ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227096. September 13, 2017.]
SPS. LETICIA LISING-EMPERADOR AND GIL EMPERADOR, AND OFELIA LISING MANANSALA, petitioner, vs.PURITA LISING-DAVILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 13, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227096 (Sps. Leticia Lising-Emperador and Gil Emperador, and Ofelia Lising Manansala vs. Purita Lising-Davila). — This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision dated January 25, 2016 1 and Resolution dated August 10, 2016 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101108. There, the CA affirmed, with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision 3 and ruled that respondent Purita Lising-Davila (Purita) is the absolute owner of the house and lot covered by OCT No. S-97.
The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows:
Sometime in 1968, a certain Mariano Arabe, Jr. (Arabe) executed an Affidavit, stating that he executed a deed of sale and relinquishment of rights in favor of Macario Lising (Macario, father of the parties), over Lot No. 13, Psd-10835 (the property), in the amount of P3,500.00. It was effected with an understanding that Purita is a joint owner of the sold lot, and, as a matter of fact, was the one who paid for its purchase price. He was likewise made to understand that since Purita was then single, the subject property could not be registered in her name. Hence, it was registered in the name of her father, Macario, by virtue of OCT No. S-97. 4
Thereafter, Purita applied for a housing loan with the Social Security System (SSS) and used the property as collateral. Despite having planned the house's construction, she was not able to start the same as the final contract with SSS was not executed, Purita not being the registered owner of the lot. She appealed to SSS and was advised to execute a Deed of Acknowledgment of Interest, acknowledging that her father relinquished 90% of his interest in the property in her favor and the same be annotated in the title. On October 1, 1968, the mortgage contract was executed. SSS foreclosed the property upon Purita's default, but she was later on able to redeem the same. 5
Purita's parents, during their lifetime, together with petitioners Leticia Lising and Ofelia Manansala, Purita's sisters, were allowed to occupy the property. Leticia promised to pay the real property taxes thereon but failed to do so. Purita thus paid it and requested her sisters to vacate the premises.
Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that their parents own the property, as shown in OCT No. S-97. Leticia, in particular, had no knowledge of any sale despite residing therein with Purita and their parents since 1967. According to her, the only reason why the Deed of Acknowledgment dated September 3, 1968 was executed was for the purpose of obtaining a loan from SSS, the proceeds of which Leticia had no knowledge of. 6
The Ruling of the RTC
The RTC gave weight to the affidavit of Arabe in its Decision dated January 13, 2013. Purita was able to prove her claim of title to the property while petitioners were enjoined to assert their legal rights over it on the ground of laches. According to the court, petitioners should have asserted their right a long time ago, not when demands are already being made for them to vacate the property. It is also too baffling for the RTC that only petitioners claimed ownership by inheritance over the property while the rest of the Lising siblings, who constitute the majority, voluntarily and openly recognized Purita as its true and actual owner. In fact, one of the siblings, Gloria Lising-Reyes, while the case is being heard, filed an affidavit stating, among others, that she is no longer interested to further pursue and prosecute the case and voluntarily acknowledged Purita's full ownership. The dispositive portion of the aforementioned Decision reads: SDAaTC
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Purita Lising-Davila and against the defendants namely: Spouses Leticia Lising and Gil Emperador and Ofelia Manansala, as follows:
1.) DECLARING the plaintiff, Purita Lising-Davila as the absolute owner of the house and lot covered by OCT No. S-97;
2.) ORDERING the above-mentioned defendants to peacefully and voluntarily vacate the said premises and physically turn-over the actual possession of the said premises to the plaintiff, Purita-Lising-Davila;
3.) ORDERING the Office of the Registry of Deeds, San Jose Occidental Mindoro to CANCEL OCT NO. S-97 in the name of Macario Lising and TRANSFER the same in the name of the herein plaintiff, Purita Lising-Davila, to her heirs, successors or assigns; and
4.) ORDERING the defendants to pay jointly and severally the Plaintiff, the sum of:
4.a — Php10,000.00 as moral damages;
4.b — Php10,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4.c — Php20,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
5.) Finally, to pay the cost of this suit.
SO ORDERED. 7
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC in its April 26, 2013 Order. An appeal before the CA thus ensued.
The Ruling of the CA
On January 25, 2016, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision with modification, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 31, 2013 of the RTC, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in Civil Case No. R-1522 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED. 8
A motion for reconsideration was fled but the same was denied in a Resolution dated August 10, 2016.
The Issue
Petitioners filed the present petition, bringing forth this lone issue for the Court's consideration:
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the Court a quo declaring respondent Davila as owner of the subject property with only affidavit of certain Mariano Arabe, Jr., whose connection on the subject is estranged and never summoned in court to testify and/or affirm his alleged affidavit. 9
The Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to deny the petition.
The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. As a general rule, factual findings of appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed by this Court as it is not a trier of facts. The scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not extend to questions of fact. A question of fact requires the Court to review the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations of the parties. This review includes assessment of the probative value of the evidence presented. There is also a question of fact when the issue presented before the Court is the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties. 10
Admittedly, there are recognized exceptions to this rule. However, it is incumbent upon the party seeking review to overcome the burden of demonstrating that an exception, rather than the rule, prevails in the said case.
Here, petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The petition must fail.
Even if the Court concedes that an exception is present to justify a review of the factual findings, there is no compelling reason for the Court to veer away from the conclusions of the courts a quo. The law places the burden of proof on Purita to establish her claim by a preponderance of evidence — one that has greater weight or is more convincing than that which is offered by her siblings. The evidence adduced by Purita has duly established the following: she purchased the property using her own funds; due to the wrong information that her being single is an obstacle to the title being placed in her name, she had the property registered in her father's name; she used the property to secure a loan with SSS and paid corresponding fees thereon; she paid the loan's amortization; when the property was foreclosed due to non-payment, she was the one who redeemed it. The Arabe affidavit buttresses the ownership of Purita over the contested lot. Moreover, her sister, Gloria Lising-Reyes, in her affidavit, also voluntarily acknowledged Purita's ownership of the lot.
Petitioners, on the other hand, merely relied on OCT No. S-97 registered in their father's name to overcome Purita's assertions. This is short of proving ownership as a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not foreclose the possibility that it may be co-owned by persons not named on it. Thus, petitioners failed to overcome Purita's evidence.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision dated January 25, 2016 and Resolution dated August 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 50-57. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan.
2.Id. at 48-50.
3.Id. at 72-77.
4.Id. at 52.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 53.
7.Id. at 53-54.
8.Id. at 57.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id.