FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224136. November 21, 2018.]
HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES JUAN F. COLOMA AND JULIANA PARAZO, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES AMANDO MEREDOR, SR. AND DIONISIA MEREDOR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 21, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224136 (Heirs of the Late Spouses Juan F. Coloma and Juliana Parazo v. Spouses Amando Meredor, Sr. and Dionisia Meredor.).
For resolution by the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its Resolution 3 dated April 6, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98364. The said Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision 4 dated January 24, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68, in Civil Case No. 07-36, insofar as it dismissed the complaint of the Heirs of the Late Spouses Juan F. Coloma and Juliana Parazo (petitioners) for recovery of ownership and possession.
The Factual Antecedents
The instant controversy involves a one (1)-hectare parcel of land in Villa Aglipay, San Jose, Tarlac (subject land), which is a portion of Lot No. 5788-C with an area of 16,559 square meters. The subject land is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 47452 of the Register of Deeds (RD) of the Province of Tarlac registered in the name of Juan F. Coloma (Juan) married to Juliana Parazo (Juliana), collectively referred to as spouses Coloma. 5 Juan and Juliana were married on March 12, 1954. 6 Juliana and Juan died intestate on August 17, 2006 and August 26, 2006, respectively. 7
During the subsistence of their marriage, or on July 31, 2002, TCT No. 47452 was cancelled on the basis of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 23, 1979 (1979 Deed of Absolute Sale) wherein Juan apparently sold the one (1)-hectare portion of Lot No. 5788-C to the spouses Amando Meredor, Sr. and Dionisia Meredor (respondents) for a consideration of P2,000. TCT No. 357913 was then issued to the respondents on the same day. However, it also appears that Juan executed three other Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of the respondents covering the same parcel of land, as follows: (1) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 27, 1997 for P70,000; (2) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 27, 1997 for P100,000 (collectively, 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale); and (3) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 24, 2002 for P70,000 (2002 Deed of Absolute Sale). 8 acEHCD
On August 31, 2007, petitioners filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership/Possession and Annulment of Title and Documents against respondents alleging that Juan did not sell the subject land to respondents, and if ever he did, the sale is void for being without the conformity of Juliana. They also alleged that the 2002 Deed of Absolute Sale is void since the signatures of the spouses Coloma therein were forged, and such forgery is strengthened by the execution of two other deeds of absolute sale covering the same subject land as both deeds bear the same document number, page number, book number and series, under the same notary public, same date but entirely different witnesses. 9
In their Answer, respondents averred that the subject land was sold to them by Juan during his lifetime, as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 27, 1997, notarized by Atty. Conrado T. Quiaoit. They claimed that Juan did not need the consent of his wife Juliana to sell the subject land as the same was his capital property, having been inherited from his parents. 10
During trial, petitioners' counsel manifested that the 2002 Deed of Absolute Sale referred to in the complaint should be the 1979 Deed of Sale which was actually used to cause the transfer of title to the respondents. 11
Petitioners presented the testimony of Nelson Nulud (Nelson), the RD's OIC-Assistant Records Officer. Nelson testified that the subject land was previously covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1820 issued in the name of Cosme Coloma, which was cancelled by virtue of a Deed of Succession. Thereafter, TCT No. 47448 was issued in lieu of OCT No. 1820, but Nelson could not identify the registered owner under the said TCT. Thereafter, TCT No. 47448 was canceled by TCT No. 47449 issued to the heirs of Cosme, namely: Severa Ruban (Severa) (with 1/7 share); Juan, married to Juliana (with 1/7 share); and Jose Coloma (Jose) (with 5/7 share). TCT No. 47449 was cancelled by virtue of an Agreement of Subdivision between Severa, Juan, and Jose which became the basis for the issuance of TCT Nos. 47450-52, TCT No. 47452 having been issued to Juan married to Juliana. 12
Petitioners also presented the testimonies of Marcela Reyes (Marcela), Juan's daughter, and Juanito Reyes (Juanito), Juan's son-in-law. Marcela testified that her father did not sell the subject land but merely mortgaged the same to the respondents. She also testified that in the several cases between Juliana and Marcela against the respondents which arose after the latter entered the subject land, Juan sided with the respondents. 13 Juanito corroborated Marcela's testimony as to the filing of several cases over the subject land, and testified that none of the cases were filed by Juan and the latter even participated in the proceedings as respondents' witness against Juliana. 14
On the other hand, respondent Dionisia Meredor (Dionisia) testified that she and her husband bought the subject land from Juan for a total of P170,000. She claimed that Juan executed in their favor a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 27, 1997 for a price of P70,000 witnessed by Maximo Manaois and Benjamin Facun, Sr. (Benjamin) in the office of Atty. Quiaoit. However, Juan requested for another Deed of Absolute Sale for a price of P100,000 which was witnessed by two secretaries of Atty. Quiaoit in order to expedite the process of transferring the title. Dionisia denied having knowledge of the same document number, page number, and date of execution of the two 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale as it was Juan who facilitated the transfer of the title in her and her husband's name and was the one who gave them the owner's copy of TCT No. 357913. She denied any participation in the execution of the 1979 and the 2002 Deeds of Absolute Sale. 15
