MIGUEL
INGUSAN, G.R. No. 142938
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA
and
GARCIA, JJ.
HEIRS
OF AURELIANO
I.
REYES, represented by
CORAZON
REYES-REGUYAL and
ARTEMIO S. REYES,*
Respondents. Promulgated:
August 28, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of
a decision[2] and
resolution[3] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 21, 2000 and April 10, 2000,
respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 56105 which modified the decision[4]
dated April 17, 1997[5] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 25 in
Civil Case No. 2145-A1.
This case involves a 1,254 sq. m.
residential land located in Poblacion, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija[6]
originally owned by Leocadio Ingusan who was unmarried and childless when he
died in 1932. His heirs were his two brothers
and a sister, namely, Antonio, Macaria and Juan.[7]
Antonio died and was succeeded by his son Ignacio who also later died and was
succeeded by his son, petitioner Miguel Ingusan.[8]
Macaria also died and was succeeded by her child, Aureliano I. Reyes, Sr.
(father of respondents Artemio
Reyes, Corazon Reyes-Reguyal, Elsa Reyes, Estrella Reyes-Razon, Aureliano
Reyes, Jr., Ester Reyes, Reynaldo Reyes and Leonardo Reyes).[9] Thus, petitioner is the grandnephew of
Leocadio and Aureliano, Sr. was the latter's nephew.[10]
After the death of Leocadio,
Aureliano, Sr. was designated by the heirs as administrator of the land.[11]
In 1972, while in possession of the land and in breach of trust, he applied for
and was granted a free patent over it.[12]
As a result, he was issued OCT No. P-6176 in 1973.[13]
In 1976, petitioner filed an accion
reivindicatoria against Aureliano, Sr. and his wife Jacoba Solomon seeking
the recovery of Lot 120-A with an area of 502 sq. m. which was part of the land
at issue here.[14] But the
case was dismissed because petitioner did not pursue it.
Also in 1976, Aureliano, Sr. executed
a special power of attorney (SPA) in favor of his son Artemio authorizing him
to mortgage the land in question to any bank. Using that SPA, Artemio mortgaged
the land to secure a loan of P10,000 from the Philippine National Bank
(PNB).[15]
In 1983, Aureliano, Sr. died intestate. He was survived by his children, the
respondents.[16]
In 1986, petitioner paid the PNB
loan. The mortgage over the land was
released and the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-6176 was given to him.[17]
On June 19, 1988, respondents and
petitioner entered into
a Kasulatan ng Paghahati-hati Na May
Bilihan wherein they
adjudicated unto themselves the land in question and then sold it to their
co-heirs, as follows: (a) to petitioner, 1,171 sq. m. and (b) to respondent Estrella, 83 sq. m. This deed was notarized but not registered.[18]
On January 8, 1990, respondent
Corazon, despite signing the Kasulatan, executed an
affidavit of loss, stating that she could not find the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-6176. This was registered
and annotated on the original copy of said title.[19]
Subsequently,
the following documents appeared purportedly with the following dates:
a)
April
23, 1994[20] -
notarized deed of donation of titled property supposedly executed by the
spouses Aureliano, Sr. and Jacoba,[21]
whereby said spouses donated 297 sq. m. of the subject land to respondent
Artemio and the remaining 957 sq. m. to petitioner;
b)
September
5, 1994 - cancellation of affidavit of loss supposedly executed by respondent
Corazon stating that the annotation of the affidavit of loss on the title
should be canceled and the petition for a
new title was no longer necessary because she had already found the
missing owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-6176;
c)
September
27, 1994 – agreement of subdivision with sale purportedly executed by
respondent Artemio and petitioner, with the consent of their wives. Pursuant to this document, the land was
subdivided into Lot 120-A with an area of 297 sq. m. corresponding to the share of
Artemio and Lot 120-B with an area of 957 sq. m. which was the share of petitioner. The document also indicated that Artemio sold
Lot 120-A to one Florentina Fernandez.[22]
When
respondent Corazon learned about the cancellation of the annotation of her
affidavit of loss, she executed an affidavit of adverse claim on January 17,
1995 stating that the cancellation of affidavit of loss and the agreement of
subdivision with sale were both spurious and the signatures appearing thereon
were forgeries. This affidavit of adverse claim was not registered.[23]
On
April 17, 1995, petitioner brought the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No.
