Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
MARINA LLEMOS, PEDRO G.R. No. 150162
LLEMOS,
FELISA LLEMOS
and
VIRGINIA M. JIMENEZ,
Petitioners,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., (Chairperson),
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
ROMEO
LLEMOS, ROMY LLEMOS,
MERCEDES
LLEMOS, EUSEBIA
LL.
FERNANDEZ, JULIANA LL.
CARAMAT,
FORTUNATA LLEMOS,
ALIPIO
LLEMOS, AMELIA LL.
ABRIGO,
PERFECTO LLEMOS,
ALIPIA
LL. CARAMAT, JOVITA
LL.
LACA, GENEROSA LLEMOS
ABRIGO,
ROSALINA LL. CRUZ,
ARTURO
LLEMOS, TEODORA
LLEMOS,
RODOLFO LLEMOS,
PET
LLEMOS and ROSARIO
LLEMOS, Promulgated:
Respondents. January 26, 2007
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the Court
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court questioning the Decision[1]
dated
The case
originated from a Complaint filed by the respondents, the compulsory heirs of
the late Saturnina Salvatin (Saturnina). The Complaint sought to declare the
nullity of the transfer certificate of title of the petitioners on the ground
that their predecessor-in-interest, the late Felipe Llemos (Felipe), acquired
the property described therein through a forged deed of sale.
The facts of the
case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
[Respondents] and [petitioners] are the heirs of the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos, being their grandmother. The late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos had four (4) children, namely: Adriano Llemos, Santiago Llemos, Domingo Llemos, who were the predecessors-in-interest of [respondents], and Felipe Llemos, who was the predecessor-in-interest of herein [petitioners].
During her lifetime, the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos acquired a parcel of land described as Lot No. 2059, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 38564, which all the parties presently occupy.
x x x x
On P200.00 (Exhibit “C”).
Sometime in 1991, Jovita Llemos Laca, one of the [respondents], decided to improve her residential house on said parcel of land. Hence, she borrowed the title of the property from one of the [petitioners], Felisa Llemos, for purposes of securing a building permit. It was on such instance that [respondents] discovered that the title of the property was already in the name of herein [petitioners].
On August 10, 1992, [respondents]
filed the instant action for Declaration of Nullity of said Transfer
Certificate [of] Title No. 15632 and for damages. The complaint, was amended on
In their Answer, [petitioners] alleged that the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos conveyed to their father, the late Felipe Llemos, the subject parcel of land, thus, said property is their inheritance from their father.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties failed to settle their differences. Hence, trial proceeded.
x
x x x[2]
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the
complaint with costs against plaintiffs.
There is no pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s
fees.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The RTC held that although respondent
Eusebia Ll. Fernandez (Eusebia) testified that Saturnina was her grandmother
and that she died in 1938, Eusebia did not testify on the fact of death of Saturnina
from personal knowledge; that the respondents’ cause of action heavily rests on
the Certificate of Death[4]
only and no other evidence; that since at the time Saturnina died, there was
already an existing public registry by virtue of Act 3753, hence, no other
entity, not even the Catholic Church, had the authority to issue a certificate
regarding the fact of death which can qualify as a public document; that, for
these reasons, the Certificate of Death is a private document and must be
authenticated to be admissible as evidence; that respondents failed to notarize
or otherwise authenticate the same and, hence, the facts stated therein are
hearsay; and finally, since the deed in question was registered as early as
1964, more than 20 years had already lapsed, hence, the respondents’ cause of
action had already prescribed at the time of the filing of their Complaint on
August 10, 1992.
On appeal, the
CA reversed the RTC in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Decision dated February 29, 1996 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court of Dagupan City, Branch 41, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new
one is entered as follows:
1. The Deed of Absolute
Sale (Exhibit “3”) is hereby declared NULL and VOID;
2. The parties are declared
co-owners of the subject parcel of land owned by the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos,
as previously covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 38564;
3. Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 15632 is ordered cancelled;
No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The CA held that the entries in the
Registry Book of St. John Metropolitan Cathedral in Dagupan City may be
considered as entries made in the course of business under then Section 37 of
Rule 130,[6]
which is an exception to the hearsay rule; that Saturnina passed away on March
12, 1938 as stated by the Book of the Dead of the Catholic Church; that, for
this reason, the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed on November 5, 1964
is invalid, as there could not possibly be a meeting of the minds between a
dead person and a living one; that all the parties in the instant suit are presently
occupying the property in question; and finally, that the petitioners cannot
invoke the indefeasibility of title since it may still be attacked even beyond
the one year period reckoned from the date of its issuance on the ground of
fraud.
On appeal to this Court, the petitioners
raise the following issues:
WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAD PRESCRIBED OR THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF LACHES.[7]
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE
WEIGHT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF DEATH ISSUED BY THE CHURCH WHEN THE REGISTER WAS
NEVER PRESENTED NOR THE CLERK WHO PREPARED THE SAME WAS PRESENTED FOR ITS
AUTHENTICATION.[8]
The issue on prescription deserves scant
consideration. The Court has recently affirmed the rule that an action for annulment
of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff
is in possession of the property subject of the acts.[9] It is not disputed that respondents
(plaintiffs), including petitioners (defendants), presently occupy the property
in question.
Nor can laches be invoked against respondents. In Agra v. Philippine National Bank,[10]
the Court held that prescription is different from laches, as the latter is
principally a question of equity and each case is to be determined according to
its particular circumstances.
