Civ Rev_final battle!

8/10/2019 Civ Rev_final battle!

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/civ-revfinal-battle 1/364

1

HILARIA BAGAYAS, Petitioner , v. ROGELIO BAGAYAS, FELICIDAD BAGAYAS,ROSALINA BAGAYAS, MICHAEL BAGAYAS, AND MARIEL BAGAYAS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Resolution2 dated January 6, 20093 andOrder 4dated Marh 16, 2009 of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of #a$ilin!, "arla, %ranh 6& 'R"#(whih dis$issed on the !round of res judicata the twin petitions of )ilaria %a!ayas 'petitioner(for a$end$ent of "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle '"#"( *os+ 3-6- and 3-6-&, do.eted as /andRe!istration #ase '/R#( *os+ 0&34 and 0&3-+

The Facts

On June 2&, 2004, petitioner filed a o$plaint- for annul$ent of sale and partition efore theR"#, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ 0442, lai$in! that Ro!elio, eliidad, Rosalina, Mihael, andMariel, all surna$ed %a!ayas 'respondents( intended to elude her fro$ inheritin! fro$ theestate of her le!ally adoptive parents, Mai$ino %a!ayas 'Mai$ino( and li!ia #le$ente'li!ia(, y falsifyin! a deed of asolute sale 'deed of asolute sale( purportedly eeuted y thedeeased spouses 'Mai$ino and li!ia( transferrin! two parels of land 'su5et lands(re!istered in their na$es to their iolo!ial hildren, respondent Ro!elio and Orlando%a!ayas6 'Orlando(+ aid deed, whih was supposedly eeuted on Otoer , 194,& ore thesi!nature of li!ia who ould not have affied her si!nature thereon as she had lon! een deadsine Au!ust 21, 191+9 %y virtue of the sa$e instru$ent, however, the %a!ayas rothers wereale to seure in their favor "#" *os+ 3-6-10 and 3-6-&11 over the su5et lands+

As a $atter of ourse, trial ensued on the $erits of the ase+ 7etitioner presented herself and fiveother witnesses to prove the alle!ations in her o$plaint+ Respondents li.ewise testified in theirdefense denyin! any .nowled!e of the alle!ed adoption of petitioner y Mai$ino and li!ia,and pointin! out that petitioner had not even lived with the fa$ily+12 urther$ore, Ro!eliolai$ed13 that after their parents had died, he and Orlando eeuted a dou$ent deno$inated as8eed of tra5udiial uession14 'deed of etra5udiial suession( over the su5et lands toeffet the transfer of titles thereof to their na$es+ %efore the deed of etra5udiial suessionould e re!istered, however, a deed of asolute sale transferrin! the su5et lands to the$ wasdisovered fro$ the old files of Mai$ino, whih they used y reason of onveniene: toa;uire title to the said lands+1-ralaw virtualaw lirary

<n a 8eision16 dated Marh 24, 200& dis$issin! the ase a ;uo, the R"# su$$ari=ed thethreshold issues for resolution, to wit>hanroles virtua1aw 1irary?1@ hether or not ?petitioner@ is an adopted hild of the late spouses Mai$ino %a!ayas andli!ia #le$enteB

?2@ hether or not the 8eed of Asolute ale dated Otoer , 194 is validB

?3@ hether or not plaintiff an as. for partition of the su5et properties assu$in! that she is anadopted hild of the late spouses Mai$ino %a!ayas and li!ia #le$ente and assu$in! further



2

that the su5et deed of sale is invalidB and

?4@ <s the prevailin! party entitled to da$a!esC1

ith respet to the first issue, the R"# delared petitioner to e an adopted hild of Mai$inoand li!ia on the stren!th of the order of adoption, whih it onsidered as $ore reliale than the

oral testi$onies of respondents denyin! the fat of adoption+1&

On the issue of the validity of the;uestioned deed of asolute sale, the R"# ruled that li!iaDs si!nature thereon was a $eresurplusa!e, as the su5et lands elon!ed elusively to Mai$ino who ould alienate the sa$ewithout the onsent of his wife+19ralaw virtualaw lirary

"he R"# further held that, even thou!h petitioner is an adopted hild, she ould not as. for partition of the su5et lands as she was not ale to prove any of the instanes that wouldinvalidate the deed of asolute sale+ Moreover, the ation for annul$ent of sale was i$proper asit onstituted a ollateral atta. on the title of Ro!elio and Orlando+20ralaw virtualaw lirary

<nsistin! that the su5et lands were on5u!al properties of Mai$ino and li!ia, petitioner filed

a $otion for reonsideration

21

fro$ the aforesaid 8eision, whih was denied y the R"# in aResolution22 dated June 1, 200& holdin! that while it $ay have o$$itted a $ista.e indelarin! the su5et lands as elusive properties of Mai$ino 'sine the defendants thereinalready ad$itted durin! the pretrial onferene that the su5et lands are the on5u!al propertiesof Mai$ino and li!ia(, the ation was nevertheless dis$issile on the !round that it was aollateral atta. on the title of Ro!elio and Orlando+23 #itin! the ase of Tapuroc v. Loquellano

Vda. de Mende,24 it oserved that the ation for the delaration of nullity of deed of sale is not thediret proeedin! re;uired y law to atta. a "orrens ertifiate of title+2-ralaw virtualaw lirary

*o appeal was ta.en fro$ the R"#Es 8eision dated Marh 24, 200& or the Resolution datedJune 1, 200&, therey allowin! the sa$e to lapse into finality+

use;uently, however, petitioner filed, on Au!ust 1, 200&, twin petitions26 efore the sa$e R"#,do.eted as /R# *os+ 0&34 and 0&3-, for the a$end$ent of "#" *os+ 3-6- and 3-6-& toinlude her na$e and those of her heirs and suessorsininterest as re!istered owners to theetent of onethird of the lands overed therein+2 "he petitions were anhored on etion 10& of7residential 8eree *o+ '78( 1-29,2& otherwise .nown as the 7roperty Re!istration 8eree,:whih provides as follows>hanroles virtua1aw 1iraryetion 10&+ Amendment and alteration of certificates+ *o erasure, alteration, or a$end$entshall e $ade upon the re!istration oo. after the entry of a ertifiate of title or of a$e$orandu$ thereon and the attestation of the sa$e e ? sic@ Re!ister of 8eeds, eept y orderof the proper #ourt of irst <nstane+ A re!istered owner ? sic@ of other person havin! an interestin re!istered property, or, in proper ases, the ? sic@ Re!ister of 8eeds with the approval of the#o$$issioner of /and Re!istration, $ay apply y petition to the ourt upon the !round that new inteest n!t a""eain# $"!n the ceti%icate ha&e aisen ! 'een ceate( B B or $"!nan) !the eas!na'*e #!$n(B and the ourt $ay hear and deter$ine the petition after notie toall parties in interest, and $ay order the entry or anellation of a new ertifiate, the entry oranellation of a $e$orandu$ upon a ertifiate, or !rant of any other relief upon suh ter$sand onditions, re;uirin! seurity or ond if neessary, as it $ay onsider properB 7rovided,however, "hat this setion shall not e onstrued to !ive the ourt authority to reopen the



3

5ud!$ent or deree of re!istration, and that nothin! shall e done or ordered y the ourt whihshall i$pair the title or other interest of a purhaser holdin! a ertifiate for value and in !oodfaith, or his heirs and assi!ns, without his or their written onsent+ +

' Emphasis supplied (

"o sustantiate her interest: in the su5et lands, petitioner apitali=ed on the findin! of theR"# in its 8eision dated Marh 24, 200& that she is the adopted hild of Mai$ino and li!ia,and that the si!nature of the latter in the deed of asolute sale transferrin! the su5et lands toRo!elio and Orlando was falsified+29ralaw virtualaw lirary

"he petitions were dis$issed30 y the R"#, however, on the !round of res judicata+ "he R"#ruled that the auses of ation in the two ases filed y petitioner are si$ilar in that the ulti$ateo5etive would e her inlusion as oowner of the su5et lands and, eventually, the partitionthereof+31 ine 5ud!$ent had already een rendered on the $atter, and petitioner had allowedthe sa$e to attain finality, the priniple of res judicata arred further liti!ation thereon+32ralawvirtualaw lirary

8issatisfied, petitioner ar!ued in her $otion for reonsideration33 that the dis$issal of #ivil #ase *o+ 0442 'for annul$ent of sale and partition( on the !round that it was a ollateral atta. onthe title of Ro!elio and Orlando did not a$ount to a 5ud!$ent on the $erits, thus, preludin! theappliaility of res judicata+34 "he $otion was resolved a!ainst petitioner, and the dis$issal of/R# *os+ 0&34 and 0&3- 'for a$end$ent of "#" *os+ 3-6- and 3-6-&( was upheld y theR"# in an Order 3- dated Marh 16, 2009+ )ene, the instant petition+

The Iss$e Be%!e the C!$t

"he essential issue in this ase is whether or not the dis$issal of the earlier o$plaint on the!round that it is in the nature of a ollateral atta. on the ertifiates of title onstitutes a ar to asuse;uent petition under etion 10& of 78 1-29+

The C!$t+s R$*in#

At the outset, it $ust e stressed that #ivil #ase *o+ 0442 was a o$plaint for annul$ent of saleand partition+ <n a o$plaint for partition, the plaintiff see.s, first , a delaration that he is a oowner of the su5et propertiesB and second , the onveyane of his lawful shares+ An ation for partition is at one an ation for delaration of oownership and for se!re!ation and onveyaneof a deter$inate portion of the properties involved+36 "he deter$ination, therefore, as to theeistene of oownership is neessary in the resolution of an ation for partition+ As held in thease of Municipality of Bian v. !arcia>3

The %ist "hase !% a "atiti!n an(! acc!$ntin# s$it is taen $" with the (ete.inati!n !%whethe ! n!t a c!-!wneshi" in %act e/ists, and a partition is proper 'i.e., not otherwisele!ally prosried( and $ay e $ade y voluntary a!ree$ent of all the parties interested in the property+ "his phase $ay end with a delaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partitioneither eause a oownership does not eist, or partition is le!ally prohiited+ <t $ay end, on theother hand, with an ad5ud!$ent that a oownership does in truth eist, partition is proper in the pre$ises and an aountin! of rents and profits reeived y the defendant fro$ the real estate in;uestion is in order+ <n the latter ase, the parties $ay, if they are ale to a!ree, $a.e partition



4

a$on! the$selves y proper instru$ents of onveyane, and the ourt shall onfir$ the partitionso a!reed upon+ <n either ase F i.e., either the ation is dis$issed or partition andGor aountin!is dereed F the order is a final one, and $ay e appealed y any party a!!rievedtherey+3& '$phasis suppliedB itations o$itted(<n dis$issin! #ivil #ase *o+ 0442, the R"# delared that petitioner ould not as. for the

partition of the su5et lands, even thou!h she is an adopted hild, eause she was not ale to prove any of the instanes that would invalidate the deed of asolute sale:39 purportedly eeuted y Mai$ino and li!ia+ "his onlusion a$e aout as a onse;uene of the R"#Es findin!that, sine the su5et lands elon!ed elusively to Mai$ino, there was no need to seure theonsent of his wife who was lon! dead efore the sale too. plae+ or this reason, the for!ery ofli!iaDs si!nature on the ;uestioned deed was held to e inonse;uential+ )owever, onreonsideration, the R"# delared that it o$$itted a $ista.e in holdin! the su5et lands aselusive properties of Mai$ino sine there was already an ad$ission ?y@ the defendantsdurin! the pretrial onferene that the su5et properties are the on5u!al properties of thespouses Mai$ino %a!ayas and li!ia #le$ente+:40 *onetheless, the R"# sustained its dis$issalof #ivil #ase *o+ 0442 on the !round that it onstituted a ollateral atta. upon the title of

Ro!elio and Orlando+<n Lac"ayan v. #amoy$ %r.41 '/aayan( whih is an ation for partition pre$ised on the eisteneor noneistene of oownership etween the parties, the #ourt ate!orially pronouned that aresolution on the issue of ownership does not su5et the "orrens title issued over the disputedrealties to a ollateral atta.+ <t $ust e orne in $ind that what annot e ollaterally atta.ed isthe ertifiate of title and not the title itself+ As pronouned in Lac"ayan>hanroles virtua1aw1irary"here is no dispute that a "orrens ertifiate of title annot e ollaterally atta.ed, ut that ruleis not $aterial to the ase at ar+ 0hat cann!t 'e c!**atea**) attace( is the ceti%icate !% tit*ean( n!t the tit*e itse*%1 "he ertifiate referred to is that dou$ent issued y the Re!ister of8eeds .nown as the "#"+ In c!ntast, the tit*e e%ee( t! ') *aw .eans !wneshi" which is,.!e !%ten than n!t, e"esente( ') that (!c$.ent1 7etitioner apparently onfuses title withthe ertifiate of title+ "itle as a onept of ownership should not e onfused with the ertifiateof title as evidene of suh ownership althou!h oth are interhan!ealy used+42 '$phasessupplied("hus, the R"# erroneously dis$issed petitionerEs petition for annul$ent of sale on the !roundthat it onstituted a ollateral atta. sine she was atually assailin! Ro!elio and OrlandoEs titleto the su5et lands and not any "orrens ertifiate of title over the sa$e+

%e that as it $ay, onsiderin! that petitioner failed to appeal fro$ the dis$issal of #ivil #ase *o+0442, the 5ud!$ent therein is final and $ay no lon!er e reviewed+

"he ruial issue, therefore, to e resolved is the propriety of the dis$issal of /R# *os+ 0&34and 0&3- on the !round of res judicata+

<t $ust e pointed out that /R# *os+ 0&34 and 0&3- prayin! that 5ud!$ent e rendereddiretin! theRe!istry



-

of 8eeds of "arla to inlude petitionerDs na$e, those of her heirs and suessorsininterest asre!istered owners to the etent of onethird of the lands overed y "#" *os+ 3-6- and3-6-&, were prediated on the theory43 that etion 10& of 78 1-29 is a $ode of diretlyatta.in! the ertifiates of title issued to the %a!ayas rothers+ On the ontrary, however, the#ourt oserves that the a$end$ent of "#" *os+ 3-6- and 3-6-& under etion 10& of 78

1-29 is atually not the diret atta. on said ertifiates of title onte$plated under etion4&44 of the sa$e law+ Jurisprudene instruts that an ation or proeedin! is dee$ed to e anatta. on a ertifiate of title when its o5etive is to nullify the sa$e, therey hallen!in! the 5ud!$ent pursuant to whih the ertifiate of title was dereed+4-#orollary thereto, it is a well.nown dotrine that the issue as to whether the ertifiate of title was proured y falsifiation or fraud an only e raised in an ation epressly instituted for suh purpose+ As epliatedin Bor"ajo v. &idden Vie' &omeo'ners$ (nc.>46

<t is a well.nown dotrine that the issue as to whether ?the ertifiate of@ title was proured yfalsifiation or fraud an only e raised in an ation epressly instituted for the purpose+ A"orrens title an e atta.ed only for fraud, within one year after the date of the issuane of thederee of re!istration+ uh atta. $ust e diret, and not y a ollateral proeedin!+ "he title

represented y the ertifiate annot e han!ed, altered, $odified, enlar!ed, or di$inished in aollateral proeedin!+ "he ertifiate of title serves as evidene of an indefeasile title to the property in favor of the person whose na$e appears therein+4 '#itations o$itted(#ontrary to the fore!oin! harateri=ation, etion 10& of 78 1-29 epliitly states that said provision shall not e onstrued to !ive the ourt authority to reopen the 5ud!$ent or deree ofre!istration+: <n fat, ased on settled 5urisprudene, etion 10& of 78 1-29 is li$ited only toseven instanes or situations, na$ely> 'a( when re!istered interests of any desription, whethervested, ontin!ent, epetant, or inhoate, have ter$inated and easedB '"( when new interestshave arisen or een reated whih do not appear upon the ertifiateB 'c( when any error,o$ission or $ista.e was $ade in enterin! a ertifiate or any $e$orandu$ thereon or on anydupliate ertifiateB 'd ( when the na$e of any person on the ertifiate has een han!edB 'e(when the re!istered owner has een $arried, or, re!istered as $arried, the $arria!e has eenter$inated and no ri!ht or interest of heirs or reditors will therey e affetedB ' f ( when aorporation, whih owned re!istered land and has een dissolved, has not onveyed the sa$ewithin three years after its dissolutionB and ' ) ( when there is reasonale !round for thea$end$ent or alteration of title+4& )ene, the sa$e annot e said to onstitute an atta. on aertifiate of title as defined y ase law+ "hat said, the #ourt proeeds to resolve the issue as towhether or not the dis$issal of petitionerEs twin petitions for the a$end$ent of "#" *os+3-6- and 3-6-& was proper+

7etitioner lai$s that the deter$ination of the R"# in #ivil #ase *o+ 0442 that she is anadopted hild and that the si!nature of her adoptive $other li!ia in the deed of asolute saletransferrin! the su5et land to Ro!elio and Orlando was for!ed a$ounts to a new interest thatshould e refleted on the ertifiates of title of said land, or provides a reasonale !round for thea$end$ent thereof+

"he #ourt disa!rees for two reasons>

First 1 hile the R"# $ay have $ade a definitive rulin! on petitionerDs adoption, as well as thefor!ery of li!iaDs si!nature on the ;uestioned deed, no partition was dereed, as the ation was,



6

in fat, dis$issed+ #onse;uently, the delaration that petitioner is the le!ally adopted hild ofMai$ino and li!ia did not a$ount to a delaration of heirship and oownership upon whih petitioner $ay institute an ation for the a$end$ent of the ertifiates of title overin! thesu5et land+ More i$portantly, the #ourt has onsistently ruled that the trial ourt annot $a.e adelaration of heirship in an ordinary ivil ation, for $atters relatin! to the ri!hts of filiation and

heirship $ust e ventilated in a speial proeedin! instituted preisely for the purpose ofdeter$inin! suh ri!hts+49ralaw virtualaw lirary

Second 1 7etitioner annot avail of the su$$ary proeedin!s under etion 10& of 78 1-29 eause the present ontroversy involves not the a$end$ent of the ertifiates of title issued infavor of Ro!elio and Orlando ut the partition of the estate of Mai$ino and li!ia who are othdeeased+ As held in 7hilippine Heterans %an. v+ Halen=uela,-0 the prevailin! rule is that proeedin!s under etion 10& of 78 1-29 are su$$ary in nature, onte$platin! orretions orinsertions of $ista.es whih are only lerial ut ertainly not ontroversial issues+-1 Reliefunder said le!al provision an only e !ranted if there is unani$ity a$on! the parties, or thatthere is no adverse lai$ or serious o5etion on the part of any party in interest+ "his is now the

ontrollin! preedent, and the #ourt should no lon!er di!ress fro$ suh rulin!+

-2

"herefore, petitioner $ay not avail of the re$edy provided under etion 10& of 78 1-29+

<n fine, while /R# *os+ 0&34 and 0&3- are tehnially not arred y the prior 5ud!$ent in#ivil #ase *o+ 0442 as they involve different auses of ation, the dis$issal of said petitions for the a$end$ent of "#" *os+ 3-6- and 3-6-& is nonetheless proper for reasons disussedaove+ "he re$edy then of petitioner is to institute intestate proeedin!s for the settle$ent of theestate of the deeased spouses Mai$ino and li!ia+

0HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED+hanrolesvirtualawlirary

SO ORDERED1

THIRD DI2ISION

3AIME ABALOS an( SPO4SES FELI5SALA6AR an( CONS4ELO SALA6AR,GLICERIO ABALOS, HEIRS OF A74ILINO

ABALOS, na.e*): SEG4NDA BA4TISTA,ROGELIO ABALOS, DOLORES A1ROSARIO, FELICIDAD ABALOS,ROBERTO ABALOS, 34ANITO ABALOS,TITA ABALOS, LITA A1 DELA CR46 ANDHEIRS OF A74ILINA ABALOS, na.e*):ART4RO BRA2O, P4RITA B1 MENDO6A,LO4RDES B1 AGANON, CONS4ELO B1

G1R1 N!1 89;;;

Pesent:

H/A#O, JR+, %.$ *hairperson,

7RA/"A,

A%A8,



SALA6AR, PRIMA B1 DELOS SANTOS,THELMA APOSTOL an( GLECERIOABALOS,

7etitioners,

versus

HEIRS OF 2ICENTE TORIO, na.e*):P4BLIO TORIO, LIBORIO TORIO,2ICTORINA TORIO, ANGEL TORIO,LADISLAO TORIO, PRIMO TORIO an(

NORBERTO TORIO,

Respondents+

M*8OIA, and

7R/A%R*A%, %%.

P!.$*#ate(:

8ee$er 14, 2011

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J 1:

%efore the #ourt is a petition for review on certiorari see.in! to set aside the 8eision1 datedJune 30, 2006 and Resolution2 dated *ove$er 13, 2006 y the #ourt of Appeals '#A( in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 91&&+ "he assailed 8eision reversed and set aside the 8eision3dated June 14,200- of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of /in!ayen, 7an!asinan, %ranh 69, while the;uestioned Resolution denied petitionersD Motion for Reonsideration+

"he fatual and proedural anteedents of the ase are as follows>

On July 24, 1996, herein respondents filed a #o$plaint for Reovery of 7ossession and 8a$a!eswith the Muniipal "rial #ourt 'M"#( of %in$aley, 7an!asinan a!ainst Jai$e Aalos 'Jai$e(and the spouses eli and #onsuelo ala=ar+ Respondents ontended that> they are the hildrenand heirs of one Hiente "orio 'Hiente( who died intestate on epte$er 11, 193B at the ti$e of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/175444.html#sdfootnote1sym








&

the death of Hiente, he left ehind a parel of land $easurin! 2,9-0 s;uare $eters, $ore or less,whih is loated at an <sidro *orte, %in$aley, 7an!asinanB durin! the lifeti$e of Hiente andthrou!h his tolerane, Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar were allowed to stay and uild theirrespetive houses on the su5et parel of landB even after the death of Hiente, hereinrespondents allowed Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar to re$ain on the disputed lotB however, in

19&-, respondents as.ed Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar to vaate the su5et lot, ut they refusedto heed the de$and of respondents forin! respondents to file the o$plaint+4

Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar filed their Answer with #ounterlai$, denyin! the $aterialalle!ations in the #o$plaint and assertin! in their peial and Affir$ative 8efenses that>respondentsD ause of ation is arred y a;uisitive presriptionB the ourt a quo has no 5urisdition over the nature of the ation and the persons of the defendantsB the asolute andelusive owners and possessors of the disputed lot are the deeased predeessors of defendantsBdefendants and their predeessorsininterest had een in atual, ontinuous and peaeful

possession of the su5et lot as owners sine ti$e i$$e$orialB defendants are faithfully andreli!iously payin! real property taes on the disputed lot as evidened y Real 7roperty "aReeiptsB they have ontinuously introdued i$prove$ents on the said land, suh as houses,trees and other .inds of orna$ental plants whih are in eistene up to the ti$e of the filin! oftheir Answer+-

On the sa$e date as the filin! of defendantsD Answer with #ounterlai$, herein petitioners filedtheir Answer in <ntervention with #ounterlai$+ /i.e the defendants, herein petitioners lai$edthat their predeessorsininterest were the asolute and elusive owners of the land in ;uestionB

that petitioners and their predeessors had een in possession of the su5et lot sine ti$ei$$e$orial up to the presentB they have paid real property taes and introdued i$prove$entsthereon+6

After the issues were 5oined, trial ensued+

On 8ee$er 10, 2003, the M"# issued a 8eision, the dispositive portion of whih reads as

follows>

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin! onsideration?s@, the #ourt ad5ud!ed thease in favor of the plaintiffs and a!ainst the defendants and defendantsintervenors are ordered to turn over the land in ;uestion to the plaintiffs '/ot *os+&69 and &0, #ad+ 468+ %in$aley #adastre loated in %r!y+ an <sidro *orte,









9

%in$aley, 7an!asinan with an area of 2,9-0 s;+ $+, $ore or less, ounded anddesried in para!raph 3 of the #o$plaint?(@B orderin! the defendants anddefendantsintervenors to re$ove their respetive houses standin! on the land indisputeB further orderin! the defendants and defendantsintervenors, either sin!lyor 5ointly to pay the plaintiffs land rent in the a$ount of 712,000+00 per year to e

re.oned startin! the year 1996 until defendants and defendantsintervenors willfinally vaate the pre$isesB further$ore, defendants and defendantsintervenorsare also ordered to pay, either sin!ly or 5ointly, the a$ount of 710,000+00 as and y way of attorneyDs fees and osts of suit+

O OR8R8+

Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar appealed the 8eision of the M"# with the R"# of /in!ayen,7an!asinan+& )erein petitioners, who were intervenors, did not file an appeal+

<n its 8eision dated June 14, 200-, the R"# ruled in favor of Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar,holdin! that they have a;uired the su5et property throu!h presription+ Aordin!ly, the R"#dis$issed herein respondentsD o$plaint+

A!!rieved, herein respondents filed a petition for review with the #A assailin! the 8eision ofthe R"#+

On June 30, 2006, the #A pro$ul!ated its ;uestioned 8eision, the dispositive portion of whihreads, thus>

)ROR, the petition is RA*"8+ "he 8eision dated June 14, 200- ofthe Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 69, /in!ayen, 7an!asinan is herey RHR8and " A<8+ <n its stead, a new one is entered reinstatin! the 8eision dated8ee$er 10, 2003 of the Muniipal "rial #ourt of %in$aley, 7an!asinan+

O OR8R8+9

Jai$e and the pouses ala=ar filed a Motion for Reonsideration, ut the sa$e was denied ythe #A in its Resolution dated *ove$er 13, 2006+










10

)ene, the instant petition ased on a sole assi!n$ent of error, to wit>

") #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* *O" A77R#<A"<* ")A" ")7"<"<O*R )R<* AR *O ") A%O/K" A*8 L#/K<HO*R O ") /A*8 <* K"<O* %N H<R"K O A#K<<"<H7R#R<7"<O*+10

"he $ain issue raised y petitioners is whether they and their predeessorsininterest possessedthe disputed lot in the onept of an owner, or whether their possession is y $ere tolerane ofrespondents and their predeessorsininterest+ #orollarily, petitioners lai$ that the dueeeution and authentiity of the deed of sale upon whih respondentsD predeessorsininterestderived their ownership were not proven durin! trial+

"he petition la.s $erit+

7reli$inarily, the #ourt a!rees with the oservation of respondents that so$e of the petitioners inthe instant petition were the intervenors11 when the ase was filed with the M"#+ Reords wouldshow that they did not appeal the 8eision of the M"#+12 "he settled rule is that failure to perfetan appeal renders the 5ud!$ent final and eeutory+13 )ene, insofar as the intervenors in theM"# are onerned, the 5ud!$ent of the M"# had already eo$e final and eeutory+

<t also ears to point out that the $ain issue raised in the instant petition, whih is the harater

or nature of petitionersD possession of the su5et parel of land, is fatual in nature+

ettled is the rule that ;uestions of fat are not reviewale in petitions for reviewon certiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt+14etion 1 of Rule 4- states that petitions forreview on certiorari shall raise only ;uestions of law whih $ust e distintly set forth+:

8outless, the issue of whether petitioners possess the su5et property as owners, or whetherthey oupy the sa$e y $ere tolerane of respondents, is a ;uestion of fat+ "hus, it is notreviewale+

*onetheless, the #ourt has, at ti$es, allowed eeptions fro$ the aove$entioned restrition+A$on! the reo!ni=ed eeptions are the followin!>

'a( hen the findin!s are !rounded entirely on speulation, sur$ises, oron5eturesB

'"( hen the inferene $ade is $anifestly $ista.en, asurd, or i$possileB













11

'c( hen there is !rave ause of disretionB

'd ( hen the 5ud!$ent is ased on a $isapprehension of fatsB

'e( hen the findin!s of fats are onflitin!B

' f ( hen in $a.in! its findin!s the #A went eyond the issues of the ase, or its

findin!s are ontrary to the ad$issions of oth the appellant and the appelleeB' ) ( hen the #AEs findin!s are ontrary to those y the trial ourtB

'h( hen the findin!s are onlusions without itation of speifi evidene onwhih they are asedB

'i( hen the fats set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionerEs $ain andreply riefs are not disputed y the respondentB

' j( hen the findin!s of fat are pre$ised on the supposed asene of evideneand ontradited y the evidene on reordB or

'+ ( hen the #A $anifestly overloo.ed ertain relevant fats not disputed y the parties, whih, if properly onsidered, would 5ustify a different onlusion+1-

<n the present ase, the findin!s of fat of the M"# and the #A are in onflit with those of theR"#+

After a review of the reords, however, the #ourt finds that the petition $ust fail as it finds noerror in the findin!s of fat and onlusions of law of the #A and the M"#+

7etitioners lai$ that they have a;uired ownership over the disputed lot throu!h ordinary

a;uisitive presription+A;uisitive presription of do$inion and other real ri!hts $ay e ordinary oretraordinary+16 Ordinary a;uisitive presription re;uires possession in !ood faith and with 5usttitle for ten '10( years+1 ithout !ood faith and 5ust title, a;uisitive presription an only eetraordinary in harater whih re;uires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty '30( years+1&

7ossession in !ood faith: onsists in the reasonale elief that the person fro$ who$ the thin!is reeived has een the owner thereof, and ould trans$it his ownership+19 "here is 5ust title:when the adverse lai$ant a$e into possession of the property throu!h one of the $odesreo!ni=ed y law for the a;uisition of ownership or other real ri!hts, ut the !rantor was not

the owner or ould not trans$it any ri!ht+

20

<n the instant ase, it is lear that durin! their possession of the property in ;uestion, petitionersa.nowled!ed ownership thereof y the i$$ediate predeessorininterest of respondents+ "hisis learly shown y the "a 8elaration in the na$e of Jai$e for the year 19&4 wherein itontains a state$ent ad$ittin! that Jai$eDs house was uilt on the land of Hiente, respondentsDi$$ediate predeessorininterest+21 7etitioners never disputed suh an a.nowled!$ent+ "hus,havin! .nowled!e that they nor their predeessorsininterest are not the owners of the disputed

















12

lot, petitionersD possession ould not e dee$ed as possession in !ood faith as to enale the$ toa;uire the su5et land y ordinary presription+ <n this respet, the #ourt a!rees with the #Athat petitionersD possession of the lot in ;uestion was y $ere tolerane of respondents and their predeessorsininterest+ Ats of possessory harater eeuted due to liense or y $eretolerane of the owner are inade;uate for purposes of a;uisitive presription+22 7ossession, to

onstitute the foundation of a presriptive ri!ht, $ust e en concepto de dueo, or, to use theo$$on law e;uivalent of the ter$, that possession should e adverse, if not, suh possessoryats, no $atter how lon!, do not start the runnin! of the period of presription+23

Moreover, the #A orretly held that even if the harater of petitionersD possession of the su5et property had eo$e adverse, as evidened y their delaration of the sa$e for ta purposesunder the na$es of their predeessorsininterest, their possession still falls short of the re;uired period of thirty '30( years in ases of etraordinary a;uisitive presription+ Reords show thatthe earliest "a 8elaration in the na$e of petitioners was in 194+ Re.oned fro$ suh date, thethirtyyear period was o$pleted in 2004+ )owever, herein respondentsD o$plaint was filed in1996, effetively interruptin! petitionersD possession upon servie of su$$ons on the$+24"hus, petitionersE possession also did not ripen into ownership, eause they failed to $eet the re;uiredstatutory period of etraordinary presription+

"his #ourt has held that the evidene relative to the possession upon whih the alle!ed presription is ased, $ust e lear, o$plete and onlusive in order to estalish the presription+2- <n the present ase, the #ourt finds no error on the part of the #A in holdin! that petitioners failed to present o$petent evidene to prove their alle!ed !ood faith in neither possessin! the su5et lot nor their adverse lai$ thereon+ <nstead, the reords would show that petitionersD possession was y $ere tolerane of respondents and their predeessorsininterest+

inally, as to the issue of whether the due eeution and authentiity of the deed of sale uponwhih respondents anhor their ownership were not proven, the #ourt notes that petitioners didnot raise this $atter in their Answer as well as in their 7re"rial %rief+ <t was only in their#o$$ent to respondentsD 7etition for Review filed with the #A that they raised this issue+ ettledis the rule that points of law, theories, issues, and ar!u$ents not ade;uately rou!ht to theattention of the trial ourt need not e, and ordinarily will not e, onsidered y a reviewin!ourt+26 "hey annot e raised for the first ti$e on appeal+ "o allow this would e offensive to the asi rules of fair play, 5ustie and due proess+2

ven !rantin! that the issue of due eeution and authentiity was properly raised, the #ourtfinds no o!ent reason to depart fro$ the findin!s of the #A, to wit>

%ased on the fore!oin!, respondents ?Jai$e Aalos and the pouses eli and#onsuelo ala=ar@ have not inherited the disputed land eause the sa$e wasshown to have already een validly sold to Maros "orio, who, thereupon,assi!ned the sa$e to his son Hiente, the father of petitioners ?herein

















13

respondents@+ A valid sale was a$ply estalished and the said validity susists eause the deed evidenin! the sa$e was duly notari=ed+

"here is no dout that the deed of sale was duly a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli+ As a notari=ed dou$ent, it has in its favor the presu$ption of re!ularityand it arries the evidentiary wei!ht onferred upon it with respet to its dueeeution+ <t is ad$issile in evidene without further proof of its authentiity andis entitled to full faith and redit upon its fae+2&

<ndeed, settled is the rule in our 5urisdition that a notari=ed dou$ent has in its favor the presu$ption of re!ularity, and to overo$e the sa$e, there $ust e evidene that is lear,onvinin! and $ore than $erely preponderantB otherwise, the dou$ent should e upheld+29<nthe instant ase, petitionersD are denials will not suffie to overo$e the presu$ption ofre!ularity of the assailed deed of sale+

)ROR, the petition is DENIED+ "he assailed 8eision and Resolution of the #ourt ofAppeals in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 91&& areAFFIRMED+

SO ORDERED+







14

G1R1 N!1 8<=;;> Mach ?, =@8

REP4BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, 7etitioner,vs+MARTIN T1 NG, Respondent+

8 # < < O *

SERENO, CJ:

%efore this #ourt is a Rule 4- 7etition, see.in! a review of the 2- Marh 200& 8eision1

of the#ourt of Appeals '#A( in #A+R+ #H *o+ 01143, whih affir$ed the 23 Otoer 2002A$ended 8eision2 of the Muniipal "rial #ourt 'M"#(, #onsolaion, #eu, in /R #ase *o+ *12, /RA Reord *o+ *63+ "he M"# ordered the re!istration and onfir$ation of title overfive parels of land lai$ed y respondent Martin "+ *!+

"he anteedent fats are as follows>3+

On January 199, respondent filed an appliation for the ori!inal re!istration of title over /ot *os+ 9663, 9666, 966&, 9690 and 9691, #A8 -4-8 '*ew( situated at #ansa!a, #onsolaion,#eu+ )e lai$ed ownership of these five parels of land with a total area of 1,&41 s;uare

$eters+ )is lai$ was ased on his purhase thereof fro$ the vendors, who had possessed therealties for $ore than thirty '30( years+

8urin! the reeption of evidene y the #ler. of #ourt, respondent furnished the followin! piees of dou$entary evidene to estalish his purhase of the lots> '1( 8eed of Asolute ale etween hi$ and usta;uio "ionB4 '2( tra5udiial ettle$ent of state ale etween hi$and Olivia iad vda+ de OuanoB- '3( 8eed of 8efinite ale y duardo and Hir!inia #apaoB6 '4(8eed of Asolute ale etween hi$ and Hitoria #apadisoB and '-( A!ree$ent of 7artition

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_182449_2013.html#fnt1

















1-

etween hi$ and Hitoria #apadiso+& <n addition, he attahed the nu$erous vinta!e "a8elarations9 datin! as far a. as 194&+10 "hese "a 8elarations were either under the na$esof the vendors, the previous transferors and the ori!inal owners of the lots+ "he re!ularity anddue eeution of these ontrats, "a 8elarations and realty pay$ents were never assailed y petitioner+

Respondent also su$itted the followin! dou$ents to prove his ownership> '1( the 8epart$entof nviron$ent and *atural Resoures '8*R( #ertifiation showin! that the su5et lots werewithin the alienale and disposale lands of the puli do$ainB 11 '2( the 8*R #ertifiationstatin! that the lots are not overed y any other susistin! puli land appliationB12 and '3( theori!inal train! loth plan overin! the properties+13 i$ilarly, these piees of evidene werenever assailed y petitioner+

As for testi$onial evidene, respondent narrated that these lots were purhased fro$ theafore$entioned vendees and predeessorsininterest, who had een in possession of the lots for$ore than thirty '30( years+ <n support of his lai$s, he further presented the testi$ony of the

yearold Josefa *+ at 'at(, who lived near the su5et lots+

Aordin! to at, she $et respondent in 1993, when he rou!ht with hi$ wor.ers assi!ned to plant trees and to fene the property+ ine then, she reounted that she saw hi$ on the su5etlots for several ti$es+

urther, she stated that she .new the ori!inal owners and vendees of the lots, as they were hernei!hors and lose friends+ he also reounted that the properties were either inherited ortransferred y the past owners to the vendors, who in turn sold the$ to Martin "+ *!B and thatthere is no other person who laid lai$ over the lots+ he ended her testi$ony y assertin! withertainty that the ownership and possession y respondent and his predeessorsininterest were

puli, peaeful, open, ontinuous, and in the onept of an owner+After the presentation of evidene, the M"# rendered its 23 Otoer 2002 8eision onfir$in!respondentEs title to the su5et lots and orderin! the re!istration of the title in his na$e+

7etitioner, as represented y the Offie of the oliitor eneral 'O(, appealed to the #A+ <n alone assi!n$ent of error, it averred that the trial ourt erred in !rantin! *!Es appliation, sinerespondent had failed to o$ply with the re;uire$ents for the ori!inal re!istration of title+

7etitioner ontended that respondent had failed to sustantiate his alle!ed possession andoupation+ <t atta.ed atEs testi$ony as full of $otherhood state$ents, whih ould not e

!iven wei!ht y the ourts+ <n addition, it asserted that the "a 8elarations attahed to theappliation $erely provided an indiia of possession, and not a onlusive proof of ownership+

"he #A affir$ed the fatual findin!s of the M"#+ <t appreiated the state$ent of Josefa at, wholived near the su5et parels of land, that she .new their previous owners as her nei!hors andlose a;uaintanes+ Aordin! to the appellate ourt, this testi$ony was even orroorated y
















16

"a 8elarations and realty ta pay$ents, whih alto!ether suffiiently estalished the possession of the realties y respondentEs predeessorsininterest+14 )ene, the #A held>1-

#onsiderin! that the possession of the su5et parels of land y the appliantappellee ta.ed tothat of his predeessorsininterest, overed a period of fortynine '49( years to the ti$e of the

filin! of the appliation for re!istration in 199, we hold that appliantappellee has a;uired ani$perfet title thereto whih $ay e su5et to onfir$ation and rou!ht under the operation ofthe "orrens syste$+

)ROR , the assailed A$ended 8eision dated Otoer 23, 2002 of the M"##onsolaion, #eu, is A<RM8+

A!!rieved, petitioner reiterates its lone assi!n$ent of error efore this #ourt>16 that the #A!ravely erred in affir$in! the trial ourtEs appreiation of respondentEs lai$ of ownership as onethat had een estalished y virtue of an open, ontinuous, elusive and notorious possession of the su5et lots+

RK/<* O ") #OKR"

<n a 5udiial onfir$ation of title under ori!inal re!istration proeedin!s, appliants $ay otainthe re!istration of title to land upon a showin! that they or their predeessorsininterest have een in '1( open, ontinuous, elusive, and notorious possession and oupation of '2(a!riultural lands of the puli do$ain, '3( under a ona fide lai$ of a;uisition or ownership,'4( for at least 30 years i$$ediately preedin! the filin! of the appliation for onfir$ation oftitle, eept when prevented y war or fore $a5eure+1 "he urden of proof in land re!istrationases rests on appliants who $ust show lear, positive and onvinin! evidene that theiralle!ed possession and oupation were of the nature and duration re;uired y law+1&

<n this ase, what is ;uestioned is the suffiieny of the evidene su$itted to prove that the possession y respondentEs predeessorsininterest was of the nature re;uired y the 7uli/and At and the 7roperty Re!istration 8eree+ peifially, respondent $ust prove that his predeessorsininterest openly, ontinuously, elusively, and notoriously possessed the realties+

7ossession is a;uired in any of the followin! ways> '1( y the $aterial oupation of the thin!B'2( y the eerise of a ri!htB '3( y the fat that the property is su5et to the ation of our willBand '4( y the proper ats and le!al for$alities estalished for a;uirin! the ri!ht+19 <n 8iretorof /ands v+ <A#,20 we eplained the nature of the possession re;uired to onfir$ oneEs title asfollows>

7ossession is open when it is patent, visile, apparent, notorious and not landestine+ <t isontinuous when uninterrupted, unro.en and not inter$ittent or oasionalB elusive when theadverse possessor an show elusive do$inion over the land and an appropriation of it to hisown use and enefitB and notorious when it is so onspiuous that it is !enerally .nown andtal.ed of y the puli or the people in the nei!horhood+ '$phasis supplied(

















1

<n perusin! the evidene su$itted y respondent, petitioner lai$s21 that the for$er $erely presented '1( a witnessE testi$ony full of $otherhood state$ents, and '2( "a 8elarations andrealty pay$ents that do not onlusively prove ownership+ "hus, the Repuli lai$s that theevidene of possession is insuffiient+

)owever, as found y the ourts a ;uo, it is lear fro$ the reords that respondent presentedseveral piees of dou$entary evidene to prove that he openly possessed the properties+ )esu$itted notari=ed 8eeds of ale, A!ree$ents of 7artition and tra5udiial ettle$ent ofstate and ale to show the a;uisition of the lands fro$ his predeessorsininterest+22

Moreover, he presented "a 8elarations and realty pay$ents showin! that he and his predeessorsininterest had een payin! real estate taes sine 194& until the ineption of thisase in 199B hene, for $ore than 30 years+ )e also su$itted the ori!inal train! loth plan inwhih the advane survey plan shows that the su5et lots had previously een under the na$esof the vendors, the previous transferors, and the ori!inal owners of the lots+23

As we have ruled in Repuli v+ ta+ Ana%ur!os,24

while ta delarations and realty ta pay$ents on property are not onlusive evidene of ownership, they are nevertheless !oodindiia of possession in the onept of owner, for no one in the ri!ht fra$e of $ind would e payin! taes for a property that is not in oneEs atual or at least onstrutive possession+

"he voluntary delaration of a piee of property for taation purposes is an announe$ent ofoneEs lai$ a!ainst the tate and all other interested parties+2- <n fat, these dou$ents alreadyonstitute pri$a faie evidene of possession+26 Moreover, if the holders of the land present adeed of onveyane in their favor fro$ its for$er owner to support their lai$ of ownership, thedelaration of ownership and ta reeipts relative to the property $ay e used to prove their !oodfaith in oupyin! and possessin! it+2 Additionally, when onsidered with atual possession of

the property, ta reeipts onstitute evidene of !reat value in support of the lai$ of title ofownership y presription+2&

As for testi$onial evidene, althou!h it is unfortunate that respondentEs ounsel failed to as. atspeifi ;uestions as to the fat of possession, it is evident that respondentEs predeessorsininterest were the witnessE lon!ti$e nei!hors and lose friends who lived near the su5et lots+/o!ially, it an e inferred that respondentEs predeessorsininterest $aterially oupied andontinuously possessed the ad5oinin! property+ )er testi$ony reads thus>29

> 8o you .now a ertain *e$esio "ionC

A> Nes, sir+> hy do you .now hi$C

A> %eause he was $y lose nei!hor+

> <n relation to /ot 9663 one of the su5et lots, who is heC






















1&

A> )e was the ori!inal owner of /ot *o+ 9663+

> here is *e$esio "ion nowC

A> )e is already dead+

> After *e$esio "ion died, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9663C

A> <t was his son, usta;uio "ion, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9663 after he inherited thesa$e fro$ *e$esio "ion+

> ro$ his son, usta;uio "ion, where did the property !oC

A> <t was owned and possessed y the appliant, Martin "+ *!, after the latter ou!ht it fro$usta;uio "ion+

> 8o you .now a ertain 8ie!o %alaaC

A> Nes, sir+

> hy do you .now hi$C

A> e were very lose nei!hors efore+

> <n relation to /ot *o+ 9666, one of the su5et lots, who is heC


> here is 8ie!o %alaa nowC


> ro$ 8ie!o %alaa, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9666C

A> <t was the spouses Rufino uano and Oliva iad who owned and possessed the sa$e afterthey ou!ht it fro$ 8ie!o %alaa+

> )ow did you .now aout this fatC

A> As < have said, 8ie!o %alaa was $y lose nei!hor and < was present when the sale was$ade+

> ro$ the spouses Rufino uano and Oliva iad, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9666C

A> <t was the appliant, Martin "+ *!, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9666 after the latter ou!ht it fro$ the spouses Rufino uano and Oliva iad+



19

> 8o you .now a ertain /ierato AlivioC

A> Nes, sir+


A> )e was $y nei!hor and a very lose friend of $ine+

> <n relation to /ot *o+ 966&, one of the su5et lots, who is heC

A> )e was the ori!inal owner of /ot *o+ 966&+

> here is /ierato Alivio nowC


> After /ierato Alivio died, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 966&C

A> <t was owned and possessed y his wife, #ipriana )erieto+

> ro$ #ipriana )erieto, where did /ot *o+ 966& !oC

A> <t was owned and possessed y his son, <reneo Alivio, who, in turn, sold the sa$e to thespouses duardo #apao and Hir!inia Alivio+

> ro$ the spouses duardo #apao and Hir!inia Alivio, who owned and possessed /ot *o+966&C

A> <t was owned and possessed y the appliant, Martin "+ *!, after the latter purhased thesa$e fro$ the spouses duardo #apao and Hir!inia Alivio+

> hy do you .now all these fatsC

A> %eause < a$ livin! near the land and that the previous owners of the said land were $ynei!hor and lose friends+

> 8o you .now a ertain Julian #apadisoC

A> Nes, sir+


A> )e was $y nei!hor and a very lose friend+

> here is Julian #apadiso nowC



20


> <n relation to /ot *o+ 9690, one of the su5et lots, who is heC


> After Julian #apadiso died, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9690C

A> <t was owned and possessed y the spouses usti;uiano *ain!ue and Hitoria #apadiso afterthe latter ou!ht it fro$ Julian #apadiso+

> ro$ the spouses usti;uiano *ain!ue and Hitoria #apadiso, where did the property !oC

A> <t was owned and possessed y the appliant, Martin "+ *!, after the latter ou!ht it fro$ thespouses usti;uiano *ain!ue and Hitoria #apadiso+

> hy do you .now all aout these fatsC

A> As < have said, < a$ livin! near the land and the ori!inal and previous owners of the said lotare $y nei!hors and lose friends+

> 8o you .now a ertain aturnino #apadisoC

A> Nes, sir+


A> )e was $y nei!hor+

> here is aturnino #apadiso nowC


> <n relation to /ot *o+ 9691 one of the su5et lots, who is heC

A> )e was the ori!inal owner of /ot *o+9691+

> ro$ aturnino #apadiso, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9691C

A> <t was owned and possessed y his dau!hter, Hitoria #apadiso after the latter inherited thesa$e fro$ his father, aturnino #apadiso+

> After Hitoria #apadiso, who owned and possessed /ot *o+ 9691C

A> <t was owned and possessed y the appliant, Martin "+ *! after the latter purhased the sa$efro$ Hitoria #apadiso+



21

> hat an you say then of the ownership and possession of the appliant over the su5et lotsC

A> < an say with ertainty that the ownership and possession of the appliant and that of his predeessorsininterest over the su5et lots is puli, peaeful, open, ontinuous and in oneptof owners+

Atty+ eno>

"hat is all for the witness your )onor+

"he said witness further narrated that the lots were transferred either throu!h a ontrat of sale or thou!h suession, fro$ the ori!inal owners to the vendors who later ea$e respondentEs predeessorsininterest+ "a.en to!ether, these ats of transferrin! the property evined theeerise of their ownership ri!hts over the lots+

ar fro$ !ivin! a $otherhood state$ent, at also asserted with ertainty that no other personlaid lai$ to the lots+ "his fat was orroorated y the 8*R #ertifiation that the lots were notovered y any other susistin! puli land appliation+ Aordin!ly, respondent supplied proofof his elusive possession of the realties+

"herefore, !iven these piees of dou$entary evidene F onsistin! of $uni$ents of title, tadelarations and realty pay$ents whih were not disputed y petitionerB and the testi$ony asre!ards the atual possession for $ore than 30 years y respondentEs predeessorsininterest Fthe O inaurately portrayed respondent as $erely $a.in! !eneral su$issions in provin! hislai$s+ Rather, as found y the ourts a ;uo, he a$ply estalished that he and his predeessors

ininterest owned and possessed the su5et lots openly, ontinuously, elusively, andnotoriously, as re;uired y our re!istration laws+,-'phi,

or these reasons, we see no reason to reverse the on!ruent fatual findin!s of the M"# and the#A+

<* H< ")RO, the assailed 2- Marh 200& 8eision of the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+#H *o+ 01143 is herey A<RM8+

O OR8R8+



22

CRISPIN DICHOSO, 3R1,

E2ELYN DICHOSO 2ALDE6, an( ROSEMARIEDICHOSO PE BENITO,

7etitioners,

versus

PATROCINIO L1 MARCOS,

Respondent+

G1R1 N!1 8<@=<=

7resent>

#AR7<O, % +,

*hairperson$

*A#)KRA,

7RA/"A,

A%A8, and

M*8OIA, %% + 7ro$ul!ated>

April 11, 2011

DECISION

NACH4RA, J 1:

"his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt, see.in! toreverse and set aside the #ourt of Appeals '#A( 8eision?1@ dated January 31, 200 andResolution?2@ dated Otoer 23, 200 in #A+R+ #H *o+ &-41+ "he assailed 8eision reversedand set aside the July 1-, 200- deision?3@ of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of /aoa! #ity,%ranh 14, in #ivil #ase *o+ 12-&114B while the assailed Resolution denied the Motion for Reonsideration filed y petitioners #rispin 8ihoso, Jr+, velyn 8ihoso Halde=, and Rose$arie8ihoso 7e %enito+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/april2011/180282.htm#_ftn1








23

"he fats of the ase, as ulled fro$ the reords, are as follows>

On Au!ust 2, 2002, petitioners filed a #o$plaint for ase$ent of Ri!ht of ay?4@ a!ainstrespondent 7atroinio /+ Maros+ <n their o$plaint, petitioners alle!ed that they are the owners

of /ot *o+ 21--3 of the #adastral urvey of /aoa! #ity, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ "31219B while respondent is the owner of /ot *o+ 1+ As petitioners had no aess to a puli road to and fro$ their property, they lai$ed to have used a portion of /ot *o+ 1 inaessin! the road sine 190+ Respondent, however, lo.ed the passa!eway with piles of sand+"hou!h petitioners have een !ranted another passa!eway y the spouses %en5a$in and ylviaAre 'pouses Are(, the owners of another ad5aent lot, desi!nated as /ot *o+ 21--9%, thefor$er instituted the o$plaint efore the R"# and prayed that>

)ROR, it is respetfully prayed of this )onorale #ourt that

5ud!$ent e rendered>

1+ rantin! the plaintiffsE ri!ht of way over an area of -4 s;uare $eters$ore or less of /ot 01 y payin! the defendant the a$ount of 7-4,000+00, andthat the ri!ht e annotated on defendantEs titleB

2+ Orderin! the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the su$ of 730,000+00 asda$a!es for attorneyEs fees and osts of suitB

Other reliefs, 5ust and e;uitale under the pre$ises, are li.ewise sou!ht+?-@

<nstead of filin! an Answer, respondent $oved ?6@ for the dis$issal of the o$plaint on the!round of la. of ause of ation and nono$pliane with the re;uisite ertifiate of nonforu$shoppin!+

8urin! the hearin! on respondentEs $otion to dis$iss, the parties a!reed that an oular inspetion of the su5et properties e onduted+ After the inspetion, the R"# direted the parties to su$it their respetive position papers+









24

<n a resolution?@ dated May 12, 2004, the R"# denied respondentEs $otion to dis$iss andre;uired the latter to answer petitionersE o$plaint+

<n his Answer,?&@ respondent denied that he allowed anyody to use /ot *o+ 1 as

passa!eway+ )e stated that petitionersE lai$ of ri!ht of way is only due to epedieny and notneessity+ )e also $aintained that there is an eistin! ease$ent of ri!ht of way availale to petitioners !ranted y the pouses Are+ "hus, there is no need to estalish another ease$entover respondentEs property+

<n an Order ?9@ dated July 6, 200-, the R"# delared that respondentEs answer failed totender an issue, and opted to render 5ud!$ent on the pleadin!s and thus dee$ed the asesu$itted for deision+

On July 1-, 200-, the R"# rendered a deision?10@ in favor of petitioners, the dispositive portion of whih reads, as follows>

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin!, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered, asfollows>

1+ !rantin! plaintiffs a ri!ht of way over an area of -4 s;uare $eters

$ore or less over /ot 01 owned y defendant 7atroinio /+ ?Maros@appearin! in the /aoa! #ity AssessorEs s.eth 'Anne A( found on pa!e 2& of the reord of the aseB

2+ orderin! plaintiffs to pay defendant the a$ount of 7-4,000+00 as proper inde$nityB and

3+ orderin! the Re!ister of 8eeds of /aoa! #ity to duly annotate thisri!ht of way on defendantEs title to the property+

O OR8R8+?11@














2-

"he R"# found that petitioners ade;uately estalished the re;uisites to 5ustify anease$ent of ri!ht of way in aordane with Artiles 649 and 6-0 of the #ivil #ode+ "he trialourt li.ewise delared petitioners in !ood faith as they epressed their willin!ness to pay proper inde$nity+?12@

On appeal, the #A reversed and set aside the R"# deision and onse;uently dis$issed petitionersE o$plaint+ #onsiderin! that a ri!ht of way had already een !ranted y the 'other(servient estate, desi!nated as /ot *o+ 21--9% and owned y the pouses Are, the appellateourt onluded that there is no need to estalish an ease$ent over respondentEs property+ "he#A eplained that, while the alternative route throu!h the property of the pouses Are is lon!er and iruitous, said aess road is ade;uate+ <t e$phasi=ed that the onveniene of the do$inantestate is never the !au!e for the !rant of o$pulsory ri!ht of way+ "hus, the openin! of another passa!eway is un5ustified+?13@

A!!rieved, petitioners o$e efore this #ourt, raisin! the followin! issues>

<+

#A* 7"<"<O*R % *"<"/8 "O A RA*" O /A/AM*" O R<)" O AN ROM ")<R /A*8/O#P8 7RO7R"N")ROK) ") 7RO7R"N O 7R<HA" R7O*8*" )<#) < "))OR"" ROK" <* O<* "O A*8 ROM ")<R 7RO7R"N "O

") 7K%/<# "R" A*8 )R ")N K8 "O 7AC

<<+

#A* R7O*8*" RK "O RA*" A R<)" O AN O* ")8<R8 7AAAN )<#) ) #/O8 <*# ")R <A*O")R 7AAAN )<#) < MOR #<R#K<"OK A*8%KR8*OM A*8 < %/A"8/N OR8 K*"O 7"<"<O*RC

<<<+

#A* 7"<"<O*R % #OM7//8 "O AHA</ O A /A/AM*" O R<)" O AN ")ROK) ") 7RO7R"N O AR#)<#) A %/A"8/N OR8 %K" )A %* OR#/O8 %N








26

") %A*P A*8 )R<* ") /A""R < *O" A 7AR"N "O ") #AC?14@

"he petition is without $erit+

<t is already a wellsettled rule that the 5urisdition of this #ourt in ases rou!ht efore itfro$ the #A y virtue of Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt is li$ited to reviewin! errors of law+indin!s of fat of the #A are onlusive upon this #ourt+ "here are, however, reo!ni=edeeptions to the fore!oin! rule, na$ely>

'1( when the findin!s are !rounded entirely on speulation, sur$ises, or

on5eturesB

'2( when the inferene $ade is $anifestly $ista.en, asurd, or

i$possileB

'3( when there is !rave ause of disretionB

'4( when the 5ud!$ent is ased on a $isapprehension of fatsB

'-( when the findin!s of fat are onflitin!B

'6( when, in $a.in! its findin!s, the #ourt of Appeals went eyond theissues of the ase, or its findin!s are ontrary to the ad$issions of oth the

appellant and the appelleeB

'( when the %in(in#s ae c!nta) t! th!se !% the tia* c!$t





2

'&( when the findin!s are onlusions without itation of speifi evideneon whih they are asedB

'9( when the fats set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitionerDs$ain and reply riefs, are not disputed y the respondentB and

'10( when the findin!s of fat are pre$ised on the supposed asene of evidene and ontradited y the evidene on reord+?1-@

"he present ase falls under the th eeption, as the R"# and the #A arrived atonflitin! findin!s of fat and onlusions of law+

"he onfer$ent of a le!al ease$ent of ri!ht of way is !overned y Artiles 649 and 6-0of the #ivil #ode, ;uoted elow for easy referene>?16@

Atic*e ?;>1 "he owner, or any person who y virtue of a real ri!ht $ayultivate or use any i$$ovale, whih is surrounded y other i$$ovales pertainin! to other persons and without ade;uate outlet to a puli hi!hway, isentitled to de$and a ri!ht of way throu!h the nei!horin! estates, after pay$entof the proper inde$nity+

hould this ease$ent e estalished in suh a $anner that its use $ay eontinuous for all the needs of the do$inant estate, estalishin! a per$anent passa!e, the inde$nity shall onsist of the value of the land oupied and thea$ount of the da$a!e aused to the servient estate+

<n ase the ri!ht of way is li$ited to the neessary passa!e for the

ultivation of the estate surrounded y others and for the !atherin! of its ropsthrou!h the servient estate without a per$anent way, the inde$nity shall onsistin the pay$ent of the da$a!es aused y suh enu$rane+

"his ease$ent is not o$pulsory if the isolation of the i$$ovale is dueto the proprietorEs own ats+







2&

Atic*e ?@+ "he ease$ent of ri!ht of way shall e estalished at the pointleast pre5udiial to the servient estate, and, insofar as onsistent with this rule,

where the distane fro$ the do$inant estate to a puli hi!hway $ay e the

shortest+

"o e entitled to an ease$ent of ri!ht of way, the followin! re;uisites should e $et>

1+ "he do$inant estate is surrounded y other i$$ovales and has noade;uate outlet to a puli hi!hwayB

2+ "here is pay$ent of proper inde$nityB

3+ "he isolation is not due to the ats of the proprietor of the do$inantestateB and

4+ "he ri!ht of way lai$ed is at the point least pre5udiial to the servient

estateB and insofar as onsistent with this rule, where the distane fro$ thedo$inant estate to a puli hi!hway $ay e the shortest+?1@

7etitioners $ay e orret in the theoretial readin! of Artiles 649 and 6-0 of the #ivil#ode, ut they nevertheless failed to show suffiient fatual evidene to satisfy the aoveenu$erated re;uire$ents+?1&@

<t $ust e stressed that, y its very nature, and when onsidered with referene to theoli!ations i$posed on the servient estate, an ease$ent involves an anor$al restrition on the property ri!hts of the servient owner and is re!arded as a har!e or enu$rane on the servient

estate+ <t is inu$ent upon the owner of the do$inant estate to estalish y lear and onvinin!evidene the presene of all the preonditions efore his lai$ for ease$ent of ri!ht of way $ay e !ranted+?19@ 7etitioners failed in this re!ard+










29

Ad$ittedly, petitioners had een !ranted a ri!ht of way throu!h the other ad5aent lotowned y the pouses Are+ <n fat, other lot owners use the said outlet in !oin! to and o$in!fro$ the puli hi!hway+ #learly, there is an eistin! outlet to and fro$ the puli road+

)owever, petitioners lai$ that the outlet is lon!er and iruitous, and they have to passthrou!h other lots owned y different owners efore they ould !et to the hi!hway+ e find petitionersE onept of what is ade;uate outlet: a o$plete disre!ard of the wellentrenheddotrine that in order to 5ustify the i$position of an ease$ent of ri!ht of way, there $ust e real,not fititious or artifiial, neessity for it+ Mere onveniene for the do$inant estate is not whatis re;uired y law as the asis of settin! up a o$pulsory ease$ent+ ven in the fae of neessity, if it an e satisfied without i$posin! the ease$ent, the sa$e should not e i$posed+?20@

e ;uote with approval the #AEs oservations in this wise>

As it shows, ?petitioners@ had een !ranted a ri!ht of way throu!h thead5aent estate of pouses Are efore the o$plaint elow was even filed+?Respondent@ alle!ed that this ri!ht of way is ein! used y the other estateswhih are si$ilarly situated as ?petitioners@+ ?7etitioners@ do not dispute this fat+

