SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203141. November 10, 2021.]
MANUEL M. BARRAL, JR., petitioner,vs. GERARDO DOCONG and ANSELMA MURILLO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203141(Manuel M. Barral, Jr. v. Gerardo Docong and Anselma Murillo). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78370 dated June 24, 2010, affirming the July 25, 2002 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 8th Judicial Region, Branch 31, Calbayog City in Civil Case No. 380.
Involved in this case is a parcel of land located in Barangay Capoocan, Calbayog City, declared in the names of herein respondents spouses Gerardo Docong (Docong) and Anselma Murillo (respondents) for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 26791. The land originally consisted of 15,041 square meters but now reduced to 14,472 square meters by virtue of the respondent's relinquishment in favor of certain individuals. 3
Previously, an action for ownership and recovery of possession involving the salve parcel of land was filed by respondent Docong and the heirs of his brother, Juan Docong, against Caridad Cano (Cano) before the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. 130-CC. 4
On March 28, 1977, while Civil Case No. 130-CC was pending in court, herein petitioner Manuel M. Barral, Jr. (Barral) purchased from the respondents a portion of the subject land consisting of 1,974 square meters as evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale. The following day, Barral executed a memorandum entitled "Hinumduman" manifesting that he has not paid respondents the purchase price of P10,000.00 and that the same would be paid in December 1977. 5
That same day, however, Barral again purchased the same portion of the subject land, this time from Cano, the defendant in Civil Case No. 130-CC, also for the same purchase price of P10,000.00 by virtue of another Deed of Absolute Sale. 6
On November 27, 1984, Barral had the land surveyed and denominated as Lot No. 9003, Cad-422, C-1 (AS-08-000068). Thereafter, he applied for Free Patent with the Bureau of Lands in Catbalogan, Samar. To support his application for free patent, Barral presented to the Bureau of Lands the Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Cano. 7
Eventually, on February 20, 1985, the Bureau of Lands issued Free Patent No. 007663 to Barral. The land was thereafter registered in his name under Original Certificate of Title No. 2026. 8
Meanwhile, on June 5, 1989, the RTC rendered a Decision 9 in Civil Case No. 130-CC declaring respondent Docong and the heirs of his brother as the absolute owners of the subject land, and ordered Cano to vacate and surrender the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The court disposed: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the [respondent] Gerardo Docong and the heirs of his brother Juan Docong as the absolute owners of the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and orders the defendant to vacate, surrender and deliver the actual possession of said parcel of land to the plaintiffs. Damage cannot be awarded as no evidence was presented. With costs against defendants. 10
When herein respondents learned about Barral's actions, they filed a case for reconveyance and damages with the RTC of Calbayog City, Branch 31. They alleged that Barral cannot rightfully have the subject land registered under his name as the Deed of Absolute Sale between them was null and void due to lack of consideration as the purchase price of P10,000.00 was not paid by Barral. Respondents further argued that the sale of the subject portion of land between Barral and Cano was likewise null and void as the latter had no right whatsoever over the subject land as it was already declared in Civil Case No. 130-CC that respondent Docong and his brother, Juan Docong, are the absolute owners of the land subject of the above case. 11
For his part, Barral argued that he has already paid the P10,000.00 consideration of their Deed of Absolute Sale. 12 He also insisted that the Deed of Absolute Sale he entered into with the respondents on March 27, 1977 was a different transaction involving another portion of the land which did not materialize. 13 He also alleged that respondent Docong even signed an Affidavit of Waiver wherein he waived all his claims over the portion surveyed and denominated as Lot No. 9003, Cad-422, C-1, which thus made him barred by estoppel from questioning anything that pertains to the said portion he now owns. 14 Further, Barral pointed out that the Hinumduman he signed during his transaction with the respondents had no evidentiary value as the same had no English or Filipino translation required by law. 15
On July 25, 2002, the court a quo rendered a Decision 16 finding for herein respondents. It disposed:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendant Manuel Barral, Jr. is hereby ordered to execute a Deed of Conveyance sufficient in law for purposes of registration and cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 2026 and issuance of another title in the name of the substituted heirs of Gerardo Docong and Anselma Murillo.
The damages claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be awarded as there is no documented evidence whatsoever to support the same.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED. 17
Aggrieved, Barral elevated the case to the CA and, as stated at the onset, the latter affirmed the decision of the court a quo in its Decision 18 dated June 24, 2010. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The July 25, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 31, Calbayog City, in Civil Case No. 380 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 19
Hence, this petition 20 assailing the CA's Decision where Barral still insists that he is the rightful owner of the subject land.
The Court is not persuaded.
