THIRD DIVISION
|
SALUD GEPIGA VDA. DE SOCO, GENARO G.
SOCO, ELENO G. SOCO, FRANCISCO G. SOCO, TRINIDAD S. MENDEZ, FLORA S. HONRADA,
ANITA S. ILUSTRISIMO, JULITA S. JAVIER, and PATRICIO G. SOCO, Petitioners, -
versus - FERMINA SOCO VDA. DE BARBON,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 188484
Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: December
6, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
It appears that in an August 6, 1937 Decision[1]
rendered by then Judge Alejo Labrador of the then Court of First Instance (CFI)
of
In a July 6, 1982 Order issued in
Case No. 3, LRC Record No. 4030 by City Court of Mandaue, Branch II, Judge
Lorenzo B. Barria, noting that, among other things, the Decision of Judge
Labrador adjudicated the property to Telesfora, and that the decision had not
been amended or set aside, albeit “as a consequence of . . . World War II, no
decree of registration” was issued, directed
the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of registration of the
property in favor of Telesfora.
Decree No. N-190930 was thus subsequently
issued on November 26, 1985, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
0-701[2]
covering the property was issued in the name of Telesfora on January 3, 1986. The OCT was later cancelled on April 3, 1986 by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 22142[3] in
the names of Telesfora’s sons Pio (1/3 share) and Juan Soco
(2/3 share). TCT
No. 22142 was in turn cancelled on September 30, 1987 by TCT No. 24534[4] on
September 30, 1987 in the name of Juan Soco, married to petitioner Salud.
After Juan Soco passed away on August
12, 1988, his heirs-herein petitioners extra-judicially settled his estate[5]
consisting of several parcels of land in
On December 7, 1995, Fermina
Soco Vda. de Barbon (respondent) filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Mandaue City a complaint[7]
for damages, reconveyance and attorney’s fees against petitioners, for recovery
of a 3,093 square meter portion of the property which she alleged represented her
one-third (1/3) share thereof. Respondent claimed that she acquired 1/3 portion of
the property by inheritance in support of which she presented a Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition[8]
dated May 15, 1962 executed by her and the children of Cornelio Soco
(Cornelio), husband of Telesfora, namely Ignacia, Laureana, Pio, Pablo, and Juan
(of which, it bears recalling, petitioners are heirs), wherein they agreed to
partition the property. Under the Deed, the
2/3 portion of the
property was adjudicated to Cornelio’s heirs.
The Court notes en passant that not one of respondent’s alleged co-heirs in the
1962 Deed appears to have been still alive at the time she filed the complaint for
reconveyance in 1995.
Respondent submitted Tax Declaration
(TD) No. 06579[9] purportedly
covering the property in the name of Basilio Soco (Basilio) as owner, with
Telesfora’s husband Cornelio as administrator.
Petitioners-heirs of Juan, in their
Answer with Counterclaim,[10]
denied any knowledge of the May 15, 1962 Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition,
claiming that their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, peaceful,
open, continuous and adverse possession of the property.
At the trial, respondent presented,
among other witnesses, Romeo Varona, a Document Examiner of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Cabahug, Cebu City who testified
on alleged irregularities in the CFI August 6, 1937 Decision.
By Decision[11]
of March 5, 2003, Branch 55 of the Mandaue RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent,
disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff Fermina Soco Vda. de Barbon, and against defendants Salud Gepiga vda. de Soco, Genaro G. Soco, Eleno G. Soco, Francisco G. Soco, Trinidad Soco-Mendez, Flora Soco-Honrada, Anita Soco-Ilustrisimo, Julita Soco-Javier and Patricio G. Soco, ordering the defendants to return to the plaintiff her land with an area of 3,053 sq. meters; declaring as null and void all titles and tax declarations in the name/s of the defendants covering said 3,053 sq. meters of land owned by the plaintiff; and condemning defendants, jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the following:
a) P100,000.00 moral damages;
b) P50,000.00 exemplary damages;
c) P20,000.00 litigation expenses; and
d) P50,000.00 attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED. (underscoring supplied)
Citing
preponderance of evidence, the trial court held that the May 15, 1962 Deed
of Extra-Judicial Partition clearly established respondent’s successional
rights to the property as one of the “two heirs” of Basilio Soco, the other
being Telesfora’s husband Cornelio. It
noted that TD No. 06579[12] issued
in “1948” covered the property in the name of Basilio Soco as “owner,” and Cornelio
as “administrator.”
