SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226534. January 31, 2018.]
HEIRS OF THE LATE ATTY. EDILBERTO C. PAMA, SR., AND EMMA T. PAMA, petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ARNALDO AND IRENE BAUTISTA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated31 January 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 226534 (Heirs of the late Atty. Edilberto C. Pama, Sr., and Emma T. Pama vs. Heirs of the late Arnaldo and Irene Bautista, et al.). — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 filed by the heirs of the late Atty. Edilberto (Edilberto) C. Pama, Sr. and Emma (Emma) T. Pama (petitioners) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated January 8, 2016 and Resolutions dated March 17, 2016 3 and June 24, 2016 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02879-MIN.
The CA affirmed via the assailed decision the order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato upon the petitioners to vacate and turn over the subject parcel of land to the heirs of Arnaldo (Arnaldo) and Irene (Irene) Bautista, namely, Noel, Asterio, Jaime, Felicisima, John and Frevisminda, all surnamed Bautista (respondents). The assailed Resolutions, on the other hand, denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on the ground of late filing.
The Antecedents
On August 27, 2003, the respondents instituted with the RTC the action docketed as Civil Case No. 803-N, by which they sought to redeem from Edilberto the property subject of the case, particularly the parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (P-24058) P-9283 registered under the names of their late parents, Arnaldo and Irene. The land is situated in Barrio 1, Municipality of Norala, South Cotabato and has an area of nine hectares, more or less. 5
Respondents alleged that Arnaldo and Irene passed away on December 13, 1971 and November 13, 1999, respectively. Sometime in 1975, Irene mortgaged the subject property with right of usufruct to Emma, wife of Edilberto, for a consideration of P17,000.00. Seven years thereafter, in 1982, Irene sought to pay her debt and recover the land but Edilberto, whose wife Emma had already died, demanded the payment of additional amounts as interest. For Irene, the demand was contrary to her agreement with Emma. Their arrangement was that Emma would no longer charge any interest on the loan as she already exercised her rights as usufructuary over the land. Irene then failed to recover the mortgaged land from Edilberto. 6
On several instances thereafter, Irene still sought to recover the property from Edilberto but failed in her attempts. In 1983, Edilberto asked for a payment of 10% percent interest per month. In 1991, Edilberto demanded from her the amount of P70,000.00 per hectare. 7
Irene died in 1999 without effecting payment and recovery of the land, but her heirs still sought to later redeem the property from Edilberto. They brought the matter before the Lupon of Barangay Lopez Jaena, Norala, South Cotabato but after Edilberto failed to participate in the meetings, the Lupon issued on January 3, 2011 a Certification to File Action. 8 The respondents instituted Civil Case No. 803-N, indicated in the records to be an action for Redemption, Recovering of Possession, Declaration of Deed of Absolute Sale as Null and Void, Damages and Attorney's Fees as well as Cancellation of Entry Nos. 461177 to 461181, Etc. 9
Besides their assertions on Irene's mortgage to Emma and the failed attempts to pay and recover the land, the respondents alleged in their complaint that sometime in July 2003, they discovered that Edilberto caused the annotation on the subject certificate of title of a Deed of Absolute Sale that was purportedly executed by Arnaldo and Irene on February 19, 1972. Petitioners claimed that the deed was falsified, as they pointed out that: (1) the supposed signatures of Arnaldo and Irene on the deed were forged, as they were not similar to their real signatures; (2) their father Arnaldo had already died in 1971; (3) Edilberto misrepresented that he was already a widower at the time the deed was allegedly executed; and (4) the signature of Restituta Bautista, a supposed witness to the deed's execution, was likewise forged. 10
In his Answer with Counterclaim, 11 Edilberto opposed the complaint and invoked yet another document affecting the land, particularly a Deed of Sale 12 that was allegedly executed on August 26, 1975 by Irene in favor of Emma for a total consideration of P18,000.00.
The petitioners still denied the authenticity of this 1975 Deed of Sale as they claimed that the signatures appearing on the deed, allegedly of Irene and the witnesses to the deed's execution, were not genuine. 13
The Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered its decision that favored the respondents. The 1975 Deed of Sale that was invoked by Edilberto was not annotated on the certificate of title covering the subject property. What was registered with the Register of Deeds was a Deed of Sale that was purportedly executed in 1972 by Arnaldo and Irene which, in any case, was not relied upon by Edilberto and the petitioners to support their claim over the land. Still, having two deeds of conveyance over the same property only rendered doubtful the petitioners' claim that the land was sold to their predecessors. aScITE
Even granting a sale in 1975, the contract should be deemed a mere equitable mortgage under Article 1802 of the New Civil Code (NCC), given the inadequacy of the price involved, i.e., P18,000.00 for the entire nine hectares. 14 On several instances beginning 1982, Irene had in fact tried to recover the subject land but Edilberto demanded a high price therefor.