"here is also a reason to elieve that this ri!ht of way is pouses AreEs outlet to a puli road sine their property, as it appears fro$ the .eth Map, is alsosurrounded y other estates+ "he fat that pouses Are are not insistin! on a ri!ht

of way throu!h respondentEs property, althou!h an openin! on the latterEs property is undoutedly the $ost diret and shortest distane to 7+ o$e= t+ fro$the for$erEs property, olsters our onvition that they have ade;uate outlet to thehi!hway whih they are now li.ewise $a.in! availale to ?petitioners@+

"he onveniene of the do$inant estate has never een the !au!e for the !rant of o$pulsory ri!ht of way+ "o e sure, the true standard for the !rant of the le!al ri!ht isade;uay+: )ene, when there is already an eistin! ade;uate outlet fro$ the do$inant estate toa puli hi!hway, as in this ase, even when the said outlet, for one reason or another, einonvenient, the need to open up another servitude is entirely un5ustified+ ?21@







30

"hus, in *risto"al v. *A$?22@ the #ourt disallowed the ease$ent prayed for eause anoutlet already eists whih is a path wal. loated at the left side of petitionersE property andwhih is onneted to a private road aout five hundred '-00( $eters lon!+ "he private road, inturn, leads to Ma+ lena treet, whih is aout 2+- $eters wide, and finally, to Hisayas Avenue+"his outlet was deter$ined y the #ourt to e suffiient for the needs of the do$inant estate+

Also in loro v. Llenado$?23@ we refused to i$pose a ri!ht of way over petitionerEs property althou!h private respondentEs alternative route was ad$ittedly inonvenient eause hehad to traverse several rielands and rie paddies elon!in! to different persons, not to $entionthat said passa!e is i$passale durin! the rainy season+

And in Ramos v. !atchalian Realty$ (nc.$?24@ this #ourt refused to !rant the ease$ent prayed for even if petitioner had to pass throu!h lots elon!in! to other owners, as te$poraryin!ress and e!ress, whih lots were !rassy, o!onal, and !reatly inonvenient due to flood and$ud eause suh !rant would run ounter to the prevailin! 5urisprudene that $ere onvenienefor the do$inant estate does not suffie to serve as asis for the ease$ent+?2-@

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the petition is DENIED+ "he #ourt of Appeals8eision dated January 31, 200 and Resolution dated Otoer 23, 200 in #A+R+ #H *o+&-41 are AFFIRMED+

SO ORDERED+











31

EMILIO GANCAYCO, 7etitioner,

versus

CITY GO2ERNMENT OF 74E6ONCITY ANDMETRO MANILADE2ELOPMENTA4THORITY, Respondents+ METRO MANILA DE2ELOPMENTA4THORITY, 7etitioner,

versus

34STICE EMILIO A1 GANCAYCORetie(, Respondent,

G1R1 N!1 899<@9

G1R1 N!1 899> 7resent> #ORO*A, *.%.,

#AR7<O,H/A#O, JR+,/O*AR8O8 #A"RO,

%R<O*,7RA/"A,%RAM<*,Q

8/ #A"<//O,Q

A%A8,H<//ARAMA, JR+,

7RI,

M*8OIA,R*O,RN, and7R/A%R*A%, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

Otoer 11, 2011

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/october2011/177807.htm#_ftn1








32

/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

DECISION

SERENO, J.:%efore us are onsolidated 7etitions for Review under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt

assailin! the 8eision?1@ pro$ul!ated on1& July 2006 and the Resolution?2@ dated 10 May 200 of the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ 7 *o+ &464&+

The Facts

<n the early 19-0s, retired Justie $ilio A+ anayo ou!ht a parel of land loated at46 pifanio delos antos Avenue'8A(,?3@ ue=on #ity with an area of 3- s;uare $eters andovered y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle '"#"( *o+ R"114--&+

On 2 Marh 19-6, the ue=on #ity #ounil issued Ordinane *o+ 2904, entitled An

Ordinane Re;uirin! the #onstrution of Arades, for #o$$erial %uildin!s to e #onstrutedin Iones 8esi!nated as %usiness Iones in the Ionin! 7lan of ue=on #ity, and 7rovidin!7enalties in Hiolation "hereof+:?4@

An arade is defined as any portion of a uildin! aove the first floor pro5etin! over thesidewal. eyond the first storey wall used as protetion for pedestrians a!ainstrain or sun+?-@

Ordinane *o+ 2904 re;uired the relevant property owner to onstrut an arade with awidth of 4+-0 $eters and hei!ht of -+00 $eters alon! 8A, fro$ the north side of antolan

Road to one lot after /ierty Avenue, and fro$ one lot efore #entral %oulevard to the %otoantrans$ission line+

At the outset, it ears e$phasis that at the ti$e Ordinane *o+ 2904 was passed y theity ounil, there was yet no uildin! ode passed y the national le!islature+ "hus, there!ulation of the onstrution of uildin!s was left to the disretion of loal !overn$entunits+ Knder this partiular ordinane, the ity ounil re;uired that the arade is to e reated y onstrutin! the wall of the !round floor fain! the sidewal. a few $eters away fro$ the property line+ "hus, the uildin! owner is not allowed to onstrut his wall up to the ed!e of the property line, therey reatin! a spae or shelter under the first floor+ <n effet, property ownersrelin;uish the use of the spae for use as an arade for pedestrians, instead of usin! it for their

own purposes+"he ordinane was a$ended several ti$es+ On & Au!ust 1960, properties loated at the

ue=on #ityan Juan oundary were ee$pted y Ordinane *o+ 6044 fro$ theonstrution of arades+ "his ordinane was further a$ended y Ordinane *o+ 604-13,etendin! the ee$ption to o$$erial uildin!s fro$ %alete treet to eattle treet+ Ordinane *o+ 6603 dated 1 Marh 1966 $eanwhile redued the width of the arades to three $eters for uildin!s alon! H+ /una Road, #entral 8istrit, ue=on #ity+














33

"he ordinane overed the property of Justie anayo+ use;uently, so$eti$e in196-, Justie anayo sou!ht the ee$ption of a twostorey uildin! ein! onstruted on his property fro$ the appliation of Ordinane *o+ 2904 that he e ee$pted fro$ onstrutin! anarade on his property+

On 2 eruary 1966, the #ity #ounil ated favoraly on Justie anayoEs re;uest andissued Resolution *o+ 161, 66, su5et to the ondition that upon notie y the #ityn!ineer, the owner shall, within reasonale ti$e, de$olish the enlosure of said arade at hisown epense when puli interest so de$ands+: ?6@

8eades after, in Marh 2003, the Metropolitan Manila 8evelop$ent Authority 'MM8A(onduted operations to lear ostrutions alon! the sidewal. of 8A in ue=on #ity pursuantto Metro Manila #ounilEs 'MM#( Resolution *o+ 022&, eries of 2002+?@ "he resolutionauthori=ed the MM8A and loal !overn$ent units to lear the sidewal.s, streets, avenues,alleys, rid!es, par.s and other puli plaes in Metro Manila of all ille!al strutures andostrutions+:?&@

On 2& April 2003, the MM8A sent a notie of de$olition to Justie anayo alle!in!that a portion of his uildin! violated the *ational %uildin! #ode of the 7hilippines '%uildin!#ode(?9@ in relation to Ordinane *o+ 2904+ "he MM8A !ave Justie anayo fifteen '1-( daysto lear the portion of the uildin! that was supposed to e an arade alon! 8A+?10@

Justie anayo did not o$ply with the notie+ oon after the lapse of the fifteen '1-(days, the MM8A proeeded to de$olish the party wall, or what was referred to as the win!walls,: of the !round floor struture+ "he reords of the present ase are not entirely lear on theetent of the de$olitionB nevertheless, the fat of de$olition was not disputed+ At the ti$e of thede$olition, the affeted portion of the uildin! was ein! used as a restaurant+

On 29 May 2003, Justie anayo filed a 7etition?11@

with prayer for a te$poraryrestrainin! order andGor writ of preli$inary in5untion efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(of ue=on #ity, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ 0349693, see.in! to prohiit the MM8A and the#ity overn$ent of ue=on #ity fro$ de$olishin! his property+ <n his 7etition, ?12@ he alle!edthat the ordinane authori=ed the ta.in! of private property without due proess of law and 5usto$pensation, eause the onstrution of an arade will re;uire 6+- s;uare $eters fro$ the3- s;uare $eter property+ <n addition, he lai$ed that the ordinane was seletive anddisri$inatory in its sope and appliation when it allowed the owners of the uildin!s loated inthe ue=on #ityan Juan oundary to #uao Rotonda, and %alete to eattle treets to onstrutarades at their option+ )e thus sou!ht the delaration of nullity of Ordinane *o+ 2904 and the pay$ent of da$a!es+ Alternately, he prayed for the pay$ent of 5ust o$pensation should the

ourt hold the ordinane valid+

"he #ity overn$ent of ue=on #ity lai$ed that the ordinane was a valid eerise of polie power, re!ulatin! the use of property in a usiness =one+ <n addition, it pointed out thatJustie anayo was already arred y estoppel, lahes and presription+

i$ilarly, the MM8A alle!ed that Justie anayo ould not see. the nullifiation of anordinane that he had already violated, and that the ordinane en5oyed the presu$ption of


















34

onstitutionality+ <t further stated that the ;uestioned property was a puli nuisane i$pedin!the safe passa!e of pedestrians+ inally, the MM8A lai$ed that it was $erely i$ple$entin! thele!al ease$ent estalished y Ordinane *o+ 2904+?13@

"he R"# rendered its 8eision on 30 epte$er 2003 in favor of Justie anayo+?14@ <t

held that the ;uestioned ordinane was unonstitutional, rulin! that it allowed the ta.in! of private property for puli use without 5ust o$pensation+ "he R"# said that eause 6+-s;uare $eters out of Justie anayoEs 3- s;uare $eters of property were ein! ta.en withouto$pensation for the puliEs enefit, the ordinane was onfisatory and oppressive+ <t li.ewiseheld that the ordinane violated ownersE ri!ht to e;ual protetion of laws+ "he dispositive portionthus states>

0HEREFORE, the petition is herey !ranted and the #ourt hereydelares ue=on #ity Ordinane *o+ 2094,?1-@ eries of 19-6 to eunonstitutional, invalid and void a" initio+ "he respondents are herey per$anently en5oined fro$ enforin! and i$ple$entin! the said ordinane, andthe respondent MM8A is herey direted to i$$ediately restore the portion of the party wall or win! wall of the uildin! of the petitioner it destroyed to itsori!inal ondition+

<" < O OR8R8+

"he MM8A thereafter appealed fro$ the 8eision of the trial ourt+ On 1& July 2006, the#ourt of Appeals '#A( partly !ranted the appeal+ ?16@ "he #A upheld the validity of Ordinane *o+2904 and lifted the in5untion a!ainst the enfore$ent and i$ple$entation of the ordinane+ <nso doin!, it held that the ordinane was a valid eerise of the ri!ht of the loal !overn$ent unitto pro$ote the !eneral welfare of its onstituents pursuant to its polie powers+ "he #A alsoruled that the ordinane estalished a valid lassifiation of property owners with re!ard to the

onstrution of arades in their respetive properties dependin! on the loation+ "he #A further stated that there was no ta.in! of private property, sine the owner still en5oyed the enefiialownership of the property, to 'it >

ven with the re;uire$ent of the onstrution of araded sidewal.s withinhis o$$erial lot, appellee still retains the enefiial ownership of the said property+ "hus, there is no ta.in!: for puli use whih $ust e su5et to 5usto$pensation+ hile the araded sidewal.s ontriute to the puli !ood, for providin! safety and o$fort to passersy, the ulti$ate enefit fro$ the sa$e stillredounds to appellee, his o$$erial estalish$ent ein! at the forefront of a usy thorou!hfare li.e 8A+ "he araded sidewal.s, y their nature, assure

lients of the o$$erial estalish$ents thereat so$e .ind of protetion fro$aidents and other ha=ards+ ithout dout, this sense of protetion an e a oonto the usiness ativity therein en!a!ed+ ?1@

*evertheless, the #A held that the MM8A went eyond its powers when it de$olishedthe su5et property+ <t further found that Resolution *o+ 022& only refers to sidewal.s, streets,avenues, alleys, rid!es, par.s and other puli plaes in Metro Manila, thus eludin! Justie














3-

anayoEs private property+ /astly, the #A stated that the MM8A is not lothed with theauthority to delare, prevent or aate nuisanes+ "hus, the dispositive portion stated>

0HEREFORE, the appeals are PARTLY GRANTED+"he /ecision dated epte$er 30, 2003 of the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh

224, ue=on #ity, is MODIFIED, as follows>1( "he validity and onstitutionality of Ordinane *o+ 2094,?1&@ eries of 19-6,issued y the #ity #ounil of ue=on #ity, is 4PHELDB and

2( "he in5untion a!ainst the enfore$ent and i$ple$entation of the saidOrdinane is LIFTED+SO ORDERED1

"his rulin! pro$pted the MM8A and Justie anayo to file their respetive Motionsfor 7artial Reonsideration+?19@

On 10 May 200, the #A denied the $otions statin! that the parties did not present new

issues nor offer !rounds that would $erit the reonsideration of the #ourt+?20@

8issatisfied with the rulin! of the #A, Justie anayo and the MM8A filed their respetive 7etitions for Review efore this #ourt+ "he issues raised y the parties aresu$$ari=ed as follows>

<+ )")R OR *O" JK"<# A*#AN#O A "O778 ROMAA</<* ") HA/<8<"N O OR8<*A*# *O+ 2904+

<<+ )")R OR *O" OR8<*A*# *O+ 2904 < #O*"<"K"<O*A/+<<<+ )")R OR *O" ") <* A// O JK"<# A*#AN#OE

%K</8<* < A 7K%/<# *K<A*#+

<H+ )")R OR *O" ") MM8A /A//N 8MO/<)8 ")7RO7R"N O JK"<# A*#AN#O+

The C!$ts R$*in# Estoppel

"he MM8A and the #ity overn$ent of ue=on #ity oth lai$ that Justie anayowas estopped fro$ hallen!in! the ordinane, eause, in 196-, he as.ed for an ee$ption fro$the appliation of the ordinane+ Aordin! to the$, Justie anayo therey reo!ni=ed the power of the ity !overn$ent to re!ulate the onstrution of uildin!s+

"o reall, Justie anayo ;uestioned the onstitutionality of the ordinane on two!rounds> '1( whether the ordinane ta.es: private property without due proess of law and 5usto$pensationB and '2( whether the ordinane violates the e;ual protetion of ri!hts eause itallowed ee$ptions fro$ its appliation+

On the first !round, we find that Justie anayo $ay still ;uestion the onstitutionalityof the ordinane to deter$ine whether or not the ordinane onstitutes a ta.in!: of private









36

property without due proess of law and 5ust o$pensation+ <t was only in 2003 when he wasalle!edly deprived of his property when the MM8A de$olished a portion of the uildin!+%eause he was !ranted an ee$ption in 1966, there was no ta.in!: yet to spea. of+

Moreover, in Ace"edo 0ptical *ompany$ (nc. v. *ourt of Appeals$?21@ we held>

<t is therefore deisively lear that estoppel annot apply in this ase+ "hefat that petitioner a;uiesed in the speial onditions i$posed y the #ityMayor in su5et usiness per$it does not prelude it fro$ hallen!in! the saidi$position, whih is ultra vires or eyond the a$it of authority of respondent#ity Mayor+ Ultra vires acts ! acts which ae c*ea*) 'e)!n( the sc!"e !% !ne+s a$th!it) ae n$** an( &!i( an( cann!t 'e #i&en an) e%%ect1 The(!ctine !% est!""e* cann!t !"eate t! #i&e e%%ect t! an act which is !thewisen$** an( &!i( ! ultra vires+ '$phasis supplied+(

Reently, in British American To"acco v. *amacho,?22@ we li.ewise held>

e find that petitioner was not !uilty of estoppel+ hen it $ade theunderta.in! to o$ply with all issuanes of the %<R, whih at that ti$e itonsidered as valid, petitioner did not o$$it any false $isrepresentation or $isleadin! at+ <ndeed, petitioner annot e faulted for initially underta.in! too$ply with, and su5etin! itself to the operation of etion 14-'#(, and onlylater on filin! the su5et ase prayin! for the delaration of its unonstitutionalitywhen the iru$stanes han!e and the law results in what it pereives to eunlawful disri$ination+ The .ee %act that a *aw has 'een e*ie( $"!n in the"ast an( a** that ti.e has n!t 'een attace( as $nc!nstit$ti!na* is n!t a#!$n( %! c!nsi(ein# "etiti!ne est!""e( %!. assai*in# its &a*i(it)1 F!c!$ts wi** "ass $"!n a c!nstit$ti!na* $esti!n !n*) when "esente( 'e%!e it

in bona fide cases %! (ete.inati!n, an( the %act that the $esti!n has n!t'een aise( 'e%!e is n!t a &a*i( eas!n %! e%$sin# t! a**!w it t! 'e aise(*ate+ '$phasis supplied+(

Anent the seond !round, we find that Justie anayo $ay not ;uestion the ordinaneon the !round of e;ual protetion when he also enefited fro$ the ee$ption+ <t ears e$phasisthat Justie anayo hi$self re;uested for an ee$ption fro$ the appliation of the ordinanein 196- and was eventually !ranted one+ Moreover, he was still en5oyin! the ee$ption at theti$e of the de$olition as there was yet no valid notie fro$ the ity en!ineer+ "hus, while theordinane $ay e atta.ed with re!ard to its different treat$ent of properties that appears to e

si$ilarly situated, Justie anayo is not the proper person to do so+

Zoning and the regulation of the

construction of buildings are valid

exercises of police power +

<n MM/A v. Bel1Air Villa)e Association$?23@ we disussed the nature of polie powerseerised y loal !overn$ent units,to 'it >









3

7olie power is an inherent attriute of soverei!nty+ <t has een defined asthe power vested y the #onstitution in the le!islature to $a.e, ordain, andestalish all $anner of wholeso$e and reasonale laws, statutes and ordinanes,either with penalties or without, not repu!nant to the #onstitution, as they shall 5ud!e to e for the !ood and welfare of the o$$onwealth, and for the su5ets of

the sa$e+ "he power is plenary and its sope is vast and pervasive, reahin! and 5ustifyin! $easures for puli health, puli safety, puli $orals, and the !eneralwelfare+

<t ears stressin! that polie power is lod!ed pri$arily in the *ational

/e!islature+ <t annot e eerised y any !roup or ody of individuals not possessin! le!islative power+ "he *ational /e!islature, however, $ay dele!atethis power to the 7resident and ad$inistrative oards as well as the law$a.in! odies of $uniipal orporations or loal !overn$ent units+ One dele!ated, thea!ents an eerise only suh le!islative powers as are onferred on the$ y thenational law$a.in! ody+

"o resolve the issue on the onstitutionality of the ordinane, we $ust first deter$inewhether there was a valid dele!ation of polie power+ "hen we an deter$ine whether the #ityovern$ent of ue=on #ity ated within the li$its of the dele!ation+

<t is lear that #on!ress epressly !ranted the ity !overn$ent, throu!h the ity ounil, polie power y virtue of etion 12'oo( of Repuli At *o+ -3, or the Revised #harter of ue=on #ity,?24@ whih states>

"o $a.e suh further ordinanes and re!ulations not repu!nant to law as$ay e neessary to arry into effet and dishar!e the powers and dutiesonferred y this At and suh as it shall dee$ neessary and proper to provide

for the health and safety, pro$ote the prosperity, i$prove the $orals, peae, !oodorder, o$fort, and onveniene of the ity and the inhaitants thereof, and for the protetion of property thereinB and enfore oediene thereto with suh lawfulfines or penalties as the #ity #ounil $ay presrie under the provisions of susetion '55( of this setion+

peifially, on the powers of the ity !overn$ent to re!ulate the onstrution of uildin!s, the #harter also epressly provided that the ity !overn$ent had the power to re!ulatethe .inds of uildin!s and strutures that $ay e ereted within fire li$its and the $anner of onstrutin! and repairin! the$+?2-@

ith re!ard $eanwhile to the power of the loal !overn$ent units to issue =onin!ordinanes, we apply #ocial %ustice #ociety v. Atien2a+?26@ <n that ase, the #an))unian)

Panlun)sod of Manila #ity enated an ordinane on 2& *ove$er 2001relassifyin! ertainareas of the ity fro$ industrial to o$$erial+ As a result of the =onin! ordinane, the oilter$inals loated in those areas were no lon!er allowed+ "hou!h the oil o$panies ontendedthat they stood to lose illions of pesos, this #ourt upheld the power of the ity !overn$ent to pass the assailed ordinane, statin!>









3&

<n the eerise of polie power, property ri!hts of individuals $ay esu5eted to restraints and urdens in order to fulfil the o5etives of the!overn$ent+ Otherwise stated, the #!&en.ent .a) enact *e#is*ati!n that .a)inte%ee with "es!na* *i'et), "!"et), *aw%$* '$sinesses an( !cc$"ati!nst! "!.!te the #enea* we*%ae1 H!we&e, the inte%eence .$st 'e eas!na'*e

an( n!t a'ita)1 An( t! %!esta** a'itainess, the .eth!(s ! .eans $se(t! "!tect "$'*ic hea*th, .!a*s, sa%et) ! we*%ae .$st ha&e a eas!na'*ee*ati!n t! the en( in &iew1

"he $eans adopted y the #an))unian was the enat$ent of a =onin!ordinane whih relassified the area where the depot is situated fro$ industrial too$$erial+ A !nin# !(inance is (e%ine( as a *!ca* cit) ! .$nici"a**e#is*ati!n which *!#ica**) aan#es, "esci'es, (e%ines an( a""!ti!ns a#i&en "!*itica* s$'(i&isi!n int! s"eci%ic *an( $ses as "esent an( %$t$e"!ecti!n !% nee(s1 As a result of the =onin!, the ontinued operation of the usinesses of the oil o$panies in their present loation will no lon!er e per$itted+The "!we t! esta'*ish !nes %! in($stia*, c!..ecia* an(

esi(entia* $ses is (ei&e( %!. the "!*ice "!we itse*% an( is e/ecise( %! the"!tecti!n an( 'ene%it !% the esi(ents !% a *!ca*it)1 #onse;uently, theenat$ent of Ordinane *o+ &02 is within the power of the #an))unian) Panlun)sod of the #ity of Manila and any resultin! urden on those affetedannot e said to e un5ust+++ '$phasis supplied(

<n *arlos #uperdru) v. /epartment of #ocial 3elfare and /evelopment$ [!" we also held>or this reason, when the onditions so de$and as deter$ined y the

le!islature, "!"et) i#hts .$st '!w t! the "i.ac) !% "!*ice "!we 'eca$se"!"et) i#hts, th!$#h she*tee( ') ($e "!cess, .$st )ie*( t! #enea*

we*%ae1P!*ice "!we as an atti'$te t! "!.!te the c!..!n #!!( w!$*( 'e(i*$te( c!nsi(ea'*) i% !n the .ee "*ea !% "etiti!nes that the) wi** s$%%e*!ss !% eanin#s an( ca"ita*, the $esti!ne( "!&isi!n is in&a*i(ate(1M!e!&e, in the a'sence !% e&i(ence (e.!nstatin# the a**e#e( c!n%iscat!)e%%ect !% the "!&isi!n in $esti!n, thee is n! 'asis %! its n$**i%icati!n in &iew!% the "es$."ti!n !% &a*i(it) which e&e) *aw has in its %a&!1 '$phasissupplied+(

<n the ase at ar, it is lear that the pri$ary o5etives of the ity ounil of ue=on #itywhen it issued the ;uestioned ordinane orderin! the onstrution of arades were the health andsafety of the ity and its inhaitantsB the pro$otion of their prosperityB and the i$prove$ent of their $orals, peae, !ood order, o$fort, and the onveniene+ "hese arades provide safe andonvenient passa!e alon! the sidewal. for o$$uters and pedestrians, not 5ust the residentsof ue=on #ity+ More espeially so eause the ontested portion of the uildin! is loated on a usy se!$ent of the ity, in a usiness =one alon! 8A+






39

#orollarily, the poliy of the %uildin! #ode,?2&@ whih was passed after the ue=on #ityOrdinane, supports the purpose for the enat$ent of Ordinane *o+ 2904+ "he %uildin! #odestates>

etion 102+ 8elaration of 7oliy+ F <t is herey delared to e the poliy of the

tate to safe!uard life, health, property, and puli welfare, onsistent with the priniples of sound environ$ental $ana!e$ent and ontrolB and to this end, $a.eit the purpose of this #ode to provide for all uildin!s and strutures, a fra$ewor. of $ini$u$ standards and re;uire$ents to re!ulate and ontrol their loation,site, desi!n ;uality of $aterials, onstrution, oupany, and $aintenane+

etion 1004 li.ewise re;uires the onstrution of arades whenever eistin! or =onin!ordinanes re;uire it+ Apparently, the law allows the loal !overn$ent units to deter$inewhether arades are neessary within their respetive 5urisditions+

Justie anayo ar!ues that there is a three$eter sidewal. in front of his property line,and the arade should e onstruted aove that sidewal. rather than within his property line+ edo not need to address this ar!u$ent inas$uh as it raises the issue of the wisdo$ of the ityordinane, a $atter we will not and need not delve into+

"o reiterate, at the ti$e that the ordinane was passed, there was no national uildin!ode enfored to !uide the ity ounilB thus, there was no law of national appliation that prohiited the ity ounil fro$ re!ulatin! the onstrution of uildin!s, arades and sidewal.sin their 5urisdition+

#he $wing walls% of the building are not

nuisances "e se1

"he MM8A lai$s that the portion of the uildin! in ;uestion is a nuisane per se+

e disa!ree+

"he fat that in 1966 the #ity #ounil !ave Justie anayo an ee$ption fro$onstrutin! an arade is an indiation that the win! walls of the uildin! are not nuisanes per

se+ "he win! walls do not per se i$$ediately and adversely affet the safety of persons and property+ "he fat that an ordinane $ay delare a struture ille!al does not neessarily $a.ethat struture a nuisane+

Artile 694 of the #ivil #ode defines nuisane as any at, o$ission, estalish$ent, usiness, ondition or property, or anythin! else that '1( in5ures or endan!ers the health or safetyof othersB '2( annoys or offends the sensesB '3( sho.s, defies or disre!ards deeny or $oralityB'4( ostruts or interferes with the free passa!e of any puli hi!hway or street, or any ody of waterB or, '-( hinders or i$pairs the use of property+ A nuisane $ay e per se or per accidens. Anuisane per se is that whih affets the i$$ediate safety of persons and property and $aysu$$arily e aated under the undefined law of neessity+?29@









40

#learly, when Justie anayo was !iven a per$it to onstrut the uildin!, the ityounil or the ity en!ineer did not onsider the uildin!, or its de$olished portion, to e a threatto the safety of persons and property+ "his fat alone should have warned the MM8A a!ainstsu$$arily de$olishin! the struture+

*either does the MM8A have the power to delare a thin! a nuisane+ Only ourts of lawhave the power to deter$ine whether a thin! is a nuisane+ <n A* Enterprises v. ra"elle

Properties *orp+,?30@ we held>

e a!ree with petitionerDs ontention that, under etion 44'a('3('i( of R+A+ *o+ 160, otherwise .nown as the /oal overn$ent #ode,the #an))unian) Pan)lun)sod is e$powered to enat ordinanes delarin!, preventin! or aatin! noise and other for$s of nuisane+ <t ears stressin!,however, that the #an))unian) Bayan annot delare a partiular thin! as anuisane per se and order its onde$nation+It (!es n!t ha&e the "!we t! %in(,as a %act, that a "atic$*a thin# is a n$isance when s$ch thin# is n!t an$isance per se n! can it a$th!ie the e/ta$(icia* c!n(e.nati!n an((est$cti!n !% that as a n$isance which in its nat$e, sit$ati!n ! $se is n!ts$ch1 Th!se thin#s .$st 'e (ete.ine( an( es!*&e( in the !(ina) c!$ts !% *aw1 <f a thin! e in fat, a nuisane due to the $anner of its operation, that;uestion annot e deter$ined y a $ere resolution of the #an))unian) Bayan+'$phasis supplied+(

&&'( illegall) de*olished the propert) of Justice +anca)co.

MM8A alle!es that y virtue of MM8A Resolution *o+ 022&, eries of 2002, it ise$powered to de$olish Justie anayoEs property+ <t insists that the Metro Manila #ounilauthori=ed the MM8A and the loal !overn$ent units to lear the sidewal.s, streets, avenues,alleys, rid!es, par.s and other puli plaes in Metro Manila of all ille!al strutures andostrutions+ <t further alle!es that it de$olished the property pursuant to the %uildin! #ode inrelation to Ordinane *o+ 2904 as a$ended+

)owever, the %uildin! #ode learly provides the proess y whih a uildin! $ay e

de$olished. "he authority to order the de$olition of any struture lies with the %uildin!Offiial+ "he pertinent provisions of the %uildin! #ode provide>

#"<O* 20-+ %uildin! Offiials+ S ept as otherwise provided herein,the %uildin! Offiial shall e responsile for arryin! out the provisions of this#ode in the field as well as the enfore$ent of orders and deisions $ade pursuant thereto+





41

8ue to the ei!enies of the servie, the eretary $ay desi!nate inu$ent7uli or.s 8istrit n!ineers, #ity n!ineers and Muniipal n!ineers at as%uildin! Offiials in their respetive areas of 5urisdition+"he desi!nation $ade y the eretary under this etion shall ontinue untilre!ular positions of %uildin! Offiial are provided or unless sooner ter$inated for

auses provided y law or deree+

#"<O* 20+ 8uties of a %uildin! Offiial+ S <n his respetive territorial 5urisdition, the %uildin! Offiial shall e pri$arily responsile for theenfore$ent of the provisions of this #ode as well as of the i$ple$entin! rulesand re!ulations issued therefor+ )e is the offiial har!ed with the duties of issuin! uildin! per$its+ <n the perfor$ane of his duties, a %uildin! Offiial $ay enter any uildin! or its

pre$ises at all reasonale ti$es to inspet and deter$ine o$pliane with there;uire$ents of this #ode, and the ter$s and onditions provided for in the uildin! per$it as issued+ 0hen an) '$i*(in# w! is %!$n( t! 'e c!nta) t! the "!&isi!ns !% thisC!(e, the B$i*(in# O%%icia* .a) !(e the w! st!""e( an( "esci'e thete.s an(! c!n(iti!ns when the w! wi** 'e a**!we( t! es$.e1 Liewise,the B$i*(in# O%%icia* is a$th!ie( t! !(e the (isc!ntin$ance !% the!cc$"anc) ! $se !% an) '$i*(in# ! st$ct$e ! "!ti!n thee!% %!$n( t! 'e!cc$"ie( ! $se( c!nta) t! the "!&isi!ns !% this C!(e1

#"<O* 21-+ A'ate.ent !% Dan#e!$s B$i*(in#s1 0hen an)'$i*(in# ! st$ct$e is %!$n( ! (ec*ae( t! 'e (an#e!$s ! $in!$s, theB$i*(in# O%%icia* sha** !(e its e"ai, &acati!n ! (e.!*iti!n (e"en(in#$"!n the (e#ee !% (an#e t! *i%e, hea*th, ! sa%et)1 This is with!$t "e$(icet! %$the acti!n that .a) 'e taen $n(e the "!&isi!ns !% Atic*es ;<= an(?>; t! 9@9 !% the Ci&i* C!(e !% the Phi*i""ines1 '$phasis supplied+(

MM/A v. Trac+'or+s Rail Transit Advertisin)$ Vendin) and Promotions$ (nc.?31@ isappliale to the ase at ar+ <n that ase, MM8A, invo.in! its harter and the %uildin! #ode,su$$arily dis$antled the advertisin! $edia installed on the Metro Rail "ransit 'MR"( 3+ "his#ourt held>

<t is futile for MM8A to si$ply invo.e its le!al $andate to 5ustify thedis$antlin! of "ra.wor.sD illoards, si!na!es and other advertisin! $edia+MM8A si$ply had no power on its own to dis$antle, re$ove, or destroy the illoards, si!na!es and other advertisin! $edia installed on the MR"3 struture y "ra.wor.s+ <n Metropolitan Manila /evelopment Authority v. Bel1Air Villa)e

Association, (nc+, Metropolitan Manila /evelopment Authority v. Viron





42

Transportation *o.$ (nc+, and Metropolitan Manila /evelopment Authority v.

!arin,the C!$t ha( the !ccasi!n t! $*e that MMDA+s "!wes wee *i.ite(t! the %!.$*ati!n, c!!(inati!n, e#$*ati!n, i."*e.entati!n, "e"aati!n,.ana#e.ent, .!nit!in#, settin# !% "!*icies, insta**in# a s)ste., an(a(.inistati!n1 N!thin# in Re"$'*ic Act N!1 9>=; #ante( MMDA "!*ice

"!we, *et a*!ne *e#is*ati&e "!we+ #larifyin! the real nature of MM8A, the #ourt held> +++The MMDA is, as te.e( in the chate itse*%, a J(e&e*!".ent

a$th!it)J1 It is an a#enc) ceate( %! the "$"!se !% *a)in# (!wn "!*iciesan( c!!(inatin# with the &ai!$s nati!na* #!&en.ent a#encies, "e!"*e+s!#aniati!ns, n!n-#!&en.enta* !#aniati!ns an( the "i&ate sect! %! thee%%icient an( e/"e(iti!$s (e*i&e) !% 'asic se&ices in the &ast .et!"!*itanaea1 (ll its functions are ad*inistrative in nature an( these ae act$a**)s$..e( $" in the chate itse*% , vi2 >

e+2+ *reation of the Metropolitan Manila /evelopment Authority+ +"he MM8A shall perfor$ plannin!, $onitorin! and oordinativefuntions, and in the proess eerise re!ulatory and supervisory authorityover the delivery of $etrowide servies within Metro Manila, withoutdi$inution of the autono$y of loal !overn$ent units onernin! purelyloal $atters+ "he #ourt also a!rees with the #ADs rulin! that MM8A Re!ulation *o+

96009 and MM# Me$orandu$ #irular *o+ &&09 did not apply to "ra.wor.sD illoards, si!na!es and other advertisin! $edia+ "he prohiition a!ainst postin!,

installation and display of illoards, si!na!es and other advertisin! $ediaapplied only to puli areas, ut MR"3, 'ein# "i&ate "!"et) "$s$ant t! theBLT a#ee.ent 'etween the G!&en.ent an( MRTC, was n!t !ne !% theaeas as t! which the "!hi'iti!n a""*ie(1 Moreover, MM# Me$orandu$#irular *o+ &&09 did not apply to "ra.wor.sD illoards, si!na!es and other advertisin! $edia in MR"3, eause it did not speifially over MR"3, and eause it was issued a year prior to the onstrution of MR"3 on the enter island of 8A+ #learly, MM# Me$orandu$ #irular *o+ &&09 ould not haveinluded MR"3 in its prohiition+

MM8ADs insistene that it was only i$ple$entin! 7residential 8eree *o+

1096 ' Buildin) *ode4 and its i$ple$entin! rules and re!ulations is not persuasive+ The "!we t! en%!ce the "!&isi!ns !% the ,uilding Code was*!(#e( in the De"at.ent !% P$'*ic 0!s an( Hi#hwa)s DP0H, n!t inMMDA, c!nsi(ein# the *aw+s %!**!win# "!&isi!n, thus>

e+ 201+ Responsiility for Administration and Enforcement + "he ad$inistration and enfore$ent of the provisions of this #odeinludin! the i$position of penalties for ad$inistrative violations thereof





44

, '!th in his "es!na* an( !%%icia* ca"acit)as Chie%, Maiina De.!*iti!n O%%ice,

7etitioner,

7resent>

versus

#ORO*A, *.%.$

*hairperson,

/O*AR8O8 #A"RO,

%RAM<*,

H<//ARAMA, JR+, and

7R/A%R*A%,K %%.

SPO4SES FORT4NITO L1 MADRONAan( YOLANDA B1 PANTE,

Respondents+

7ro$ul!ated>

Marh 21, 2012

/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

DECISION

2ILLARAMA, 3R .- J.:

%efore this #ourt is a petition for review on ertiorari under Rule 4- of the 199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure, as a$ended, see.in! to set aside the Marh 31, 200& 8eision 8 and epte$er 10, 200& Resolution= of the #ourt of Appeals '#A( in #A+R+ #H+ *o+ &36-+ "he #Aaffir$ed in toto the 8eision of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of Mari.ina #ity, %ranh 192

!rantin! respondentsE prayer for in5untion a!ainst petitioner+

"he anteedents follow>

Respondentspouses ortunito Madrona and Nolanda %+ 7ante are re!istered owners of aresidential property loated in /ot22, %lo. -, rane treet orner <taly treet, reenhei!hts

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/184478.htm#_ftn1











4-

udivision, 7hase <<, Mari.ina #ity and overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ 16936-; of the

Re!istry

of 8eeds of Mari.ina+ <n 19&9, respondents uilt their house thereon and enlosed it with aonrete fene and steel !ate+

<n 1999, respondents reeived the followin! letter dated May 2-, 1999 fro$ petitioner

Jai$e + 7ere=, #hief of the Mari.ina 8e$olition Offie>

Owner Jud!e +/+ Madrona

/ot 22 %+ - 7hase <<

reen )ei!hts?, #onepion,@ Mari.ina #ity

+G n!+ +/+ Madrona?>@

<to po ay $ay .inala$an sa ahayGistru.tura na inyon! itinayo sa'naturan! lu!ar(, Mari.ina, Pala.han! Maynila+

%a.od u$usli sa %an!.eta

An! naturan! pa!tatayo n! ahayGistru.tura ay isan! pa!laa! sa u$iiralna atasGpro!ra$a na ipatutupad n! 7a$ahalaan! %ayan n! Mari.ina na nauu.olsa>

? @ 78 1096

'*ational %uildin! #ode of the 7hilippines(

? @ 78 2

'Anti;uattin! /aw(

? @ 7ro!ra$a sa Palinisan at 8isiplina sa %an!.eta

? @ RA 29

'Kran 8evelop$ent and )ousin! At of 1992(

? @ 78 296

'nroah$ent on rivers, esteros, draina!e hannels andother





46

waterways(

? @ RA 91 as a$ended y etion 23, 78+ *o+ 1, 8O *o+ 4

eries of 19&

'<lle!ally oupiedGonstruted i$prove$ents within the road

ri!htofway(

8ahil po dito, .ayo ay inii!yan n! tanin! na 7iton! '( araw si$ula sa pa!.atan!!ap n! sulat na ito para .usan! alisin an! inyon! istru.tura+ An! hindininyo pa!sunod sa ipina!uutos na ito ay $a!uunsod sa a$in upan! !u$awan! .au.ulan! ha.an! na naa?a@yon sa itinatadhana n! %atas+

a inyon! .aala$an, panuntuan at pa!tali$a+

/uos na !u$a!alan!,

'!d+(

JA<M + 7RI

"a!apa$ahala

Mari.ina 8e$olition Offie

As response, respondent Madrona sent petitioner a threepa!e letter ? dated June &, 1999statin! that the May 2-, 1999 letter '1( ontained an ausation lielous in nature as it isonde$nin! hi$ and his property without due proessB '2( has no asis and authority sine thereis no ourt order authori=in! hi$ to de$olish their strutureB '3( ited le!al ases whih do notepressly !ive petitioner authority to de$olishB and '4( ontained a false ausation sine their fene did not in fat etend to the sidewal.+

On June 9, 1999, respondents reeived a letter 9 fro$ petitioner re;uestin! the$ to provide

his offie a opy of the reloation survey on the su5et property+ Respondents, however, did notoli!e eause it was as if petitioner was fishin! evidene fro$ the$+

More than a year later or on eruary 2&, 2001, petitioner sent another letter < with thesa$e ontents as the May 2-, 1999letter ut this ti$e !ivin! respondents ten days fro$ reeipt













4

thereof to re$ove the struture alle!edly protrudin! to the sidewal.+ "his pro$pted respondentsto file a o$plaint> for in5untion efore the Mari.ina #ity R"# on Marh 12, 2001+

<n respondentsE in5untion o$plaint, they alle!ed that '1( petitionerEs letters $ade it

appear that their fene was enroahin! on the sidewal. and direted the$ to re$ove it,otherwise he would ta.e the orrespondin! ationB '2( petitionerEs threat of ation would eda$a!in! and adverse to respondents and appears real, earnest and i$$inentB '3( the re$oval of their fene, whih would inlude the $ain !ate, would ertainly epose the pre$ises and itsoupants to intruders or third personsB '4( petitioner has no le!al authority to de$olishstrutures in private properties and the laws he ited in his letters do not !ive hi$ any authorityto do soB '-( respondents en5oy the le!al presu$ption of ri!htful possession of every inh of their propertyB '6( if petitioner auses the$ of erroneous possession, he should so prove only throu!hthe proper foru$ whih is the ourtsB '( their fene is eside the sidewal. and the land on whihit stands has never een the su5et of a;uisition either y ne!otiation or epropriation fro$ the

!overn$entB '&( petitionerEs intended at of de$olition even in the !uise of a road ri!ht of wayhas no fatual or le!al asis sine there is no eistin! infrastruture pro5et of the national!overn$ent or Mari.ina #ity !overn$entB and '9( petitionerEs letter and his intended at of de$olition are $aliious, unfounded, $eant only to harass respondents in !ross violation of their ri!hts and in eess and outside the sope of his authority, therey renderin! hi$ aountale oth in his personal and offiial apaity+

Respondents li.ewise sou!ht the issuane of a te$porary restrainin! order '"RO( and awrit of preli$inary in5untion to en5oin petitioner and all persons atin! under hi$ fro$ doin!any at of de$olition on their property and that after trial, the in5untion e $ade

per$anent+ "hey also prayed for $oral and ee$plary da$a!es and attorneyEs fees+

On Marh 14, 2001, petitioner was served the orrespondin! su$$ons+8@

On Marh 16, 2001, the R"# issued a "RO a!ainst petitioner+88

On Marh 29, 2001, petitioner filed an Kr!ent 7arte Motion for tension to ileAnswer 8= until April 13, 2001+ <t appears however that petitionerEs ounsel failed to file anAnswer within the etended period re;uested+ "hus, on $otion8 of respondents, petitioner was

delared in default on July 13, 2001+8;

On July 2-, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion to /ift Order of 8efault 'with 7arte Motion

to Ad$it Answer and *otie ntry of Appearane(+8 Aordin! to petitionerEs new ounsel, ananswer was not filed due to the for$er ounselEs volu$inous wor. load as lone lawyer in the#ity /e!al Offie+

















4&

On 8ee$er 10, 2001, the R"# issued an Order 8? denyin! the $otion to lift the order of default+ Aside fro$ findin! that the $otion failed to inlude a notie of hearin!, the R"# alsoheld that the alle!ed ause of delay is not eusale as volu$inous wor. load of the ounselannot 5ustify the disre!ard of ourt proesses or failure to aide y the period fied y the rulesand sine the delay onsisted not only a few days ut over a hundred and three days+ 7etitioner $oved to reonsider the order ut the sa$e was denied y the R"# in its Marh 6, 2002 Order+89

7etitioner thereafter filed a petition for ertiorari8< efore the #A assailin! the defaultorder+ "hus, on April 1&, 2002, the R"# issued an order suspendin! the proeedin!s of thein5untion ase until suh ti$e when the 7etition for #ertiorari shall have een disposed of withfinality+:8>

On Au!ust 20, 2002, the #A rendered a deision=@ dis$issin! the petition for ertiorarifor la. of $erit+ 7etitioner $oved to reonsider the appellate ourtEs deision, ut the $otion

was denied y Resolution=8 dated January 30, 2003+

On epte$er 1-, 2003, the R"# issued an Order == dis$issin! the in5untion o$plaintwithout pre5udie+ <t held that respondents have not instituted any ation efore th?e@ #ourtshowin! that they are still interested in further proseutin! th?e@ ase: and ?i@n aordane withetion 3, Rule 1 of the Rules of #ourt, the #ourt is onstrained to dis$iss the o$plaint for failure of ?respondents@ to proseute their o$plaint for an unreasonale len!th of ti$e+: )owever, upon $otion of respondents, the dis$issal order was set aside and theo$plaint was reinstated y Order = dated 8ee$er 3, 2003+ "he R"# a!reed with the

oservation of respondents that it was the ourt whih suspended the proeedin!s in thein5untion ase pendin! final disposition of the petition for ertiorari efore the #A, and whenthe R"# issued the dis$issal order, there was yet no entry of 5ud!$ent fro$ the #A and so itannot e said that the petition was already disposed of with finality+: Respondents were thenallowed to present their evidene e6 parte efore the ranh ler. of ourt+

On July 2, 2004, the R"# rendered a 8eision =; in favor of respondents+ "he fallo of the R"# deision reads>

)ROR, Jud!$ent is herey rendered in favor of the plaintiffs+ As

prayed for, defendant Jai$e + 7ere=, #hief of the 8e$olition Offie of Mari.ina#ity, or any person atin! for and in his ehalf as well as the suessors to hisoffie, is per$anently en5oined fro$ perfor$in! any at whih would tend todestroy or de$olish the peri$eter fene and steel !ate of the plaintiffsE propertysituated at /ot 22, %lo. -, rane treet orner <taly treet, 7hase <<,reenhei!hts udivision, #onepion, Mari.ina #ity+
























49

8efendant is further ordered to pay the a$ount of "wenty "housand'720,000+00( 7esos as attorneyEs fees and ive "housand '7-,000+00( 7esos for the osts of suit+=

"he R"# held that respondents, ein! lawful owners of the su5et property, are entitledto the peaeful and open possession of every inh of their property and petitionerEs threat tode$olish the onrete fene around their property is tanta$ount to a violation of their ri!hts as property owners who are entitled to protetion under the #onstitution and laws+ "he R"# alsoruled that there is no showin! that respondentsE fene is a nuisane per se and presents ani$$ediate dan!er to the o$$unityEs welfare, nor is there asis for petitionerEs lai$ that thefene has enroahed on the sidewal. as to 5ustify its su$$ary de$olition+

7etitioner appealed the R"# deision to the #A+ On Marh 31, 200&, the appellate ourtrendered the assailed deision affir$in! the R"# deision+

)ene this petition ased on the followin! !rounds>

<+

") #OKR" O A77A/ #OMM<""8 A RHR<%/ RROR <*A<RM<* ") A#"<O* O ") /OR #OKR" <*R<*"A"<*GRH<H<* ") #OM7/A<*" </8 %N ")R7O*8*"+

<<+

") #OKR" O A77A/ #OMM<""8 A RHR<%/ RROR <*A<RM<* ") RK/<* O ") /OR #OKR"")A" ")R7O*8*" AR *"<"/8 "O 7RMA**" <*JK*#"<O*,")R%N R"RA<*<* ") 7"<"<O*R OR A*NO* A#"<* OR A*8 O* )< %)A/ ROM #ARRN<* OK" ") ")RA"*88MO/<"<O* O ")<R 7R<M"R *# A*8 "/ A"+

<<<+

") #OKR" O A77A/ #OMM<""8 A RHR<%/ ?RROR@ <*A<RM<* ") RK/<* O ") /OR #OKR" OR8R<* ")7"<"<O*R "O 7AN ") R7O*8*" ") AMOK*" O "*"N





-0

")OKA*8 7O '720,000+00( A A""OR*NE A*8 <H")OKA*8 7O '7-,000+00( A #O" O K<"+=?

ssentially, the issues to e resolved in the instant ase are> '1( 8id the trial ourt err in

reinstatin! the o$plaint of respondentsC '2( Are the re;uisites for the issuane of a writ of in5untion presentC and '3( <s petitioner liale to pay attorneyEs fees and osts of suitC

7etitioner ar!ues that there was epress ad$ission of ne!li!ene y respondents andtherefore, reinstate$ent of their dis$issed o$plaint was not 5ustified+

e disa!ree+

A perusal of the respondentsE $otion for reonsideration =9 of the order of dis$issal

reveals that there was no ad$ission of ne!li!ene y respondents, either epress or i$plied+ Respondents only ontended that '1( they were under the i$pression that it would ethe R"# whih would issue the order to ontinue the proeedin!s one it onsiders that the petition efore the #A had already een disposed of with finality, and '2( their ounselEs reordsdo not show that the #A had already issued an entry of 5ud!$ent at the ti$e the dis$issal order was issued+ "hey also only stated that they followed up with the #A the issuane of the entry of 5ud!$ent ut they were 5ust told to wait for its delivery y $ail+ 7etitionerEs i$putation thatrespondents epressly ad$itted ne!li!ene is therefore learly unfounded+

Additionally, as orretly found y oth the R"# and the #A, it did not appear that

respondent lost interest in proseutin! their ase nor was their ounsel ne!li!ent in handlin!it+ Aordin!ly, there was no asis for the dis$issal order and reinstate$ent of respondentsEo$plaint was 5ustified+

As to the propriety of the issuane of the writ of in5untion, petitioner lai$s that there;uisites therefor are not present in the instant ase+ 7etitioner ontends that servie of a $erenotie annot e onstrued as an invasion of a ri!ht and only presupposes the !ivin! of anopportunity to e heard efore any ation ould e ta.en+ )e also lai$s that it is lear fro$ thereords of the ase that respondentsE onrete fene was onstruted on a part of the sidewal. in

!ross violation of eistin! laws and ordinane and thus, they do not have asolute ri!ht over thesa$e+ Aordin! to petitioner, the enroah$ent is learly apparent in the .eth 7lan of the!overn$ent !eodeti en!ineer as o$pared to the /oation 7lan attahed to respondentsEo$plaint+ )e li.ewise ontends that the learin! of the sidewal.s is an infrastruture pro5et of the Mari.ina #ity overn$ent and annot e restrained y the ourts as provided in 7residential8eree *o+ 1&1&+=< /astly, petitioner points out that the trial ourt should not have $erelyrelied on the testi$onies of respondents alle!in! that his $en were already in the sudivision and









-1

destroyin! properties on other streets to prove that there was ur!ent neessity for the issuane of the writ+

e disa!ree+

or in5untion to issue, two re;uisites $ust onur> first, there $ust e a ri!ht to e proteted and seond, the ats a!ainst whih the in5untion is to e direted are violative of saidri!ht+=> )ere, the two re;uisites are learly present> there is a ri!ht to e proteted, that is,respondentsE ri!ht over their onrete fene whih annot e re$oved without due proessB andthe at, the su$$ary de$olition of the onrete fene, a!ainst whih the in5untion is direted,would violate said ri!ht+

<f petitioner indeed found respondentsE fene to have enroahed on the sidewal., his

re$edy is not to de$olish the sa$e su$$arily after respondents failed to heed his re;uest to

re$ove it+ <nstead, he should !o to ourt and prove respondentsE supposed violations in theonstrution of the onrete fene+ <ndeed, unless a thin! is a nuisane per se, it $ay not eaated su$$arily without 5udiial intervention+@ Our rulin! in Lucena !rand *entral

Terminal$ (nc. v. %A* Liner$ (nc., on the need for 5udiial intervention when the nuisane is not anuisane per se, is well worth $entionin!+ <n said ase, we ruled>

Respondents an not see. over under the !eneral welfare lause

authori=in! the aate$ent of nuisanes without 5udiial proeedin!s+ "hat tenetapplies to a nuisane per se, or one whih affets the i$$ediate safety of personsand property and $ay e su$$arily aated under the undefined law of neessity

'Monteverde v+ eneroso, -2 7hil+ 123 ?19&2@(+ "he stora!e of opra in the;uonset uildin! is a le!iti$ate usiness+ %y its nature, it an not e said to ein5urious to ri!hts of property, of health or of o$fort of the o$$unity+ <f it e anuisane per aidens it $ay e so proven in a hearin! onduted for that purpose+ <t is not per se a nuisane warrantin! its su$$ary aate$ent without 5udiial intervention+ ?Kndersorin! supplied+@

<n Pampan)a Bus *o.$ (nc. v. Municipality of Tarlac where the appellant$uniipality si$ilarly ar!ued that the ter$inal involved therein is a nuisane that$ay e aated y the Muniipal #ounil via an ordinane, this #ourt held>

uffie it to say that in the aate$ent of nuisanes the provisions of the #ivil#ode 'Artiles 6940( $ust e oserved and followed+ "his appellant failed todo+:8

RespondentsE fene is not a nuisane per se+ %y its nature, it is not in5urious to the healthor o$fort of the o$$unity+ <t was uilt pri$arily to seure the property of respondents and










-2

prevent intruders fro$ enterin! it+ And as orretly pointed out y respondents, the sidewal. stilleists+ <f petitioner elieves that respondentsE fene indeed enroahes on the sidewal., it $ay e so proven in a hearin! onduted for that purpose+ *ot ein! a nuisane per se, ut at $ost anuisane per accidens, its su$$ary aate$ent without 5udiial intervention is unwarranted+

Re!ardin! the third issue, petitioner ar!ues that he was 5ust perfor$in! his duties and as puli offier, he is entitled to the presu$ption of re!ularity in the perfor$ane of his offiialfuntions+ Knless there is lear proof that he ated eyond his authority or in evident $alie or adfaith, he ontends that he annot e held liale for attorneyEs fees and osts of suit+

Respondents, for their part, ounter that the presu$ption of re!ularity has een ne!ated ythe fat that despite their reply to the first notie, whih put petitioner on notie that what he wasdoin! was ultra vires, he still reiterated his earlier de$and and threat of de$olition+ )avin! een warned y respondents that his ats were in fat violations of law, petitioner should have

een $ore iru$spet in his ations and should have pursued the proper re$edies that were$ore in onsonane with the ditates of due proess+ Respondents further pray for $oralda$a!es for the serious anieties and sleepless ni!hts they suffered and ee$plary da$a!es toserve as an ea$ple to other puli offiials that they should e $ore iru$spet in the perfor$ane of their duties+

e a!ree with respondents+

As respondents were fored to file a ase a!ainst petitioner to en5oin the i$pendin!

de$olition of their property, the award of attorneyEs fees and osts of suit is 5ustified+ #learly,respondents wanted to settle the prole$ on their alle!ed enroah$ent without resortin! toourt proesses when they replied y letter after reeivin! petitionerEs first notie+ 7etitioner,however, instead of onsiderin! the points raised in respondentsE replyletter, re;uired the$ tosu$it the reloation plan as if he wants respondents to prove that they are not enroahin! on

the sidewal. even if it was he who $ade the ausation of violation in the first plae+ And whenhe did not !et the proof: he was re;uirin! fro$ respondents, he a!ain sent a notie with a threatof su$$ary de$olition+ "his !ave respondents no other hoie ut to file an in5untiono$plaint a!ainst petitioner to protet their ri!hts+

ith re!ard to respondentsE lai$ for $oral da$a!es, this #ourt rules that they areentitled thereto in the a$ount of710,000+00 pursuant to Artile 221= of the #ivil #ode+ Astestified to y respondents, they suffered aniety and sleepless ni!hts sine they were worriedwhat would happen to their hildren who were left y the$selves in their Mari.ina residene

while they were in Or$o #ity if petitioner would $a.e real his threat of de$olition on their fene+





-3

e li.ewise hold that respondents are entitled to ee$plary da$a!es in the a$ountof 7-,000+00 to serve as an ea$ple to other puli offiials that they should e $oreiru$spet in the perfor$ane of their duties+

0HEREFORE, the Marh 31, 200& 8eision and epte$er 10, 200& Resolution of the#ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ #H+ *o+ &36- are AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION1 7etitioner Jai$e + 7ere=, #hief of the 8e$olition Offie of Mari.ina #ityisORDERED to pay respondent pouses ortunito /+ Madrona and Nolanda %+ 7ante $oralda$a!es in the a$ount of 710,000+00 and ee$plary da$a!es in the a$ount of 7-,000+00+

SO ORDERED+

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M1 4RETA,SR1, na.e*): CONRADO B1 4RETA,MACARIO B1 4RETA, GLORIA4RETA-GON6ALES, ROMEO B14RETA, RITA 4RETA-SOLANO, NENA

4RETA-TONGC4A, 2ENANCIO B14RETA, LILIA 4RETA-TAYCO, an(HEIRS OF POLICRONIO B1 4RETA,3R1, na.e*): MIG4EL T1 4RETA,RAMON POLICRONIO T1 4RETA,EMMAN4EL T1 4RETA, an(BERNADETTE T1 4RETA,

G1R1 N!1 8?9;<

7etitioners,

versus

HEIRS OF LIBERATO M1 4RETA,na.e*): TERESA F1 4RETA, AMPARO4RETA-CASTILLO, IGNACIO F14RETA, SR1, EMIRITO F1 4RETA,0ILIE F1 4RETA, LIBERATO F14RETA, 3R1, RAY F1 4RETA, 6ALDY F1



-4

4RETA, an( MILA 3EAN 4RETACIPRIANOHEIRS OF PR4DENCIA 4RETAPARADERO, na.e*): 0ILLIAM 41PARADERO, 0ARLITO 41 PARADERO,

CARMENCITA P1 PERLAS, CRISTINAP1 CORDO2A, EDNA P1 GALLARDO,LETICIA P1 REYES NARCISO M14RETA2ICENTE M1 4RETAHEIRS OF FRANCISCO M1 4RETA,na.e*): EDITA T1 4RETA-REYES an(LOLLIE T1 4RETA-2ILLAR4ELRO74E M1 4RETA ADELA 4RETA-GON6ALES HEIRS OF INOCENCIOM1 4RETA, na.e*): BENILDA 21

4RETA, ALFONSO 21 4RETA II, DICRICARDO 21 4RETA, an( ENRI74E 214RETA MERLINDA 41 RI2ERA3ORGE 4RETA ANDRES 4RETA,0ENEFREDA 41 TARAN an(BENEDICT 4RETA,

Respondents+ HEIRS OF LIBERATO M1 4RETA,na.e*): TERESA F1 4RETA, AMPARO4RETA-CASTILLO, IGNACIO F14RETA, SR1, EMIRITO F1 4RETA,0ILIE F1 4RETA, LIBERATO F14RETA, 3R1, RAY F1 4RETA, 6ALDY F14RETA, an( MILA 3EAN 4RETACIPRIANOHEIRS OF PR4DENCIA 4RETAPARADERO, na.e*): 0ILLIAM 41PARADERO, 0ARLITO 41 PARADERO,CARMENCITA P1 PERLAS, CRISTINAP1 CORDO2A, EDNA P1 GALLARDO,LETICIA P1 REYES NARCISO M14RETA2ICENTE M1 4RETAHEIRS OF FRANCISCO M1 4RETA,na.e*): EDITA T1 4RETA-REYES an(LOLLIE T1 4RETA-2ILLAR4ELRO74E M1 4RETA ADELA 4RETA-GON6ALES HEIRS OF INOCENCIO

G1R1 N!1 8?>@



--

M1 4RETA, na.e*): BENILDA 214RETA, ALFONSO 21 4RETA II, DICRICARDO 21 4RETA, an( ENRI74E 214RETA MERLINDA 41 RI2ERA3ORGE 4RETA ANDRES 4RETA,

0ENEFREDA 41 TARAN an(BENEDICT 4RETA,

7etitioners,

versus F

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M1 4RETA,SR1, na.e*): CONRADO B1 4RETA,

MACARIO B1 4RETA, GLORIA4RETA-GON6ALES, ROMEO B14RETA, RITA 4RETA-SOLANO, NENA4RETA-TONGC4A, 2ENANCIO B14RETA, LILIA 4RETA-TAYCO, an(HEIRS OF POLICRONIO B1 4RETA,3R1, na.e*): MIG4EL T1 4RETA,RAMON POLICRONIO T1 4RETA,EMMAN4EL T1 4RETA, an(BERNADETTE T1 4RETA,

7resent>

H/A#O, JR+, %.$ *hairperson,7RA/"A,A%A8,M*8OIA, andR*O,Q %% +

7ro$ul!ated>Respondents+ Se"te.'e 8;, =@88

D E C I S I O N

MENDO6A, J.:

"hese onsolidated petitions for review on ertiorari under Rule 4- of the 199 RevisedRules of #ivil 7roedure assail the April 20, 2004 8eision ?1@ of the #ourt of Appeals 5*A4, andits Otoer 14, 2004 Resolution?2@ in #+A++R+ #H *o+ 1399, whih affir$ed with $odifiationthe April 26, 2001 8eision?3@ of the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 9, Palio, A.lan 5RT*4 in #ivil#ase *o+ -026+ The Facts

<n his lifeti$e, Alfonso Kreta 5Alfonso4 e!ot 14 hildren, na$ely, 7olironio, /ierato, *ariso, 7rudenia, Hiente, raniso, <noensio, Ro;ue, Adela, enefreda, Merlinda,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/165748.htm#_ftn1












-6

%enedito, Jor!e, and Andres+ "he hildren of 7olironio 5&eirs of Policronio4, are opposed tothe rest of AlfonsoEs hildren and their desendants 5&eirs of Alfonso4+

Alfonso was finanially welloff durin! his lifeti$e+ )e owned several fishpens, afishpond, a sarisari store, a passen!er 5eep, and was en!a!ed in the uyin! and sellin! of opra+