P-6176, the cancellation of affidavit of loss, deed of donation of titled
property and agreement of subdivision with sale to the Registry of Deeds for
registration. Consequently, the
following took place on that same day:
1. Corazon’s annotated affidavit of loss
was canceled;
2. by virtue of Aureliano, Sr. and
Jacoba’s deed of donation of titled property to Artemio and petitioner, OCT No.
P-6176 was canceled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. NT-241155 in the name of
petitioner and TCT No. NT-241156 in the name of respondent Artemio were issued
and
3. by virtue of the agreement of
subdivision with sale, TCT Nos. NT-241155 and NT-241156 were canceled and TCT
Nos. NT-239747 and NT-239748 were issued in the names of petitioner and
Florentina Fernandez, respectively.[24]
On
June 27, 1995, petitioner took possession of his portion and built his house thereon.[25]
On
July 4, 1995, respondents filed an action for cancellation, annulment and
surrender of titles with damages against petitioner and Florentina Fernandez in
the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 25. In their complaint, they alleged the following,
among others: they inherited the land in question from their father, Aureliano,
Sr.; petitioner caused the preparation of the spurious deed of donation of
titled property, cancellation of affidavit of loss, agreement of subdivision
with sale and forged the signatures appearing thereon except his (petitioner's)
own and, in conspiracy with Fernandez, fraudulently registered said documents
which resulted in the cancellation of OCT No. P-6176 and the eventual issuance
to them of TCT Nos. NT-239747 and NT-239748.
They prayed that these titles be declared null and void and that
petitioner and Fernandez be ordered to surrender the land and pay damages to
them.[26]
In
his defense, petitioner alleged that
respondents' father, Aureliano, Sr., fraudulently secured a free patent in his
name over the land using a fictitious affidavit dated April 10, 1970
purportedly executed by Leocadio selling to him the land in question and, as a
result, OCT No. P-6176 was issued to him; that it was respondent Artemio who
proposed to petitioner the scheme of partition that would assure the latter of
his share with the condition, however, that he (Artemio) would get a portion of
297 sq. m. (which included the share of
respondent Estrella of 83 sq. m.) because he had already earlier sold it
to Fernandez and in fact had already been partially paid P60,000 for
it; that to implement this scheme,
respondent Artemio caused the execution of several documents namely: (1)
deed of donation of titled property;
(2) agreement of subdivision with
sale and (3) cancellation of affidavit
of loss and that, thereafter, he instructed petitioner to present the said
documents to the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija for registration.[27]
On October 26, 1995, respondents
moved that Fernandez be dropped as defendant because she was no longer
contesting their claim and in fact had surrendered to them her owner’s
duplicate copy of TCT No.NT-239748. Thus, she was excluded from the suit.[28]
In a decision dated April 17, 1997,
the RTC dismissed the case and declared OCT No. P-6176 as well as the
subsequent certificates of title (TCT Nos. NT-239747 and NT-239748), the deed of donation of titled property, agreement of
subdivision with sale and cancellation of affidavit of loss as null and void. It held that the aforementioned
documents were spurious since the signatures were falsified by respondent
Artemio.
Furthermore, having found that OCT No. P-6176 was issued on the basis of a
document falsified by Aureliano, Sr., the RTC ordered the reversion of the land to its status
before the OCT was issued.
Finally, it held that petitioner, being an
innocent victim, was entitled to damages.[29]
On
appeal, the CA modified the RTC decision.
It ruled that only TCT Nos. NT-241155, NT-241156, NT-239747 and
NT-239748 were null and void. Their source, OCT No. P-6176, remained valid because
it had already become indefeasible and could no longer be attacked
collaterally. It also found that petitioner schemed with Artemio in defrauding
their co-heirs and was therefore in pari delicto. Consequently, neither
party was entitled to claim damages from the other.[30] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied.
Hence this
petition raising the following issues:
1)
whether
OCT No. P-6176 was valid or invalid, and
2)
whether
or not petitioner is entitled to damages.
There is no doubt that
the deed of donation of titled property, cancellation of affidavit of loss and
agreement of subdivision with sale, being falsified documents, were null and
void. It follows that TCT Nos. NT-241155, NT-241156, NT-239747 and NT-239748 which
were issued by virtue of these spurious documents were likewise null and void.
