THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 259551. September 12, 2022.]
SALVACION C. LUNA, petitioner, vs. JAIME CAPUZ CAMBARE, AMELIA CAMBARE VIÑAS and LIDWINA CAMBARE RENEGADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 12, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 259551 (Salvacion C. Luna v. Jaime Capuz Cambare, Amelia Cambare Viñas and Lidwina Cambare Renegado). — At the hub of this Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 are the Decision2 dated 14 October 2020 and the Resolution3 dated 21 February 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108884, which affirmed with modification the Decision 4 dated 28 December 2016 and the Order 5 dated 9 March 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15 of Tabaco City, Albay, in that the awards of moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses were deleted; and denied petitioner Salvacion C. Luna's Motion for Partial Reconsideration 6 thereof, respectively. In turn, the RTC declared the Deed of Cession dated 7 April 1958 as null and void; and ordered petitioner, along with Moises Cansilao (Cansilao) and Eduviges C. Conde (Conde), to deliver the possession of the disputed portion of Lot No. 3963 to respondents Jaime Capuz Cambare, Amelia Cambare Viñas, and Lidwina Cambare Renegado as the rightful owners and possessors thereof. 7
After an assiduous evaluation of the records, the Court resolves to deny the instant Petition for want of merit.
Preveniently, it must be emphasized that petitioner's contentions are mere reiterations of her previous arguments before the RTC and the CA, which were already thoroughly evaluated and passed upon. Likewise, petitioner raises questions of fact by beseeching the Court to review the factual findings of the RTC and the CA with respect to Ambrosio's signature on the Deed of Cession. In this regard, it is axiomatic that the Court is not a trier of facts and that petitions for review on certiorari are limited only to questions of law save in exceptional circumstances, 8 which do not obtain in this case.
Just the same, the Court concurs with the CA that respondents have sufficiently established that the Deed of Cession was spurious by proffering the following documents bearing Ambrosio's signature specimens: (1) Certificate of Live Birth of Maria Cambare; (2) Certificate of Live Birth of Ambrosio Cambare, Jr.; (3) Certificate of Live Birth of Efren Cambare; (4) Tax Declarations; (5) Deed of Absolute Sale of a Portion of Lot 3964, CAD-249 Manilao Cadastre dated 29 November 1989; and (6) "Motion Ex Parte." 9 To this end, respondents were competent to testify on the authenticity of Ambrosio's signature under Section 22, 10 Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, having seen their father affix it on various documents and on separate occasions. Furthermore, petitioner's asseveration that the foregoing documentary evidence should be disregarded for having been executed several years from the execution of the Deed of Cession in 1958, 11 relying on Jimenez, et al. v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA, 12 deserves scant consideration. In the said case, the CA made its independent conclusion therein that there was nothing irregular in the signature on the questioned document and overturned the RTC's findings that the signature was genuine. In the case at bench, the CA affirmed the RTC's conclusion that Ambrosio's signature in the subject Deed was forged. Hence, the case is inapplicable to bolster petitioner's avowal.
In sooth, the only evidence presented by petitioner, Cansilao and Conde before the RTC to prove the verity of the Deed of Cession was Tax Declaration No. 10993. 13 Contrastingly, respondents presented Original Certificate of Title No. P-25048 which shows that Ambrosio was the registered owner of Lot No. 3963, covering the contested plot of land. 14 It is settled that the certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant or patent involving public lands is as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued to private lands in the ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings. It is not subject to collateral attack. 15 Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by it ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance of such patent. 16 Besides, the said certificate, as compared to a mere deed evidencing a contract of sale or any other private document, is still the best evidence of ownership over registered land. 17
Contrary to petitioner's insistence, the Deed of Cession is not an ancient document. An ancient document is one that is (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper custody, and (3) unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion. 18 Also, it bears stressing that not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Since in the case at bench, there is suspicion on the deed's authenticity, the third element of the ancient document rule is wanting. 19
Even petitioner's claim of open, continuous, adverse, and uninterrupted possession of the contested lot due to payment of real property taxes since 1962 is unavailing. 20 It has been consistently held by this Court that tax declarations are merely indicia of a claim of ownership and are not considered conclusive evidence of ownership. 21
Besides, the fact that such Deed of Cession was notarized is immaterial. 22 While notarized documents are accorded evidentiary weight as regards their due execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity, this presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. 23
Here, both the RTC and the CA analogously concluded that the said Deed was forged. On this score, findings of fact made by a trial court are accorded the highest degree of respect by an appellate tribunal and, absent a clear disregard of the evidence before it that can otherwise affect the results of the case, those findings should not simply be ignored. There being no clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness committed on the part of the lower court, its findings of facts are binding and conclusive upon the Court. 24 Perforce, the abovementioned asseverations of petitioner fail to sway this Court.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-34.
2.Id. at 36-51. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Carlito B. Calpatura.
3.Id. at 53-57. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Carlito B. Calpatura.
4.Id. at 291-322. Penned by Presiding Judge Alben Casimiro Rabe.
5.Id. at 323-326.
6.Id. at 345-351.
7.Id. at 321.
8. See Villoria v. Heirs of Gaetos, G.R. No. 206240, 12 May 2021.
9.Rollo, pp. 16-17.
10.Section 22.How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he or she has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his or hers upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
11.Id. at 24.
12. 432 Phil. 895-912 (2002).
13.Id. at 47-48.
14.Id. at 48.
15. See Republic v. Bellate, 716 Phil. 60-74 (2013).
16.Id.
17. See Heirs of Spouses Ramirez v. Abon, G.R. 222916, 24 July 2019.
18.See Cequena v. Bolante, 386 Phil. 419-431 (2000).
19.Id.
20.Rollo, pp. 26-27.
21. See Heirs of Casiño, Sr. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 204052-53, 11 March 2020.
22.Rollo, p. 25.
23. See Heirs of Trazona v. Heirs of Cañada, 723 Phil. 388-400 (2013).
24. See Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172-186 (2017).