In the present case, evidence shows that
the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit “C”) dated November 5, 1964, conveying the
subject property to Felipe, petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, was
thumbmarked by Saturnina, by virtue of which, the Register of Deeds of Dagupan,
Pangasinan cancelled Original Certificate of Title No. 38564 (Exhibit “B”) and
issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 15632 (Exhibit “D”) on November
5, 1964 in the name of Felipe.
Petitioners insist that respondents are
guilty of laches considering that the latter filed the complaint for
declaration of nullity of the TCT only on
It is a well-settled doctrine that
laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetuate fraud and injustice. Neither should its application be used to
prevent the rightful owners of a property from recovering what has been
fraudulently registered in the name of another.[11]
However, in order that respondents’
complaint may prosper, the burden of proof is on them to show by preponderance
of evidence that the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale was fraudulent and,
consequently, the issuance of the TCT, a nullity.
Respondents rely principally on the
Certificate of Death[12]
issued by Rev. Fr. Camilo V. Natividad on
It is well-settled that Church
registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent to the promulgation
of General Orders No. 68[13]
and the passage of Act No. 190[14]
are no longer public writings, nor are they kept by duly authorized public
officials.[15]
They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as
are all other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.[16]
Respondents
failed to establish the due execution and authenticity of the Certificate of Death in accordance with Section
20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private
document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
a)
By
anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
b)
By
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be
identified as that which it is claimed to be.
As aptly pointed
out by the RTC, respondents failed to present a witness to prove the due
execution and authenticity of the Certificate of Death.
Nonetheless, the
CA considered the entry in the Registry Book of St. John Metropolitan Cathedral
as to the date of death as admissible in evidence on the ground that it is an
entry in the course of official business which is an exception to the hearsay
rule, citing Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 37. Entries
in the course of business. - Entries made at, or near the time of the
transactions to which they refer, by a person deceased, outside of the
Philippines or unable to testify, who was in a position to know the facts
therein stated, may be received as prima facie evidence, if such
person made the entries in his professional capacity or in the performance of
duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty.[17]
The CA committed
a reversible error in considering said evidence.
Unfortunately, respondents
did not submit as evidence the Register of Dead, Book No. 20 of
SEC. 5. When
original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of
its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
order stated.[18]
Under Section 3,
Rule 130, Rules of Court, the original document must be produced and no
evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in
the following cases:
x x x x
a) When the
original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without
bad faith on the part of the offeror;
b) When the
original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable
notice;
c) When the
original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established
from them is only the general result of the whole; and
d) When the
original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded
in a public office.
None of the
exceptions are attendant in the present case.
The Register of Dead is in the custody of St. John Metropolitan
Cathedral but respondents failed to show that it presented the Certificate of
Death because the Register of Dead cannot be produced in court. There is no
showing that the Register of Dead consists of numerous documents which cannot
be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from it is only the general result of the whole. Further, respondents
failed to present an authentic document that recites the contents of the Register
of Dead. As earlier held, the
Certificate of Death is a private document and not a public document; and respondents failed to prove its
authenticity by their failure to present any witness to testify on the due execution
and genuineness of the signature of Fr. Natividad, pursuant to Section 20, Rule
132.
Moreover, the
Court notes the absence of evidence showing that “Salvatin Salvatin” mentioned
in the Certificate of Death is the same “Saturnina Salvatin” referred to by them
as their predecessor-in-interest; and that Father Natividad has personal
knowledge of the date of death of “Salvatin Salvatin”. The CA merely relied on the Register of Dead
of the parish which, as earlier pointed out, was not presented in court.
On the other
hand, petitioners presented the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale dated
[E]xecuted with all the
formalities of law and ratified by a notary public who attested that the vendor
Saturnina Salvatin appeared before him and acknowledged her deed to be her free
act and deed. It was executed in the
presence of two witnesses. Maria Llemos
Jimenez likewise testified that the deed was properly executed for valuable
consideration at the time.[19]
A notarized
document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to
the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption
of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[20]
As found
earlier, respondents failed to establish the date of death of their
predecessor-in-interest which could have proven that the thumbmark of Saturnina
in the Deed of Absolute Sale was fraudulently affixed because she had died
before the deed of sale was purportedly executed by her.
In fine,
respondents failed to establish by preponderance of evidence their claim that
petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest obtained his title through fraud.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The challenged
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint of respondents is DISMISSED.
No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
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, 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’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now Presiding Justice) and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (ret.), concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 79-80.
[3] Rollo, p. 60.
[4] Exhibit “A”, folder of exhibits, p. 1.
[5] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[6] Now Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8]
[9]
Occeña v. Esponilla, G.R.
No. 156973,
Delfin v. Billones, G.R. No. 146550,
[10] 368 Phil. 829, 842 (1999).
[11] Occeña v. Esponilla, supra note
9.
[12] Exhibit “A”, folder of exhibits, p. 1.
[13] Promulgated on
[14] Enacted on
[15]
[16]
Heirs of Cabais v. Court of
Appeals, 374 Phil. 681, 689 (1999); Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-49542,
[17] Now Section
43.
[18] Formerly Section 4, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
[19] Rollo, p. 59.
[20] Delfin v. Billones, supra note 9, at 48; Lao v. Villones-Lao, 366 Phil. 49, 58 (1999).