9. Heirs of Teodoro Dela Cruz vs. CA
Short Description
EVIDENCE...
Description
CASE: HEIRS OF TEODORO DELA CRUZ represented by EDRONEL DELA CRUZ CRUZ vs. COURT COURT OF APPEA APPEALS, LS, PACIFI PACIFICO CO MARUE MARUEZ, Z, FILOME FILOMENO NO !nd "RE"ORIO, b#t$ s%rn!&ed MADRID G.R. No. 117384 117384 October 21, 1998
Petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of the o!rt of "##eals and affir$in% the decision of the Re%ional &rial o!rt of 'sabela. FACTS: On Nove$ber 2(, 198), #etitioners filed an action for reconve*ance +ith da$a%es da$a%es a%ainst a%ainst #rivate #rivate res#ond res#ondents ents involvin% involvin% a #arcel #arcel of land sit!ated sit!ated in Poblac Poblacio ion, n, an -ateo -ateo,, 'sabe 'sabela la +ith +ith a total total area area of 3,277 3,277 s!a s!are re $eters $eters.. Petition Petitioners ers assert assert that the s!b/ect s!b/ect land +as bo!%ht bo!%ht b* their their #redeces #redecessor0 sor0in0 in0 interest fro$ the #rivate res#ondents, res#ondents, -adrid brothers, for P4,(((.(( P4,(((.(( on -a* 18, 199. 199. ince ince then then the* the* have have been been in act!a act!al, l, #h*sic #h*sical, al, cont contin! in!o! o!s s and and o#en o#en #ossess #ossession ion of the #ro#ert* #ro#ert*.. o+ever o+ever in October October 198), 198), #rivate #rivate res#onde res#ondents nts $ana%ed to obtain a &orrens &itle over the said land, the -adrids denied havin% eec!ted the said eed of ale and alle%ed that the doc!$ent +as fictitio!s and falsified. -ean+hile, Pacifico -ar!e5 contends that he is an innocent #!rchaser for val!e of the #ro#ert* havin% bo!%ht the sa$e fro$ the -adrid brothers in 197).
!rin% the trial, #etitioners +ere !nable to #resent the ori%inal deed of sale since it +as lost. &he* +ere constrained to offer, as 6hibit ", a #hotoco#* of the #!r#orted ori%inal carbon co#* of the deed of sale in an effort to #rove the transaction. &he trial co!rt r!led that 6hibit " +as inad$issible in evidence for No #roof +as add!ced that this re$ainin% co#* +as lost or destro*ed, no atte$#t +as done to #rod!ce the co#ies retained b* the notar* #!blic altho!%h there is a #ossibilit* that the sa$e still eist. Neither +as there an* #roof that the co#* sent to the co!rt as re!ired b* the notarial la+ is !navailable. &he trial co!rt dis$issed #etitioners co$#laint, declarin% the defendants the la+f!l o+ners and orderin% the #laintiffs to vacate the #ortions of ots 7(3)0 "01 (0", 7(3)("01(0 7(3)("01(0 and and 7(3)0"01(0. 7(3)0"01(0. o!rt o!rt of "##eals ##eals "::'R "::'R-6 -6 the decisi decision on of the R& R& rende renderin rin% % its /!d%$ent +hich r!led that 6hibit " +as +as ad$issible in evidence evidence for fail!re of the #rivate res#ondents to ob/ect +hen it +as offered d!rin% the trial, b!t it had no #robative val!e to s!##ort the alle%ation of the #etitioners that the dis#!ted land +as sold to the$ in 199. :ailin% in their bid to reconsider the decision, the #etitioners have filed the #resent #etition. ISSUE: ;hether 6hibit " is ad$issible as evidence< HELD: 6hibit " is is ad$itted in evidence, evidence, +e a%ree +ith the o!rt of "##eals that its #robative val!e $!st still $eet the vario!s tests b* +hich its reliabilit* is to be deter$in deter$ined. ed. 'ts tendenc tendenc* * to convince convince and #ers!ad #ers!ade e $!st be consider considered ed for ad$issib ad$issibilit* ilit* of evidenc evidence e sho!ld sho!ld not be conf!se conf!sed d +ith its #robativ #robative e val!e. val!e. " c!rsor* %lance +ill i$$ediatel* reveal that it +as !nsi%ned b* an* of the #arties and !ndated as to +hen it +as eec!ted. 'n other +ords, "tt*. &aban%a*s fail!re to deter deter$in $ine e the acc! acc!ra rac* c* of the the carb carbon on co#* co#* re!e re!este sted d b* the the #etit #etition ioner ers s #redecessor0in0interest renders 6hibit " !nreliable.