The RTC further held that by the petitioners' receipt through the years of all income from the land, the loan covered by the mortgage, including any interest that could be assessed thereon, should already be deemed fully paid. 15 Thus, the fallo of the RTC Decision 16 dated August 20, 2009 reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises all discussed and considered, the court hereby renders its decision in favor of the [respondents] and order[s] the [petitioners] to peacefully vacate and turn over the property in question to the [respondents].
The [petitioners] are further ordered to pay the [respondents] the following sums:
1) TEN THOUSAND PESOS (PH10,000.00) as actual damages; and
2) TEN THOUSAND PESOS (PH10,000.00) as reimbursement of attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 17
The petitioners' motion for reconsideration (MR) was denied in an Order 18 dated February 24, 2011. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed with modifications the RTC decision. The decretal portion of the CA Decision dated January 8, 2016 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 20 August 2009 Decision rendered by the [RTC], Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato in Civil Case No. 803-N is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1) That the award of Attorney's Fees and Actual Damages are DELETED;
2) The [respondents] are directed to return the amount of P18,000.00 to [petitioners].
SO ORDERED.19
Upon finding that Irene actually obtained the amount of P18,000.00 from Emma, the CA ordered the respondents to return the said sum to the petitioners. The awards of actual damages and attorney's fees in favor of the respondents were deleted for lack of factual bases. 20
The CA cited Edilberto's failure to refute the respondents' claim that at most, the transaction that transpired among the parties was only an equitable mortgage. 21 Respondents were also able to successfully impeach the genuineness and due execution of the 1975 Deed of Sale, upon proof that the supposed signatures of Irene and the alleged witnesses to its execution were forgeries. 22 Since the contract was spurious, no rights could accrue therefrom. It was a void contract, such that an action based thereon could not prescribe under Article 1410 of the NCC. 23
The petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the CA on the ground of late filing. The CA Resolution dated March 17, 2016 reads:
The Court RESOLVES to:
1) DENY OUTRIGHT the Motion for Reconsideration filed by [petitioners] on 10 February 2016 for being one (1) day late. Having received the copy of the Court's Decision on 25 January 2016, [petitioners] had only until 09 February 2016 within which to file their motion for reconsideration.
2) DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to ISSUE [an] Entry of Judgment pursuant to Section 3 (b), Rule IV and Section 1 (a), Rule VII of the IRCA as amended. 24
Accordingly, an Entry of Judgment indicating that the CA Decision had become final and executory on February 10, 2016 was issued by the CA also on March 17, 2016. 25
Undaunted, the petitioners filed a Manifestation/MR 26 with attached Certification 27 from the Postmaster 1 of the South Cotabato Postal District stating that the document covered by Registry Receipt No. RD513956875ZZ, which was the petitioners' MR addressed to the CA Mindanao Station, Cagayan de Oro City, was mailed on February 9, 2016. They also attached a copy of the registry receipt stamped February 9, 2016. HEITAD
On June 24, 2016, the CA issued a Resolution that merely took note of the filing of the Manifestation/MR. The fallo of the resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners'] Manifestation/Motion for Reconsideration is hereby NOTED without ACTION in view of the finality of the Court's Decision dated 8 January 2016.
SO ORDERED.28
The appellate court referred that the date stamped on the MR's envelope, which was February 10, 2016, as the date of the pleading's filing. Citing jurisprudence, the CA explained that the certification that was issued by the postmaster could not overcome the presumption of regularity in relation to such date that was stamped on the MR's envelope. 29
The Present Petition
Hence, the present petition for review. The petitioners insist that their motion for reconsideration was seasonably filed with the CA.
The Court's Ruling
The Court denies the petition.
The CA committed no reversible error in ruling that the petitioners' MR was filed out of time. It correctly considered the date of mailing stamped on the MR's envelope in determining whether or not the pleading was timely filed. When the dispute is on the date when a pleading should be deemed filed, Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court applies. It reads:
Section 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. x x x In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. (Emphasis supplied)
The petitioners' reliance on Section 12, Rule 13 30 of the Rules of Court, as they argued that the date indicated in the registry receipt and affidavit of the person who did the mailing should be controlling, was misplaced. The said provision is limited to the issue of proof of filing, which is pertinent only when a pleading claimed to have been filed personally or by registered mail is not in the records.
Given the provisions of Section 3, Rule 13, the CA then did not err in considering the date stamped on the envelope of the petitioners' MR, which was February 10, 2016, as the date of the pleading's filing. This was one day after the period allowed under the rules for the filing of the motion considering that the petitioners received the CA decision on January 25, 2016, and thus had only until February 9, 2016 within which to file a motion to reconsider. Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides that "(a) party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party." By the time the motion for reconsideration was filed on February 10, 2016, the CA decision had become final and executory which then, as a rule, barred the petitioners from further seeking a reversal or modification of the decision.
