THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210624. December 10, 2018.]
ELISA INSURES SALVAÑA AND FALCONERI SIBONGHANOY, petitioners, vs.ZOSIMO LABNAO, LEONCIA M. LABNAO, JAVILLA LABNAO HERMOSO AND MANUEL CANTOS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 10, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 210624 (Elisa Insures Salvaña and Falconeri Sibonghanoy v. Zosimo Labnao, Leoncia M. Labnao, Javilla Labnao Hermoso and Manuel Cantos Development Corporation). — This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the August 31, 2012 Decision 1 and the December 4, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 01988. The CA affirmed the January 30, 2007 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 17 (RTC), in a complaint for reconveyance of real estate, declaration of nullity of extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale and certificate of title.
Antecedents
The controversy involves a parcel of land registered as Lot No. 15226-C (the subject lot), with an area of 17,530 square meters, located at Tawagan, Sirao, Cebu City. The subject lot was originally part of Lot No. 15226 (the property), covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1408, owned by the late Moises Mabini (Mabini).
When Mabini died, the property was partitioned and distributed among his heirs: respondent Leoncia Mabini Labnao (Leoncia), Nieves Mabini (Nieves), Luciano Mabini, Eustaquia Mabini, Paulina Mabini and Zoila Mabini. The subject lot was adjudicated to Nieves and was subsequently issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 7256. 4
On May 23, 1985, Nieves died. The subject lot was then passed on to her children: Elisa Insures Salvaña (Elisa), Veronica Insures Sadili (Veronica), Adela Insures Almazon (Adela), Federico Insures (Federico), Roel Insures (Roel), William Insures (William), Ronie Insures (Ronie) and Cirila Insures Kindao (Cirila) [collectively, the Insures].
In 1997, the Insures, with the exception of Cirila whose whereabouts was unknown, together with Falconeri Sibonghanoy (Sibonghanoy)5 (collectively, theplaintiffs), filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Real Estate, Declaration of Nullity of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale and Certificate of Title against Leoncia, her husband Zosimo Labnao (Zosimo), their daughter, Javilla Labnao Hermoso (Javilla), and Manuel Cantos Development Corporation (MCDC). CAIHTE
In the Complaint, 6 the plaintiffs averred that on June 4, 1987, the Insures executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of an Estate of a Deceased Person with Deed of Sale 7 wherein they adjudicated among themselves a one-eighth (1/8) portion of the subject lot. Cirila, Roel, Federico, and William had also sold, ceded, transferred, and conveyed by way of absolute and irrevocable sale their respective shares to Sibonghanoy for the amount of Sixteen Thousand Pesos (P16,000.00). Allegedly, Elisa, Veronica, Adela, and Ronie took possession of their respective shares and declared these for taxation purposes. Sibonghanoy also took possession and cultivated the portion of the subject lot sold to him. Consequently, Tax Declaration No. GR-01-013-00001 8 was issued under his name.
Elisa narrated that, on January 16, 1997, she went to the City Assessors Office to pay the real estate tax due on her share. There, she was informed that the tax declaration issued under her name had been cancelled and transferred to respondent Zosimo. Upon verification, she found out that not only her share but the entire subject lot had been transferred to Zosimo and a new title, TCT No. 7760, 9 had been issued in his name with the notation, "married to Leoncia M. Labnao." Zosimo was able to transfer the subject lot in his name by virtue of a deed of sale executed by MCDC on June 5, 1996. MCDC was also able to obtain ownership of the subject lot by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, 10 dated December 20, 1995. Subsequently, TCT No. 7566 11 was issued in MCDC's name.
Arguments of the Insures
The Insures denied selling the property to MCDC or giving consent to such transaction. They asserted that they had not received a single centavo for the purported sale. Neither had they ever appeared before a notary public to acknowledge the transaction. They recall, with regret, that sometime in the latter part of 1995, between 9 to 11 o'clock in the evening, Javilla went to the Insures' house and asked them to sign a document allegedly required to finalize their claim against one Edel Seno over another lot at Kan-irag, Sirao. Javilla's insidious machinations were done with fraud and deception after having gained the Insures' trust and confidence. She had tricked them into signing the document without reading its contents. The Insures asserted that the sale of the land to MCDC was a mistake because they were made to believe that the transaction was a claim for recovery of the land they had all inherited from Petra Englis. They assert that they would not have agreed to sign the document had they known it would result in the sale of the land.