7olironio, the eldest, was the only hild of Alfonso who failed to finish shoolin! and insteadwor.ed on his fatherEs lands+

o$eti$e in Otoer 1969, Alfonso and four of his hildren, na$ely, 7olironio, /ierato,7rudenia, and raniso, $et at the house of /ierato+ raniso, who was then a $uniipal 5ud!e, su!!ested that in order to redue the inheritane taes, their father should $a.e it appear that he had sold so$e of his lands to his hildren+ Aordin!ly, Alfonso eeuted four '4( 8eedsof ale overin! several parels of land in favor of 7olironio, ?4@ /ierato,?-@ 7rudenia,?6@ and hiso$$onlaw wife, Haleriana 8ela #ru=+?@ "he 8eed of ale eeuted on Otoer 2-, 1969, infavor of 7olironio, overed si parels of land, whih are the properties in dispute in this ase+

ine the sales were only $ade for taation purposes and no $onetary onsideration was!iven, Alfonso ontinued to own, possess and en5oy the lands and their produe+

hen Alfonso died on Otoer 11, 192, /ierato ated as the ad$inistrator of his fatherEsestate+ )e was later sueeded y his sister 7rudenia, and then y her dau!hter, #ar$enita7erlas+ ept for a portion of parel -, the rest of the parels transferred to 7olironio weretenanted y the ernande= a$ily+ "hese tenants never turned over the produe of the lands to7olironio or any of his heirs, ut to Alfonso and, later, to the ad$inistrators of his estate+

7olironio died on *ove$er 22, 194+ ept for the said portion of parel -, neither 7olironio nor his heirs ever too. possession of the su5et lands+

On April 19, 19&9, AlfonsoEs heirs eeuted a 8eed of traJudiial 7artition,?&@ whih

inluded all the lands that were overed y the four '4( deeds of sale that were previouslyeeuted y Alfonso for taation purposes+ #onrado, 7olironioEs eldest son, representin! the)eirs of 7olironio, si!ned the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition in ehalf of his oheirs+

After their fatherEs death, the )eirs of 7olironio found ta delarations in his na$eoverin! the si parels of land+ On June 1-, 199-, they otained a opy of the 8eed of aleeeuted on Otoer 2-, 1969 y Alfonso in favor of 7olironio+

*ot lon! after, on July 30, 199-, the )eirs of 7olironio alle!edly learned aout the 8eedof traJudiial 7artition involvin! AlfonsoEs estate when it was pulished in the July 19,199- issue of the A.lan Reporter+

%elievin! that the si parels of land elon!ed to their late father, and as suh, eludedfro$ the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, the )eirs of 7olironio sou!ht to a$ialy settle the$atter with the )eirs of Alfonso+ arnest efforts provin! futile, the )eirs of 7olironio filed a#o$plaint for 8elaration of Ownership, Reovery of 7ossession, Annul$ent of 8ou$ents,7artition, and 8a$a!es?9@ a!ainst the )eirs of Alfonso efore the R"# on *ove$er 1, 199-















-

where the followin! issues were su$itted> '1( whether or not the 8eed of ale was validB '2(whether or not the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition was validB and '3( who etween the partieswas entitled to da$a!es+ The R$*in# !% the RTC

On April 26, 2001, the R"# dis$issed the #o$plaint of the )eirs of 7olironio and ruledin favor of the )eirs of Alfonso in a deision, the dispositive portion of whih reads>

)ROR, the #ourt finds that the preponderane of evidene tilts infavor of the defendants, hene the instant ase is herey 8<M<8+

"he ounterlai$s are li.ewise 8<M<8+ ith osts a!ainst plaintiffs+

O OR8R8+ "he R"# found that the )eirs of Alfonso learly estalished that the 8eed of ale was

null and void+ <t held that the )eirs of 7olironio failed to reut the evidene of the )eirs of Alfonso, whih proved that the 8eed of ale in the possession of the for$er was one of the four '4( 8eeds of ale eeuted y Alfonso in favor of his 3 hildren and seond wife for taation purposesB that althou!h ta delarations were issued in the na$e of 7olironio, he or his heirsnever too. possession of the su5et lands eept a portion of parel -B and that all the produewere turned over y the tenants to Alfonso and the ad$inistrators of his estate and never to7olironio or his heirs+

"he R"# further found that there was no $oney involved in the sale+ ven !rantin! that

there was, as lai$ed y the )eirs of 7olironio, U2,000+00 for si parels of land, the a$ountwas !rossly inade;uate+ <t was also noted that the a!!re!ate area of the su5et lands was $orethan doule the avera!e share ad5udiated to eah of the other hildren in the 8eed of traJudiial 7artitionB that the silin!s of 7olironio were the ones who shared in the produe of thelandB and that the )eirs of 7olironio only paid real estate taes in 1996 and 199+ "he R"#opined that 7olironio $ust have een aware that the transfer was $erely for taation purposes eause he did not suse;uently ta.e possession of the properties even after the death of hisfather+

"he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, on the other hand, was delared valid y the R"# as

all the heirs of Alfonso were represented and reeived e;ual shares and all the re;uire$ents of avalid etra5udiial partition were $et+ "he R"# onsidered #onradoEs lai$ that he did notunderstand the full si!nifiane of his si!nature when he si!ned in ehalf of his oheirs, as a!ratutitous assertion+ "he R"# was of the view that when he ad$itted to have si!ned all the pa!es and personally appeared efore the notary puli, he was presu$ed to have understoodtheir ontents+



-&

/astly, neither party was entitled to da$a!es+ "he )eirs of Alfonso failed to presenttesti$ony to serve as fatual asis for $oral da$a!es, no dou$ent was presented to prove atual da$a!es, and the )eirs of 7olironio were found to have filed the ase in !ood faith+ The R$*in# !% the CA

A!!rieved, the )eirs of 7olironio appealed efore the #A, whih rendered a deisionon April 20, 2004, the dispositive portion of whih reads as follows>

)ROR, the appeal is (/#0(112 +/(3#E'+ "he appealed8eision, dated 26 April 2001, rendered y )on+ Jud!e 8ean R+ "elan of theRe!ional "rial #ourt of Palio, A.lan, %ranh 9, is herey (FF0/&E' with

&4'0F0C(#043 > 1+( "he 8eed of ale in favor of 7olironio Kreta, r+, dated 2- Otoer

1969, overin! si '6( parels of land is herey delared 540' for

ein! (,S41U#E12 S0&U1(#E'B 2+( "he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, dated 19 April 19&9,

is (33U11E'B 3+( "he lai$ for atual and ee$plary da$a!es are '0S&0SSE' for la.

of fatual and le!al asis+ "he ase is herey /E&(3'E' to the ourt of ori!in for the proper

partition of A/O*O KR"AE state in aordane with Rule 69 of the 199Rules of #ivil 7roedure+ *o osts at this instane+

O OR8R8+

"he #A affir$ed the findin! of the R"# that the 8eed of ale was void+ <t found the 8eedof ale to e asolutely si$ulated as the parties did not intend to e le!ally ound y it+ As suh,it produed no le!al effets and did not alter the 5uridial situation of the parties+ "he #A alsonoted that Alfonso ontinued to eerise all the ri!hts of an owner even after the eeution of the8eed of ale, as it was undisputed that he re$ained in possession of the su5et parels of landand en5oyed their produe until his death+

7olironio, on the other hand, never eerised any ri!hts pertainin! to an owner over thesu5et lands fro$ the ti$e they were sold to hi$ up until his death+ )e never too. or atte$ptedto ta.e possession of the land even after his fatherEs death, never de$anded delivery of the produe fro$ the tenants, and never paid realty taes on the properties+ <t was also noted that7olironio never dislosed the eistene of the 8eed of ale to his hildren, as they were, in fat,surprised to disover its eistene+ "he #A, thus, onluded that 7olironio $ust have eenaware that the transfer was only $ade for taation purposes+



-9

"he testi$ony of A$paro #astillo, as to the iru$stanes surroundin! the atualarran!e$ent and a!ree$ent etween the parties prior to the eeution of the four '4( 8eeds of ale, was found y the #A to e unreutted+ "he R"#Es assess$ent of the rediility of her testi$ony was aorded respet, and the intention of the parties was !iven the pri$aryonsideration in deter$inin! the true nature of the ontrat+

#ontrary to the findin! of the R"# thou!h, the #A annulled the 8eed of traJudiial7artition due to the inapaity of one of the parties to !ive his onsent to the ontrat+ <t held that efore #onrado ould validly ind his oheirs to the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, it wasneessary that he e lothed with the proper authority+ "he #A ruled that a speial power of attorney was re;uired under Artile 1&& '-( and '1-( of the #ivil #ode+ ithout a speial power of attorney, it was held that #onrado la.ed the le!al apatiy to !ive the onsent of his oheirs,thus, renderin! the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition voidale under Artile 1390 '1( of the #ivil#ode+

As a onse;uene, the #A ordered the re$and of the ase to the R"# for the proper

partition of the estate, with the option that the parties $ay still voluntarily effet the partition yeeutin! another a!ree$ent or y adoptin! the assailed 8eed of 7artition with the R"#Esapproval in either ase+ Otherwise, the R"# $ay proeed with the o$pulsory partition of theestate in aordane with the Rules+

ith re!ard to the lai$ for da$a!es, the #A a!reed with the R"# and dis$issed the

lai$ for atual and o$pensatory da$a!es for la. of fatual and le!al asis+ %oth parties filed their respetive Motions for Reonsideration, whih were denied y the

#A for la. of $erit in a Resolution dated Otoer 14, 2004+

<n their Motion for Reonsideration, the )eirs of 7olironio ar!ued that the R"# violatedthe est evidene rule in !ivin! redene to the testi$ony of A$paro #astillo with re!ard to thesi$ulation of the 8eed of ale, and that presription had set in preludin! any ;uestion on thevalidity of the ontrat+

"he #A held that the oral testi$ony was ad$issile under Rule 130, etion 9 '( and '(,whih provides that evidenealiunde $ay e allowed to eplain the ter$s of the writtena!ree$ent if the sa$e failed to epress the true intent and a!ree$ent of the parties thereto, or when the validity of the written a!ree$ent was put in issue+ urther$ore, the #A found that the)eirs of 7olironio waived their ri!ht to o5et to evidene aliunde havin! failed to do so durin!trial and for raisin! suh only for the first ti$e on appeal+ ith re!ard to presription, the #Aruled that the ation or defense for the delaration of the ineistene of a ontrat did not presrie under Artile 1410 of the #ivil #ode+

On the other hand, the )eirs of Alfonso ar!ued that the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition

should not have een annulled, and instead the preterited heirs should e !iven their share+ "he#A reiterated that #onradoEs la. of apaity to !ive his oheirsE onsent to the etra5udiialsettle$ent rendered the sa$e voidale+



60

)ene, the present 7etitions for Review on #ertiorari+ The Iss$es

"he issues presented for resolution y the )eirs of 7olironio in G1R1 N!1 8?9;< are as

follows> I1

0hethe the C!$t !% A""ea*s is c!ect in $*in# that the Dee( !% A's!*$te Sa*e !% = Oct!'e 8>?> is &!i( %! 'ein# a's!*$te*) %ictiti!$s an( ine*ati!n theewith, .a) "a!* e&i(ence 'e entetaine( t! thwat its 'in(in#e%%ect a%te the "aties ha&e '!th (ie( Ass$.in# that in(ee( the sai( (!c$.ent is si.$*ate(, whethe ! n!t the"aties theet! inc*$(in# thei s$ccess!s in inteest ae est!""e( t! $esti!nits &a*i(it), the) 'ein# '!$n( ') Atic*es 8;8= an( 8;=8 !% the Ci&i* C!(e

II1 0hethe "esci"ti!n a""*ies t! 'a an) $esti!n es"ectin# the &a*i(it) !% the Dee( !% A's!*$te Sa*e (ate( = Oct!'e 8>?> 0hethe "esci"ti!na""*ies t! 'a an) c!**atea* attac !n the &a*i(it) !% the (ee( !% a's!*$te sa*ee/ec$te( =8 )eas ea*ie

III1

0hethe the C!$t !% A""ea*s c!ect*) $*e( in n$**i%)in# the Dee( !% E/ta$(icia* Patiti!n 'eca$se C!na(! 4eta si#ne( the sa.e with!$t thewitten a$th!it) %!. his si'*in#s in c!nta&enti!n !% Atic*e 8<9< ine*ati!n t! Atic*e 8>@ !% the Ci&i* C!(e an( in e*ati!n theewith, whethethe (e%ense !% ati%icati!n an(! "eteiti!n aise( %! the %ist ti.e !na""ea* .a) 'e entetaine("he issues presented for resolution y the )eirs of Alfonso in G1R1 N!1 8?>@ are as

follows>

I1

0hethe ! n!t #a&e e! was c!..itte( ') the Tia* C!$t an( C!$t !% A""ea*s in (ec*ain# the Dee( !% Sa*e !% s$'ect "!"eties as a's!*$te*)si.$*ate( an( n$** an( &!i( th$ "a!* e&i(ence 'ase( !n thei %act$a*%in(in#s as t! its %ictiti!$s nat$e, an( thee 'ein# wai&e !% an) !'ecti!n'ase( !n &i!*ati!n !% the "a!* e&i(ence $*e1

II1



61

0hethe ! n!t the C!$t !% A""ea*s was c!ect in h!*(in# that C!na(!4etas *ac !% ca"acit) t! #i&e his c!-heis c!nsent t! the E/ta-3$(icia*Patiti!n en(ee( the sa.e &!i(a'*e1

III1

Gantin# a#$en(! that C!na(! 4eta was n!t a$th!ie( t! e"esent hisc!-heis an( thee was n! ati%icati!n, whethe ! n!t the C!$t !% A""ea*swas c!ect in !(ein# the e.an( !% the case t! the Re#i!na* Tia* C!$t%! "atiti!n !% the estate !% A*%!ns! 4eta1

I21

Since the sa*e in %a&! !% P!*ic!ni! 4eta S1 was n$** an( &!i( a' initi!, the"!"eties c!&ee( theein %!.e( "at !% the estate !% the *ate A*%!ns! 4etaan( was c!ect*) inc*$(e( in the Dee( !% E/ta$(icia* Patiti!n e&en i% n!

"i! acti!n %! n$**i%icati!n !% the sa*e was %i*e( ') the heis !% Li'eat!4eta1

21 0hethe ! n!t the heis !% P!*ic!ni! 4eta S1 can c*ai. that est!""e*'ase( !n Atic*e 8;8= !% the Ci&i* C!(e as we** as the iss$e !% "esci"ti!ncan sti** 'e aise( !n a""ea*1"hese various ontentions revolve around two $a5or issues, to wit> '1( whether the 8eed

of ale is valid, and '2( whether the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition is valid+ "hus, the assi!nederrors shall e disussed 5ointly and in seriatim+ The R$*in# !% the C!$t Validity of the /eed of #ale

"wo veritale le!al presu$ptions ear on the validity of the 8eed of ale> '1( that there

was suffiient onsideration for the ontratB and '2( that it was the result of a fair and re!ular private transation+ <f shown to hold, these presu$ptions infer prima faciethe transationEsvalidity, eept that it $ust yield to the evidene addued+?10@

As will e disussed elow, the evidene overo$es these two presu$ptions+

A"solute #imulation

irst, the 8eed of ale was not the result of a fair and re!ular private transation eause itwas asolutely si$ulated+

"he )eirs of 7olironio ar!ued that the land had een validly sold to 7olironioas the 8eed of ale ontained all the essential ele$ents of a valid ontrat of sale, y virtue of





62

whih, the su5et properties were transferred in his na$e as evidened y the ta delaration+"here ein! no invalidation prior to the eeution of the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, the proity and inte!rity of the 8eed of ale should re$ain undi$inished and aorded respet as itwas a duly notari=ed puli instru$ent+

"he )eirs of 7olironio posited that his loyal servies to his father and his ein! the eldesta$on! AlfonsoEs hildren, $i!ht have pro$pted the old $an to sell the su5et lands to hi$ at avery low prie as an advane inheritane+ "hey eplained that 7olironioEs failure to ta.e possession of the su5et lands and to lai$ their produe $anifests a ilipino fa$ily pratiewherein a hild would ta.e possession and en5oy the fruits of the land sold y a parent only after the latterEs death+ 7olironio si$ply treated the lands the sa$e way his father Alfonso treatedthe$ where his hildren en5oyed usufrutuary ri!hts over the properties, as opposed toappropriatin! the$ elusively to hi$self+ "hey ontended that 7olironioEs failure to ta.e atual possession of the lands did not prove that he was not the owner as he was $erely eerisin! hisri!ht to dispose of the$+ "hey ar!ue that it was an error on the part of the #A to onlude thatownership y 7olironio was not estalished y his failure to possess the properties

sold+ <nstead,e$phasis should e $ade on the fat that the ta delarations, ein! indiia of possession, were in 7olironioEs na$e+

"hey further ar!ued that the )eirs of Alfonso failed to appreiate that the 8eed of alewas lear enou!h to onvey the su5et parels of land+ #itin! 5urisprudene, they ontend thatthere is a presu$ption that an instru$ent sets out the true a!ree$ent of the parties thereto andthat it was eeuted for valuale onsideration,?11@ and where there is no dout as to the intentionof the parties to a ontrat, the literal $eanin! of the stipulation shall ontrol+ ?12@ *owhere in the8eed of ale is it indiated that the transfer was only for taation purposes+ On the ontrary, thedou$ent learly indiates that the lands were sold+ "herefore, they averred that the literal$eanin! of the stipulation should ontrol+

"he #ourt disa!rees+ "he #ourt finds no o!ent reason to deviate fro$ the findin! of the #A that the 8eed of

ale is null and void for ein! asolutely si$ulated+ "he #ivil #ode provides> Art+ 134-+ i$ulation of a ontrat $ay e asolute or relative+ "he for$er ta.es plae when the parties do not intend to e ound at allB the latter, when the partiesoneal their true a!ree$ent+ Art+ 1346+ An asolutely si$ulated or fititious ontrat is void+ A relativesi$ulation, when it does not pre5udie a third person and is not intended for any purpose ontrary to law, $orals, !ood usto$s, puli order or puli poliy inds the parties to their real a!ree$ent+

Valerio v. Refresca?13@ is instrutive on the $atter of si$ulation of ontrats>










63

<n asolute si$ulation, there is a olorale ontrat ut it has no sustaneas the parties have no intention to e ound y it+ "he $ain harateristi of anasolute si$ulation is that the apparent ontrat is not really desired or intendedto produe le!al effet or in any way alter the 5uridial situation of the parties+ Asa result, an asolutely si$ulated or fititious ontrat is void, and the parties $ay

reover fro$ eah other what they $ay have !iven under the ontrat+ )owever,if the parties state a false ause in the ontrat to oneal their real a!ree$ent, theontrat is relatively si$ulated and the parties are still ound y their reala!ree$ent+ )ene, where the essential re;uisites of a ontrat are present and thesi$ulation refers only to the ontent or ter$s of the ontrat, the a!ree$ent isasolutely indin! and enforeale etween the parties and their suessors ininterest+

/a.in!, therefore, in an asolutely si$ulated ontrat is onsent whih is essential to a

valid and enforeale ontrat+?14@"hus, where a person, in order to plae his property eyond thereah of his reditors, si$ulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest

hi$self of his title and ontrol of the propertyB hene, the deed of transfer is ut a sha$+?1-@ i$ilarly, in this ase, Alfonso si$ulated a transfer to 7olironio purely for taation purposes,without intendin! to transfer ownership over the su5et lands+

"he pri$ary onsideration in deter$inin! the true nature of a ontrat is the intention of

the parties+ <f the words of a ontrat appear to ontravene the evident intention of the parties, thelatter shall prevail+ uh intention is deter$ined not only fro$ the epress ter$s of their a!ree$ent, ut also fro$ the onte$poraneous and suse;uent ats of the parties+ ?16@ "he trueintention of the parties in this ase was suffiiently proven y the )eirs of Alfonso+

"he )eirs of Alfonso estalished y a preponderane of evidene?1@ that the 8eed of ale

was one of the four '4( asolutely si$ulated 8eeds of ale whih involved no atual $onetaryonsideration, eeuted y Alfonso in favor of his hildren, 7olironio, /ierato, and 7rudenia,and his seond wife, Haleriana, for taation purposes+

A$paro #astillo, the dau!hter of /ierato, testified, to wit>

> *ow so$eti$e in the year 1969 an you reall if your !randfather and hishildren ?$et@ in your houseC A> Nes sir, that was so$eti$e in Otoer 1969 when they ?$et@ in our house,$y !randfather, $y late unle 7olironio Kreta, $y late unle /ierato Kreta, $yunle raniso Kreta, and then $y auntie 7rudenia Kreta they tal.?ed@ aout,that idea a$e fro$ $y unle raniso Kreta to ?sell@ so$e parels of land to hishildren to lessen the inheritane ta whatever happened to $y !randfather,atually no $oney involved in this sale+ > *ow you said there was that a!ree$ent, veral a!ree$ent+ ?@here wereyou when this Alfonso Kreta and his hildren !ather?ed@ in your houseC











64

A> < was near the$ in fat < heard everythin! they were tal.in! ?aout@

> ere there dou$ents of sale eeuted y Alfonso Kreta in furtherane of

their veral a!ree$entC A> Nes sir+ > "o who$ in partiular did your !randfather Alfonso Kreta eeute thisdeed of sale without $oney onsideration aordin! to youC A> "o $y unle 7olironio Kreta and to 7rudenia Kreta 7anadero+ > And who elseC

A> "o Haleriana dela #ru=+ > )ow aout your fatherC A> )e has+?1&@

"he other 8eeds of ale eeuted y Alfonso in favor of his hildren 7rudenia and

/ierato, and seond wife Haleriana, all earin! the sa$e date of eeution, were duly presentedin evidene y the )eirs of Alfonso, and were unontested y the )eirs of 7olironio+ "he landswhih were the su5et of these 8eeds of ale were in fat inluded in the 8eed of traJudiial7artition eeuted y all the heirs of Alfonso, where it was epressly stipulated>

"hat the aovena$ed A$paro K+ #astillo, 7rudenia K+ 7aradero,#onrado %+ Kreta and Merlinda K+ Rivera do herey reo!ni=e and a.nowled!eas a fat that the properties presently delared in their respetive na$es or in thena$es of their respetive parents and are inluded in the fore!oin! instru$ent areatually the properties of the deeased Alfonso Kreta and were transferred onlyfor the purpose of effetive ad$inistration and develop$ent and onveniene inthe pay$ent of taes and, therefore, all instru$ents onveyin! or affetin! thetransfer of said properties are null and void fro$ the e!innin!+?19@

As found y the #A, Alfonso ontinued to eerise all the ri!hts of an owner even after

the eeution of the 8eeds of ale+ <t was undisputed that Alfonso re$ained in possession of thesu5et lands and en5oyed their produe until his death+ *o redene an e !iven to theontention of the )eirs of 7olirionio that their father did not ta.e possession of the su5et landsor en5oyed the fruits thereof in deferene to a ilipino fa$ily pratie+ )ad this een true,7olironio should have ta.en possession of the su5et lands after his father died+ On theontrary, it was ad$itted that neither 7olironio nor his heirs ever too. possession of the su5etlands fro$ the ti$e they were sold to hi$, and even after the death of oth Alfonso and7olironio+







6-

<t was also ad$itted y the )eirs of 7olironio that the tenants of the su5et lands never

turned over the produe of the properties to 7olironio or his heirs ut only to Alfonso and thead$inistrators of his estate+ *either was there a de$and for their delivery to 7olironio or hisheirs+ *either did 7olironio ever pay real estate taes on the properties, the only pay$ent on

reord ein! those $ade y his heirs in 1996 and 199 ten years after his death+ <n su$,7olironio never eerised any ri!hts pertainin! to an owner over the su5et lands+

"he $ost protuerant inde of si$ulation of ontrat is the o$plete asene of anatte$pt in any $anner on the part of the ostensile uyer to assert ri!hts of ownership over thesu5et properties+ 7olironioEs failure to ta.e elusive possession of the su5et properties or, inthe alternative, to ollet rentals, is ontrary to the priniple of ownership+ uh failure is a lear ad!e of si$ulation that renders the whole transation void+ ?20@

<t is further tellin! that 7olironio never dislosed the eistene of the 8eed of ale to hishildren+ "his, oupled with 7olironioEs failure to eerise any ri!hts pertainin! to an owner of

the su5et lands, leads to the onlusion that he was aware that the transfer was only $ade for taation purposes and never intended to ind the parties thereto+

As the aove fatual iru$stanes re$ain unreutted y the )eirs of 7olironio, thefatual findin!s of the R"#, whih were affir$ed y the #A, re$ain indin! and onlusiveupon this #ourt+?21@

<t is lear that the parties did not intend to e ound at all, and as suh, the 8eed of ale

produed no le!al effets and did not alter the 5uridial situation of the parties+ "he 8eed of aleis, therefore, void for ein! asolutely si$ulated pursuant to Artile 1409 '2( of the #ivil #odewhih provides>

Art+ 1409+ "he followin! ontrats are ineistent and void fro$ the e!innin!>

'2( "hose whih are asolutely si$ulated or fititiousB

or !uidane, the followin! are the $ost funda$ental harateristis of void or ineistentontrats>

1( As a !eneral rule, they produe no le!al effets whatsoever in aordane with

the priniple T;uod nullu$ est nullu$ produit effetu$+T

2( "hey are not suseptile of ratifiation+ 3( "he ri!ht to set up the defense of ineistene or asolute nullity annot e

waived or renouned+








66

4( "he ation or defense for the delaration of their ineistene or asolute nullity

is i$presriptile+ -( "he ineistene or asolute nullity of a ontrat annot e invo.ed y a person

whose interests are not diretly affeted+?22@

ine the 8eed of ale is void, the su5et properties were properly inluded in the 8eed

of traJudiial 7artition of the estate of Alfonso+

A"sence and (nadequacy of *onsideration

"he seond presu$ption is reutted y the la. of onsideration for the 8eed of ale+ <n their Answer,?23@ the )eirs of Alfonso initially ar!ued that the 8eed of ale was void for

la. of onsideration, and even !rantin! that there was onsideration, suh was inade;uate+ "he

)eirs of 7olironio ounter that the defenses of asene or inade;uay of onsideration are not!rounds to render a ontrat void+ "he )eirs of 7olironio ontended that under Artile 140 of the #ivil #ode, !ross

inade;uay of the prie does not affet a ontrat of sale, eept as it $ay indiate a defet in theonsent, or that the parties really intended a donation or so$e other at or ontrat+ #itin! 5urisprudene, they ar!ued that inade;uay of $onetary onsideration does not render aonveyane ineistent as lierality $ay e suffiient ause for a valid ontrat, whereas fraud or ad faith $ay render it either resissile or voidale, althou!h valid until annulled+?24@ "hus, theyar!ued that if the ontrat suffers fro$ inade;uate onsideration, it re$ains valid until annulled,and the re$edy of resission alls for 5udiial intervention, whih re$edy the )eirs of Alfonsofailed to ta.e+

<t is further ar!ued that even !rantin! that the sale of the su5et lands for a onsideration

of U2,000+00 was inade;uate, asent any evidene of the fair $ar.et value of the land at the ti$eof its sale, it annot e onluded that the prie at whih it was sold was inade;uate+ ?2-@ As thereis nothin! in the reords to show that the )eirs of Alfonso supplied the true value of the land in1969, the a$ount of U2,000+00 $ust thus stand as its saleale value+

On this issue, the #ourt finds for the )eirs of Alfonso+

or la. of onsideration, the 8eed of ale is one a!ain found to e void+ <t states that7olironio paid, and Alfonso reeived, the U2,000+00 purhase prie on the date of the si!nin! of the ontrat>

"hat <, A/O*O + KR"A, for and in onsideration of the su$ of

"O ")OKA*8 'U2,000+00( 7O, 7hilippine #urreny, to $e inhand "ai( y 7O/<#RO*<O M+ KR"A, , do herey #8, "RA*R,and #O*HN, y way of asolute sale, si '6( parels of land +?26@ ?$phasis ours@














6

Althou!h, on its fae, the 8eed of ale appears to e supported y valuale onsideration,the R"# found that there was no $oney involved in the sale+ ?2@ "his findin! was affir$ed y the#A in rulin! that the sale is void for ein! asolutely si$ulated+ #onsiderin! that there is no

o!ent reason to deviate fro$ suh fatual findin!s, they are indin! on this #ourt+ <t is wellsettled in a lon! line of ases that where a deed of sale states that the purhase

prie has een paid ut in fat has never een paid, the deed of sale is null and void for la. of onsideration+?2&@ "hus, althou!h the ontrat states that the purhase prie of U2,000+00 was paid y 7olironio to Alfonso for the su5et properties, it has een proven that suh was never in fat paid as there was no $oney involved+ <t $ust, therefore, follow that the 8eed of ale is void for la. of onsideration+

iven that the 8eed of ale is void, it is unneessary to disuss the issue on the

inade;uay of onsideration+

Parol Evidence and &earsay

"he )eirs of 7olironio aver that the rules on parol evidene and hearsay were violated

y the #A in rulin! that the 8eed of ale was void+ "hey ar!ued that ased on the parol evidene rule, the )eirs of Alfonso and, speifially,

A$paro #astillo, were not in a position to prove the ter$s outside of the ontrat eause theywere not parties nor suessorsininterest in the 8eed of ale in ;uestion+ "hus, it is ar!ued thatthe testi$ony of A$paro #astillo violates the parol evidene rule+

te$$in! fro$ the presu$ption that the )eirs of Alfonso were not parties to the

ontrat, it is also ar!ued that the parol evidene rule $ay not e properly invo.ed y either party in the liti!ation a!ainst the other, where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a partyor a privy of a party to the written instru$ent in ;uestion and does not ase a lai$ on theinstru$ent or assert a ri!ht ori!inatin! in the instru$ent or the relation estalished therey+?29@

"heir ar!u$ents are untenale+ "he o5etion a!ainst the ad$ission of any evidene $ust e $ade at the proper ti$e, as

soon as the !rounds therefor eo$e reasonaly apparent, and if not so $ade, it will eunderstood to have een waived+ <n the ase of testi$onial evidene, the o5etion $ust e $adewhen the o5etionale ;uestion is as.ed or after the answer is !iven if the o5etionale features eo$e apparent only y reason of suh answer +?30@ <n this ase, the )eirs of 7olironio failed toti$ely o5et to the testi$ony of A$paro #astillo and they are, thus, dee$ed to have waived the enefit of the parol evidene rule+

rantin! that the )eirs of 7olironio ti$ely o5eted to the testi$ony of A$paro #astillo,

their ar!u$ent would still fail+















6&

etion 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of #ourt provides>etion 9+ videne of written a!ree$ents+ S hen the ter$s of an a!ree$enthave een redued to writin!, it is onsidered as ontainin! all the ter$s a!reedupon and there an e, etween the parties and their suessors in interest, noevidene of suh ter$s other than the ontents of the written a!ree$ent+

)owever, a party $ay present evidene to $odify, eplain or add to the ter$s of written a!ree$ent if he puts in issue in his pleadin!>

'a( An intrinsi a$i!uity, $ista.e or i$perfetion in the written a!ree$entB

5"4 The failure of the 'ritten a)reement to e6press the true intent and a)reement

of the parties thereto7

5c4 The validity of the 'ritten a)reement7 or

'd( "he eistene of other ter$s a!reed to y the parties or their suessors ininterest after the eeution of the written a!ree$ent+

"he ter$ Ta!ree$entT inludes wills+

?$phasis ours@

7ara!raphs '( and '( are appliale in the ase at enh+ "he failure of the 8eed of ale to epress the true intent and a!ree$ent of the parties was

learly put in issue in the Answer ?31@ of the )eirs of Alfonso to the #o$plaint+ <t was alle!ed thatthe 8eed of ale was only $ade to lessen the pay$ent of estate and inheritane taes and not$eant to transfer ownership+ "he eeption in para!raph '( is allowed to enale the ourt toasertain the true intent of the parties, and one the intent is lear, it shall prevail over what thedou$ent appears to e on its fae+?32@ As the true intent of the parties was duly proven in the present ase, it now prevails over what appears on the 8eed of ale+

"he validity of the 8eed of ale was also put in issue in the Answer, and was preisely

one of the issues su$itted to the R"# for resolution+ ?33@ "he operation of the parol evidene rulere;uires the eistene of a valid written a!ree$ent+ <t is, thus, not appliale in a proeedin!where the validity of suh a!ree$ent is the fat in dispute, suh as when a ontrat $ay e voidfor la. of onsideration+?34@ #onsiderin! that the 8eed of ale has een shown to e void for ein! asolutely si$ulated and for la. of onsideration, the )eirs of Alfonso are not preludedfro$ presentin! evidene to $odify, eplain or add to the ter$s of the written a!ree$ent+

"he )eirs of 7olironio $ust e in a state of onfusion in ar!uin! that the )eirs of

Alfonso $ay not ;uestion the 8eed of ale for not ein! parties or suessorsininterest thereinon the asis that the parol evidene rule $ay not e properly invo.ed in a proeedin! or liti!ation where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to thewritten instru$ent in ;uestion and does not ase a lai$ on the instru$ent or assert a ri!htori!inatin! in the instru$ent or the relation estalished therey+ <f their ar!u$ent was to e











69

aepted, then the )eirs of 7olironio would the$selves e preluded fro$ invo.in! the parolevidene rule to elude the evidene of the )eirs of Alfonso+

<ndeed, the appliaility of the parol evidene rule re;uires that the ase e etween

parties and their suessorsininterest+?3-@ <n this ase, oth the )eirs of Alfonso and the )eirs of

7olironio are suessorsininterest of the parties to the 8eed of ale as they lai$ ri!hts under Alfonso and 7olironio, respetively+ "he parol evidene rule eludin! evidene aliunde,however, still annot apply eause the present ase falls under two eeptions to the rule, asdisussed aove+

ith respet to hearsay, the )eirs of 7olironio ontended that the rule on hearsay wasviolated when the testi$ony of A$paro #astillo was !iven wei!ht in provin! that the su5etlands were only sold for taation purposes as she was a person alien to the ontrat+ ven!rantin! that they did not o5et to her testi$ony durin! trial, they ar!ued that it should not have een appreiated y the #A eause it had no proative value whatsoever+?36@

"he #ourt disa!rees+ <t has indeed een held that hearsay evidene whether o5eted to or not annot e !iven

redene for havin! no proative value+?3@ "his priniple, however, has een relaed in aseswhere, in addition to the failure to o5et to the ad$issiility of the su5et evidene, there wereother piees of evidene presented or there were other iru$stanes prevailin! to support thefat in issue+ <n Top13eld Manufacturin)$ (nc. v. E*E/ #.A.$?3&@ this #ourt held>

)earsay evidene alone $ay e insuffiient to estalish a fat in an

in5untion suit '7ar.er v+ urlon!, 62 7+ 490( ut, when no o5etion is $adethereto, it is, li.e any other evidene, to e onsidered and !iven the i$portane itdeserves+ '$ith v+ 8elaware Atlanti "ele!raph "elephone #o+, -1 A 464(+Althou!h we should warn of the undesiraility of issuin! 5ud!$ents solely on the asis of the affidavits su$itted, where as here, said affidavits are overwhel$in!,unontroverted y o$petent evidene and not inherently i$proale, we areonstrained to uphold the alle!ations of the respondents re!ardin! the $ultifariousviolations of the ontrats $ade y the petitioner+

<n the ase at enh, there were other prevailin! iru$stanes whih orroorate the

testi$ony of A$paro #astillo+ irst , the other 8eeds of ale whih were eeuted in favor of /ierato, 7rudenia, and Haleriana on the sa$e day as that of 7olironioEs were all presented inevidene+ #econd , all the properties su5et therein were inluded in the 8eed of traJudiial

7artition of the estate of Alfonso+ Third , 7olironio, durin! his lifeti$e, never eerised ats of ownership over the su5et properties 'as he never de$anded or too. possession of the$, never de$anded or reeived the produe thereof, and never paid real estate taes thereon(+ ourth,7olironio never infor$ed his hildren of the sale+

As the )eirs of 7olironio failed to ontrovert the evidene presented, and to ti$ely

o5et to the testi$ony of A$paro #astillo, oth the R"# and the #A orretly aorded proative wei!ht to her testi$ony+













0

Prior Action 8nnecessary

"he )eirs of 7olironio averred that the )eirs of Alfonso should have filed an ation to

delare the sale void prior to eeutin! the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+ "hey ar!ued that the

sale should en5oy the presu$ption of re!ularity, and until overturned y a ourt, the )eirs of Alfonso had no authority to inlude the land in the inventory of properties of AlfonsoEs estate+%ydoin! so, they arro!ated upon the$selves the power of invalidatin! the 8eed of ale whih iselusively vested in a ourt of law whih, in turn, an rule only upon the oservane of due proess+ "hus, they ontended that presription, lahes, or estoppel have set in to $ilitate a!ainstassailin! the validity of the sale+

"he )eirs of 7olironio are $ista.en+ A si$ulated ontrat of sale is without any ause or onsideration, and is, therefore, null

and voidB in suh ase, no independent ation to resind or annul the ontrat is neessary, and it

$ay e treated as noneistent for all purposes+

?39@

A void or ineistent ontrat is one whih hasno fore and effet fro$ the e!innin!, as if it has never een entered into, and whih annot evalidated either y ti$e or ratifiation+ A void ontrat produes no effet whatsoever either a!ainst or in favor of anyoneB it does not reate, $odify or etin!uish the 5uridial relation towhih it refers+?40@ "herefore, it was not neessary for the )eirs of Alfonso to first file an ation todelare the nullity of the 8eed of ale prior to eeutin! the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+ Personality to 9uestion #ale

"he )eirs of 7olironio ontended that the )eirs of Alfonso are not parties, heirs, or suessorsininterest under the onte$plation of law to lothe the$ with the personality to;uestion the 8eed of ale+ "hey ar!ued that under Artile 1311 of the #ivil #ode, ontrats ta.eeffet only etween the parties, their assi!ns and heirs+ "hus, the !enuine harater of a ontratwhih personally inds the parties annot e put in issue y a person who is not a party thereto+"hey posited that the )eirs of Alfonso were not parties to the ontratB neither did they appear to e enefiiaries y way of assi!n$ent or inheritane+ Knli.e the$selves who are diret heirs of 7olironio, the )eirs of Alfonso are not AlfonsoEs diret heirs+ or the )eirs of Alfonso to ;ualifyas parties, under Artile 1311 of the #ivil #ode, they $ust first prove that they are either heirs or assi!nees+ %ein! neither, they have no le!al standin! to ;uestion the 8eed of ale+

"hey further ar!ued that the sale annot e assailed for ein! arred under Artile 1421

of the #ivil #ode whih provides that the defense of ille!ality of a ontrat is not availale tothird persons whose interests are not diretly affeted+

A!ain, the #ourt disa!rees+ Artile 1311 and Artile 1421 of the #ivil #ode provide> Art+ 1311+ #ontrats ta.e effet only etween the parties, their assi!ns and heirs,







1

Art+ 1421+ "he defense of ille!ality of ontrats is not availale to third personswhose interests are not diretly affeted+

"he ri!ht to set up the nullity of a void or noneistent ontrat is not li$ited to the

parties, as in the ase of annullale or voidale ontratsB it is etended to third persons who are

diretly affeted y the ontrat+ "hus, where a ontrat is asolutely si$ulated, even third persons who $ay e pre5udied therey $ay set up its ineistene+ ?41@ "he )eirs of Alfonso arethe hildren of Alfonso, with his deeased hildren represented y their hildren 'AlfonsoEs!randhildren(+ "he )eirs of Alfonso are learly his heirs and suessorsininterest and, as suh,their interests are diretly affeted, therey !ivin! the$ the ri!ht to ;uestion the le!ality of the8eed of ale+ (napplica"ility of Article :;<

"he )eirs of 7olironio further ar!ued that even assu$in! that the )eirs of Alfonso have

an interest in the 8eed of ale, they would still e preluded fro$ ;uestionin! its validity+ "hey

posited that the )eirs of Alfonso $ust first prove that the sale of AlfonsoEs properties to7olironio sustantially di$inished their suessional ri!hts or that their le!iti$es would eunduly pre5udied, onsiderin! that under Artile &42 of the #ivil #ode, one who haso$pulsory heirs $ay dispose of his estate provided that he does not ontravene the provisionsof the #ivil #ode with re!ard to the le!iti$e of said heirs+ )avin! failed to do so, they ar!uedthat the )eirs of Alfonso should e preluded fro$ ;uestionin! the validity of the 8eed of ale+

till, the #ourt disa!rees+

Artile &42 of the #ivil #ode provides>

Art+ &42+ One who has no o$pulsory heirs $ay dispose y will of all his estateor any part of it in favor of any person havin! apaity to sueed+ One who has o$pulsory heirs $ay dispose of his estate provided he does notontravene the provisions of this #ode with re!ard to the le!iti$e of said heirs+ "his artile refers to the priniple of freedo$ of disposition y will+ hat is involved in

the ase at enh is not a disposition y will ut y 8eed of ale+ )ene, the )eirs of Alfonsoneed not first prove that the disposition sustantially di$inished their suessional ri!hts or unduly pre5udied their le!iti$es+

(napplica"ility of Article ,;,< "he )eirs of 7olironio ontended that even assu$in! that the ontrat was si$ulated,

the )eirs of Alfonso would still e arred fro$ reoverin! the properties y reason of Artile1412 of the #ivil #ode, whih provides that if the at in whih the unlawful or foridden ausedoes not onstitute a ri$inal offense, and the fault is oth on the ontratin! parties, neither $ay reover what he has !iven y virtue of the ontrat or de$and the perfor$ane of theotherEs underta.in!+ As the )eirs of Alfonso alle!ed that the purpose of the sale was to avoid the







3

Art+ 1410+ "he ation for the delaration of the ineistene of a ontrat does not presrie+ "his is one of the $ost funda$ental harateristis of void or ineistent ontrats+?44@

As the 8eed of ale is a void ontrat, the ation for the delaration of its nullity, even if filed 21 years after its eeution, annot e arred y presription for it is i$presriptile+urther$ore, the ri!ht to set up the defense of ineistene or asolute nullity annot e waived or renouned+?4-@ "herefore, the )eirs of Alfonso annot e preluded fro$ settin! up the defense of its ineistene+ Validity of the /eed of E6tra1%udicial Partition

"he #ourt now resolves the issue of the validity of the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+

8nenforcea"ility

"he )eirs of Alfonso ar!ued that the #A was $ista.en in annullin! the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition due to the inapaity of #onrado to !ive the onsent of his oheirs for la. of aspeial power of attorney+ "hey ontended that what was involved was not the apaity to !iveonsent in ehalf of the oheirs ut the authority to represent the$+ "hey ar!ue that the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition is not a voidale or an annullale ontrat under Artile 1390 of the #ivil#ode, ut rather, it is an unenforeale or, $ore speifially, an unauthori=ed ontrat under Artiles 1403 '1( and 131 of the #ivil #ode+ As suh, the 8eed of traJudiial 7artitionshould not e annulled ut only e rendered unenforeale a!ainst the silin!s of #onrado+

"hey further ar!ued that under Artile 131 of the #ivil #ode, when the personsrepresented without authority have ratified the unauthori=ed ats, the ontrat eo$esenforeale and indin!+ "hey ontended that the )eirs of 7olironio ratified the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition when #onrado too. possession of one of the parels of land ad5udiated to hi$and his silin!s, and when another parel was used as ollateral for a loan entered into y so$eof the )eirs of 7olironio+ "he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition havin! een ratified and its enefits aepted, the sa$e thus ea$e enforeale and indin! upon the$+

"he )eirs of Alfonso averred that !rantin! ar!uendo that #onrado was not authori=ed to

represent his oheirs and there was no ratifiation, the #A should not have re$anded the ase tothe R"# for partition of AlfonsoEs estate+ "hey ar!ued that the #A should not have applied the#ivil #ode !eneral provision on ontrats, ut the speial provisions dealin! with suession and partition+ "hey ontended that ontrary to the rulin! of the #A, the etra5udiial parition was notan at of strit do$inion, as it has een ruled that partition of inherited land is not a onveyane ut a onfir$ation or ratifiation of title or ri!ht to the land+?46@"herefore, the law re;uirin! aspeial power of attorney should not e applied to partitions+

On the other hand, the )eirs of 7olironio insisted that the #A pronoune$ent on theinvalidity of the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition should not e distured eause the su5et properties should not have een inluded in the estate of Alfonso, and eause #onrado la.ed









4

the written authority to represent his silin!s+ "hey ar!ued with the #A in rulin! that a speial power of attorney was re;uired efore #onrado ould si!n in ehalf of his oheirs+

"he )eirs of 7olironio denied that they ratified the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+

"hey lai$ed that there is nothin! on reord that estalishes that they ratified the partition+ ar

fro$ doin! so, they preisely ;uestioned its eeution y filin! a o$plaint+ "hey further ar!uedthat under Artile 1409 '3( of the #ivil #ode, ratifiation annot e invo.ed to validate the ille!alat of inludin! in the partition those properties whih do not elon! to the estate as it providesanother $ode of a;uirin! ownership not santioned y law+

urther$ore, the )eirs of 7olironio ontended that the defenses of unenforeaility,

ratifiation, and preterition are ein! raised for the first ti$e on appeal y the )eirs of Alfonso+or havin! failed to raise the$ durin! the trial, the )eirs of Alfonso should e dee$ed to havewaived their ri!ht to do so+

"he #ourt a!rees in part with the )eirs of Alfonso+

"o e!in, althou!h the defenses of unenforeaility, ratifiation and preterition wereraised y the )eirs of Alfonso for the first ti$e on appeal, they are ono$itant $atters whih$ay e ta.en up+ As lon! as the ;uestioned ite$s ear relevane and lose relation to thosespeifially raised, the interest of 5ustie would ditate that they, too, $ust e onsidered andresolved+ "he rule that only theories raised in the initial proeedin!s $ay e ta.en up y a partythereto on appeal should refer to independent, not ono$itant $atters, to support or oppose theause of ation+?4@

<n the R"#, the )eirs of 7olironio alle!ed that #onradoEs onsent was vitiated y

$ista.e and undue influene, and that he si!ned the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition without theauthority or onsent of his oheirs+

"he R"# found that #onradoEs rediility had faltered, and his lai$s were re5eted y

the R"# as !ratuitous assertions+ On the asis of suh, the R"# ruled that #onrado dulyrepresented his silin!s in the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+

On the other hand, the #A annulled the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition under Artile

1390 '1( of the #ivil #ode, holdin! thata speial power of attorney was la.in! as re;uired under Artile 1&& '-( and '1-( of the #ivil #ode+ "hese artiles are as follows>

Art+ 1&&+ peial powers of attorney are neessary in the followin! ases>

'-( "o enter into any ontrat y whih the ownership of an i$$ovale istrans$itted or a;uired either !ratuitously or for a valuale onsiderationB

'1-( Any other at of strit do$inion+





-

Art+ 1390+ "he followin! ontrats are voidale or annullale, even thou!h there$ay have een no da$a!e to the ontratin! parties> '1( "hose where one of the parties is inapale of !ivin! onsent to a ontratB

'2( "hose where the onsent is vitiated y $ista.e, violene, inti$idation, undueinfluene or fraud+ "hese ontrats are indin!, unless they are annulled y a proper ation in ourt+"hey are suseptile of ratifiation+

"his #ourt finds that Artile 1&& '-( and '1-( is inappliale to the ase at enh+ <t has

een held in several ases?4&@ that partition a$on! heirs is not le!ally dee$ed a onveyane of real property resultin! in han!e of ownership+ <t is not a transfer of property fro$ one to the other, ut rather, it is a onfir$ation or ratifiation of title or ri!ht of property that an heir is renounin!in favor of another heir who aepts and reeives the inheritane+ <t is $erely a desi!nation and

se!re!ation of that part whih elon!s to eah heir+ "he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition annot,therefore, e onsidered as an at of strit do$inion+ )ene, a speial power of attorney is notneessary+

<n fat, as etween the parties, even an oral partition y the heirs is valid if no reditors

are affeted+ "he re;uire$ent of a written $e$orandu$ under the statute of frauds does notapply to partitions effeted y the heirs where no reditors are involved onsiderin! that suhtransation is not a onveyane of property resultin! in han!e of ownership ut $erely adesi!nation and se!re!ation of that part whih elon!s to eah heir +?49@

*either is Artile 1390 '1( appliale+ Artile 1390 '1( onte$plates the inapaity of a

party to !ive onsent to a ontrat+ hat is involved in the ase at enh thou!h is not #onradoEsinapaity to !ive onsent to the ontrat, ut rather his la. of authority to do so+ <nstead,Artiles 1403 '1(, 1404, and 131 of the #ivil #ode find appliation to the iru$stanes prevailin! in this ase+ "hey are as follows>

Art+ 1403+ "he followin! ontrats are unenforeale, unless they are ratified> '1( "hose entered into in the na$e of another person y one who has een !ivenno authority or le!al representation, or who has ated eyond his powersB

Art+ 1404+ Knauthori=ed ontrats are !overned y Artile 131 and the priniples

of a!eny in "itle L of this %oo.+ Art+ 131+ *o one $ay ontrat in the na$e of another without ein! authori=ed y the latter, or unless he has y law a ri!ht to represent hi$+ A ontrat entered into in the na$e of another y one who has no authority or le!al representation, or who has ated eyond his powers, shall e unenforeale,








6

unless it is ratified, epressly or i$pliedly, y the person on whose ehalf it has een eeuted, efore it is revo.ed y the other ontratin! party+

uh was si$ilarly held in the ase of Badillo v. errer >

"he 8eed of tra5udiial 7artition and ale is not a voidale or anannullale ontrat under Artile 1390 of the *ew #ivil #ode+ Artile 1390renders a ontrat voidale if one of the parties is inapale of !ivin! onsent tothe ontrat or if the ontratin! partyEs onsent is vitiated y $ista.e, violene,inti$idation, undue influene or fraud+

"he deed of etra5udiial parition and sale is an unenforeale or, $ore

speifially, an unauthori=ed ontrat under Artiles 1403'1( and 131 of the *ew#ivil #ode+?-0@

"herefore, #onradoEs failure to otain authority fro$ his oheirs to si!n the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition in their ehalf did not result in his inapaity to !ive onsent so as torender the ontrat voidale, ut rather, it rendered the ontrat valid ut unenforeale a!ainst#onradoEs oheirs for havin! een entered into without their authority+

A loser review of the evidene on reord, however, will show that the 8eed of tra

Judiial 7artition is not unenforeale ut, in fat, valid, indin! and enforeale a!ainst all the)eirs of 7olironio for havin! !iven their onsent to the ontrat+ "heir onsent to the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition has een proven y a preponderane of evidene+

Re!ardin! his alle!ed vitiated onsent due to $ista.e and undue influene to the 8eed of

traJudiial 7artition, #onrado testified, to wit>

> Mr+ Kreta you re$e$er havin! si!ned a dou$ent entitled deed of etra 5udiial partition onsistin! of 11 pa!es and whih have previously ?een@ $ar.edas hiit < for the plaintiffsC A> Nes sir+ > #an you reall where did you si!n this dou$entC A> "he way < re$e$er < si!ned that in our house+ > And who re;uested or re;uired you to si!n this dou$entC A> My aunties+ > ho in partiular if you an reallC A> *ay 7rudin! 7anadero+





> Nou $ean that this dou$ent that you si!ned was rou!ht to your house y your Auntie 7rudin! 7a?r@adero ?who@ re;uested you to si!n that dou$entC A> hen she first rou!ht that dou$ent < did not si!n that said dou$ent

eause < ?did@ no?t@ .now the ontents of that dou$ent+ > )ow $any ti$es did she rin! this dou$ent to you ?until@ you finallysi!ned the dou$entC A> 7erhaps 3 ti$es+ > #an you tell the ourt why you finally si!ned itC A> %eause the way she eplained it to $e that the land of $y !randfather will e partitioned+

> hen you si!ned this dou$ent were your rothers and sisters who areyour oplaintiffs in this ase aware of your at to si!n this dou$entC A> "hey do not .now+

> After you have si!ned this dou$ent did you infor$ your rothers andsisters that you have si!ned this dou$entC A> *o < did not+ ?-1@

> *ow you read the dou$ent when it was alle!edly rou!ht to your house y your aunt 7rudin! 7a?r@aderoC A> < did not read it eause as < told her < still want to as. the advise of $y rothers and sisters+ > o do < !et fro$ you that you have never read the dou$ent itself or any part thereofC A> < have read the headin!+

> And why is it that you did not read all the pa!es of this dou$ent eause< understand that you .now also how to read in n!lishC






&

A> %eause the way *ay 7rudin! eplained to $e is that the property of $y!randfather will e partitioned that is why < a$ so happy+

> Nou $ean to say that after you si!ned this deed of etra 5udiial partitionup to the present you never infor$ed the$C A> 7erhaps they .now already that < have si!ned and they read already thedou$ent and they have read the dou$ent+ > My ;uestion is different, did you infor$ the$C A> "he dou$ent sirC < did not tell the$+

> ven until nowC A> Kntil now < did not infor$ the$+?-2@

"his #ourt finds no o!ent reason to reverse the findin! of the R"# that #onradoEseplanations were $ere !ratuitous assertions not entitled to any proative wei!ht+ "he R"#found #onradoEs rediility to have faltered when he testified that perhaps his silin!s werealready aware of the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+ "he R"# was in the est position to 5ud!ethe rediility of the witnessE testi$ony+ "he #A also reo!ni=ed that #onradoEs onsent was notvitiated y $ista.e and undue influene as it re;uired a speial power of attorney in order to indhis oheirs and, as suh, the #A therey reo!ni=ed that his si!nature was indin! to hi$ utnot with respet to his oheirs+ indin!s of fat of the trial ourt, partiularly when affir$ed ythe #A, are indin! to this #ourt+?-3@

urther$ore, this #ourt notes other peuliarities in #onradoEs testi$ony+ 8espite lai$s

of undue influene, there is no indiation that #onrado was fored to si!n y his aunt, 7rudenia7aradero+ <n fat, he testified that he was happy to si!n eause his !randfatherEs estate would e partitioned+ #onrado, thus, learly understood the dou$ent he si!ned+ <t is also worth notin!that despite the dou$ent ein! rou!ht to hi$ on three separate oasions and indiatin! hisintention to infor$ his silin!s aout it, #onrado failed to do so, and still ne!leted to infor$the$ even after he had si!ned the partition+ All these iru$stanes ne!ate his lai$ of vitiatedonsent+ )avin! duly si!ned the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, #onrado is ound to it+ "hus,it is enforeale a!ainst hi$+

Althou!h #onradoEs oheirs lai$ed that they did not authori=e #onrado to si!n the 8eedof traJudiial 7artition in their ehalf, several iru$stanes $ilitate a!ainst their ontention+

irst , the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition was eeuted on April 19, 19&9, and the )eirsof 7olironio lai$ that they only a$e to .now of its eistene on July 30, 199- throu!h an







9

issue of the A.lan Reporter+ <t is diffiult to elieve that #onrado did not infor$ his silin!saout the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition or at least roah its su5et with the$ for $ore thanfive years fro$ the ti$e he si!ned it, espeially after indiatin! in his testi$ony that he hadintended to do so+

#econd , #onrado retained possession of one of the parels of land ad5udiated to hi$ andhis oheirs in the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition+ Third , after the eeution of the partition on April 19, 19&9 and $ore than a year efore

they lai$ed to have disovered the eistene of the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition on July 30,199-, so$e of the )eirs of 7olironio, na$ely, Rita olano, Maario Kreta, /ilia "ayo, andHenanio Kreta eeuted on June 1, 1994, a peial 7ower of Attorney ?-4@ in favor of their sister loria on=ales, authori=in! her to otain a loan fro$ a an. and to $ort!a!e one of the parelsof land ad5udiated to the$ in the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition to seure pay$ent of the loan+"hey were ale to otain the loan usin! the land as ollateral, over whih a Real stateMort!a!e?--@ was onstituted+ %oth the peial 7ower of Attorney and the Real state Mort!a!e

were presented in evidene in the R"#, and were not ontroverted or denied y the )eirs of 7olironio+ ourth, in the letter dated Au!ust 1-, 199-, sent y the ounsel of the )eirs of 7olironio

to the )eirs of Alfonso re;uestin! for a$iale settle$ent, there was no $ention that #onradoEsonsent to the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition was vitiated y $ista.e and undue influene or that they had never authori=ed #onrado to represent the$ or si!n the dou$ent on their ehalf+ <tis ;uestionale for suh a pertinent detail to have een o$itted+ "he ody of said letter isreprodued hereunder as follows>

reetin!s>

Nour nephews and niees, hildren of your deeased rother 7olironioKreta, has referred to $e for appropriate le!al ation the property they inheritedfro$ their father onsistin! of si '6( parels of land whih is overed y a 8eedof Asolute ale dated Otoer 2-, 1969+ "hese properties ha?ve@ already eentransferred to the na$e of their deeased father i$$ediately after the sale,$ahine opy of the said 8eed of ale is hereto attahed for your ready referene+

/ately, however, there was pulished an tra5udiial 7artition of theestate of Alfonso Kreta, whih to the surprise of $y lients inluded the propertiesalready sold to their father efore the death of said Alfonso Kreta+ "his inlusionof their property is erroneous and ille!al eause these properties were overed ythe 8eed of Asolute ale in favor of their father 7olironio Kreta no lon!er for$ part of the estate of Alfonso Kreta+ ine 7olironio Kreta has ?si@ died in 194yet, these properties have passed y hereditary suession to his hildren who arenow the true and lawful owners of the said properties+

My lients are still entitled to a share in the estate of Alfonso Kreta who isalso their !randfather as they have stepped into the shoes of their deeased father










&1

"he )eirs of Alfonso also ar!ued that all that re$ains to e ad5ud!ed is the ri!ht of the

preterited heirs to represent their father, 7olironio, and e delared entitled to his share+ "heyontend that re$and to the R"# is no lon!er neessary as the issue is purely le!al and an eresolved y the provisions of the #ivil #ode for there is no dispute that eah of AlfonsoEs heirs

reeived their ri!htful share+ #onrado, who reeived 7olironioEs share, should then fully aountfor what he had reeived to his other oheirs and e direted to deliver their share in theinheritane+

"hese ar!u$ents annot e !iven redene+ "heir posited theory on preterition is no lon!er viale+ <t has already een deter$ined

that the )eirs of 7olironio !ave their onsent to the 8eed of traJudiial 7artition and theyhave not een eluded fro$ it+ *onetheless, even !rantin! that the )eirs of 7olironio weredenied their lawful partiipation in the partition, the ar!u$ent of the )eirs of Alfonso would stillfail+

7reterition under Artile &-4 of the #ivil #ode is as follows>Art+ &-4+ "he preterition or o$ission of one, so$e, or all of the o$pulsory heirsin the diret line, whether livin! at the ti$e of the eeution of the will or ornafter the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heirB ut the devisesand le!aies shall e valid insofar as they are not inoffiious+

<f the o$itted o$pulsory heirs should die efore the testator, the institution shall e effetual, without pre5udie to the ri!ht of representation+

7reterition has een defined as the total o$ission of a o$pulsory heir fro$ the

inheritane+ <t onsists in the silene of the testator with re!ard to a o$pulsory heir, o$ittin!hi$ in the testa$ent, either y not $entionin! hi$ at all, or y not !ivin! hi$ anythin! in thehereditary property ut without epressly disinheritin! hi$, even if he is $entioned in the will inthe latter ase+?-@7reterition is thus a onept of testa$entary suession and re;uires a will+ <nthe ase at enh, there is no will involved+ "herefore, preterition annot apply+

Remand 8nnecessary

"he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition is in itself valid for o$plyin! with all the le!al

re;uisites, as found y the R"#, to wit>

A persual of the 8eed of tra5udiial 7artition would reveal that all theheirs and hildren of Alfonso Kreta were represented thereinB that noody was leftoutB that all of the$ reeived as $uh as the others as their sharesB that itdistriuted all the properties of Alfonso Kreta eept a portion of parel 29ontainin! an area of 14,000 s;uare $eters, $ore or less, whih was epresslyreservedB that Alfonso Kreta, at the ti$e of his death, left no detsB that the heirsof 7olironio Kreta, r+ were represented y #onrado %+ KretaB all the partiessi!ned the dou$ent, was witnessed and duly a.nowled!ed efore *otary 7uli





&2

Adolfo M+ <li!an of Palio, A.lanB that the dou$ent epressly stipulated that theheirs to who$ so$e of the properties were transferred efore for taation purposes or their hildren, epressly reo!ni=e and a.nowled!e as a fat that the properties were transferred only for the purpose of effetive ad$inistration anddevelop$ent onveniene in the pay$ent of taes and, therefore, all instru$ents

onveyin! or effetin! the transfer of said properties are null and void fro$ the e!innin! 'hs+ 14, d(+?-&@

#onsiderin! that the 8eed of ale has een found void and the 8eed of traJudiial

7artition valid, with the onsent of all the )eirs of 7olironio duly !iven, there is no need tore$and the ase to the ourt of ori!in for partition+

