FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206208. January 31, 2018.]
THE HEIRS OF LUCIO ACOSTA, NAMELY, EDBERTO B. ACOSTA, FELICITAS ACOSTA-MAKALINTAL, CARMENCITA B. ACOSTA, AND LEONOR B. ACOSTA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ANICETO MACATANGAY AND IGNACIA COLADILLA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FLORDELIS * M. PULIDO, LOURDES CURATA, ROSARIO ALCAIDE, * THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 31, 2018which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 206208 (The Heirs of Lucio Acosta, namely, Edberto B. Acosta, Felicitas Acosta-Makalintal, Carmencita B. Acosta, and Leonor B. Acosta, Petitioners v. Spouses Aniceto Macatangay and Ignacia Coladilla, represented by their attorney-in-fact, FlordelisM. Pulido, Lourdes Curata, Rosario Alcaide,The Register of Deeds of Batangas and The Administrator, Land Registration Authority, Respondents).
Challenged through this petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 are the Decision 2 dated August 17, 2012 and Resolution 3 dated March 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) 4 in CA-G.R. CV No. 88515. The assailed CA Decision and Resolution denied petitioners' appeal and consequently affirmed the Decision dated August 14, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 5 of Batangas City, Branch 3 dismissing petitioners' complaint for annulment of title, issuance of Original Certificate of Title (OCT), reconveyance, damages and attorney's fees.
The Antecedents
Petitioners Edberto, Felicitas and Carmencita, all surnamed Acosta, are the children of Lucio Acosta (Lucio) and petitioner Leonor B. Acosta (Leonor). Lucio and Leonor were married on July 2, 1939. Even prior to the marriage, Lucio owned several properties, including Lot No. 988 with an area of 10,645 square meters located at Barrio Santa Clara, Municipality of Batangas, Province of Batangas. On August 23, 1941, an order was issued by the court for the issuance of a decree of registration over Lot No. 988 and the corresponding decree was issued on June 28, 1948. Lot No. 988 was later on subdivided into Lot No. 988-A with an area of 4,755 square meters and Lot No. 988-B with an area of 5,890 square meters. 6
In a document dated September 15, 1945, Lucio sold Lot No. 988-A to Francisco Macatangay (Francisco) who, in turn, sold the same to respondents Spouses Aniceto Macatangay and Ignacia Coladilla (Spouses Macatangay). The Spouses Macatangay obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1823 over Lot No. 988-A in their names. TCT No. T-1823 was later on reconstituted on May 7, 1980 as TCT No. RT-89 (1571) through a court order dated March 24, 1980. 7
The Spouses Macatangay later on executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of Flordeliz Pulido (Flordeliz) authorizing the latter to sell a portion of Lot No. 988-A, denominated as Lot No. 988-A-2. Thus, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 6, 1983, Flordeliz sold Lot No. 988-A-2 to the Spouses Gabriel Alcaide and respondent Rosario Alcaide (Rosario) (collectively referred to as Spouses Alcaide). The Spouses Alcaide then registered Lot No. 988-A-2 in their names for which TCT No. T-3895 was issued. 8
On the other hand, Lot No. 988-B was sold by Lucio to Higino Cusi (Higino) and Aurelia Beredo under a Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938. Upon Higino's death, his heirs adjudicated to themselves a portion of Lot No. 988-B measuring 1,307 square meters and sold another portion thereof consisting of 1,934 square meters riceland and 200 square meters residential land, denominated as Lot No. 988-B-2, to respondent Lourdes Curata (Lourdes) by virtue of an Absolute sale of Land dated December 10, 1985. 9
In 1997, petitioners filed the complaint a quo for annulment of title, issuance of an OCT, reconveyance of ownership, damages and attorney's fees against the Spouses Macatangay, Rosario and Lourdes. Petitioners essentially alleged that Lucio and Leonor never sold either the entire or any portion of Lot No. 988.
