Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
SPOUSES MARIANO (a.k.a.
QUAKY) and EMMA BOLAŅOS, Petitioners, - versus - ROSCEF ZUŅIGA BERNARTE, CLARO ZUŅIGA, PERFECTO
ZUŅIGA, and CEFERINA ZUŅIGA-GARCIA, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 180997
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November
17, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision dated March 30, 2007[2]
and the Resolution dated November 26, 2007[3] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84452.
The
antecedents
Subject
of the controversy is a 238-square-meter lot, designated as Lot No. 1-P, and
situated in Poblacion, Rapu-Rapu, Albay.
Petitioner-spouses Mariano and Emma Bolaņos (petitioner-spouses) purchased
it from Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague (Cresencia) on June 20, 2001. The sale was registered in the name of petitioner-spouses
before the Municipal Assessors Office in Rapu-Rapu, Albay.
On October 30, 2001, respondents
Roscef Zuņiga Bernarte, Claro Zuņiga, Perfecto Zuņiga, and Ceferina
Zuņiga-Garcia (Roscef, et al.) filed a complaint[4]
for declaration of partial nullity of deeds of transfer and sale with prayer
for preliminary injunction against petitioner-spouses, Flavia Zuņiga (Flavia),
and Cresencia before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The complaint, in essence, alleged
that: Roscef, et al., and Flavia and Cresencia are legitimate half-blood
brothers and sisters, all children of the deceased Roman Zuņiga, Sr. (Roman) from his second and first marriages,
respectively; during his lifetime, Roman owned a residential land with
improvements, identified as Lot No. 1-P per Tax Declaration No. 99-001-01704[5]
for the year 2000; Roman had the lot declared for taxation purposes in the name
of Flavia, Sisters and Brothers, per a Sworn Statement[6]
he executed in 1973, and filed with the then Assessors Office, which issued
Tax Declaration No. 2975;[7]
Roman died on August 9, 1976, and his heirs did not settle or partition the
subject property; on June 20, 2001,
Flavia, without authority from the co-owners of the lot, executed a notarized Deed
of Absolute Sale[8]
over it in favor of Cresencia; Cresencia, in turn, also without authority from
the said co-owners, executed on the same day a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale[9]
in favor of petitioner-spouses; on the basis of these notarized deeds, Tax
Declaration No. 99-001-01703[10]
was issued to petitioner-spouses as sole declared owners of Lot No. 1-P.
In praying for
preliminary injunction, Roscef, et al. further alleged that petitioner-spouses
started demolishing their ancestral home on the subject property and initiated
the construction of a new building thereon, despite pleas to desist from
further destroying the ancestral home.
In
her answer with cross-claim,[11]
Flavia denied the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in
favor of Cresencia, and alleged that the subsequent sale made by the latter was
valid and effective only as to her aliquot share, but null and void as to the
rest of the property. She also claimed
that, during the confrontation before the barangay,
she informed Mariano of these facts and even admonished him not to destroy the
existing house on Lot No. 1-P, nor to make any constructions thereon. She said that, despite this notice,
petitioner-spouses, on August 15, 2001, forcibly entered her house and demolished
a large portion of it.
In
her own answer,[12]
Cresencia denied the material allegations of the complaint, and alleged that
Flavia was the sole owner of Lot No. 1-P, thus making her a buyer and seller in
good faith and for value. Cresencia also
averred that Roscef, et al., as children of Roman by his second wife, do not
have any share in the subject property since Roman had already orally
partitioned it during his lifetime.
For
their part, petitioner-spouses alleged that the subject property was owned in
common by Flavia, Cresencia, and their full-blood brothers and sisters only,
and that, later on, Flavia acquired the entire lot. Flavia then sold it to Cresencia, who, in
turn, sold it to petitioner-spouses.
They asserted that they had acquired Lot No. 1-P in good faith and for
value, without any knowledge of the adverse claim of Roscef, et al. or that the
property did not fully belong to Cresencia.[13]
During
the pre-trial, the parties admitted that Roscef, et al., Flavia and Cresencia
are legitimate half brothers and sisters and the identities of the parties and
of the subject property.[14]
Trial
on the merits ensued. Thereafter, the
RTC rendered its decision dated December 1, 2004,[15]
disposing as follows
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, this Court renders judgment declaring that the property interest acquired by the spouses Mariano and Emma Bolaņos over Lot No. 1-P a 238-square-meter lot situated [o]n Salazar Street, Poblacion Rapu-Rapu, Albay is limited only to the ideal shares belonging to Flavia A. Zuņiga and Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague constitutive of an ideal share equivalent to 2/11 portion of such lot, and hereby partially nullifying the two deeds of absolute sale both dated 20 June 2001 over Lot No. 1-P exceeding the ideal share of 1/11 for each one of the sellers Flavia A. Zuņiga and Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague. The defendants are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the amounts of: a) 15,000 pesos as attorneys fees; and b) 10,000 pesos as litigation expenses. The defendants shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Aggrieved, petitioner-spouses
interposed an appeal before the CA, ascribing error to the RTC in holding that
the property was the capital of Roman and in declaring that the property
interest acquired by them was limited only to the ideal shares of Flavia.