Benjamin testified that he acted as witness for the first February 27, 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale for a price of P70,000, and that the second February 27, 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale for a price of P100,000 was executed in order to reduce taxes. 16
The Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision dated January 24, 2012, the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68, dismissed the complaint. It held that sale of the subject land by Juan to the respondents was valid notwithstanding the absence of Juliana's consent. It ruled that the subject land was Juan's separate and exclusive property since it was clearly shown in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1820 and its inscription/annotation, TCT No. 47449 and TCT No. 47452 that Juan inherited the same as a compulsory heir of Cosme, the original owner. Being such, it is an exclusive property of Juan under Article 109 of the Family Code, despite the words "married to Juliana Parazo" in TCT No. 47452, which the court held as merely descriptive of Juan's civil status. The RTC also upheld the validity of the sale despite the use of seemingly irregular deeds of sale, and noted that during his lifetime, Juan did not seek to nullify the said sale to the respondents and even sided with the latter in several cases filed by the petitioners against the respondents. 17 HSAcaE
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above-entitled case is hereby Dismissed.
Defendants' counterclaim for damages is likewise dismissed for not being substantiated by adequate proofs.
SO ORDERED. 18
Petitioners then filed an appeal before the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated July 31, 2015, the appellate court denied petitioners' appeal. It affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the subject land is the exclusive property of Juan, and as such he did not need the consent of Juliana in order to sell the same to the respondents. The CA ruled that the said Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and falsified on the basis of Dionisia's testimony that she did not see nor participate in the execution of the said 1979 Deed of Sale. 19
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The January 24, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Camiling, Tarlac, in Civil Case No. 07-36 is AFFIRMED insofar as it dismissed plaintiffs-appellants Heirs of Spouses Juan F. Coloma and Juliana Parazo's complaint for recovery of ownership and possession. The July 23, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale and the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title No. 357913 in the names of Spouses Amando Meredor, Sr. and Dionisia Meredor are declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of Tarlac is DIRECTED to cancel TCT No. 357913 and revive TCT No. 47452 without prejudice to Spouses Amando Meredor, Sr. and Dionisia Meredor's proper application for the issuance of a new title in their names in accordance with the procedure provided by pertinent law and upon payment of the corresponding fees and taxes.
SO ORDERED. 20
Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was denied in a Resolution 21 dated April 6, 2016.
Hence, the present petition.
The Issue
The pivotal issue that must be resolved in the present case is whether there was a valid and perfected contract of sale over the subject land between Juan and the respondents. Thus, the Court must determine whether Juan actually sold the subject land to the respondents, and if so, whether such was valid in the absence of Juliana's consent.
The Ruling of the Court
Preliminarily, since there were multiple Deeds of Absolute Sale between Juan and the respondents involving the subject land which were executed on different dates with different stated consideration, the Court deems to determine first which among these instruments is the basis of respondents' claim of ownership over the subject land, for this will also determine which between the Civil Code or Family Code provisions on conjugal partnership of gains shall apply to the transaction in the case at bar.
To recapitulate, the CA ruled that the respondents owned the subject land on the basis of the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale. However, it declared as null and void TCT No. 357913, which was issued in the name of the respondents, since the said TCT was issued by virtue of the 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale. The CA ruled that the said 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale was simulated and falsified on the basis of Dionisia's testimony that she did not see nor participate in the execution of the said Deed. 22 We do not find any cogent reason to disturb this finding by the CA considering that Dionisia herself testified that she did not see nor had any participation in the 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale or in the 2002 Deed of Sale. 23 Thus, this Court will resolve the validity of the sale of the subject land in the context of the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale which the CA used as basis to conclude that the respondents have acquired ownership of the same. HESIcT
It is undisputed that the spouses Coloma were married in 1954. There being no indication that they adopted a different property regime in a marriage settlement, the property regime of their marriage is conjugal partnership of gains. 24 However, this Court shall apply the pertinent provisions of the Family Code on conjugal partnership of gains considering that the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale, upon which the claim of ownership of the respondents is based, were executed after the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. Furthermore, Article 105 of the Family Code provides that "[t]he provisions of this Chapter shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256." On the other hand, Article 256 of the same Code provides that it "shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws."