0HEREFORE, the petition in +R+ *o+ 16-4& is DENIED+ "he petition in +R+ *o+16-930 is GRANTED+ "he assailedApril 20, 2004 8eision and Otoer 14, 2004 Resolutionof the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ #H *o+ 1399, are hereyMODIFIED in this wise>

'1( "he 8eed of traJudiial 7artition, dated April 19, 19&9, is2ALID, and '2( "he order to re$and the ase to the ourt of ori!in is herey DELETED+

SO ORDERED+

EDNA PALERO-TAN,

#o$plainant,

versus

A1M1 N!1 P-@9-=>>

'or$erly O#A <7< *o+ 0623907(

7resent>

7K*O, *.% +,

K<KM%<*,

N*ARA*"<AO,

#AR7<O,

AK"R<AMAR"<*I,Q


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/P-07-2399.htm#_ftn1





&3

CIRIACO I1 4RDANETA, 3R1,4TILITY 0ORER I, RTC,BRANCH 8;, BAYBAY, LEYTE,

Respondent+

#ORO*A,

#AR7<O MORA/,QQ

AI#K*A,

"<*A,

#)<#O*AIAR<O,

H/A#O, JR+,

*A#)KRA,QQ

RN,

8 #A"RO, and

%R<O*, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

June 1&, 200&

R E S O L 4 T I O N

#)<#O*AIAR<O, %.=

<n the instant ad$inistrative o$plaint,?1@ dna 7alero"an 'o$plainant(, #ourtteno!rapher <<< of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(, %ranh 14, %ayay, /eyte, har!ed #iriao<+ Krdaneta, Jr+ 'respondent(, Ktility or.er < of the sa$e ourt, with #ondut Kneo$in! a#ourt 7ersonnel, for stealin! her rin! and raelet+








&4

#o$plainant lai$ed that it has een her pratie to .eep her and her sisterEs piees of 5ewelry in the lo.ed drawer of her tale at her R"# offie eause she fears that they $i!ht elost at the oardin! house she is rentin!+ )owever, on & July 200-, she disovered that her rin!and raelet worth fifteen thousand pesos '71-,000+00( were $issin!+ #o$plainant re$e$eredthat on 1& June 200-, a aturday, her youn!er sister went to the R"# to as. for her ne.lae+ #o$plainant too. out fro$ her tale drawer a transparent plasti sahet whihontained her rin! and raelet, and her sisterEs ne.lae, and after handin! over to her sister thene.lae, she returned the plasti sahet, still ontainin! the raelet and rin!, to her taledrawer+ he $aintained that the only person who was present and saw her ta.e out the 5ewelryfro$ her tale drawer was respondent, whose tale is ad5aent to hers+

Aordin! to o$plainant, when she found out that her rin! and raelet were $issin!, sheinfor$ed her offie$ates aout it, ut noody lai$ed to have seen the $issin! 5ewelry+ On 2&

July 200-, an offie$ate, Aneito 8+ Altone 'Altone(, onfided to her that he heard fro$ hislandlady, Anastaia R+ *ale '*ale(, that respondent and his wife, Mila!ros, had a ;uarrel eause the latter disovered a rin! and a raelet in respondentEs oin purse+ Mila!rossuspeted that respondent ou!ht the 5ewelry for his $istress+ #o$plainant approahed the R"# presidin! 5ud!e, Jud!e Asalon K+ ulahe 'Jud!e ulahe(, and relayed to hi$ the infor$ationshe !athered+ Jud!e ulahe advised her to invite *ale and Mila!ros to his ha$ers so heould onfir$ the infor$ation+

Mila!ros ad$itted to Jud!e ulahe that she and respondent had a fi!ht eause she founda rin! and raelet inside respondentEs oin purse whih she elieved he would !ive to his

$istress+ #o$plainant was ertain that the 5ewels Mila!ros saw in respondentEs purse were hers ased on Mila!rosEs desription of the said rin! and raelet+ <n a separate $eetin! with Jud!eulahe, respondent onfessed that he found o$plainantEs 5ewels in the ourtEs pre$ises, ut heould no lon!er return the$ eause he already threw the$ away+

<n his #o$$ent?2@ dated 1 April 2006, respondent denied that he stole o$plainantEs 5ewelry+ )e lai$ed, instead, that in the afternoon of 29 June 200-, a riday, he found a s$all plasti sahet ontainin! a rin! and a raelet under his tale, at the side nearest the ad5aenttale of the o$plainant, and thin.in! that the 5ewelry elon!ed to one of the liti!ants whoapproahed hi$ that $ornin!, he too. the$ for safe.eepin! with the intention of returnin! the$to whoever was the owner+ )e thou!ht that the rin! and raelet were fany: 5ewelry as theywere $erely plaed in an ordinary plasti sahet+ hen noody lai$ed the 5ewelry, he plaedthe$ inside his oin purse and too. the$ ho$e+ )owever, his wife, on 30 June 200-, foundthe$ and aused hi$ of uyin! the piees of 5ewelry for his $istress, and to stop his wifeEsna!!in!, he threw the piees of 5ewelry at a !rassy lot eside their house+ hen he wassu$$oned y Jud!e ulahe and was ordered to return the 5ewels, he and his son searhed for the sa$e ut they failed to find the$+ Respondent e!s for lenieny fro$ this #ourt as he insists





&-

that he had no intention of appropriatin! the 5ewelry for hi$self, and presents for onsiderationof this #ourt that he is already sityone '61( years old and has een in the !overn$ent serviefor twentyseven '2( years+

<n a Resolution?3@ dated 20 epte$er 2006, the #ourt referred the $atter to Jud!eraniso #+ edorio, Jr+, then eutive Jud!e, R"#, Or$o #ity, for investi!ation, report andreo$$endation, who in turn, direted?4@ Atty+ rwin Ja$es %+ ari!a 'Atty+ aria!a(, #ler. of #ourt, R"#, %ranh 12, Or$o #ity, to ondut the investi!ation+

On 2 Marh 200, Jud!e Apolinario M+ %uaya, Atin! eutive Jud!e, R"#, Or$o #ity,su$itted to the #ourt Atty+ ari!aEs investi!ation report and reo$$endation dated 1- *ove$er 2006+ Atty+ ari!a found respondent liale for #ondut Kneo$in! a #ourt7ersonnel+ Aordin! to Atty+ ari!a, respondentEs wife Mila!ros testified durin! theinvesti!ation that she indeed saw a rin! and a raelet in her husandEs purse whih aused their ;uarrel+

Atty+ ari!a found respondentEs ations inonsistent with his lai$ that he had nointention to ta.e the 5ewelry for his personal !ain+ or reasons only .nown to hi$, respondentnever othered to infor$ his offie$ates aout the 5ewelry plaed in a plasti sahet that healle!edly found under his tale at the side nearest to the ad5aent tale of the o$plainant+: <twas only on 2 or 3 Au!ust 200-, or $ore than a $onth after respondent found the 5ewelry, whenhe a.nowled!ed efore Jud!e ulahe that he possessed the 5ewelry+ ven when theo$plainant was announin! to the rest of the offie staff the loss of her 5ewelry, respondent

pretended to hear nothin!+ ere it not for the sandal rou!ht aout y his wifeEs disovery of the $issin! 5ewelry, respondent would not have ad$itted to Jud!e ulahe that he had found thesa$e+ Aordin! to Atty+ ari!a, all of respondentEs ats indiate that he had no intention toreturn the piees of 5ewelry to o$plainant+

On 4 June 200, we noted the Report and Reo$$endation of Atty+ ari!a and referredthe ase to the Offie of the #ourt Ad$inistrator 'O#A(, for evaluation, report andreo$$endation within sity '60( days fro$ notie+?-@

On 26 epte$er 200, the O#A su$itted its report,?6@ with the followin!reo$$endation F

7RM< #O*<8R8, this Offie respetfully reo$$ends to the

)onorale #ourt that>











&6

1+ "his $atter e ORMA//N 8O#P"8 as an ad$inistrativeo$plaint a!ainst #iriao <+ Krdaneta, Jr+, Ktility or.er <, R"#, %ranh 14,

%ayay, /eyteB

2+ #iriao <+ Krdaneta, Jr+, e <*8 in the a$ount of "hirty "housand7esos '730,000+00( to e deduted fro$ his retire$ent enefitsB and

3+ "he inanial Mana!e$ent Offie, O#A e 8<R#"8 to release there$ainin! a$ount of the retire$ent enefits to #iriao <+ Krdaneta, Jr+

On 12 *ove$er 200, the #ourt re;uired ?@ the parties to $anifest within 10 days fro$

notie if they were willin! to su$it the $atter for resolution ased on the pleadin!s filed+

On 12 8ee$er 200, respondent su$itted his Manifestation ?&@ statin! that he wassu$ittin! the ase for resolution ased on the pleadin!s filed+ #o$plainant filed a si$ilar Manifestation?9@ on & January 200&+

Resultantly, the ase was su$itted for deision ased on the pleadin!s filed+

After a areful study, and with due re!ard for the fats of the ase and the pleadin!ssu$itted y the parties, the #ourt a!rees in the onlusion reahed y the <nvesti!atin!Attorney+ 8espite all the opportunities aorded to respondent to present sustantial defense torefute the har!es a!ainst hi$, he failed to do so+ Respondent even ad$itted findin! the s$all plasti sahet ontainin! o$plainantEs rin! and raelet on 29 June 200-, and .eepin! the 5ewelry in his possession until he purportedly threw the$ away+ Respondent testified thus>

A> My speifi duty there in #ourt as Aide or Ktility was to lean theoffie at 4>00 oElo.+ %y 4>00 oElo. in the afternoon, noody wasaround any$ore+ o, < e$ptied the trash ans and while doin! so, < notiedso$ethin! that is plaed in a plasti+ < thou!ht it was owned y $y lientwho $i!ht have dropped it eause there are lients in the $ornin! of thatday+ %efore throwin! that plasti sahet to the thrash an, < plaed that

plasti sahet on top of $y tale and waited for so$eody to lai$ it+










&

> hat ti$e did you notie that there was plasti sahet ontainin!VC

A> 4>00 oElo., sir+

> hat did you doC

A> < plaed it on $y tale, sir+

> Nou plaed it ?on@ your taleC

A> Nes, on top of $y tale and < waited for anyody to lai$ it+

> ho is aroundC

A> "here was only one steno!rapher who was left in the offie, $$aAndres+

A> Nes, sir, that riday at 4>00 oElo. in the afternoon+ %y ->00 oElo. in

the a%ten!!n I "*ace( it insi(e .) c!in "$se a%te I "$nche( !$t .)Ti.e Ca(1

7: A%te that, )!$ *e%t the !%%ice1 0hat (i( )!$ (!





&9

A> < did nothin!+

> 8id you report for wor. on MondayC

A> Nes, sir+

> 8id you ever tell you ?r@ oe$ployees aout what you found those pieesof 5ewelriesC

A> *o, sir+

A> )owever, < told Jud!e ulahe in reply that the ite$s are !one eause < have thrown the$ away+

> o, you ad$it efore this hearin! offier under oath that you had a ;uarrelwith your wife or your wife na!!ed you aout the 5ewelriesC

A> Nes, sir+

> %eause your wife suspeted you of uyin! those 5ewelries as a !ift to

your !irlfriendC

A> Nes, sir+ "hat was her suspiion+

> o, you ad$it that you had a ;uarrel with your wifeC



90

A> Nes, sir+

7: Fist, )!$ a(.it that )!$ ha( the ewe*ies in )!$ "!ssessi!n

A: Yes, si1

7: Sec!n(, )!$ a(.it that )!$ wi%e $ae*e( with )!$ 'eca$se !% th!se"ieces !% ewe*ies 'eca$se she s$s"ecte( )!$ !% ha&in# an!the#i*%ien(

A: Yes, si1

> ith that, you still did not announe to your oe$ployees aout theloss of 5ewelriesC

A> *o, sir, eause noody is o$plainin! and esides < have already thrownthe$ away+?10@ '$phasis supplied+(

iven respondentEs afore;uoted ad$ission to havin! found the 5ewelry and .eepin! it inhis possession without infor$in! his offie$ates aout the sa$e, plus the positive evidenesu$itted y o$plainant, respondentEs are denial of any personal interest in the 5ewelry annot e !iven redene+

<t is settled that denial is inherently a wea. defense+ "o e elieved, it $ust e uttressed y a stron! evidene of nonulpailityB otherwise, suh denial is purely selfservin!and is with nil evidentiary value+ /i.e the defense of alii, a denial ru$les in the li!ht of positive delarations+?11@










91

orth stressin! is the wellentrenhed priniple that in ad$inistrative proeedin!s, suhas the instant ase, the ;uantu$ of proof neessary for a findin! of !uilt is only sustantialevidene+ ustantial evidene has een defined as suh relevant evidene as a reasonale $ind$i!ht aept as ade;uate to support a onlusion+?12@

Althou!h there is no diret evidene that would show that respondent stole o$plainantEsrin! and raelet, nonetheless, respondent is not i$$aulately innoent as re!ards the loss of thesa$e+ Antone, an offie$ate of oth respondent and o$plainant, testified that he found outfro$ his landlady that respondent and his wife fou!ht over a rin! and a raelet, whih Antonesuspeted, elon!ed to o$plainant+ 7ertinent portions of AntoneEs testi$ony are reprodued elow>

MR+ A*"O*>

Nes, sir+ < a$ stayin! with Mrs+ Anastaia *ale, while < was havin! lunhon July 2, 200-, Mrs+ *ale was tellin! $e that Mila ?respondentEs wife@ andJunior ?respondent@ were ;uarrelin! eause this Mila saw fro$ the wallet of Junior a rin! and a raelet+ Mrs+ *ale and Mila Krdaneta ?respondentEs wife@are sisters in a #atholi #o$$unity and they used to visit eah other in their respetive ho$es+

A""N+ A%R<A>

> Nou said in your affidavit that you in;uired fro$ this Anstaia *ale if #iriao Krdaneta Jr+ ?respondent@ and his wife were still ;uarrelin!+ hyC8o you .now that they are always ;uarrelin!C

A> Nes, sir+

> hyC 8o you .now that they are always ;uarrelin!C

A> Nes, sir+





92

> hy do you .now that they are always ;uarrelin!C

A> %eause Mrs+ *ale told $e that the reason for their ;uarrel is aout thatrin! and raelet+

> %ut when you as.ed this Anastaia *ale that ;uestion, you already have

in your $ind or you already suspeted #iriao Krdaneta, Jr+ ?respondent@as ein! the one who too. over the 5ewelriesC

A> Nes, sir, eause < heard fro$ dna ?o$plainant@ aout her lost 5ewelrieslast June 200-, so, it ourred to $y $ind that it is really true that therin! and the raelet were with Junior +?13@

Respondent and his wife Mila onfir$ed that they indeed had a ;uarrel over a rin! and a raelet whih respondent found in his R"# offie+ "hese delarations onstitute sustantialevidene re;uired in ad$inistrative proeedin!s+ "he #ourt finds its $ind at ease that the

olletive and o$ined wei!ht of the unro.en hain of hard and solid fats, induitalyestalished y trustworthy and reliale evidene offered y the o$plainant, unerrin!ly andinevitaly points to ut one natural and rational onlusion> that the respondent foundo$plainantEs 5ewels and, dishonestly and in ad faith, .ept the$ for hi$self+

Respondent lai$ed that he found the 5ewelry on 29 June 200- under his tale, at the sidenearest o$plainantEs tale+ On 30 June 200-, respondent and his wife had a ;uarrel aout thesaid piees of 5ewelry+?14@ On & July 200-, o$plainant was already loo.in! for her rin! and raelet, and was as.in! everyone at their offie if they had found the said 5ewelryB and yet,respondent did not spea. out even thou!h he already found a rin! and a raelet in their offie+ <t was only on 2 Au!ust 200-, when R"# 7residin! Jud!e ulahe onfronted hi$ withthe fat that his wife had already dislosed that she found a rin! and a raelet inside his oin purse that respondent ad$itted findin! the 5ewelry+ )is indifferent attitude and failure to infor$his offie$ates and his wife at the soonest ti$e that he found the 5ewelry is not only i$proper, ut hi!hly suspiious+ )is alle!ation that he had no opportunity to infor$ o$plainant and their offie$ates aout the 5ewels sine he had already thrown the$ away after a ;uarrel with his wifeover the sa$e, is la$e and hardly persuasive+ <t is e;ually suspiious, and not in aord withordinary hu$an eperiene, for respondent to outri!htly onlude that the 5ewels were owned y










94

i$a!e of a ourt of 5ustie is $irrored in the ondut, offiial and otherwise, of the personnelwho wor. there, fro$ the 5ud!e to the lowest e$ployee+

"he #ourt has e$phasi=ed, ti$e and a!ain, that the ondut of every one onneted with

an offie har!ed with the dispensation of 5ustie, fro$ the presidin! 5ud!e to the lowliest ler.,should e iru$sried with the heavy urden of responsiility+ very e$ployee of the 5udiiary should e an ea$ple of inte!rity, upri!htness and honesty+ ven a ourt 5anitor is asdutyound to serve with the hi!hest de!ree of responsiility as all other puli offiers+ "hosewho wor. in the 5udiiary $ust adhere to hi!h ethial standards to preserve the ourtEs !oodna$e and standin!+ "hey should e ea$ples of responsiility, o$petene and effiieny, andthey $ust dishar!e their duties with due are and ut$ost dili!ene sine they are offiers of theourt and a!ents of the law+ <ndeed, any ondut, at or o$ission on the part of those who wouldviolate the nor$ of puli aountaility and di$inish or even 5ust tend to di$inish the faith of the people in the 5udiiary shall not e ountenaned+?1-@ "he ondut re;uired of ourt personnel, fro$ the presidin! 5ud!e to the lowliest ler., $ust always e eyond reproah and

iru$sried with a heavy urden of responsiility+ As forerunners in the ad$inistration of 5ustie, they ou!ht to live up to the stritest standards of honesty and inte!rity, onsiderin! thattheir positions pri$arily involve servie to the puli+?16@

Misondut is a trans!ression of so$e estalished and definite rule of ation, a foriddenat, a derelition of duty, an unlawful ehavior willful in harater, an i$proper or wron! ehavior ,?1@ while !ross: has een defined as out of all $easureB eyond allowaneB fla!rantBsha$efulB suh ondut as is not to e eused+:?1&@ ross $isondut has een defined as thetrans!ression of so$e estalished or definite rule of ation, $ore partiularly, unlawful ehavior or !ross ne!li!ene+?19@

7ursuant to etion 23, Rule L<H of the O$nius Rules <$ple$entin! %oo. H of eutive Order 292, rave Misondut, ein! in the nature of !rave offenses, arries theetre$e penalty of dis$issal fro$ the servie with forfeiture of retire$ent enefits eeptarued leave redits, and perpetual dis;ualifiation fro$ ree$ploy$ent in !overn$ent servie+?20@

<n *ourt Administrator v. #evillo $?21@ the #ourt held that the at of stealin! $ail $atter

o$$itted y respondent, a proess server in the 16th M#"#, Jordan%uenavista*uevaHalenia, ui$aras, onstituted T!rave dishonesty and !rave $isondut or ondut pre5udiialto the est interest of the servie+T "he #ourt, in said ase, ordered the dis$issal of evillo+

)ene, for failure to live up to the hi!h ethial standards epeted of ourt e$ployees,respondent should li.ewise e dis$issed+




















9-

)owever, it is an undeniale fat that respondent has rendered so$e years of o$$endale servie in the 5udiiary+ Respondent has een with the 5udiiary for twentythree'23( years and this is the only ad$inistrative ase filed a!ainst hi$+ Reords also show thatrespondent had availed hi$self of optional retire$ent whih ea$e effetive on 30 *ove$er 2006, and his retire$ent enefits were withheld pendin! the outo$e of the instantad$inistrative o$plaint+ #onsiderin! the fore!oin! and for hu$anitarian reasons, the #ourtfinds a fine of thirty thousand pesos '730,000+00( to e an appropriate penalty for respondent, to e deduted fro$ his retire$ent enefits+

0HEREFORE, this #ourt finds respondent #iriao <+ Krdaneta, Jr+, G4ILTY of raveMisondut, and herey i$poses on said respondent a fine of thirty thousand pesos '730,000+00(,to e deduted fro$ his retire$ent enefits+ "he inanial Mana!e$ent Offie of the Offie of the #ourt Ad$inistrator is direted to release the re$ainin! a$ount of the retire$ent enefits to

respondent+

SO ORDERED+

HEIRS OF LORETO C1 MARAMAG, e"esente( ') s$&i&in# s"!$se 2ICENTAPANGILINAN MARAMAG,7etitioners,vs+E2A 2ERNA DE G46MAN MARAMAG, ODESSA DE G46MAN MARAMAG, ARLBRIAN DE G46MAN MARAMAG, TRISHA ANGELIE MARAMAG, THE INS4LARLIFE ASS4RANCE COMPANY, LTD1, an( GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASS4RANCECORPORATION, Respondents+

8 # < < O *

NACH4RA, J.:

"his is a petition1 for review on ertiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules, see.in! to reverse and setaside the Resolution2 dated January &, 200& of the #ourt of Appeals '#A(, in #A+R+ #H *o+&-94&, dis$issin! petitionersE appeal for la. of 5urisdition+

"he ase ste$s fro$ a petition3 filed a!ainst respondents with the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh29, for revoation andGor redution of insurane proeeds for ein! void andGor inoffiious, with prayer for a te$porary restrainin! order '"RO( and a writ of preli$inary in5untion+

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_181132_2009.html#fnt1








96

"he petition alle!ed that> '1( petitioners were the le!iti$ate wife and hildren of /oretoMara$a! '/oreto(, while respondents were /oretoEs ille!iti$ate fa$ilyB '2( va de u=$anMara$a! 'va( was a onuine of /oreto and a suspet in the .illin! of the latter, thus, she isdis;ualified to reeive any proeeds fro$ his insurane poliies fro$ <nsular /ife Assurane#o$pany, /td+ '<nsular(4 and reat 7aifi /ife Assurane #orporation 'repalife(B- '3( the

ille!iti$ate hildren of /oretoSOdessa, Parl %rian, and "risha An!elieSwere entitled only toonehalf of the le!iti$e of the le!iti$ate hildren, thus, the proeeds released to Odessa andthose to e released to Parl %rian and "risha An!elie were inoffiious and should e reduedBand '4( petitioners ould not e deprived of their le!iti$es, whih should e satisfied first+

<n support of the prayer for "RO and writ of preli$inary in5untion, petitioners alle!ed, a$on!others, that part of the insurane proeeds had already een released in favor of Odessa, whilethe rest of the proeeds are to e released in favor of Parl %rian and "risha An!elie, oth $inors,upon the appoint$ent of their le!al !uardian+ 7etitioners also prayed for the total a$ountof 7320,000+00 as atual liti!ation epenses and attorneyEs fees+

<n answer ,

6

<nsular ad$itted that /oreto $isrepresented va as his le!iti$ate wife and Odessa,Parl %rian, and "risha An!elie as his le!iti$ate hildren, and that they filed their lai$s for theinsurane proeeds of the insurane poliiesB that when it asertained that va was not the le!alwife of /oreto, it dis;ualified her as a enefiiary and divided the proeeds a$on! Odessa, Parl%rian, and "risha An!elie, as the re$ainin! desi!nated enefiiariesB and that it releasedOdessaEs share as she was of a!e, ut withheld the release of the shares of $inors Parl %rian and"risha An!elie pendin! su$ission of letters of !uardianship+ <nsular alle!ed that the o$plaintor petition failed to state a ause of ation insofar as it sou!ht to delare as void the desi!nationof va as enefiiary, eause /oreto revo.ed her desi!nation as suh in 7oliy *o+ A001-4400and it dis;ualified her in 7oliy *o+ A001693029B and insofar as it sou!ht to delare asinoffiious the shares of Odessa, Parl %rian, and "risha An!elie, onsiderin! that no settle$ent

of /oretoEs estate had een filed nor had the respetive shares of the heirs een deter$ined+<nsular further lai$ed that it was ound to honor the insurane poliies desi!natin! the hildrenof /oreto with va as enefiiaries pursuant to etion -3 of the <nsurane #ode+

<n its own answer with o$pulsory ounterlai$, repalife alle!ed that va was not desi!natedas an insurane poliy enefiiaryB that the lai$s filed y Odessa, Parl %rian, and "rishaAn!elie were denied eause /oreto was ineli!ile for insurane due to a $isrepresentation inhis appliation for$ that he was orn on 8ee$er 10, 1936 and, thus, not $ore than 6- yearsold when he si!ned it in epte$er 2001B that the ase was pre$ature, there ein! no lai$ filed y the le!iti$ate fa$ily of /oretoB and that the law on suession does not apply where thedesi!nation of insurane enefiiaries is lear+

As the whereaouts of va, Odessa, Parl %rian, and "risha An!elie were not .nown to petitioners, su$$ons y puliation was resorted to+ till, the ille!iti$ate fa$ily of /oreto failedto file their answer+ )ene, the trial ourt, upon $otion of petitioners, delared the$ in default inits Order dated May , 2004+












9

8urin! the pretrial on July 2&, 2004, oth <nsular and repalife $oved that the issues raised intheir respetive answers e resolved first+ "he trial ourt ordered petitioners to o$$ent within1- days+

<n their o$$ent, petitioners alle!ed that the issue raised y <nsular and repalife was purely

le!al F whether the o$plaint itself was proper or not F and that the desi!nation of a enefiiaryis an at of lierality or a donation and, therefore, su5et to the provisions of Artiles -2& and29 of the #ivil #ode+

<n reply, oth <nsular and repalife ountered that the insurane proeeds elon! elusively tothe desi!nated enefiiaries in the poliies, not to the estate or to the heirs of the insured+repalife also reiterated that it had dis;ualified va as a enefiiary when it asertained that/oreto was le!ally $arried to Hienta 7an!ilinan Mara$a!+

On epte$er 21, 2004, the trial ourt issued a Resolution, the dispositive portion of whih reads F

)ROR, the $otion to dis$iss inorporated in the answer of defendants <nsular /ife andrepalife is !ranted with respet to defendants Odessa, Parl %rian and "risha Mara$a!+ "heation shall proeed with respet to the other defendants va Herna de u=$an, <nsular /ife andrepalife+

O OR8R8+10

<n so rulin!, the trial ourt ratioinated thus F

Art+ 2011 of the #ivil #ode provides that the ontrat of insurane is !overned y the 'si(

speial laws+ Matters not epressly provided for in suh speial laws shall e re!ulated y this#ode+ "he prinipal law on insurane is the <nsurane #ode, as a$ended+ Only in ase ofdefiieny in the <nsurane #ode that the #ivil #ode $ay e resorted to+ 'nri;ue= v+ un /ifeAssurane #o+, 41 7hil+ 269+(

"he <nsurane #ode, as a$ended, ontains a provision re!ardin! to who$ the insurane proeeds shall e paid+ <t is very lear under e+ -3 thereof that the insurane proeeds shall eapplied elusively to the proper interest of the person in whose na$e or for whose enefit it is$ade, unless otherwise speified in the poliy+ ine the defendants are the ones na$ed as the pri$ary enefiiary 'si( in the insuranes 'si( ta.en y the deeased /oreto #+ Mara$a! andthere is no showin! that herein plaintiffs were also inluded as enefiiary 'si( therein the

insurane proeeds shall elusively e paid to the$+ "his is eause the enefiiary has a vestedri!ht to the inde$nity, unless the insured reserves the ri!ht to han!e the enefiiary+ 'reio v+unlife Assurane #o+ of #anada, 4& 7hil+ ?si@ 63(+

*either ould the plaintiffs invo.ed 'si( the law on donations or the rules on testa$entarysuession in order to defeat the ri!ht of herein defendants to ollet the insurane inde$nity+"he enefiiary in a ontrat of insurane is not the donee spo.en in the law of donation+ "herules on testa$entary suession annot apply here, for the insurane inde$nity does not parta.e











99

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin! dis;uisitions, the Motions for Reonsideration filed ydefendants repalife and <nsular /ife are herey RA*"8+ Aordin!ly, the portion of theResolution of this #ourt dated 21 epte$er 2004 whih ordered the proseution of the asea!ainst defendant va Herna 8e u=$an, repalife and <nsular /ife is herey " A<8, andthe ase a!ainst the$ is herey ordered 8<M<8+

O OR8R8+14

<n !rantin! the $otions for reonsideration of <nsular and repalife, the trial ourt onsidered thealle!ations of <nsular that /oreto revo.ed the desi!nation of va in one poliy and that <nsulardis;ualified her as a enefiiary in the other poliy suh that the entire proeeds would e paid tothe ille!iti$ate hildren of /oreto with va pursuant to etion -3 of the <nsurane #ode+ <truled that it is only in ases where there are no enefiiaries desi!nated, or when the onlydesi!nated enefiiary is dis;ualified, that the proeeds should e paid to the estate of theinsured+ As to the lai$ that the proeeds to e paid to /oretoEs ille!iti$ate hildren should eredued ased on the rules on le!iti$e, the trial ourt held that the distriution of the insurane

proeeds is !overned pri$arily y the <nsurane #ode, and the provisions of the #ivil #ode areirrelevant and inappliale+ ith respet to the repalife poliy, the trial ourt noted that vawas never desi!nated as a enefiiary, ut only Odessa, Parl %rian, and "risha An!elieB thus, itupheld the dis$issal of the ase as to the ille!iti$ate hildren+ <t further held that the $atter of/oretoEs $isrepresentation was pre$atureB the appropriate ation $ay e filed only upon denialof the lai$ of the na$ed enefiiaries for the insurane proeeds y repalife+

7etitioners appealed the June 16, 200- Resolution to the #A, ut it dis$issed the appeal for la.of 5urisdition, holdin! that the deision of the trial ourt dis$issin! the o$plaint for failure tostate a ause of ation involved a pure ;uestion of law+ "he appellate ourt also noted that petitioners did not file within the re!le$entary period a $otion for reonsideration of the trial

ourtEs Resolution, dated epte$er 21, 2004, dis$issin! the o$plaint as a!ainst Odessa, Parl%rian, and "risha An!elieB thus, the said Resolution had already attained finality+

)ene, this petition raisin! the followin! issues>

a+ <n deter$inin! the $erits of a $otion to dis$iss for failure to state a ause of ation,$ay the #ourt onsider $atters whih were not alle!ed in the #o$plaint, partiularly thedefenses put up y the defendants in their AnswerC

+ <n !rantin! a $otion for reonsideration of a $otion to dis$iss for failure to state aause of ation, did not the Re!ional "rial #ourt en!a!e in the ea$ination and

deter$ination of what were the fats and their proative value, or the truth thereof, whenit pre$ised the dis$issal on alle!ations of the defendants in their answer F whih had not een provenC

+ 'A(re the $e$ers of the le!iti$ate fa$ily entitled to the proeeds of theinsurane for the onuineC1-







100

<n essene, petitioners posit that their petition efore the trial ourt should not have eendis$issed for failure to state a ause of ation eause the findin! that va was eitherdis;ualified as a enefiiary y the insurane o$panies or that her desi!nation was revo.ed y/oreto, hypothetially ad$itted as true, was raised only in the answers and $otions forreonsideration of oth <nsular and repalife+ "hey ar!ue that for a $otion to dis$iss to prosper

on that !round, only the alle!ations in the o$plaint should e onsidered+ "hey further ontendthat, even assu$in! <nsular dis;ualified va as a enefiiary, her share should not have eendistriuted to her hildren with /oreto ut, instead, awarded to the$, ein! the le!iti$ate heirsof the insured deeased, in aordane with law and 5urisprudene+

"he petition should e denied+

"he !rant of the $otion to dis$iss was ased on the trial ourtEs findin! that the petition failed tostate a ause of ation, as provided in Rule 16, etion 1'!(, of the Rules of #ourt, whih reads F

#"<O* 1+ rounds+ F ithin the ti$e for ut efore filin! the answer to the o$plaint or

pleadin! assertin! a lai$, a $otion to dis$iss $ay e $ade on any of the followin! !rounds>

'!( "hat the pleadin! assertin! the lai$ states no ause of ation+

A ause of ation is the at or o$ission y whih a party violates a ri!ht of another+16 Ao$plaint states a ause of ation when it ontains the three '3( ele$ents of a ause of ationS '1( the le!al ri!ht of the plaintiffB '2( the orrelative oli!ation of the defendantB and '3( the ator o$ission of the defendant in violation of the le!al ri!ht+ <f any of these ele$ents is asent, theo$plaint eo$es vulnerale to a $otion to dis$iss on the !round of failure to state a ause of

ation+

1

hen a $otion to dis$iss is pre$ised on this !round, the rulin! thereon should e ased only onthe fats alle!ed in the o$plaint+ "he ourt $ust resolve the issue on the stren!th of suhalle!ations, assu$in! the$ to e true+ "he test of suffiieny of a ause of ation rests onwhether, hypothetially ad$ittin! the fats alle!ed in the o$plaint to e true, the ourt anrender a valid 5ud!$ent upon the sa$e, in aordane with the prayer in the o$plaint+ "his isthe !eneral rule+

)owever, this rule is su5et to wellreo!ni=ed eeptions, suh that there is no hypothetialad$ission of the veraity of the alle!ations if>

1+ the falsity of the alle!ations is su5et to 5udiial notieB

2+ suh alle!ations are le!ally i$possileB

3+ the alle!ations refer to fats whih are inad$issile in evideneB

4+ y the reord or dou$ent in the pleadin!, the alle!ations appear unfoundedB or









102

ause of ation is a ;uestion of law and not of fat, there ein! no findin!s of fat in the first plae+2-

)ROR, the petition is 8*<8 for la. of $erit+ #osts a!ainst petitioners+

O OR8R8+

GON6ALO 2ILLAN4E2A, e"esente( ') his heis, 7etitioner,vs+SPO4SES FROILAN an( LEONILA BRANOCO, Respondents+

8 # < < O *

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

"his resolves the petition for review1 of the rulin!2 of the #ourt of Appeals dis$issin! a suit toreover a realty+

The Facts

7etitioner on=alo Hillanueva 'petitioner(, here represented y his heirs,3 sued respondents,spouses roilan and /eonila %ranoo 'respondents(, in the Re!ional "rial #ourt of *aval, %iliran'trial ourt( to reover a 3,492 s;uare$eter parel of land in A$a$a5a!, #ulaa, /eyte'7roperty( and ollet da$a!es+ 7etitioner lai$ed ownership over the 7roperty throu!h purhase in July 191 fro$ #asi$iro Here 'Here(, who, in turn, ou!ht the 7roperty fro$Alve!ia Rodri!o 'Rodri!o( in Au!ust 190+ 7etitioner delared the 7roperty in his na$e for ta purposes soon after a;uirin! it+

<n their Answer, respondents si$ilarly lai$ed ownership over the 7roperty throu!h purhase inJuly 19&3 fro$ ufraia Rodri!ue= 'Rodri!ue=( to who$ Rodri!o donated the 7roperty in May196-+ "he twopa!e deed of donation '8eed(, si!ned at the otto$ y the parties and twowitnesses, reads in full>

P*O A// M* %N ") 7R*">

"hat <, A/H<A RO8R<O, ilipino, of le!al a!e, widow of the late Juan Arillas, a residentof %arrio %ool, $uniipality of #ulaa, suprovine of %iliran, /eyte del *orte, 7hilippines,herey depose and say>


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_172804_2011.html#fnt1









103

"hat as we live?d@ to!ether as husand and wife with Juan Arillas, we e!ot hildren, na$ely>/K#<O, H<#*"A, K*8<*A, and A8/A<8A, all surna$ed AR#<//A, and y reasonof poverty whih < suffered while our hildren were still youn!B and eause $y husand JuanArillas aware as he was with our destitution separated us ?si@ and left for #euB and fro$ thenon never ared what happened to his fa$ilyB and eause of that one KRA#<A RO8R<KI,

one of $y niees who also suffered with our poverty, oedient as she was to all the wor.s in ourhouse, and eause of the love and affetion whih < feel ?for@ her, < have one parel of landloated at itio A$a$a5a!, #ulaa, /eyte earin! "a 8el+ *o+ 1&& delared in the na$e ofAlve!ia Rodri!o, < !ive 'devise( said land in favor of KRA#<A RO8R<KI, her heirs,suessors, and assi!ns to!ether with all the i$prove$ents eistin! thereon, whih parel of landis $ore or less desried and ounded as follows>

1+ %ounded *orth y A$a$a5a! RiverB ast, %enito 7iaoB outh, "eofilo KyvioB and est, y7uli landB 2+ <t has an area of 3,492 s;uare $eters $ore or lessB 3+ <t is planted to oonuts now earin! fruitsB 4+ )avin! an assessed value of 7240+00B -+ <t is now in the possession ofKRA#<A RO8R<KI sine May 21, 1962 in the onept of an owner, ut the 8eed of

8onation or that ownership e vested on her upon $y de$ise+

"hat < KR")R 8#/AR, and < reiterate that the land aove desried, < already devise infavor of KRA#<A RO8R<KI sine May 21, 1962, her heirs, assi!ns, and that if the herein8onee predeeases $e, the sa$e land will not e reverted to the 8onor, ut will e inherited ythe heirs of KRA#<A RO8R<KIB

"hat < KRA#<A RO8R<KI, herey aept the land aove desried fro$ <nay Alve!iaRodri!o and < a$ $uh !rateful to her and prayin! further for a lon!er lifeB however, < will !iveone half '1G2( of the produe of the land to Apoy Alve durin! her lifeti$e+4

Respondents entered the 7roperty in 19&3 and paid taes afterwards+The R$*in# !% the Tia* C!$t

"he trial ourt ruled for petitioner, delared hi$ owner of the 7roperty, and ordered respondentsto surrender possession to petitioner, and to pay da$a!es, the value of the 7ropertyEs produesine 19&2 until petitionerEs repossession and the osts+- "he trial ourt re5eted respondentsElai$ of ownership after treatin! the 8eed as a donation mortis causa whih Rodri!o effetivelyanelled y sellin! the 7roperty to Here in 190+6 "hus, y the ti$e Rodri!ue= sold the 7ropertyto respondents in 19&3, she had no title to transfer+

Respondents appealed to the #ourt of Appeals '#A(, i$putin! error in the trial ourtEsinterpretation of the 8eed as a testa$entary disposition instead of an inter vivos donation, passin! title to Rodri!ue= upon its eeution+

R$*in# !% the C!$t !% A""ea*s

"he #A !ranted respondentsE appeal and set aside the trial ourtEs rulin!+ hile onedin! thatthe Tlan!ua!e of the ?8eed is@ onfusin! and whih ould ad$it of possile different











104

interpretations,T the #A found the followin! fators pivotal to its readin! of the 8eed asdonation inter vivos> '1( Rodri!ue= had een in possession of the 7roperty as owner sine 21May 1962, su5et to the delivery of part of the produe to Apoy AlveB '2( the 8eedEsonsideration was not Rodri!oEs death ut her Tlove and affetionT for Rodri!ue=, onsiderin!the servies the latter renderedB '3( Rodri!o waived do$inion over the 7roperty in ase

Rodri!ue= predeeases her, i$plyin! its inlusion in Rodri!ue=Es estateB and '4( Rodri!ue=aepted the donation in the 8eed itself, an at neessary to effetuate donations inter vivos, notdevises+& Aordin!ly, the #A upheld the sale etween Rodri!ue= and respondents, and,onversely found the sale etween Rodri!o and petitionerEs predeessorininterest, Here, voidfor Rodri!oEs la. of title+

<n this petition, petitioner see.s the reinstate$ent of the trial ourtEs rulin!+ Alternatively, petitioner lai$s ownership over the 7roperty throu!h a;uisitive presription, havin! alle!edlyoupied it for $ore than 10 years+9

Respondents see no reversile error in the #AEs rulin! and pray for its affir$ane+

The Iss$e

"he threshold ;uestion is whether petitionerEs title over the 7roperty is superior to respondentsE+"he resolution of this issue rests, in turn, on whether the ontrat etween the partiesE predeessorsininterest, Rodri!o and Rodri!ue=, was a donation or a devise+ <f the for$er,respondents hold superior title, havin! ou!ht the 7roperty fro$ Rodri!ue=+ <f the latter, petitioner prevails, havin! otained title fro$ Rodri!o under a deed of sale the eeution ofwhih i$pliedly revo.ed the earlier devise to Rodri!ue=+

The R$*in# !% the C!$t

e find respondentsE title superior, and thus, affir$ the #A+

3a6ed #itle assed fro* /odrigo to /odrigue7 Under a erfected 'onation

e ea$ine the 5uridial nature of the 8eed F whether it passed title to Rodri!ue= upon itseeution or is effetive only upon Rodri!oEs death F usin! priniples distilled fro$ relevant 5urisprudene+ 7ost$orte$ dispositions typially F

'1( #onvey no title or ownership to the transferee efore the death of the transferorB or,what a$ounts to the sa$e thin!, that the transferor should retain the ownership 'full or

na.ed( and ontrol of the property while aliveB'2( "hat efore the ?donorEs@ death, the transfer should e revoale y the transferor atwill, ad nutumB ut revoaility $ay e provided for indiretly y $eans of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties onveyedB

'3( "hat the transfer should e void if the transferor should survive the transferee+10












10-

urther F

?4@ ?"@he speifiation in a deed of the auses wherey the at $ay e revo.ed y thedonor indiates that the donation is inter vivos, rather than a disposition mortis causa?B@

?-@ "hat the desi!nation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to theeffet that the donation is Tto ta.e effet at the death of the donorT are not ontrollin!riteriaB suh state$ents are to e onstrued to!ether with the rest of the instru$ent, inorder to !ive effet to the real intent of the transferor?B@ ?and@

'6( "hat in ase of dout, the onveyane should e dee$ed donation inter vivos ratherthan mortis causa, in order to avoid unertainty as to the ownership of the propertysu5et of the deed+11

<t is i$$ediately apparent that Rodri!o passed na.ed title to Rodri!ue= under a perfeteddonation inter vivos. irst.Rodri!o stipulated that Tif the herein 8onee predeeases $e, the

?7roperty@ will not e reverted to the 8onor, ut will e inherited y the heirs of Rodri!ue=,T si!nalin! the irrevoaility of the passa!e of title to Rodri!ue=Es estate, waivin!Rodri!oEs ri!ht to relai$ title+ "his transfer of title was perfeted the $o$ent Rodri!o learnedof Rodri!ue=Es aeptane of the disposition12 whih, ein! refleted in the 8eed, too. plae onthe day of its eeution on 3 May 196-+ Rodri!oEs aeptane of the transfer undersores itsessene as a !ift in presenti, not in futuro, as only donations inter vivos need aeptane y thereipient+13 <ndeed, had Rodri!o wished to retain full title over the 7roperty, she ould haveeasily stipulated, as the testator did in another ase, that Tthe donor, $ay transfer, sell, orenu$er to any person or entity the properties here donated T14 or used words to that effet+<nstead, Rodri!o epressly waived title over the 7roperty in ase Rodri!ue= predeeases her+

<n a id to diffuse the nonreversion stipulationEs da$nin! effet on his ase, petitioner tries to profit fro$ it, ontendin! it is a fideio$$issary sustitution lause+1- 7etitioner assu$es the fathe is laorin! to prove+ "he ;uestion of the 8eedEs 5uridial nature, whether it is a will or adonation, is the ru of the present ontroversy+ %y treatin! the lause in ;uestion as $andatin!fideio$$issary sustitution, a $ode of testa$entary disposition y whih the first heirinstituted is entrusted with the oli!ation to preserve and to trans$it to a seond heir the wholeor part of the inheritane,16 petitioner assu$es that the 8eed is a will+ *either the 8eedEs tet northe i$port of the ontested lause supports petitionerEs theory+

#econd + hat Rodri!o reserved for herself was only the enefiial title to the 7roperty, evidentfro$ Rodri!ue=Es underta.in! to T!ive one ?half@ of the produe of the land to Apoy Alve

durin! her lifeti$e+T

1

"hus, the 8eedEs stipulation that Tthe ownership shall e vested on?Rodri!ue=@ upon $y de$ise,T ta.in! into aount the nonreversion lause, ould only refer toRodri!oEs enefiial title+ e arrived at the sa$e onlusion in Balaqui v. /on)so1& where, ashere, the donor, while T?indin!@ herself to answer to the ?donor@ and her heirs that noneshall ;uestion or distur ?the doneeEs@ ri!ht,T also stipulated that the donation Tdoes not pass titleto ?the donee@ durin! $y lifeti$eB ut when < die, ?the donee@ shall e the true ownerT of thedonated parels of land+ <n findin! the disposition as a !ift inter vivos, the #ourt reasoned>




















106

"a.in! the deed as a whole, it is noted that in the sa$e deed ?the donor@ !uaranteedto ?the donee@ and her heirs and suessors, the ri!ht to said property thus onferred+ ro$ the$o$ent ?the donor@ !uaranteed the ri!ht !ranted y her to ?the donee@ to the two parels of land y virtue of the deed of !ift, she surrendered suh ri!htB otherwise there would e no need to!uarantee said ri!ht+ "herefore, when ?the donor@ used the words upon whih the appellants ase

their ontention that the !ift in ;uestion is a donation mortis causa ?that the !ift Tdoes not passtitle durin! $y lifeti$eB ut when < die, she shall e the true owner of the two afore$entioned parelsT@ the donor *eant nothing else than that she reserved of herself the possession and

usufruct of said two parcels of land until her death- at which ti*e the donee would be able to

dispose of the* freel)+19 '$phasis supplied(

<ndeed, if Rodri!o still retained full ownership over the 7roperty, it was unneessary for her toreserve partial usufrutuary ri!ht over it+20

Third + "he eistene of onsideration other than the donorEs death, suh as the donorEs love andaffetion to the donee and the servies the latter rendered, while also true of devises, nevertheless

Torroorates the epress irrevoaility of ?inter vivos@ transfers+T

21

"hus, the #Ao$$itted no error in !ivin! wei!ht to Rodri!oEs state$ent of Tlove and affetionT forRodri!ue=, her niee, as onsideration for the !ift, to undersore its findin!+

<t will not do, therefore, for petitioner to herrypi. stipulations fro$ the 8eed tendin! to servehis ause 'e+ ) + Tthe ownership shall e vested on ?Rodri!ue=@ upon $y de$iseT and TdeviseT(+8ispositions earin! ontraditory stipulations are interpreted wholistially, to !ive effet to thedonorEs intent+ <n no less than seven ases featurin! deeds of donations styled as Tmortis causaTdispositions, the #ourt, after !oin! over the deeds, eventually onsidered the transfers inter

vivos,22 onsistent with the priniple that Tthe desi!nation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the effet that the donation is Wto ta.e effet at the death of the donorE are

not ontrollin! riteria ?ut@ are to e onstrued to!ether with the rest of the instru$ent, inorder to !ive effet to the real intent of the transferor+T23 <ndeed, douts on the nature ofdispositions are resolved to favor inter vivos transfers Tto avoid unertainty as to the ownershipof the property su5et of the deed+T24

*or an petitioner apitali=e on Rodri!oEs postdonation transfer of the 7roperty to Here as proofof her retention of ownership+ <f suh were the aro$eter in interpretin! deeds of donation, notonly will !reat le!al unertainty e visited on !ratuitous dispositions, this will !ive liense toro!ue property owners to set at nau!ht perfeted transfers of titles, whih, while founded onlierality, is a valid $ode of passin! ownership+ "he interest of settled property dispositionsounsels a!ainst liensin! suh pratie+2-

Aordin!ly, havin! irrevoaly transferred na.ed title over the 7roperty to Rodri!ue= in 196-,Rodri!o Tannot afterwards revo.e the donation nor dispose of the said property in favor ofanother+T26 "hus, Rodri!oEs postdonation sale of the 7roperty vested no title to Here+ As HereEssuessorininterest, petitioner a;uired no etter ri!ht than hi$+ On the other hand, respondents ou!ht the 7roperty fro$ Rodri!ue=, thus a;uirin! the latterEs title whih they $ay invo.ea!ainst all adverse lai$ants, inludin! petitioner+






















10

etitioner (c8uired 3o #itle 4ver the ropert)

Alternatively, petitioner !rounds his lai$ of ownership over the 7roperty throu!h his and HereEso$ined possession of the 7roperty for $ore than ten years, ounted fro$ HereEs purhase ofthe 7roperty fro$ Rodri!o in 190 until petitioner initiated his suit in the trial ourt in eruary

19&6+2

7etitioner anhors his ontention on an unfounded le!al assu$ption+ "he ten yearordinary presriptive period to a;uire title throu!h possession of real property in the onept ofan owner re;uires uninterrupted possession oupled with 5ust title and !ood faith+2& "here is 5usttitle when the adverse lai$ant a$e into possession of the property throu!h one of the $odesreo!ni=ed y law for the a;uisition of ownership or other real ri!hts, ut the !rantor was notthe owner or ould not trans$it any ri!ht+29 ood faith, on the other hand, onsists in thereasonale elief that the person fro$ who$ the possessor reeived the thin! was the ownerthereof, and ould trans$it his ownership+30

Althou!h Here and petitioner ar!ualy had 5ust title havin! suessively a;uired the 7ropertythrou!h sale, neither was a !ood faith possessor+ As Rodri!o herself dislosed in the 8eed,

Rodri!ue= already oupied and possessed the 7roperty Tin the onept of an ownerT 'Tcomota)1iyaT31( sine 21 May 1962, nearly three years efore Rodri!oEs donation in 3 May 196- andseven years efore Here ou!ht the 7roperty fro$ Rodri!o+ "his ad$ission a!ainst interest indsRodri!o and all those train! title to the 7roperty throu!h her, inludin! Here and petitioner+<ndeed, petitionerEs insistent lai$ that Rodri!ue= oupied the 7roperty only in 19&2, when shestarted payin! taes, finds no asis in the reords+ <n short, when Here ou!ht the 7roperty fro$Rodri!o in 190, Rodri!ue= was in possession of the 7roperty, a fat that prevented Here fro$ ein! a uyer in !ood faith+

/a.in! !ood faith possession, petitionerEs only other reourse to $aintain his lai$ ofownership y presription is to show open, ontinuous and adverse possession of the 7roperty

for 30 years+

32

Kndenialy, petitioner is unale to $eet this re;uire$ent+,avvphil

(ncillar) &atters etitioner /aises 0rrelevant

7etitioner rin!s to the #ourtEs attention fats whih, aordin! to hi$, support his theory thatRodri!o never passed ownership over the 7roperty to Rodri!ue=, na$ely, that Rodri!ue=re!istered the 8eed and paid taes on the 7roperty only in 19&2 and Rodri!ue= otained fro$Here in 19&1 a waiver of the latterEs Tri!ht of ownershipT over the 7roperty+ *one of these fatsdetrat fro$ our onlusion that under the tet of the 8eed and ased on the onte$poraneousats of Rodri!o and Rodri!ue=, the latter, already in possession of the 7roperty sine 1962 asRodri!o ad$itted, otained na.ed title over it upon the 8eedEs eeution in 196-+ *eitherre!istration nor ta pay$ent is re;uired to perfet donations+ On the relevane of the waivera!ree$ent, suffie it to say that Here had nothin! to waive to Rodri!ue=, havin! otained no titlefro$ Rodri!o+ <rrespetive of Rodri!ue=Es $otivation in otainin! the waiver, that dou$ent,le!ally a srap of paper, added nothin! to the title Rodri!ue= otained fro$ Rodri!o under the8eed+

0HEREFORE, we DENY the petition+ e AFFIRM the 8eision dated 6 June 200- and theResolution dated - May 2006 of the #ourt of Appeals+

















10&

SO ORDERED+

IAM%OA*A %AR"R "RA8RP</KA* %ANA*, <*#+ represented yits 7resident, A""N+ )AA* + A/AM, 7etitioner,

versus )O*+ JK/<K R)"" J+ 7/AA"A, in hisapaity as eutive /aor Ariter of */R#RA% *o+ <L, )R< 8A*</O 7+"JA8A of */R#RA% *o+ <L and"O7<"O M*8OIA,

Respondents+

G1R1 N!1 8;<;

7resent>

N*ARA*"<AO, %.,

#hairperson+AK"R<AMAR"<*I,

#)<#O*AIAR<O,

*A#)KRA, and

RN, %% +

7ro$ul!ated>

epte$er 30, 200&

D E C I S I O N

#)<#O*AIAR<O, % +>



109

%efore Ks is a 7etition for Review on *ertiorari under Rule 4- of the 199 Rules of #ivil7roedure whih see.s to set aside the deision?1@ of the #ourt of Appeals dated 20 *ove$er 2000 and its '2( Resolution?2@ dated 31 May 2001 denyin! petitionerEs $otion for reonsideration+ <t li.ewise as.s that the seond alias writ of eeution issued y )on+ JuliusRhett J+ 7la!ata, eutive /aor Ariter of */R#RA% <L, e annulled and delared without

any le!al effet, as well as the ensuin! levy, sale on eeution of the su5et property and thewrit of possession all issued and onduted pursuant thereto+

"he #ourt of Appeals dis$issed petitioner Ia$oan!a %arter "raders Pilusan! %ayan,<n+Es 'I%"P%<Es(?3@ petition for ertiorari, whih assailed puli respondent )on+ Julius Rhett J+7la!ataEs orders dated - May 2000 and June 2000 and the 23 May 2000 writ of possession heissued in */R# #ase *o+ RA%<L0133&1+ "he order dated - May 2000 !ranted privaterespondent "eopisto Mendo=aEs petition for the issuane of a writ of possession over the parelof land su5et of this ase+ 7ursuant to the first order, the writ of possession was issued on 23May 2000+ "he seond order dated June 2000 denied petitionerEs $otion for reonsideration of

the first order+

"he anteedents are as follows>

On 9 January 193, 7resident erdinand + Maros issued 7residential 8eree *o+93?4@ whih le!ali=ed arter tradin! in the ulu Arhipela!o and ad5aent areas, and e$poweredthe #o$$ander of the outhwest #o$$and of the Ar$ed ores of the 7hilippines 'A7( tooordinate all ativities and to underta.e all $easures for the i$ple$entation of said deree+

On 1 June 19&1, I%"P%<, thru its 7resident, Atty+ )assan + Ala$, and the Repuli of the 7hilippines, represented y Ma5+ en+ 8elfin #+ #astro, #o$$ander, outhern #o$$and of

the A7, and #hair$an, eutive #o$$ittee for %arter "rade, entered into a 8eed of 8onationwherey I%"P%< donated to the Repuli a parel of land overed y #ertifiate of "itle '#"#( *o+ "61,62& of the

Re!istry

of 8eeds of Ia$oan!a #ity, identified as /ot *o+ 6 of onsolidation sudivision plan 7s090001&4, situated in the %arrio of #anelar, #ity of Ia$oan!a, ontainin! an area of thirteenthousand si hundred fortythree '13,643( s;uare $eters, $ore or less+?-@ "he Repuli aeptedthe donation whih ontained the followin! onditions>













110

1+ "hat upon the effetivity or aeptane hereof the 8O* shall, thru theauthori=ed a!enyG$inistry, onstrut a 7- Million %arter "rade $ar.et uildin! at the aforedesried parel of landB

2+ "hat the aforesaid %arter "rade Mar.et uildin! shall ao$$odate atleast 1,000 stalls, the alloation of whih shall e deter$ined y theeutive #o$$ittee for %arter "rade in oordination with the Offiers

and %oard of 8iretors the Ia$oan!a %arter "radersE Pilusan! %ayan,<n+, provided, however, that eah $e$er of the 8O*OR shall e !iven priorityB

3+ "hat the said %arter "rade Mar.et uildin! to e onstruted as aove

stated, shall e to the strit elusion of any other uildin! for arter tradin! in Ia$oan!a #ity, 7hilippinesB

4+ "hat in the event arter tradin! shall e phased out, prohiited, or suspended for $ore than one '1( year in Ia$oan!a #ity, 7hilippines, theaforedesried parel of land shall revert a. to the 8O*OR withoutneed of any further for$ality or dou$entation, and the 8O*OR shallhave the first option to purhase the uildin! and i$prove$ents thereon+

-+ "hat the 8O* herey aepts this donation $ade in its favor y the8O*OR, to!ether with the onditions therein provided+?6@

ith the aeptane of the donation, "#" *o+ "61,62&?@ in the na$e of I%"P%< wasanelled and, in lieu thereof, "#"+ *o+ "66,696?&@ overin! the sa$e property was issued in the

na$e of the Repuli of the 7hilippines 'Repuli(+

7ursuant to ondition *o+ 1 of the 8eed of 8onation, the overn$ent and Re!ionalOffie *o+ <L of the 8epart$ent of 7uli or.s and )i!hways '87)( onstruteda %arter "rade Mar.et %uildin! worth 7-,000,000+00 at the said /ot *o+ 6+ "he uildin! was









111

o$pleted on 30 Marh 19&3 and was oupied y $e$ers of I%"P%<, as well as y other persons en!a!ed in arter trade+?9@

7rior to said donation, on 16 Marh 19, private respondent "eopisto Mendo=a

'Mendo=a( was hired y I%"P%< as ler.+ use;uently, in a letter dated 1 April 19&1,I%"P%<, throu!h its 7resident, Atty+ )asan + Ala$, infor$ed Mendo=a that his servies were ein! ter$inated on the !round of aandon$ent of wor.+?10@

or this reason, Mendo=a filed on 29 July 19&1 efore the 8epart$ent of /aor $ploy$ent '8O/(, Re!ional Offie *o+ 9,Ia$oan!a #ity, a #o$plaint for <lle!al 8is$issalwith pay$ent of a.wa!es and separation pay+ "he o$plaint was do.eted as R8O" #ase *o+ 43&1+ On 23 epte$er 19&1, the ase was redo.eted as */R# #ase *o+ RA% <L0133&1 and assi!ned to eutive /aor Ariter )a.i$ + Adulwahid+?11@

On 31 May, 19&3, eutive /aor Ariter Adulwahid rendered his deision findin! thedis$issal of Mendo=a ille!al and ordered I%"P%< to reinstate Mendo=a to his for$er position or any e;uivalent position, and to pay hi$ a.wa!es+?12@ "he deretal portion of the deisionreads>

herefore, in view of the fore!oin! onsideration, 5ud!$ent is hereyrendered, orderin! the respondent Ia$oan!a %arter "raders Pilusan! %ayan,

<n+ thru its president or authori=ed representative to reinstate o$plainant"eopisto Mendo=a in his for$er position or any sustantially e;uivalent positionwithout loss of seniority ri!hts and other privile!es and with a.wa!es to eo$puted at the rate of 7&66+00 a $onth fro$ April 2, 19&1 up to the ti$e he isreinstated+

On 1 June 19&3, I%"P%< filed a *otie of Appeal?13@ with the *ational /aor Relations

#o$$ission '*/R#(+ On 13 July 19&3, Mendo=a filed with the */R# a Manifestation withMotion for eution prayin! that petitionerEs appeal not e !iven due ourse, and that a writ of eeution enforin! the deision of the /aor Ariter e issued+?14@

On 1- *ove$er 19&3, the */R# dis$issed the appeal for la. of $erit+ ?1-@ "he deision,in part, reads>



















113

refused to reeive it+ "he undersi!ned proeeded to the Offie of Atty+ Ala$, president of said inorporation ao$panied y one of the e$ployee assi!ned at7itit%ara. Offie, while in the offie of the president the undersi!ned a!ainhanded the writ to the seretary of the president and as.ed her favor to reeive thewrit+ he refused instead, said seretary presented the herein attahed rit of

eution to the president, Atty+ Ala$+ "he attention of the undersi!ned wasalled to enter the roo$ of the president, without as.in! any ;uestion thrown a. to the undersi!ned the said writ+ "he undersi!ned told the president that we are perfor$in! our duties and we an not deviate fro$ doin! it+ "hen, the "esi(ente"eate(*) $ttee( the state.ent "*ease in%!.e( Att)1 Hai. S1 A'($*wahi(t! a(&ise his shei%% when #! thee t! the 6a.'!an#a Bate Ta(es St!ean( attach the #!!(s thee t! c*!th with an i!n shit1 "he president alsoinfor$ed the undersi!ned that the inorporation has no $oney or savin!, even to pay the salary of their e$ployees are not enou!h+ "he undersi!ned has already

done his est in order the respondent pay the award to satisfy the 5ud!$ent in theherein $entioned ase ut he was threatened+

*O ")ROR, in view of the fore!oin!, the rit of eution isherey returned unsatisfied+?24@ '$phasis supplied+(

On 2- Otoer 19&4, Mendo=a filed an E6 Parte Motion for <ssuane of an Alias rit of eution dated 23 Otoer 19&4+?2-@ An Alias rit of eution addressed to the #o$$andin!Offier 'or his duly authori=ed representative( of the 7hilippine #onstaulary, Reo$ <L,Ia$oan!a #ity, was issued y eutive /aor Ariter Adulwahid on 19 *ove$er 19&4+?26@ aid writ re$ained unsatisfied+

On 1 June 19&&, the Offie of the 7resident issued Me$orandu$ #irular *o+ 1 whihtotally phased out the Ia$oan!a#ity arter trade area effetive 1 Otoer 19&&+?2@

On 1& 8ee$er 19&9, Mendo=a filed a Motion for <ssuane of 'eond( Alias rit of

eution,?2&@ whih puli respondent eutive /aor Ariter Julius Rhett J+ 7la!ata issuedon 2 January 1990+?29@ "he eond Alias rit of eution reads in part>