Petitioners e#lanation that these co#ies +ere lost or co!ld not be fo!nd in the National "rchives +as not even s!##orted b* an* certification fro$ the said office. 't is a +ell0settled #rinci#le that before secondar* evidence can be #resented, all d!#licates and=or co!nter#arts $!st be acco!nted for, and no ec!se for the non0#rod!ction of the ori%inal doc!$ent itself can be re%arded as established !ntil all its #arts are !navailable. &he decision of the o!rt of "##eals R6>6R6 and 6& "'6. 'nstead, #etitioners are hereb* declared as the le%al o+ners of the s!b/ect land.
Re#!blic of the Phili##ines SUPREME COURT -anila &'R '>''ON
".R. N#. ''()*+ Ot#ber -', '* HEIRS OF TEODORO DELA CRUZ represented b y EDRONEL DELA CRUZ, #etitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PACIFICO MARUEZ, FILOMENO !nd "RE"ORIO, b#t$ s%rn!&ed MADRID, res#ondents.
ROMERO, J.: Petitioners seek the reversal of the decision of the o!rt of "##eals, ' in " G.R. No. 2339 dated e#te$ber 27, 1994 affir$in% the decision of the Re%ional &rial o!rt of 'sabela in ivil ase No. 190219 dated October 9, 1989 +hich ad/!dicated lot Nos. 7(3)0"01(0", 7(3)0"01(0 and 7(3)0"01(0 to herein #rivate res#ondents. &he follo+in% facts, concisel* related in the #etition, ) are not in dis#!te. On Nove$ber 2(, 198), #etitioners filed an action for reconve*ance +ith da$a%es + a%ainst #rivate res#ondents involvin% a #arcel of land sit!ated in Poblacion, an -ateo, 'sabela +ith a total area of 3,277 s!are $eters. 'n their co$#laint, #etitioners assert that the s!b/ect land +as bo!%ht b* their #redecessor0in0interest fro$ the #rivate res#ondents, -adrid brothers, for P4,(((.(( in a deed of sale eec!ted on -a* 18, 199, and since then the* have been in a ct!al, #h*sical, contin!o!s and o#en #ossession of the #ro#ert*. o+ever, so$eti$e in October 198), $!ch to their dis$a* and s!r#rise, #rivate res#ondents $ana%ed to obtain a &orrens &itle over the said land. On the other hand, the -adrids denied havin% eec!ted the said deed of sale and ass!$in% that said doc!$ent eists, the sa$e is fictitio!s and falsified. -oreover, +hile the* ad$it #etitioners? #ossession of the land, the* assert that this #ossession is in defiance of their re#eated de$ands that the for$er relin!ish the sa$e. -ean+hile, Pacifico -ar!e5 contends that he is an innocent #!rchaser for val!e of the #ro#ert* havin% bo!%ht the sa$e fro$ the -adrid brothers in 197). / !rin% the trial, #etitioners +ere !nable to #resent the ori%inal deed of sale since it +as lost. onse!entl*, the* +ere constrained to offer, as 6hibit @",@ a #hoto co#* of the #!r#orted ori%inal carbon co#* of the deed of sale in an effort to #rove the transaction. o+ever, in dis#osin% of the case, the trial co!rt r!led that 6hibit @"@ +as inad$issible in evidence, th!sA ince at the ti$e of the eec!tion of &eodoro dela r!5? affidavit or on B!ne 14, 19)), a duplicate original carbon copy of the alle%ed sale +as still in his #ossession, the #laintiffs $!st have to acco!nt for it. No #roof +as add!ced that this re$ainin% co#* +as lost or destro*ed. :!rther$ore, no atte$#t +as done to #rod!ce the co#ies retained b* the notar* #!blic altho!%h there is a #ossibilit* that the sa$e still eist C sic D. Neither +as there an* #roof that the co#* sent to the co!rt as re!ired b* the notarial la+ is !navailable. Ender these Csic D state of facts, the o!rt believes that the @ero co#* of a certified tr!e co#*@ of the ori%inal iss!ed b* the notar* #!blic cannot be ad$itted in evidence to #rove the conve*ance of the land in !estion.
