FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207956. April 16, 2018.]
BRIDIANA DELAYCO PALENCIA AND ARTURO DELAYCO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LAWFUL HEIRS, NAMELY: LORETA DELAYCO, RICHARD DELAYCO, RENATO DELAYCO, RAMIL DELAYCO, MARY LONE JAY DELAYCO, RODIELYN DELAYCO, MATAHUM DELAYCO ARRIETA, GEOFREY DELAYCO, AND FERNANDO DELAYCO, petitioners,vs. ESTELA B. ARTICULO, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HER LAWFUL HEIRS WHO ARE JULIO G. ARTICULO AND ELEANORE JOY B. ARTICULO, AND JULIO ARTICULO, SHEILA BANTIGUE, JOSE TUANDA, PERRY BANTIGUE, JANETTE BANTIGUE AND EDMUND BANTIGUE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 16, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207956 (Bridiana Delayco Palencia and Arturo Delayco, as substituted by his lawful heirs, namely: Loreta Delayco, Richard Delayco, Renato Delayco, Ramil Delayco, Mary Lone Jay Delayco, Rodielyn Delayco, Matahum Delayco Arrieta, Geofrey Delayco, and Fernando Delayco v. Estela B. Articulo, as substituted by her lawful heirs who are Julio G. Articulo and Eleanore Joy B. Articulo, and Julio Articulo, Sheila Bantigue, Jose Tuanda, Perry Bantigue, Janette Bantigue and Edmund Bantigue)
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 assails the April 27, 2009 Decision 2 and May 24, 2013 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 01720. The CA Decision reversed the September 28, 2006 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 36, in Civil Case No. 13070 for Quieting of Title and Damages, ruling in favor of the respondents.
The Facts
The subject matter of this case are Lots 501-C and 501-D situated in Looc, Dumaguete City. The lots form part of Lot 501, registered under TCT No. T-755 5 in the name of Spouses Gaudencio Delayco (Gaudencio) and Lucia Amigo (Lucia).
Gaudencio and Lucia are the parents of Bridiana Delayco Palencia (Bridiana), Arturo Delayco (Arturo), Rodulfo Delayco (Rodulfo), 6 and Herminigildo Delayco (Herminigildo). Upon the death of Gaudencio and Lucia, a case for partition was filed by Rodulfo and Herminigildo against their siblings, Arturo and Bridiana (collectively petitioners). 7 As a result, an Order 8 of partition was issued on May 27, 1987 whereby Lot 501 was divided into four. Lot 501-A was assigned to Bridiana, Lot 501-B was assigned to Arturo, Lot 501-C was assigned to Rodulfo, and Lot 501-D was assigned to Herminigildo. SDHTEC
Through the Deed of Absolute Sale 9 dated August 1, 1989, Rodulfo sold Lot 501-C to Estela B. Articulo (Estela), Julio Articulo, Sheila Bantigue-Tuanda (Sheila), Perry Bantigue, and Edmund Bantigue (collectively respondents). On the same date, Herminigildo sold Lot 501-D to the same vendees. 10 Thereafter, respondents fenced the property, filled it with soil, planted kangkong, gathered coconuts and leased some portions to third persons. Sheila built a house on Lot 501-C in 1996 and resided therein. Lot 501-D was traversed and used by the City Government of Dumaguete to construct a barangay road after Estela's consent was secured on October 20, 1997. 11
Apparently, the owner's duplicate original copy of TCT No. T-755 was missing because, simultaneous to the August 1, 1989 sale, Rodulfo and Herminigildo executed an Affidavit of Loss, 12 preparatory to a case for reconstitution thereof. The Petition for Reconstitution of Lost Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-755, docketed as Cadastral Case No. 772, was granted on September 25, 1989. 13 Estela then left for the United States. Hence, the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale and the order granting reconstitution of lost title were not immediately presented for registration.
Meanwhile, Rodulfo died on October 20, 1992 and Herminigildo died on November 3, 1995. 14 According to petitioners, Lots 501-C and 501-D were sold by the heirs of Rodulfo and Herminigildo to Arturo on September 27, 2001, via deeds of extrajudicial settlement of their respective estates and sale. 15 Petitioners also claim that they have been in possession of the entire Lot 501 by virtue of an oral agreement with Rodulfo and Herminigildo, and subsequently, with the latters' heirs.