At the trial, petitioners presented in evidence Decree No. 1170 covering Lot No. 988. On the other hand, Lourdes presented the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 between Lucio and Higino over Lot No. 988-B; the extrajudicial settlement between the heirs of Higino; and the Absolute Sale of Land dated December 10, 1986 between her and the heirs of Higino. For her part, Rosario presented the document dated September 15, 1945 executed by Lucio in favor of Francisco; the consularized SPA executed by the Spouses Macatangay in favor of Flordeliz; and the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 6, 1983 executed by Flordeliz in favor of the Spouses Alcaide. 10
On August 14, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision dismissing petitioners' complaint. In reaching its conclusion, the RTC gave weight to the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 between Lucio and Higino as an ancient document as proof that Lucio indeed disposed of the property. It observed that the fact that Lourdes was in possession of said Document of Sale as one of Higino's muniments of title shows that ownership over the property had indeed been transferred from Lucio to Higino and later on to Lourdes. It further observed that petitioners are guilty of laches for failure to recover the property for over sixty-eight (68) years. 11
The RTC further reasoned that even assuming the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 was void, such may become the root of a valid title if the Certificate of Title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. Finally, the RTC regarded respondents as buyers in good faith, particularly respondent Rosario who acquired Lot No. 988-A-2 at a time it was already covered by TCT No. RT-89 (1571). 12 DETACa
Consequently, petitioners appealed to the CA. Petitioners argued that the Document of Sale dated April 14, 1938 is inadmissible in evidence as an ancient document as it appears to have been torn in several places and pages. They also emphasized that at the time of the execution of the sale, i.e., on April 4, 1938, Lucio was not yet the owner of the property as the decree covering the same was issued only on June 28, 1948. Petitioners further argued that they are not guilty of laches and that respondents cannot be regarded as buyers in good faith because Lourdes did not rely on a certificate of title covering the lot when she bought it as no such title exists at that time and because the SPA authorizing Flordeliz to sell the property to Rosario does not appear to be authentic.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA dismissed the appeal. The CA held that the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 is admissible in evidence not as an ancient document but as a notarized document. It also noted that petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie facts stated in the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 between Lucio and Higino and in the Deed of Sale dated September 15, 1945 between Lucio and Francisco. As such, the CA regarded both documents as evidencing the conveyance of the subject property.
The CA likewise upheld the RTC's finding that Lourdes and Rosario were buyers in good faith. The CA observed that when Lourdes bought the property, all the documents evidencing the ownership of the sellers were turned over to her, including the notarized Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938. With respect to the sale of the property to Rosario, the CA observed that Flordeliz was duly authorized to sell Lot No. 988-A-2 as the SPA was acknowledged by the Spouses Macatangay and annotated on TCT No. RT-89 (1571). The CA also upheld the validity of the Deed of Sale dated September 15, 1945 despite the lack of Leonor's consent as such is not required under the Spanish Civil Code. In any case, the CA held that Rosario is a purchaser in good faith because at the time of the sale she had no notice that some other person has a right or interest over Lot No. 988-A-2.
As regards petitioners' argument that Lucio cannot validly sell the property on April 4, 1938, or at a time when the decree was yet to issue in his name, the CA, citing Llacer v. Muñoz de Bustillo and Achaval, 13 ruled that the subsequent issuance of the decree of registration on June 28, 1948 would have the effect of making the conveyance in favor of Higino valid.
The Issues
Petitioners now come to fore ascribing error on the part of the CA when it: (a) admitted in evidence the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938; (b) found Lourdes to be a buyer in good faith; (c) upheld the authority of Lucio to sell the property sans Leonor's consent; and (d) held as valid Lucio's sale of the property even at a time when ownership over the same has yet to be vested in him.
The Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition.
Petitioners seek a reconveyance of the subject property which appears to have been sold some sixty-eight (68) years ago by their predecessor-in-interest, Lucio. Despite the transfer of the subject property as evinced by transfer certificates of title issued in the names of respondents as present owners, petitioners insist that the sale executed by Lucio is void principally for three reasons: one, that respondents are not buyers in good faith; two, that the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 which caused the transfer of Lot No. 988-B from Lucio to Higino is void because Lucio was not yet the owner of the property at the time the sale was made; and three, the sale of the subject of property is void for lack of Leonor's consent.