*O, ")ROR, you are herey ordered to !o to the pre$ises of therespondent Ia$oan!a %arter "raders Pilusan! %ayan, <n+ loated at #anelar,Ia$oan!a #ity to reinstate o$plainant "eopisto Mendo=a in his for$er




















114

position and to ollet fro$ said respondent throu!h its president or anyauthori=ed representative the a$ount of 790,930+00 representin! o$plainantEs a.wa!es plus additional a.wa!es to e o$puted at the rate of 7&66+00 per $onth fro$ January 2, 1990 up to the ti$e o$plainant is reinstated in his for$er position and thereafter to turn over said a$ount to this Re!ional Aritration

%ranh for further disposition+ hould you fail to ollet said a$ount in ash, youare herey direted to ause the satisfation of the sa$e on $ovale or i$$ovale properties of the respondent not other 'si( ee$pt fro$eeution+ Nou are further direted to return this writ of eeution within sity'60( days fro$ reeipt hereof, to!ether with your report thereon+ Nou $ay olletyour le!al fee fro$ the respondent in aordane with the Revised Rules of the */R#+?30@

On 1 Marh 1990, in o$pliane with the eond Alias rit of eution, heriff Anthony %+ aviola levied?31@ whatever interest, share, ri!ht, lai$ andGor partiipation of I%"P%< had over a parel of land, to!ether with all the uildin!s and i$prove$ents eistin!thereon, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle '"#"( *o+ 66,696 'for$erly "#" *o+ 61,62&(+?32@

On 13 June 1990, the aforedesried property was sold at puli aution for 796,443+-3,with Mendo=a as the sole hi!hest idder +?33@ "he property was not redee$ed+ As a onse;uene,heriff aviola issued on 2- June 1991 a heriffEs inal #ertifiate of ale?34@ in favor of Mendo=a over whatever interest, share, ri!ht, lai$ andGor partiipation I%"P%< had over the parel of land+

)avin! failed to ta.e possession of the land in ;uestion, Mendo=a filed a 7etition 'for <ssuane of rit of 7ossession( on 14 eruary 2000,?3-@ prayin! that the sa$e e issued orderin!that atual possession over the real property, to!ether with all the uildin!s and i$prove$entsthereon, overed y "#" *o+ 66,696, e !ivenGdelivered to hi$B and that I%"P%< e ordered torei$urse andGor refund to hi$ all rents, earnin!s and ino$e fro$ said properties fro$ 13 June1991 until he would e plaed in atual possession thereof+ ?36@

<n an Order dated - May 2000, eutive /aor Ariter 7la!ata !ranted the petition+?3@ "he deretal portion of the order reads>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, o$plainantEs petition dated 0eruary 2000 for issuane of a writ of possession is herey !ranted+
























116

2+ 7"<"<O*R R7#"K//N K%M<" ")A" ")7RO#8<* ")A" O//O8 ") /HN, K#) A ")A/,

AK#"<O* A*8 ") <KA*# O R<" O 7O<O*, AR HO<8 AB

(>(T(0+

3+ 7"<"<O*R R7#"K//N K%M<" ")A" ")R L<" *O /A/ ROK*8 "O A//O R7O*8*"M*8OIA "O#O*"<*KOK/N 7O ") 7RO7R"N %/O*<* "O ")R7K%/<#+

4+ ") A/ O ") 7RO7R"N "O M*8OIA %N ") */R#RA% 9 )R< OR 790, 930, %<* O #A*8A/OK/N /O A*8)O#P<* "O ") #O*#<*#, AMOK*"8 "O RAH A%K O8<#R"<O*+?46@

On 14 Au!ust 2000, the Offie of the oliitor eneral $anifested that it e eusedfor$ filin! a #o$$ent on the petition+?4@

On 20 *ove$er 2000, the #ourt of Appeals pro$ul!ated a deision ?4&@ denyin! the petition of I%"P%<+ <n doin! so, it ruled that ased on the dou$ents, the owner of the su5et property was I%"P%< and not the Repuli+ ine the Repuli was not the owner of the property involved, there was no need to !ive it notie of the levy and suse;uent sale+ <t saidthat the Offie of the oliitor eneral had delared that the overn$ent had no interest in theinstant ase+ <t added that the sale of the property and the onfir$ation of Mendo=aEs ownershipould not e annulled si$ply eause the winnin! id of 790,960+00 was sandalously low andsho.in!+ <t eplained that it was for the enefit of the 5ud!$ent detor that the winnin! id waslow, for this !ives hi$ the opportunity to easily redee$ the property+

I%"P%< filed a Motion for Reonsideration, ?49@ whih the #ourt of Appeals denied per resolution dated 31 May 2001+?-0@

)ene, this petition for review on ertiorari filed on 2 June 2001+













11

On 1- Au!ust 2001, this #ourt denied the petition for failure to show that a reversileerror had een o$$itted y the #ourt of Appeals+?-1@ 7etitioner filed a $otion for reonsideration?-2@ on & epte$er 2001, whih Mendo=a opposed+?-3@

On 12 *ove$er 2001, the #anelar "radin! #enter tallholders,?-4@ represented y Atty+A$oran %atara, filed a Motion to Ad$it <ntervention with Motion for Reonsideration of the#ourtEs resolution dated 1- Au!ust 2001+?--@ "hey as.ed the #ourt to delare the levy and pulisale of the land overed y "#" *o+ "66,696 as void a" initio and to allow the$ to paythe 796,000 plus le!al interest fro$ 30 June 1990 to Mendo=a ?-6@ to answer for the awards !ivenhi$ y the */R#, and to order the Re!ister of 8eeds of Ia$oan!a #ity to anel "#" *o+ "66,696 and retitle the sa$e in their na$es+

On 8ee$er 2001, Mendo=a filed his #o$$ent on petitionerEs $otion for reonsideration+?-@

On 14 January 2002, the #ourt !ranted petitionerEs $otion for reonsideration+ "heresolution of 1- Au!ust 2001 was set aside and the petition reinstated+?-&@ Mendo=a was re;uiredto o$$ent on the petition+

On 6 eruary 2002, the #o$$ittee on ood overn$ent of the )ouse of

Representatives onduted a hearin! re!ardin! )on+ %enasin! Maara$on, Jr+Es privile!espeeh onernin! the alle!ed duious awards of real properties 5ointly owned y I%"P%< andthe Repuli to Mendo=a+?-9@ ro$ said hearin!, it appeared that eutive /aor Ariter RhettJulius J+ 7la!ata ad$itted violatin! the Rules of #ourt and the /aor #ode when he ordered theeeution of his 5ud!$ent y $ere $otion after five years fro$ its finality+?60@

On 19 Marh 2002, the #ourt reeived Mendo=aEs #o$$ent on the petition+?61@

On 14 Marh 2002, intervenors #anelar "radin! #enter tallholders filed an 7arteMotion to Ad$it Additional videne onsistin! of the testi$ony of eutive /aor Ariter Rhett Julius J+ 7la!ata in the #on!ressional )earin! held on 6 eruary 2002+?62@ I%"P%<adopted said $otion filed y the intervenors+?63@

On 12 July 2002, the Offie of the oliitor eneral, y way of Manifestation, delaredthat even assu$in! ar)uendo that the onditions for the reversion of the parel of land donated
































11&

y I%"P%< to the Repuli $ay have arued at the ti$e of the levy, the Repuli had neither lost its title and ri!ht to the uildin!s and i$prove$ents it onstruted on the su5et landworth 7-M, nor waived its ri!ht to eerise ownership over the$+?64@

<n a Manifestation dated 2- Marh 2003, intervenors infor$ed the #ourt that a ase in theR"# of Ia$oan!a #ity, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ -232, had een filed for the anellation of "#" *o+ "1-&,24 issued on 21 epte$er 2001, re!ardin! the su5et lot, in the na$e of private respondent "eopisto Mendo=a+?6-@

"he O was re;uired to file its o$$ent on the instant petition onsiderin! that!overn$ent property was involved in this ase+ ?66@ <t filed its #o$$ent on 2 *ove$er 2006+

"he instant petition raises the followin! issues>

1+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77/A RR8 <* *O"

7A<* K7O* ") <K O ") *K//<"N O ") /HN, <" )AH<*%* MA8 <")OK" 7R<OR *O"<# "O ") R7K%/<#+

2+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* *O"8#/AR<* ")A" A// ") 7RO#8<* K%K*" "O ")<*HA/<8 /HN, K#) A ") AK#"<O*, ") #R"<<#A"O A/ A*8 ") <KA*# O ") R<" O 7O<O*, ARHO<8 AB (>(T(0+

3+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77/A RR8 <* *O"8#/AR<* ") L#K"<O* A/ O ") K%J#" /O" A HO<8 AB

(>(T(0 #O*<8R<* ")A" ") )R< #OMM<""8 RAH A%KO 8<#R"<O* <* #AK<* A* OHR/HN O* A 7100 M<//<O*

7RO7R"N OR A JK8M*" OR KM O MO*N <* ") AMOK*"O 796,433+-3+

4+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* *O"7A<* K7O* ") <K ")A" ") JK8M*" A 980MAN *O










119

/O*R % L#K"8 %N MR MO"<O* K*8R #"<O* 6, RK/39 O ") RK/ O #OKR" '*O 199 RK/ O #<H</7RO#8KR(+

-+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <*#O*#/K8<* ")A" ") 8O*A"8 7RO7R"N )A A/RA8NRHR"8 "O ") 7"<"<O*R P</KA*+?6@

<n resolvin! this ase, we first rule on the issue of ownership over the 13,643 s;uare$eters of land loated at %arrio #anelar, #ity of Ia$oan!a+

7etitioner ar!ues that the #ourt of Appeals erred in rulin! that the donated property wasno lon!er owned y the Repuli of the 7hilippines eause ownership thereof had alreadyreverted to it 'petitioner(+

ro$ the reords, the su5et property was donated y petitioner 'donor( to the Repuli'donee( with the followin! onditions already adverted heretofore ut are ein! reiterated for e$phasis>

1+ "hat upon the effetivity or aeptane hereof the 8O* shall, thru theauthori=ed a!enyG$inistry, onstrut a 7- Million %arter "rade $ar.et

uildin! at the aforedesried parel of landB

2+ "hat the aforesaid %arter "rade Mar.et uildin! shall ao$$odate at least1,000 stalls, the alloation of whih shall e deter$ined y the eutive#o$$ittee for %arter "rade in oordination with the Offiers and %oard of

8iretors the Ia$oan!a %arter "radersE Pilusan! %ayan, <n+, provided,however, that eah $e$er of the 8O*OR shall e !iven priorityB






120

3+ "hat the said %arter "rade Mar.et uildin! to e onstruted as aovestated, shall e to the strit elusion of any other uildin! for arter tradin!in Ia$oan!a #ity, 7hilippinesB

4+ "hat in the event arter tradin! shall e phased out, prohiited, or suspendedfor $ore than one '1( year in Ia$oan!a #ity, 7hilippines, the aforedesried parel of land shall revert a. to the 8O*OR without need of any

further for$ality or dou$entation, and the 8O*OR shall have the firstoption to purhase the uildin! and i$prove$ents thereon+

-+ "hat the 8O* herey aepts this donation $ade in its favor y the8O*OR, to!ether with the onditions therein provided+ 'Kndersorin!

supplied(

<t is lear fro$ ondition nu$er 4 that the property donated to the Repuli, in the eventthat arter tradin! was phased out, prohiited or suspended for $ore than one year in Ia$oan!a #ity, shall revert to the donor without need of any further for$ality or dou$entation+ ffetive 1 Otoer 19&&, per Me$orandu$ #irular *o+ 1 of the Offie of the7resident dated 1 June 19&&, arter trade in Ia$oan!a #ity was totally phased out+ ollowin!

the ondition ontained in the 8eed of 8onation, the donated land sha** e&et t! the "etiti!newith!$t %$the %!.a*it) ! (!c$.entati!n+ <t follows that upon the phaseout of arter trade, petitioner a!ain ea$e the owner of the su5et land+ As found y the #ourt of Appeals,Atty+ )asan + Ala$ susried to the le!al reality that I%"P%< was the owner of the su5etland when he wrote /t+ en+ Ruperto A+ A$il, Jr+ of the outhern #o$$and on 6 eruary1996, re;uestin! the return of the ori!inal "#" overin! the property+?6&@ "hus, when the property was levied and sold on 1 Marh 1990 and 13 June 1990, respetively, it was already petitioner that owned the sa$e+ <t should e lear that e&esi!n a""*ie( !n*) t! the *an( an(n!t t! the '$i*(in# an( i."!&e.ents .a(e ') the Re"$'*ic !n the *an(w!thP,@@@,@@@1@@1

7etitioner further lai$s that the #ourt of Appeals erred in rulin! that there was auto$atireversion of the land, eause it put the Repuli in a disadvanta!eous situation when it had a 7-$illion uildin! on a land owned y another+





121

"his lai$ is untenale+ "he #ourt of Appeals $erely enfored or applied the onditionsontained in the deed of donation+ "he Repuli aepted the donation su5et to onditionsi$posed y the donor+ <n ondition nu$er 4, the Repuli is !iven the ri!ht to sell the uildin!it onstruted on the land and the i$prove$ents thereon+ <f ever suh ondition isdisadvanta!eous to the Repuli, there is nothin! that an e done aout it, sine it is one of the

onditions that are ontained in the donation whih it aepted+ "here ein! nothin! a$i!uousin the ontents of the dou$ent, there is no roo$ for interpretation ut only si$ple appliationthereof+

e li.ewise find to e without asis petitionerEs lai$ that the Repuli should erei$ursed of the ost of the onstrution of the arter trade uildin! pursuant to onditionnu$er 4+ "here is nothin! there that shows that the Repuli will e rei$ursed+ hat is statedthere is that petitioner has the first option to purhase the uildin!s and i$prove$entsthereon+ <n other words, the Repuli an sell the uildin!s and i$prove$ents that it $ade or uilt+

7etitionerEs state$ent that neither party to the donation has epressly resinded theontrat is flawed+ As aove ruled, the deed of donation ontains a stipulation that allowsauto$ati reversion+ uh stipulation, not ein! ontrary to law, $orals, !ood usto$s, puliorder or puli poliy, is valid and indin! on the parties to the donation+ As held in /olar v.

Baran)ay Lu"lu" 5>o' P./. Monfort >orth4 Municipality of /uman)as,?69@ itin! Roman

*atholic Arch"ishop of Manila v. *ourt of Appeals?0@>

"he rationale for the fore!oin! is that in ontrats providin! for auto$atirevoation, 5udiial intervention is neessary not for purposes of otainin! a 5udiial delaration resindin! a ontrat already dee$ed resinded y virtue of an a!ree$ent providin! for resission even without 5udiial intervention, ut inorder to deter$ine whether or not the resission was proper+

hen a deed of donation, + + + epressly provides for auto$ati revoationand reversion of the property donated, the rules on ontrat and the !eneral ruleson presription should apply, and not Artile 64 of the #ivil #ode+ ine Artile1306 of said #ode authori=es the parties to a ontrat to estalish suhstipulations, + + + not ontrary to law, + + + puli order or puli poliy, we are of the opinion that, at the very least, that stipulation of the parties providin! for auto$ati revoation of the deed of donation, without prior 5udiial ation for that

purpose, is valid su5et to the deter$ination of the propriety of the resission







122

sou!ht+ here suh propriety is sustained, the deision of the ourt will e$erely delaratory of the revoation, ut it is not in itself the revoatory at+

"he auto$ati reversion of the su5et land to the donor upon phase out of arter tradin!in Ia$oan!a #ity annot e douted+ aid auto$ati reversion annot e averted, $erely eause petitionerdonor has not yet eerised its option to purhase the uildin!s andi$prove$ents $ade and introdued on the land y the RepuliB or eause the Repuli has notyet sold the sa$e to other interested uyers+ Otherwise, there would e !ross violation of thelear i$port of the onditions set forth in the deed of donation+

7etitioner $aintains that the #ourt of Appeals erred in not passin! upon the issue that the

5ud!$ent a ;uo $ay no lon!er e eeuted y $ere $otion under etion 6, Rule 39 of theRevised Rules of #ourt+

/oo.in! over the deision of the #ourt of Appeals, it appears that said issue was, indeed,s.irted y the appellate ourt+ %e that as it $ay, we shall rule on the sa$e+

7etitioner ontends that the deision of the */R# dated 1- *ove$er 19&3, whih ea$e final and eeutory on 1& January 19&4, an no lon!er e eeuted y $ere $otion

eyond five years after its finality durin! the first wee. of 8ee$er 19&3, ut y independentation+ <t adds that the levy, whih was $ade on the stren!th of a 'seond alias( writ of eeution that was issued upon a $ere $otion y Mendo=a filed after five years fro$ the finalityof the */R# deision, was invalid+ "his ein! so, all proeedin!s suse;uent to the levy, petitioner lai$s, are li.ewise void+ "o further support its ontention, it su$itted to the #ourtthe transript of steno!raphi notes of the #on!ressional )earin! of the #o$$ittee on oodovern$ent of the )ouse of Representatives wherein eutive /aor Ariter Rhett Julius J+7la!ata alle!edly ad$itted that he violated the Rules of #ourt and the /aor #ode when heordered the eeution of his 5ud!$ent y $ere $otion after five years fro$ its finality+

as puli respondent /aor Ariter 5ustified in issuin! the seond alias writ of eeution when the $otion as.in! for the sa$e was filed on 1& 8ee$er 19&9 eyond fiveyears after the deision of the */R# ea$e final and eeutory on 1& January 19&4C

e elieve so+



123

e find that private respondent Mendo=a need not file an independent ation to enforethe */R# deision+ "he $otion he filed on 1& 8ee$er 19&9 to eeute the 5ud!$ent issuffiient in li!ht of his two prior $otions?1@ filed within the fiveyear period and the nonsatisfation of the 5ud!$ent for auses eyond his ontrol+

etion 6 of Rule 39?2@ of the Rules of #ourt provides>

e+ 6+ E6ecution "y motion or "y independent action+ F A 5ud!$ent $ay e eeuted on $otion within five '-( years fro$ the date of its entry or fro$ thedate it eo$es final and eeutory+ After the lapse of suh ti$e, and efore it is

arred y the statute of li$itations, a 5ud!$ent $ay e enfored y ation+

"he purpose of the law 'or rule( in presriin! ti$e li$itations for enforin! 5ud!$entsor ations is to prevent oli!ors fro$ sleepin! on their ri!hts+?3@

<t is lear fro$ the aove rule that a 5ud!$ent $ay e eeuted on $otion within fiveyears fro$ the date of its entry or fro$ the date it eo$es final and eeutory+ After the lapseof suh ti$e, and efore it is arred y the statute of li$itations, a 5ud!$ent $ay e enfored yation+?4@ <f the prevailin! party fails to have the deision enfored y a $ere $otion after the

lapse of five years fro$ the date of its entry 'or fro$ the date it eo$es final and eeutory(,the said 5ud!$ent is redued to a $ere ri!ht of ation in favor of the person who$ it favors and$ust e enfored, as are all ordinary ations, y the institution of a o$plaint in a re!ular for$+?-@ )owever, there are instanes in whih this #ourt allowed eeution y $otion even after thelapse of five years upon $eritorious !rounds+?6@ <n Lancita v. Ma)"anua,?@ the #ourt delared>

<n o$putin! the ti$e li$ited for suin! out an eeution, althou!h there isauthority to the ontrary, the !eneral rule is that there should not e inluded theti$e when eeution is stayed, either y a!ree$ent of the parties for a definite

ti$e, y in5untion, y the ta.in! of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as asupersedeas, y the death of a party, or otherwise+ Any interruption or delay

occasioned "y the de"tor 'ill e6tend the time 'ithin 'hich the 'rit may "e

issued without scire facias+




















124

<n Repu"lic v. *ourt of Appeals,?&@ we ruled>

"o e sure, there had een $any instanes where this #ourt allowedeeution y $otion even after the lapse of five years, upon $eritorious

!rounds+ "hese eeptions have one o$$on deno$inator, and that is> the delay

is caused or occasioned "y actions of the jud)ment de"tor and?or is incurred for

his "enefit or advanta)e+

<n !on2ales v. *ourt of Appeals,?9@ we e$phasi=ed that if the delays were throu!h nofault of the prevailin! party, the sa$e should not e inluded in o$putin! the -year period toeeute a 5ud!$ent y $otion+

<n the ase under onsideration, the deision of the */R# was pro$ul!ated on 1- *ove$er 19&3, and it ea$e %ina* an( e/ec$t!) !n 8< 3an$a) 8><; 'not 8ee$er 19&3as ruled y the #ourt of Appeals(+ On 2 July 19&4, a writ of eeution was issued y eutive/aor Ariter Adulwahid+ aid writ was returned unsatisfied+ ro$ the return of the sheriff,there is no dout that he was threatened y Atty+ )asan + Ala$, 7resident of I%"P%<, who toldhi$ to lad hi$self with iron dress: if he would enfore the writ "hereafter a $otion for issuane of an alias writ of eeution dated 23 Otoer 19&4 was filed y Mendo=a, eause thelifespan of the first writ of eeution epired without ein! satisfied+ #onse;uently, an Alias

rit of eution was issued on 19 *ove$er 19&4+ "he writ re$ained unsatisfied+ At this point, two writs of eeution were already issued ut were not satisfied+ On 8< Dece.'e8><>, Mendo=a %i*e( a M!ti!n %! Iss$ance !% Sec!n( A*ias 0it !% E/ec$ti!n, whih pulirespondent eutive /aor Ariter Rhett Julius J+ 7la!ata issued on 2 January 1990+

<t annot e disputed that Mendo=a had not slept on his ri!hts+ <n fat, he filed three$otions so that the 5ud!$ent in his favor ould e eeuted and satisfied+ "he 5ud!$ent wassatisfied y virtue of the seond alias writ of eeution, whih was issued upon a $otion filed eyond the fiveyear period+ "he satisfation of the 5ud!$ent was not suessful durin! the firsttwo writs of eeution+ "he delay in the enfore$ent of the two writs was learly aused y

petitioner throu!h its 7resident, Atty+ Ala$+ aid delay was indeed enefiial and advanta!eousto petitioner, eause the 5ud!$ent a!ainst it, at that ti$e, was yet to e i$ple$ented+ <t is verylear that if not for the threats reeived y the sheriff tas.ed to i$ple$ent the writs of eeution,the satisfation of 5ud!$ent would not have een delayed+







12-

Knder the iru$stanes otainin!, we hold that the fiveyear period allowed for enfore$ent of a 5ud!$ent y $otion was dee$ed to have een interrupted y petitioner+ "he prevention of the satisfation of the 5ud!$ent on the first two writs of eeution annot e la$ed on Mendo=a+ "he satisfation of the 5ud!$ent was already eyond his ontrol+ )e didwhat he was supposed to do F file the re;uisite $otions so that writs of eeution would e

issued+ <n view of the fore!oin! and for reasons of e;uity, we dee$ that the Motion for <ssuaneof Alias rit of eution filed y Mendo=a on 1& 8ee$er 19&9 has een filed within thefiveyear period+

7etitioner ar!ues that the levy $ade y heriff Anthony %+ aviola on 1 Marh1990 over the land su5et of this ase was void, there ein! no notie to its owner F theRepuli+ As a result, the Repuli was deprived of its property without due proess+ <t further ar!ues that sine the levy was invalid, all proeedin!s suse;uent thereto suh as the aution,the inal #ertifiate of ale, and the issuane of the rit of 7ossession are void a" initio+

e are not persuaded+ "he ar!u$ents advaned y petitioner, whih are all pre$ised on

the assu$ption that the Repuli was still the owner of the land when the levy was $ade, haveno le! to stand on+ As ruled aove, the land reverted to petitioner without need of any further for$ality or dou$entation when arter tradin! was phased out in Ia$oan!a #ity+ *ot ein!the owner of the land when the levy was $ade, the Repuli need not have een notifiedany$ore+ <t annot e deprived of a piee of land of whih it is no lon!er the owner+ <f theRepuli is still in possession of the "#" over the su5et land, it $ust surrender the sa$e to the proper authorities+ "he fat that the Repuli is no lon!er the owner of the su5et land does not$ean that it no lon!er owns the uildin!s, strutures and i$prove$ents it $ade and introduedon the su5et land+ #ontrol and possession over said uildin!s, strutures and i$prove$entsshall e returned to the Repuli+ "he Repuli, pursuant to ondition *o+ 4 of the 8eed of 8onation, an sell the uildin!s, strutures and i$prove$ents to interested uyers, with petitioner ein! the first in line+

7etitioner lai$s that the eeutionGaution sale of the su5et land was void a"initio$ onsiderin! that the sheriff $ade an overlevy when he levied the su5et propertyalle!edly worth 7100 $illion pesos for a 5ud!$ent lai$ worth 796, 433+-3+ <t added that the prie for whih the su5et land was sold at the aution sale was so sandalously low andsho.in! to the onsiene+ Moreover, it said that it should not e faulted for not redee$in! the

property within the allowale period+

"he relevant setion as to what a sheriff should levy upon in the enfore$ent of aneeution of a $oney 5ud!$ent is etion 1-,?&0@ Rule 39 of the Rules of #ourt whih provides>





126

e+ 1-+ E6ecution of money jud)ments. F "he offier $ust enfore aneeution of a $oney 5ud!$ent y levyin! on all the property, real and personalof every na$e and nature whatsoever, and whih $ay e disposed of for value, of the 5ud!$ent detor not ee$pt fro$ eeution, or on a suffiient a$ount of suh property, if there e suffiient, and sellin! the sa$e, and payin! to the 5ud!$ent

reditor, or his attorney, so $uh of the proeeds as will satisfy the 5ud!$ent+ Any eess in the proeeds over the 5ud!$ent and aruin! osts $ust e delivered to the 5ud!$ent detor, unless otherwise direted y the 5ud!$ent or order of the ourt+ hen there is $ore property of the 5ud!$ent detor than issuffiient to satisfy the 5ud!$ent and aruin! osts, within the view of theoffier, he $ust levy only on suh part of the property as is a$ply suffiient tosatisfy the 5ud!$ent and osts+

Real property, sto.s, shares, dets, redits, and other personal property, or any interest in either real or personal property $ay e levied on in li.e $anner and with li.e effet as under a writ of attah$ent+

ro$ said setion, it is lear that a sheriff $ust levy upon and sell only suh property, personal or real, as is a$ply suffiient to satisfy the 5ud!$ent and osts+ 7etitioner faults thesheriff for levyin! on the su5et property, the value of whih is so $uh $ore than the $oney

5ud!$ent+

#an the sheriff e faulted for levyin! on the su5et landC

"he answer is no+ <t $ust e re$e$ered that the sheriff tried to satisfy the $oney 5ud!$ent when he went to Atty+ Ala$, 7resident of I%"P%<+ <nstead of ooperatin! andsatisfyin! the 5ud!$ent, Atty+ Ala$ did not o$ply with the $oney 5ud!$ent+ <nstead, hethreatened the sheriff, sayin! that if the latter insisted on enforin! the writ of eeution, he

should wear an iron dress+ "he atuation of Atty+ Ala$ was lear defiane of the eeutory 5ud!$ent+ 7etitioner had no intention of satisfyin! the 5ud!$ent+ "wo writs of eeution wereissued, ut they were not satisfied+ <f petitioner were truly willin! to ooperate in the satisfationof the 5ud!$ent, the levy of the su5et property ould have een prevented if only petitioner handed over to, or infor$ed, the sheriff any of its properties suffiient to satisfy the 5ud!$ent+ <tdid not+ Pnowin! the ris. and diffiulty of levyin! on any of the properties of petitioner, thesheriff thus levied upon any property that he ould !et hold of F the su5et property+



12

7etitioner insists that the aution sale of the su5et property should e voided, eausethe winnin! id was so sandalously low and sho.in! to the onsiene+

e do not a!ree+ <t is settled that when there is a ri!ht to redee$, inade;uay of prie is

of no $o$ent, for the reason that the 5ud!$ent detor always has the hane to redee$ andrea;uire the property+ <n fat, the property $ay e sold for less than its fair $ar.et value, preisely eause the lesser the prie, the easier for the owner to effet a rede$ption+ ?&1@ <n &ulst v. PR Builders$ (nc., ?&2@ the #ourt ruled>

?@ross inade;uay of prie does not nullify an eeution sale+ <n an ordinarysale, for reason of e;uity, a transation $ay e invalidated on the !round of inade;uay of prie, or when suh inade;uay sho.s oneEs onsiene as to 5ustify the ourts to interfereB suh does not follow when the law !ives the owner

the ri!ht to redee$ as when a sale is $ade at puli aution, upon the theory thatthe lesser the prie, the easier it is for the owner to effet rede$ption+ hen there

is a ri!ht to redee$, inade;uay of prie should not e $aterial eause the 5ud!$ent detor $ay rea;uire the property or else sell his ri!ht to redee$ andthus reover any loss he lai$s to have suffered y reason of the prie otained atthe eeution sale+ "hus, respondent stood to !ain rather than e har$ed y thelow sale value of the autioned properties eause it possesses the ri!ht of rede$ption+ +

<n the instant ase, as stated in the heriffEs inal #ertifiate of ale, petitioner had theri!ht to redee$, ut it failed to eerise suh ri!ht+ <n rulin! on this $atter, the #ourt of Appealseplained>

<t wor.s naturally for the enefit of the 5ud!$ent detor that the winnin! id was low, for this !ives hi$ the opportunity to easily redee$ his propertythrou!h $eans easily within his !rasp, provided he eerises a $ini$u$ of effort+ hen he fore!oes suh opportunity to redee$, he runs the ris. of totallylosin! his property to the 5ud!$ent reditor+ )e annot later e heard in o5etionto the sale, lai$in! that the winnin! id was too low+ urther$ore, itappears that petitioner was never deprived of its opportunity to reover the property it lai$s to have een unlawfully sold+ <t annot lai$ that it is the










129

"eopisto Mendo=a when he ou!ht said land at the aution sale without petitioner redee$in! thesa$e at the proper ti$e+

)ROR, all the fore!oin! onsidered, the instant petition is 8*<8+ "he

deision of the #ourt of Appeals dated 20 *ove$er 2000 in #A+R+ 7 *o+ -9-20 isA<RM8+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!1 8>@?@ Oct!'e 8;, =@8

ANTONIO 3AMES, GERTR4DES 3AMES, BEATRI6 3AMES, 3ERRY 3AMES,CECILIA 3AMES an( HEIRS OF GORGONIO 3AMES, 3R1 na.e*): BOND 3AMES,SAINT 3AMES an( MAY 3AMES 2ARGAS, 7etitioners,vs+

E4REM REALTY DE2ELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent+

8 # < < O *

REYES, J.:

"his is a petition for review1 of the 8eision2 dated January 29, 2009 and Resolution3 dated *ove$er 1 2009 of the #ourt of Appeals '#A( in #AR+ #H+ *o+ 00119M<*, whihdis$issed the petitioners appeal fro$ the Resolution4 dated eruary 24, 2004 of the Re!ional"rial #ourt 'R"#( of 8ipolo! #ity, %ranh 6 in #ivil #ase *o+ -& for 8elaration of *ullity of "itle and Ownership of Real 7roperty with 8a$a!es+

ats of the #ase

On epte$er 1, 2003, the heirs of or!onio Ja$es 'or!onio(, na$ely, Antonio, ertrudes,%eatri=, or!onio, Jr+, #eilia and Jerry 'herein petitioners( filed #ivil #ase *o+ -& a!ainsture$ Realty 8evelop$ent #orporation 'respondent(+ "he petitioners alle!ed in their o$plaintthat> '1( they are the re!istered owners and possessors of a property in 8ipolo! #ity ontainin!an area of 44& s;uare $eters overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle '"#"( *o+ "1&&33 '/ot 1,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_190650_2013.html#fnt1













131

<n the 8eision& dated January 29, 2009, the #A dis$issed the appeal+ "he #A ruled that theissues of res 5udiata and presription, and the deter$ination of the nullity of the respondentEs"#" *o+ "1013 are ;uestions of law that should have een raised via a petition for reviewunder Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt efore the upre$e #ourt+ "he petitioners sou!htreonsideration9 ut their $otion was denied per Resolution10 dated *ove$er 1, 2009+

)ene, this petition+ "he petitioners posed the issues to e resolved as follows>

1+ hether or not the issues raised y the petitioners in their appeal are purely ;uestionsof law or $ied ;uestions of fats and lawB

2+ hether or not petitionersE ation is arred y presriptionB and

3+ hether or not the su$$ary dis$issal of the ase onstitutes a denial of due proess+11

"he #ourtEs Rulin!

7ropriety of the dis$issal of the petitionersE appeal

"he ;uestion of whether res 5udiata serves as a ar to the filin! of a ase is un;uestionaly oneof law+ or a ;uestion to e one of law, the sa$e $ust not involve an ea$ination of the proative value of the pertinent evidene presented y the liti!ants or any of the$+12 All the ourthas to do in resolvin! the appliaility of res 5udiata is apply the undisputed fats of the twoases pitted a!ainst eah other and deter$ine whether> 'a( the for$er 5ud!$ent is finalB '( theourt whih rendered it had 5urisdition over the su5et $atter and the partiesB '( it is a 5ud!$ent on the $eritsB and 'd( there is as etween the first and seond ations identity of

parties, su5et $atter and auses of ation+

13

%ut the ;uestion of whether presription isappliale an e either one of law or fat+ <n Maaaad, Jr+ v+ Masira!,14 the #ourt stated thatit is a ;uestion of fat when the dout or differene arises as to the truth or falsity of an alle!ationof fatB it is a ;uestion of law when there is dout or ontroversy as to what the law is on a !ivenstate of fats+1-

<n this ase, the R"# dis$issed the petitionersE o$plaint with the are state$ent that Tthe titleof the respondentEs predeessor ufraio /ope= was issued on Otoer 11, 192 and the sa$ehas not as yet een 5udiially delared null and void y any o$petent ourt up to the present, asa!ainst petitionersE o$plaint whih was filed with the R"# only on epte$er 26, 2003, or$ore than thirty '30( years have lapsed efore petitioners instituted the present ation+T16 "he

R"# si$ply re.oned the o$$ene$ent of the presriptive period on the issuane of /ope=Estitle on Otoer 11, 192, as alle!ed y the respondent in its answer+ <n their o$plaint, however,the petitioners disputed the validity of the respondentEs title, alle!ed ad faith on the part of/ope= and the respondent, and reiterated the eistene of the final and eeutory deision of the#A in #ivil #ase *o+ 144+ "he petitioners also alle!ed in their o$plaint and appellantsE riefthat they are holders of "#" *o+ 1&&33 issued on epte$er 20, 1999 pursuant to the #Adeision in #ivil #ase *o+ 144+1 "hus, the petitioners prayed, oth in their o$plaint and intheir appellantEs rief, that the respondentEs title e set aside and their own title upheld+ hile the



























133

*o+ "1&&33 in the na$e of the petitioners, and for the delaration of the petitionersE asoluteownership over said property+ As asis for their lai$, the petitioners lai$ed that therespondentEs title over the property is void a initio, havin! a;uired the sa$e fro$ /ope= who,in turn, a;uired it fro$ 7ri$itivo with the .nowled!e that the latterEs title was void+ An ation todelare the nullity of a void title does not presrie+2

Moreover, the ation filed y the petitioners is essentially one for ;uietin! of title+ An ation to;uiet title is a o$$on law re$edy desi!ned for the re$oval of any loud upon, or dout, orunertainty affetin! title to real property+2&"he pleadin!s filed in this ase show that oth the petitioners and respondent have title over the sa$e property, aleit the petitionersE title overs44& s; $, while that of the respondentEs overs a 344s; $ portion thereof+ <t li.ewise appearsfro$ the reords that oth parties are in possession of their respetive portions of the property+ <nan ation for ;uietin! of title, the o$petent ourt is tas.ed to deter$ine the respetive ri!hts ofthe o$plainant and the other lai$ants, not only to plae thin!s in their proper plaes, and $a.ethe lai$ant, who has no ri!hts to the i$$ovale, respet and not distur the one so entitled, utalso for the enefit of oth, so that whoever has the ri!ht will see every loud of dout over the

property dissipated, and he an thereafter fearlessly introdue any desired i$prove$ents, as wellas use, and even ause the property+29

An ation to ;uiet title is a real ation over i$$ovales, whih presrie& after thirtyyears+30 "hus, even assu$in! that the petitioners ation is su5et to etintive presription, itwas error for the R"# to re.on the date when presription e!an to run solely on the date of theissuane of /ope= s title on Otoer 11 192+ "he petitioners annot e epeted to file theation after the issuane of /ope= s title sine at that ti$e, the appeal in #ivil #ase *o+ 144 , thease etween their predeessor or!onio and his silin!s as a!ainst their other silin! 7ri$itivo,was still pendin! and was only resolved with finality y the #A only on *ove$er 19&+ "heappeal in #ivil #ase *o+ 2-03 etween /ope= and or!onio, $eanwhile, was dis$issed y the

#A with finality only on Au!ust 1, 19&+ t should also e noted that what is ein!X atta.ed isthe respondent s "#" *o+ "1013, whih was issued on Marh +2 1992+ "hus, re.onin! the presriptive period fro$ said date, the 30year period learly has not yet lapsed sine theo$plaint was filed only on epte$er 1, 2003+

)ROR, the petition is RA*"8+ "he 8eision dated January 29, 2009 and Resolutiondated *ove$er 1, 2009 of the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ #H+ *o+ 00 119M<* areRHR8 and " A<8+ #onse;uently, #ivil #ase *o+ -& is R<*"A"8+ /et reordsof the ase e RMA*88 to the Re!ional "rial #ourt of 8ipolo! #ity, %ranh 6, whih is8<R#"8 to proeed with the ase with dispath+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!1 <=@=9 Mach =>, 8>>@












134

ROMARICO G1 2IT4G, petitioner,vs+THE HONORABLE CO4RT OF APPEALS an( RO0ENA FA4STINO-CORONA, respondents+

Rufino B. %avier La' 0ffice for petitioner.

9uisum"in)$ Torres @ Evan)elista for private respondent.

SARMIENTO, J.:

"his ase is a hapter in an earlier suit deided y this #ourt 8 involvin! the proate of the twowills of the late 8olores /uhan!o Hitu!, who died in *ew Nor., K+ +A+, on *ove$er 10,19&0, na$in! private respondent Rowena austino#orona eeutri+ <n our said deision, we

upheld the appoint$ent of *enita Alonte as ospeial ad$inistrator of Mrs+ Hitu!Ds estate withher 'Mrs+ Hitu!Ds( widower, petitioner Ro$ario + Hitu!, pendin! proate+

On January 13, 19&-, Ro$ario + Hitu! filed a $otion as.in! for authority fro$ the proateourt to sell ertain shares of sto. and real properties elon!in! to the estate to over alle!edlyhis advanes to the estate in the su$ of 766,31+66, plus interests, whih he lai$ed were personal funds+ As found y the #ourt of Appeals, = the alle!ed advanes onsisted of 7-&,14+40spent for the pay$ent of estate ta, 7-1&,&34+2 as defiieny estate ta, and 790,49+99 asTinre$ent thereto+T Aordin! to Mr+ Hitu!, he withdrew the su$s of 7-1&,&34+2 and790,49+99 fro$ savin!s aount *o+ 3-34203& of the %an. of A$eria, Ma.ati, Metro Manila+

On April 12, 19&-, Rowena #orona opposed the $otion to sell on the !round that the sa$e fundswithdrawn fro$ savin!s aount *o+ 3-34203& were on5u!al partnership properties and part of the estate, and hene, there was alle!edly no !round for rei$urse$ent+ he also sou!ht hisouster for failure to inlude the su$s in ;uestion for inventory and for Toneal$ent of funds elon!in! to the estate+T ;

Hitu! insists that the said funds are his elusive property havin! a;uired the sa$e throu!h asurvivorship a!ree$ent eeuted with his late wife and the an. on June 19, 190+ "hea!ree$ent provides>

e herey a!ree with eah other and with the %A*P O AMR<#A*

*A"<O*A/ "RK" A*8 AH<* AO#<A"<O* 'hereinafter referred to asthe %A*P(, that all $oney now or hereafter deposited y us or any or either of uswith the %A*P in our 5oint savin!s urrent aount shall e the property of all or oth of us and shall e payale to and olletile or withdrawale y either or anyof us durin! our lifeti$e, and after the death of either or any of us shall elon! toand e the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall e payale to andolletile or withdrawale y suh survivor or survivors+



13-

e further a!ree with eah other and the %A*P that the reeipt or he. ofeither, any or all of us durin! our lifeti$e, or the reeipt or he. of the survivoror survivors, for any pay$ent or withdrawal $ade for our aove$entionedaount shall e valid and suffiient release and dishar!e of the %A*P for suh pay$ent or withdrawal+

"he trial ourts ? upheld the validity of this a!ree$ent and !ranted Tthe $otion to sell so$e ofthe estate of 8olores /+ Hitu!, the proeeds of whih shall e used to pay the personal funds ofRo$ario Hitu! in the total su$ of 766,31+66 +++ +T 9

On the other hand, the #ourt of Appeals, in the petition for ertiorari filed y the herein privaterespondent, held that the aove;uoted survivorship a!ree$ent onstitutes a onveyane mortis

causa whih Tdid not o$ply with the for$alities of a valid will as presried y Artile &0- ofthe #ivil #ode,T < and seondly, assu$in! that it is a $ere donation inter vivos$ it is a prohiiteddonation under the provisions of Artile 133 of the #ivil #ode+ >

"he dispositive portion of the deision of the #ourt of Appeals states>

)ROR, the order of respondent Jud!e dated *ove$er 26, 19&- 'Anne<<, petition( is herey set aside insofar as it !ranted private respondentDs $otion tosell ertain properties of the estate of 8olores /+ Hitu! for rei$urse$ent of hisalle!ed advanes to the estate, ut the sa$e order is sustained in all other respets+<n addition, respondent Jud!e is direted to inlude provisionally the deposits inavin!s Aount *o+ 3-34203& with the %an. of A$eria, Ma.ati, in theinventory of atual properties possessed y the spouses at the ti$e of thedeedentDs death+ ith osts a!ainst private respondent+ 8@

<n his petition, Hitu!, the survivin! spouse, assails the appellate ourtDs rulin! on the stren!th ofour deisions in Rivera v. Peoples Ban+ and Trust *o+ 88 and Macam v. !atmaitan 8= in whih wesustained the validity of Tsurvivorship a!ree$entsT and onsiderin! the$ as aleatory ontrats+ 8

"he petition is $eritorious+

"he onveyane in ;uestion is not, first of all, one of mortis causa$ whih should e e$odied ina will+ A will has een defined as Ta personal, sole$n, revoale and free at y whih aapaitated person disposes of his property and ri!hts and delares or o$plies with duties tota.e effet after his death+T 8; <n other words, the e;uest or devie $ust pertain to thetestator+ 8 <n this ase, the $onies su5et of savin!s aount *o+ 3-34203& were in the nature

of on5u!al funds <n the ase relied on, Rivera v. Peoples Ban+ and Trust *o.$

8?

we re5etedlai$s that a survivorship a!ree$ent purports to deliver one partyDs separate properties in favorof the other, ut si$ply, their 5oint holdin!s>

+++ uh onlusion is evidently prediated on the assu$ption that tephenson wasthe elusive owner of the fundsdeposited in the an., whih assu$ption was in



136

turn ased on the fats '1( that the aount was ori!inally opened in the na$e oftephenson alone and '2( that Ana Rivera Tserved only as house$aid of thedeeased+T %ut it not infre;uently happens that a person deposits $oney in the an. in the na$e of anotherB and in the instant ase it also appears that AnaRivera served her $aster for aout nineteen years without atually reeivin! her

salary fro$ hi$+ "he fat that suse;uently tephenson transferred the aount tothe na$e of hi$self andGor Ana Rivera and eeuted with the latter thesurvivorship a!ree$ent in ;uestion althou!h there was no relation of .inship etween the$ ut only that of $aster and servant, nullifies the assu$ption thattephenson was the elusive owner of the an. aount+ <n the asene, then, oflear proof to the ontrary, we $ust !ive full faith and redit to the ertifiate ofdeposit whih reites in effet that the funds in ;uestion elon!ed to d!artephenson and Ana RiveraB that they were 5oint 'and several( owners thereofB andthat either of the$ ould withdraw any part or the whole of said aount durin!the lifeti$e of oth, and the alane, if any, upon the death of either, elon!ed tothe survivor+ 89

<n Macam v. !atmaitan$ 8< it was held>

"his #ourt is of the opinion that hiit # is an aleatory ontrat wherey,aordin! to artile 190 of the #ivil #ode, one of the parties or oth reiproally ind the$selves to !ive or do so$ethin! as an e;uivalent for that whih the other party is to !ive or do in ase of the ourrene of an event whih is unertain or

will happen at an indeter$inate ti$e+ As already stated, /eonarda was the ownerof the house and Juana of the %ui. auto$oile and $ost of the furniture+ %yvirtue of hiit #, Juana would eo$e the owner of the house in ase /eonardadied first, and /eonarda would eo$e the owner of the auto$oile and thefurniture if Juana were to die first+ <n this $anner /eonarda and Juana reiproallyassi!ned their respetive property to one another onditioned upon who $i!ht diefirst, the ti$e of death deter$inin! the event upon whih the a;uisition of suhri!ht y the one or the other depended+ "his ontrat, as any other ontrat, is indin! upon the parties thereto+ <nas$uh as /eonarda had died efore Juana, thelatter thereupon a;uired the ownership of the house, in the sa$e $anner as/eonarda would have a;uired the ownership of the auto$oile and of thefurniture if Juana had died first+ 8>

"here is no showin! that the funds elusively elon!ed to one party, and hene it $ust e presu$ed to e on5u!al, havin! een a;uired durin! the eistene of the $arita+ relations+ =@



13

*either is the survivorship a!ree$ent a donation inter vivos$ for ovious reasons, eause it wasto ta.e effet after the death of one party+ eondly, it is not a donation etween the spouses eause it involved no onveyane of a spouseDs own properties to the other+

<t is also our opinion that the a!ree$ent involves no $odifiation petition of the on5u!al

partnership, as held y the #ourt of Appeals,=8

y T$ere stipulationT==

and that it is noTloa.T = to iru$vent the law on on5u!al property relations+ #ertainly, the spouses are not prohiited y law to invest on5u!al property, say, y way of a 5oint and several an. aount,$ore o$$only deno$inated in an.in! parlane as an TandGorT aount+ <n the ase at ar,when the spouses Hitu! opened savin!s aount *o+ 3-34203&, they $erely put what ri!htfully elon!ed to the$ in a $oney$a.in! venture+ "hey did not dispose of it in favor of the other,whih would have ar!ualy een santionale as a prohiited donation+ And sine the funds wereon5u!al, it an not e said that one spouse ould have pressured the other in plain! his or herdeposits in the $oney pool+

"he validity of the ontrat see$s deatale y reason of its Tsurvivorta.eallT feature, ut in

reality, that ontrat i$posed a $ere oli!ation with a ter$, the ter$ ein! death+ uha!ree$ents are per$itted y the #ivil #ode+ =;

Knder Artile 2010 of the #ode>

AR"+ 2010+ %y an aleatory ontrat, one of the parties or oth reiproally indthe$selves to !ive or to do so$ethin! in onsideration of what the other shall!ive or do upon the happenin! of an event whih is unertain, or whih is to our at an indeter$inate ti$e+

Knder the afore;uoted provision, the fulfill$ent of an aleatory ontrat depends on either the

happenin! of an event whih is '1( Tunertain,T '2( Twhih is to our at an indeter$inate ti$e+TA survivorship a!ree$ent, the sale of a sweepsta.e ti.et, a transation stipulatin! on the valueof urreny, and insurane have een held to fall under the first ate!ory, while a ontrat for lifeannuity or pension under Artile 2021, et sequentia, has een ate!ori=ed under the seond+ = <neither ase, the ele$ent of ris. is present+ <n the ase at ar, the ris. was the death of one partyand survivorship of the other+

)owever, as we have warned>

%ut althou!h the survivorship a!ree$ent is per se not ontrary to law its operationor effet $ay e violative of the law+ or instane, if it e shown in a !iven asethat suh a!ree$ent is a $ere loa. to hide an inoffiious donation, to transfer property in fraud of reditors, or to defeat the le!iti$e of a fored heir, it $ay eassailed and annulled upon suh !rounds+ *o suh vie has een i$puted andestalished a!ainst the a!ree$ent involved in this ase+ =?



13&

"here is no de$onstration here that the survivorship a!ree$ent had een eeuted for suhunlawful purposes, or, as held y the respondent ourt, in order to frustrate our laws on wills,donations, and on5u!al partnership+

"he onlusion is aordin!ly unavoidale that Mrs+ Hitu! havin! predeeased her husand, the

latter has a;uired upon her death a vested ri!ht over the a$ounts under savin!s aount *o+3-34203& of the %an. of A$eria+ <nsofar as the respondent ourt ordered their inlusion in theinventory of assets left y Mrs+ Hitu!, we hold that the ourt was in error+ %ein! the separate property of petitioner, it for$s no $ore part of the estate of the deeased+

)ROR, the deision of the respondent appellate ourt, dated June 29, 19&, and itsresolution, dated eruary 9, 19&&, are " A<8+

*o osts+

O OR8R8+

SPO4SES ERNESTO an( E2ELYN SICAD, petitioners- vs. CO4RT OF APPEALS,CATALINO 2ALDERRAMA, 34DY CRISTINA M1 2ALDERRAMA an( 3ES4SANTONIO 2ALDERRAMA, respondents.

DECISION

NAR2ASA, C.J 1:

"he issue raised in the appeal y certiorari at ar enters on the harater of a deed of donation eeuted y the late Aurora Hirto Vda.8e Montinola of the #ity of <loilo F aseither inter vivos or mortis causa+ "hat deed, entitled 88 O 8O*A"<O* (>TER

V(V0# ,:?1@ was eeuted y Montinola on 8ee$er 11, 199+ <t na$ed as donees her !randhildren, na$ely> #atalino Halderra$a, Judy #ristina M+ Halderra$a and Jesus AntonioHalderra$aB and treated of a parel of land, /ot 3231 of the #adastral urvey of 7anay, #api=,overed y "ransfer #ertifiate "itle *o+ "1610- in the na$e of Montinola+ "he deed alsoontained the si!natures of the donees in a.nowled!$ent of the aeptane of the donation+

MontinolaEs eretary, loria alvilla, afterwards presented the deed for reordin! in the7roperty

Re!istry, and the Re!ister of 8eeds anelled "#" *o+ "1610- 'the donorEs title( and, in it plae, issued"#" *o+ "16622 on eruary , 19&0, in the na$es of the donees+?2@ Montinola howeverretained the ownerEs dupliate opy of the new title '*o+ "16622(, as well as the property itself,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/aug1998/125888.htm#_edn1







139

until she transferred the sa$e ten '10( years later, on July 10, 1990, to the spouses, rnesto andvelyn iad+

On Marh 12, 19&, Aurora Montinola drew up a deed of revoation of the donation, ?3@ andaused it to e annotated as an adverse lai$ on "#" *o+ "16622 'issued, as aforestated, in her !randhildrenEs na$es(+ "hen on Au!ust 24, 1990, she filed a petition with the Re!ional "rial

#ourt in Roas #ity for the anellation of said "#" *o+ "16622 and the reinstate$ent of "#" *o+ "1610- 'in her na$e(, the ase ein! do.eted as peial 7roeedin! *o+ 3311+ )er petition was founded on the theory that the donation to her three '3( !randhildren wasone mortis causa whih thus had to o$ply with the for$alities of a willB and sine it had not,the donation was void and ould not effetively serve as asis for the anellation of "#" *o+ "1610- and the issuane in its plae of "#" *o+ "16622+

"he donees 'MontinolaEs !randhildren( opposed the petition+ <n their opposition datedAu!ust 29, 1990, they averred that the donation in their favor was one inter vivos whih, havin!fully o$plied with the re;uire$ents therefor set out in Artile 29 of the #ivil #ode, was perfetly valid and effiaious+ "hey also epressed dout aout the sinerity of their

!rand$otherEs intention to reover the donated property, sine she had not pursued the $atter of its revoation after havin! it annotated as an adverse lai$+

"he ase, ori!inally treated as a speial proeedin!, was suse;uently onsidered y thelower #ourt as an ordinary ivil ation in view of the alle!ations and issues raised in the pleadin!s+ 7retrial was had, followed y trial on the $erits whih was onluded with the filin!of the partiesE $e$oranda+ "he "rial #ourt then rendered 5ud!$ent on Marh 2, 1991, holdin!that the donation was indeed one inter vivos, and dis$issin! Aurora MontinolaEs petition for la. of $erit+?4@ "he $atter of its revoation was not passed upon+

Montinola elevated the ase to the #ourt of Appeals, her appeal ein! do.eted as #A+R+#H *o+ 33202+ he however died on Marh 10, 1993,?-@ while appeal was pendin!+

hortly after MontinolaEs de$ise, a Manifestation and Motion: dated Marh 31, 1993 wasfiled y rnesto iad and velyn %ofilliad, herein petitioners, ?6@ in whih they 'a( alle!edthat they had eo$e the owners of the property overed y "#" *o+ "16622 in virtue of adeed of definite sale dated May <$ ,CC<: ao$plished y Montinola in their favor, whih wasonfir$ed y an affidavit dated *ove$er 26, 199 also eeuted y the latter, and '( prayedthat they e sustituted as appellants and allowed to proseute the ase in their own ehalf+

Another $otion was suse;uently presented under date of April , 1993, this ti$e y thele!al heirs of Aurora Montinola, na$ely> Ofelia M+ de /eon, stela M+ Jaen and "eresita M+Halderr$a+ "hey delared that they were not interested in pursuin! the ase, and as.ed that theappeal e withdrawn+ MontinolaEs ounsel opposed the $otion+

On June 21, 1993, the #ourt of Appeals issued a Resolution> 'a( orderin! the sustitution of the persons aove $entioned F Ofelia M+ de /eon, stela M+ Jaen and "eresita M+ Haldera$a F as plaintiffsappellant in plae of the late Aurora Montinola, as well as the 5oinder of the spousesrnesto and velyn %ofilliad as additional appellantsB?@ and '( denyin! the $otion for thewithdrawal of the appeal+

On June 30, 199-, the i!hth 8ivision of the #ourt of Appeals pro$ul!ated its 8eision onthe ase affir$in! the 5ud!$ent of the Re!ional "rial #ourtB?&@ and on July 31, 1996, it denied the


















140

separate $otions for reonsideration filed y Ofelia M+ de /eon, stela M+ Jaen, and "eresita M+Halderra$a, on the one hand, and y the spouses, rnest and velyn iad, on the other+?9@

"he iad pouses have appealed to this #ourtB and here, they ontend that the followin!errors were o$$itted y the Appellate "riunal, to wit>

1( QQ in rulin! that the donation was inter vivos and in not !ivin! due wei!ht to the revoationof the donationB and

2( QQ in not orderin! that the ase e re$anded for further reeption of evidene+:?10@

"he #o$$ent filed for private respondents 'the donees( under date of 8ee$er 19, 1996deals with what they onsider the principal issue in this case DD 'i.e.( 'hether the donation is

mortis causa or inter vivos: and set forth the ar!u$ent that the donor learly intended to effetthe i$$ediate transfer of ownership to the donees,: that the prohiition in the deed of donationa!ainst sellin! the property within ten '10( years after the death of the donor does not indiatethat the donation is mortis causa,: that the donorEs alle!ed at of physially .eepin! the title

does not su!!est any intention to defer the effetivity of the donation,: that the pay$ent of real property taes is onsistent with the donorEs reservation of the ri!ht of usufrut,: that the donorEsintent is not deter$ined y QQ 'her( selfservin! post eeution delarations,: the donation wasnever effetively revo.ed,: and petitioners have waived their ri!ht to ;uestion the proeedin!sin the trial ourt+:?11@

"he Reply of the iad pouses dated Marh 14, 199 reiterates their thesis that thedonation was mortis causa, that the iru$stanes surroundin! the eeution of the deed, andthe suse;uent ations of the donor inontrovertily si!nify the donorEs intent to transfer the property only after her death,: that the donor did not intend to !ive effet to the donation,: andthat the proedure adopted y the "rial #ourt in the ase was fatally defetive+ ?12@ A Re5oinder:

dated April 3, 199 was then su$itted y the Haldera$as, traversin! the assertions of the Reply+?13@

#onsiderin! the fous of the opposin! parties, and their onflitin! theories, on the intentionof Aurora Montinola in eeutin! the dou$ent entitled 8eed of 8onation (nter Vivos$: it isneedful to review the iru$stanes of the si!nin! of that dou$ent y Montinola, as ostensiledonor, and her !randhildren, as ostensile donees+

"he evidene estalishes that on 8ee$er 11, 199, when the deed of donation prepared yMontinolEs lawyer 'Atty+ "reYas( was read and eplained y the latter to the parties+ Montinolaepressed her wish that the donation ta.e effet only after ten '10( years fro$ her death, and thatthe deed inlude a prohiition on the sale of the poperty for suh period+ Aordin!ly, a new

proviso was inserted in the deed readin!> ho'ever$ the donees shall not sell or encum"er the properties herein donated 'ithin , years after the death of the donor +:?14@ "he atuality of thesuse;uent insertion of this new proviso is apparent on the fae of the instru$entB theinteralation is easily pereived and identified F it was learly typed on a different $ahine, andis ra$$ed into the spae etween the penulti$ate para!raph of the deed and that i$$ediately preedin! it+?1-@

*ot only did Aurora Montinola ordered the insertion in the deed of that restritive proviso, ut also, after reordation of the deed of donation, she never stopped treatin! the property as her

















141

own+ he ontinued, as epliitly authori=ed in the deed itself, to possess he property, en5oy itsfruits and otherwise eerise the ri!hts of do$inion, payin! the property taes as they fell due F all these she did until she transferred the property to the iad pouses on July 10, 1990+ he didnot !ive the new ertifiate of title to the ostensile donees ut retained too, until she delivered itto the iads on the oasion of the sale of the property to the$+ <n any event, the delivery of the

title to the donees would have served no useful purpose sine, as 5ust stated, they were prohiitedto effet any sale or enu$rane thereof for a period of ten '10( years after the ostensiledonorEs deease+ And onsistent with these ats denotin! retention of ownership of the propertywas MontinolaEs openly epressed view that the donation was ineffetual and ould not e !ivenaffet even after ten '10( years fro$ her death+ or this view she sou!ht to otain 5udiialapproval+ he rou!ht suit on Au!ust 24, 1990 to anel "#" no+ "16622 'issued to her !randhildren( pre$ised preisely on the invalidity of the donation for failure to o$ply with there;uisites of testa$entary dispositions+ %efore that, she atte$pted to undo the onveyane to her !randhildren y eeution a deed of revoation of the donation on Marh 12, 19&, andausin! annotation thereof as an adverse lai$ on said "#" *o+ "16622+ he also eerisedindisputale ats of ownership over said property y eeutin!, as 5ust stated, deeds intended to

pass title over it to third parties F petitioner herein+

?16@

As already inti$ated, the real nature of a deed is to e asertained y oth its lan!ua!e andthe intention of the parties as de$onstrated y the iru$stanes attendant upon its eeution+ <nthis respet, ase law has laid down si!nifiant para$eters+ "hus, in a deision handed down in1946,?1@ this #ourt onstrued a deed purportin! to e a donation inter vivos to e in truthone mortis causa eause it stipulated 'li.e the one now ein! in;uired into( that all rents, proeeds, fruits, of the donated properties shall re$ain for the elusive enefit and disposal of the donor, Mar!arita 8avid, durin! her lifeti$eB and that, without the .nowled!e and onsent of the donor, the donated properties ould not e disposed of in any way, whether y sale,$ort!a!e, arter, or in any other way possile+: On these essential pre$ises, the #ourt said,suh a donation $ust e dee$ed one mortis causa, eause the o$ined effet of the

iru$stanes surroundin! the eeution of the deed of donation and of the aove;uoted lausesthereof QQ 'was that( the $ost essential ele$ents of ownership F the ri!ht to dispose of thedonated properties and the ri!ht to en5oy the produts, profits, possession F re$ained withMar!arita 8avid durin! her lifeti$e, and would arue to the donees only after Mar!arita8avidEs death+: o, too, in the ase at ar, did these ri!hts re$ain with Aurora Montinola durin!her lifeti$e, and ould not pass to the donees until ten '10( years after her death+

<n another ase deided in 19-4 involvin! si$ilar issue, %onsato v+ #ourt of Appeals, ?1&@ this#ourt e$phasi=ed that the deisive harateristis of a donation mortis causa, whih it had ta.eninto aount in 8avid v+ ison, were that the donor not only reserved for herself all the fruits of the property alle!edly onveyed, ut what is even $ore i$portant, espeially provided thatWwithout .nowled!e and onsent of the donor, the donated properties ould not e disposed of inany way,B therey denyin! to the transferees the $ost essential attriute of ownership, the power to dispose of the properties+:

