SECOND DIVISION
|
SPOUSES
ABNER AND ESTRELLA ANCHINGES, Petitioners, - versus -
SPOUSES
FERMIN AND LORNA ALBARILLO and LENIDA ANCHINGES, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 151790 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: April
22, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Nicanor del Mundo
(del Mundo) was the owner of two adjacent lots, Lot No. 9-B-1 and Lot No.
9-B-2, located at Sunrise Drive, Magdalena Subdivision,
In early 1981, del Mundo’s nephew-herein petitioner Abner
Anchinges (Abner) and Abner’s
wife co-petitioner Estrella Anchinges
(Estrella) bought 150 square meters of Lot No. 9-B-1 via a deed of conditional
sale. The spouses constructed a two-unit
duplex residential house on that portion of Lot No. 9-B-1 which they bought and
on a portion of Lot No. 9-B-2, with del Mundo’s permission. The
second unit of the duplex was intended to be occupied in the old age of Natividad Anchinges (Natividad) and Juanito Anchinges Sr. – the parents of Abner
and respondents Lorna Albarillo (Lorna) and Lenida Anchinges (Lenida).
In 1983, respondent spouses Lorna and
Fermin Albarillo bought Lot
No. 9-B-2 and thereafter moved, along with Lenida, to
the second unit of the duplex.
Disagreements later arose between petitioners
and respondents over the expenses incurred in the construction of the duplex,
culminating in petitioners’ filing of an ejectment case against respondents,
docketed as Civil Case No. 4132, before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
During the pendency
of the ejectment case, respondent spouses vacated the
second unit of the duplex. Lenida remained, however.
Branch 32 of the Quezon
City MeTC later dismissed the ejectment
case, without prejudice to petitioners’ right to file another action on their
money claims against respondents.[1]
Petitioner-spouses thereafter filed on
March 8, 1993 a Complaint[2]
against respondents for sum of money with damages before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, alleging that their uncle del Mundo allowed them to construct the second unit of the
duplex on Lot No. 9-B-2 on the understanding that it would ultimately be given
to Natividad after they shall have recovered the cost
of construction thereof from the rentals paid by third party lessees; respondents, however, without their
knowledge, moved into the second unit of the duplex which was then 95% complete;
because of family ties, they
(petitioners) eventually acquiesced to respondents’ occupation of the second
unit; and in September 1990, after del
Mundo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of a portion of Lot No. 9-B-1 in petitioners’
favor, they proposed to respondents an arrangement on payment of rentals on the
second unit until they (petitioners) recover the total amount they spent for its
construction but respondents did not agree thereto.
Petitioners thus prayed for judgment
1. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs the amount of One Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P160,000.00), representing the total expenses incurred by plaintiffs for the construction of the duplex unit occupied by the defendants, plus reasonable interest thereon;
2. Ordering the defendants, in the event that they choose not to lay further claim on the said duplex unit in question, to pay the plaintiffs as follows:
(a) In the case of the defendants Albarillos, the sum of P74,000.00;
(b) In the case of the defendant Lenida Anchinges, the sum of P86,000.00, or the total rentals over the duplex unit reckoned at P4,000.00 per month up to the time she vacates the premises thereof, with interest;
3. Ordering defendants Albarillos to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P96,000.00 as actual damages incurred by plaintiffs in the prosecution of Civil Case No. 4132 in the Municipal [sic] Trial Court;
4. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of P30,000.00, plus all other litigation expenses in the present case, including counsel’s appearance fees in court, as may be proved in the course [of] trial;
5. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs moral and exemplary damages in such amounts as this Honorable Court may deem reasonable;
6. Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of suit,[3]
and for other reliefs
as may be just and equitable.
Respondents, denying petitioners’
claim that the second unit was 95% complete when they moved in, claimed that
only the roofing, posts, and rough walling were installed by petitioners,[4]
with Natividad providing cash
in the amount of P120,000 and construction materials worth P30,000;
when Natividad
was unable to provide additional funds, she asked respondent spouses to finish
the construction which they did, after which, with the permission of Natividad, they moved therein on August 9, 1983;[5] and
during their occupancy of the second unit, petitioners demanded the reimbursement
of P40,000 which they already did.
Branch
77 of the Quezon City RTC decided the case in
petitioners’ favor, disposing as follows:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, to wit:
1. ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs the amount of P160,000.00 representing the total expenses incurred by plaintiffs for the construction of the duplex unit occupied by the defendants;
2. in the event that the defendants choose not to hold on to the duplex unit in question, they are still liable to pay the plaintiffs, as follows:
(2.1) the
amount of P74,000.00 in the case of the Albarillos
[spouses] as rentals of the premises in question from
(2.2) in case of the defendant Lenida Anchinges, the amount representing the monthly rental of
P4,000.00 of the premises from
SO ORDERED.[6] (Underscoring supplied)
On
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration,[7] the
RTC awarded interests on the judgment debt, moral damages, and attorney’s fees.[8]
On
appeal,[9]
the Court of Appeals, finding that petitioners failed to prove their case by
preponderance of evidence,[10] reversed and set aside the RTC decision and
dismissed their complaint.[11]
Hence,
the present Petition[12] for
Review which imputes to the Court of Appeals the following errors:
I. In holding that petitioners have no authority to build a duplex house on the site in question;
II. In decreeing that there is no evidence to show that it was petitioners who constructed the second unit of the duplex house;
III. In finding that there is no evidence to show that the second unit of the duplex house was indeed 95% complete; and
IV.
