SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239997. September 12, 2018.]
SALVADOR ALEJAGA, SR. [DECEASED], VICENTE A. ALEJAGA, LILIA ALEJAGA BARRIOS, JOCELYN A. ALEJAGA LUBAY, TERESA A. ALEJAGA, ELMA A. ALEJAGA, CASIMERO A. ALEJAGA, ALEJANDRO A. ALEJAGA, MIGUEL A. ALEJAGA AND SALVADOR A. ALEJAGA, JR., petitioners,vs. SPS. SATURNINO LIBARDO AND ANIANA LIBARDO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 September 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239997 (Salvador Alejaga, Sr. [deceased], Vicente A. Alejaga, Lilia Alejaga Barrios, Jocelyn A. Alejaga Lubay, Teresa A. Alejaga, Elma A. Alejaga, Casimero A. Alejaga, Alejandro A. Alejaga, Miguel A. Alejaga and Salvador A. Alejaga, Jr. vs. Sps. Saturnino Libardo and Aniana Libardo). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the August 31, 2016 Decision 2 and the May 9, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04396.
The Antecedent Facts
Salvador Alejaga, Sr. (Salvador), one of the petitioners in this case, and his wife, Consolacion Arorong, are the registered owners of Lot No. 2878-F, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-16751. 4 The lot, which is situated in Poblacion Tabuc, Mambusao, Capiz, has a total area of 1,575 square meters. 5
Sometime in 1966, respondents spouses Saturnino and Aniana Libardo (spouses Libardo) bought a house that was erected on a segment of Lot No. 2878-F. 6
In 1994, the spouses Libardo purchased the land on which the house was built. To formalize the agreement, Saturnino and Salvador executed a notarized document captioned as "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND" 7 covering a 140-square meter portion of the lot. 8
In July 2001, Salvador and his heirs, the other petitioners in this case, wrote the spouses Libardo, asking them to vacate the property. However, the request went unheeded. 9
On August 10, 2007, the petitioners reiterated their demand, stating that they needed the property. They maintained that the spouses Libardo were occupying the same by mere tolerance. 10 Again, however, the plea fell on deaf ears.
In view of the spouses Libardo's refusal to vacate the land, the petitioners filed a complaint for ownership, possession, annulment of documents, and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mambusao, Capiz. 11 They alleged that they were the lawful owners of Lot No. 2878-F, as evidenced by TCT No. 16751, and that the spouses Libardo illegally occupied a portion of the property. The petitioners therefore prayed that the ownership and possession of the subject portion be restored to them. 12
In their answer, the spouses Libardo countered that they were the legal owners and possessors of the disputed segment of Lot No. 2878-F, and that they acquired the same in good faith and for value from Salvador by means of a deed of sale. 13
During the trial, the petitioners presented Engr. Deny Celorico, who testified that, as per the boundaries in the spouses Libardo's deed of sale, the area sold by Salvador occupied a portion of the provincial road. As for their documentary evidence, the petitioners formally offered TCT No. 16751, which showed that the property belonged to Salvador and his wife. 14
On the other hand, to prove their title to the property, the spouses Libardo offered in evidence the document captioned "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND," Tax Declaration (TD) No. 1275, and TD No. 08002-0691 in Saturnino's name covering a portion of Lot No. 2878-F. Saturnino took the witness stand to testify that he had resided on the disputed portion of the lot since 1966, and that he had purchased the same from Salvador in 1994 in the belief that the land sold to him was the segment he had been occupying. 15 aDSIHc
On January 18, 2012, the RTC dismissed the case. 16 The trial court held that the petitioners failed to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence. According to the RTC, the evidence established that the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest had conveyed title over the disputed portion of Lot No. 2878-F to the spouses Libardo even though the deed of sale failed to accurately reflect the portion actually sold. Therefore, the petitioners failed to prove a valid claim of ownership over the property. 17 The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for failure to establish preponderance of evidence in their favour, this present complaint filed by the plaintiffs is ordered dismissed.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
The petitioners thus appealed to the CA, which affirmed the trial court's ruling in the herein assailed Decision dated August 31, 2016. The appellate court ruled that the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. Since the contract between Salvador and Saturnino was valid, but the document captioned "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND" did not reflect their true intent, the proper recourse, according to the CA, was to file an action for reformation instead of seeking the annulment of the contract. As evidenced by the parties' prior conduct, Salvador consented to selling the disputed portion to the spouses Libardo. However, due to a mistake in the technical description contained in the deed of sale, their true intent was not expressed in the document. The CA concluded by ruling that a mere mistake in the technical description should not prejudice the spouses Libardo, who believed in good faith that they were purchasing the land on which their house stood. 18 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 21, Mambusao, Capiz, in Civil Case No. M-07-0245-08 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration only to be denied in the CA's challenged Resolution dated May 9, 2018.
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issues
Whether or not an action for annulment of contract lies as the proper remedy in this case. 19
Whether or not the petitioners, as holders of a TCT, may question the title of the spouses Libardo, to whom Salvador sold the property. 20
The Court's Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
At the outset, it bears reiterating the rule that the factual findings of lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal. 21 The Court does not generally review the facts of a case unless they are without basis, or are arrived at arbitrarily. 22
In this case, the findings of the courts a quo are supported by substantial evidence. The record reveals that the spouses Libardo were able to prove their rights over the disputed segment of Lot No. 2878-F. While the TDs in Saturnino's name serve as an indication of ownership over the property, the primary basis of their title is the contract denominated as "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND."