A donation whih purports to e one inter vivos ut withholds for$ the donee that ri!ht todispose of the donated property durin! the donorEs lifeti$e is in truth one mortis causa+ <n adonation mortis causa the ri)ht of disposition is not transferred to the donee 'hile the donor is still alive+:?19@











142

<n the instant ase, nothin! of any onse;uene was transferred y the deed of donation in;uestion to MontinolaEs !randhildren, the ostensile donees+ "hey did not !et possession of the property donated+ "hey did not a;uire the ri!ht to the fruits thereof, or any other ri!ht of do$inion over the property+ More i$portantly, they did not a;uire the ri!ht to dispose of the property F this would arue to the$ only after ten '10( years fro$ MontinolaEs death+ <ndeed,

they never even laid hands on the ertifiate of title to the sa$e+ "hey were therefore si$plypaper owners: of the donated property+ All these iru$stanes, inludin!, to repeat, theepliit provisions of the deed of donation F reservin! the eerise of ri!hts of ownership to thedonee and prohiitin! the sale or enu$rane of the property until ten '10( years after her death F inelutaly lead to the onlusion that the donation in ;uestion was a donation mortis causa,onte$platin! a transfer of ownership to the donees only after the donorEs de$ise+

"he ase of Ale5andro v+ eralde= ?20@ ited y the #ourt of Appeals in support of itshallen!ed 5ud!$ent is not ;uite relevant+ or in the deed of donation there in issue, there was a partial relin;uish$ent of the ri!ht to dispose of the property, in the event only that this ea$eneessary to defray the epenses and support of the donors+: "hat li$ited ri!ht to dispose of the donated lots, said this #ourt, i$plies that ownership had passed to QQ 'the donees( y $eans

of the donation and QQ, therefore, the donation was already effetive durin! the donorEslifeti$e+ "hat is the harateristi of a donation inter vivos+: On the other hand, in the ase at ar, the donees were epressly prohiited to $a.e any disposition of any nature or for any purpose whatever durin! the donorEs lifeti$e, and until ten '10( years after her death F a prohiition whih, it $ay e added, $a.es inappliale the rulin! in #astro v+ #ourt of Appeals?21@ where no suh prohiition was i$posed, and the donor retained only the usufrut over the property+

"he Halderra$asE ar!u$ent that the donation is inter vivos in harater and that the prohiition a!ainst their disposition of the donated property is $erely a ondition whih, if violated, would !ive ause for its revoation, e!s the ;uestion+ <t assu$es that they have the

ri!ht to $a.e a disposition of the property, whih they do not+ "he ar!u$ent also $a.es nosense, eause if they had the ri!ht to dispose of the property and did in fat dispose of it to athird person, the revoation of the donation they spea. of would e of no utility or enefit to thedonor, sine suh a revoation would not neessarily result in the restoration of the donorEsownership and en5oy$ent of the property+

<t is also error to suppose that the donation under review should e dee$ed one inter

vivos si$ply eause founded on onsiderations of love and affetion+ <n Ale5andro v+eralde=, supra,?22@ this #ourt also oserved that the fat that the donation is !iven inonsideration of love and affetion QQ is not a harateristi of donation inter vivos 'solely( eause transfers mortis causa $ay also e $ade for the sa$e reason+: i$ilarly, in %onsato v+#ourt of Appeals, supra, this #ourt opined that the fat that the onveyane was due to the

affetion of the donor to the donees and servies rendered y the latter,is of no partiular si!nifiane in deter$inin! whether the deeds, h+ W1E and W2,E onstitute transfers inter vivos or not, eause a le!ay $ay have idential $otivation+:?23@

inally, it is !er$ane to advert to the le!al priniple in Artile 13& of the #ivil #ode to theeffet that in the ase of dout relative to a !ratuitous ontrat, the onstrution $ust e thatentailin! the least trans$ission of ri!hts and interests+:?24@














143

"he donation in ;uestion, thou!h deno$inated inter vivos, is in truth one mortis causaB it isvoid eause the essential re;uisites for its validity have not een o$plied with+

)ROR, the 8eision of the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ #H *o+ 33202 dated June30, 199- as well as the Resolution denyin! reonsideration thereof and the 8eision of theRe!ional "rial #ourt in peial #ase *o+ 3311 are " A<8+ "he /eed of /onation (nter

Vivos 'h+ A:( eeuted y Aurora Hirto Hda+ 8e Montinola on 8ee$er 11, 199 in favor of #atalino M+ Halderra$a, Judy #ristina M+ Halderra$a and Jesus Antonio M+ Halderra$a isdelared null and void+ "he Re!ister of 8eed of Roas #ity is direted to anel "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ "16622, revive and reinstate "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ "1610-+

SO ORDERED1

DANILO AL4AD, LEONORA AL4AD,

DI2INA AL4AD, PROSPERO AL4AD,an( CONNIE AL4AD, 7etitioners,

versus

6ENAIDO AL4AD,

Respondent+

G1R1 N!1 89?>;

7resent> K<KM%<*, % +, *hairperson$

#AR7<O MORA/, "<*A,H/A#O, JR+, and%R<O*, %% +

7ro$ul!ated>

Otoer 1, 200&

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:7etitionersE $other, Maria Aluad 'Maria(, and respondent Ienaido Aluad were raised y

the hildless spouses Matilde Aluad 'Matilde( and #rispin Aluad '#rispin(+

#rispin was the owner of si lots identified as /ot *os+ 64, 6-, 66, 6, 6&0, and 6&2of the 7ilar #adastre, #api=+ After #rispin died, his wife Matilde ad5udiated the lots to herself+?1@

On *ove$er 14, 19&1, Matilde eeuted a dou$ent entitled 8eed of 8onation of

Real 7roperty <nter Hivos:?2@ '8eed of 8onation( in favor of petitionersE $other Maria?3@ overin!all the si lots whih Matilde inherited fro$ her husand #rispin+ "he 8eed of 8onation provided>









144

"hat, for and in onsideration of the love and affetion of the 8O*OR ?Matilde@ for the 8O* ?Maria@, the latter ein! adopted and hav?in!@ een rou!ht up y the for$er the 8O*OR, y these presents, transfer and onvey, %NAN O 8O*A"<O*, unto the8O* the property aovedesried, t! 'ec!.ee%%ecti&e $"!n the (eath !% the DONOR, ut in the e&ent that the DONEE

sh!$*( (ie 'e%!e the DONOR, the "esent (!nati!n sha** 'e (ee.e(escin(e( and ?of@ no further fore and effetB 7rovided, however, thatanyti$edurin! the lifeti$e of the 8O*OR or anyone of the$ who should survive, theyould use?,@ enu$er or even dispose of any or even all of the parels of land herein donated+?4@ '$phasis and undersorin! supplied(

On epte$er 30, 19&6, Ori!inal #ertifiates of "itle over /ot *os+ 64 and 66 wereissued in MatildeEs na$e+

On Au!ust 26, 1991, Matilde sold /ot *o+ 66 to respondent y a 8eed of Asolute ale

of Real 7roperty+

?-@

use;uently or on January 14, 1992, Matilde eeuted a last will and testa$ent,

?6@ devisin! /ot *os+ 6-, 6, 6&2, and 6&0 to Maria, and her re$ainin! properties: inludin!/ot *o+ 64 to respondent+

Matilde died on January 2-, 1994, while Maria died on epte$er 24 of the sa$e year+?@

On Au!ust 21, 199-, MariaEs heirsherein petitioners filed efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt

'R"#( of Roas #ity a #o$plaint,?&@ for delaration and reovery of ownership and possession of /ot *os+ 64 and 66, and da$a!es a!ainst respondent, alle!in!>

"hat in 19&, plaintiff?s@ possessed the two '2( parels of land aovedesried until January 1991 when defendant entered and possessed the two '2( parels of land lai$in! as the adopted son of #rispin Aluad who refused to !ive a. possession until Matilde Aluad died in ?1994@ and then retained the possession thereof up to and until the present ti$e, thus, deprivin! the plaintiffs of the en5oy$ent of said parels of land B

"hat after the death of Matilde R+ Aluad, the plaintiffs sueeded y

inheritane y ri!ht of representation fro$ their deeased $other, Maria Aluadwho is the sole and only dau!hter of Matilde Aluad?+@?9@

"o the o$plaint respondent alle!ed in his Answer+?10@

"hat /ot 64 is owned y the defendant as this lot was ad5udiated to hi$

in the /ast ill and "esta$ent of Matilde Aluad while /ot 66 was purhased y hi$ fro$ Matilde Aluad+ "hese two lots are in his possession astrue owners thereof+?11@ 'Kndersorin! supplied(





















14-

7etitioners later filed a Motion for /eave to A$end #o$plaint Already iled to #onfor$to videne?12@ to whih it anneed an A$ended #o$plaint ?13@ whih ited the donation of the silots via 8eed of 8onation in favor of their $other Maria+ %ranh 1- of the R"# !ranted the

$otion and ad$itted the A$ended #o$plaint+?14@

Respondent filed an A$ended Answer ?1-@ ontendin!, inter alia$ that the 8eed of 8onation

is for!ed and falsified and petitionersE han!e of theory showed that said dou$ent was noteistin! at the ti$e they filed their o$plaint and was onoted y the$ after reali=in! that their false lai$ that their $other was the only dau!hter of Matild?e@ Aluad annot in anyway eestalished y the$:B?16@ and that if ever said dou$ent does eist, the sa$e was already revo.ed y Matilde when ?she@ eerised all ats of do$inion over said properties until she sold /ot 66to defendant and until her death with respet to the other lots without any opposition fro$ MariaAluad+:?1@

"he trial ourt, y 8eision

?1&@

of epte$er 20, 1996, held that Matilde ould not havetrans$itted any ri!ht over /ot *os+64 and 66 to respondent, she havin! previously alienatedthe$ to Maria via the 8eed of 8onation+ "hus it disposed>

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin!, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered> 1+ 8elarin! the plaintiffs as the ri!htful owners of the su5et /ots

*os+ 64 and 66, 7ilar #adastreB 2+ Orderin! the defendant to deliver the possession of the su5et lots to

the plaintiffsB 3+ Orderin! the defendant to pay the plaintiffs>

a+ "hirty thousand pesos '730,000+00( as attorneyEs feesB

+ "wenty thousand pesos '720,000+00(, representin! the ino$efro$ su5et /ot 66, a year fro$ 1991 up to the ti$e said lot isdelivered to the plaintiffs, to!ether with the interest thereof at thele!al rate until fully paidB

+ "en thousand pesos '710,000+00(, representin! the ino$e fro$

the su5et /ot *o+ 64, a year fro$ 1991 up to the ti$e said lot isdelivered to the plaintiffs, plus le!al interest thereof at the le!alrate until fully paidB and

d+ "he osts of the suit+

8efendantEs ounterlai$ is ordered dis$issed for la. of $erit+





















146

O OR8R8+?19@

On petitionersE $otion, the trial ourt direted the issuane of a writ of eeution pendin!appeal+?20@ 7ossession of the su5et lots appears to have in fat een ta.en y petitioners+

%y 8eision?21@

of Au!ust 10, 2006, the #ourt of Appeals reversed the trial ourtEsdeision, it holdin! that the 8eed of 8onation was atually a donation mortis causa, not inter

vivos, and as suh it had to, ut did not, o$ply with the for$alities of a will+ "hus, it found thatthe 8eed of 8onation was witnessed y only two witnesses and had no attestation lause whihis not in aordane with Artile &0- of the #ivil #ode, readin!>

Art+ &0-+ very will, other than a holo!raphi will, $ust e susried at

the end thereof y the testator hi$self or y the testatorEs na$e written y so$eother person in his presene, and y his epress diretion, and attested andsusried y three or $ore redile witnesses in the presene of the testator andof one another+

"he testator or the person re;uested y hi$ to write his na$e and theinstru$ental witnesses of the will shall, also si!n, as aforesaid, eah and every pa!e thereof, eept the last on the left $ar!in and all the pa!es shall enu$ered orrelatively in letters plaed on the upper part of eah pa!e+

"he attestation shall state the nu$er of pa!es used upon whih the will is

written, and the fat that that testator si!ned the will and every pa!e thereof, or aused so$e other person to write his na$e, under his epress diretion, in the presene of the instru$ental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and si!nedthe will and all the pa!es thereof in the presene of the testator, and of oneanother+

<f the attestation lause is in a lan!ua!e not .nown to the witnesses, it

shall e interpreted to the$+

hile the appellate ourt delared respondent as the ri!htful owner of /ot *o+ 66, it didnot so delare with respet to /ot *o+ 64, as MatildeEs last will and testa$ent had not yet een proated+ "hus the #ourt of Appeals disposed>

0HEREFORE, findin! the instant petition worthy of $erit, the sa$e is

herey GRANTED and the 8eision of the Re!ional"rial #ourt of Roas #ity,%ranh 1-, dated 20 epte$er 1996, in #ivil #ase *o+ H66&6 for delaration of ownership, reovery of ownership and possession, and da$a!esis RE2ERSED and SET ASIDE1

A new one is entered in its stead delarin! defendantappellant as the

lawful owner of /ot ?*o+@ 66 of the 7ilar #adastre+ Aordin!ly, plaintiffs









14

appellees are direted to return the possession of the said lot to the defendantappellant+

Moreover, plaintiffsappellees are ordered to pay 740,000+00 to defendant

appellant as attorneyEs fees and liti!ation epenses+

#osts a!ainst plaintiffsappellees+ SO ORDERED+?22@ '$phasis in the ori!inalB undersorin! supplied(

"heir Motion for Reonsideration?23@ havin! een denied,?24@ petitioners filed the present7etition for Review,?2-@ontendin! that the #ourt of Appeals erred

<

L L L )* <" RHR8 ") 8#<<O* O ") #OKR" %/O'R"#, %ranh 1-, Roas #ity( )O/8<* ")A" ") 88 O 8O*A"<O*<*"R H<HO <* AHOR O 7"<"<O*RE MO")R < <* A#" A8O*A"<O* MOR"< #AKA+

<<

L L L )* <" RK/8 ")A" R7O*8*" < ") R<)"K/ O*R O /O" *O+ 66 A /O" %KNR O* ") %A< O A 88O A/ L#K"8 %N ") 8O*OR )O )A8 *O MOR R<)" "O// ") AM+

<<<

L L L )* <" A</8 "O 8#/AR 7"<"<O*R ") R<)"K/O*R O /O" *O+ 64 A"R )AH<* RK/8 )* <" )/8 ")A"R7O*8*" #A**O" % 8#/AR8 O*R ")RO+

<H L L L )* <" )/8 ")A" ") <KA*# O A R<" O L#K"<O*7*8<* A77A/ < <* H<O/A"<O* O 7ARARA7) 'a( #"<O* 2,RK/ 39, O ") RK/ O #OKR" 'A*8 OR8R<* 7"<"<O*R "OR"KR* 7O<O* O /O" 66 "O R7O*8*"( A*8 OR8R<*7"<"<O*R "O 7AN A""OR*NE A*8 #O"?@ O K<"+?26@

As did the appellate ourt, the #ourt finds the donation to petitionersE $other one

of mortis causa$ it havin! the followin! harateristis>
















14&

'1( <t onveys no title or ownership to the transferee 'e%!e the death of thetransferorB or what a$ounts to the sa$e thin!, that the transferor shouldretain the ownership 'full or na.ed( and ontrol of the property while aliveB

'2( "hat efore the death of the transferor, the transfer should e

revoale y the transferor at will, ad nutumB ut revoaility $ay e provided for indiretly y $eans of a reserved power in the donor to disposeof the properties onveyedB and

'3( "hat the transfer should e void if the transferor should survive the

transferee+?2@ '$phasis and undersorin! supplied(

"he phrase in the earlier;uoted 8eed of 8onation to eo$e effetive upon the death of the 8O*OR: ad$its of no other interpretation than to $ean that Matilde did not intend totransfer the ownership of the si lots to petitionersE $other durin! her 'MatildeEs( lifeti$e+?2&@

"he state$ent in the 8eed of 8onation readin! an)ti.e ($in# the *i%eti.e !% theDONOR or anyone of the$ who should survive, they ould $se, enc$.'e ! e&en (is"!se !% an) ! e&en a** the "ace*s !% *an( heein (!nate(:?29@ $eans that Matilde retained ownership of the lots and reserved in her the ri!ht to dispose the$+ or the ri!ht to dispose of a thin! withoutother li$itations than those estalished y law is an attriute of ownership+?30@ "he phrase in the8eed of 8onation or anyone of the$who should survive: is of ourse out of syn+ or the 8eedof 8onation learly stated that it would ta.e effet upon the death of the donor, hene, said phraseould only have referred to the donor Matilde+ 7etitioners the$selves onede that suh phrasedoes not refer to the donee, thus>

?<@t is well to point out that the last provision 'sentene( in thedisputed para!raph should only refer to Matilde Aluad, the donor, eause shewas the only survivin! spouse at the ti$e the donation was eeuted on 14 *ove$er 19&1, as her husand F #rispin Aluad ?F@ had lon! een dead as earlyas 19-+?31@

"he trial ourt, in holdin! that the donation was inter vivos, reasoned>

"he donation in ;uestion is su5et to a resolutory ter$ or periodwhen the donor provides in the afore;uoted provisions, ut in the event thatthe 8O* should die efore the 8O*OR, the present donation shall edee$ed resinded and ?of@ no further fore and effet:+ hen the donor provides that should the 8O*: die efore the 8O*OR, the presentdonation shall e dee$ed resinded and ?of@ no further fore and effet: thelo!ial onstrution thereof is that after the eeution of the su5et donation,the sa$e ea$e effetive i$$ediately and shall e :dee$ed resinded and?of@ no further fore and effet: upon the arrival of a resolutory ter$ or period,i+e+, the death of the donee whih shall our efore that of the















149

donor+ Knderstandaly, the arrival of this resolutory ter$ or period annotresind and render of no further fore and effet a donation whih has never eo$e effetive, eause, ertainly what donation is there to e resinded andrendered of no further fore and effet upon the arrival of said resolutory ter$or period if there was no donation whih was already effetive at the ti$e

when the donee diedC?32@

'Kndersorin! supplied(

A si$ilar ratio in a ase had een rushed aside y this #ourt, however, thus>

?7@etitioners ontend that the stipulation on resission in ase petitioners ?donee@ die ahead of ?donor@ #aatin!an is a resolutory ondition thatonfir$s the nature of the donation as inter vivos+

7etitionersE ar!u$ents are ereft of $erit+?33@

"he herein su5et deeds epressly provide that the donation shall e

resinded in ase ?donees@ the petitioners predeease ?the donor@ #onhita#aatin!an+ As stated in Reyes v. Mosqueda, one of the deisive harateristis of a donation mortis causa is that the transfer should e onsidered void if the donor should survive the donee+ "his is eatly what #aatin!an provided for in her donations+ <f she really intended that the donation should ta.e effet durin! her lifeti$e and that the ownership of the properties donated to the donee or independently of, and not y reason of her death, she would not have epressedsuh proviso in the su5et deeds+?34@ 'Kndersorin! supplied(

As the #ourt of Appeals oserved, ?t@hat the donation is mortis causa is fortified yMatildeEs ats of possession as she ontinued to pay the taes for the said properties whihre$ained under her na$eB appropriated the produeB and applied for free patents for whih O#"swere issued under her na$e+:?3-@

"he donation ein! then mortis causa, the for$alities of a will should have een

oserved?36@ ut they were not, as it was witnessed y only two, not three or $ore witnessesfollowin! Artile &0- of the #ivil #ode+?3@

urther, the witnesses did not even si!n the attestation lause ?3&@ the eeution of whih

lause is a re;uire$ent separate fro$ the susription of the will and the affiin! of si!natures onthe lefthand $ar!ins of the pa!es of the will+ o the #ourt has e$phasi=ed>

Artile &0- partiularly se!re!ates the re;uire$ent that the

instru$ental witnesses si!n eah pa!e of the will fro$ the re;uisite that the will e attested and susried y ?the instru$ental witnesses@+ "he respetiveintents ehind these two lasses of si!nature?s@ are distint fro$ eah other+ "he


















1-0

si!natures on the lefthand orner of every pa!e si!nify, a$on! others, thatthe witnesses are aware that the pa!e they are si!nin! for$s part of the will+ Onthe other hand, the si!natures to the attestation lause estalish that thewitnessesare referrin! to the state$ents ontained in the attestation lause itself+ <ndeed,the attestation lause is separate and apart fro$ the disposition of the will+ An

$nsi#ne( attestati!n c*a$se es$*ts in an $natteste( wi**+ ven if theinstru$ental witnesses si!ned the lefthand $ar!in of the pa!e ontainin! theunsi!ned attestation lause, suh si!natures annot de$onstrate these witnessesEunderta.in!s in the lause, sine the si!natures that do appear on the pa!e weredireted towards a wholly different avowal+

<t is the witnesses, and not the testator, who are re;uired under Artile &0- to state the nu$er of pa!es used upon whih the will is writtenB thefat that the testator had si!ned the will and every pa!e thereofB and that theywitnessed and si!ned the will and all the pa!es thereof in the presene of thetestator and of one another+ "he only proof in the will that the witnesses havestated these ele$ental fats would e their si!natures on the attestation lause+?39@

'$phasis and undersorin! supplied(

urther$ore, the witnesses did not a.nowled!e the will efore the notary puli,?40@ whih is not in aordane with the re;uire$ent of Artile &06 of the #ivil #ode that everywill $ust e a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli y the testator and the witnesses+

More+ "he re;uire$ent that all the pa!es of the will $ust e nu$ered orrelatively inletters plaed on the upper part of eah pa!e was not also followed+?41@

"he 8eed of 8onation whih is, as already disussed, one of mortis causa$ not havin!

followed the for$alities of a will, it is void and trans$itted no ri!ht to petitionersE $other+ %uteven assu$in! ar)uendo that the for$alities were oserved, sine it was not proated, no ri!ht to/ot *os+ 64 and 66 was trans$itted to Maria+ ?42@ Matilde thus validly disposed of /ot *o+ 64to respondent y her last will and testa$ent, su5et of ourse to the ;ualifiation that her 'MatildeEs( will $ust e proated+ ith respet to /ot *o+ 66, the sa$e had, as $entionedearlier, een sold y Matilde to respondent on Au!ust 26, 1991+

7etitioners nevertheless ar!ue that assu$in! that the donation of /ot *o+ 64 in favor of their $other is indeed mortis causa$hene, Matilde ould devise it to respondent, the lot shouldnevertheless have een awarded to the$ eause they had a;uired it y a;uisitive presription,they havin! een in ontinuous, uninterrupted, adverse, open, and puli possession of it in !oodfaith and in the onept of an owner sine 19&+?43@

7etitioners failed to raise the issue of a;uisitive presription efore the lower ourts,

however, they havin! laid their lai$ on the asis of inheritane fro$ their $other+ As a !eneralrule, points of law, theories, and issues not rou!ht to the attention of the trial ourt annot eraised for the first ti$e on appeal+?44@ or a ontrary rule would e unfair to the adverse partywho would have no opportunity to present further evidene $aterial to the new theory, whih itould have done had it een aware of it at the ti$e of the hearin! efore the trial ourt+?4-@



















1-1

0HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED+

OR8R8

G1R1 N!1 8><?<@ 3$*) <, =@8

HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, NAMELY, AL2ARO YPON, ER4DITA Y1 BARON,CICERO YPON, 0ILSON YPON, 2ICTOR YPON, AND HINIDINO Y1PEQALOSA, 7"<"<O*R,vs+GA4DIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A11A1 JGA4DIOSO E1 YPON,J AND THEREGISTER OF DEEDS OF TOLEDO CITY, R7O*8*"+

R O / K " < O *

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

"his is a diret reourse to the #ourt fro$ the Re!ional "rial #ourt of "oledo #ity, %ranh -9'R"#(, throu!h a petition for review on ertiorari1 under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt, raisin! a pure ;uestion of law+ <n partiular, petitioners assail the July 2, 20112 and Au!ust 31,20113 Orders of the R"#, dis$issin! #ivil #ase *o+ "2246 for la. of ause of ation+

"he ats

On July 29, 2010, petitioners, to!ether with so$e of their ousins,4 filed a o$plaint for#anellation of "itle and Reonveyane with 8a$a!es 'su5et o$plaint( a!ainst respondentaudioso 7onteras Riaforte a+.+a+ Taudioso + NponT 'audioso(, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+"2246+- <n their o$plaint, they alle!ed that Ma!daleno Npon 'Ma!daleno( died intestate andhildless on June 2&, 196&, leavin! ehind /ot *os+ 2AA, 2#, 2, and 2J whih were thenovered y "ransfer #ertifiates of "itle '"#"( *os+ "44 and "A+6 #lai$in! to e the soleheir of Ma!daleno, audioso eeuted an Affidavit of elfAd5udiation and aused theanellation of the afore$entioned ertifiates of title, leadin! to their suse;uent transfer in hisna$e under "#" *os+ "263 and "263&, to the pre5udie of petitioners who are Ma!dalenoEsollateral relatives and suessorsininterest+&

<n his Answer, audioso alle!ed that he is the lawful son of Ma!daleno as evidened y> 'a( hisertifiate of /ive %irthB '( two '2( letters fro$ 7olytehni hoolB and '( a ertified true opyof his passport+9 urther, y way of affir$ative defense, he lai$ed that> 'a( petitioners have noause of ation a!ainst hi$B '( the o$plaint fails to state a ause of ationB and '( the ase is

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_198680_2013.html#fnt1




















1-2

not proseuted y the real partiesininterest, as there is no showin! that the petitioners have een 5udiially delared as Ma!dalenoEs lawful heirs+10

"he R"# Rulin!

On July 2, 2011, the R"# issued the assailed July 2, 2011 Order,11

findin! that the su5eto$plaint failed to state a ause of ation a!ainst audioso+ <t oserved that while the plaintiffstherein had estalished their relationship with Ma!daleno in a previous speial proeedin! forthe issuane of letters of ad$inistration,12 this did not $ean that they ould already e onsideredas the deedentEs o$pulsory heirs+ uite the ontrary, audioso satisfatorily estalished thefat that he is Ma!dalenoEs son F and hene, his o$pulsory heir F throu!h the dou$entaryevidene he su$itted whih onsisted of> 'a( a $arria!e ontrat etween Ma!daleno andpe!enia van!elistaB '( a #ertifiate of /ive %irthB '( a /etter dated eruary 19, 1960B and'd( a passport+13

"he plaintiffs therein filed a $otion for reonsideration whih was, however, denied on Au!ust

31, 2011 due to the ounselEs failure to state the date on whih his Mandatory #ontinuin! /e!alduation #ertifiate of #o$pliane was issued+14

A!!rieved, petitioners, who were a$on! the plaintiffs in #ivil #ase *o+ "2246,1- sou!ht diretreourse to the #ourt throu!h the instant petition+

"he <ssue %efore the #ourt

"he ore of the present ontroversy revolves around the issue of whether or not the R"#Esdis$issal of the ase on the !round that the su5et o$plaint failed to state a ause of ation was proper+

"he #ourtEs Rulin!

"he petition has no $erit+

#ause of ation is defined as the at or o$ission y whih a party violates a ri!ht of another +16 <tis wellsettled that the eistene of a ause of ation is deter$ined y the alle!ations in theo$plaint+1 <n this relation, a o$plaint is said to assert a suffiient ause of ation if, ad$ittin!what appears solely on its fae to e orret, the plaintiff would e entitled to the relief prayedfor +1&Aordin!ly, if the alle!ations furnish suffiient asis y whih the o$plaint an e$aintained, the sa$e should not e dis$issed, re!ardless of the defenses that $ay e averred y

the defendants+

19

As stated in the su5et o$plaint, petitioners, who were a$on! the plaintiffs therein, alle!edthat they are the lawful heirs of Ma!daleno and ased on the sa$e, prayed that the Affidavit ofelfAd5udiation eeuted y audioso e delared null and void and that the transferertifiates of title issued in the latterEs favor e anelled+ hile the fore!oin! alle!ations, ifad$itted to e true, would onse;uently warrant the reliefs sou!ht for in the said o$plaint, therule that the deter$ination of a deedentEs lawful heirs should e $ade in the orrespondin!



























1-4

that the R"# erred in rulin! on audiosoEs heirship whih should, as herein disussed, ethreshed out and deter$ined in the proper speial proeedin!+ As suh, the fore!oin! pronoune$ent should therefore e devoid of any le!al effet+

)ROR, the petition is 8*<8+ "he dis$issal of #ivil #ase *o+ "2246 is herey

A<RM8, without pre5udie to any suse;uent proeedin! to deter$ine the lawful heirs of thelate Ma!daleno Npon and the ri!hts ono$itant therewith+

O OR8R8+

REP4BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

7etitioner,

versus F

MA1 IMELDA IMEE R1 MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINANDBONGBONG R1 MARCOS, 3R1,

GREGORIO MA1 ARANETA III, IRENER1 MARCOS-ARANETA, YE4NG CH4NFAN, YE4NG CH4N HO, YE4NG CH4NAM, an( PANTRANCO EMPLOYEESASSOCIATION PEA-PTG0O, Respondents+

G1 R1 N!1 8989@8

7resent>

%R<O*, % +,Q

Atin! #hairperson, H<//ARAMA, JR+,Q

7RI, R*O, and

RN, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

eruary &, 2012

/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

%efore this #ourt is a 7etition for Review filed y the Repuli of the 7hilippinesassailin! the Resolutions?1@ issued y the andi!anayan in onnetion with an alle!ed portion of the MarosesE supposed ill!otten wealth+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/171701.htm#_ftn1










1--

"his ase involves 7200 illion of the MarosesE alle!ed au$ulated ill!otten wealth+ <talso inludes the alle!ed use of the $edia networ.s <%#13, %%#2 and R7*9 for the Marosfa$ilyEs personal enefitB the alle!ed use of 8e oleil Apparel for dollar saltin!B and the alle!edille!al a;uisition and operation of the us o$pany 7antrano *orth press, <n+ '7antrano(+

The Facts After the 8A 7eople 7ower Revolution in 19&6, the first eeutive at of then

7resident #ora=on #+ A;uino was to reate the 7residential #o$$ission on ood overn$ent'7#(+ 7ursuant to eutive Order *o+ 1, the 7# was !iven the followin! $andate>

e+ 2+ "he #o$$ission shall e har!ed with the tas. of assistin! the 7residentin re!ard to the followin! $atters>

'a( "he reovery of all ill!otten wealth au$ulated y for$er 7residenterdinand + Maros, his i$$ediate fa$ily, relatives, suordinates andlose assoiates, whether loated in the 7hilippines or aroad, inludin!

the ta.eover or se;uestration of all usiness enterprises and entities ownedor ontrolled y the$, durin! his ad$inistration, diretly or throu!hno$inees, y ta.in! undue advanta!e of their puli offie andGor usin!their powers, authority, influene, onnetions or relationship+

'( "he investi!ation of suh ases of !raft and orruption as the 7resident$ay assi!n to the #o$$ission fro$ ti$e to ti$e+

'( "he adoption of safe!uards to ensure that the aove praties shall not e repeated in any $anner under the new !overn$ent, and the institutionof ade;uate $easures to prevent the ourrene of orruption+

e+ 3+ "he #o$$ission shall have the power and authority>

'a( "o ondut investi!ation as $ay e neessary in order to ao$plishand arry out the purposes of this order+

'( "o se;uester or plae or ause to e plaed under its ontrol or possession any uildin! or offie wherein any ill!otten wealth or properties $ay e found, and any reords pertainin! thereto, in order to prevent their destrution, oneal$ent or disappearane whih wouldfrustrate or ha$per the investi!ation or otherwise prevent the #o$$issionfro$ ao$plishin! its tas.+

'( "o provisionally ta.e over in the puli interest or to prevent itsdisposal or dissipation, usiness enterprises and properties ta.en over y

the !overn$ent of the Maros Ad$inistration or y entities or personslose to for$er 7resident Maros, until the transations leadin! to suha;uisition y the latter an e disposed of y the appropriate authorities+

'd( "o en5oin or restrain any atual or threatened o$$ission of fats yany person or entity that $ay render $oot and aade$i, or frustrate, or otherwise $a.e ineffetual the efforts of the #o$$ission to arry out itstas.s under this order+



1-6

'e( "o ad$inister oaths, and issue supoena re;uirin! the attendane andtesti$ony of witnesses andGor the prodution of suh oo.s, papers,ontrats, reords, state$ent of aounts and other dou$ents as $ay e$aterial to the investi!ation onduted y the #o$$ission+

'f( "o hold any person in diret or indiret onte$pt and i$pose the

appropriate penalties, followin! the sa$e proedures and penalties provided in the Rules of #ourt+

'!( "o see. and seure the assistane of any offie, a!eny or instru$entality of the !overn$ent+

'h( "o pro$ul!ate suh rules and re!ulations as $ay e neessary to arryout the purpose of this order+

"hus, nu$erous ivil and ri$inal ases were suse;uently filed+ One of the ivil asesfiled efore the andi!anayan to reover the MarosesE alle!ed ill!otten wealth was #ivil #ase *o+ 0002, now su5et of this 7etition+

On 16 July 19&, the 7#, atin! on ehalf of the Repuli and assisted y the Offieof the oliitor eneral 'O(, filed a #o$plaint for Reversion, Reonveyane, Restitution,Aountin! and 8a$a!es a!ainst erdinand + Maros, who was later sustituted y his estateupon his deathB <$elda R+ MarosB and herein respondents <$ee MarosManoto, <rene MarosAraneta, %on!on! Maros, "o$as Manoto, and re!orio Araneta <<<+

On 1 Otoer 19&, the 7# filed an a$ended #o$plaint to add #onstante Ruio asdefendant+

A!ain on 9 eruary 19&&, it a$ended the #o$plaint, this ti$e to inlude as defendants

*e$esio + #o and herein respondents Neun! #hun Pa$, Neun! #hun )o, and Neun! #hunan+

or the third ti$e, on 23 April 1990, the 7# a$ended its #o$plaint, addin! to its!rowin! list of defendants <$elda #o5uan!o, the estate of Ra$on #o5uan!o, and 7ri$e)oldin!s, <n+?2@

"he 7# filed a fourth a$ended #o$plaint, whih was later denied y theandi!anayan in its Resolution dated 2 epte$er 199&+

"he alle!ations ontained in the #o$plaint speifi to herein respondents are thefollowin!>?3@

29+ 8efendants <$elda '<M( R+ MarosManoto, "o$as Manoto,<rene R+ Manoto 'si( Araneta, re!orio Ma+ Araneta <<<, and erdinand R+Maros, Jr+, atively ollaorated, with 8efendants erdinand + Maros and<$elda R+ Maros a$on! others, in onfisatin! andGor unlawfully appropriatin!funds and other property, and in onealin! the sa$e as desried aove+ <naddition, eah of the said 8efendants, either y ta.in! undue advanta!e of their relationship with 8efendants erdinand + Maros and <$elda R+ Maros, or y







1-

reason of the aovedesried ative ollaoration, unlawfully a;uired or reeived property, shares of sto.s in orporations, ille!al pay$ents suh aso$$issions, ries or .i.a.s, and other for$s of i$proper privile!es,ino$e, revenues and enefits+ 8efendant Araneta in partiular $ade use of Asialand 8evelop$ent #orporation whih is inluded in Anne A: hereof as

orporate vehile to enefit in the $anner stated aove+ 31+ 8efendants *e$esio + #o, Neun! #hun Pa$, Neun! #hun )o and

Neun! #hun an are the ontrollin! sto.holders of lorious un ashionManufaturin! #orporation '7hils+(+ "hrou!h lorious un '7hils+(, they ated asfronts or du$$ies, ronies or otherwise willin! tools of spouses erdinand and<$elda Maros andGor the fa$ily, partiularly of 8efendant <$elda '<$ee(MarosManoto, in the ille!al saltin! of forei!n ehan!e?4@ y i$portin! deni$faris fro$ only one supplier F a )on! Pon! ased orporation whih was alsoowned and ontrolled y defendant )on! Pon! investors, at pries $uh hi!her than those ein! paid y other users of si$ilar $aterials to the !rave and

irreparale da$a!e of 7laintiff+

"hus, petitioner set forth the followin! auses of ation in its #o$plaint>?-@

32+ irst #ause of Ation> %RA#) O 7K%/<# "RK" F A puli

offie is a puli trust+ %y o$$ittin! all the ats desried aove, 8efendantsrepeatedly reahed puli trust and the law, $a.in! the$ liale solidarily to7laintiff+ "he funds and other property a;uired y 8efendants followin!, or as aresult of, their reah of puli trust, so$e of whih are $entioned or desriedaove, esti$ated to a$ount to U200 illion are dee$ed to have een a;uired for the enefit of 7laintiff and are, therefore, i$pressed with onstrutive trust in

favor of 7laintiff and the ilipino people+ #onse;uently, 8efendants are solidarilyliale to restore or reonvey to 7laintiff all suh funds and property thusi$pressed with onstrutive trust for the enefit of 7laintiff and the ilipino people+

33+ eond #ause of Ation> A%K O R<)" A*8 7OR F

'a( 8efendants, in perpetratin! the unlawful ats desried aove,o$$itted ause of ri!ht and power whih aused untold $isery, sufferin!s andda$a!es to 7laintiff+ 8efendants violated, a$on! others Artiles 19, 20, and 21 of the #ivil #ode of the 7hilippinesB

'( As a result of the fore!oin! ats, 8efendants a;uired the title to the enefiial interest in funds and other property and onealed suh title, funds andinterest throu!h the use of relatives, usiness assoiates, no$inees, a!ents, or du$$ies+ 8efendants are, therefore, solidarily liale to 7laintiff to return andreonvey all suh funds and other property unlawfully a;uired y the$ esti$atedat "O )K*8R8 %<//<O* 7O, or alternatively, to pay 7laintiff,solidarily, y way of inde$nity, the da$a!e aused to 7laintiff e;uivalent to the







1-&

a$ount of suh funds or the value of other property not returned or restored to7laintiff, plus interest thereon fro$ the date of unlawful a;uisition until full pay$ent thereof+

34+ "hird #ause of Ation> K*JK" *R<#)M*" F

8efendants ille!ally au$ulated funds and other property whoseesti$ated value is U200 illion in violation of the laws of the 7hilippines and in reah of their offiial funtions and fiduiary oli!ations+ 8efendants, therefore,have un5ustly enrihed the$selves to the !rave and irreparale da$a!e and pre5udie of 7laintiff+ 8efendants have an oli!ation at law, independently of reah of trust and ause of ri!ht and power, and as an alternative, to solidarilyreturn to 7laintiff suh funds and other property with whih 8efendants, in !rossevident ad faith, have un5ustly enrihed the$selves or, in default thereof, restoreto 7laintiff the a$ount of suh funds and the value of the other property inludin!those whih $ay have een wasted, andGor lost esti$ated at U200 illion withinterest thereon fro$ the date of unlawful a;uisition until full pay$ent thereof+

3-+ ourth #ause of Ation> A##OK*"<* F

"he #o$$ission, atin! pursuant to the provisions of the appliale law, elieve that 8efendants, atin! sin!ly or olletively, in unlawful onert withone another, and with the ative ollaoration of third persons, su5et of separatesuits, a;uired funds, assets and property durin! the inu$eny of 8efendant puli offiers, $anifestly out of proportion to their salaries, to their other lawfulino$e and ino$e fro$ le!iti$ately a;uired property+ #onse;uently, they arere;uired to show to the satisfation of this )onorale #ourt that they havelawfully a;uired all suh funds, assets and property whih are in eess of their le!al net ino$e, and for this )onorale #ourt to deree that the 8efendants areunder oli!ation to aount to 7laintiff with respet to all le!al or enefiialinterests in funds, properties and assets of whatever .ind and wherever loated ineess of the lawful earnin!s or lawful ino$e fro$ le!iti$ately a;uired property+

36+ ifth #ause of Ation F /<A%</<"N OR 8AMA F

'a( %y reason of the unlawful ats set forth aove, 7laintiff and theilipino people have suffered atual da$a!es in an a$ount representin! the peuniary loss sustained y the latter as a result of the 8efendantsE unlawful ats,the approi$ate value and interest of whih, fro$ the ti$e of their wron!ful

a;uisition, are esti$ated at U200 illion plus epenses whih 7laintiff has eeno$pelled to inur and shall ontinue to inur in its effort to reover 8efendantsEill!otten wealth all over the world, whih epenses are reasonaly esti$ated atU2-0 $illion+ 8efendants are, therefore, 5ointly and severally liale to 7laintiff for atual da$a!es in an a$ount reasonaly esti$ated at U200 %illion 7esos andto rei$urse epenses for reovery of 8efendantsE ill!otten wealth esti$ated toost U2-0 $illion or in suh a$ount as are proven durin! the trial+



1-9

'( As a result of 8efendantsE ats desried aove, 7laintiff and theilipino people had painfully endured and suffered $oral da$a!es for $ore thantwenty lon! years, an!uish, fri!ht, sleepless ni!hts, serious aniety, woundedfeelin!s and $oral sho. as well as es$irhed reputation and soial hu$iliation efore the international o$$unity+

'( <n addition, 7laintiff and the ilipino people are entitled to te$perateda$a!es for their sufferin!s whih, y their very nature are inapale of peuniary esti$ation, ut whih this )onorale #ourt $ay deter$ine in theeerise of its sound disretion+

'd( 8efendants, y reason of the aove desried unlawful ats, haveviolated and invaded the inalienale ri!ht of 7laintiff and the ilipino people to afair and deent way of life efittin! a *ation with rih natural and hu$anresoures+ "his asi and funda$ental ri!ht of 7laintiff and the ilipino peopleshould e reo!ni=ed and vindiated y awardin! no$inal da$a!es in an a$ountto e deter$ined y the )onorale #ourt in the eerise of its sound disretion+

'e( %y way of ea$ple and orretion for the puli !ood and in order toensure that 8efendantsE unlawful, $aliious, i$$oral and wanton ats are notrepeated, said 8efendants are solidarily liale to 7laintiff for ee$plary da$a!es+

<n the $eanti$e, the 7antrano $ployees Assoiation7"O '7A7"O(, aunion of 7antrano e$ployees, $oved to intervene efore the andi!anayan+ "he for$er alle!ed that the trust funds in the aount of 7antrano *orth press, <n+ '7antrano(a$ountin! to U-- $illion ri!htfully elon!ed to the 7antrano e$ployees, pursuant to the$oney 5ud!$ent the *ational /aor Relations #o$$ission '*/R#( awarded in favor of thee$ployees and a!ainst 7antrano+ "hus, 7A7"O ontested the alle!ation of petitioner that

the assets of 7antrano were ill!otten eause, otherwise, these assets would e returned to the!overn$ent and not to the e$ployees+

"hereafter, petitioner presented and for$ally offered its evidene a!ainst hereinrespondents+ )owever, the latter o5eted to the offer pri$arily on the !round that the dou$entsviolated the est evidene rule of the Rules of #ourt, as these dou$ents were unauthentiatedB$oreover, petitioner had not provided any reason for its failure to present the ori!inals+

On 11 Marh 2002, the andi!anayan issued a Resolution ?6@ ad$ittin! the piees of evidene while epressin! so$e reservation, to wit>

0HEREFORE, ta.in! note of the o5etions of aused Maroses andthe reply thereto y the plaintiff, all the dou$entary ehiits for$ally offered ythe proseution are herey ad$itted in evideneB however, their evidentiary valueshall e left to the deter$ination of the #ourt+

SO ORDERED+





160

<$elda R+ MarosB <$ee MarosManoto and %on!on! Maros, Jr+B <rene MarosAraneta and re!orio Ma+ Araneta <<<B Neun! #hun Pa$, Neun! #hun )o and Neun! #hun anBand the 7A7"O suse;uently filed their respetive 8e$urrers to videne+

On 6 8ee$er 200-, the andi!anayan issued the assailed Resolution,?@ whih !ranted

all the 8e$urrers to videne eept the one filed y <$elda R+ Maros+ "he dispositive portionreads>

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the 8e$urrer to videne filed ydefendant <$elda R+ Maros is herey DENIED+ "he 8e$urrer to videne filed y defendants Maria <$elda Maros Manoto, erdinand Maros, Jr+, <reneMaros Araneta, re!orio Maria Araneta <<<, Neun! #hun Pa$, Neun! #hun an,Neun! #hun )o, and intervenor 7A7"O, are herey GRANTED+ "hese;uestration orders on the properties in the na$e of defendant re!orio MariaAraneta <<<, are aordin!ly ordered lifted+

SO ORDERED1

"he andi!anayan denied <$elda R+ MarosE 8e$urrer pri$arily eause she had

ate!orially ad$itted that she and her husand owned properties enu$erated in the #o$plaint,while statin! that these properties had een lawfully a;uired+ "he ourt held that the evidene presented y petitioner onstituted a prima facie ase a!ainst her, onsiderin! that the value of the properties involved was !rossly disproportionate to the Maros spousesE lawful ino$e+"hus, this ad$ission and the fat that <$elda R+ Maros was the o$pulsory heir andad$inistratri of the Maros estate were the pri$ary reasons why the ourt held that she wasresponsile for aountin! for the funds and properties alle!ed to e ill!otten+

eondly, the ourt pointed out that Rolando apud, whose deposition was ta.en in )on!

Pon!, referred to her as one diretly involved in a$assin! ill!otten wealth+ "he ourt alsoonsidered the o$pro$ise a!ree$ent etween petitioner and Antonio O+ loirendo, whodislosed that he had perfor$ed several usiness transations upon the instrutions of the Marosspouses+

ith re!ard to the silin!s <$ee MarosManoto and %on!on! Maros, Jr+, the ourtnoted that their involve$ent in the alle!ed ille!al ativities was never estalished+ <n fat, theywere never $entioned y any of the witnesses presented+ *either did the dou$entary evidene pinpoint any speifi involve$ent of the Maros hildren+

Moreover, the ourt held that the evidene, in partiular, ehiits7,:?&@ ,:?9@ R,:?10@ ,:?11@ and ",:?12@ were onsidered hearsay, eause their ori!inals were not presented in ourt, nor were they authentiated y the persons who eeuted the$+ urther$ore,the ourt pointed out that petitioner failed to provide any valid reason why it did not present theori!inals in ourt+ "hese ehiits were supposed to show the interests of <$ee MarosManoto. in the $edia networ.s <%#13, %%#2 and R7*9, all three of whih she had alle!edly a;uiredille!ally+ "hese ehiits also sou!ht to prove her alle!ed partiipation in dollar saltin! throu!h8e oleil Apparel+















161

inally, the ourt held that the relationship of respondents to the Maros spouses was notenou!h reason to hold the for$er liale+

<n the $atter of the spouses <rene Maros and re!orio Araneta <<<, the ourt si$ilarlyheld that there was no testi$onial or dou$entary evidene that supported petitionerEs

alle!ations a!ainst the ouple+ A!ain, petitioner failed to present the ori!inal dou$ents thatsupposedly supported the alle!ations a!ainst the$+ <nstead, it $erely presented photoopies of dou$ents that sou!ht to prove how the Maroses used the 7otenianos ?13@ as du$$ies ina;uirin! and operatin! the us o$pany 7antrano+

Meanwhile, as far as the Neun!s were onerned, the ourt found the alle!ations a!ainstthe$ aseless+ 7etitioner failed to de$onstrate how their usiness, lorious un ashionar$ents Manufaturin!, #o+ 7hils+ 'lorious un(, was used as a vehile for dollar saltin!B or to show that they the$selves were du$$ies of the Maroses+ A!ain, the ourt held that thedou$entary evidene relevant to this alle!ation was inad$issile for ein! $ere photoopies,and that the affiants had not een presented as witnesses+

inally, the ourt also !ranted the 8e$urrer filed y 7A7"O+ hile the ourt heldthat there was no evidene to show that 7antrano was ille!ally a;uired, the for$er neverthelessheld that there was a need to first deter$ine the ownership of the disputed funds efore theyould e ordered released to the ri!htful owner+

On 20 8ee$er 200-, petitioner filed its Motion for 7artial Reonsideration, insistin!that there was a preponderane of evidene to show that respondents Maros silin!s andre!orio Araneta <<< had onnived with their parents in a;uirin! ill!otten wealth+ <t pointed outthat respondents were o$pulsory heirs to the deposed 7resident and were thus oli!ed to render an aountin! and to return the ill!otten wealth+

Moreover, petitioner asserted that the evidene estalished that the Neun!s were du$$iesof the Maroses, and that the 7antrano assets were part of the MarosesE alle!ed ill!ottenwealth+

inally, petitioner ;uestioned the ourtEs rulin! that the evidene previously ad$itted waslater held to e inad$issile in evidene a!ainst respondents, thus, deprivin! the for$er of due proess+

<nadvertently, petitioner was not ale to serve a opy of the $otion on respondents <$eeMarosManoto and %on!on! Maros, Jr+ %ut upon reali=in! the oversi!ht, it i$$ediately didso and filed the orrespondin! Manifestation and Motion efore the ourt+ *onetheless, this

inadvertene pro$pted <$ee MarosManoto and %on!on! Maros, Jr+ to file their Motion for ntry of Jud!$ent+

On 2 Marh 2006, the ourt issued the seond assailed Resolution, ?14@ denyin! petitionerEsMotion+ "he ourt pointed out its reservation in its Resolution dated 12 Marh 2002, wherein itsaid that it would still assess and wei!h the evidentiary value of the ad$itted evidene+urther$ore, it said that even if it inluded the testi$onies of petitionerEs witnesses, these werenot sustantial to hold respondents liale+ "hus, the ourt said>








162

0HEREFORE, there ein! no suffiient reason to set aside theresolution dated 8ee$er 6, 200-, the plaintiffEs Motion for Partial

Reconsideration is herey DENIED+ "he plaintiffEs Motion and Manifestation dated January 1&, 2006 is GRANTED in the interest of 5ustie+"he Motion for Entry of %ud)ment filed y defendants <$ee Maros and

%on!on! Maros is DENIED+ SO ORDERED+

)ene, this 7etition+ 7etitioner raises the sa$e issues it raised in its Motion for Reonsideration filed efore

the andi!anayan, to wit>?1-@

<+ ") A*8<A*%ANA* RR8 <* RA*"<* ")8MKRRR "O H<8*# </8 %N R7O*8*" MA+

<M/8A '<M( R+ MAR#O A*8 R8<*A*8 '%O*%O*( R+MAR#O, JR+, #O*<8R<* ")A" MOR ")A*7R7O*8RA*" H<8*# O* R#OR8 #/AR/N8MO*"RA" ")<R #O**<HA*# <") ORMR 7R<8*" R8<*A*8 + MAR#O A*8 O")R MAR#O8KMM< A*8 A%K8 ")<R 7OR A*8 <*/K*# <*K*/AK//N AMA<* K*8 ROM ") *A"<O*A/"RAKRN+

<<+ 7"<"<O* 7ROH8, %N MOR ")A* 7R7O*8RA*"

H<8*#, ")A" R7O*8*"7OK ROR<O ARA*"A

<<< A*8 <R* MAR#O ARA*"A #O**<H8 <") ORMR 7R<8*" MAR#O <* K*/AK//N A#K<R<* %K<*<*"R" )<#) AR RO/N 8<A8HA*"AOK "O ")OHR*M*", A*8 <* A MA**R 7RO)<%<"8 K*8R ")#O*"<"K"<O* A*8 A*"<RA" "A"K"+

<<<+ R7O*8*" <M, %O*%O*, A*8 <R* MAR#O AR#OM7K/ORN )<R O ORMR 7R<8*" MAR#O A*8AR KA//N O%/<8 "O R*8R A* A##OK*"<* A*8R"KR* ") A//8 <//O""* A/") O ")MAR#O+

<H+ ")R L<" #O*#R" H<8*# 7ROH<* ")A"R7O*8*" NK* #)K* PAM, NK* #)K* A*, A*8NK* #)K* )O A#"8 A 8KMM< OR ") MAR#O,A*8 K8 ") #OR7ORA"<O*, /OR<OK K*, A A #O*8K<"<* AMA<* ") <//O""* A/")+ A##OR8<*/N, ")A*8<A*%ANA* RR8 <* RA*"<* ")<R 8MKRRR "OH<8*#+





163

H+ ") 8MKRRR "O H<8*# </8 %N <*"RH*OR

7A7"O <") R7#" "O ") 7A*"RA*#O A")OK/8 *O" )AH %* RA*"8 <*# AM7/ H<8*#7ROH ")A" ") A<8 A" <*8K%<"A%/N ORM 7AR" O

") MAR#O <//O""* A/"), A %K""R8 %N ")A#" ")A" *O JK8<#<A/ 8"RM<*A"<O* )A %* MA8 A"O )OM ") A" R<)"K//N %/O*+

H<+ ") A*8<A*%ANA*E RK/<* )<#) RJ#"8

7<"<"O*RE 8O#KM*"ARN L)<%<" A//8/N OR %<* <*A8M<<%/: 8<R#"/N #O*"RA8<#" <" AR/<R RK/<* A8M<""<* A// A<8 8O#KM*"ARN H<8*# A*8A R*8R8 <* A MA**R ")A" 87R<H8 7"<"<O*RER<)" "O 8K 7RO# O /A+

"here is so$e $erit in petitionerEs ontention+

#he &arcos Siblings and

+regorio (raneta 000

#losely analy=in! petitionerEs #o$plaint and the present 7etition for Review, it is lear that the Maros silin!s are ein! sued in two apaities> first, as oonspirators in the alle!edau$ulation of ill!otten wealthB and seond, as the o$pulsory heirs of their father, erdinand+ Maros+?16@

ith re!ard to the first alle!ation, as ontained in para!raph 29 of its "hird A$ended#o$plaint ;uoted aove, petitioner aused the Maros silin!s of havin! ollaorated with, partiipated in, andGor enefitted fro$ their parentsE alle!ed au$ulation of ill!otten wealth+ <n partiular, as far as <$ee MarosManoto was onerned, she was aused of dollar saltin! yusin! lorious un to i$port deni$ faris fro$ one supplier at pries $uh hi!her than those paid y other users of si$ilar $aterials+ <t was also alle!ed that the Maroses personally enefitted fro$ the se;uestered $edia networ.s <%#13, %%#2, and R7*9, in whih <$eeMaros had a sustantial interest+

<rene MarosAraneta, on the other hand, was aused of havin! onspired with her husand, respondent re!orio Araneta <<<, in his ein! 7resident MarosE onduit to 7antrano,

therey pavin! the way for the 7residentEs ownership of the o$pany in violation of Artile H<<,etion 4, para!raph 2 of the 193 #onstitution+?1@

"o prove the !eneral alle!ations a!ainst the Maros silin!s, petitioner pri$arily reliedon the worn tate$ent?1&@ and the 8eposition?19@ of one of the finanial advisors of 7residentMaros, Rolando #+ apud, ta.en in )on! Pon! on various dates+











164

Meanwhile, to prove the partiipation and interests of <$ee MarosManoto in 8e oleilApparel and the $edia networ.s, petitioner relied on the Affidavits of Ra$on + Mon=on,?20@ Neun! Pwo. Nin!,?21@ and Rodolfo H+ 7unoB?22@ and the transript of steno!raphi notes '"*(ta.en durin! the 7# hearin! held on & June 19&+?23@

As to spouses <rene MarosAraneta and re!orio Araneta <<<, petitioner su$itted theArtiles of <norporation of *orthern press "ransport, <n+B?24@ the Me$orandu$ of A!ree$ent?2-@ and the 7urhase A!ree$ent?26@ etween 7antrano and %atan!as /a!una "ayaas%us #o$pany, <n+ '%/"%#o+(B the #onfidential Me$orandu$ re!ardin! the sale of the7antrano assetsB?2@ the Affidavit?2&@ and the letter to the 7#?29@ of 8olores A+ 7oteniano,owner of %/"%#o+B the Affidavit?30@ and the Me$orandu$?31@ of duardo a5ardo, who was thenthe enior Hie7resident of the Aount Mana!e$ent roup of the 7hilippine *ational %an. '7*%(, whih was in turn the reditor for the 7antrano saleB and the Affidavit of lorenio 7+/uio, who was the enior Aount peialist of the *ational <nvest$ent and 8evelop$ent#orporation+?32@

7etitioner ontends that these dou$ents fall under the RuleEs third eeption, that is,these dou$ents are puli reords in the ustody of a puli offier or are reorded in a pulioffie+ <t is its theory that sine these dou$ents were olleted y the 7#, then, neessarily,the onditions for the eeption to apply had een $et+ Alternatively, it asserts that thedou$ents were offered to prove not only the truth of the reitals of the dou$ents, ut also of other eternal or ollateral fats+:?33@

The C!$ts R$*in#

etitioner failed to observe the

best evidence rule.

<t is petitionerEs urden to prove the alle!ations in its #o$plaint+ or relief to e !ranted,

the operative at on how and in what $anner the Maros silin!s partiipated in andGor enefitted fro$ the ats of the Maros ouple $ust e learly shown throu!h a preponderane of evidene+ hould petitioner fail to dishar!e this urden, the #ourt is onstrained and is left withno hoie ut to uphold the 8e$urrer to videne filed y respondents+

irst, petitioner does not deny that what should e proved are the ontents of thedou$ents the$selves+ <t is i$perative, therefore, to su$it the ori!inal dou$ents that ould prove petitionerEs alle!ations+

"hus, the photoopied dou$ents are in violation Rule 130, e+ 3 of the Rules of #ourt,otherwise .nown as the est evidene rule, whih $andates that the evidene $ust e theori!inal dou$ent itself+ "he ori!in of the est evidene rule an e found and traed to as earlyas the 1&th entury in 0mychund v. Bar+er ,?34@ wherein the #ourt of #hanery said>

"he 5ud!es and sa!es of the law have laid it down that thee is '$t !ne#enea* $*e !% e&i(ence, the best that the nature of the case will ad*it +



































16-

The $*e is, that i% the witin#s ha&e s$'sci'in# witnesses t! the.,the) .$st 'e "!&e( ') th!se witnesses1

"he first !round 5ud!es have !one upon in departin! fro$ strit rules, isan asolute strit neessity+ #econdly, a presu$ed neessity+ <n the ase of writin!s, susried y witnesses, if all are dead, the proof of one of their hands issuffiient to estalish the deed> where an ori!inal is lost, a opy $ay e ad$ittedBif no opy, then a proof y witnesses who have heard the deed, and yet it is a thin!the law ahors to ad$it the $e$ory of $an for evidene+

7etitioner did not even atte$pt to provide a plausile reason why the ori!inals were not presented, or any o$pellin! !round why the ourt should ad$it these dou$ents as seondaryevidene asent the testi$ony of the witnesses who had eeuted the$+

<n partiular, it $ay not insist that the photoopies of the dou$ents fall under e+ of

Rule 130, whih states> Evidence admissi"le 'hen ori)inal document is a pu"lic record. F hen

the ori!inal of a dou$ent is in the ustody of a puli offier or is reorded in a puli offie, its ontents $ay e proved e a ertified opy issued y the pulioffier in ustody thereof+

es+ 19 and 20 of Rule 132 provide>

#"<O* 19+ *lasses of documents+ F or the purpose of their presentation inevidene, dou$ents are either puli or private+

7uli dou$ents are>'a( "he written offiial ats, or reords of the offiial ats of the

soverei!n authority, offiial odies and triunals, and puli offiers,whether of the 7hilippines, or of a forei!n ountryB

'( 8ou$ents a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli eept last willsand testa$entsB and

'( 7uli reords, .ept in the 7hilippines, of private dou$ents re;uired y law to e entered therein+

All other writin!s are private+

#"<O* 20+ Proof of private document + S %efore any private dou$ent offeredas authenti is reeived in evidene, its due eeution and authentiity $ust e proved either>

'a( %y anyone who saw the dou$ent eeuted or writtenB or

'( %y evidene of the !enuineness of the si!nature or handwritin! of the $a.er+



166

Any other private dou$ent need only e identified as that whih it islai$ed to e+

"he fat that these dou$ents were olleted y the 7# in the ourse of itsinvesti!ations does not $a.e the$ per se puli reords referred to in the ;uoted rule+

7etitioner presented as witness its reords offier, Maria /ourdes Ma!no, who testified

that these puli and private dou$ents had een !athered y and ta.en into the ustody of the7# in the ourse of the #o$$issionEs investi!ation of the alle!ed ill!otten wealth of theMaroses+ )owever, !iven the purposes for whih these dou$ents were su$itted, Ma!no wasnot a redile witness who ould testify as to their ontents+ "o reiterate, ?i@f the writin!s havesusriin! witnesses to the$, they $ust e proved y those witnesses+: itnesses an testifyonly to those fats whih are of their personal .nowled!eB that is, those derived fro$ their own pereption+?3-@ "hus, Ma!no ould only testify as to how she otained ustody of thesedou$ents, ut not as to the ontents of the dou$ents the$selves+

*either did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these Affidavits or Me$orandasu$itted to the ourt+ %asi is the rule that, while affidavits $ay e onsidered as pulidou$ents if they are a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli, these Affidavits are still lassified ashearsay evidene+ "he reason for this rule is that they are not !enerally prepared y the affiant, ut y another one who uses his or her own lan!ua!e in writin! the affiantDs state$ents, parts of whih $ay thus e either o$itted or $isunderstood y the one writin! the$+ Moreover, theadverse party is deprived of the opportunity to rossea$ine the affiants+ or this reason,affidavits are !enerally re5eted for ein! hearsay, unless the affiants the$selves are plaed onthe witness stand to testify thereon+?36@

As to the opy of the "* of the proeedin!s efore the 7#, while it $ay e

onsidered as a puli dou$ent sine it was ta.en in the ourse of the 7#Es eerise of its$andate, it was not attested to y the le!al ustodian to e a orret opy of the ori!inal+ "hiso$ission falls short of the re;uire$ent of Rule 132, es+ 24 and 2- of the Rules of #ourt+ ?3@

<n su$$ary, we adopt the rulin! of the andi!anayan, to wit>

urther, a!ain ontrary to the theory of the plaintiff, the presentation of theori!inals of the aforesaid ehiits is not validly eepted under Rule 130, etion3 'a(, '(, and 'd( of the Rules of #ourt+ Knder para!raph 'd(, when Wthe ori!inaldou$ent is a puli reord in the ustody of a puli offier or is reorded in a puli offie,E presentation of the ori!inal thereof is eepted+ )owever, as earlier oserved, all eept one of the ehiits introdued y the plaintiff were notneessarily puli dou$ents+ "he transript of steno!raphi notes '"*( of the proeedin!s purportedly efore the 7#, the plaintiffEs ehiit :, $ay e a puli dou$ent, ut what was presented y the plaintiff was a $ere photoopyof the purported "*+ "he Rules provide that when the ori!inal dou$ent is inthe ustody of a puli offier or is reorded in a puli offie, its ontents $ay e proved y a ertified opy issued y the puli offier in ustody thereof+ hiit: was not a ertified opy and it was not even si!ned y the steno!rapher whosupposedly too. down the proeedin!s+










16

"he rest of the aove$entioned ehiits annot li.ewise e eeptedunder para!raphs 'a( and '( of etion 3+ etion - of the sa$e Rule providesthat Wwhen the ori!inal dou$ents has een lost or destroyed, or annot e produed in ourt, the offeror, upon proof of its eeution or eistene and theause of its unavailaility without ad faith on his part, $ay prove its ontents y

a opy, or y a reital of its ontents in so$e authenti dou$ent, or y thetesti$ony of witnesses in the order stated+E "hus, in order that seondary evidene$ay e ad$issile, there $ust e proof y satisfatory evidene of '1( dueeeution of the ori!inalB '2( loss, destrution or unavailaility of all suhori!inals and '3( reasonale dili!ene and !ood faith in the searh for or atte$ptto produe the ori!inal+ *one of these re;uire$ents were o$plied with y the plaintiff+ i$ilar to ehiit WE, ehiits W7E, WRE, WE, and W"E were all photoopies+ W7E, WRE, and W"E were affidavits of persons who did not testify eforethe #ourt+ hiit WE is a letter whih is learly a private dou$ent+ *ot onlydoes it not fall within the eeptions of etion 3, it is also a $ere photoopy+ Ase previously e$phasi=ed, even if ori!inals of these affidavits were presented,

they would still e onsidered hearsay evidene if the affiants do not testify andidentify the$+?3&@

"hus, asent any onvinin! evidene to hold otherwise, it follows that petitioner failedto prove that the Maros silin!s and re!orio Araneta <<< ollaorated with for$er 7residentMaros and <$elda R+ Maros and partiipated in the first oupleEs alle!ed au$ulation of ill!otten wealth insofar as the speifi alle!ations herein were onerned+

#he &arcos siblings are co*pulsor) heirs.

