51 Tan vs City of Davao

G.R. No. L-44347 September 29, 1988VICENTE TAN, petitioner, vs.CITY O !AVAO, respondent.Occea Law Ofce for petitioner.The City Legal Ofcer for respondent. GRI"O-A#$INO, J.:This 26-year old case involves what is probably now a valuable lot in the City of Davao whose owner left for China with her entire family in 192 and never returned. !i"e all such estates facin# escheat proceedin#s, it is fair #ame for poseurs and fa"ers claimin# to be the missin# heir of the deceased owner.The spouses Cornelia $i%arro and &alta%ar 'arcia, durin# their lifetime, were residents of Davao City. (s they were childless, they adopted a three-year old #irl whom they named Domin#a 'arcia and brou#ht up as their own. (t the a#e of nineteen years, Domin#a 'arcia married a Chinaman, Tan )en# alias )en# *ap, with whom she had three children, named +icente, who was born in 1916, ,ariano who was born in 191-, and !uis who was born in 1921. .n 192, Domin#a 'arcia and her three children emi#rated to Canton, China. .n less than a year, Tan )en# followed his family to his country of ori#in.(ccordin# to the petitioner, Domin#a 'arcia died intestate in 19// 012tra-3udicial )ettlement of the 1state of Domin#a 'arcia dated ,ay 24, 1966, p. -, 5ollo6. )he left in the $hilippines a 1,966-s7uare-meter lot on Claveria )treet, Townsite of Davao, District of Davao, re#istered in her name under T.C.T. 8o. 296 0T-24496 of the 5e#istry of Deeds of Davao City. )ince her departure for China with her family, neither she, nor her husband, nor any of their children has returned to the $hilippines to claim the lot.Domin#a:s adoptive parent, Cornelia $i%arro, died in ,ay 196. .n 199-, her nephew, 5amon $i%arro, occupied a part ofDomin#a:s property and collected the rentals from the owners of other houses occupyin# the land. (nother nephew of Cornelia, )e#undo 5eyes, in a burst of civic spirit, informed the )olicitor 'eneral about the property. The City ;iscal and8&. a#ents, (ntonio 'on%a#a and ;eli2 +alencia, investi#ated )e#undo 5eyes, 5amon $i%arro and (urelio $i%arro re#ardin# the whereabouts of Domin#a 'arcia, Tan )en#, and their children.Durin# the investi#ation, 5amon $i%arro alle#ed that +icenta Tan, dau#hter of Domin#a, was married and livin# in &acolod City, but he did not "now her e2act address. (urelio $i%arro, on the other hand, controverted that statement because as far as he "new, +icenta Tan left for China with her mother and brothers in 192.6 to declare Domin#a 'arcia:s land escheated in its favor. .t alle#ed that Domin#a 'arcia and her children are presumed to be dead and since Domin#a 'arcia left no heir person by law entitled to inherit her estate, the same should be escheated pursuant to 5ule 92 of the 5ules of Court 0pp. 1-/, 5ecord on (ppeal6.The court set the petition for hearin# and directed the City to cause 0as it did 6 the publication of its petition in the :,indanao Times,? a newspaper of #eneral circulation in the city and province of Davao, and in the of the 8ew Civil Code which providesB(5T. 9>. (fter an absence of seven years, it bein# un"nown whether or not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, e2cept for those of succession.The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of openin# his succession till after an absence of ten years ...The Court of (ppeals found that the City of Davao was able to prove the facts from which the presumption arises. .t saidB... .ts evidence preponderantly shows that in 192 Domin#a 'arcia and her family left the $hilippines bound for China. )ince then until the instant petition was =led on )eptember 12, 1962, a period coverin# about 9 years, nothin# had been heard about them. .t is not "nown whether all or any of them is still alive at present. 8o heir, devisee or any other person entitled to the estate of Domin#a 'arcia has appeared and claimed the same up to this time e2cept !uis Tan whose status as alle#ed heir has still to be proven in the proper court.The assertion of appellant $i%arro that in 196> he met and tal"ed with +icenta Tan in Claveria, Davao City, before she went to China, and a#ain in 1966, when he went to Eon#"on#, was not believed by thecourt below. (fter assessin# and evaluatin# the evidence, we =nd no su@cient cause to disturb the conclusion of the trial court made on a =ndin# of fact based on conJictin# testimony and dependin# lar#ely upon the credibility of witnesses who testi=ed before it. .n our review of the evidence, we have not come across any material fact or circumstance which the court a -uo has overloo"ed and failed to consider, or has misunderstood and misapplied, and which if properly appreciated and accurately wereheld would chan#e the result of this liti#ation.;or one thin#, if it is true that +icenta Tan left the $hilippines only in 196>, as oppositor $i%arro would li"e the court to believe, it has not been e2plained why he omitted to secure copies of her departure papers from either the Department of ;orei#n (Iairs, the &ureau of .mmi#ration or the former Chinese 1mbassy, and present them to the court to establish her e2istence as late as 196>.;or another, if it is also true that he met her in Eon#"on# in 1966, we are at a loss why he failed to arran#e for her return to the $hilippines. Fe do not believe it would have been di@cult to do so, considerin# that she had been a resident of this country for more than 9> years and had been absent for only about si2 years and that her return was imperative on account of a court action a#ainst her property which re7uired her personal presence. &ut even if this were impossible, oppositor $i%arro would not be left without any other remedy. Ee could have arran#ed for the ta"in# of her deposition in Eon#"on# by means of letters ro#atory under )ections 11 and 12, 5ule 29 of the 5evised 5ules of Court, in the same manner that, accordin# to him, he arran#ed their meetin# in the Crown Colony sometime in 1966.The une2plained failure of oppositor $i%arro to ta"e advanta#e of any of these remedies available to him heavily tilts the scale a#ainst the credibility of his claim.0pp. >-1, 5ollo.6These factual =ndin#s of the Court of (ppeals are bindin# on Ks. They may not be disturbed in this petition for review where only le#al 7uestions may be raised0)ec. 2, 5ule 9/6.FE151;