In eventually dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for
damages.[13]
The petition is bereft of merit.
In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish its case by preponderance of evidence.[14] In the case at bar petitioners failed to
discharge the burden.
Indeed, petitioners failed to establish
that the second unit of the duplex was 95% complete when respondents moved
therein, and that respondents have the obligation to reimburse them for the
expenses incurred in the construction thereof.
Aside from petitioner Abner’s self-serving testimony, petitioners presented the
following documentary evidence:
|
EXH. “A” |
- Description: – A true copy of the Order of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 32, of Quezon City, dated June 4, 1992, in the [ejectment] case entitled “Spouses Abner and Estrella Anchinges vs. Spouses Fermin and Lorna Albarillo, et al.,” Civil Case No. 4132 (for ejectment); |
|
“A-1” |
- Third paragraph of Exh. “A”, mentioned above. Purpose: To prove that, prior to the filing of the
abovementioned case before this Court, the plaintiffs herein had filed an
ejectment suit against the same defendants herein, over the second unit of
the duplex subject of the present suit; that the defendants herein, along
with their mother, Mrs. Natividad Anchinges, would
reimburse the amounts the plaintiffs had spent for constructing the duplex
unit in question; and that the parties therein had agreed to talk amicably
about the settlement of the plaintiff’s claims. |
|
“B” |
- Description: Copy of the same Order of |
|
“B-1” and “B-2” |
- Description: Two pages of the bill of materials and cost estimates for the construction of the second unit of the duplex built by the plaintiffs, as submitted by the architect, pursuant to Exh. “B.” Purpose:
- To prove that the plaintiffs submitted the cost estimates to the court (MTC
Br. 32, Q.C.), pursuant to the Order dated June 4, 1992, instead of the
receipts for the constructions; and to prove that the plaintiffs spent no
less than P114,371.00 for the construction of the duplex unit now occupied by
the defendants. |
|
“C” |
- Description: Certification dated Purpose: To prove
that, when the plaintiffs built the duplex, one unit of which was on their
own lot, the owner of the adjoining lot gave them permission to build the
duplex’s second unit on his own lot.[15] (Emphasis supplied) |
On the basis
of petitioners’ above-referred to Exhibit “A” (the MeTC
Order in the ejectment case), the RTC concluded that “uncontroverted is the fact that the defendants had admitted
their obligation to refund the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for
completing 95% of the construction of the said duplex unit per Order of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 32, of
The
relevant portions of the said MeTC Order in the ejectment case read, however:
x x x x
A
review of the Order dated
With respect to item No. 2 of the first paragraph, the parties agreed to confer among themselves and exchange accounts of records to liquidate the said P100,000.00. The parties also agreed that plaintiff and Mrs. Natividad Anchinges confer regarding the liquidation of their respective accounts to each other.
x x x x
For purposes of finally resolving any and all conflicts between and among all the parties in this case and the other members of their family who are not parties to this case, both parties as well as Mrs. Natividad Anchinges and Dr. Lelida [sic] Anchinges all agreed to have a comprehensive amicable settlement which shall include not only the instant case but also other case(s) among all the family members
x x x x.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The
above-quoted portions of Exhibit “A” reflect an agreement among the parties in
the ejectment case to discuss their respective
accounts to each other relative to the P100,000
partial cost of construction. The RTC’s conclusion that respondents “admitted [in the ejectment case] their obligation to refund the expenses
incurred by [herein petitioners] for completing 95% of the construction” is
thus incorrect.
Petitioners’
Exhibits “B-1” and “B-2,” the two-page “Bill of Materials and Cost Estimates of
One (1) Unit Residential Bldg. for Mr. and Mrs. Abner Anchinges,”[18]
does not indicate which unit of the duplex the same referred to. The total amount stated in the document is
only P114,371,[19]
not P160,000[20] as
claimed by petitioners. And there is even
no showing that petitioners actually incurred the expenses reflected therein. Besides, petitioner Abner
admitted having received P100,000 from Natividad
for the construction of the second unit.[21]
Petitioners’ claim that 95% of the
second unit of the duplex had been completed when respondents moved in is
belied by respondents’ receipts and invoices in respondent Lorna’s name.[22]
On their claim that they already paid
Abner the P40,000 reimbursement he demanded, respondents
presented a schedule of payments[23]
with some entries signed by Abner acknowledging his
receipt thereof, and with other entries signed by his brother Josefino Anchinges whom Abner allowed
to receive payments on his behalf in obedience to their mother Natividad’s request to help Josefino
financially.[24]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
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
CERTIFICATION
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] Records, pp. 3, 14, 361.
[2]
[3]
[4] TSN,
[5] TSN,
[6] Records, p. 322.
[7]
[8] Vide
id. at 408.
[9]
[10] CA rollo,
pp. 127.
[11] Decision of January 11, 2002, penned by
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with the concurrence of then-Court of Appeals
Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo.
[12] Rollo, pp.
9-21.
[13]
[14] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 1.
[15] Records, pp. 65-71.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Vide
id. at 70.
[20] Vide
id. at 4.
[21] TSN,
[22] Records, pp. 109-224.
[23] Exhibit “5,” records, pp. 104-105; TSN,
[24] Vide
TSN,