When Estela returned to the Philippines on October 23, 2001, she presented the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale 16 and the September 25, 1989 Order, 17 granting reconstitution of lost title for registration before the Register of Deeds, Dumaguete City. Estela discovered that Bridiana had also executed an Affidavit of Loss and had filed a case for issuance of a new duplicate owner's copy of TCT No. T-755. 18 Bridiana's petition, docketed as Cadastral Pleading No. 2654, was granted by the court on October 5, 2001 and became final on October 22, 2001. 19
Estela demanded that the duplicate owner's copy of TCT No. T-755 be delivered to her so that her particular claim over Lots 501-C and 501-D be registered. Petitioners refused, claiming ownership and redemption over the subject lots. Hence, on November 22, 2001, respondents filed the instant case to remove the cloud cast upon their ownership and possession of Lots 501-C and 501-D. 20 AScHCD
On September 28, 2006, the RTC dismissed respondents' Complaint. 21 It found suspicious the presence of two other sets of deeds of sale, respectively dated July 1, 1988 22 and July 2, 2001, 23 involving the same parties (Rodulfo and Herminigildo as vendors and respondents as vendees) over the same subject lots. The documents were attached to an application for a fencing permit made in the name of Estela, and offered by petitioners to show that the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale were simulated, in light of the vendors having been dead when the July 2, 2001 deeds of sale were purportedly executed. 24 The RTC treated the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale as part of a fraudulent scheme to acquire the subject lots in view of the defective July 1, 1988 and July 2, 2001 documents. It opined that, had respondents been relying in good faith on the August 1, 1989 sale documents, then there could have been no other sale documents between the same parties over the same subject matter.
When respondents appealed 25 the dismissal of their complaint, the CA found merit in their assertion of ownership over the subject lots. The CA ruled that the respondents can validly rely on their August 1, 1989 deeds of sale as showing the true intent of Rodulfo and Herminigildo to convey to them the subject lots, notwithstanding the July 1, 1988 and July 2, 2001 sale documents in question.
While the signatures of the vendors and witnesses on the July 1, 1988 sale documents were not shown to be forgeries, these were not signed by the respondents as vendees. The CA concluded that the parties had foregone with the July 1, 1988 documents, since the subdivision plan 26 was only approved on July 28, 1988 after the partition. Simply stated, no contract of sale was finalized at this point because there were other documents that were not yet secured by the vendors.
Anent the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale relied upon by the respondents, CA observed that these appeared to be complete, including the title number and subdivision plan. These were duly signed by both parties and the signatures were not in question. Said documents also stated that notice was given to possible redemptioners. Thus, the CA considered these as the documents whereby the parties intended to be bound by their transaction. The CA deduced this intent by the vendors' simultaneous execution of an affidavit of loss of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-755 and subsequent institution of a case for the issuance thereof.
As to the July 2, 2001 documents, the CA ruled that while these are undoubtedly forgeries and appear to have been used to secure a fencing permit, Estela was not in the Philippines at the time of its filing. caITAC
On the other hand, the CA found that the respective deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estates and sale, both dated September 27, 2001, between Rodulfo and Herminigildo's heirs and Arturo, were executed after no settlement was reached in the barangay, in a land dispute case filed by Bridiana to redeem the property from Estela. 27 It concluded that the deeds were undertaken after the offer of redemption was not accepted.
Applying the principle of "nemo dat quod non habet" or no one can give what one does not have, the CA ruled that the heirs of Rodulfo and Herminigildo could not have validly sold the subject lots on September 27, 2001 to Arturo, as these had already been sold by Rodulfo and Herminigildo to the respondents. Consequently, the CA disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this appeal is GRANTED.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 36, Dumaguete City in Civil Case No. 13070 for Quieting of Title and Damages dated September 28, 2006 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring plaintiffs-appellants to be the owners of Lot 501-C and 501-D having acquired the same through a Deed of Sale executed by Rodulfo Delayco dated August 1, 1989 and Deed of Sale executed by Herminigildo Delayco dated August 1, 1989, respectively;
2. Declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Rodulfo Delayco with Sale dated September 27, 2001 in favor of Arturo Delayco as null and void;
3. Declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Herminigildo Delayco with Sale dated September 27, 2001 in favor of Arturo Delayco as null and void;
4. Directing defendants-appellees to produce and deliver the owner's copy of TCT No. T-755 so that the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants will be registered and be issued separate titles after payment of the proper fees therefore (sic); and
5. Directing defendants-appellees to pay plaintiffs-appellants the sum of Php100,000.00 as moral damages, Php20,000.00 attorney[']s fees plus Php10,000.00 as litigation expenses.
The counterclaims are dismissed for being unfounded.
Costs against defendants-appellees.
SO ORDERED. 28 ICHDca
Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration 29 was denied by the CA for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition.
The Issue
The core issue of the case is who owns the two parcels of land in litigation.