The CA denied the appeal,
and affirmed in toto the RTC judgment. Hence, this petition anchored on the sole
question of law of whether or not the CA wrongly applied the law on co-ownership,
specifically Article 484,[17]
relative to Article 980[18]
of the Civil Code.
Petitioner-spouses argue
that the CA gravely erred when it concluded that Lot No. 1-P is owned in common
by the children from the first and second marriages of Roman. They posit that the brothers and sisters
mentioned in Tax Declaration No. 2975 for December 14, 1948-1949 refer only to
Romans children from his first marriage, when the property was bequeathed to
them by their father, then still a widower, and prior to the celebration of his
marriage to Ceferina on October 18, 1954.
They claim that Roman did so probably because the property belonged to
the paraphernal property of his deceased first spouse Flavia. According to them, there was no credible
evidence, not even a single document, to prove that the property originally
belonged to Roman, but the RTC and the CA gave credit to Ceferinas testimony
that she was told by her father, while at a tender age, that the property
belonged to them. They contend, to the
contrary, that the testimony of Josefina, a child from the first marriage,
should be the one given credence due to her unbiased assertion that the
property was purchased from the paraphernal assets of their mother Flavia, such
that the lot had never been registered in the name of Roman because he had no
reason to claim it as his own.
We disagree. The assertions of petitioner-spouses cannot
stand on the face of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, presented
before the RTC.
More specifically, petitioner-spouses
contention, i.e., that the subject property
really belonged to Romans first spouse Flavia as her paraphernal property,
cannot be sustained. This position was
anchored from the testimony of Josefina[19]
that the lot was actually bought by her maternal grandfather and given to her
mother Flavia. Josefinas declarations
before the RTC do not deserve merit and weight, particularly in light of her
statement that she was told so by her elders way back in 1923, when at that
time she was only around three (3) years of age.[20] Besides, such a pronouncement was not
supported by any proof, save for the lame excuse that the deed of sale showing
the said transaction was allegedly lost and destroyed by a typhoon at a time
when she was already married, claiming that she was then the custodian of the
supposed document. Evidence, to be
worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness
but must be credible in itself.[21] In other words, it must be natural,
reasonable, and probable to warrant belief.
The standard as to the truth of human testimony is its conformity to
human knowledge, observation, and experience; the courts cannot heed otherwise.[22] Regretfully, petitioner-spouses allegations
do not measure up to the yardstick of verity.
The findings of the RTC,
as concurred by the CA, are enlightening
The facts of the case that appear
of record to be without dispute follow, to wit: Roman Zuņiga, Sr. during his
lifetime married twice. His first wife
was Flavia while Ceferina became his second wife. Flavia died sometime in the year 1944 or 1945. Roman Sr. and Flavia begot seven children,
namely: Josefina, Flavia, Woodrow, Pablo, Manuel, Roman, Jr. and
Cresencia. On 18 October 1954, Roman
Zuņiga, Sr. married Ceferina Bendaņa (Exhibits F, 6). Roman, Sr. and Ceferina had four children,
and they were the plaintiffs Roscef, Claro, Perfecto and Ceferina. Roman Zuņiga, Sr. died on 9 August 1976. It appears that his second wife Ceferina
Bendaņa died ahead of him. His eleven
children by his first and by his second marriage survived him. In the face of the sworn statement he
executed in the year 1973 he declared the lot in question (now Lot No. 1-P)
then embraced by Tax Declaration No. 2975 as among the several properties that
belonged to him (Exhibits C, 3, in relation to Exhibits A, 1). Such lot under such tax declaration was
declared for taxation purposes for the first time on 14 December 1948 in the
name of Flavia A. Zuņiga, brothers and sisters (Exhibits A, 1). Flavia A. Zuņiga sold such 238-square-meter
lot situated in
Now, Roman Zuņiga, Sr.s first
wife Flavia passed away in the year 1944 or 1945. On 18 October 1954, he married his second
wife Ceferina. Lot No. 1-P was declared
for tax purposes for the first time on 14 December 1948 in the name of Flavia
Zuņigas sisters and brothers. The
defendant Flavia A. Zuņiga admitted that her parents always declared the
properties they acquired in her name Flavia A. Zuņiga[,] sisters and brothers
since she was a 7-year-old lass. She
never acquired the properties on her own including Lot No. 1-P. She would always recognize her father Roman
Zuņiga, Sr. as the actual owner of such lot when he was alive.
The reckoning date for the
acquisition of Lot No. 1-P should be the date when it was declared for tax
purposes in the name of the defendant Flavia A. Zuņiga, sisters and brothers
which is 14 December 1948 notwithstanding the testimonies rendered that such
lot was acquired while Roman Zuņiga, Sr. was married to Flavia and even prior
to such marriage. Such testimonies that
are obviously easy to fabricate have no documentary evidence seen of record to
sustain them. This Court finds Tax
Declaration No. 2975 (Exhibit[s] A, 1) that bec[a]me effective in the year
1949 as the credible ancient documentary evidence that speaks of the true date
Roman Zuņiga, Sr. acquired Lot No. 1-P.
