Balmaceda v. Gumamela Corp.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236556. July 3, 2019.]

CONCHITA N. BALMACEDA, petitioner, vs.GUMAMELA CORPORATION, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 3, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 236556 (Conchita N. Balmaceda vs. Gumamela Corporation). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107480, which in turn affirmed the Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105, in Civil Case No. Q-12-72070.

The Facts

The instant case commenced from a Complaint 5 for quieting of title with damages filed by Gumamela Corporation against Conchita Balmaceda (Balmaceda) and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Gumamela Corporation alleged that it is the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements thereon, located in Cubao, Quezon City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-170367. 6 It acquired its title from that of its vendor Jose Barcelona through a Deed of Sale executed on November 14, 1996. 7 Initially, Gumamela Corporation's ownership over the property was recognized by Balmaceda. However, she later claimed title and ownership over the same property by virtue of TCT No. N-262321. 8 HTcADC

Gumamela Corporation averred that Balmaceda was issued TCT No. N-262321 by falsifying the following documents: 1. two Affidavits of Adjudication; 2. Affidavit of Publication; 3. Official Receipt filed with the Assessor's Office of Quezon City and Registry of Deeds of Quezon City; and 4. two Certificates Authorizing Registration. 9 On August 30, 2012, Balmaceda was found guilty of six counts of falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 43 in People of the Philippines v. Conchita Nonay Balmaceda. Her conviction was affirmed on April 23, 2013 by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 77, in Criminal Case No. Q-12-1800087-92. 10

Meanwhile, during the preliminary conference for the marking of the parties' respective documentary evidence on March 12, 2014, only Gumamela Corporation appeared despite the notice to the parties. The pre-marking was reset to April 23, 2014. However, Balmaceda and her counsel again failed to attend the same. 11 Thus, upon motion of Gumamela Corporation, 12 the RTC allowed Gumamela Corporation to present its evidence ex parte. 13

On February 22, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of Gumamela Corporation. The RTC found merit in Gumamela Corporation's claim inasmuch as Balmaceda was found guilty of falsifying public documents — the very same documents on which TCT No. N-262321 was based. The RTC explained in part:

x x x From the evidence adduced, the [RTC] is satisfied that [Gumamela Corporation] has duly established its case through preponderance of evidence on the validity of its title. [Balmaceda] did not present any proof of better title other than the copy of her transfer certificate of title which supporting documents [were] adjudged to be falsified. 14

The decretal portion of the ruling states:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered quieting the title of [Gumamela Corporation], TCT No. N-170367 and confirming the validity of the same. On the other hand, [Balmaceda's] title, TCT No. N-262[32]1 is declared null and void for having been fraudulently issued. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and any other person acting in his behalf, is ordered to CANCEL TCT No. N-262231 in the name of x x x Conchita Nonay Balmaceda. CAIHTE

[Balmaceda] is likewise ordered to pay [Gumamela Corporation] exemplary damages in the amount of [P]50,000.00; attorney's fees in the amount of [P]50,000.00; plus the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. 15

Contesting the ruling of the RTC, Balmaceda appealed to the CA.

In its Decision 16 dated July 20, 2017, the CA, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision of the RTC, affirmed the latter's judgment, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 22, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105, in Civil Case No. Q-12-72070, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 17

The CA denied Balmaceda's motion for reconsideration through a Resolution 18 dated January 5, 2018. Hence, the present petition before the Court.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is unmeritorious.

"Factual findings of the lower courts will not be disturbed by this Court if supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Rules of Court requires that a petition for review on certiorari only raise questions of law." 19 In this case, there is no showing that the lower courts overlooked any material fact, which, if considered, would change the outcome of this case. Again, Balmaceda was found guilty of falsifying public documents relative to the issuance of TCT No. N-262321. Since these supporting documents were false and fraudulent, the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC cancelling TCT No. N-262321 for being null and void.

Further, there is no merit to Balmaceda's claim that she was denied of her right to due process as she should have been allowed by the RTC to testify in the interest of justice and fair play. 20 The Court has time and again pronounced that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" or, in this case, "in the interest of justice and fair play" is not some magic wand that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules. 21 "Liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances." 22 aScITE

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 20, 2017 and Resolution dated January 5, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107480 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-17.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes (now an Associate Justice of this Court) with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; id. at 20-32.

3.Id. at 33-34.

4. Rendered by Presiding Judge Rosa M. Samson; id. at 74-79.

5.Id. at 35-46.

6.Id. at 36-37.

7.Id. at 37.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 38.

10.Id. at 38, 75.

11.Id. at 61.

12.Id. at 60-64.

13.Id. at 66-67.

14.Id. at 78.

15. Id. at 79.

16. Id. at 20-32.

17. Id. at 31-32.

18. Id. at 33-34.

19. Cancio and Pampolina v. Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation, G.R. No. 182307, June 6, 2018.

20. Rollo, p. 16.

21. Philippine Savings Bank v. Josephine L. Papa, January 15, 2018, G.R. No. 200469; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al., 789 Phil. 577, 583 (2016).

22. Marohomsalic v. Cole, 570 Phil. 420, 429 (2008).