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant:
1)
Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
Josefina Jacinto and Conrado Fajardo on August 2, 1978 at Cabanatuan City null
and void;
2)
Declaring the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale executed
between Conrado Fajardo and defendant on
3)
Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-288789 in the Register of Deeds of Bulacan and reconveyance to
herein plaintiffs the property consisting of 3,000 square meters including the
residential house and seven (7) door apartment;
4)
Directing defendant to account for and return all the
proceeds of the monthly rentals she has collected from the tenants to herein
plaintiffs, substituted heirs of Fajardo;
5) Directing defendant to pay the plaintiffs, substituted heirs of Conrado Fajardo, namely: Antonio, Conrado, Jr., Alicia, Corazon and Leonida, all surnamed Fajardo:
a) the
amount of P200,000.00 as actual damages;
b) the
amount of P200,000.00 as moral damages;
c) the
amount of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
d) the
amount of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
e) the
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
The
trial court held that the questioned documents are void, thus:
First, with respect to the alleged deed of absolute sale dated August 3, 1978, entered into between Josefina Jacinto and Conrado Fajardo, no less than the listed witness therein, Daniel Gregorio, has denounced his signature appearing in the document as a forgery to the extent that, aside from this case, he even joined the late Conrado Fajardo in charging defendant with falsification of public document before the Fiscal’s Office. Defendant practically put up nothing to refute the witness’ claim. Atty. Punzalan himself did not meet the issue head on at the witness stand, choosing instead to take the general position that the document is authentic and that the signatories all affixed their signatures in his presence. This Court finds no reason, however, to doubt the veracity of the witness. His association and relationship with the late Fajardo and Josefina Jacinto as well have been clearly established. It is plain that he came to court not take a partisan posturing but to straighten out the record, testifying in the process that the sale transaction between Fajardo and Jacinto over the same property in which he stood as witness took place in 1982.
Second, Atty. Punzalan’s notarial authority is dubious. Admittedly, at the time he allegedly notarized subject documents, he was employed with the government, specifically with the PNB (TSN, July 14, 1974, p. 23). As such, it is hardly believable that he was in a position to act upon the documents as a notary public. Lawyers in the government service, as a rule, are prohibited in engaging in the practice of notary public unless a specific written authority from the department head mandates otherwise, which appears not to be so in the instant case (TSN, ibid.). Atty. Punzalan himself cannot even account for copies of the questioned deeds of sale which is rather unusual of a notary public he claims to be. Worse, as testified to by Alicia Fajardo, upon verification from the Bureau of Archives, it was found that Atty. Punzalan has no notarial record on file with said office, with particular reference to the deeds of sale in question (TSN, A. Fajardo, December 9, 1993, p. 5). Further, the appearance in court of rebuttal witnesses (for the plaintiff), Fortunato Fajardo and Teofilo Manalaysay, denying any transaction with Atty. Punzalan in the year 1978 concerning the parcels of land they purchased from Conrado Fajardo clashes with the lawyer’s contention. With such evidence, the sham character of the disputed documents becomes increasingly clear.
Third, defendant’s act in not taking the witness stand weighs heavily against her cause. x x x, such an actuation did much in showing the weakness of her defense no less different in implication to an admission by silence as provided for in the Rules on Evidence. In the fact of the denunciations against the authenticity and integrity of the deeds of sale in her favor, her testimony was of vital importance in laying out the circumstances behind the supposed transactions, more so that her relationship with Fajardo had been brought to the fore. Without it, her cause is doomed to failure.[4]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, but with
modification on the award of damages, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the appealed decision in Civil Case No. 276-M-91 is hereby AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATIONS in that the award of actual damages in the sum of
P200,000.00 is DELETED while the award of moral and exemplary damages
are hereby REDUCED to P100,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively.
Costs against the
defendant-appellant.
SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the appellate court’s Decision, but it was denied in its Resolution dated
Hence,
this Petition for Review on Certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:
1. In nullifying the Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Josefina Jacinto on
2. In nullifying the Deeds
of Sale executed by Conrado Fajardo in favor of petitioner;
3. In ordering the
cancellation of TCT No. T-288789 and the reconveyance of the subject lots to
respondents; and
4. In ordering petitioner to
account for and turn over the rents to respondents and to pay them damages.
Obviously,
the above issues being raised by petitioner are factual in nature, the
determination of which involves a review and evaluation of the evidence
presented by the parties during the trial.
We have consistently held that this Court is not a trier of facts and it
is not its function to examine the evidence all over again.[6] Basic is the rule that in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, as in this case, only questions of law shall be entertained
since factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. Such petition will be granted only when there
are special and important reasons therefor.[7] Petitioner, however, utterly failed to show
any of such reasons. Likewise, we have
ruled that where, as here, the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, the same are binding and conclusive upon this Court
and, generally, will not be disturbed on appeal.[8] Our pronouncement in Ocampo v. Ocampo is
relevant, thus:
It
is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and conclusive are the
factual findings of the trial court if supported by clear and convincing
evidence on record. Usually, the Supreme
Court does not review those findings – especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, as in this case x x x. From the
records of the present case, no cogent evidence appears that would impel us to
apply the above doctrine differently.
The courts below have not overlooked essential facts that, if
considered, may, produce a different outcome.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant
petition and AFFIRM the challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 50921. Costs against
petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
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.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin
S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya
(retired) and Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now a member of this
Court), Rollo, pp. 182-187.
[2] A portion of
[3] Rollo, pp. 91-96.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rubiato v. Heirs of Jovito Rubiato, G.R. No. 137451, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 296, citing Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 347 SCRA 542 (2000), Lantin v. Court of Appeals, 402 SCRA 202 (2003), Heirs of William Sevilla v. Sevilla, 402 SCRA 501 (2003).
[7] Central Bank of the
[8]