SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224229. October 6, 2021.]
LUCITA ALIÑO, petitioner,vs.FRANCO SERVO, MAGDALENA UNABIA, AMELITA CAÑADA, BETTY PLARISAN, RAUL PLARISAN, VICTOR PRIMACIO, CIRIACA DELA CALZADA, SPOUSES DOROTEO PARAGES, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT WILFREDO OBENQUE AND MELODINA OBENQUE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 224229 (Lucita Aliño v. Franco Servo, Magdalena Unabia, Amelita Cañada, Betty Plarisan, Raul Plarisan, Victor Primacio, Ciriaca Dela Calzada, Spouses Doroteo Parages, represented by their attorney-in-fact Wilfredo Obenque and Melodina Obenque). — This is a petition for review of the Decision 1 dated January 14, 2016 and the Resolution dated April 15, 2016 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08374, which reversed and set aside the Decision 2 dated December 26, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 9, in a case involving the ownership of a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 20173-A (formerly Lot No. 5715-NEW) located in Poblacion, Minglanilla, Cebu.
The disputed lot was initially owned by Eleuterio Aliño (Eleuterio), who passed away on April 8, 1976. 3 On one hand, Lucita Aliño (Lucita), who was Eleuterio's second wife, claims the disputed lot on the basis of succession and prescription, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-96665 issued on June 5, 1996 in her name by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cebu. 4 The certificate was issued on the strength of an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights by Way of Donation dated March 27, 1996, allegedly executed in Lucita's favor by the rest of Eleuterio's heirs, 5 as well as continuous possession of the disputed lot for more than twenty-four (24) years starting from Eleuterio's passing in 1976. 6 On the other hand, respondents Servo, et al., claim that Eleuterio sold the disputed lot on November 18, 1957 to Doroteo and Celerina Parages (spouses Parages). 7 The spouses Parages and their tenants immediately took possession of the lot 8 and have been paying taxes thereon since 1964; they were even able to mortgage the property to a rural bank. 9 Respondent Franco Servo (Servo) was designated by the spouses Parages as caretaker of the property, while the other respondents are tenants of the spouses Parages. 10 Respondents Servo, et al., further claim that the sale between Eleuterio and spouses Parages was confirmed in 1999 by Eleuterio's son, Dr. Alejandro Aliño (Alejandro). 11
On May 20, 1999, Servo, et al., received a written demand to vacate the property from Lucita's counsel. 12 The demand went unheeded. On October 6, 1999, Lucita filed an ejectment suit against Servo, et al., before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Minglanilla. 13 Servo, et al., responded by filing a complaint for recovery of property, declaration of nullity of contracts, and declaration of nullity of transfer certificates of title against Lucita. 14 The MTC dismissed Lucita's ejectment suit. 15 On appeal, the RTC reinstated the ejectment suit and consolidated it with the action filed by Servo, et al. 16
On December 26, 2013, the RTC decided the consolidated cases in favor of Lucita. It ruled that Servo, et al., were unable to overcome the presumption of validity of Lucita's certificate of title. While Servo, et al., were able to present the unregistered deed of sale between Eleuterio and the spouses Parages, as well as the deed of confirmation executed in 1999 by Alejandro, they nevertheless failed to present Alejandro as a witness to authenticate the deed of confirmation. 17
On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and ruled in favor of Servo, et al. The appellate court ordered the cancellation of Lucita's certificates of title and the reconveyance of the lot to the spouses Parages. 18 The CA ruled that Servo, et al., had a better right to the lot, for the following reasons: 1) the 1957 sale, although unregistered, is binding on Lucita because she is Eleuterio's heir and is therefore deemed privy to the transaction; 2) Lucita failed to disprove the genuineness and due execution of the 1957 notarized deed of sale; 3) contrary to Lucita's assertion, Servo, et al., are the ones in actual possession of the property; and 4) the 1957 sale was confirmed by Alejandro. Since Eleuterio had already sold the property to the spouses Parages in 1957, he no longer had any right thereto which Lucita and his other heirs could have acquired by succession. Consequently, the certificates of title issued to Lucita are null and void. 19
On February 5, 2016, Lucita filed a motion for reconsideration repleading her arguments before the trial court and further arguing that: 1) the sale to the spouses Parages was void because it did not have the necessary approvals under the Friar Lands Act; 2) the confirmation by Alejandro cannot be given evidentiary weight because he was not presented as a witness during the trial; and 3) the CA erred in finding Servo, et al., to be in actual possession of the disputed land. 20
The CA rejected these arguments in its assailed Resolution. The CA held that by not raising the matter of compliance with the Friar Lands Act in the appeal proper, Lucita had waived her right to raise the same. Hence, this petition, wherein Lucita argues that her title to the property, which is based on succession and acquisitive prescription, must prevail over the 1957 sale to the spouses Parages which was only discovered in 2000, after the litigation on the disputed lot began.
