Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
SECOND DIVISION
|
EULOGIO
M. PEDRANO, Petitioner, -
versus - HEIRS
OF BENEDICTO PEDRANO, namely: ROMANA
PEDRANO, ANTONIO PEDRANO, ROSENDA PEDRANO RAAGAS, LEONIDA PEDRANO VILLAMOR, and
ZENAIDA P. DAGOHOY; and HEIRS OF NORBERTO M. PEDRANO, namely: NORBERTO C.
PEDRANO, JR., MARILYN C. PEDRANO, and BENEDICTO C. PEDRANO, represented by
NORMIE P. ALCORIN, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 159666 Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA,
and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
While
blood is indeed thicker than water, conflicts involving real properties are no respecter
of even the most immediate of blood relations. Lot No. 6416, Ts-222, with an
area of 525 square meters located on Lapu-lapu St., Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
is the subject of a long standing dispute between a son against his mother and
his siblings.
Lot No.
6416 was previously owned by Dr. Isidro Hynson who sold it on
Fourteen
years later, petitioner Eulogio M. Pedrano, a son of Romana, alleged that he
had bought the land himself for PhP 30,000 from Romana, payable on or before
Since
On
Alleging
that petitioner had not paid the PhP 30,000 consideration for Lot No. 6416 until
the December 31, 1982 deadline, as stipulated in the December 22, 1981 Deed of
Sale, respondents filed before the Municipal Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga
del Sur, a Complaint[4]
docketed as Civil Case No. 570 entitled
Heirs of Benedicto Pedrano, namely, Romana Pedrano, Antonio Pedrano, Rosenda
Pedrano Raagas, et al. v. Eulogio Pedrano. Respondents asked
for the annulment of the December 22,
1981 Deed of Sale, and the recovery of the possession and ownership of Lot No. 6416,
with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order and damages.
According
to respondents, Romana informed petitioner that the former was canceling the
sale and petitioner should have Dr. Hynson’s name in the title replaced with her
name. Respondents added that despite the cancellation of the deed of sale,
Romana allowed petitioner to occupy the house on Lot No. 6416. Further, respondents
averred they were unaware that petitioner instituted a cadastral case to have
the land titled to himself. They discovered his machinations only in 1994. Thus, respondents instituted the instant case
to have the
Petitioner
denied all allegations. He claimed that his father, Benedicto, died without any
property. Besides, he averred, respondents’ action was barred by the decision
of the RTC in Cadastral Case No. N-4, which adjudicated
The Trial
Court ruled prescription had set in
Subsequently,
on
WHEREFORE, for
the reason that prescription of the cause of action to annul the questioned
Deed of Absolute Sale has already set in, the complaint in the above-entitled
case is ordered dismissed.
To bring peace
to the family, the counterclaim of defendant in his answer is also ordered
dismissed.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.[5]
The RTC
said that it could no longer annul the sale reasoning that Article 1144[6] of
the Civil Code provided for 10 years within which to bring action from the time
the right of action accrues upon a written contract. Hence, it concluded that since
the deed of sale was executed on
The Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court
Aggrieved,
respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The appeal was docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 68159. Respondents raised the sole issue of whether their action
had already prescribed.
In the
meantime, pending appeal before the CA, Romana died on
On
WHEREFORE, the
instant appeal is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the assailed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
a new one rendered ordering defendant-appellee to transfer ownership and
possession of the subject property in favor of plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The CA ratiocinated
that Art. 1144 of the Civil Code was erroneously applied by the RTC. The CA
explained that the instant case involves an implied trust, and that Art. 1456
of the Civil Code was the applicable law.
The CA also
found untenable petitioner’s assertion that he was the one who paid Dr. Hynson the
purchase price of PhP 315.02 although the agreement shows Romana was the
transferee. Moreover, he presented no
proof to support his claim that he paid PhP 30,000 for Lot No. 6416 to Romana
based on the December 22, 1981 Deed of
On the
issue of prescription, the CA applied Villanueva-Mijares v. Court of Appeals,[8]
where we held that an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on
implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years, reckoned from the
date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate
of title of the property. The CA pointed out that in this case, the
prescriptive period has not started to run since no certificate of title had
yet been issued.
Finally,
the CA held that since respondents demanded that petitioner return the
property, the implied trust had ceased and petitioner was under obligation to
return the property to respondents. In its
The
Issues
This
petition under Rule 45 raises the following issues:
1. Whether or
not there was a PRESCRIPTION under Art. 1144 of the Civil Code that the
document sought to be ANNULLED was executed on
2. Whether or
not there was an IMPLIED TRUST and therefore the property was acquired through
mistake or fraud and the person obtaining it is a TRUSTEE under Art. 1456 of
the Civil Code.
3. Whether or
not there was an EXPRESS TRUST as provided in Art. 1444, 1445 and 1446 of the
Civil Code where the TRUSTEE should accept the trust or his/her acceptance may
be presumed.
4. Whether or
not that the property under trust by one spouse be considered as a conjugal
property of both husband and wife.
5. Whether or
not that the document DEED OF
In
gist, the instant petition proffers the twin issues: Is the possession of the
land by petitioner an implied or express trust? Has the action of respondents prescribed?
The petition
is devoid of merit.