The
trial court brushed aside petitioners’ reliance on the August 6, 1937 Decision
of the Cebu City CFI as legal basis of Telesfora’s claim of ownership of the property,
absent conclusive proof that she had continued to retain ownership of the land
until it was partitioned on May 15, 1962.
The trial court relied heavily on the
testimony of the Document Examiner, viz:
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Comparative examination and analysis of the questioned typewritten entries marked “Q-1” to “Q-3” inclusive reveal significant differences in typeface designs, defects and other individual characteristics.
CONCLUSION:
The typewritten entries in page 1
was (sic) prepared from another
typewriter compared to page 23 and page 26 of the Court Decision dated 6 August
1937.
x x x x[13] (underscoring supplied)
It thus concluded that the CFI 1937
Decision was “spurious.” It awarded
damages and attorney’s fees in favor of respondent, holding that the act of petitioners’
predecessor-in-interest, Juan Soco, in securing title to the entire property in
the name of his mother Telesfora, which resulted in the issuance of OCT No.
0-701, amounted to bad faith as it was clearly intended to deprive respondent
of her rightful ownership of 1/3 of the property.
On appeal by petitioners, the Court
of Appeals 20th Division,
Hence, the present petition.
Petitioners maintain that respondent
never offered any proof that Basilio whose name appeared as “owner” in TD No.
06579 ever acquired it from Telesfora who was admittedly the original owner, hence,
it was manifest error for the appellate
court to validate respondent’s ownership of 1/3 of the property
on the mere basis of said TD which, as
indicated earlier, started in 1948.
They stress that tax declarations −
generally regarded as inferior proofs of ownership – cannot prevail over the
CFI’s August 6, 1937 Decision
which was arrived at after due notice and hearing.
Petitioners further point out that
respondent’s payment of realty taxes should not be construed in her favor since
taxes for the years 1975 up to 1994 were only paid on September 6, 1994.[16]
Furthermore, petitioners contend that
the appellate court’s affirmance of the trial court’s decision crediting the
testimony of the Document Examiner − an ordinary witness, his being one
such of the PNP Crime Laboratory notwithstanding, would set a dangerous
precedent as it would overthrow the stability of judicial decisions rendered by
courts of competent jurisdiction, like the 1937 CFI Decision which had long
attained finality.
Finally, petitioners contend that even
granting that there exist significant differences between the typewriter
imprints on page 1 and those on pages 23 and 26 of the 1937 Decision, the same
hardly justifies the conclusion that the decision is spurious, absent any standard
which the Document Examiner could point to as the genuine typeset.[17]
On the award of damages, petitioners contend
at all events that, being mere forced heirs, they having inherited the property
by operation of law, their predecessor-in-interest Juan should be held liable therefor
since it was he who applied for the titling on June 23, 1982 of the property in
the name of his mother Telesfora. They cite Article 2217 of the New Civil Code
which allows the recovery of moral damages only where the same are the
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission, an element sorely
lacking in the present case.[18]
In the main, the issue is whether
respondent has proved her cause of action, i.e.,
whether the evidence she adduced bears out her claim of ownership of 1/3
of the property. The Court holds not.
In civil cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish its claim or cause of action by preponderance of
evidence,[19] “evidence
which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it.”[20]
Respondent relied chiefly on three
documents in support of her claim ─ the May 15, 1962 Deed of
Extra-Judicial Partition, the 1948 TD No. 06579 (listing Basilio as owner), and
the document examiner’s November 7, 2001 Questioned Document Report. Recall
that respondent alleged that she acquired 1/3 of the property
as her share in inheritance from Basilio.
How Basilio became the owner of the
property, there is no proof. Neither is
there proof how respondent was an heir of Basilio nor how Juan is a cousin of
respondent as she claims. [21] In fact, during her cross-examination, respondent
failed to define, at the very least, the relationship of Cornelio (husband of
Telesfora) to Basilio. Consider her
following testimony:
COURT TO THE WITNESS:
Q: You testified that the property in
question was left by Basilio Soco and administered by Cornelio Soco, as
evidenced by tax declaration No. 06579, for the year 1948. How [is] this Cornelio Soco related to Basilio Soco?