Arguments of the Labnaos
In their Answer, 12 Zosimo, Leoncia, and Javilla (collectively, the Labnaos) averred that the Insures were never tricked into signing the deed of sale in favor of MCDC. They had actually sold their respective pro indiviso shares of the lot. The Labnaos claimed that when the development of the barangays surrounding the lot was proposed, MCDC authorized Javilla to contact the individual property owners. The Insures were among the property owners who sold their land to MCDC through Javilla. The Labnaos had always been under the impression that the conveyance made in favor of Sibonghanoy was merely an equitable mortgage. Sibonghanoy had never considered himself as part owner of the subject lot; that is why the sale was never recorded in the Registry of Deeds. The Labnaos further claimed that Javilla had informed the Insures that the payment of MCDC would be on installment basis. The Insures also knew that Javilla borrowed money from Zosimo and advanced the installments to them. The Labnaos further averred that the real estate development project of MCDC was discontinued later because of an environmental issue. MCDC, thus, refused to honor its previous commitment to pay Javilla the amount she had advanced to the individual owners.
Unable to pay for the properties acquired through Javilla, MCDC offered to settle. It would assign the subject lot to Zosimo by way of datioin solutum or dation. The mode of conveyance, however, was effected through sale 13 instead of a deed of assignment. In fine, the Labnaos claim that the transaction between the Insures and MCDC, facilitated through Javilla, was aboveboard.
MCDC, on the other hand, failed to file its pre-trial brief. For failing to appear at the pre-trial conference, it was declared in default. 14
The Ruling of the RTC
On January 30, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. It ratiocinated: DETACa
As stated above, plaintiffs vigorously assail the validity of the execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale (Exh. "K"), alleging that defendant Javella Labnao Hermoso misrepresented and defrauded them into signing the same. Significantly, plaintiffs have not entirely denied the execution by them of the questioned document, but claimed that they were tricked and defrauded to sign the document upon misrepresentation by defendant Javella Labnao Hermoso that it pertains to their claim of payment of another lot belonging to them, and situated in Kan-irag, Sirao, Cebu City.
The prevailing rule is that fraud is never presumed, but must be both alleged and proved. Applied to contracts, the presumption is in favor of validity and regularity. Thus, for a contract to be annulled on the ground of fraud, it must be shown that the vendor never gave consent to its execution (Cuizon v. CA, 260 SCRA 645). Furthermore, if the questioned document is a notarized one, it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon the same with respect to its due execution and it has in its favor the presumption of its regularity (Garrido v. CA, 236 SCRA 450).
As noted above, plaintiffs have not actually denied the execution of the questioned document (Exh. "K"), but claimed that they were misled into signing the same. In other words, the questioned document is neither falsified nor forged. On the plaintiffs' claim that they were defrauded and misled into signing the document in question, the Court expressly noted the absence of specific details on the manner, date and place the defraudation was allegedly made. Moreover, and despite the claim of plaintiff Elisa Insures Salvaña that defendant Javella Labnao Hermoso promised and misrepresented to them that the document they signed pertains to their claim of payment, and that they shall be paid soon, there is no showing on record that plaintiffs have followed up or demanded the fulfillment of such promise.
On the other hand, witness Manolo Cantos affirmed and attested on the authority of defendant Javella Labnao Hermoso as the representative of [Manuel] Cantos Development Corporation (MCDC) to negotiate for the purchase of Lot No. 15226-C. Curiously, Noel Insures, one of the plaintiffs in this case, testified and affirmed the voluntariness and due execution of the questioned document. (TSN, taken on October 14, 2003, pp. 1-13)
Plaintiffs also mentioned and cited the report of the handwriting expert to prove that the thumbprint of Juan Insures was forged. Regrettably, such finding of the handwriting expert is unreliable for failing to observe the proper procedure in the investigation of a disputed handwriting or thumbprint. Firstly, and as admitted by the expert witness, he examined only a photocopy of the questioned document (TSN, taken in December 13, 2001, p. 8). Likewise, the genuineness of the standard specimen (thumbmark) of Juan Insures, which was allegedly used by him in comparison with the one appearing on the questioned document has not been adequately established as required under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court (BA Finance v. CA, 161 SCRA 608). In this case, the standard specimens have not been offered in evidence. Moreover, and although Juan Insures was presented as witness, he was never asked to identify his standard thumbmark. Thus, the conclusion of the handwriting expert cannot be relied upon, as it was based on inadequate examination.