According to petitioners, the CA erred because the presence of three documents of sale with the same vendors and vendees over the same subject matter constitutes badges of fraud that necessarily makes the sale void. 30 They also argue that the CA erred in concluding that Estela was the owner of the property for having executed the consent of the right of way for the construction of a barangay road over a portion of the subject lots. 31
The Court's Ruling
Resolving the issues raised by petitioners clearly entails reviewing the factual determinations of the CA. While settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law are the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari in this Court, 32 this rule has recognized exceptions, 33 to wit:
It bears emphasizing that mere disagreement between the Court of Appeals and the trial court as to the facts of a case does not of itself warrant this Court's review of the same. It has been held that the doctrine that the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals, being conclusive in nature, are binding on this Court, applies even if the Court of Appeals was in disagreement with the lower court as to the weight of evidence with a consequent reversal of its findings of fact, so long as the findings of the Court of Appeals are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence. 34
In this case, petitioners failed to show that the CA misapprehended or manifestly overlooked certain pieces of evidence. The CA's findings and conclusions are borne out of the evidence on record.
The mere presence of the July 1, 1988 and July 2, 2001 deeds of absolute sale does not detract from the presumed validity of the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale relied upon by the respondents. The August 1, 1989 deeds may and should be taken independently of the two other sets of deeds.
For context, the petitioners offered in evidence the defective deeds to support their theory that these provide badges of simulation that should attach to the August 1, 1989 documents. While respondents did subsequently aver that the defective deeds were falsified, 35 it was in counter-argument that such falsification was caused by petitioners.
Estela made no admission of having simulated the July 1, 1988 deeds of sale. She simply said that these were not the documents of sale petitioners relied upon. 36 When Estela was questioned about the July 2, 2001 documents, she also denied the said documents. Although she went on to state that the July 2, 2001 documents were falsified, the assertion was again in the context of her alleging that petitioners — not respondents — caused the preparation of the spurious documents. 37 As correctly observed by the CA, the author of the July 2, 2001 deeds of sale was not conclusively established. 38 TCAScE
Petitioners also harp on the Right of Way Consent 39 signed by Estela for the construction of a barangay road over a portion of the subject lots, as not being the original document itself. However, the records indicate that it was a certified true copy of the original. 40 At any rate, the right of way consent is not the focal point of the inquiry but the contents of the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale.
In sum, this Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA in ruling that the August 1, 1989 deeds of sale entered into by Rodulfo and Herminigildo with respondents must be respected. The said documents were not shown to be defective. Bolstering this is the preponderant evidence revealing the intention of Rodulfo and Herminigildo to sell their respective shares from their parents' property. They initiated the action for partition against their siblings, Bridiana and Arturo, after the death of their parents. Simultaneous with the sale on August 1, 1989, they executed an affidavit of loss of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-755, which was inscribed on the copy with the Register of Deeds on August 3, 1989.
Finally, the land dispute case in the barangay, filed by Bridiana to redeem the property from Estela, prior to the September 27, 2001 sale by Rodulfo and Herminigildo's heirs to Arturo, suggests that petitioners had prior knowledge of respondents' interest in the property. The same amounts to bad faith on the part of petitioners. Where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest that was unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. 41
Heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest. 42 The CA was correct in concluding that Rodulfo and Herminigildo's heirs could no longer convey to their uncle Arturo what they did not have.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated April 27, 2009 and Resolution dated May 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01720 are hereby AFFIRMED. ITAaHc
SO ORDERED."Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 40-70.
2.Id. at 9-26, penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Rodil V. Zalameda.
3.Id. at 27-29, penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan.
4.Id. at 392-406, penned by Judge Cesar Manuel U. Cadiz, Jr.
5.Id. at 445-447.
6. Referred to as "Rodolfo" in some documents.
7.Rollo, pp. 187-188; 316-318.
8.Id. at 312-315.
9.Id. at 319.
10.Id. at 320.
11.Id. at 376.
12.Id. at 361.
13.Id. at 379-380.
14.Id. at 344-345.
15.Id. at 173-175; 184-186.
16.Id. at 319-320.
17.Id. at 379-380.
18.Id. at 446-A.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 306-309; 348-354.
21.Id. at 392-406.
22.Id. at 336-337; 340-341.
23.Id. at 193-194.
24.Id. at 160-162.
25.Id. at 412.
26.Id. at 390.
27.Id. at 211-212; 322.
28.Id. at 25-26.
29.Id. at 94-109.
30.Id. at 56; 59.
31.Id. at 66.
32.The Estate of Pedro C. Gonzales and Heirs of Pedro C. Gonzales v. The Heirs of Marcos Perez, 620 Phil. 47, 59 (2009).
33. (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. [Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 182-183 (2016)]
34. Id. at 188.
35. Rollo, p. 422.
36. Id. at 470.
37. Id. at 473.
38. Id. at 24.
39. Id. at 376.
40. Id. at 500.
41. Heirs of the late Joaquin Limense v. Rita vda. de Ramos, et al., 619 Phil. 592, 608 (2009).
42. Naranja, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 603 Phil. 779, 790 (2009).