THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228665. April 26, 2017.]
HEIRS OF PURIFICACION SALVA, represented by JULIETA SALVA-PLATON, petitioners,vs. RAMON A. VALLEJERA and CHARLENE VALLEJERA EMBORGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2017, which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 228665 — HEIRS OF PURIFICACION SALVA, represented by JULIETA SALVA-PLATON, Petitioners, v. RAMON A. VALLEJERA and CHARLENE VALLEJERA EMBORGO, Respondents. — The Court NOTES petitioner's compliance with the Resolution dated January 25, 2017, submitting an affidavit of personal service upon the Court of Appeals and respondents of a copy of the motion for extension to file petition for review on certiorari and the portable document format file of the said motion for extension.
This appeal is taken from the decision promulgated on October 21, 2016, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision rendered on August 21, 2014 in favor of the respondents by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. 2012-002, an action for quieting of title initiated by the petitioners.
Antecedents
On January 3, 2012, the petitioners commenced Civil Case No. 2012-002 in the RTC against respondents Ramon A. Vallejera (Vallejera) and Charlene Vallejera Emborgo (Emborgo). They alleged that Cadastral Lot No. 6970 (subject lot) located in Molugan, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental had been declared for taxation purposes in the name of the Heirs of Silvestre Nagac (Heirs of Nagac) under Tax Declaration No. 6875 (2049); that the Heirs of Nagac had later sold the subject lot to Florentino Enerio (Enerio) as evidenced by a notarized deed of sale; that after Enerio's death in 1966, the subject lot had been transferred to his wife Leoncia Bajuyo (Bajuyo) who was issued TD No. 02-06352; that the subject lot had been eventually transferred to Purificacion Salva as the surviving heir of Enerio and Bajuyo; that Purificacion Salva had also died; that in 2003, the Heirs of Purificacion Salva had declared the subject lot for taxation purposes under TD No. 02-10006, thereby cancelling TD No. 02-06352 of Bajuyo; that in 2010, the Heirs of Purificacion Salva had executed the extra-judicial settlement of her estate, which included the subject lot with an area of 988 square meters; that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been consistently paying the real property taxes for the subject lot; that in 2011, a certain Ely Canoy had informed them that a building was being constructed on the subject lot; that upon inquiry at the Assessor's Office of El Salvador, Julieta Salva Platon (Julieta) had discovered that the subject lot had been first declared in the name of Ramon Contreras (Contreras) under TD No. 02 06560, then in the name of Roberto Peñalosa (Peñalosa) under TD No. 02 14278, and, lastly, in the name of respondent Vallejera under TD No. 02 14359; that Julieta had further discovered that Contreras had been issued Original Certification of Title (OCT) No. 8497 of the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental over the subject lot; that she had also learned that OCT No. 0-1263 of the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental had been issued to Marta Maaliao (Maaliao); that Vallejera had secured his own Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-50242 following the cancellation of Peñalosa's TCT No. T-47912; and that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject lot since 1948. 2
In their answer, the respondents insisted that the Heirs of Nagas had no right to sell or convey the subject lot because they had not been the owners of the same; that the subject lot had been already adjudicated to Maaliao in 1941, pursuant to Act No. 496; that OCT No. 0-1263 had been issued to Maaliao pursuant to Decree No. 737634; that after Maaliao's death, the subject lot had passed on to Dolores Contreras, Maaliao's daughter; that on August 21, 2007, the Heirs of Dolores Contreras, namely: Greta Contreras-Gualin and Norma Contreras-Ragandang, had executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate and Waiver of Rights whereby they had transferred their rights over the subject lot to Peñalosa, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. T-47912 to Peñalosa; that on February 7, 2008, Vellejera had bought the subject lot from Peñalosa through a loan obtained from Wealthbank; that TCT No. T-50242 was thus issued in Vellejera's name; that on November 14, 2011, Vallejera and Emborgo executed a Deed of Sale over the subject lot; and that TCT No. 136-2011000975 was issued to Emborgo.
On August 21, 2014, the RTC dismissed the complaint. 3 The RTC later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 4
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC on October 21, 2016, holding that Decree No. 737634 in the name of Maaliao and its derivative titles were valid; 5 that the petitioners herein had neither legal nor equitable title or interest over Cadastral Lot No. 6970; that the petitioners did not discharge their burden of proving that fraud had existed in the transactions; and that Vallejera and Emborgo were purchasers in good faith.
Issue
The petitioners hereby claim that the CA erred in ruling that Decree No. 737634 in the name of Maaliao and its derivative titles were valid despite the lack of approved survey and tax declarations in the name of Maaliao; that the CA erred in holding that all transactions alleged by the petitioners to have been tainted with fraud had involved the exercise of the owner's inherent right to transfer or vest ownership in other persons because such holding was contrary to existing laws and jurisprudence; and that the CA further erred in declaring Vallejera and Emborgo were purchasers in good faith.
Ruling of the Court
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioners to show thereby that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the August 21, 2014 decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 2012-002.
The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the common factual findings of the RTC and the CA to the effect that Decree No. 737634 and the titles derived therefrom were valid. There was substantial evidence on record to support their unanimous factual findings. Settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Court, as in this case. 6
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 21, 2016 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit. AcICHD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-23; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño concurring.
2.Id. at 8-10.
3.Id. at 12.
4.Id. at 35.
5.Id. at 13.
6.Givero v. Givero, G.R. No. 157476, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 479, 487.