Heirs of Bofill v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 107930 October 7, 1994 HEIRS OF GEORGE BOFILL, IGNACIO BOFILL, VICTORIA B. ANASTACIO, REGINA FRANCISCA B. CHUACHINGCO, EVELN B. SERRA, !ANUELITA B. VI"CON#E, LAGRI!AS B. #ULLANO, LOUR#ES B. #ASAL, !ANUEL BOFILL, $R., HEIRS OF %LARI#EL BOFILL, E#UAR#O BOFILL, !ARIA LUISA BOFILL, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF A%%EALS, S%S. ENRI&UE BEGALAN '() FLOR#ELI"A BEGALAN, S%S. $OSE CATALAN '() BERNAR#ITA CATALAN, '() HEIRS OF !ANUEL BARRE#O, ('*e+, NOR!A B. ALE$AGA, LEON BARRE#O, !AGILN BARRE#O, !ARIA BARRE#O, RA! BARRE#O, RELL BARRE#O, ENRI&UETA B. SARTORIO, re-ree(te) b VIL!A BARRE#O BALATAO, respondents. F'ct/ Petitioners filed an action for declaration of ownership over lot No.2954-A of the Panay Cadastre situated in Bo. inatiran, Panay, Capi!, covered "y #ransfer Certificate of #itle No.#-$9%94 a&ainst the 'ps.(nri)ue and *lordeli!a Be&alan and 'ps.+ose and Bernardita Catalan. +oinin& their cause, the heirs of anuel Barredo also filed a coplaint in intervention a&ainst petitioners, petitioners, claiin& ownership ownership of the said lot in liti&ation. liti&ation. #he e&ional #rial Court Court declared petitioners petitioners as the owner of the lot in )uestion and they are are also entitled to the possession of the said lot and ordered respondents to vacate preises. #he counterclai and the coplaint in intervention was disissed. espondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. #he CA reversed the decision and directed the e&ister of /eeds of Capi! to divide the #C# No. $9%94 into two titles0one in the nae of the plaintiffs without iincludin& the portion covered "y ot No. 2954-A and the other title coverin& ot No.2954-A in the nae of the heirs of anuel Barredo1herein intervenor appellants, after pyent of the re)uired ta3es and fees. Ie/

hether or not petitioners "e declared as the owners owners of the said lot in )uestion. hether or not the torrens certificate of title issued to anuel Bofill "e considered as proof of ownership

R+(2/  e. #he rationale for the fore&oin& disposition of the trial court is that  . . . the clai of the plaintiff-intervenors and defendants over this land ainly anchored on the supposed /eed of (3chan&e of arch %, $994, e3ecuted "etween anuel Bofill and Cornelio Barriatos, was a ere e3chan&e of collateral1s fro ot 526 to ot 2954-A for a loan of P457.77 o"tained "y anuel Bofill. #he said loan havin& "een paid one year thereafter, said deed of e3chan&e as collateral for said loan was rendered without le&al force and effect, hence no entry in the title coverin& the lot was ade re&ardin& said loan, nor was the title in the nae of anuel Bofill transferred to any"ody else up to the present tie. #he case filed "y +uana Brillo a&ainst 'otera Bofill . . . on Nove"er $8, $985 for the re&istration of the /eed of (3chan&e of $944 and for the surrender of the ori&inal title was done thirty-one 1$ years after its e3ecution, considerin& laches and prescription, is also without force and effect . . . . oreover, the order in said case has "ecoe oot and acadeic upon the death of 'otera Bofill and the surrender of :-$456 "y her heirs and the cancellation of the sae upon the e3ecution of an (3tra-+udicial Partition Partition "y the heirs of anuel Bofill and 'otera Bofill and the issuance of the present Certificate of #itle No. $9%94 in the n ae of the plaintiffs.

#he 'upree Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the ;ud&ent of the court a quo for the followin& reasons. 1.

#he Court of Appeals erred when it re;ected the testionial evidence provin& that the Casugot  involves an e3chan&e of collaterals securin& the P457-loan of Bofill to a certain Cornelio Barriatos without citin& any contrary proof nor e3plainin& why such factual findin& should "e thrown out or i&nored. s elo)uently of anuel Bofill?s intention to transfer= ot 2954-A to Barriatos and concluded that it was an e3chan&e of ownership of two 12 lots. #his error is not surprisin& as the appellate court not only adopted the (n&lish translation of the Casugot  offered "y private respondents, which was o"viously tailored to suit their purpose, "ut also "ecause it omitted a material phrase stipulating that Barriatos was returning Lot 526 to Bofill . ithout that phrase on the return of ot 526 it would appear, as it does, that Bofill donated ot 2954-A to Barriatos which, in effect, would render the deed of e3chan&e an a"surdity. @ad the Court of Appeals "een ore accurate and precise in )uotin& data fro the records, perhaps it would have arrived at the ri&ht conclusion. 2.

 #he Casugot clearly reflects the a&reeent of Bofill and Barriatos with re&ard to the ownership of ot 2954, now coprisin& ot 2954-A, which is the lot in controversy, and ot 2954-B.