Neither side disputes these findings and conclusions.
The question is
whether the source of these titles, OCT No. P-6176, was valid. Petitioner
argues that it should be invalidated because it was issued based on a
fictitious affidavit purportedly executed in 1970 by Leocadio (who died in
1932) wherein the latter supposedly sold the land to Aureliano, Sr. According
to petitioner, Aureliano, Sr. used this to fraudulently and in breach of trust
secure a free patent over the land in his name.
We
agree with the CA that OCT No. P-6176 remains valid. The issue of the validity of title (e.g.
whether or not it was issued fraudulently or in breach of trust) can only be
assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[31] A
certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally. Section 48 of PD 1529[32]
states:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.
― A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law.
The
rationale behind the Torrens System is that the public should be able to rely
on a registered title. The Torrens System was adopted in this country because
it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of
land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. In Fil-estate Management, Inc. v. Trono,[33]
we explained:
It has been
invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title
to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa" to
avoid the possibility of losing his land.[34]
Petitioner
merely invoked the invalidity of OCT No. P-6176 as an affirmative defense in
his answer and prayed for the declaration of its nullity. Such a defense partook of the nature of a
collateral attack against a certificate of title.[35]
Moreover,
OCT No. P-6176 which was registered under the Torrens System on the basis of a
free patent became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of one
year as provided in Section 32 of PD 1529:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of
registration; Innocent purchaser for value. ― The decree of registration
shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other
disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in
any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person,
including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained
by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from
and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case
shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for
value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said
period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title
issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree
of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against
the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. (Emphasis
supplied)
Indeed,
both the RTC and CA found that Aureliano, Sr. fraudulently and in breach of
trust secured OCT No. P-6176 in his name.
Unfortunately, petitioner chose not to pursue a direct proceeding to
have this certificate of title annulled.
In 1976, he filed an accion reivindicatoria[36]
against the spouses Aureliano, Sr. and Jacoba questioning the validity of
OCT No. P-6176 and seeking to recover a portion of the land (specifically, Lot
120-A with an area of 502 sq. m.) but he voluntarily withdrew the case.[37] Now, the title has undeniably become
incontrovertible since it was issued in 1973 or more than 30 years ago.[38]
We
now proceed to the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to damages. The RTC held that he is entitled to moral
damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P30,000) and attorney's
fees (P20,000) because he was not aware that the documents were
falsified and he was merely instructed by respondent Artemio to have them
registered. The CA shared the finding of
the RTC that it was respondent Artemio who masterminded the preparation and use
of the spurious documents.[39] Nevertheless, it did not find petitioner an
innocent victim who was merely dragged into litigation:
...[Petitioner] was far from innocent. [Respondent Artemio] and [petitioner] signed
the bogus “Deed of Donation of Titled Property” and the fraudulently baseless
“Agreement of Subdivision with Sale.” It
was [petitioner] who personally submitted all the bogus documents with the
Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. He
stood to benefit from the registration of said fake documents. It was he who received the titles issued in
consequence of said fraudulent registration.
In the natural course of things and in the ordinary experience of man,
the conclusion is inevitable that [he] knew [about] the spurious nature of said
documents but he made use of them because of the benefit which he would derive
therefrom. In short, [petitioner]
confabulated with [respondent Artemio] in defrauding all their co-heirs of
their shares in said property.[40]
We
agree. Petitioner was not in good faith
when he registered the fake documents.
Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of
mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention
to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through
technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or
benefit or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious."[41]
Petitioner
claims that he was not aware of the contents of the falsified documents and
their legal consequences because of his low level of intelligence and
educational attainment. But from his own
narration, it is clear that he was aware of the fraudulent scheme conceived by
respondent Artemio:
[Respondent Artemio]
approached [petitioner] and propose[d] a [scheme] of partition that [would]
assure [petitioner] of getting his share including that which he and his
predecessor-in-interest have purchased from the other heirs of the late LEOCADIO
INGUSAN, but with the condition that in implementing the document known as PAGHAHATI-HATI
NA MAY BILIHAN, the corresponding shares of ESTRELLA RAZON will go to him [respondent Artemio who] has agreed to have
it sold in favor of one FLORENTINA FERNANDEZ for P120,000.00, partial
payment of which has already been received by [respondent Artemio], which
negotiation of SALE and the payment made by FLORENTINA FERNANDEZ was
acknowledged to be true. Without much
ado, a survey of Lot No. 120 was conducted by one Restituto Hechenova upon
instruction of [respondent Artemio], partitioning the land into two (2), one
share goes to [petitioner] with an area of 957 square meters and the other with
an area of 297 square meters in the name of [respondent Artemio], the latter
share was to be sold in favor of Florentina Fernandez. To have this IMPLEMENTED,
incidental documentation must be made thus; A DEED OF DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY
allegedly executed by Sps. Aureliano Reyes and JACOBA SOLOMON; SUBDIVISION
AGREEMENT WITH SALE by and between [petitioner] and [respondent Artemio] as
alleged DONEES and SALE in the same document in favor of Florentina Fernandez,
making in the process [petitioner] presentor of all these questioned documents,
adding among others an AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS of Original Certificate of Title No.
P-6176 allegedly falsified by [petitioner] of the signature of [respondent] CORAZON
REYES REGUYAL.[42]
Petitioner
does not deny that he signed the fictitious deed of donation of titled property
and the agreement of subdivision with sale.
Even if he reached only grade 3, he could not have feigned ignorance of
the net effect of these documents, which was to exclude the other heirs of the
spouses and the original owner Leocadio from inheriting the property and, in
the process, acquiring a big chunk of the property at their expense. The
cancellation of respondent Corazon's affidavit of loss of the owner's duplicate
copy of OCT No. P-6176 also removed all obstacles to the registration of the
title covering his portion of the lot. In short, by registering the spurious
documents, he had everything to gain.
Although
it was respondent Artemio, an educated individual, who engineered the whole scheme
and prepared the fraudulent documents, still petitioner cannot deny that he was
a willing co-conspirator in a plan that he knew was going to benefit him
handsomely.
As a
result, there is no basis for the award of damages to petitioner. Coming to the
court with unclean hands, he cannot obtain relief. Neither does he fall under any of the
provisions for the entitlement to damages.
Respondents
presented an additional issue involving the recovery of possession of the subject
land. They contend that petitioner, his heirs and relatives illegally occupied
it and constructed houses thereon.[43]
However, it is well-settled that a party who has not appealed cannot obtain
from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those obtained from
the lower court whose decision is brought up on appeal.[44] While there are exceptions to this rule, such
as if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the
subject matter; (2) plain errors not specified and (3) clerical errors, none
applies here.[45]
Lastly, we note that
petitioner entered into certain agreements with respondents to ensure that he
would obtain a portion of the subject land. He not only paid the loan of
respondent Artemio to PNB in order to release the mortgage over the land but
also bought from respondents 1,171 sq. m. (almost 94% of the 1,254 sq. m. lot) under
the Kasulatan ng Paghahati-hati Na May Bilihan. These are undisputed
facts. Ultimately, however, he failed to
get his portion of the property.
Although petitioner did not demand the return of the amounts he paid, we
deem it just and equitable to direct respondents to reimburse him for these.
Article 1236 of the Civil
Code provides:
Art.
1236. The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third
person who has no interest in the fulfillment of the obligation, unless there
is a stipulation to the contrary.
Whoever
pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he
paid without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover
only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor. (emphasis
ours)
Respondent Artemio was the debtor in
this case, PNB the creditor and petitioner the third person who paid the obligation of the
debtor. The amount petitioner may recover will depend on whether Artemio knew
or approved of such payment.
Petitioner should also be
able recover the amount (if any) he paid to respondents under the Kasulatan
since this agreement was never implemented.
Otherwise, it will result in the unjust enrichment of respondents at the
expense of petitioner, a situation covered by Art. 22 of the Civil Code:
Every person who
through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes
into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.
Petitioner is not entitled to legal
interest since he never made a demand for it.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby DENIED.
However, respondents are ordered to return to petitioner the amounts he paid
to the Philippine National Bank and under the Kasulatan ng Paghahati-hati Na
May Bilihan. The court a quo is directed to determine the exact amount due
to petitioner. The January 21, 2000 decision and April 10, 2000 resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56105 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
* The Court of Appeals was originally impleaded as respondent. However, it was excluded pursuant to Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero (retired) and Elvi John S. Asuncion (dismissed from the service) of the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals; rollo, pp. 29-37.