"ccordin%l*, the trial co!rt dis$issed #etitioners? co$#laint, the dis#ositive #ortion of the decision of +hich readsA ;6R6:OR6, in vie+ of the fore%oin% considerations, /!d%$ent is hereb* renderedA 1. is$issin% the co$#laintF 2. eclarin% the defendants the la+f!l o+ners of the land in !estion insofar as the #ortion thereof fallin% or fo!nd in their res#ective titles are concernedF and 3. Orderin% the #laintiffs, their a%ents, re#resentatives or an* #erson or #ersons derivin% their title, o+nershi# or #ossession fro$ the #laintiffs, to vacate the #ortions of ots 7(3)0"01(0", 7(3)("01(0 and 7(3)0"01(0, occ!#ied b* the$ and to deliver the #ossession thereof to the defendantsF No #rono!nce$ent as to costs. O OR6R6. 6videntl* a%%rieved b* the decision, #etitioners a##ealed to the o!rt of "##eals contendin% that the trial co!rt erred in holdin% thatA C1D 6hibit @"@ +as inad$issible in evidence to #rove the transactionF C2D there +as no valid sale of the land in !estionF C3D that the* C#etitionersD are not entitled to the i $#rove$ents the* had introd!ced in the land. On e#te$ber 27, 1994, the o!rt of "##eals rendered its /!d%$ent +hich r!led that 6hibit @"@ +as ad$issible in evidence for fail!re of the #rivate res#ondents to ob/ect +hen it +as offered d!rin% the trial, th!sA 't is therefore evident that defendants0a##ellees never #!t in iss!e the inad$issible nat!re of 6h. @"@ as a $ere secondar* evidence and that the trial /!d%e did not ecl!de the sa$e +hen it +as for$all* o ffered, onl* to !lti$atel* ecl!de it in its decision. 't is tr!e that the ori%inals of 6h. @"@ +ere never #rod!ced or acco!nted for b* #laintiffs. et, not+ithstandin% this o$ission, the defense did not ob/ect to its not bein% the best evidence +hen it +as for$all* offered. ad the defendant inter#osed an o b/ection to 6h. @"@ on the %ro!nd of its inco$#etenc* for not co$#l*in% +ith the best evidence r!le, it +o!ld have been #ro#erl* ecl!ded b* the trial co!rt. efendants? o$ission to ob/ect on the #ro#er %ro!nd o#erated as a +aiver, as this +as a $atter restin% on their discretion. Enfort!natel*, #etitioners? victor* +as shortlived. :or the o!rt of "##eals, +hile r!lin% that 6hibit @"@ +as ad$issible, concl!ded that the sine had no #robative val!e to s!##ort the alle%ation of the #etitioners that the dis#!ted land +as sold to the$ in 199, viz .A &he lone fact that "tt*. &aban%a* asserted that he reco%ni5ed his si%nat!re on the co#* sho+n b* &eodoro +hen the loss of the ori%inals +as /!st $ade kno+n to hi$, does not render 6h. @"@ tr!st+orthl* as to the act!al eec!tion of the alle%ed deed of sale. 6h. @"@ does not even contain a re#rod!ction of the alle%ed si%nat!res of the -adrid brothers for co$#arison #!r#oses. &he s!rvivin% +itness to the alle%ed eec!tion, onstantino al$o/a +as not #resented to corroborate "tt*. &aban%a*?s testi$on*, hin%ed as the latter +as on secondar* evidence. ence, the o!rt of "##eals affir$ed the trial co!rt?s decision, the dis#ositive #ortion of +hich readsA ;6R6:OR6, 'N >'6; O: &6 :OR6GO'NG, the decision of the trial co!rt dated October 9, 1989 is hereb* "::'R-6 +ith the $odification that the