As earlier noted, his first wife died in the year 1944 or 1945 while he
married his second wife on 18 October 1954.
Obviously, Roman Zuņiga, Sr., while still a widower in the year 1948,
acquired Lot No. 1-P. Clearly such lot
was his capital property.
Roman Zuņiga, Sr. having passed
away on 9 August 1976, Lot No. 1-P now forms part of his estate. Except for
Until such time that Lot No. 1-P
has been partitioned among Roman Zuņiga, Sr.s eleven legitimate children, as co-owners
being co-heirs their shares remain ideal (Article 1078, The Civil Code). Not one of the eleven children can claim as
his or hers a specifically identified portion of Lot No. 1-P.
This Court finds Flavia Zuņigas
verbal claim that she never sold Lot No. 1-P to her sister Cresencia
Zuņiga-Echague to be without merit. Not
a shred of evidence appears of record showing that the signature appearing in
the face of the deed of absolute sale was not Flavia A. Zuņigas (Exhibits D,
2). At any rate, this Court holds that
the written deed of absolute sale dated 20 June 2001 that Flavia A. Zuņiga
signed is more credible evidence than her self-serving, uncorroborated and easy
to concoct testimony that she never sold such lot to her sister Cresencia
Zuņiga-Echague.
However, the above deed of
absolute sale that Flavia A. Zuņiga executed was valid and effective only to
the extent of her ideal share in Lot No. 1-P.
The validity of the other deed of absolute sale Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague
executed in favor of the spouses Mariano and Emma Bolaņos is limited to her
ideal share and the other ideal share she acquired from Flavia A. Zuņiga. In effect[,] the spouses Mariano and Emma
Bolaņos acquired the ideal shares of the sisters Flavia A. Zuņiga and Cresencia
Zuņiga-Echague.
The claim by the spouses Mariano
and Emma Bolaņos that they were purchasers in good faith has little
relevance. Lot No. 1-P appears as [an]
unregistered lot, and thus they merely step into the shoes of the seller. They cannot acquire [a] property interest
greater tha[n] Cresencia Zuņiga- Echagues.
Anyway, the spouses Mariano and
Emma Bolaņos acquired Lot No. 1-P from Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague on the very
same day that Flavia A. Zuņiga sold it to Cresencia Zuņiga-Echague. The tax declaration over Lot No. 1-P at the
time the spouses Mariano and Emma Bolaņos acquired such lot speaks that its owners
were Flavia A. Zuņiga, sisters and brothers (Exhibit G). Awareness by the spouses Mariano and Emma
Bolaņos of such tax declaration while they were buying Lot No. 1-P, they knew
that Flavia A. Zuņiga was not the exclusive owner of Lot No. 1-P at the time
they purchased it.[23]
Considering that Roman
died on August 9, 1976, the provisions of the Civil Code on succession, then
the law in force, should apply, particularly Articles 979 and 980, viz.
Art. 979. Legitimate children and
their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants, without distinction
as to sex or age, and even if they should come from different marriages. x x x.
Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always
inherit from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.
Thus, the RTC correctly ruled that Lot No.
1-P rightfully belongs to the 11 children of Roman, seven (7) from his first
marriage with Flavia and four (4) from his second marriage with Ceferina, in
equal shares. As there was no partition among
Romans children, the lot was owned by them in common. And inasmuch as Flavia did not successfully
repudiate her sale of her aliquot share to Cresencia, the transfer stands as
valid and effective. Consequently, what
Cresencia sold to petitioner spouses was her own share and Flavias share in
the property that she acquired by virtue of the notarized deed of sale, which
is only 2/11 of Lot No. 1-P. Therefore,
the restitution of the property in excess of that portion by petitioner spouses
is clearly warranted.
Indeed, the findings of
the trial court, with respect to the operative facts and the credibility of
witnesses, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the
highest degree of deference and respect by this Court, except when: (1) the
findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or
conjectures; (2) a lower courts inference from its factual findings is
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of
discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) the findings of the court go
beyond the issues of the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts which,
if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) there is
misapprehension of facts; and (6) the findings of fact are conclusions without
mention of the specific evidence on which they are based are premised on the
absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[24] Notably, none of these exceptions is attendant
in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated March 30, 2007 and
the Resolution dated November 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV
No. 84452 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second 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, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 8-15.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; id. at 16-27.
[3]
[4] Records, pp. 1-7.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Answer with Affirmative Defense and Counter Claim; id. at 47-49.
[14] Pre-Trial Order; id. at 81-83.
[15]
[16]
[17] Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title.
[18] Art. 980. The children of the deceased shall always inherit from him in their own right, dividing the inheritance in equal shares.
[19] TSN, January 12, 2004, pp. 3-17.
[20]
[21] Boncalon v. Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 171812, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 449, 460.
[22] Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. v. Tangco, G.R. No. 165732, December 14, 2006, 511 SCRA 67, 84.
[23] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[24] People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 222, 231; Benguet Corporation v. Cabildo, G.R. No. 151402, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA 25, 35-36.