On the other hand, witness Oscar Bontuyan declared and affirmed that he saw Juan Insures affixed his thumbmark on the questioned document because his vision then was defective. (TSN, taken on October 18, 2002, p. 4)
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court rules that plaintiffs have failed to overcome the presumption of validity and regularity of the questioned document (Exh. "K") which is notarized. Consequently, plaintiffs have not established a valid cause of action against the defendants.
On the other hand, the counterclaim for damages of the defendants is hereby dismissed for lack of adequate proof.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant case.
SO ORDERED. 15 aDSIHc
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed decision, the CA found no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the RTC. It held that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud in the execution of the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale. It further ruled that whatever defect there may have been in the publication of the questioned deed did not affect its intrinsic validity since the publication was done to give notice to those who, not aware of it, would have been affected by the settlement. The CA also agreed with the RTC in disregarding the findings of the handwriting expert because he had examined only a photocopy of the questioned deed. The genuineness of the standard signature specimen of Juan Insures allegedly used to compare with that appearing in the questioned deed was not adequately established. Notably, too, the standard specimen was not offered in evidence.
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE WITH SALE MADE IN FAVOR OF MCDC IS VALID.
OUR RULING
The petition is bereft of merit.
In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. The Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly if they coincide with the RTC and are supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect, and even finality; unless it is shown that the evidence of the parties was arbitrarily disregarded. 16 As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfair or arbitrary deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, the Court could do naught but affirm them with finality. 17
The petitioners questioned the validity of the extrajudicial settlement of estate with sale made in favor of MCDC, alleging that they were tricked, deceived, and defrauded into signing it. However, they failed to adduce evidence of fraud. Well-settled is the rule that fraud and misrepresentation are never presumed. 18 They must be established, not just by preponderance of evidence but, by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. 19 Here, other than their peremptory statements, petitioners failed to specifically prove how the respondents committed fraud.
Also, petitioners assert that the CA erred when it upheld the validity of the December 20, 1995 sale in favor of MCDC, instead of the earlier sale made to Sibonghanoy on June 4, 1987.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code clearly provides:
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
In the present case, in spite of the sale of the portion of the subject lot in 1987, Sibonghanoy failed to register the sale with the Register of Deeds and, thus, no title was ever issued in his name. Neither did he register his adverse claim on the subject property. The CA correctly ruled that "priority of ownership has to be given to MCDC who, in good faith, had the second sale recorded in the Registry of Property, and, after it, its transferee, appellee Zosimo Labnao." 20 Sibonghanoy slept on his right by failing to register the property in his name at the earliest opportunity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 31, 2012 Decision and the December 4, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01988 are AFFIRMED. (Hernando, J., no part;Jardeleza, J., designated additional member) ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 27-45; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Melchor Q. C. Sadang, concurring.
2.Id. at 53-54. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Gabriel T. Ingles, concurring.
3.Id. at 63-69. Penned by Judge Silvestre A. Maamo, Jr.
4. Records, p. 37.
5. The complaint was later on amended to include Falconeri Sibonghanoy as plaintiff, id. at 27-36.
6.Id. at 1-10.
7.Id. at 320-322.
8.Id. at 43.
9.Id. at 46.
10.Id. at 336-337.
11.Id. at 342.
12.Id. at 11-18.
13. Deed of Absolute Sale, id. at 437.
14. Order, dated November 26, 1997; id. at 79.
15.Id. at 587-588.
16. See Angeles v. Pascual, et al., 673 Phil. 499, 504-505 (2011).
17.Ignacio v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., 417 Phil. 747, 753 (2001).
18.Republic v. Leonor, et al., 623 Phil. 729, 741 (2009).
19.Republic v. Guerrero, 520 Phil. 296, 311 (2006).
20.Rollo, p. 44.