case be re$anded to the co!rt a quo to cond!ct the #ro#er #roceedin%s to deter$ine the val!e of the !sef!l i $#rove$ents introd!ced b* a##ellants for rei$b!rse$ent b* a##ellees. O OR6R6. :ailin% in their bid to reconsider the decision, the #etitioners have filed the #resent #etition. Petitioners $aintain that even if 6hibit @"@ +ere a $ere #hoto co#* of the ori%in al carbon co#*, the* had #resented other s!bstantial evidence d!rin% the trial to #rove the eistence of the sale. 0 First , the testi$on* of the notar* #!blic, "tt*. &aban%a*, +ho ackno+led%ed the d!e eec!tion of the deed of sale. Second , their lon% #ossession of the land in !estion, bolstered b* the constr!ction of vario!s i$#rove$ents %ives rise to the dis#!table #res!$#tion of o+nershi#. ;hile +e conc!r +ith the o!rt of "##eals? findin% that 6hibit @"@ does not #rove that the sale of the land indeed occ!rred, still +e are constrained to reverse its decision in vie+ of the circ!$stances #resent in this case. &o be%in +ith, "tt*. evillano &aban%a*, the notar* #!blic +ho notari5ed the deed of sale, testified that the doc!$ent has abo!t five CD co#ies. ( ence, it is i$#erative that all the ori%inals $!st be acco!nted for before secondar* evidence can be #resented. * &hese #etitioners failed to do. -oreover, records sho+ that none of these five co#ies +as even #resented d!rin% the trial. Petitioners? e#lanation that these co#ies +ere lost or co!ld not be fo!nd in the National "rchives +as not even s!##orted b* an* certification fro$ the said office. 't is a +ell0settled #rinci#le that before secondar* evidence can be #resented, all d!#licates and=or co!nter#arts $!st be acco!nted for, and no ec!se for the non0#rod!ction of the ori%inal doc!$ent itself can be re%arded as established !ntil all its #arts are !navailable. Not+ithstandin% this #roced!ral la#se, +hen 6hibit @"@ +as #resented, #rivate res#ondents failed, not onl* to ob/ect, b!t even to cross0ea$ine the notar* #!blic, "tt*. &aban%a*, re%ardin% its eec!tion. '1 :orth+ith, !#on #rivate res#ondents? fail!re to ob/ect to 6hibit @"@ +hen it +as #resented, the sa$e beco$es #ri$ar* evidence. '' &o be s!re, even if 6hibit @"@ is ad$itted in evidence, +e a%ree +ith the o!rt of "##eals that its #robative val!e $!st still $eet the vario!s tests b* +hich its reliabilit* is to be deter$ined. 'ts tendenc* to convince and #ers!ade $!st be considered for ad$issibilit* of evidence sho!ld not be conf!sed +ith its #robative val!e. ' "s earlier stated, 6hibit @"@ +as $erel* a #hotoco#* lifted fro$ the carbon co#* of the alle%ed deed of sale. ') " c!rsor* %lance +ill i$$ediatel* reveal that it +as !nsi%ned b* an* of the #arties and !ndated as to +hen it +as eec!ted. ;orse, +hen "tt*. &aban%a* t*#ed 6hibit @",@ the contents +ere based on an alle%ed carbon ori%inal +hich #etitioners? #redecessor0in0 interest #resented to hi$, +itho!t botherin% to check his o+n files to verif* the correctness of the contents of the doc!$ent he +as co#*in%. 