However, according to the petitioners, the contract between Saturnino and Salvador is void because of an apparent mistake that prevented a meeting of their minds. Citing a Commissioner's Report 23 and a Sketch Plan, 24 the petitioners maintain that since a 12.5% portion of the disputed property encroached on an adjacent provincial road, Salvador never consented to selling the 140-square meter lot to the spouses Libardo. 25 The petitioners additionally averred that Salvador could not have intended to sell a portion of the provincial road to the spouses Libardo because, then, the object of the contract would be beyond the commerce of man. 26 Thus, to the petitioners, the deed entitled "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND" is void ab initio.
The argument deserves scant consideration. ETHIDa
Article 1318 of the New Civil Code enumerates the essential requisites of a valid contract, thus:
Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
Consent is an essential requisite of contracts. 27 It pertains to the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause that constitute the contract. 28
Let it be recalled that the spouses Libardo remained in undisturbed possession of the disputed portion of Lot No. 2878-F for 35 years. They bought a house built thereon in 1966, and later, in order to acquire ownership over the land and secure their rights to the residence, they purchased a 140-square meter segment of the lot from Salvador. It was only in July 2001 when the petitioners asked them to vacate the land.
Taking this into consideration, it defies reason to conclude that the minds of Salvador and Saturnino never met. Surely, Salvador knew that since the spouses Libardo already owned a house built on Lot No. 2878-F, what they intended to purchase was that particular portion of the lot on which their house stood. Moreover, from the facts, it would be absurd to deduce that Salvador intended to convey a stretch of provincial road to them. Clearly, therefore, it was a mere afterthought on the part of the petitioners to contend that there was a mistake as to the object of the contract in this case.
Moreover, for the sake of emphasis, the Court reiterates the CA's ruling that the spouses Libardo should not be prejudiced by a slight and insignificant mistake in the delineation of the boundaries of the property they purchased.
In this regard, the CA ruled that the petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. Since the minds of Saturnino and Salvador met as to the subject of the sale, the contract was held to be valid, and therefore the petitioners improperly resorted to annulment of contract. However, the appellate court stated that because the deed failed to reflect the parties' true intent, the petitioners should have filed an action for reformation of instrument instead. 29
Reformation of an instrument is a remedy by which a written instrument is made or construed so as to express or conform to the real intention of the parties. 30 Such action presupposes a valid, existing contract, in which there had been a meeting of the minds of the parties; however, the document, which embodies the agreement, fails to reflect their true intent. 31
In Multi-Ventures Capital and Management Corporation v. Stalwart Management Services Corporation, 32 the Court enumerated the requisites of an action for reformation of instrument, thus:
In order that an action for reformation of instrument may prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. 33
In this case, all of the above requisites are present. First, as discussed above, it cannot be disputed that Salvador consented to selling the disputed portion to the spouses Libardo because he knew that they wanted to purchase the land on which their house was built. Second, due to a mistake in the description of the area conveyed, the deed of sale failed to reflect the true intent of the parties. Lastly, such mistake was apparently caused by an accident in drafting the deed of sale.
Next, the petitioners postulated that the courts a quo erred in not giving any credence to the TCT that showed Salvador's ownership over the property. They submitted that the spouses Libardo's deed of sale cannot prevail over their Torrens certificate. 34
The petitioners are estopped from questioning the title of the spouses Libardo to the disputed portion of Lot No. 2878-F.
Through estoppel by deed, one party is precluded from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it. 35
As stated earlier, it had been clearly established a quo that Salvador, through a deed captioned "SALE OF A PORTION OF REGISTERED LAND," lawfully conveyed his rights to the 140-square meter disputed portion to the spouses Libardo. Considering that the said deed was upheld as valid, it would be highly improper to allow his successors-in-interest to renege on his act of conveyance and claim ownership over the property. Thus, estoppel by deed serves to bar the petitioners from questioning the spouses Libardo's ownership over the disputed portion of Lot No. 2878-F. cSEDTC
The petitioners cannot therefore claim that their TCT constitutes them as owners of the disputed property. The fact that one person appears as the registered owner on the certificate of title does not preclude the possibility that the title itself had been transferred to another.
Lastly, the petitioners argued that the TDs presented by the spouses Libardo cannot serve as evidence of ownership. 36
However, in Republic v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corporation, 37 the Court held that TDs, when coupled with actual possession, constitute "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence of ownership. 38
Here, since the spouses Libardo's possession over the disputed segment of the lot was never denied, it follows that their TDs may serve as a credible basis of title.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04396 stand as AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Carpio, J., on Wellness leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. 2592, dated September 5, 2018; Reyes, J., Jr.,J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-26.
2.Id. at 32-43.
3.Id. at 44-46.
4.Id. at 39.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Id. at 41.
7.Id. at 63.
8.Id. at 39.
9.Id. at 33.
10.Id. at 59-60.
11.Id. at 32.
12.Id. at 33-34.
13.Id. at 34.
14.Id. at 35.
15.Id. at 36.
16.Id. at 37.
17.Id. at 39.
18.Id. at 41.
19.Id. at 18.
20.Id.
21.See People of the Philippines v. Rafael Daroya @ Raffy, G.R. No. 229502, November 8, 2017.
22.Sazon v. Vasquez-Menacio, 682 Phil. 669, 682 (2012).
23.Rollo, pp. 66-67.
24.Id. at 68.
25.Id. at 19.
26.Id. at 20.
27.The Roman Catholic Church v. Pante, 685 Phil. 470, 478 (2012).
28.Id.
29.Rollo, p. 41.
30.Rosello Bentir v. Leanda, 386 Phil. 802, 805 (2000).
31.Veluz v. Veluz, 133 Phil. 459, 463 (1968).
32. 553 Phil. 385, 391 (2007).
33.Id. at 391.
34.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
35.The Learning Child, Inc. v. Ayala Alabang Village Association, 638 Phil. 255, 288 (2010).
36.Rollo, p. 25.
37. 690 Phil. 31, 40 (2012).
38.Id. at 40.