In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 25 this Court held that:
[U]nder the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal, and the burden of proof is on the party claiming that they are not conjugal who must present clear and convincing evidence. This, however, is counter-balanced by the requirement that the properties must first be proven to have been acquired during the marriage before they are presumed conjugal. x x x. 26
Petitioners contend that the subject land must be presumed conjugal and the presumption stands since respondents were not able to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. To prove that the subject land was acquired during the marriage, petitioners argue that TCT No. 47452 was dated January 10, 1963. 27 We cannot sustain this contention as it has been held that "[t]he Torrens system does not create or vest title. It only confirms and records the title already existing and vested." 28 Thus, the fact that TCT No. 47452 was dated January 10, 1963 does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was in 1963 when Juan acquired the property from which the subject land is part of. Even if, for the sake of argument, the presumption applied, respondents were able to prove that the subject land was acquired through gratuitous title. Article 109 enumerates property acquired by each spouse during the marriage by gratuitous title as one of the exclusive properties of each of the spouses.
In the present case, both the RTC and CA ruled that respondents were able to prove that the subject land was Juan's exclusive property, having been acquired by him through gratuitous title. To support this conclusion, both the RTC and the CA relied on the annotations found on OCT No. 1820 and its inscription/annotation, TCT No. 47449, and TCT No. 47452. The CA, in particular, found that in OCT No. 1820, a Deed of Succession was annotated which was the basis for the cancellation of said OCT and the issuance of TCT No. 47448. The RD cancelled TCT No. 47448 and in lieu thereof issued TCT No. 47449 in the names of Severa, Juan, and Jose. TCT No. 47449 was cancelled by virtue of an Agreement of Subdivision between Severa, Juan, and Jose which became the basis for the issuance of TCT Nos. 47450-52, TCT No. 47452 having been issued to Juan married to Juliana. 29
Finally, we uphold the validity of the sale as evidenced by the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale. This Court cannot sustain petitioners' bare allegation that all the Deeds of Sale were simulated and falsified without explaining in particular how such was the case. While it is true that Dionisia denied the execution of the 1979 and 2002 Deeds of Absolute Sale, the same cannot be said of the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale. As notarized documents, they are public documents. 30 As such, the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld. 31 Petitioners' mere denial of Juan's participation in the execution of the same will not suffice. 32
As found by both the RTC and CA, the evidence presented show that Juan intended to sell the subject land to the respondents. Under Article 1371 of the New Civil Code, it is provided that "[i]n order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered." As testified to by Marcela and Juanito, Juan never questioned the transfer of the subject land during his lifetime, and in the multiple cases filed between the parties over the subject land, Juan even sided with the respondents. 33 As found by the CA, their testimonies are bereft of any indication that Juan exercised acts of dominion over the subject land from the time TCT No. 357913 was issued in the respondents' name until his death in 2006. 34 Furthermore, the difference in the stated price in the two February 27, 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale (P70,000 and P100,000) does not also render the sale invalid. Respondents' witness, Benjamin, testified that the execution of the two Deeds of Absolute Sale was for the purpose of reducing the tax liability on the transaction. 35 In fact, Dionisia testified that she and her husband bought the subject land from Juan for P170,000. 36 To reiterate, petitioners failed to prove that the 1997 Deeds of Absolute Sale were simulated or falsified. caITAC
With the foregoing discussion, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 98364 of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, J., designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018, Jardeleza, J., no part, Reyes, A. Jr., J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated November 12, 2018, Gesmundo, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-24.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla. Id. at 32-49.
3.Id. at 50-52.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo. Id. at 25-31.
5.Id. at 33.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 34.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 34.
10.Id. at 26.
11.Id. at 34.
12.Id. at 36 and 44.
13.Id. at 34-35.
14.Id. at 35.
15.Id. at 37-38.
16.Id. at 38.
17.Id. at 29-30.
18.Id. at 31.
19.Id. at 45-46.
20. Id. at 48.
21. Id. at 50-52.
22. Id. at 45-46.
23. Id. at 37-38.
24. Article 119. The future spouses may in the marriage settlements agree upon absolute or relative community of property, or upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as established in this Code, shall govern the property relations between husband and wife. (n)
25. 471 Phil. 394 (2004).
26. Id. at 411.
27. Rollo, p. 14.
28. Sps. Santiago v. CA, 343 Phil. 612, 623 (1997).
29. Rollo, pp. 36, 43 and 44.
30. Section 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to the entered therein.
All other writings are private. (Emphasis ours)
31. Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 1161, 1169 (2000).
32. Id. at 48.
33. Rollo, pp. 26, 35.
34. Id. at 46-47.
35. Id. at 47.
36. Id. at 38.