'n other +ords, "tt*. &aban%a*?s fail!re to deter$ine the acc!rac* of the carbon co#* re!ested b* the #etitioners? #redecessor0in0interest renders 6hibit @"@ !nreliable. o+ever, des#ite o!r #rescindin% disc!ssion, all is not lost for the #etitioner. &he records sho+ that the dis#!ted #etitioners since 199. &he* have since been introd!cin% several i$#rove$ents on the land +hich certainl* co!ld not have esca#ed the attention of the -adrids. :!rther$ore, d!rin% all this ti$e, the land +as enclosed, th!s si%nif*in% #etitioners? ecl!sive clai$ of o+nershi#. &he constr!ction of vario!s infrastr!ct!re on the land H rice $ill, stora%e ho!se, %ara%e, #ave$ents and other b!ildin%s H +as !ndo!btedl* a clear eercise of o+nershi# +hich the -adrids co!ld not i%nore. O ddl*, not one of the$ #rotested. ;e cannot acce#t the -adrids? e#lanation that the* did not de$and the #etitioners to vacate the land d!e to the !ne#lained killin%s +ithin the area. '+ Not a sin%le shred of evidence +as #resented to sho + that these killin%s +ere #er#etrated b* the #etitioners. "ll told, their re$onstration and fears are nothin% b!t #!re s#ec!lation. &o $ake $atters +orse, the
record is bereft of an* doc!$entar* evidence that the -adrids sent a +ritten de$and to the #etitioners orderin% the$ to vacate the land. &heir fail!re to raise a restrainin% ar$ or a sho!t of dissent to the #etitioners? #ossession of the s!b/ect land in a s#an of al$ost thirt* C3(D *ears is si$#l* contrar* to their of o+nershi#.
Net, the -adrids ar%!e that neither #rescri#tion nor laches can o#erate a%ainst the$ beca!se their title to the #ro#ert* is re%istered !nder the &orrens s*ste$ and therefore i$#rescri#table. '/ &he #rinci#le raised, +hile ad$ittedl* correct, are not +itho!t ece#tion. &he fact that the -adrids +ere able to sec!re && No. 1)72(, and -ar!e5, && Nos. 1)722( and 1)72), did not o#erate to vest !#on the$ o+nershi# of the #ro#ert*. &he &orrens s*ste$ does not create or vest title. 't has never been reco%ni5ed as a $ode of ac!irin% o+nershi#, '0 es#eciall* considerin% the fact that both the -adrids and -ar!e5es obtained their res#ective &&?s onl* in October 198), t+ent*0seven lon% C27D *ears after #etitioners first took #ossession of the land. 'f the -adrids and -ar!e5es +ished to assert their o+nershi#, the* sho!ld have filed a /!dicial action for recover* of #ossession and not $erel* to have the land re%istered !nder their res#ective na$es. :or as earlier $entioned, ertificates of &itle do not establish o+nershi#. '( 6ven if +e +ere to r!le that the ertificates of &itle to the #rivate res#ondents +o!ld ri#en into o+nershi# of the land, and therefore, the defense of #rescri#tion +o!ld be !navailin%, still, the #etitioners +o!ld have ac!ired title to it b* virt!e of the e!itable #rinci#le of laches. &he -adrids? lon% inaction or #assivit* in assertin% their ri%hts over dis#!ted #ro#ert* +ill #recl!de the$ fro$ recoverin% the sa$e. '* &he above r!lin% +as stressed in the follo+in% casesA Miguel v. Catalino ' declaredA Not+ithstandin% the errors afore$entioned in the a##ealed decision, +e are of the o#inion that the /!d%$ent in favor of defendant0a##ellee :lorencio atalino $!st be s!stained. :or des#ite the invalidit* of his sale to atalino "%*a#ao, father of defendant0a##ellee, the vendor aca!io s!ffered the latter to enter, #ossess and en/o* the land in !estion +itho!t #rotest, fro$ 1928 to 1943, +hen the seller diedF and the a##ellants, in t!rn, +hile s!cceedin% the deceased, also re$ained inactive, +itho!t takin% an* ste# to reinvindicate the lot fro$ 1944 to 19)2, +hen the #resent s!it +as co$$enced in co!rt. 6ven %rantin% a##ellants? #ro#osition that no #rescri#tion lies a%ainst their father?s recorded title, their #assivit* and inaction for $ore than 34 *ears C1928019)2D /!stifies the defendant0a##ellee in settin% !