"o reiterate, in its third A$ended #o$plaint, petitioner prays that the Maros respondents

e $ade to '1( pay for the value of the alle!ed ill!otten wealth with interest fro$ the date of a;uisitionB '2( render a o$plete aountin! and inventory of all funds and other piees of property le!ally or enefiially held andGor ontrolled y the$, as well as their le!al and enefiial interest thereinB '3( pay atual da$a!es esti$ated at 7200 illion and additional atualda$a!es to rei$urse epenses for the reovery of the alle!ed ill!otten wealth esti$atedat 72-0 $illion or in suh a$ount as $ay e proven durin! trialB '4( pay $oral da$a!esa$ountin! to 7-0 illionB '-( pay te$perate and no$inal da$a!es, as well as attorneyEs fees andliti!ation epenses in an a$ount to e proven durin! the trialB '6( pay ee$plary da$a!es in thea$ount of 71 illionB and '( pay trele 5udiial osts+ ?39@

<t $ust e stressed that we are faed with eeptional iru$stanes, !iven the nature andthe etent of the properties involved in the ase pendin! with the andi!anayan+ <t earse$phasis that the #o$plaint is one for the reversion, the reonveyane, the restitution and theaountin! of alle!ed ill!otten wealth and the pay$ent of da$a!es+ %ased on the alle!ations of the #o$plaint, the ourt is har!ed with the tas. of '1( deter$inin! the properties in the Marosestate that onstitute the alle!ed ill!otten wealthB '2( train! where these properties areB '3(issuin! the appropriate orders for the aountin!, the reovery, and the pay$ent of these propertiesB and, finally, '4( deter$inin! if the award of da$a!es is proper+









169

deedentEs death+?44@ <n this onept, nothin! prevents the heirs fro$ eerisin! their ri!ht totransfer or dispose of the properties that onstitute their le!iti$es, even asent their delarationor asent the partition or the distriution of the estate+ <n %a+osalem v. Rafols,?4-@ we said>

Artile 440 of the #ivil #ode provides that the "!ssessi!n !% hee(ita)

"!"et) is (ee.e( t! 'e tans.itte( t! the hei with!$t inte$"ti!n %!.the instant !% the (eath !% the (ece(ent, in case the inheitance 'eacce"te(1 And Manresa with reason states that $"!n the (eath !% a "es!n,each !% his heis 'ec!.es the $n(i&i(e( !wne !% the wh!*e estate *e%t withes"ect t! the "at ! "!ti!n which .i#ht 'e a($(icate( t! hi., ac!..$nit) !% !wneshi" 'ein# th$s %!.e( a.!n# the c!!wnes !% the estatewhi*e it e.ains $n(i&i(e(1 '3 Manresa, 3-B Alcala vs. Alcala, 3- 7hil+ 69+(And aordin! to artile 399 of the #ivil #ode, e&e) "at !wne .a) assi#n !.!t#a#e his "at in the c!..!n "!"et) , and the effet of suh assi!n$entor $ort!a!e shall e li$ited to the portion whih $ay e allotted hi$ in the partition upon the dissolution of the o$$unity+ Hence, in the case !% /a*ire7

vs. ,autista, 8; Phi*1 =<, whee s!.e !% the heis, with!$t the c!nc$ence !% the !thes, s!*( a "!"et) *e%t ') thei (ecease( %athe, this C!$t, s"eain#th$ its then Chie% 3$stice Ca)etan! Ae**an!, sai( that the sa*e was &a*i(,'$t that the e%%ect thee!% was *i.ite( t! the shae which .a) 'e a**!tte( t!the &en(!s $"!n the "atiti!n !% the estate+ '$phasis supplied(

/astly, petitionerEs prayer in its "hird A$ended #o$plaint diretly refers to hereinrespondents, to 'it >

1+ A "O ") <R" #O*8 A*8 ")<R8 #AK OA#"<O* F T! et$n an( ec!n&e) t! P*ainti%% a** %$n(s an( !the "!"et)

ac$ie( y 8efendants durin! their inu$eny as puli offiers, whih fundsand other property are $anifestly out of proportion to their salaries, other lawfulino$e and ino$e fro$ le!iti$ately a;uired property whih 8efendants havefailed to estalish as havin! een, in fat, lawfully a;uired y the$, alternatively,to solidarily pay 7laintiff the value thereof with interest thereon fro$ the date of a;uisition until full pay$ent+

2+ A "O ") OKR") #AK O A#"<O* F t! in(i&i($a**) en(et! this H!n!a'*e C!$t a c!."*ete acc!$ntin# an( in&ent!) , su5et toevaluation of #ourtappointed assessors, of all funds and other property le!ally or enefiially held andGor ontrolled y the$, as well as their le!al and enefiial

interest in suh funds and other property+ '$phasis supplied(

<n su$, the Maros silin!s are $aintained as respondents, eause '1( the ation pendin! efore the andi!anayan is one that survives death, and, therefore, the ri!hts to theestate $ust e duly protetedB '2( they alle!edly ontrol, possess or own ill!otten wealth, thou!htheir diret involve$ent in au$ulatin! or a;uirin! suh wealth $ay not have een proven+ 2eung Chun 9a*- 2eung Chun








10

o (nd 2eung Chun Fan

<t is worthy to note that respondents draw our attention to American (nter1ashion

*orporation v. 0ffice of the President ?46@in whih they ontend that this #ourt onsidered thealle!ation of dollar saltin! as aseless+ "he ited ase, however, finds no appliation herein as the

for$er $erely ruled that lorious un was denied due proess when it was not furnished y thear$ents and "etile port %oard '"%( any asis for the anellation of the eport ;uota eause of alle!ations of dollar saltin!+ "hat 8eision did not prevent petitioner fro$ adduin!evidene to support its alle!ation in #ivil #ase *o+ 0002 efore the andi!anayan under adifferent ause of ation+

*evertheless, the alle!ations a!ainst Neun! #hun Pa$, Neun! #hun )o and Neun! #hunan in the ase at ar were also proved to e aseless+ A!ain, petitioner failed to illustrate howrespondents herein ated as du$$ies of the Maroses in a;uirin! ill!otten wealth+ "his #ourtnotes that the #o$plaint a!ainst the Neun!s alle!es that the Maroses used lorious un F the!ar$ent o$pany in whih the Neun!s are ontrollin! sto.holders F for ille!al dollar saltin!throu!h the o$panyEs i$portation of deni$ faris fro$ only one supplier at pries $uhhi!her than those ein! paid y other users of si$ilar $aterials+ *otaly, no $ention of 8e oleilApparel was $ade+

"o prove its alle!ations, petitioner su$itted the ontroverted hiits 7,: ,: R,:,: and "+: As earlier disussed in detail, these piees of evidene were $ere photoopies of the ori!inals and were unauthentiated y the persons who eeuted the$B thus, they have no proative value+ ven the alle!ations of petitioner itself in its 7etition for Review are ereft of any fatual asis for holdin! that these dou$ents undoutedly show respondentsE partiipationin the alle!ed dollar saltin!+ "he pertinent portion of the 7etition reads>

"o illustrate, the Affidavit dated May 29, 19& eeuted y Mr+ Ra$on

Mon=on whih was su$itted as E/hi'it P, showed that respondent <$eeMarosManoto owns and ontrols <%#13, %%#2 and 'R(7*9, and hasinterest in the 8e oleil Apparel+ "he testi$ony of Mr+ Ra$on Mon=on durin! thehearin! on June &, 19& efore the 7residential #o$$ission on oodovern$ent as shown in the "ransript of teno!raphi *otes also affir$ed hisdelarations in the Affidavit dated May 29, 19&+ "he "ransript of teno!raphi *otes dated June &, 19& was presented as E/hi'it 7+ Moreover, the Affidavitdated Marh 21, 19&6 of Neun! Pwo. Nin! whih was presented as E/hi'itR dislosed that <$ee MarosManoto is the owner of 6Z e;uity of 8e oleilApparel+ "he letter dated July 1, 19&4 si!ned y seven '( inorporators of 8eoleil Apparel, addressed to )on!.on! investors whih was presented as E/hi'it

Sonfir$ed that the si!natories hold or own 6Z e;uity of the orporation in ehalf of the enefiial owners previously dislosed to the addressees+ <n additionto the fore!oin! dou$ents, petitioner presented the Affidavit of Rodolfo H+ 7uno,#hair$an of the ar$ents and "etile port roup '"%( as E/hi'itT wherein he ate!orially delared that the $a5ority of 8e oleil Apparel wasatually owned y respondent <$ee MarosManoto+?4@









12

e note that there are instanes when this #ourt $ay overturn the dis$issal of the lower ourts in instanes when it is shown that the proseution has deprived the parties their due proess of law+ <n Merciales v. *ourt of Appeals$ [=>" we reversed the 8eision of the R"# indis$issin! the ri$inal ase for rape with ho$iide+ <n that ase, it was very apparent that the puli proseutor violated the due proess ri!hts of the private o$plainant owin! to its latant

disre!ard of proedural rules and the failure to present availale ruial evidene, whih wouldtend to prove the !uilt or innoene of the aused therein+ Moreover, we li.ewise found that thetrial ourt was !ravely re$iss in its duty to ferret out the truth and, instead, 5ust passivelywathed as the puli proseutor un!led the ase+:

)owever, it $ust e e$phasi=ed that Merciales was filed eatly to deter$ine whether the proseution and the trial ourt !ravely aused their disretion in the proeedin!s of the ase,thus resultin! in the denial of the offended partyEs due proess+ Meanwhile, the present ase$erely alle!es that there was an error in the andi!anayanEs onsideration of the proativevalue of evidene+ e also note that in Merciales, oth the proseution and the trial ourt werefound to e e;ually !uilty of serious nonfeasane, whih pro$pted us to re$and the ase to thetrial ourt for further proeedin!s and reeption of evidene+ Merciales is thus inappliale to thease at ar+

*evertheless, !iven the partiular ontet of this ase, the failure of the proseution toadhere to so$ethin! as asi as the est evidene rule raises serious douts on the level and;uality of effort !iven to the !overn$entEs ause+ "hus, we hi!hly enoura!e the Offie of the7resident, the O, and the 7# to ondut the appropriate investi!ation and onse;uentation on this $atter+

0HEREFORE, in view of the fore!oin!, the 7etition is PARTIALLY GRANTED+ "heassailed andi!anayan Resolution dated 6 8ee$er 200-is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION+ or the reasons stated herein, respondents <$elda

MarosManoto, <rene MarosAraneta, and erdinand R+ Maros, Jr+ shall e $aintained asdefendants in #ivil #ase *o+ 0002 pendin! efore the andi!anayan+

/et a opy of this 8eision e furnished to the Offie of the 7resident so that it $ay loo. into the iru$stanes of this ase and deter$ine the liaility, if any, of the lawyers of the Offieof the oliitor eneral and the 7residential #o$$ission on ood overn$ent in the $anner ywhih this ase was handled in the andi!anayan+

SO ORDERED1

G1R1 N!1 8999@ 3an$a) =<, =@@<






13

2ILMA G1 ARRIOLA an( ANTHONY RONALD G1 ARRIOLA, petitioners,vs+3OHN NABOR C1 ARRIOLA, respondent+

D E C I S I O N

A4STRIA-MARTINE6, J.:

%efore this #ourt is a 7etition for Review on *ertiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt,assailin! the *ove$er 30, 2006 8eision1 and April 30, 200 Resolution2 of the #ourt ofAppeals in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 93-0+

"he relevant fats are ulled fro$ the reords+

John *aor #+ Arriola 'respondent( filed peial #ivil Ation *o+ 030010 with the Re!ional"rial #ourt, %ranh 2-4, /as 7iYas #ity 'R"#( a!ainst Hil$a + Arriola and Anthony Ronald +

Arriola 'petitioners( for 5udiial partition of the properties of deedent idel Arriola 'thedeedent idel(+ Respondent is the son of deedent idel with his first wife Hitoria #+ #alaia,while petitioner Anthony is the son of deedent idel with his seond wife, petitioner Hil$a+

On eruary 16, 2004, the R"# rendered a 8eision, the dispositive portion of whih reads>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered>

1+ Orderin! the partition of the parel of land overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+3&314 '&4191( left y the deedent idel + Arriola y and a$on! his heirs John *aor#+ Arriola, Hil$a + Arriola and Anthony Ronald + Arriola in e;ual shares of onethird

'1G3( eah without pre5udie to the ri!hts of reditors or $ort!a!ees thereon, if anyB

2+ AttorneyDs fees in the a$ount of "* ")OKA*8 '710,000+00( 7O is hereyawarded to e rei$ursed y the defendants to the plaintiffB

3+ #osts a!ainst the defendants+

O OR8R8+3

"he deision ea$e final on Marh 1-, 2004+4

As the parties failed to a!ree on how to partition a$on! the$ the land overed y "#" *o+3&314 'su5et land(, respondent sou!ht its sale throu!h puli aution, and petitioners aededto it+- Aordin!ly, the R"# ordered the puli aution of the su5et land+6 "he puli autionsale was sheduled on May 31, 2003 ut it had to e reset when petitioners refused to inlude inthe aution the house 'su5et house( standin! on the su5et land+ "his pro$pted respondent tofile with the R"# an Kr!ent Manifestation and Motion for #onte$pt of #ourt,& prayin! that petitioners e delared in onte$pt+




















14

"he R"# denied the $otion in an Order 9 dated Au!ust 30, 200-, for the reason that petitionerswere 5ustified in refusin! to have the su5et house inluded in the aution, thus>

"he defendants ?petitioners@ are orret in holdin! that the house or i$prove$ent eretedon the property should not e inluded in the aution sale+

A ursory readin! of the afore$entioned 8eision and of the evidene addued durin!the eparte hearin! learly show that nothin! was $entioned aout the house eistin! onthe land su5et $atter of the ase+ <n fat, even plaintiffDs ?respondentDs@ initiatory#o$plaint li.ewise did not $ention anythin! aout the house+ Kndoutedly therefore, the#ourt did not inlude the house in its ad5udiation of the su5et land eause it was plaintiff hi$self who failed to alle!e the sa$e+ <t is a wellsettled rule that the ourt annot !ive a relief to that whih is not alle!ed and prayed for in the o$plaint+

"o hold, as plaintiff ar!ued, that the house is onsidered aessory to the land on whih itis uilt is in effet to add to plaintiffDs ?a@ ri!ht whih has never een onsidered or passed

upon durin! the trial on the $erits+

<n the asene of any other delaration, ovious or otherwise, only the land should e partitioned in aordane to?si@ the afore$entioned 8eision as the house an not esaid to have een neessarily ad5udiated therein+ "hus, plaintiff an not e delared as aoowner of the sa$e house without evidene thereof and due hearin! thereon+

"he 8eision of the #ourt havin! attained its finality, as orretly pointed out, 5ud!$ent$ust stand even at the ris. that it $i!ht e erroneous+

)ROR, the 8r)ent Manifestation and Motion for *ontempt of *ourt filed y

plaintiff is herey 8*<8 for la. of $erit+

O OR8R8+10

"he R"#, in its Order dated January 3, 2006, denied respondentDs Motion for Reonsideration+11

Respondent filed with the #A a 7etition for *ertiorari12 where he sou!ht to have the R"# Ordersset aside, and prayed that he e allowed to proeed with the aution of the su5et land inludin!the su5et house+

<n its *ove$er 30, 2006 8eision, the #A !ranted the 7etition for *ertiorari, to wit>

)ROR, the petition is RA*"8+ "he assailed orders dated Au!ust 30, 200-and January 3, 2006 issued y the R"#, in #ivil #ase *o+ #A 030010, are RHR8and " A<8, and the sheriff is ordered to proceed with the public auction sale of

the sub?ect lot covered b) #C# 3o. >@>!AB- including the house constructed thereon +

O OR8R8+13 '$phasis supplied+(













1-

7etitioners filed a $otion for reonsideration ut the #A denied the sa$e in its Resolution14 ofApril 30, 200+

)ene, the present petition on the sole !round that the #A erred in holdin! that the R"#o$$itted !rave ause of disretion in denyin! the $otion for onte$pt of ourt+

"he assailed #A 8eision and Resolution $ust e $odified for reasons other than thoseadvaned y petitioners+

"he onte$pt proeedin! initiated y respondent was one for indiret onte$pt+ etion 4, Rule1 of the Rules of #ourt presries the proedure for the institution of proeedin!s for indiretonte$pt, vi2 >

e+ 4+ &o' proceedin)s commenced + F 7roeedin!s for indiret onte$pt $ay einitiated motu proprio y the ourt a!ainst whih the onte$pt was o$$itted y anorder or any other for$al har!e re;uirin! the respondent to show ause why he should

not e punished for onte$pt+

0n all other cases- charges for indirect conte*pt shall be co**enced b) a verified

petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of docu*ents or papers

involved therein- and upon full co*pliance with the re8uire*ents for filing initiator)

pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned + <f the onte$pt har!es arose out ofor are related to a prinipal ation pendin! in the ourt, the petition for onte$pt shallalle!e that fat ut said petition shall e do.eted, heard and deided separately, unlessthe ourt in its disretion orders the onsolidation of the onte$pt har!e and the prinipal ation for 5oint hearin! and deision+ '$phases supplied+(

Knder the aforeited seond para!raph of the Rules, the re;uire$ents for initiatin! an indiretonte$pt proeedin! are a( that it e initiated y way of a verified petition and ( that it shouldfully o$ply with the re;uire$ents for filin! initiatory pleadin!s for ivil ations+ <n Re)alado v.

!o$1- we held>

As eplained y Justie loren= Re!alado, the filing of a verified petition that has

co*plied with the re8uire*ents for the filing of initiator) pleading- is *andator) >

"his new provision larifies with a re!ularity nor$ the proper proedure foro$$enin! onte$pt proeedin!s+ hile suh proeedin! has een lassified asspeial ivil ation under the for$er Rules, the hetero!enous pratie tolerated y

the ourts, has een for any party to file a $otion without payin! any do.et orlawful fees therefore and without o$plyin! with the re;uire$ents for initiatory pleadin!s, whih is now re;uired in the seond para!raph of this a$ended setion+

)eneforth, eept for indiret onte$pt proeedin!s initiated $otu propio yorder of or a for$al har!e y the offended ourt, all har!es shall e o$$ened







16

y a verified petition with full o$pliane with the re;uire$ents therefore andshall e disposed in aordane with the seond para!raph of this setion+

Even if the conte*pt proceedings ste**ed fro* the *ain case over which thecourt alread) ac8uired ?urisdiction- the rules direct that the petition for

conte*pt be treated independentl) of the principal action. Conse8uentl)- the

necessar) prere8uisites for the filing of initiator) pleadings- such as the filing

of a verified petition- attach*ent of a certification on non;foru* shopping- and

the pa)*ent of the necessar) doc6et fees- *ust be faithfull) observed +

"he provisions of the Rules are worded in very lear and ate!orial lan!ua!e+ <n asewhere the indiret onte$pt har!e is not initiated y the ourts, the filin! of a verified

petition whih fulfills the re;uire$ents on initiatory pleadin!s is a prere;uisite+ %eyond;uestion now is the $andatory re;uire$ent of a verified petition in initiatin! an indiretonte$pt proeedin!+ "ruly, prior to the a$end$ent of the 199 Rules of #ivil7roedure, $ere $otion without o$plyin! with the re;uire$ents for initiatory pleadin!swas tolerated y the ourts+ At the onset of the 199 Revised Rules of #ivil 7roedure,however, suh pratie an no lon!er e ountenaned+16 '$phasis ours+(

"he R"# erred in ta.in! 5urisdition over the indiret onte$pt proeedin! initiated yrespondent+ "he latter did not o$ply with any of the $andatory re;uire$ents of etion 4, Rule1+ )e filed a $ere Kr!ent Manifestation and Motion for #onte$pt of #ourt, and not a verified petition+ )e li.ewise did not onfor$ with the re;uire$ents for the filin! of initiatory pleadin!s

suh as the su$ission of a ertifiation a!ainst foru$ shoppin! and the pay$ent of do.et fees+"hus, his unverified $otion should have een dis$issed outri!ht y the R"#+

<t is noted thou!h that, while at first the R"# overloo.ed the infir$ities in respondentDsunverified $otion for onte$pt, in the end, it dis$issed the $otion, aleit on sustantive!rounds+ "he troule is that, in the #A deision assailed herein, the appellate ourt o$$itted thesa$e oversi!ht y delvin! into the $erits of respondentDs unverified $otion and !rantin! therelief sou!ht therein+ "hus, stritly spea.in!, the proper disposition of the present petition ou!htto e the reversal of the #A deision and the dis$issal of respondentDs unverified $otion foronte$pt filed in the R"# for ein! in ontravention of etion 4, Rule 1+

)owever, suh si$plisti disposition will not put an end to the dispute etween the parties+ Aseed of liti!ation has already een sown that will li.ely sprout into another ase etween the$ ata later ti$e+ e refer to the ;uestion of whether the su5et house should e inluded in the puli aution of the su5et land+ Kntil this ;uestion is finally resolved, there will e no end toliti!ation etween the parties+ e $ust therefore deal with it s;uarely, here and now+

"he R"# and the #A differed in their views on whether the puli aution should inlude thesu5et house+ "he R"# eluded the su5et house eause respondent never alle!ed its





1

eistene in his o$plaint for partition or estalished his oownership thereof+1 On the otherhand, itin! Artiles 440,1& 44-19 and 44620 of the #ivil #ode, the #A held that as the deeasedowned the su5et land, he also owned the su5et house whih is a $ere aessory to the land+%oth properties for$ part of the estate of the deeased and are held in oownership y his heirs,the parties herein+ )ene, the #A onludes that any deision in the ation for partition of said

estate should over not 5ust the su5et land ut also the su5et house+21

"he #A further pointedout that petitioners the$selves i$pliitly reo!ni=ed the inlusion of the su5et house in the partition of the su5et land when they proposed in their letter of Au!ust -, 2004, the followin!swappin!arran!e$ent>

ir>

"han. you very $uh for ao$$odatin! us even if we are only poor and si$ple people+e are very $uh pleased with the deision of 7residin! Jud!e Manuel %+ ernande=, Jr+,R"# %r+ 2-4, /as 7iYas, on the sharin! of onethird '1G3( eah of a land overed y"ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ 3&314 '&4191( in /as 7iYas #ity+

)owever, to preserve the santity of our house whih is our residene for $ore thantwenty '20( years, we wish to re;uest that the 1G3 share of John *aor #+ Arriola e paid y the defendants dependin! on the hoie of the plaintiff etween ite$ '1( or ite$ '2(,detailed as follows>

'1( wap with a -00s;uare $eters ?si@ lot loated at %aras Ri=al +

'2( #ash of 720-,00+00 +

+22

e a!ree that the su5et house is overed y the 5ud!$ent of partition for reasons postulated ythe #A+ e ;ualify, however, that this rulin! does not neessarily ountenane the i$$ediateand atual partition of the su5et house y way of puli aution in view of the suspensive prosription i$posed under Artile 1-9 of "he a$ily #ode whih will e disussed forthwith+

<t is true that the eistene of the su5et house was not speifially alle!ed in the o$plaint for partition+ uh o$ission notwithstandin!, the su5et house is dee$ed part of the 5ud!$ent of partition for two o$pellin! reasons+

irst, as orretly held y the #A, under the provisions of the #ivil #ode, the su5et house is

dee$ed part of the su5et land+ "he #ourt;uotes with approval the rulin! of the #A, to wit>

"he R"#, in the assailed Order dated Au!ust 30, 200- ratioinated that sine the houseonstruted on the su5et lot was not alle!ed in the o$plaint and its ownership was not passed upon durin! the trial on the $erits, the ourt annot inlude the house in its
















1&

ad5udiation of the su5et lot+ "he ourt further stated that it annot !ive a relief to?si@whih is not alle!ed and prayed for in the o$plaint+

e are not persuaded+

"o follow the fore!oin! reasonin! of the R"# will in effet render $eanin!less the pertinent rule on aession+ <n !eneral, the right to accession is auto*atic ipso

?ureD, e$iin# n! "i! act !n the "at !% the !wne ! the "inci"a*1 S! that e&en i% the i."!&e.ents inc*$(in# the h!$se wee n!t a**e#e( in the c!."*aint %!"atiti!n, the) ae (ee.e( inc*$(e( in the *!t !n which the) stan(, %!**!win# the"inci"*e !% accessi!n1 C!nse$ent*), the *!t s$'ect !% $(icia* "atiti!n in this caseinc*$(es the h!$se which is "e.anent*) attache( theet!, !thewise, it w!$*( 'ea's$( t! (i&i(e the "inci"a*, i1e1, the *!t, with!$t (i&i(in# the h!$se which is"e.anent*) attache( theet!123 '$phasis supplied(

eond, respondent has repeatedly lai$ed that the su5et house was uilt y the

deeased+24

7etitioners never ontroverted suh lai$+ "here is then no dispute that the su5ethouse is part of the estate of the deeasedB as suh, it is owned in o$$on y the latterDs heirs,the parties herein,2- any one of who$, under Artile 49426 of the #ivil #ode, $ay, at any ti$e,de$and the partition of the su5et house+2 "herefore, respondentDs reourse to the partition ofthe su5et house annot e hindered, least of all y the $ere tehnial o$ission of said o$$on property fro$ the o$plaint for partition+

#hat said notwithstanding- we *ust e*phasi7e that- while we treat the sub?ect house as part of

the co;ownership of the parties- we stop short of authori7ing its actual partition b) public

auction at this ti*e+ <t ears e$phasis that an ation for partition involves two phases> first, thedelaration of the eistene of a state of oownershipB and seond, the atual ter$ination of that

state of oownership throu!h the se!re!ation of the o$$on property+

2&

hat is settled thus faris only the fat that the su5et house is under the oownership of the parties, and thereforesuseptile of partition a$on! the$+

hether the su5et house should e sold at puli aution as ordered y the R"# is an entirelydifferent $atter, dependin! on the eat nature of the su5et house+

Respondent lai$s that the su5et house was uilt y deedent idel on his elusive property+29 7etitioners add that said house has een their residene for 20 years+ 30 "a.en to!ether,these aver$ents on reord estalish that the su5et house is a fa$ily ho$e within theonte$plation of the provisions of "he a$ily #ode, partiularly>

Artile 1-2+ "he fa$ily ho$e, onstituted 5ointly y the husand and the wife or y anun$arried head of a fa$ily, is the dwellin! house where they and their fa$ily reside, andthe land on whih it is situated+

Artile 1-3+ "he fa$ily ho$e is dee*ed constituted on a house and lot fro$ the ti$e itis oupied as a fa$ily residene+ ro$ the ti$e of its onstitution and so lon! as any ofits enefiiaries atually resides therein, the fa$ily ho$e ontinues to e suh and is





















19

ee$pt fro$ eeution, fored sale or attah$ent eept as hereinafter provided and tothe etent of the value allowed y law+ '$phasis supplied+(

One si!nifiant innovation introdued y "he a$ily #ode is the auto$ati onstitution of thefa$ily ho$e fro$ the ti$e of its oupation as a fa$ily residene, without need any$ore for the

5udiial or etra5udiial proesses provided under the defunt Artiles 224 to 2-1 of the #ivil#ode and Rule 106 of the Rules of #ourt+ urther$ore, Artiles 1-2 and 1-3 speifially etendthe sope of the fa$ily ho$e not 5ust to the dwellin! struture in whih the fa$ily resides utalso to the lot on whih it stands+ "hus, applyin! these onepts, the su5et house as well as thespeifi portion of the su5et land on whih it stands are dee$ed onstituted as a fa$ily ho$e y the deeased and petitioner Hil$a fro$ the $o$ent they e!an oupyin! the sa$e as afa$ily residene 20 years a. +31

<t ein! settled that the su5et house 'and the su5et lot on whih it stands( is the fa$ily ho$eof the deeased and his heirs, the sa$e is shielded fro$ i$$ediate partition under Artile 1-9 of"he a$ily #ode, vi2 >

Artile 1-9+ "he fa$ily ho$e shall ontinue despite the death of one or oth spouses orof the un$arried head of the fa$ily for a period of ten )ears or for as lon! as there is a$inor enefiiary, and the heirs cannot partition the sa*e unless the court finds

co*pelling reasons therefor + #his rule shall appl) regardless of whoever owns the

propert) or constituted the fa*il) ho*e. '$phasis supplied+(

"he purpose of Artile 1-9 is to avert the disinte!ration of the fa$ily unit followin! the death ofits head+ "o this end, it preserves the fa$ily ho$e as the physial sy$ol of fa$ily love, seurityand unity y i$posin! the followin! restritions on its partition> first, that the heirs annot etra 5udiially partition it for a period of 10 years fro$ the death of one or oth spouses or of the

un$arried head of the fa$ily, or for a lon!er period, if there is still a $inor enefiiary residin!thereinB and seond, that the heirs annot 5udiially partition it durin! the aforesaid periodsunless the ourt finds o$pellin! reasons therefor+ *o o$pellin! reason has een alle!ed y the partiesB nor has the R"# found any o$pellin! reason to order the partition of the fa$ily ho$e,either y physial se!re!ation or assi!n$ent to any of the heirs or throu!h aution sale assu!!ested y the parties+

More i$portantly, Artile 1-9 i$poses the prosription a!ainst the i$$ediate partition of thefa$ily ho$e re!ardless of its ownership+ "his si!nifies that even if the fa$ily ho$e has passed y suession to the oownership of the heirs, or has een willed to any one of the$, this fatalone annot transfor$ the fa$ily ho$e into an ordinary property, $uh less dispel the protetion ast upon it y the law+ "he ri!hts of the individual oowner or owner of the fa$ilyho$e annot su5u!ate the ri!hts !ranted under Artile 1-9 to the enefiiaries of the fa$ilyho$e+

et a!ainst the fore!oin! rules, the fa$ily ho$e onsistin! of the su5et house and lot onwhih it stands annot e partitioned at this ti$e, even if it has passed to the oownership ofhis heirs, the parties herein+ 8eedent idel died on Marh 10, 2003+32 "hus, for 10 years fro$said date or until Marh 10, 2013, or for a lon!er period, if there is still a $inor enefiiary








1&0

residin! therein, the fa$ily ho$e he onstituted annot e partitioned, $uh less when noo$pellin! reason eists for the ourt to otherwise set aside the restrition and order the partitionof the property+

"he #ourt ruled in &onrado v. *ourt of Appeals33 that a lai$ for eeption fro$ eeution or

fored sale under Artile 1-3 should e set up and proved to the heriff efore the sale of the property at puli aution+ )erein petitioners ti$ely o5eted to the inlusion of the su5ethouse althou!h for a different reason+

"o reapitulate, the evidene of reord sustain the #A rulin! that the su5et house is part of the 5ud!$ent of oownership and partition+ "he sa$e evidene also estalishes that the su5ethouse and the portion of the su5et land on whih it is standin! have een onstituted as thefa$ily ho$e of deedent idel and his heirs+ #onse;uently, its atual and i$$ediate partitionannot e santioned until the lapse of a period of 10 years fro$ the death of idel Arriola, oruntil Marh 10, 2013+

<t ears e$phasis, however, that in the $eanti$e, there is no ostale to the i$$ediate puliaution of the portion of the su5et land overed y "#" *o+ 3&314, whih falls outside thespeifi area of the fa$ily ho$e+

0HEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED and the *ove$er 30, 2006 8eision andApril 30, 200 Resolution of the #ourt of Appeals are MODIFIED in that the house standin! onthe land overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ 3&314 is DECLARED part of the oownership of the parties John *aor #+ Arriola, Hil$a + Arriola and Anthony Ronald + Arriola ut E5EMPTED fro$ partition y puli aution within the period provided for in Artile 1-9of the a$ily #ode+

*o osts+

SO ORDERED+





1&1

OSCAR C1 REYES, 7etitioner,

versus

HON1 REGIONAL TRIAL CO4RTOF MAATI, Banch 8;=, 6ENITHINS4RANCE CORPORATION, an(RODRIGO C1 REYES, Respondents+

G1R1 N!1 8?9;;

7resent>

K<KM%<* $ %.$ *hairperson$

Q

#ORO*A, #AR7<O MORA/, H/A#O, JR+, and %R<O*, %% +

7ro$ul!ated>

Au!ust 11, 200&

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J +>

"his 7etition for Review on *ertiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt see.s to setaside the 8eision of the #ourt of Appeals '*A4?1@ pro$ul!ated on May 26, 2004 in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 490+ "he #A 8eision affir$ed the Order of the Re!ional "rial #ourt ' RT* (, %ranh 142,Ma.ati #ity dated *ove$er 29, 2002 ?2@ in #ivil #ase *o+ 001--3 'entitled TAountin! of All#orporate unds and Assets, and 8a$a!esT( whih denied petitioner Osar #+ ReyesE ' 0scar (Motion to 8elare #o$plaint as *uisane or )arass$ent uit+

BACGRO4ND FACTS

Osar and private respondent Rodri!o #+ Reyes ' Rodri)o( are two of the four hildren of the spouses 7edro and Anastaia Reyes+ 7edro, Anastaia, Osar, and Rodri!o eah owned sharesof sto. of Ienith <nsurane #orporation ' Genith(, a do$esti orporation estalished y their fa$ily+ 7edro died in 1964, while Anastaia died in 1993+ Althou!h 7edroEs estate was 5udiially partitioned a$on! his heirs so$eti$e in the 190s, no si$ilar settle$ent and partition appear tohave een $ade with AnastaiaEs estate, whih inluded her shareholdin!s in Ienith+ As of June

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/165744.htm#_ftn1








1&2

30, 1990, Anastaia owned 136,-9& shares of IenithB Osar and Rodri!o owned &,1-,63 and4,2-0 shares, respetively+?3@

On May 9, 2000, Ienith and Rodri!o filed a o$plaint ?4@ with the eurities and han!e

#o$$ission '#E* ( a!ainst Osar, do.eted as # #ase *o+ 0-00661-+ "he o$plaint statedthat it is Ha derivative suit initiated and filed "y the complainant Rodri)o *. Reyes to obtain an

accounting of the funds and assets of ZE30# (>#8RA>*E *0RP0RAT(0> 'hich are no'

or formerly in the control$ custody$ and?or possession of respondent Iherein petitioner 0scarJand to deter*ine the shares of stoc6 of deceased spouses edro and (nastacia /e)es that 'ere

ar"itrarily and fraudulently appropriated I"y 0scarJ for himself IandJ 'hich 'ere not collated

and ta+en into account in the partition$ distri"ution$ and?or settlement of the estate of the

deceased spouses$ for 'hich he should "e ordered to account for all the income from the time hetoo+ these shares of stoc+$ and should no' deliver to his "rothers and sisters their just and

respective shares.K [=" ?$phasis supplied+@

<n his Answer with #ounterlai$,

?6@

Osar denied the har!e that he ille!ally a;uired theshares of Anastaia Reyes+ )e asserted, as a defense, that he purhased the su5et shares withhis own funds fro$ the unissued sto.s of Ienith, and that the suit is not a "ona fide derivativesuit eause the re;uisites therefor have not een o$plied with+ )e thus ;uestioned the #Es 5urisdition to entertain the o$plaint eause it pertains to the settle$ent of the estate of Anastaia Reyes+

hen Repuli At ' R.A.( *o+ &99?@ too. effet, the #Es elusive and ori!inal 5urisdition over ases enu$erated in etion - of 7residential 8eree ' P./.( *o+ 902A wastransferred to the R"# desi!nated as a speial o$$erial ourt+?&@ "he reords of Rodri!oEs #ase were thus turned over to the R"#, %ranh 142, Ma.ati, and do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ 001--3+

On Otoer 22, 2002, Osar filed a Motion to 8elare #o$plaint as *uisane or )arass$ent uit+?9@ )e lai$ed that the o$plaint is a $ere nuisane or harass$ent suit andshould, aordin! to the <nteri$ Rules of 7roedure for <ntra#orporate #ontroversies, edis$issedB and that it is not a "ona fide derivative suit as it parta.es of the nature of a petition for the settle$ent of estate of the deeased Anastaia that is outside the 5urisdition of a speialo$$erial ourt+ "he R"#, in its Order dated*ove$er 29, 2002 ' RT* 0rder (, denied the$otion in part and delared>

A lose readin! of the #o$plaint dislosed the presene of two '2( ausesof ation, na$ely> a( a derivative suit for aountin! of the funds and assets of theorporation whih are in the ontrol, ustody, andGor possession of the respondent?herein petitioner Osar@ with prayer to appoint a $ana!e$ent o$$itteeB and (an ation for deter$ination of the shares of sto. of deeased spouses 7edro andAnastaia Reyes alle!edly ta.en y respondent, its aountin! and theorrespondin! delivery of these shares to the partiesE rothers and sisters+ "helatter is not a derivative suit and should properly e threshed out in a petition for settle$ent of estate+


















1&3

Aordin!ly, the $otion is denied+ )owever, only the derivative suit

onsistin! of the first ause of ation will e ta.en o!ni=ane of y this #ourt+ ?10@

Osar thereupon went to the #A on a petition for certiorari, prohiition,and mandamus?11@ and prayed that the R"# Order e annulled and set aside and that the trial ourt e prohiited fro$ ontinuin! with the proeedin!s+ "he appellate ourt affir$ed the R"# Order and denied the petition in its 8eision dated May 26, 2004+ <t li.ewise denied OsarEs $otionfor reonsideration in a Resolution dated Otoer 21, 2004+

7etitioner now o$es efore us on appeal throu!h a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt+

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

7etitioner Osar presents the followin! points as onlusions the #A should have $ade>

1+ that the o$plaint is a $ere nuisane or harass$ent suit that should e

dis$issed under the <nteri$ Rules of 7roedure of <ntra#orporate#ontroversiesB and

2+ that the o$plaint is not a "ona fide derivative suit ut is in fat in the natureof a petition for settle$ent of estateB hene, it is outside the 5urisdition of theR"# atin! as a speial o$$erial ourt+

Aordin!ly, he prays for the settin! aside and annul$ent of the #A deision and resolution, andthe dis$issal of Rodri!oEs o$plaint efore the R"#+

THE CO4RTS R4LING

0e %in( the "etiti!n .eit!i!$s1

"he ore ;uestion for our deter$ination is whether the trial ourt, sittin! as a speialo$$erial ourt, has 5urisdition over the su5et $atter of Rodri!oEs o$plaint+ "o resolve it,we rely on the 5udiial priniple that 5urisdition over the su5et $atter of a ase is onferred y law and is deter$ined y the alle!ations of the o$plaint, irrespetive of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or so$e of the lai$s asserted therein+:?12@

34RISDICTION OF SPECIAL COMMERCIAL CO4RTS

7+8+ *o+ 902A enu$erates the ases over whih the # 'now the R"# atin! as a speialo$$erial ourt( eerises elusive 5urisdition>









1&4

#"<O* -+ <n addition to the re!ulatory and ad5udiative funtions of the eurities and han!e #o$$ission over orporations, partnership, and other for$s of assoiations re!istered with it asepressly !ranted under eistin! laws and derees, it shall have ori!inaland elusive 5urisdition to hear and deide ases involvin!>

a( 8evies or she$es e$ployed y or anyats of the oard of diretors, usiness assoiates, itsoffiers or partners, a$ountin! to fraud and$isrepresentation whih $ay e detri$ental to theinterest of the puli andGor of the sto.holders, partners,$e$ers of assoiations or or!ani=ations re!istered withthe #o$$ission+

( #ontroversies arisin! out of intraorporateor partnership relations, etween and a$on!sto.holders, $e$ers, or assoiatesB etween any or allof the$ and the orporation, partnership or assoiation of whih they are sto.holders, $e$ers, or assoiates,respetivelyB and etween suh orporation, partnershipor assoiation and the tate insofar as it onerns their individual franhise or ri!ht to eist as suh entityB and

( #ontroversies in the eletion or appoint$ent of diretors, trustees, offiers, or $ana!ersof suh orporations, partnerships, or assoiations+

"he alle!ations set forth in Rodri!oEs o$plaint prinipally invo.e etion -, para!raphs

'a( and '( aove as asis for the eerise of the R"#Es speial ourt 5urisdition+ Our fous inea$inin! the alle!ations of the o$plaint shall therefore e on these two provisions+ Fraudulent 'evices and Sche*es

"he rule is that a o$plaint $ust ontain a plain, onise, and diret state$ent of the

ulti$ate fats onstitutin! the plaintiffEs ause of ation and $ust speify the relief sou!ht+?13@ etion -, Rule & of the Revised Rules of #ourt provides that in a** a&e.ents !% %a$( !.istae, the cic$.stances c!nstit$tin# %a$( ! .istae .$st 'e state( with "atic$*ait) +?14@ "hese rules find speifi appliation to etion -'a( of 7+8+ *o+ 902A whih spea.s of orporate devies or she$es that a$ount to fraud or $isrepresentation detri$ental to the puli

andGor to the sto.holders+

<n an atte$pt to hold Osar responsile for orporate fraud, Rodri!o alle!ed in theo$plaint the followin!>

3+ "his is a c!."*aintt! (ete.ine the shaes !% st!c !%

the (ecease( s"!$ses Pe(! an( Anastacia Re)es that weea'itai*) an( %a$($*ent*) a""!"iate( %! hi.se*% heein







1&-

"etiti!ne Osca whih were not ollated and ta.en into aount inthe partition, distriution, andGor settle$ent of the estate of thedeeased pouses 7edro and Anastaia Reyes, for whih he should eordered to aount for all the ino$e fro$ the ti$e he too. theseshares of sto., and should now deliver to his rothers and sisters their

5ust and respetive shares with the orrespondin! e;uivalent a$ount of 7,099,934+&2 plus interest thereon fro$ 19& representin! hisoli!ations to the Assoiated #iti=ensE %an. that was paid for hisaount y his late $other, Anastaia #+ Reyes+ "his a$ount was notollated or ta.en into aount in the partition or distriution of theestate of their late $other, Anastaia #+ Reyes+

3+1+ Res"!n(ent Osca C1 Re)es, th!$#h !the sche.es !% %a$( inc*$(in# .ise"esentati!n, $ni*atea**), an( %! his !wn'ene%it, ca"ici!$s*) tans%ee( an( t!! "!ssessi!n an( c!nt!* !% the .ana#e.ent !% 6enith <nsurane #orporation whih is onsidered

as a fa$ily orporation, and other properties and usinesses elon!in!to pouses 7edro and Anastaia Reyes+

4+1+ 8urin! the inrease of apitali=ation of Ienith <nsurane#orporation, so$eti$e in 196&, the property overed y "#" *o+22-324 was ille!ally and fraudulently used y respondent as aollateral+

-+ "he o$plainant Rodri!o #+ Reyes disovered that ') s!.e.ani"$*ati&e sche.e, the shaeh!*(in#s !% thei (ecease( .!the,D!a Anastacia C1 Re)es, shaes !% st!cs an( sic &a*$e( in thec!"!ate '!!s at P9,?>>,>;1=<, .!e ! *ess, eludin! interestandGor dividends, ha( 'een tans%ee( s!*e*) in the na.e !% es"!n(ent+ %y suh fraudulent $anipulations and $isrepresentation,the shareholdin!s of said respondent Osar #+ Reyes aruptly inreasedto 7&,1-,63+00 ?si@ and eo$es ?si@ the $a5ority sto.holder of Ienith <nsurane #orporation, whih portion of said shares $ust edistriuted e;ually a$on!st the rothers and sisters of the respondentOsar #+ Reyes inludin! the o$plainant herein+

9+1 "he shaeh!*(in#s !% (ecease( pouses 7edro

Reyes and Anastacia C1 Re)es &a*$e( at P9,@>>,>;1=<wee i**e#a**) an( %a$($*ent*) tans%ee( s!*e*) t! thees"!n(ents heein "etiti!ne Osca na.e an( insta**e( hi.se*%



1&6

as a .a!it) st!ch!*(e !% 6enith <nsurane #orporation ?and@therey deprived his rothers and sisters of their respetive e;ualshares thereof inludin! o$plainant hereto+

10+1 B) e%$sa* !% the es"!n(ent t! acc!$nt !% hissic shaeh!*(in#s in the c!."an), he i**e#a**) an( %a$($*ent*)tans%ee( s!*e*) in his na.e wheein sic the shaes !% st!c !% the (ecease( Anastacia C1 Re)es which .$st 'e "!"e*) c!**ate(an(! (isti'$te( e$a**) a.!n#st the chi*(en, inc*$(in# thec!."*ainant R!(i#! C1 Re)es heein, t! thei (a.a#e an("e$(ice1

11+1 %y ontinuous refusal of the respondent to aount

of his ?si@ shareholdin! with Ienith <nsurane #orporation?,@ partiularly the nu$er of shares of sto.s ille!ally and fraudulentlytransferred to hi$ fro$ their deeased parents ps+ 7edro andAnastaia Reyes?,@ whih are all su5et for ollation andGor partition ine;ual shares a$on! their hildren+ ?$phasis supplied+@

Alle!ations of deeit, $ahination, false pretenses, $isrepresentation, and threats arelar!ely onlusions of law that, without supportin! state$ents of the fats to whih thealle!ations of fraud refer, do not suffiiently state an effetive ause of ation+ ?1-@ "he late JustieJose eria, a noted authority in Re$edial /aw, delared that fraud and $ista.e are re;uired to eaverred with partiularity in order to enale the opposin! party to ontrovert the partiular fatsalle!edly onstitutin! suh fraud or $ista.e+?16@

"ested a!ainst these standards, we find that the har!es of fraud a!ainst Osar were not

properly supported y the re;uired fatual alle!ations+ hile the o$plaint ontainedalle!ations of fraud purportedly o$$itted y hi$, these alle!ations are not partiular enou!h to rin! the ontroversy within the speial o$$erial ourtEs 5urisditionB they are not state$entsof ulti$ate fats, ut are $ere onlusions of law> how and why the alle!ed appropriation of shares an e harateri=ed as ille!al and fraudulent: were not eplained nor elaorated on+

*ot every alle!ation of fraud done in a orporate settin! or perpetrated y orporateoffiers will rin! the ase within the speial o$$erial ourtEs 5urisdition+ "o fall within this 5urisdition, there $ust e suffiient neus showin! that the orporationEs nature, struture, or powers were used to failitate the fraudulent devie or she$e+ #ontrary to this onept, theo$plaint presented a reverse situation+ *o orporate power or offie was alle!ed to havefailitated the transfer of the sharesB rather, Osar, as an individual and without referene to hisorporate personality, was alle!ed to have transferred the shares of Anastaia to his na$e,allowin! hi$ to eo$e the $a5ority and ontrollin! sto.holder of Ienith, and eventually, the







1&

orporationEs 7resident+ "his is the essene of the o$plaint read as a whole and is partiularlyde$onstrated under the followin! alle!ations>

-+ "he o$plainant Rodri!o #+ Reyes disovered that y so$e$anipulative she$e, the shareholdin!s of their deeased $other,

8oYa Anastaia #+ Reyes, shares of sto.s and ?si@ valued in theorporate oo.s at 7,699,934+2&, $ore or less, eludin! interestandGor dividends, had een transferred solely in the na$e of respondent+ B) s$ch %a$($*ent .ani"$*ati!ns an(.ise"esentati!n, the shaeh!*(in#s !% sai( es"!n(ent Osca C1Re)es a'$"t*) incease( t! P<,98,?91@@ sic an( 'ec!.es sicthe .a!it) st!ch!*(e !% 6enith Ins$ance C!"!ati!n, whih portion of said shares $ust e distriuted e;ually a$on!st the rothersand sisters of the respondent Osar #+ Reyes inludin! the o$plainantherein+

9+1 The shaeh!*(in#s !% deeased pouses 7edro

Reyes and Anastacia C1 Re)es valued at 7,099,934+2&wee i**e#a**)an( %a$($*ent*) tans%ee( s!*e*) t! the es"!n(ents heein"etiti!ne Osca na.e an( insta**e( hi.se*% as a .a!it)st!ch!*(e !% 6enith <nsurane #orporation ?and@ therey deprivedhis rothers and sisters of their respetive e;ual shares thereof inludin! o$plainant hereto+ ?$phasis supplied+@

<n ordinary ases, the failure to speifially alle!e the fraudulent ats does not onstitute a!round for dis$issal sine suh defet an e ured y a ill of partiulars+ <n ases !overned ythe <nteri$ Rules of 7roedure on <ntra#orporate #ontroversies, however, a ill of partiulars isa prohiited pleadin!+?1@ <t is essential, therefore, for the o$plaint to show on its fae what arelai$ed to e the fraudulent orporate ats if the o$plainant wishes to invo.e the ourtEsspeial o$$erial 5urisdition+

e note that twie in the ourse of this ase, Rodri!o had een !iven the opportunity tostudy the propriety of a$endin! or withdrawin! the o$plaint, ut he onsistently refused+ "heourtEs funtion in resolvin! issues of 5urisdition is li$ited to the review of the alle!ations of theo$plaint and, on the asis of these alle!ations, to the deter$ination of whether they are of suhnature and su5et that they fall within the ter$s of the law definin! the ourtEs 5urisdition+ Re!retfully, we annot read into the o$plaint any speifially alle!ed orporatefraud that will all for the eerise of the ourtEs speial o$$erial 5urisdition+ "hus, weannot affir$ the R"#Es assu$ption of 5urisdition over Rodri!oEs o$plaint on the asis of etion -'a( of 7+8+ *o+ 902A+?1&@

0ntra;Corporate Controvers)









1&9

ele$ents $ust onur> 'a( the status or relationship of the partiesB and'2( the nature of the ;uestion that is the su5et of their ontroversy+

"he first ele$ent re;uires that the ontroversy $ust arise out of intraorporate or partnership relations etween any or all of the partiesand the orporation, partnership, or assoiation of whih they are

sto.holders, $e$ers or assoiatesB etween any or all of the$ andthe orporation, partnership, or assoiation of whih they aresto.holders, $e$ers, or assoiates, respetivelyB and etween suhorporation, partnership, or assoiation and the tate insofar as itonerns their individual franhises+ "he seond ele$ent re;uires thatthe dispute a$on! the parties e intrinsially onneted with there!ulation of the orporation+ <f the nature of the ontroversy involves$atters that are purely ivil in harater, neessarily, the ase does notinvolve an intraorporate ontroversy+

iven these standards, we now ta.le the ;uestion posed for our deter$ination under thespeifi iru$stanes of this ase>

Application of the Relationship Test

<s there an intraorporate relationship etween the parties that would harateri=e the aseas an intraorporate disputeC

e point out at the outset that while Rodri!o holds shares of sto. in Ienith, he holds

the$ in two apaities> in his own ri!ht with respet to the 4,2-0 shares re!istered in his na$e,and as one of the heirs of Anastaia Reyes with respet to the 136,-9& shares re!istered in her na$e+ hat is $aterial in resolvin! the issues of this ase under the alle!ations of the o$plaintis Rodri!oEsinterest as an heir sine the su5et $atter of the present ontroversy enters on theshares of sto.s elon!in! to Anastaia, not on Rodri!oEs personallyowned shares nor on his personality as shareholder ownin! these shares+ <n this li!ht, all referene to shares of sto.s inthis ase shall pertain to the shareholdin!s of the deeased Anastaia and the partiesE interesttherein as her heirs+

Artile of the #ivil #ode delares that the suessional ri!hts are trans$itted fro$ the$o$ent of death of the deedent+ Aordin!ly, upon AnastaiaEs death, her hildren a;uiredle!al title to her estate 'whih title inludes her shareholdin!s in Ienith(, and they are, prior tothe estateEs partition, dee$ed oowners thereof+?2-@ "his status as oowners, however, does noti$$ediately and neessarily $a.e the$ sto.holders of the orporation+ Knless and until thereis o$pliane with etion 63 of the #orporation #ode on the $anner of transferrin! shares, theheirs do not eo$e re!istered sto.holders of the orporation+ etion 63 provides>

etion 63+ *ertificate of stoc+ and transfer of shares+ F "heapital sto. of sto. orporations shall e divided into shares for





190

whih ertifiates si!ned y the president or viepresident,ountersi!ned y the seretary or assistant seretary, and sealed withthe seal of the orporation shall e issued in aordane with the ylaws+ hares of sto. so issued are personal property and $ay etransferred y delivery of the ertifiate or ertifiates indorsed y the

owner or his attorneyinfat or other person le!ally authori=ed to $a.ethe transfer+ N! tans%e, h!we&e, sha** 'e &a*i(, e/ce"t as 'etweenthe "aties, $nti* the tans%e is ec!(e( in the '!!s !% thec!"!ati!n s! as t! sh!w the na.es !% the "aties t! thetansacti!n, the (ate !% the tans%e, the n$.'e !% the ceti%icate! ceti%icates, an( the n$.'e !% shaes tans%ee(1 ?$phasissupplied+@

*o shares of sto. a!ainst whih the orporation holds anyunpaid lai$ shall e transferale in the oo.s of the orporation+

i$ply stated, the transfer of title y $eans of suession, thou!h effetive and valid etween the parties involved 'i.e+, etween the deedentEs estate and her heirs(, does not ind theorporation and third parties+ "he transfer $ust e re!istered in the oo.s of the orporation to$a.e the transfereeheir a sto.holder entitled to reo!nition as suh oth y the orporation and y third parties+?26@

e note, in relation with the aove state$ent, that in A"ejo v. /ela *ru2 [!" and T*L #ales

*orporation v. *ourt of Appeals?2&@ we did not re;uire the re!istration of the transfer eforeonsiderin! the transferee a sto.holder of the orporation 'in effet upholdin! the eistene of an intraorporate relation etween the parties and rin!in! the ase within the 5urisdition of the# as an intraorporate ontroversy(+ A $ar.ed differene, however, eists etween theseases and the present one+

<n A"ejo and T*L #ales, the transferees held (e%inite an( $nc!nteste( tit*es t! as"eci%ic n$.'e !% shaes !% the c!"!ati!nB after the transferee had estalished prima facie ownership over the shares of sto.s in ;uestion, re!istration ea$e a $ere for$ality inonfir$in! their status as sto.holders+ <n the present ase, eah of AnastaiaEs heirs holds onlyan undivided interest in the shares+ "his interest, at this point, is still inhoate and su5et to theouto$e of a settle$ent proeedin!B the ri!ht of the heirs to speifi, distriutive shares of inheritane will not e deter$ined until all the dets of the estate of the deedent are paid+ <nshort, the heirs are only entitled to what re$ains after pay$ent of the deedentEs detsB?29@ whether there will e residue re$ains to e seen+ Justie Jurado aptly puts it as follows>

*o suession shall e delared unless and until a

li;uidation of the assets and dets left y the deedent shall have een$ade and all his reditors are fully paid+ Kntil a final li;uidation is$ade and all the dets are paid, the ri!ht of the heirs to inherit re$ainsinhoate+ "his is so eause under our rules of proedure, *i$i(ati!nis necessa) in !(e t! (ete.ine whethe ! n!t the (ece(ent has











191

*e%t an) *i$i( assets which .a) 'e tans.itte( t! his heis1?30@ ?$phasis supplied+@

Rodri!o $ust, therefore, hurdle two ostales efore he an e onsidered a sto.holder of

Ienith with respet to the shareholdin!s ori!inally elon!in! to Anastaia+ irst , he $ust prove

that there are shareholdin!s that will e left to hi$ and his oheirs, and this an e deter$inedonly in a settle$ent of the deedentEs estate+ *o suh proeedin! has een o$$ened todate+#econd , he $ust re!ister the transfer of the shares allotted to hi$ to $a.e it indin! a!ainstthe orporation+ )e annot de$and that this e done unless and until he has estalished hisspeifi allot$ent 'and prima facie ownership( of the shares+ ithout the settle$ent of AnastaiaEs estate, there an e no definite partition and distriution of the estate to theheirs+ ithout the partition and distriution, there an e no re!istration of the transfer+ Andwithout the re!istration, we annot onsider the transfereeheir a sto.holder who $ay invo.ethe eistene of an intraorporate relationship as pre$ise for an intraorporate ontroversywithin the 5urisdition of a speial o$$erial ourt+

<n su$, we find that F insofar as the su5et shares of sto. ' i.e.$ AnastaiaEs shares( areonerned F Rodri!o annot e onsidered a sto.holder of Ienith+ #onse;uently, we annotdelare that an intraorporate relationship eists that would serve as asis to rin! this asewithin the speial o$$erial ourtEs 5urisdition under etion -'( of 78 902A, asa$ended+ Rodri!oEs o$plaint, therefore, fails the relationship test+

Application of the >ature of *ontroversy Test

"he ody rather than the title of the o$plaint deter$ines the nature of an ation+ ?31@ Our ea$ination of the o$plaint yields the onlusion that, $ore than anythin! else, the o$plaintis aout the protetion and enfore$ent of suessional ri!hts+ "he ontroversy it presents is purely ivil rather than orporate, althou!h it is deno$inated as a o$plaint for aountin! of all orporate funds and assets+:

#ontrary to the findin!s of oth the trial and appellate ourts, we read only one ause of ation alle!ed in the o$plaint+ "he derivative suit for aountin! of the funds and assets of theorporation whih are in the ontrol, ustody, andGor possession of the respondent ?herein petitioner Osar@: does not onstitute a separate ause of ation ut is, as orretly lai$ed yOsar, only an inident to the ation for deter$ination of the shares of sto. of deeasedspouses 7edro and Anastaia Reyes alle!edly ta.en y respondent, its aountin! and theorrespondin! delivery of these shares to the partiesE rothers and sisters+: "here an e no$ista.e of the relationship etween the aountin!: $entioned in the o$plaint and theo5etive of partition and distriution when Rodri!o lai$ed in para!raph 10+1 of the o$plaintthat>

10+1 %y refusal of the respondent to aount of ?si@ his

shareholdin!s in the o$pany, he ille!ally and fraudulently transferred







192

solely in his na$e wherein ?si@ the shares of sto. of the deeasedAnastaia #+ Reyes ?whih@ $ust e properly ollated andGor distriuted e;ually a$on!st the hildren inludin! the o$plainantRodri!o #+ Reyes herein to their da$a!e and pre5udie+

e partiularly note that the o$plaint ontained no suffiient alle!ation that 5ustified the needfor an aountin! other than to deter$ine the etent of AnastaiaEs shareholdin!s for purposes of distriution+

Another si!nifiant indiator that points us to the real nature of the o$plaint areRodri!oEs repeated lai$s of ille!al and fraudulent transfers of AnastaiaEs shares y Osar to the pre5udie of the other heirs of the deedentB he ited these alle!edly fraudulent ats as asis for his de$and for the ollation and distriution of AnastaiaEs shares to the heirs+ "hese lai$s tellus une;uivoally that the present ontroversy arose fro$ the partiesE relationship as heirs of Anastaia and not as shareholders of Genith+ Rodri!o, in filin! the o$plaint, is enforin! hisri!hts as a oheir and not as a sto.holder of Ienith+ "he in5ury he see.s to re$edy is one

suffered y an heir 'for the i$pair$ent of his suessional ri!hts( and not y the orporation nor y Rodri!o as a shareholder on reord+

More than the $atters of in5ury and redress, what Rodri!o learly ai$s to ao$plishthrou!h his alle!ations of ille!al a;uisition y Osar is the distriution of AnastaiaEsshareholdin!s without a prior settle$ent of her estate F an o5etive that, y law and estalished 5urisprudene, annot e done+ "he R"# of Ma.ati, atin! as a speial o$$erial ourt, has no 5urisdition to settle, partition, and distriute the estate of a deeased+ A relevant provision F etion 2 of Rule 90 of the Revised Rules of #ourt F that onte$plates properties of thedeedent held y one of the heirs delares>

7$esti!ns as t! a(&ance.ent $ade or alle!ed to have

een $ade y the deeased to any heir .a) 'e hea( an( (ete.ine(') the court having ?urisdiction of the estate proceedingsB and thefinal order of the ourt thereon shall e indin! on the person raisin!the ;uestions and on the heir+ ?$phasis supplied+@

orth notin! are this #ourtEs state$ents in the ase of >atcher v. *ourt of Appeals=?32@

Mattes which in&!*&e sett*e.ent an( (isti'$ti!n !% theestate !% the (ece(ent %a** within the e/c*$si&e "!&ince !% the"!'ate c!$t in the eerise of its li$ited 5urisdition+

<t is lear that trial c!$ts t)in# an !(ina) acti!n cann!tes!*&e t! "e%!. acts "etainin# t! a s"ecia* "!cee(in# eause itis su5et to speifi presried rules+ ?$phasis supplied+@





193

"hat an aountin! of the funds and assets of Ienith to deter$ine the etent and value of AnastaiaEs shareholdin!s will e underta.en y a proate ourt and not y a speial o$$erialourt is o$pletely onsistent with the proate ourtEs li$ited 5urisdition+ <t has the power to

enfore an aountin! as a neessary $eans to its authority to deter$ine the properties inludedin the inventory of the estate to e ad$inistered, divided up, and distriuted+ %eyond this, thedeter$ination of title or ownership over the su5et shares 'whether elon!in! to Anastaia or Osar( $ay e conclusively settled y the proate ourt as a ;uestion of ollation or advane$ent+ e had oasion to reo!ni=e the ourtEs authority to at on ;uestions of title or ownership in a ollation or advane$ent situation in *oca v. Pan)ilinan?33@ where we ruled>

<t should e larified that whether a partiular $atter should e resolved

y the #ourt of irst <nstane in the eerise of its !eneral 5urisdition or of itsli$ited proate 5urisdition is in reality not a 5urisditional ;uestion+ <n essene, itis a proedural ;uestion involvin! a $ode of pratie Twhih $ay e waived+T

As a !eneral rule, the ;uestion as to title to property should not e passedupon in the testate or intestate proeedin!+ "hat ;uestion should e ventilated in aseparate ation+ "hat !eneral rule has ;ualifiations or eeptions 5ustified yepedieny and onveniene+

"hus, the proate ourt $ay provisionally pass upon in an intestate or testate proeedin! the ;uestion of inlusion in, or elusion fro$, the inventory of a piee of property without pre5udie to its final deter$ination in a separateation+

A*th!$#h #enea**), a "!'ate c!$t .a) n!t (eci(e a $esti!n !% tit*e! !wneshi", )et i% the interested parties are all heirs, or the $esti!n is !ne !% c!**ati!n ! a(&ance.ent, or the parties onsent to the assu$ption of 5urisdition y the proate ourt and the ri!hts of third parties are not i$paired, the "!'atec!$t is c!."etent t! (eci(e the $esti!n !% !wneshi" + ?#itations o$itted+$phasis supplied+@

<n su$, we hold that the nature of the present ontroversy is not one whih $ay e

lassified as an intraorporate dispute and is eyond the 5urisdition of the speial o$$erialourt to resolve+ <n short, Rodri!oEs o$plaint also fails the nature of the ontroversy test+

DERI2ATI2E S4IT

Rodri!oEs are lai$ that the o$plaint is a derivative suit will not suffie to onfer 5urisdition on the R"# 'as a speial o$$erial ourt( if he annot o$ply with the re;uisitesfor the eistene of a derivative suit+ "hese re;uisites are>






194

a+ the party rin!in! suit should e a shareholder durin! the ti$e of theat or transation o$plained of, the nu$er of shares not ein!$aterialB

+ the party has tried to ehaust intraorporate re$edies, i.e., has $adea de$and on the oard of diretors for the appropriate relief, ut the

latter has failed or refused to heed his pleaB and+ the ause of ation atually devolves on the orporationB thewron!doin! or har$ havin! een or ein! aused to the orporationand not to the partiular sto.holder rin!in! the suit+ ?34@

%ased on these standards, we hold that the alle!ations of the present o$plaint do not

a$ount to a derivative suit+

irst , as already disussed aove, Rodri!o is not a shareholder with respet to theshareholdin!s ori!inally elon!in! to AnastaiaB he only stands as a transfereeheir whose ri!htsto the share are inhoate and unreorded+ ith respet to his own individuallyheld

shareholdin!s, Rodri!o has not alle!ed any individual ause or asis as a shareholder on reordto proeed a!ainst Osar+

#econd , in order that a sto.holder $ay show a ri!ht to sue on ehalf of the orporation,he $ust alle!e with so$e partiularity in his o$plaint that he has ehausted his re$edies 'ithin

the corporation y $a.in! a suffiient de$and upon the diretors or other offiers for appropriate relief with the epressed intent to sue if relief is denied+ ?3-@ 7ara!raph & of theo$plaint hardly satisfies this re;uire$ent sine what the rule onte$plates is the ehaustion of re$edies 'ithin the orporate settin!>

&+ As $e$ers of the sa$e fa$ily, o$plainant Rodri!o #+Reyes has resorted ?to@ and ehausted all le!al $eans of resolvin! thedispute with the end view of a$ialy settlin! the ase, ut the dispute etween the$ ensued+

Lastly, we find no in5ury, atual or threatened, alle!ed to have een done to the orporationdue to OsarEs ats+ <f indeed he ille!ally and fraudulently transferred AnastaiaEs shares in hisown na$e, then the da$a!e is not to the orporation ut to his oheirsB the wron!ful transfer didnot affet the apital sto. or the assets of Ienith+ As already $entioned, neither has Rodri!oalle!ed any partiular ause or wron!doin! a!ainst the orporation that he an ha$pion in hisapaity as a shareholder on reord+?36@

<n su$$ary, whether as an individual or as a derivative suit, the R"# F sittin! as speial

o$$erial ourt F has no 5urisdition to hear Rodri!oEs o$plaint sine what is involved is thedeter$ination and distriution of suessional ri!hts to the shareholdin!s of AnastaiaReyes+ Rodri!oEs proper re$edy, under the iru$stanes, is to institute a speial proeedin! for the settle$ent of the estate of the deeased Anastaia Reyes, a $ove that is not forelosed y thedis$issal of his present o$plaint+









19-

0HEREFORE, we herey GRANT the petition and RE2ERSE the deision of the#ourt of Appeals dated May 26, 2004 in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 490+ "he o$plaint efore theRe!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 142, Ma.ati, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ 001--3, isordered DISMISSED for la. of 5urisdition+

SO ORDERED+

3OSELITO M4SNI P4NO

as hei !% the *ate Ca*!s P$n!,

7etitioner,

versus

P4NO ENTERPRISES, INC1, e"esente( ')3ES4SA P4NO,

Respondent+

G1R1 N!1 899@??