It should be noted that Barral acquired the subject property from no less than the defendant herself, Cano, in a separate case where the respondents challenged the ownership thereof and which the court ruled in their favor. Expectedly, Barral's ownership of the subject property automatically became questionable the moment the court ordered Cano to surrender and deliver actual possession of the subject parcel of land to the plaintiffs.
Barral's argument that the subject land is part of the public domain is also not worthy of credit as it was already settled in Civil Case No. 130-CC that the large tract of land was originally owned by the late Catalino Celum 21 as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 1324, the first of the new tax declaration issued for taxation purposes in the name of Catalino Celum. 22
Indeed, this issue being raised by Barral is factual which is not within the Court's power of review. The Court is not a trier of facts, especially in a petition for review filed under Rule 45, such as this case. More so when there is no compelling reason to lead the Court to believe that there is a need to review the facts as found by the court a quo and the CA. DETACa
While jurisprudence recognize certain exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Court, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion, none of these exceptions has been shown to apply to the present case. Hence, the Court may not review the findings of fact made by the lower courts. 23
Moreover, as Cano was found to be not the owner of the land in dispute, it also goes that she had no right to transfer its ownership to another person. It is clear froth Article 1459 of the Civil Code that in contracts of sale, the thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it is delivered. Stated otherwise, the principle that one cannot give what one does not have, or that one can only sell what one owns, should be strictly followed. Clearly, the sale with Cano, which Barral is relying on in order to assert his ownership over the subject parcel of land, was not valid.
Neither could the principle of innocent purchaser for value be applied to this case as it is clear from the facts that Barral knew of the existing legal dispute between the parties as he even transacted with them both. 24
As regards Barral's contention that the court a quo erred when it took judicial notice of Civil Case No. 130-CC, while this is not generally allowed, the rule, however, admits certain exceptions such as when there is an absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to all parties and when with the knowledge of the opposing party. 25 The CA opined:
Our perusal of the records reveals that the conditions necessary for the exception to be applicable are clearly present in the instant case. The decision in Civil Case No. 130-CC as well as the Commissioner's Report submitted thereat, were all offered in evidence and admitted by the Court a quo per Oder dated May 27, 1997.
We likewise note that in Defendant's Objection of the Offer of Exhibits, Exhibit "K", which is the decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 130-CC, was not objected to by herein appellant. Thus, appellant is clearly aware that Exhibit "K" had formed part of the records of the case and would thereby be considered by the trial court in the formulation of its decision. 26
Anent the affidavit of waiver which respondent Docong executed, on the other hand, this issue was already cleared both at the RTC level when respondent Docong denied executing such waiver and even pointed out during his testimony that he went to the Bureau of Lands to complain about Barral's application for free patent on the ground that there was already an existing complaint involving the subject land hat been filed with them. 27
The Hinumduman being written in their dialect and without the required English or Filipino translation is also not an issue as the same did not cause prejudice to the parties. The CA even pointed out that it was not its lack of translation that Barral was questioning in the first place but its being allegedly immaterial and irrelevant. 28 Likewise, it was written in Waray, which the parties and the judicial authorities are very familiar with, hence, did not put anyone at a disadvantage.
However, it should be noted that in this petition, Barral is not arguing about its lack of English or Filipino translation. Instead, for the first time, his issue with respect to the Hinumduman is zeroed in on its being prescribed, as more than ten (10) years had already lapsed before the respondents filed their action in court. 29
This argument is untenable not only because the case filed by respondents before the court a quo was for reconveyance and not for an actionable document, but also because the Hinumduman was merely presented to the court as evidence of Barral's transaction with them and to prove that he did not pay the consideration of the purportedly deed of sale. 30
All told, the Court sees no error on the part of the CA when it affirmed the decision and findings of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 24, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78370 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., no part due to his sister's prior action in the Court of Appeals,Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 13, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 48-60; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
2.Id. at 76-82; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rosario B. Bandal.
3.Id. at 76.
4.Id. at 76-77.
5.Id. at 77.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 88-106; penned by Presiding Judge Narciso T. Vasquez, Jr.
10.Id. at 106.
11.Id. at 77.
12.Id. at 78.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 76-82; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Rosario B. Bandal.
17.Id. at 81-82.
18.Id. at 48-60.
19.Id. at 59.
20.Id. at 9-30.
21.Id. at 58.
22.Id.
23.Heirs of Dicman v. Carino, 523 Phil. 630, 653-654 (2006).
24.Rollo, p. 77.
25.Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, 801 Phil. 806, 848-849 (2016).
26.Rollo, p. 54.
27.Id. at 55.
28.Id. at 58.
29.Id. at 29-30.
30.Id. at 177.