Petitioner
occupied
Petitioner
argues that he is the rightful owner of Lot No. 6416. He claims he paid for it with
a treasury warrant representing his salary as a public school teacher. He explains that at the time the lot was bought
from Dr. Hynson, he was the only one earning enough. His father was only a caminero,
his mother, jobless except for occasional fish vending, and his other siblings,
all school drop-outs. He contends that
he was the only one who could afford to pay for the lot, but in the March 15,
1965 Deed of Absolute
We are
not persuaded by petitioner.
The facts and the
documents presented in the instant case belie petitioner’s claims
First, petitioner
showed no proof that he indeed bought the land from and paid the purchase price
of PhP 315.02 to Dr. Hynson. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proof
and mere allegation is not evidence.[10] Besides, the March 15, 1965 Deed of Sale, duly
notarized, explicitly shows it was Romana who paid Dr. Hynson PhP 315.02 for
the land. We quote the Deed of Sale:
I, DR. ISIDRO
HYNSON, Filipino, of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at
Between
petitioner’s bare allegations and the notarized deed of absolute sale, a public
document, the latter prevails for being prima facie evidence, under Sec.
23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, of the facts giving rise to its
execution and the date of its execution.
Second,
as aptly pointed out by the CA, if petitioner indeed paid PhP 315.02 for the
subject lot, there was no need for him to pay for the lot again.
Third,
petitioner had not adduced evidence that he indeed paid the PhP 30,000 consideration
for Lot No. 6416. We quote the December 22, 1981 Deed of
THAT I, ROMANA
M. PEDRANO, Filipino, of legal age, widow, resident of Molave, Zamboanga del
Sur, for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency, to be paid by EULOGIO M. PEDRANO, Filipino,
of legal age, married to Virginia O. Pedrano, resident of Molave, Zamboanga del
Sur, on or before December 31, 1982, DO hereby SELL, CEDE AND CONVEY
absolutely and forever unto the said Eulogio M. Pedrano[.]
What is
clear in the aforecited deed of sale is that the late Romana was the buyer of
Lot No. 6416 from Dr. Hynson; that petitioner was to pay Romana PhP 30,000 for
it; and that he had until
What remains
therefore is the undisputed
Art.
1456 provides, “If 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.”
Working for judicial
confirmation of an imperfect title when one is not the owner constitutes fraud
On the
issue of fraud, petitioner contends that there was nothing fraudulent when he
instituted the cadastral proceedings before the Molave, Zamboanga del Sur RTC. Petitioner
attests that the said RTC awarded him ownership of Lot No. 6416 upon his satisfactorily presenting
both oral and documentary evidence of his and his predecessors-in-interest’s
30-year continuous, adverse, open, public, and
notorious possession of Lot No. 6416.
Petitioner’s
posturing is disingenuous, to say the least.
As earlier
discussed, petitioner has failed to convince this Court that he paid for Lot No.
6416 before the lapse of the
We also
find petitioner’s contention that his mother testified on his behalf regarding
his continuous, adverse, open, public, and notorious possession of Lot No. 6416
self-serving, as he has shown no proof of his mother’s statements. Neither has
he presented any witness to attest to this.
In fact, a cursory perusal of the Joint Motion to Lift Order of General Default and to Admit Cadastral Answer
filed by petitioner on June 14, 1984 in Cadastral Case No. N-4 shows that
Romana’s name was only inserted in the motion as an afterthought. To our mind, in
an attempt to defraud his siblings, petitioner deliberately did not inform them
of his move to put the title of Lot No. 6416 in his name. Petitioner presented
the
Prescription has not set in
Petitioner insists that the RTC was
correct in declaring that respondents’ action had prescribed since more than 14
years have lapsed from the date of the execution of the Deed of Sale on
Again, petitioner fails to persuade
us.
An action for the reconveyance of a
parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust, as we have already
explained in this case, prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being
the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title of the property.[11] In the instant case, no OCT has yet been
issued to Lot No. 6416 despite an order on
With our above disquisition, we find
no need to go over the other issues raised by petitioner.
Petitioner has equal share with other siblings over
subject property
From the foregoing discussion, we
rule that Lot No. 6416 is part of the estate of the spouses Benedicto and Romana
and is held by petitioner as an implied trust. Petitioner is co-heir among six
(6) compulsory heirs of Romana and Benedicto. Therefore, he is only entitled to
a one-sixth (1/6) share in
Even if the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The February
14, 2003 Decision and July 28, 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 68159 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the six (6) compulsory heirs of the late spouses
Benedicto and Romana Pedrano, namely: petitioner Eulogio M. Pedrano, Antonio M.
Pedrano, Rosenda P. Raagas, Leonida P. Villamor, Zenaida P. Dagohoy, and
Norberto M. Pedrano (deceased), represented by Normie P. Alcorin, Norberto C.
Pedrano, Jr., Marilyn C. Pedrano, and Benedicto C. Pedrano, are each entitled
to one-sixth (1/6) share in Lot No. 6416, Ts-222. The June 2, 1989 Decision and
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F
I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 65.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment.
[7] Rollo, p. 29. Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero (Chairperson) and Teodoro P. Regino.
[8] G.R.
No. 108921,
[9] Rollo, pp. 188-189.
[10] Heirs
of Cipriano Reyes v. Calumpang, G.R. No. 138463, October 30, 2006, 506
SCRA 56, 72; citing Luxuria Homes, Inc.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 125986, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 315, 325.
[11] Vda.
de Delgado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125728, August 28, 2001, 363 SCRA
758, 766; see also Villanueva-Mijares
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8; citing Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of
Appeals, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 339, 353, and Sta. Ana, Jr. v. Court
of Appeals,