|
GIL JUSTALERO and the Heirs of JESUS JUSTALERO, namely: ISABEL, JOSE,
DANILO, ELIZABETH and JANE, all surnamed JUSTALERO, Petitioners, -versus- ZENAIDA SAN
AGUSTIN GONZALES and NOEMI SAN AGUSTIN,* Respondents. |
G.R. No. 148111 Present: QUISUMBING, J. Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: March 5, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Assailed via
Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision[1]
of
Respondents
Noemi San Agustin (Noemi) and Zenaida San Agustin Gonzales (Zenaida), together
with their siblings, executed a document denominated as “Subdivision Agreement”[2]
dated April 13, 1977 wherein they agreed, in accordance with a previously
executed Extra-Judicial Partitions of the estate of their deceased parents Vicente
and Rosario San Agustin and a Subdivision Plan which they caused to be made, to
allot Lot 8 and Lot 9 of the Subdivision Plan Pcs-06-000063[3]
to Noemi and Zenaida,[4]
respectively.
Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-94631 in the name of Noemi was subsequently issued on
More than
nine years after the issuance of respondents’ above-said titles or on October
24, 1988, herein petitioners, Gil Justalero and the Heirs of his now deceased
brother Jesus Justalero filed the complaint subject of the present petition
against respondents Zenaida and Noemi, for quieting of title and reconveyance
with damages, with the RTC of Iloilo.
Petitioners
claimed that Cadastral Lot No. 2596, Pls-723-D of the Cadastral Survey of
Buenavista (the subject lot) located at the New Poblacion, Buenavista,
Sub-Province of Guimaras, Iloilo,[5]
was covered by Tax Declaration (T.D.) No. 11-01-184 in the name of Jesus and
Gil Justalero, but that the T.D. was “cancelled by T.D. No. 11-01-301 – Zenaida
San Agustin, and 11-01-302 – Noemi San Agustin effective 1980”[6]
and the subject lot had been falsely claimed by, and included in the titles
issued to, Zenaida and Noemi.
Upon the other hand, respondents asserted
in their Answer that the subject lot was part of the property covered by
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 32644 issued on May 23, 1930 to their
parents, which subject lot now forms part of the
Respondents added that Jesus Justalero
in fact filed on December 20, 1976 an application for Free Patent over the
subject lot “and it was disclosed . . . that [petitioners’ overseer] Clarina
Jaleco Gabito already knew that the [subject lot] is owned by the heirs of
Vicente and Rosario [San Agustin]”;[7]
they (respondents) in fact filed a protest to the said application; and the Bureau of Lands found that indeed the
subject lot had already been titled in the name of their (respondents’) parents
under OCT No. 32644 issued on May 23, 1930.
By way of Counterclaim
respondents alleged:
x x x x
m.
That by reason of the malicious filing of this action against
defendant Zenaida Sanagustin Y Gonzales she was forced to litigate where
there is no necessity of her being included in this action, because if at
all an action should be filed it should be against Noemi Sanagustin;
n.
That by the acts of the plaintiffs in falsely claiming ownership
to Lot 2596 and wrongfully including Zenaida Sanagustin as well as Noemi
Sanagustin in a manner that is contrary to law, moral, good
custom and public order they h[a]ve caused th[e] defendants
unnecessarily serious anxiety, wounded feelings, sleepless nights and other
similar injuries which would entitle them to moral damages of no
less than P100,000.00 each;
o.
That to teach the plaintiffs a lesson and also to show to the public that
nothing good would come out if you would claim a land that is titled, an exemplary
damages should be imposed upon them which the defendants leave to the
discretion of this Honorable court;
p.