These contentions fail to persuade.
To begin with, the resolution of the present petition principally hinges on the determination of a question of fact and not of law. In particular, the ascertainment of good faith, or lack of it, and the determination of whether due diligence and prudence were exercised or not, are questions of fact. Subject only to well-defined exceptions, none of which obtains in the instant case, the settled rule is that the determination of whether or not a buyer is in good faith is outside the province of this Court to determine in a petition for review, 14 more so when the RTC and the CA are unanimous in its factual finding that respondents are buyers in good faith. Absent any circumstance requiring the overturning of the factual conclusions made by the trial court of which the CA is in complete agreement, such findings of fact should necessarily be upheld.
In support of their theory that the disposition of the subject property was void, petitioners harp on their contention that the Document of Sale dated April 4, 1938 could not have transferred the subject property, or a portion thereof, from Lucio to Higino because of the supposed "badges of fraud" surrounding its execution. However, basic is the rule that fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 15 Petitioners' evidence, consisting plainly of their allegations and bare denials, is not even preponderant and thus cannot prevail over respondents' documentary evidence. aDSIHc
Petitioners merely point to the fact that the decree of registration covering the subject property was issued only in 1948 whereas the Document of Sale over Lot No. 988-B was executed earlier, or in 1938. Such lone circumstance, however, is insufficient to invalidate the sale as the Civil Code itself recognizes a sale where the goods are to be acquired by the seller after the perfection of the contract of sale, which implies that a sale is in fact possible even if the seller was not the owner at the time of the sale, provided he acquires title to the property later on. 16 On the other hand, the sale of Lot No. 988-B from Lucio to Francisco was made in 1945, or well after the court's order dated August 23, 1941, ordering the issuance of a decree of registration, was rendered.
Petitioners finally argue that Lucio's sale of the subject property without Leonor's consent is void. Again, the question of whether Leonor consented to the sale is factual in nature, generally not cognizable in the present petition. In any case, the Court finds no reason to disturb the CA's ruling on this matter. As aptly observed by the CA, it appears that when Lucio executed the Document of Sale in 1938, disposing a portion of Lot No. 988 later on to be known as Lot No. 988-B, he was not yet married to Leonor, their marriage having been celebrated only in 1939. As such, Lucio could not have been expected to secure Leonor's consent at that time.
What is more, it appears that the subject property was acquired before August 30, 1950 when the new Civil Code took effect. Accordingly, Article 1413 of the old Spanish Civil Code applies which authorizes the husband to alienate conjugal partnership property for valuable consideration without the wife's consent. At any rate, even under the new Civil Code, contracts alienating conjugal real property without the wife's consent are not void but are merely voidable. Only the wife can ask to annul a contract that disposes conjugal real property without her consent which she must do during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction. In this case, the complaint a quo, which ostensibly does not include a relief for annulment of the sales made by Lucio, was filed only in 1997. Should the wife fail to exercise such right, she or the heirs can only demand the value of the property but must nevertheless prove that the same was fraudulently alienated by the husband. As earlier observed, petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving that Lucio fraudulently alienated the subject property. Consequently, the documents of sale stand.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 17, 2012 and Resolution dated March 6, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88515 which denied petitioners' appeal are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as "Flordeliz" in other parts of the rollo.
* Also spelled as "Alcayde" in other parts of the rollo.
1. Rollo, pp. 10-35.
2. Id. at 36-52.
3. Id. at 53-54.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
5. Penned by Judge Ruben A. Galvez.
6. Rollo, p. 87.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 37-38.
10. Id. at 40.
11. Id. at 40-41.
12. Id. at 42.
13. 12 Phil. 328, 334 (1908) cited in Pisueña v. Heirs of Petra Unating, 313 SCRA 384, 400 (1999).
14. Sigaya v. Mayuga, 504 Phil. 600, 613-614 (2005).
15. Maestrado v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 418, 435 (2000); Loyola v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 171, 183 (2000).
16. Nool and Almojera v. Court of Appeals, 342 Phil. 106, 117 (1997).