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;