# the e!itable defense of laches in his o+n behalf. "s a res!lt, the action of #laintiffs0a##ellants $!st be considered barred and the o!rt belo+ correctl* so held. o!rts can not look +ith favor at #arties +ho, b* their silence, dela* and inaction, kno+in%l* ind!ce another to s#end ti$e, effort and e#ense in c!ltivatin% the land, #a*in% taes and $akin% i$#rove$ents thereon for 3( lon% *ears, onl* to s#rin% fro$ a$b!sh and clai$ title +hen the #ossessor?s efforts and the rise of land val!es offer an o## ort!nit* to $ake eas* #rofit at his e#ense. . . . . Pabalete v. Echarri -1 statedA E#on a caref!l consideration of the facts and circ!$stances, +e are constrained to find, ho+ever, that +hile no le%al defense to the action li es, an e!itable one lies in favor of the defendant and that is, the e!itable defense of laches. ;e hold that the defense of #rescri#tion or adverse #ossession in dero%ation of the title of the re%istered o+ner o$in%o -e/ia does not lie, b!t that of the e!itable defense of l aches. Other+ise stated, +e hold that +hile defendant $a* not be considered as havin% ac!ired title b* virt!e of his and his #redecessor?s lon% contin!ed #ossession for 37 *ears, the ori%inal o+ner?s ri%ht to recover back the #ossession of the #ro#ert* and the title thereto fro$ the defendant has, b* the lon% #eriod of 37 *ears and b* #atentee?s inaction and ne%lect been converted into a stale de$and. CI!otin% -e/ia de !cas v. Ga$#onia, 1(( Phil. 277D.
&his defense is an e!itable one and does not concern itself +ith the character of the defendant?s title, b!t onl* +ith +hether or not b* reason of the #laintiff?s lon% inaction or inec!sable ne%lect he sho!ld be barred fro$ assertin% this clai$ at all, beca!se to allo+ hi$ to do so +o!ld be ine!itable and !n/!st to the defendant. . . . astl*, -ar!e5? clai$ that he is a #!rchaser in %ood faith and for val!e does not ins#ire an* $erit. 'n his testi$on*, he ad$itted that he kne+ the land in !estion. -' !rio!sl*, in his "ns+er -- to the co$#laint filed b* the #etitioners, he stated that he has been a+are that the for$er +ere in #ossession of the land since 199. ;here a #!rchaser +as f!ll* a+are of another #erson?s #ossession of the lot he #!rchased, he cannot s!ccessf!ll* #retend later to be an innocent #!rchaser for val!e. -) -oreover, one +ho b!*s +itho!t checkin% the vendor?s title takes all the risks and losses conse!ent to s!ch fail!re. -+ 'n fact, it +o!ld have been e#ected that in the nor$al co!rse of dail * life, both the -adrids and -ar!e5es talked abo!t the stat!s of the #ro#ert*. &his bein% so, it +o!ld be diffic!lt to i$a%ine that the latter +ere not $ade a+are of the #etitioner?s #ossession of the land. "r$ed +ith s!ch infor$ation, the* sho!ld have acted +ith the dili%ence of a #r!dent $an in deter$inin% the circ!$stances s!rro!ndin% the #ro#ert*. Other+ise, the la+ does not %ive hi$ the benefit afforded to an innocent #!rchaser for val!e. -/ ;6R6:OR6, in vie+ of the fore%oin%, the decision of the o!rt of "##eals dated e#te$ber 24, 1994 in "0G.R. No. 2339 is hereb* R6>6R6 and 6& "'6. 'nstead, #etitioners are hereb* declared as the le%al o+ners of the s!b/ect lan d. No costs. O OR6R6. Narvasa, C.J., apunan, Purisi!a and Pardo, JJ., concur.
View more...
Comments