That by reason of the unjustifiable aggression of the right of the
defendants, they were constrained to hire the services of counsel for a fee
of P20,000.00 excluding actual expenses that may be incurred by
reason of this action in the amount of P1,500.00.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
The trial
court, by Decision of
WHEREFORE, finding the
complaint to be devoid of factual legal prop to stand on, the same is dismissed
and the plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay the defendants the following:
1) P20,000.00 as attorney’s
fees;
2) P1,500,00 in actual expenses;
3) P100,000.00 as moral damages;
4) P20,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and
5) the costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
On petitioners’ appeal, the Court of
Appeals, by Decision of
Hence, the instant petition, faulting
the appellate court
I
. . . IN ITS RULING WITH
RESPECT TO THE MAIN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS, “WHETHER OR NOT LOT NO. 2596,
PLS-723-D, NOW LOT NO[].8, P[C]S-06-000063, WITH AN AREA OF 14,014 SQUARE
METERS, LOCATED IN BUENAVISTA, GUIMARAS, ILOILO, AND WHICH IS CLAIMED BY
PLAINTIFFS GIL JUSTALERO, ET AL., IS EMBRACED IN THE TITLES OF DEFENDANTS,
E.G., TCT NO. T-94631 OF NOEMI SAN AGUSTIN AND TCT NO. T-94632 OF ZENAIDA SAN
AGUSTIN[]”;
II
. . . IN HOLDING THAT THE
FILING OF THE FREE-PATENT APPLICATION OF JESUS JUSTALERO WITH THE BUREAU OF
LANDS, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE LATTER, CONSTITUTES RES JUDICATA;
III
. . . IN NOT HOLDING THAT
CADASTRAL
IV
. . . IN NOT ORDERING THE
RECONVEYANCE OF
V
. . . IN NOT AWARDING
DAMAGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS[.][12]
Petitioners insist that the subject
lot was always in their and predecessors-in-interest’s possession and was not covered
by any title in the name of respondents’ parents;[13]
and that they had long been paying taxes
on the subject lot, until 1979 when payment thereof was refused and the tax
declaration covering it was cancelled because respondents’ TCTs had been
issued.[14]
The petition fails.
Respondents’
claim that the subject lot formed part of the OCT issued in 1930 to their
parents, and their claim that it now forms part of Noemi’s TCT, are documented.
TCT No. T-94631[15] issued
in 1979 in the name of Noemi, covering
The basis of the issuance of
respondent Noemi’s title is the Consolidation and Subdivision Plan, Pcs-06-000063
which bears a note on the lower portion thereof reading “[t]his survey is covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. 30898, 32644 and 32645 all in the name of Vicente San Agustin and
Rosario Sabella.” The same plan was
certified as correct by Bernan Certeza, Geodetic Engineer, and recommended for
approval by Teodoro Simpas, Chief, Surveys Division. The Director of Lands through Regional
Director Manuel Lagunilla also approved the same. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo also approved the said Subdivision Plan by Order[16] of May 22, 1979 in “In re: Petition for Approval of Consolidation and
Subdivision Plan in accordance with Section 44 of Act 496 and Act 440. Betty S. Villanueva,[17]
Petitioner.”
Moreover, almost two years before the
filing of petitioners’ complaint, the Bureau of Lands,
An Ocular Inspection Report
dated 6 December 1985 submitted by a representative of the District Land
Officer, NRD VI-5, Bureau of Lands, Iloilo City, categorically and definitely
established that Lot 2596, Pls-723-D, is titled in the name of
spouses Vicente San Agustin and Rosario Sabella, deceased parents of
Protestant, under OCT No. 32644 issued on 22 May 1930. In the partition
of the estate, said
There is no showing that petitioners’
predecessor-in-interest Jesus Justalero as Free Patent applicant availed himself
of any legal remedy to assail the said decision which was adverse to him. Hence, his successors-in-interest-herein petitioners
are bound by the decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals
Decision of
Costs
against petitioners.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* The Court of Appeals was originally included as public respondent but under Sec. 4, Rule 45, the petition shall state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents.
[1] Rollo, pp. 24-35. Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili and concurred in by Associate Justices Fermin Martin, Jr. and Eriberto Rosario, Jr.
[2] Records, pp. 38-41; Annex “5.”
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo, p. 34.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Records, p. 290.
[16]
[17] One of the legitimate children of spouses Vicente San Agustin and Rosario Sabella.
[18] Records, pp. 292-294.
[19]