The petition has no merit.
Under the Civil Code, ownership of land may be acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten (10) years with good faith and just title; 21 or by extraordinary prescription through possession of thirty (30) years without good faith or just title. 22 Either way, possession is the basis of prescription with respect to land. 23 A party cannot acquire a parcel of land by prescription if it does not have possession thereof.
Here, the spouses Parages claimed to have been in possession of the disputed land since 1957, when they bought it from Eleuterio. Both the RTC and the CA agreed, finding the spouses Parages and their tenants to be in actual possession of the disputed land. 24 The issue of possession is a question of fact 25 which can no longer be passed upon in this petition in view of the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the matter. 26 Furthermore, considering that an ejectment suit is intended to wrest physical possession from another, there is no reason for Lucita to file such suit against Servo, et al., if they were not in actual physical possession of the property.
As regards Lucita's claim through succession, under the Civil Code, such mode of acquisition of ownership contemplates only those properties and transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of the decedent's death or which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. 27 Here, Eleuterio had already sold the disputed lot in 1957 through a notarized but unregistered deed of sale, nineteen years before his demise. Being a notarized document, the 1957 deed of sale is considered a public document for purposes of evidentiary presentation. As such, it constitutes evidence, even against third persons, of the fact which gave rise to its execution and the date thereof. 28 Furthermore, said deed may be presented in evidence without further proof. 29 In Spouses Santos v. Spouses Lumbao, 30 this Court ruled:
It is well-settled that a document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. To overcome this presumption, there must be presented evidence that is clear and convincing. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld. 31
Lucita's petition utterly fails in this regard. It proffers no evidencewhatsoever to defeat the presumption of regularity enjoyed by the notarized 1957 deed of sale.
Lucita further argues that the 1957 deed of sale cannot bind her and Eleuterio's other heirs because it was unregistered and they were not aware of its existence and due execution. However, the heirs of Eleuterio who executed the extrajudicial settlement in favor of Lucita cannot disclaim knowledge of the sale. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Lucita and the rest of Eleuterio's heirs are considered his privies, who are charged with constructive knowledge of past dispositions or encumbrances of the decedent's properties. 32 In the recent case of Bayog-ang v. Quiñones, 33 this Court held:
Furthermore, it has been held that "the purpose of registration is merely to notify and protect the interests of strangers to a given transaction, who may be ignorant thereof, and the non-registration of the deed evidencing said transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of their obligations thereunder." In this case, the petitioners cannot be held to be third persons to the contract between their grandfather and Florence, for as heirs, they were bound by the same. Article 1311 of the New Civil Code provides that "contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law." The general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law. 34
Moreover, as pointed out by Servo, et al., it appears that Lucita actually resides near the disputed property 35 and even tried to build a fence thereon. 36 Coupled with the aforementioned fact that she attempted to eject Servo, et al., from the disputed lot, these circumstances cast doubt on Lucita's disclaimer of knowledge about the 1957 deed of sale.
With the existence, validity, and due execution of the 1957 deed of sale having gone unchallenged in this petition, the inescapable conclusion is that the disputed property had been taken out of Eleuterio's patrimony by virtue of the 1957 deed of sale and the subsequent entry into possession by the spouses Parages and their tenants. Thus, when Eleuterio died in 1976, he no longer had any right to the disputed lot which may be transmitted to his heirs. Consequently, the CA did not err when it cancelled the certificates of title in Lucita's name and ordered the reconveyance of the property to the spouses Parages and their tenants.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED. The January 14, 2016 Decision and the April 15, 2016 Resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 08374 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-31; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
2. The rollo does not include a copy of the decision.
3.Id. at 10, 11, 24.
4.Id. at 15.
5.Id. at 11.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Id. at 24.
8.Id. at 88, 91.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 11, 85.
11.Id. at 90.
12.Id. at 25.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 13.
18.Id. at 30.
19.Id. at 27-29.
20.Id. at 34, 36-37.
21. CIVIL CODE, Arts. 1117, 1118, 1127, 1128, 1134.
22. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1137.
23. II Francisco R. Capistrano, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES WITH COMMENTS AND ANNOTATIONS 594 (1950).
24.Rollo, pp. 18, 28-29, 86-87.
25.The Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc v. Dela Cruz, 830 Phil. 547, 569 (2018).
26. See Republic v. Caraig, G.R. No. 197389, October 12, 2020.
27. CIVIL CODE, Art. 781.
28. RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Secs. 19, 23.
29. RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 30.
30. 548 Phil. 332 (2007).
31.Id. at 426.
32. See Rotairo v. Alcantara, 744 Phil. 273, 284 (2014); Sps. Vallido v. Sps. Pono, 709 Phil. 371, 377 (2013).
33. G.R. No. 205680, November 21, 2013.
34.Id.
35.Rollo, p. 89.
36.Id. at 87.