The petitioners tried to correct the CA by submitting a Certification issued by Postmaster 1 Ena D. Casa, yet even the certification failed to explain the discrepancy between the dates indicated in the envelope stamp and the registry receipt. The certification merely stated:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that Reg. # RD513956875ZZ, Bill 17, Page 1, Column 1, Line 2 address (sic) to Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station, Cagayan de Oro City was mailed on Feb. 9, 2016 respectively.
This certification is issued upon the request of ATTY. ELNATHAN SUNNY C. EMILIO for whatever legal purpose it may serve. 31
As the CA aptly explained in its Resolution dated June 24, 2016:
Indeed, while a Postmaster's Certification is considered sufficient proof of mailing, its evidentiary value must be differentiated from the situation at hand where the certification is intended to prove that the post office had committed a mistake in placing the date stamped on [petitioners'] envelope. Stated otherwise, the Postmaster's Certification is being offered to rebut or overcome the presumption that the South Cotabato Post Office regularly performed its official duties when it stamped [petitioners'] envelope with the date 10 February 2016.
As earlier stated, the Court cannot give probative weight to the Certification as the same was not executed under oath, and was not even addressed to the Court, having been issued for "whatever legal purpose it may serve." More importantly, bereft in the Certification is any reason proffered to justify or explain the inadvertence the South Cotabato Post Office may have committed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
In the absence of such, the Court, all the more, is compelled to deny it any evidentiary value. 32
Even as the Court adopts a liberal application of the rules and considers the motion for reconsideration that was filed one day late, it finds no cogent reason to reverse the CA's Decision dated January 8, 2016. ATICcS
The records support the finding that the transaction between Irene and Emma was merely a mortgage. There was no valid sale to speak of. The authenticity of the two deeds of sale dated 1972 and 1975 were satisfactorily negated by the respondents. It was established that the signatures appearing thereon were mere forgeries. The original mortgage, on the other hand, between Irene and Emma was not disputed. Petitioners failed to present persuasive reasons for the Court to now deviate from the factual findings of both the trial and appellate courts. The following considerations upon which the CA based its ruling that favored the respondents are also material:
[T]he records disclosed that Atty. Pama never exercised dominion and ownership over the property. It is worthy to restate that the [respondents'] effort to redeem the property in the years 1982 and 1983 proved unsuccessful only because of the unreasonable demands set by Atty. Pama and not by any bona fide claim of title on his part. Equally important, the records reveal that the tax declarations covering the property is still in the name of Arnaldo Bautista and the [respondents] had been paying the taxes on the property in the years 1988, 1991, 1992, 1997, 1998 and 1999.
xxx xxx xxx
In any event, when doubt exists as to the true nature of the parties' transaction, courts must construe such transaction purporting to be a sale as an equitable mortgage, as the latter involves a lesser transmission of rights and interests over the property in controversy. 33
On repeated instances, Irene and her heirs sought to pay the mortgage loan and recover the land from Edilberto. Their failure to do so was for fault or acts attributable to Edilberto. As there was also no showing that Edilberto foreclosed the mortgage that was constituted on the subject land, the petitioners could not validly claim ownership or continued possession over the property. Edilberto instead committed fraud when he caused the registration of the falsified 1972 Deed of Sale, a void contract, a matter that was discovered by the respondents only in 2003.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 8, 2016 and Resolutions dated March 17, 2016 and June 24, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02879-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-15.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring; id. at 25-40.
3.Id. at 22.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring; id. at 17-21.
5.Id. at 25-26.
6.Id. at 47-48, 52.
7.Id. at 48, 52.
8.Id. at 52-53.
9.Id. at 47.
10. Id. at 49.
11. Id. at 43-46.
12. Id. at 41.
13. Id. at 53-55.
14. Id. at 62.
15. Id. at 64.
16. Issued by Presiding Judge Roberto L. Ayco; id. at 47-65.
17. Id. at 64-65.
18. Id. at 77-79.
19. Id. at 39.
20. Id. at 38-39.
21. Id. at 31, 33.
22. Id. at 35.
23. Id. at 38.
24. Id. at 22.
25. Id. at 23.
26. Id. at 89-91.
27. Id. at 94.
28. Id. at 20.
29. Id. at 18-19.
30. Section 12.Proof of Filing. — The filing of a pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of the case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on a copy of the same; if filed by registered mail, by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not delivered. (Emphasis ours)
31. Id. at 94.
32. Id. at 20.
33. Id. at 37.