[3] No copy of this resolution was submitted to the Court.
[4] Penned by Judge Johnson L. Ballutay; rollo, p. 93.
[5] Id., p. 33.
[6] Lot 126, Cad. 342-D; id., p. 29.
[7] Id.
[8] His two sisters, Eladia and Arcadia died with no heirs; id., p. 62.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id., p. 30.
[12] The free patent was issued on May 17, 1972; id., p. 35.
[13] The title was issued on February 29, 1973; id.
[14] Civil Case No. 927 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch IV; id., p. 63.
[15] Id., p. 30.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id. According to petitioner, this document was not implemented; id., p. 63.
[19] Id. Why she did this considering that she had divested herself of her interest in the land under the Kasulatan ng Paghahati-hati Na May Bilihan was never explained.
[20] The year “1982” was superimposed on the typewritten year of 1994; id., p. 34.
[21] The signatures of petitioner and respondent Artemio also appeared thereon, presumably as donees; id., p. 31.
[22] Id., pp. 30-31.
[23] Id., p. 31.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id., p. 32.
[27] Id., pp. 32-33.
[28] In an order dated November 9, 1995 of the RTC; id., p. 33.
[29] Id., pp. 33-34. The dispositive portion stated:
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1.
Dismissing the
[respondents’] complaint;
2.
Declaring OCT No.
P-6176 as well as the subsequent certificates of Title (TCT Nos. NT-239747 and
NT-239748) all of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Nueva Ecija and the
Deed of Donation, Subdivision Agreement and Cancellation of Affidavit of Loss
as null and void, and ordering the reversion of Lot 120, Cad-120-C Case 1 of
San Leonardo Cadastre to the status before OCT P-6176 of the Registry of Deeds
of Nueva Ecija.
3.
Ordering the
[respondents] to pay the costs of the suit.
As regards the counterclaim of
[petitioner], there is a preponderance of evidence that supports the same,
hence the Court hereby orders the [respondents] to jointly and severally pay
[petitioner] the [sums] of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.”
[30] Id., pp. 34-36.
[31] Caraan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140752, 11 November 2005, 474 SCRA 534, 550, citing Apostol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125375, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 351, 359.
[32] Property Registration Decree.
[33] G.R. No. 130871, 17 February 2006, 482 SCRA 578.
[34] Id.,
p. 585, citing Domingo v. Santos, et al. v. Santos, et al., 55 Phil. 361
(1930).
[35] Ugale v. Gorospe, G.R. No. 149516, 11 September 2006, 501 SCRA 376, 386, citations omitted; in Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Virata, we discussed the distinction as to when an action is a direct attack and when is it collateral:
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. (G.R. No. 162037, 7 August 2006, 498 SCRA 141, 164-165, citing Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152627, 16 September 2005, 470 SCRA 99, 107-108.)
[36] Docketed as Civil Case No. 927 in the former Court of First Instance of Gapan, Nueva Ecija; id., pp. 30, 105.
[37] Id., p. 63. He admitted that this was due to the promise of the spouses Aureliano, Sr. and Jacoba that they would give back the land to him after five years; id., p. 32.
[38] An action for reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in four years while an action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in ten years; Bejoc v. Cabreros, G.R. No. 145849, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 78, 88.
[39] The RTC and CA relied on the
following facts: 1) respondent Artemio was a law graduate and a former chief of
police of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija whereas petitioner merely reached grade 3
of elementary education; 2) respondent Artemio actually received P60,000
from Florentina Fernandez as partial payment for the 297-sq. m. portion he
allotted for himself which he sold to her and 3) he refused to give specimens
of his signature to the National Bureau of Investigation for its report; id.,
p. 102.
[40] Id., p. 36.
[41] Bercero v. Capitol Development Corporation, G.R. No. 154765, 29 March 2007, citation omitted.
[42] Rollo, p. 64.
[43] Id., p. 131.
[44] Real v. Belo, G.R. No. 146224, 26 January 2007, citing Tangalin v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 358, 364 (2001); Rural Bank of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 27, 45 (1999).
[45] Id., citing Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100963, April 6, 1993, 221 SCRA 42, 46.