FERMINA SOCO:
A: MAYBE
they are brothers. I could not recall anymore. As far as I know the original
owner of that land was Telesfora Tikling and this Cornelio Soco is the husband
of Tikling.
Q: I would like to be clarified on the relationship between
Basilio Soco and Cornelio Soco?
A: MAYBE they are brothers.
ATTY. ELIAS ESPINOZA (respondent’s
counsel):
I think your Honor there was a testimony of this witness
during the direct that when this property was partitioned, Basilio and Cornelio
were no longer around. In fact, the witnesses to the partition was (sic) the
one mentioned in that document.
ATTY. CARLOS ALLAN CARDENAS (petitioners’
counsel):
We object to that manifestation. That is feeding
information to the witness, your Honor. When the witness awhile ago was
asked by this Honorable Court what was the relation between Basilio and
Cornelio her answer was that she cannot tell. And there was additional
answer of the witness that what she remember (sic) was that the original owner
of the land was Telesfora Tikling.
COURT:
The parents of the defendants were?
ATTY.
ESPINOZA:
Juan Soco.
COURT:
Juan Soco and Cornelio Soco are brothers?
ATTY.
ESPINOZA:
No. Cornelio Soco is the father of
Juan Soco.
COURT TO THE WITNESS:
Q: So you cannot therefore tell this
court the relationship between Cornelio and Basilio?
A: I do not know.[22] (emphasis, capitalization and
underscoring supplied)
Being unable to even delineate the
relationship between Basilio (in whose name the 1948 TD was printed) and Cornelio (the alleged administrator
appearing in the said TD), or for that matter to explain her relationship to
Cornelio, respondent’s assertion of being a cousin to Cornelio’s son Juan –
predecessor-in-interest of petitioners is far from a recognized fact.
Respondent’s failure to establish clear-cut
blood ties to Cornelio whose wife Telesfora is, it bears repeating, admittedly the
original owner of the property thus jeopardizes her claim as an heir to the
property. Petitioners’ submission that
it was incumbent upon respondent to first prove that Basilio had acquired, and in
what mode the Court hastens to add, the property from Telesfora after it was awarded
to her in 1937 thus assumes merit.
Petitioners’ title to the property,
upon the other hand, is rooted on the 1937 Decision of the Cebu CFI in Expediente No. 3, G.L.R.O. Record No.
4030 which awarded ownership thereof to their predecessor-in-interest’s Juan’s mother,
Telesfora. The original copy of the said
decision, consisting of 26 pages,[23]
which petitioners later presented on sur-rebuttal, remains in the custody of
Marites Holsapple, the Cebu City RTC’s custodian of cadastral
and civil case records for the
Mandaue and Cebu Cadastre.[24] Despite attempts by respondent to cast doubts
on the integrity of the 1937 Decision, its authenticity was, until respondent
presented the Document Examiner in 2002, never challenged in more than half a
century.
At all events, since the OCT in
Telesfora’s name was issued in 1986, the same had already become vested with
indefeasibility considering that respondent’s challenge to petitioners’ title
was lodged only in 1995.[25]
The law permits an attack on the original
torrens title only on the ground of fraud, within a period of one year from the
date of issuance of the decree of registration by the Land Registration
Commission.[26]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated January 30, 2009, is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Respondent Fermina
Soco’s complaint in Civil Case No. MAN-2565 before the RTC of Mandaue City, Br.
55 is DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA 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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Exhibits “3” to “3-A,” records, pp. 201-203; Exhibits “15” to “15-Y” (sur-rebuttal), id. at 290-315.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated March 31, 1992, id., at 217-221.
[6] Exhibit “I,” id. at 34-35.
[7]
[8] Exhibit “B,” a photocopy, id. at 13-14.
[9] Starting in the year 1948; Exhibit “A,” id. at 11-12.
[10]
[11]
[12] Supra note 9.
[13] Exhibit “P,” records, p. 271.
[14] Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with the concurrence of Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier and Rodil V. Zalameda; CA rollo, pp. 135-146.
[15]
[16] Rollo, pp. 34-37.
[17]
[18]
[19] Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
[20] New Testament Church of God v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102297, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 266, 269; citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 160, 168.
[21] TSN, October 3, 1996, p. 3.
[22]
[23] Vide note 1.
[24] TSN, July 30, 2002, pp. 2-12.
[25] Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree.
[26] Agasen v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115508, February 15, 2000, 325 SCRA 504, 515.