7resent>

N*ARA*"<AO, %.$

*hairperson$

#)<#O*AIAR<O,

H/A#O, JR+,

*A#)KRA, and

7RA/"A, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

epte$er 11, 2009



196

DECISION

NACH4RA, J 1:

Kpon the death of a sto.holder, the heirs do not auto$atially eo$e sto.holders of the orporationB neither are they $andatorily entitled to the ri!hts and privile!es of a sto.holder+"his, we delare in this petition for review on certiorari of the #ourt of Appeals '#A(8eision?1@ dated Otoer 11, 2006 and Resolution dated Marh 6, 200 in #A+R+ #H *o+&613+

"he fats of the ase follow>

#arlos /+ 7uno, who died on June 2-, 1963, was an inorporator of respondent 7unonterprises, <n+ On Marh 14, 2003, petitioner Joselito Musni 7uno, lai$in! to e an heir of #arlos /+ 7uno, initiated a o$plaint for speifi perfor$ane a!ainst respondent+ 7etitioner averred that he is the son of the deeased with the latterEs o$$onlaw wife, A$elia 7uno+ Assurvivin! heir, he lai$ed entitle$ent to the ri!hts and privile!es of his late father as sto.holder of respondent+ "he o$plaint thus prayed that respondent allow petitioner to inspet its orporate oo., render an aountin! of all the transations it entered into fro$ 1962, and !ive petitioner

all the profits, earnin!s, dividends, or ino$e pertainin! to the shares of #arlos /+ 7uno+?2@

Respondent filed a $otion to dis$iss on the !round that petitioner did not have the le!al personality to sue eause his irth ertifiate na$es hi$ as Joselito Musni Muno+: Apropos,there was yet a need for a 5udiial delaration that Joselito Musni 7uno: and Joselito MusniMuno: were one and the sa$e+

"he ourt ordered that the proeedin!s e held in aeyane, ratioinatin! that petitionerEsertifiate of live irth was no proof of his paternity and relation to #arlos /+ 7uno+

7etitioner su$itted the orreted irth ertifiate with the na$e Joselito M+ 7uno,:ertified y the #ivil Re!istrar of the #ity of Manila, and the #ertifiate of inality thereof+ "ohasten the disposition of the ase, the ourt onditionally ad$itted the orreted irth ertifiateas !enuine and authenti and ordered respondent to file its answer within fifteen days fro$ theorder and set the ase for pretrial+?3@










19

On Otoer 11, 200-, the ourt rendered a 8eision, the dispositive portion of whihreads>

)ROR, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered orderin! Jesusa 7uno andGor eliidad er$in to allow the plaintiff to inspet the orporate oo.s and reordsof the o$pany fro$ 1962 up to the present inludin! the finanial state$ents of the orporation+

"he osts of opyin! shall e shouldered y the plaintiff+ Any epenses to e inurred y the defendant to e ale to o$ply with this order shall e thesu5et of a ill of osts+

O OR8R8+?4@

On appeal, the #A ordered the dis$issal of the o$plaint in its 8eision dated Otoer 11,2006+ Aordin! to the #A, petitioner was not ale to estalish the paternity of and his filiationto #arlos /+ 7uno sine his irth ertifiate was prepared without the intervention of and the partiipatory a.nowled!$ent of paternity y #arlos /+ 7uno+ Aordin!ly, the #A said that

petitioner had no ri!ht to de$and that he e allowed to ea$ine respondentEs oo.s+ Moreover, petitioner was not a sto.holder of the orporation ut was $erely lai$in! ri!hts as an heir of #arlos /+ 7uno, an inorporator of the orporation+ )is ation for speifi perfor$ane thereforeappeared to e pre$atureB the proper ation to e ta.en was to prove the paternity of and hisfiliation to #arlos /+ 7uno in a petition for the settle$ent of the estate of the latter +?-@

7etitionerEs $otion for reonsideration was denied y the #A in its Resolution ?6@ datedMarh 6, 200+

<n this petition, petitioner raises the followin! issues>

<+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* *O"RK/<* ")A" ") JO/<"O 7K*O < *"<"/8 "O ")

R/< 8MA*88 ) %<* ") )<R O ") /A"










19&

#AR/O 7K*O, O* O ") <*#OR7ORA"OR ?O@R7O*8*" #OR7ORA"<O*+

<<+ )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* RK/<* ")A"</<A"<O* O JO/<"O 7K*O, ") 7"<"<O*R?,@ < *O" 8K/N7ROH* OR "A%/<)8+

<<<+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" RR8 <* *O" RK/<* ")A"JO/<"O MK*O A*8 JO/<"O 7K*O RR "O ") O*

A*8 ") AM 7RO*+

<H+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* *O"RK/<* ")A" )A" R7O*8*" MR/N 8<7K" < ")KR*AM O ") 7"<"<O*R )<#) A M<7//8 A*8") A#"KA/ A//A"<O* ++ R<)" O 7"<"<O*R A)<R O #AR/O 7K*O AR 8M8 A8M<""8)N7O")"<#A//N <* ") R7O*8*"?E@ MO"<O* "O8<M<+

H+ ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ ")ROR RR8<?*@ 8#R<* ")A" 7"<"<O*R < *O" *"<"/8 "O<*7#" ") #OR7ORA" %OOP O 8*8A*"#OR7ORA"<O*+?@

"he petition is without $erit+ 7etitioner failed to estalish the ri!ht to inspet respondentorporationEs oo.s and reeive dividends on the sto.s owned y #arlos /+ 7uno+

7etitioner anhors his lai$ on his ein! an heir of the deeased sto.holder+ )owever,we a!ree with the appellate ourt that petitioner was not ale to prove satisfatorily his filiationto the deeased sto.holderB thus, the for$er annot lai$ to e an heir of the latter+





199

<nessantly, we have delared that fatual findin!s of the #A supported ysustantial evidene, are onlusive and indin!+?&@ <n an appeal via certiorari, the #ourt $ay notreview the fatual findin!s of the #A+ <t is not the #ourtEs funtion under Rule 4- of the Rulesof #ourt to review, ea$ine, and evaluate or wei!h the proative value of the evidene presented+?9@

A ertifiate of live irth purportedly identifyin! the putative father is not o$petentevidene of paternity when there is no showin! that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of the ertifiate+ "he loal ivil re!istrar has no authority to reord the paternity of an ille!iti$ate hild on the infor$ation of a third person+?10@ As orretly oserved y the #A,only petitionerEs $other supplied the data in the irth ertifiate and si!ned the sa$e+ "here wasno evidene that #arlos /+ 7uno a.nowled!ed petitioner as his son+

As for the aptis$al ertifiate, we have already dereed that it an only serve asevidene of the ad$inistration of the sara$ent on the date speified ut not of the veraity of the entries with respet to the hildEs paternity+?11@

<n any ase, etions 4 and - of the #orporation #ode enu$erate the persons who areentitled to the inspetion of orporate oo.s, thus S

e+ 4+ Boo+s to "e +ept7 stoc+ transfer a)ent. S +

"he reords of all usiness transations of the orporation and the $inutesof any $eetin! shall e open to the inspetion of any(iect!, t$stee,st!ch!*(e or $e$er of the orporation at reasonale hours on usiness daysand he $ay de$and, in writin!, for a opy of eerpts fro$ said reords or $inutes, at his epense+

e+ -+ Ri)ht to financial statements+ S ithin ten '10( days fro$reeipt of a written re;uest of any sto.holder or $e$er, the orporation shallfurnish to hi$ its $ost reent finanial state$ent, whih shall inlude a alanesheet as of the end of the last taale year and a profit or loss of state$ent for said











200

taale year, showin! in reasonale detail its assets and liailities and the result of its operations+?12@

"he sto.holderEs ri!ht of inspetion of the orporationEs oo.s and reords is asedupon his ownership of shares in the orporation and the neessity for selfprotetion+ After all, ashareholder has the ri!ht to e intelli!ently infor$ed aout orporate affairs+?13@ uh ri!ht restsupon the sto.holderEs underlyin! ownership of the orporationEs assets and property+?14@

i$ilarly, only sto.holders of reord are entitled to reeive dividends delared y theorporation, a ri!ht inherent in the ownership of the shares+ ?1-@

Kpon the death of a shareholder, the heirs do not auto$atially eo$e sto.holders of the orporation and a;uire the ri!hts and privile!es of the deeased as shareholder of theorporation+ "he sto.s $ust e distriuted first to the heirs in estate proeedin!s, and thetransfer of the sto.s $ust e reorded in the oo.s of the orporation+ etion 63 of the#orporation #ode provides that no transfer shall e valid, eept as etween the parties, until thetransfer is reorded in the oo.s of the orporation+?16@ 8urin! suh interi$ period, the heirs standas the e;uitale owners of the sto.s, the eeutor or ad$inistrator duly appointed y the ourt ein! vested with the le!al title to the sto.+?1@ Kntil a settle$ent and division of the estate iseffeted, the sto.s of the deedent are held y the ad$inistrator or eeutor+ ?1&@ #onse;uently,durin! suh ti$e, it is the ad$inistrator or eeutor who is entitled to eerise the ri!hts of the

deeased as sto.holder+

"hus, even if petitioner presents suffiient evidene in this ase to estalish that he is theson of #arlos /+ 7uno, he would still not e allowed to inspet respondentEs oo.s and eentitled to reeive dividends fro$ respondent, asent any showin! in its transfer oo. that so$eof the shares owned y #arlos /+ 7uno were transferred to hi$+ "his would only e possile if petitioner has een reo!ni=ed as an heir and has partiipated in the settle$ent of the estate of the deeased+

#orollary to this is the dotrine that a deter$ination of whether a person, lai$in! proprietary ri!hts over the estate of a deeased person, is an heir of the deeased $ust eventilated in a speial proeedin! instituted preisely for the purpose of settlin! the estate of thelatter+ "he status of an ille!iti$ate hild who lai$s to e an heir to a deedentEs estate annot ead5udiated in an ordinary ivil ation, as in a ase for the reovery of property+ ?19@ "he dotrineapplies to the instant ase, whih is one for speifi perfor$ane S to diret respondent



















201

orporation to allow petitioner to eerise ri!hts that pertain only to the deeased and hisrepresentatives+

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the petition is DENIED+ "he #ourt of Appeals

8eision dated Otoer 11, 2006 and Resolution dated Marh 6, 200 are AFFIRMED+

SO ORDERED+

MAN4EL L1 LEE, A+#+ *o+ -2&1C!."*ainant,7resent>

7K*O, *.%., *hairperson, A*8OHA/K"<RRI,- & e s $ s - #ORO*A,

AI#K*A and/O*AR8O8 #A"RO, %%.

ATTY1 REGINO B1 TAMBAGO, Res"!n(ent1 7ro$ul!ated>

eruary 12, 200&/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

R E S O L 4 T I O NCORONA, J.:

<n a lettero$plaint dated April 10, 2000, o$plainant Manuel /+ /ee har!ed

respondent Atty+ Re!ino %+ "a$a!o with violation of the *otarial /aw and the ethis of the

le!al profession for notari=in! a spurious last will and testa$ent+

<n his o$plaint, o$plainant averred that his father, the deedent Hiente /ee, r+, never eeuted the ontested will+ urther$ore, the spurious will ontained the for!ed si!natures of

#ayetano *oynay and /oreto ra5o, the purported witnesses to its eeution+



202

<n the said will, the deedent supposedly e;ueathed his entire estate to his wife /i$

)o. /ee, save for a parel of land whih he devised to Hiente /ee, Jr+ and lena /ee, half

silin!s of o$plainant+

"he will was purportedly eeuted and a.nowled!ed efore respondent on June 30,196-+?1@ #o$plainant, however, pointed out that the residene ertifiate ?2@ of the testator noted in

the a.nowled!$ent of the will was dated January -, 1962+ ?3@urther$ore, the si!nature of the

testator was not the sa$e as his si!nature as donor in a deed of donation ?4@ 'ontainin! his

purported !enuine si!nature(+ #o$plainant averred that the si!natures of his deeased father in

the will and in the deed of donation were in any way 'si( entirely and dia$etrially opposed

fro$ 'si( one another in all an!le?s@+:?-@

#o$plainant also ;uestioned the asene of notation of the residene ertifiates of the

purported witnesses *oynay and ra5o+ )e alle!ed that their si!natures had li.ewise een for!ed

and $erely opied fro$ their respetive votersE affidavits+

#o$plainant further asserted that no opy of suh purported will was on file in the

arhives division of the Reords Mana!e$ent and Arhives Offie of the *ational #o$$ission

for #ulture and the Arts '*##A(+ <n this onnetion, the ertifiation of the hief of the arhives

division dated epte$er 19, 1999 stated> 8o+ 14, 7a!e *o+ 4, %oo. *o+ 1, eries of 196- refers to an A<8AH<"

eeuted y %AR"O/OM RAM<RI on June 30, 196- and is availale inthis Offie?Es@ files.?6@

Respondent in his o$$ent dated July 6, 2001 lai$ed that the o$plaint a!ainst hi$

ontained false alle!ations> '1( that o$plainant was a son of the deedent Hiente /ee, r+ and

'2( that the will in ;uestion was fa.e and spurious+ )e alle!ed that o$plainant was not a

le!iti$ate son of Hiente /ee, r+ and the last will and testa$ent was validly eeuted and

atually notari=ed y respondent per affidavit?@ of loria *eato, o$$onlaw wife of Hiente

/ee, r+ and orroorated y the 5oint affidavit?&@

of the hildren of Hiente /ee, r+, na$ely lena *+ /ee and Hiente *+ /ee, Jr+ +:?9@

Respondent further stated that the o$plaint was filed si$ply to harass hi$ eause the

ri$inal ase filed y o$plainant a!ainst hi$ in the Offie of the O$uds$an did not

prosper+:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/AC_5281.htm#_ftn1





















203

Respondent did not dispute o$plainantEs ontention that no opy of the will was on file

in the arhives division of the *##A+ )e lai$ed that no opy of the ontested will ould e

found there eause none was filed+

/astly, respondent pointed out that o$plainant had no valid ause of ation a!ainst hi$as he 'o$plainant( did not first file an ation for the delaration of nullity of the will and

de$and his share in the inheritane+

<n a resolution dated Otoer 1, 2001, the #ourt referred the ase to the <nte!rated %ar

of the 7hilippines '<%7( for investi!ation, report and reo$$endation+?10@

<n his report, the investi!atin! o$$issioner found respondent !uilty of violation of

pertinent provisions of the old *otarial /aw as found in the Revised Ad$inistrative #ode+ "he

violation onstituted an infrin!e$ent of le!al ethis, partiularly

#anon1?11@ and Rule 1+01?12@ of the #ode of 7rofessional Responsiility '#7R(+?13@ "hus, the investi!atin!o$$issioner of the <%7 #o$$ission on %ar 8isipline reo$$ended the suspension ofrespondent for a period of three $onths+

"he <%7 %oard of overnors, in its Resolution *o+ LH<<20062&- dated May 26, 2006,

resolved>

?"@o A8O7" and A77ROH, as it is herey A8O7"8 and A77ROH8, with.!(i%icati!n, the Report and Reo$$endation of the <nvesti!atin!#o$$issioner of the aoveentitled ase, herein $ade part of this Resolution asAnne A:B and, findin! the reo$$endation fully supported y the evidene onreord and the appliale laws and rules, and onsiderin! RespondentEs failure too$ply with the laws in the dishar!e of his funtion as a notary puli, Atty+Re!ino %+ "a$a!o is herey suspended fro$ the pratie of law for one year andRespondentEs notarial o$$ission is Re&!e( an(Dis$a*i%ie( fro$ reappoint$ent as *otary 7uli for two '2( years+?14@

e affir$ with $odifiation+

A will is an at wherey a person is per$itted, with the for$alities presried y law, to

ontrol to a ertain de!ree the disposition of his estate, to ta.e effet after his death+ ?1-@ A will

$ay either e notarial or holo!raphi+
















204

"he law provides for ertain for$alities that $ust e followed in the eeution of wills+

"he o5et of sole$nities surroundin! the eeution of wills is to lose the door on ad faith and

fraud, to avoid sustitution of wills and testa$ents and to !uarantee their truth and authentiity+?16@

A notarial will, as the ontested will in this ase, is re;uired y law to e susried at the

end thereof y the testator hi$self+ <n addition, it should e attested and susried y three or

$ore redile witnesses in the presene of the testator and of one another+?1@

"he will in ;uestion was attested y only two witnesses, *oynay and ra5o+ On this

iru$stane alone, the will $ust e onsidered void+ ?1&@ "his is in onsonane with the rule that

ats eeuted a!ainst the provisions of $andatory or prohiitory laws shall e void, eept when

the law itself authori=es their validity+

"he #ivil #ode li.ewise re;uires that a will $ust e a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli

y the testator and the witnesses+?19@ "he i$portane of this re;uire$ent is hi!hli!hted y the fat

that it was se!re!ated fro$ the other re;uire$ents under Artile &0- and e$odied in a distint

and separate provision+?20@

An a.nowled!$ent is the at of one who has eeuted a deed in !oin! efore so$e

o$petent offier or ourt and delarin! it to e his at or deed+ <t involves an etra step

underta.en wherey the si!natory atually delares to the notary puli that the sa$e is his or

her own free at and deed+?21@ "he a.nowled!$ent in a notarial will has a twofold purpose> '1(

to safe!uard the testatorEs wishes lon! after his de$ise and '2( to assure that his estate is

ad$inistered in the $anner that he intends it to e done+

A ursory ea$ination of the a.nowled!$ent of the will in ;uestion shows that this

partiular re;uire$ent was neither stritly nor sustantially o$plied with+ or one, there was

the onspiuous asene of a notation of the residene ertifiates of the notarial witnesses

*oynay and ra5o in the a.nowled!$ent+ i$ilarly, the notation of the testatorEs old residene

ertifiate in the sa$e a.nowled!$ent was a lear reah of the law+ "hese o$issions yrespondent invalidated the will+

As the a.nowled!in! offier of the ontested will, respondent was re;uired to faithfully

oserve the for$alities of a will and those of notari=ation+ As we held in #antia)o v. Rafanan>?22@

















20-

"he *otarial /aw is epliit on the oli!ations and duties of notaries puli+ "hey are re;uired to ertify that the party to every dou$enta.nowled!ed efore hi$ had presented the proper residene ertifiate 'or ee$ption fro$ the residene ta(B and to enter its nu$er, plae of issue and dateas part of suh ertifiation+

"hese for$alities are $andatory and annot e disre!arded, onsiderin! the de!ree of

i$portane and evidentiary wei!ht attahed to notari=ed dou$ents+?23@ A notary puli,

espeially a lawyer ,?24@ is ound to stritly oserve these ele$entary re;uire$ents+

"he *otarial /aw then in fore re;uired the ehiition of the residene ertifiate upon

notari=ation of a dou$ent or instru$ent>

etion 2-1+ Re;uire$ent as to notation of pay$ent of ?cedula@ residene ta+ F

very ontrat, deed, or other dou$ent a.nowled!ed efore a notary pulishall have ertified thereon that the parties thereto have presented their proper ?cedula@ residene ertifiate or are ee$pt fro$ the ?cedula@ residene ta, andthere shall e entered y the notary puli as a part of suh ertifiate the nu$er, plae of issue, and date of eah ?cedula@ residene ertifiate as aforesaid+?2-@

"he i$portane of suh at was further reiterated y etion 6 of the Residene "a

At?26@ whih stated>

hen a person liale to the taes presried in this At a.nowled!es anydou$ent efore a notary puli it shall e the duty of suh person withwho$ suh transation is had or usiness done, to re;uire the ehiition of theresidene ertifiate showin! pay$ent of the residene taes y suh person +

<n the issuane of a residene ertifiate, the law see.s to estalish the true and orret

identity of the person to who$ it is issued, as well as the pay$ent of residene taes for the

urrent year+ %y havin! allowed deedent to ehiit an epired residene ertifiate, respondent

failed to o$ply with the re;uire$ents of oth the old *otarial /aw and the Residene "a At+

As $uh ould e said of his failure to de$and the ehiition of the residene ertifiates of *oynay and ra5o+

On the issue of whether respondent was under the le!al oli!ation to furnish a opy of the

notari=ed will to the arhives division, Artile &06 provides>












206

Art+ &06+ very will $ust e a.nowled!ed efore a notary puli y thetestator and the witness+ The n!ta) "$'*ic sha** n!t 'e e$ie( t! etain ac!") !% the wi**, ! %i*e an!the with the !%%ice !% the C*e !% C!$t1 'e$phasis supplied(

RespondentEs failure, inadvertent or not, to file in the arhives division a opy of the notari=ed

will was therefore not a ause for disiplinary ation+

*evertheless, respondent should e faulted for havin! failed to $a.e the neessary

entries pertainin! to the will in his notarial re!ister+ "he old *otarial /aw re;uired the entry of

the followin! $atters in the notarial re!ister, in hronolo!ial order> 1+ nature of eah instru$ent eeuted, sworn to, or a.nowled!ed efore hi$B2+ person eeutin!, swearin! to, or a.nowled!in! the instru$entB3+ witnesses, if any, to the si!natureB4+ date of eeution, oath, or a.nowled!$ent of the instru$entB-+ fees olleted y hi$ for his servies as notaryB6+ !ive eah entry a onseutive nu$erB and+ if the instru$ent is a ontrat, a rief desription of the sustane of the

instru$ent+?2@

<n an effort to prove that he had o$plied with the aove$entioned rule, respondent

ontended that he had rossed out a prior entry and entered instead the will of the deedent+ As

proof, he presented a photoopy of his notarial re!ister+ "o reinfore his lai$, he presented a

photoopy of a ertifiation?2&@ statin! that the arhives division had no opy of the affidavit of

%artolo$e Ra$ire=+

A photoopy is a $ere seondary evidene+ <t is not ad$issile unless it is shown that the

ori!inal is unavailale+ "he proponent $ust first prove the eistene and ause of the

unavailaility of the ori!inal,?29@ otherwise, the evidene presented will not e ad$itted+ "hus, the

photoopy of respondentEs notarial re!ister was not ad$issile as evidene of the entry of the

eeution of the will eause it failed to o$ply with the re;uire$ents for the ad$issiility of

seondary evidene+

<n the sa$e vein, respondentEs atte$pt to ontrovert the ertifiation dated epte$er 21,

1999?30@ $ust fail+ *ot only did he present a $ere photoopy of the ertifiation dated Marh 1-,

2000B?31@ its ontents did not s;uarely prove the fat of entry of the ontested will in his notarial

re!ister+















20&

hile the duty to uphold the #onstitution and oey the law is an oli!ation i$posed on

every iti=en, a lawyer assu$es responsiilities well eyond the asi re;uire$ents of !ood

iti=enship+ As a servant of the law, a lawyer should $oreover $a.e hi$self an ea$ple for

others to e$ulate+?42@ %ein! a lawyer, he is supposed to e a $odel in the o$$unity in so far as

respet for the law is onerned+?43@

"he pratie of law is a privile!e urdened with onditions+?44@ A reah of these

onditions 5ustifies disiplinary ation a!ainst the errin! lawyer+ A disiplinary santion is

i$posed on a lawyer upon a findin! or a.nowled!$ent that he has en!a!ed in professional

$isondut+?4-@ "hese santions $eted out to errant lawyers inlude disar$ent, suspension and

repri$and+

8isar$ent is the $ost severe for$ of disiplinary santion+ ?46@ e have held in a

nu$er of ases that the power to disar $ust e eerised with !reat aution ?4@ and should not

e dereed if any punish$ent less severe F suh as repri$and, suspension, or fine F will

ao$plish the end desired+?4&@ "he rule then is that disar$ent is $eted out only in lear ases of

$isondut that seriously affet the standin! and harater of the lawyer as an offier of the

ourt+?49@

Respondent, as notary puli, evidently failed in the perfor$ane of the ele$entary

duties of his offie+ #ontrary to his lai$s that he eerised his duties as *otary 7uli with due

are and with due re!ard to the provision of eistin! law and had o$plied with the ele$entary

for$alities in the perfor$ane of his duties ,: we find that he ated very irresponsily in

notari=in! the will in ;uestion+ uh re.lessness warrants the less severe punish$ent of

suspension fro$ the pratie of law+ <t is, as well, a suffiient asis for the revoation of his

o$$ission?-0@ and his perpetual dis;ualifiation to e o$$issioned as a notary puli+ ?-1@

0HEREFORE, respondent Atty+ Re!ino %+ "a$a!o is herey found !uilty of

professional $isondut+ )e violated '1( the /awyerEs OathB '2( Rule 13& of the Rules of #ourtB

'3( #anon 1 and Rule 1+01 of the #ode of 7rofessional ResponsiilityB '4( Art+ &06 of the #ivil#ode and '-( the provisions of the old *otarial /aw+

Atty+ Re!ino %+ "a$a!o is herey S4SPENDED fro$ the pratie of law for one year

and his notarial o$$issionRE2OED+ %eause he has not lived up to the trustworthiness

























209

epeted of hi$ as a notary puli and as an offier of the ourt, he

is PERPET4ALLY DIS74ALIFIED fro$ reappoint$ent as a notary puli+

/et opies of this Resolution e furnished to all the ourts of the land, the <nte!rated %ar

of the 7hilippines and the Offie of the %ar #onfidant, as well as $ade part of the personalreords of respondent+

SO ORDERED+

PA6 SAMANIEGO-CELADA,

7etitioner,

versus

G1R1 N!1 8;;

7resent>

K<KM%<*, % +, #hairperson,

#AR7<O MORA/,

"<*A,

H/A#O, JR+, and

%R<O*, %% +

L4CIA D1 ABENA,

Respondent+

7ro$ul!ated>

June 30, 200&

/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/



210

DECISION

74IS4MBING, J 1:

"his is a petition for review under Rule 4- of the 199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure see.in!to reverse the 8eision8 datedOtoer 13, 2000 of the #ourt of Appeals in #A+R+ #H *o+41-6, whih affir$ed the 8eision= dated Marh 2, 1993 of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(,%ranh 66, Ma.ati #ity+ "he R"# had delared the last will and testa$ent of Mar!arita +Mayores proated and desi!nated respondent /uia 8+ Aena as the eeutor of her will+ <t alsoordered the issuane of letters testa$entary in favor of respondent+

"he fats are as follows>

7etitioner 7a= a$anie!o#elada was the first ousin of deedent Mar!arita+ Mayores 'Mar!arita( while respondent was the deedentEs lifelon! o$panion sine 1929+

On April 2, 19&, Mar!arita died sin!le and without any asendin! nor desendin! heirsas her parents, !randparents and silin!s predeeased her+ he was survived y her first ousins#atalina a$anie!o%o$ay, Manuelita a$anie!o a5onia, eli=aa$anie!o, and petitioner+

%efore her death, Mar!arita eeuted a /ast ill and "esta$ent on eruary 2, 19&where she e;ueathed onehalf of her undivided share of a real property loated at in!alon!Manila, onsistin! of 209+& s;uare $eters, and overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle '"#"( *o+ 1343 to respondent, *or$a A+ 7ahin!alo, and lorentino M+ Aena in e;ual shares or onethird portion eah+ he li.ewise e;ueathed onehalf of her undivided share of a real property

loated at an Antonio Hilla!e, Ma.ati, onsistin! of 22- s;uare $eters, and overed y "#" *o+ 6&920 to respondent, <saelo M+ Aena, and A$anda M+ Aena in e;ual shares or onethird portion eah+ Mar!arita also left all her personal properties to respondent who$ she li.ewisedesi!nated as sole eeutor of her will+

On Au!ust 11, 19&, petitioner filed a petition for letters of ad$inistration of the estate of Mar!arita efore the R"# of Ma.ati+ "he ase was do.eted as 7 7ro+ *o+ M1-31+

On Otoer 2, 19&, respondent filed a petition for proate of the will of Mar!arita efore the R"# of Ma.ati+ "he ase was do.eted as 7 7ro+ *o+ M160 and onsolidatedwith 7 7ro+ *o+ M1-31+

On Marh 2, 1993, the R"# rendered a deision delarin! the last will and testa$ent of Mar!arita proated and respondent as the eeutor of the will+ "he dispositive portion of thedeision states>

<n view of the fore!oin!, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered>

1( delarin! the will as proatedB

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/june2008/145545.htm#_ftn1








211

2( delarin! /uia Aena as the eeutor of the will who will serve as

suh without a ond as stated in para!raph H< of the proated willB 3( orderin! the issuane of letters testa$entary in favor of

/uia Aena+ o ordered+;

7etitioner appealed the R"# deision to the #ourt of Appeals+ %ut the #ourt of Appeals,in a deision dated Otoer 13, 2000, affir$ed in toto the R"# rulin!+ "he dispositive portion of the #ourt of AppealsE deision states>

0HEREFORE, fore!oin! pre$ises onsidered, the appeal havin! no$erit in fat and in law, is herey ORDERED DISMISSEDand the appealed8eision of the trial ourt AFFIRMED IN TOTO, with ost to oppositors

appellants+SO ORDERED1

)ene, the instant petition itin! the followin! issues><+

)")R OR *O" ") #OKR" O A77A/ #OMM<""8 ARHR<%/ RROR <* *O" <*HA/<8A"<* ") <// <*# <" 8<8 *O" #O*ORM "O ") ORMA/<"< RK<R8 %N /AB

<<+ )")R OR *O" ") #OKR" O A77A/ #OMM<""8 RROR <* *O" <*HA/<8A"<* ") <// %#AK <" A 7RO#KR8")ROK) K*8K <*/K*# A*8 7RKR?B@ A*8

<<<+ )")R OR *O" ") #OKR" O A77A/ RAH/N RR8 <* *O"8#/AR<* 7"<"<O*R, )R <%/<* A*8 #OK<* A ") /A/)<R O MARAR<"A + MANOR A*8 <* *O" <K<* /""R

O A8M<*<"RA"<O* "O )R+?

%riefly stated, the issues are '1( whether the #ourt of Appeals erred in not delarin! thewill invalid for failure to o$ply with the for$alities re;uired y law, '2( whether said ourterred in not delarin! the will invalid eause it was proured throu!h undue influene and pressure, and '3( whether it erred in not delarin! petitioner and her silin!s as the le!al heirs of Mar!arita, and in not issuin! letters of ad$inistration to petitioner+









212

7etitioner, in her Me$orandu$,9 ar!ues that Mar!aritaEs will failed to o$ply with thefor$alities re;uired under Artile &0-< of the #ivil #ode eause the will was not si!ned y thetestator in the presene of the instru$ental witnesses and in the presene of one another+ healso ar!ues that the si!natures of the testator on pa!es A, %, and # of the will are not the sa$e or si$ilar, indiatin! that they were not si!ned on the sa$e day+ he further ar!ues that the will

was proured throu!h undue influene and pressure eause at the ti$e of eeution of the will,Mar!arita was wea., si.ly, 5oless and entirely dependent upon respondent and her nephews for support, and these alle!ed handiaps alle!edly affeted her freedo$ and willpower to deide onher own+ 7etitioner thus onludes that Mar!aritaEs total dependene on respondent and her nephews o$pelled her to si!n the will+ 7etitioner li.ewise ar!ues that the #ourt of Appealsshould have delared her and her silin!s as the le!al heirs of Mar!arita sine they are her onlylivin! ollateral relatives in aordane with Artiles 1009> and 10108@ of the #ivil #ode+

Respondent, for her part, ar!ues in her Me$orandu$ 88 that the petition for review raises;uestions of fat, not of law and as a rule, findin!s of fat of the #ourt of Appeals are final andonlusive and annot e reviewed on appeal to the upre$e #ourt+ he also points out that

althou!h the #ourt of Appeals at the outset opined there was no o$pellin! reason to review the petition, the #ourt of Appeals proeeded to ta.le the assi!ned errors and rule that the will wasvalidly eeuted, sustainin! the findin!s of the trial ourt that the for$alities re;uired y lawwere duly o$plied with+ "he #ourt of Appeals also onurred with the findin!s of the trialourt that the testator, Mar!arita, was of sound $ind when she eeuted the will+

After areful onsideration of the partiesE ontentions, we rule in favor of respondent+

e find that the issues raised y petitioner onern pure ;uestions of fat, whih $ay not e the su5et of a petition for review on ertiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ivil7roedure+

"he issues that petitioner is raisin! now i.e., whether or not the will was si!ned y thetestator in the presene of the witnesses and of one another, whether or not the si!natures of thewitnesses on the pa!es of the will were si!ned on the sa$e day, and whether or not undueinfluene was eerted upon the testator whih o$pelled her to si!n the will, are all ;uestions of fat+

"his #ourt does not resolve ;uestions of fat in a petition for review under Rule 4- of the199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure+ etion 18= of Rule 4- li$its this #ourtEs review to ;uestions of law only+

ellsettled is the rule that the upre$e #ourt is not a trier of fats+ hen supported ysustantial evidene, the findin!s of fat of the #ourt of Appeals are onlusive and indin! onthe parties and are not reviewale y this #ourt, unless the ase falls under any of the followin!reo!ni=ed eeptions>

'1( hen the onlusion is a findin! !rounded entirely on speulation, sur$isesand on5eturesB



















213

'2( hen the inferene $ade is $anifestly $ista.en, asurd or i$possileB

'3( here there is a !rave ause of disretionB

'4( hen the 5ud!$ent is ased on a $isapprehension of fatsB

'-( hen the findin!s of fat are onflitin!B

'6( hen the #ourt of Appeals, in $a.in! its findin!s, went eyond the issuesof the ase and the sa$e is ontrary to the ad$issions of oth appellant andappelleeB

'( hen the findin!s are ontrary to those of the trial ourtB

'&( hen the findin!s of fat are onlusions without itation of speifievidene on whih they are asedB

'9( hen the fats set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionersE $ainand reply riefs are not disputed y the respondentsB and

'10( hen the findin!s of fat of the #ourt of Appeals are pre$ised on thesupposed asene of evidene and ontradited y the evidene on reord+ 8

e find that this ase does not involve any of the aove$entioned eeptions+

*onetheless, a review of the findin!s of the R"# as upheld y the #ourt of Appeals,reveal that petitionerEs ar!u$ents la. asis+ "he R"# orretly held>

ith ?re!ard@ to the ontention of the oppositors ?7a= a$anie!o#elada,et al+@ that the testator ?Mar!arita Mayores@ was not $entally apale of $a.in! awill at the ti$e of the eeution thereof, the sa$e is without $erit+ "heoppositors failed to estalish, y preponderane of evidene, said alle!ation andontradit the presu$ption that the testator was of sound $ind 'ee Artile &00 of the #ivil #ode(+ <n fat, witness for the oppositors, 8r+ Ra$on /a$erte, who, inso$e oasions, attended to the testator $onths efore her death, testified thatMar!arita Mayores ould en!a!e in a nor$al onversation and he even stated thatthe illness of the testator does not warrant hospitali=ationV+ *ot one of theoppositorEs witnesses has $entioned any instane that they oserved atGs of thetestator durin! her lifeti$e that ould e onstrued as a $anifestation of $entalinapaity+ "he testator $ay e ad$itted to e physially wea. ut it does notneessarily follow that she was not of sound $ind+ ?"he@ testi$onies of ontestant witnesses are pure aforethou!ht+

Anent the ontestantsE su$ission that the will is fatally defetive for the

reason that its attestation lause states that the will is o$posed of three '3( pa!eswhile in truth and in fat, the will onsists of two '2( pa!es only eause theattestation is not a part of the notarial will, the sa$e is not aurate+ hile it is







21-

#osts a!ainst petitioner+

SO ORDERED1

G1R1 N!1 8@?9=@ Se"te.'e 8, 8>>;

SPO4SES ROBERTO AND THELMA A3ERO, petitioners,vs+THE CO4RT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, respondents+

Mi)uel /. Larida for petitioners.

Montilla La' 0ffice for private respondent.

P4NO, J.:

"his is an appeal y certiorari fro$ the 8eision of the #ourt ofAppeals 8 in #A+R+ #H *o+ 22&40, dated Marh 30, 1992, the dispositive portion of whihreadsB

7RM< #O*<8R8, the ;uestioned deision of *ove$er 19, 19&& of

the trial ourt is herey RHR8 and " A<8, and the petition for proateis herey 8<M<8+ *o osts+

"he earlier 8eision was rendered y the R"# of ue=on #ity, %ranh 94, = in p+ 7ro+ *o+ 311, and the instru$ent su$itted for proate is the holo!raphi will of the lateAnnie and, who died on *ove$er 2-, 19&2+

<n the will, deedent na$ed as devisees, the followin!> petitioners Roerto and "hel$a A5ero, private respondent #le$ente and, Meria$ + Aron!, /eah and, /ilia and, d!ar and, eand, /isa + and, and 8r+ Jose A5ero, r+, and their hildren+

On January 20, 19&3, petitioners instituted p+ 7ro+ *o+ 311, for allowane of deedentDsholo!raphi will+ "hey alle!ed that at the ti$e of its eeution, she was of sound and disposin!$ind, not atin! under duress, fraud or undue influene, and was in every respet apaitated todispose of her estate y will+

7rivate respondent opposed the petition on the !rounds that> neither the testa$entDs ody nor thesi!nature therein was in deedentDs handwritin!B it ontained alterations and orretions whihwere not duly si!ned y deedentB and, the will was proured y petitioners throu!h i$proper



216

pressure and undue influene+ "he petition was li.ewise opposed y 8r+ Jose A5ero+ )e ontestedthe disposition in the will of a house and lot loated in #aadaran, A!usan 8el *orte+ )elai$ed that said property ould not e onveyed y deedent in its entirety, as she was not itssole owner+

*otwithstandin! the oppositions, the trial ourt ad$itted the deedentDs holo!raphi will to proate+ <t found, inter alia>

#onsiderin! then that the proate proeedin!s herein $ust deide only the;uestion of identity of the will, its due eeution and the testa$entary apaity ofthe testatri, this proate ourt finds no reason at all for the disallowane of thewill for its failure to o$ply with the for$alities presried y law nor for la. oftesta$entary apaity of the testatri+

or one, no evidene was presented to show that the will in ;uestion is differentfro$ the will atually eeuted y the testatri+ "he only o5etions raised y the

oppositors + + + are that the will was not written in the handwritin! of the testatriwhih properly refers to the ;uestion of its due eeution, and not to the ;uestionof identity of will+ *o other will was alle!ed to have een eeuted y thetestatri other than the will herein presented+ )ene, in the li!ht of the evideneaddued, the identity of the will presented for proate $ust e aepted, i+e+, thewill su$itted in #ourt $ust e dee$ed to e the will atually eeuted y thetestatri+

hile the fat that it was entirely written, dated and si!ned in the handwritin! of

the testatri has een disputed, the petitioners, however, have satisfatorily shownin #ourt that the holo!raphi will in ;uestion was indeed written entirely, datedand si!ned in the handwritin! of the testatri+ "hree '3( witnesses who haveonvinin!ly shown .nowled!e of the handwritin! of the testatri have een presented and have epliitly and ate!orially identified the handwritin! withwhih the holo!raphi will in ;uestion was written to e the !enuine handwritin!and si!nature of the testatri+ iven then the aforesaid evidene, the re;uire$entof the law that the holo!raphi will e entirely written, dated and si!ned in thehandwritin! of the testatri has een o$plied with+

As to the ;uestion of the testa$entary apaity of the testrati, 'privaterespondent( #le$ente and hi$self has testified in #ourt that the testatri waso$pletely in her sound $ind when he visited her durin! her irthday elerationin 19&1, at or around whih ti$e the holo!raphi will in ;uestion was eeuted ythe testatri+ "o e of sound $ind, it is suffiient that the testatri, at the ti$e of$a.in! the will, .new the value of the estate to e disposed of, the proper o"ject of her ounty, and the character of the testa$entary at + + + "he will



21

itself shows that the testatri even had detailed .nowled!e of the nature of herestate+ he even identified the lot nu$er and s;uare $eters of the lots she hadonveyed y will+ "he o5ets of her ounty were li.ewise identified epliitly+And onsiderin! that she had even written a nursin! oo. whih ontained thelaw and 5urisprudene on will and suession, there is $ore than suffiient

showin! that she .nows the harater of the testa$entary at+

<n this wise, the ;uestion of identity of the will, its due eeution and thetesta$entary apaity of the testatri has to e resolved in favor of the allowaneof proate of the will su$itted herein+

/i.ewise, no evidene was presented to show suffiient reason for thedisallowane of herein holo!raphi will+ hile it was alle!ed that the said willwas proured y undue and i$proper pressure and influene on the part of the enefiiary or of so$e other person, the evidene addued have not shown anyinstane where i$proper pressure or influene was eerted on the testatri+

'7rivate respondent( #le$ente and has testified that the testatri was still alert atthe ti$e of the eeution of the will, i+e+, at or around the ti$e of her irthanniversary eleration in 19&1+ <t was also estalished that she is a veryintelli!ent person and has a $ind of her own+ )er independene of harater andto so$e etent, her sense of superiority, whih has een testified to in #ourt, allshow the unli.elihood of her ein! unduly influened or i$properly pressured to$a.e the aforesaid will+ <t $ust e noted that the undue influene or i$proper pressure in ;uestion herein only refer to the $a.in! of a will and not as to thespeifi testa$entary provisions therein whih is the proper su5et of another proeedin!+ )ene, under the iru$stanes, this #ourt annot find onvinin!reason for the disallowane of the will herein+

#onsiderin! then that it is a wellestalished dotrine in the law on suessionthat in ase of dout, testate suession should e preferred over intestatesuession, and the fat that no onvinin! !rounds were presented and provenfor the disallowane of the holo!raphi will of the late Annie and, the aforesaidwill su$itted herein $ust e ad$itted to proate+ '#itations o$itted+(

On appeal, said 8eision was reversed, and the petition for proate of deedentDs will wasdis$issed+ "he #ourt of Appeals found that, Tthe holo!raphi will fails to $eet the re;uire$entsfor its validity+T ; <t held that the deedent did not o$ply with Artiles &13 and &14 of the *ew#ivil #ode, whih read, as follows>

Art+ &13> hen a nu$er of dispositions appearin! in a holo!raphi will aresi!ned without ein! dated, and the last disposition has a si!nature and date, suhdate validates the dispositions preedin! it, whatever e the ti$e of priordispositions+

Art+ &14> <n ase of insertion, anellation, erasure or alteration in a holo!raphiwill, the testator $ust authentiate the sa$e y his full si!nature+



21&

<t alluded to ertain dispositions in the will whih were either unsi!ned and undated, or si!ned ut not dated+ <t also found that the erasures, alterations and anellations $ade thereon had not een authentiated y deedent+

"hus, this appeal whih is i$pressed with $erit+

etion 9, Rule 6 of the Rules of #ourt provides that will shall e disallowed in any of thefollowin! ases>

'a( <f not eeuted and attested as re;uired y lawB

'( <f the testator was insane, or otherwise $entally inapale to $a.e a will, atthe ti$e of its eeutionB

'( <f it was eeuted under duress, or the influene of fear, or threatsB

'd( <f it was proured y undue and i$proper pressure and influene, on the partof the enefiiary, or of so$e other person for his enefitB

'e( <f the si!nature of the testator was proured y fraud or tri., and he did notintend that the instru$ent should e his will at the ti$e of fiin! his si!naturethereto+

<n the sa$e vein, Artile &39 of the *ew #ivil #ode reads>

Art+ &39> "he will shall e disallowed in any of the followin! asesB

'1( <f the for$alities re;uired y law have not een o$plied withB

'2( <f the testator was insane, or otherwise $entally inapale of$a.in! a will, at the ti$e of its eeutionB

'3( <f it was eeuted throu!h fore or under duress, or theinfluene of fear, or threatsB

'4( <f it was proured y undue and i$proper pressure andinfluene, on the part of the enefiiary or of so$e other personB

'-( <f the si!nature of the testator was proured y fraudB

'6( <f the testator ated y $ista.e or did not intend that theinstru$ent he si!ned should e his will at the ti$e of affiin! hissi!nature thereto+

"hese lists are elusiveB no other !rounds an serve to disallow a will+ "hus, in a petition toad$it a holo!raphi will to proate, the only issues to e resolved are> '1( whether the instru$ent



219

su$itted is, indeed, the deedentDs last will and testa$entB '2( whether said will was eeuted inaordane with the for$alities presried y lawB '3( whether the deedent had the neessarytesta$entary apaity at the ti$e the will was eeutedB and, '4( whether the eeution of thewill and its si!nin! were the voluntary ats of the deedent+ ?

<n the ase at enh, respondent ourt held that the holo!raphi will of Anne and was noteeuted in aordane with the for$alities presried y law+ <t held that Artiles &13 and &14of the *ew #ivil #ode, ante, were not o$plied with, hene, it disallowed the proate of saidwill+ "his is erroneous+

e reiterate what we held in A"an)an vs+ A"an)an, 40 7hil+ 46, 49 '1919(, that>

"he o5et of the sole$nities surroundin! the eeution of wills is to lose thedoor a!ainst ad faith and fraud, to avoid sustitution of wills and testa$ents andto !uaranty their truth and authentiity+ "herefore, the laws on this su5et should e interpreted in suh a way as to attain these pri$ordial ends+ %ut, on the other

hand, also one $ust not lose si!ht of the fat that it is not the o5et of the law torestrain and urtail the eerise of the ri!ht to $a.e a will+ o when aninterpretation already !iven assures suh ends, any other interpretationwhatsoever, that adds nothin! ut de$ands $ore re;uisites entirely unneessary,useless and frustrative of the testatorDs last will, $ust e disre!arded+

or purposes of proatin! nonholo!raphi wills, these for$al sole$nities inlude thesusription, attestation, and a.nowled!$ent re;uire$ents under Artiles &0- and &06 of the *ew #ivil #ode+

<n the ase of holo!raphi wills, on the other hand, what assures authentiity is the re;uire$ent

that they e totally auto!raphi or handwritten y the testator hi$self,

9

as provided under Artile&10 of the *ew #ivil #ode, thus>

A person $ay eeute a holo!raphi will whih $ust e entirely written, dated,and si!ned y the hand of the testator hi$self+ (t is su"ject to no other form, and$ay e $ade in or out of the 7hilippines, and need not e witnessed+ '$phasissupplied+(

ailure to stritly oserve other for$alities will not result in the disallowane of aholo!raphi will that is un;uestionaly handwritten y the testator+

A readin! of Artile &13 of the *ew #ivil #ode shows that its re;uire$ent affets the validity ofthe dispositions ontained in the holo!raphi will, ut not its proate+ <f the testator fails to si!nand date so$e of the dispositions, the result is that these dispositions annot e effetuated+ uhfailure, however, does not render the whole testa$ent void+

/i.ewise, a holo!raphi will an still e ad$itted to proate, notwithstandin! nono$plianewith the provisions of Artile &14+ <n the ase of ala' vs+ Relova 132 #RA 23 242 '19&4(,this #ourt held>



220

Ordinarily, when a nu$er of erasures, orretions, and interlineations $ade ythe testator in a holo!raphi ill have not een noted under his si!nature, + + + theill is not therey invalidated as a whole, ut at $ost only as respets the partiular words erased, orreted or interlined+ Manresa !ave an identialo$$entary when he said Tla o$ission de la salvedad no anula el testa$ento,

se!un la re!la de 5urisprudenia estaleida en la sentenia de 4 de Aril de19&-+T < '#itations o$itted+(

"hus, unless the unauthentiated alterations, anellations or insertions were $ade on the date ofthe holo!raphi will or on testatorDs si!nature, > their presene does not invalidate the willitself+ 8@ "he la. of authentiation will only result in disallowane of suh han!es+

<t is also proper to note that the re;uire$ents of authentiation of han!es and si!nin! and datin!of dispositions appear in provisions 'Artiles &13 and &14( separate fro$ that whih provides for the neessary onditions for the validity of the holo!raphi will 'Artile &10(+ "he distintion an e traed to Artiles 6& and 6&& of the panish #ivil #ode, fro$ whih the present provisions

overin! holo!raphi wills are ta.en+ "hey read as follows>

Art+ 6&> A will is alled holo!raphi when the testator writes it hi$self in thefor$ and with the re;uisites re;uired in Artile 6&&+

Art+ 6&&> )olo!raphi wills $ay e eeuted only y persons of full a!e+

<n order that the will e valid it $ust e drawn on sta$ped paper orrespondin! tothe year of its eeution, written in its entirety y the testator and si!ned y hi$,and $ust ontain a state$ent of the year, $onth and day of its eeution+

<f it should ontain any erased, orreted, or interlined words, the testator $ustidentify the$ over his si!nature+

orei!ners $ay eeute holo!raphi wills in their own lan!ua!e+

"his separation and distintion adds support to the interpretation that only the re;uire$ents ofArtile &10 of the *ew #ivil #ode S and not those found in Artiles &13 and &14 of the sa$e#ode S are essential to the proate of a holo!raphi will+

"he #ourt of Appeals further held that deedent Annie and ould not validly dispose of thehouse and lot loated in #aadaran, A!usan del *orte, in its entirety+ "his is orret and $ust

e affir$ed+As a !eneral rule, ourts in proate proeedin!s are li$ited to pass only upon the etrinsivalidity of the will sou!ht to e proated+ )owever, in eeptional instanes, ourts are not powerless to do what the situation onstrains the$ to do, and pass upon ertain provisions of thewill+ 88 <n the ase at enh, deedent herself induitaly stated in her holo!raphi will that the#aadaran property is in the na$e of her late father, John )+ and 'whih led oppositor 8r+ JoseA5ero to ;uestion her onveyane of the sa$e in its entirety(+ "hus, as orretly held y



221

respondent ourt, she annot validly dispose of the whole property, whih she shares with herfatherDs other heirs+

<* H< )RO, the instant petition is RA*"8+ "he 8eision of the #ourt of Appealsin #A+R+ #H *o+ 22&40, dated Marh 30, 1992, is RHR8 and " A<8, eept with

respet to the invalidity of the disposition of the entire house and lot in #aadaran, A!usan del *orte+ "he 8eision of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of ue=on #ity, %ranh 94 in p+ 7ro+ *o+ 311, dated *ove$er 19, 19&&, ad$ittin! to proate the holo!raphi will of deedent Annieand, is herey R<*"A"8, with the aove ;ualifiation as re!ards the #aadaran property+ *o osts+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!1 L-;@=@9 Se"te.'e =<, 8><;

ROSA 1 ALA0, petitioner,vs+HON1 34DGE BEN3AMIN RELO2A, Pesi(in# 3$(#e !% the CFI !% Batan#as, Banch 2I,Li"a Cit), an( GREGORIO 1 ALA0, respondents+

Leandro &. ernande2 for petitioner.

Antonio 9uintos and %ose M. acat for respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

On epte$er 1, 191, private respondent ROR<O P+ PA/A, lai$in! to e the sole heirof his deeased sister, *atividad P+ Palaw, filed a petition efore the #ourt of irst <nstane of%atan!as, %ranh H<, /ipa #ity, for the proate of her holo!raphi ill eeuted on 8ee$er24, 196&+

"he holo!raphi ill reads in full as follows>

My /ast will and "esta$ent

<n the na$e of od, A$en+

< *atividad P+ Palaw ilipino 63years of a!e, sin!le, and a resident of /ipa #ity, ein! of soundand disposin! $ind and $e$ory, do herey delare thus to e $y last will and testa$ent+



222

1+ <t is $y will that <Dll e urried in the e$etery of the atholi hurh of /ipa #ity+ <naordane with the ri!hts of said #hurh, and that $y eeutri hereinafter na$ed provide anderet at the epose of $y state a suitale $onu$ent to perpetuate $y $e$ory+

"he holo!raphi ill, as first written, na$ed ROA P+ Palaw, a sister of the testatri as her soleheir+ )ene, on *ove$er 10, 191, petitioner ROA P+ Palaw opposed proate alle!in!, insustane, that the holo!raphi ill ontained alterations, orretions, and insertions without the proper authentiation y the full si!nature of the testatri as re;uired y Artile &14 of the #ivil#ode readin!>

Art+ &14+ <n ase of any insertion, anellation, erasure or alteration in aholo!raphi will the testator $ust authentiate the sa$e y his full si!nature+

ROADs position was that the holo!raphi ill, as first written, should e !iven effet and

proated so that she ould e the sole heir thereunder+

After trial, respondent Jud!e denied proate in an Order, dated epte$er 3, 19 3, readin! in part>

"he dou$ent hiit T#T was su$itted to the *ational %ureau of <nvesti!ationfor ea$ination+ "he *%< reported that the handwritin!, the si!nature, theinsertions andGor additions and the initial were $ade y one and the sa$e person+#onse;uently, hiit T#T was the handwritin! of the deedent, *atividad P+Palaw+ "he only ;uestion is whether the win, hiit D#D, should e ad$itted to proate althou!h the alterations andGor insertions or additions aove$entioned

were not authentiated y the full si!nature of the testatri pursuant to Art+ &14 ofthe #ivil #ode+ "he petitioner ontends that the oppositors are estopped to assertthe provision of Art+ &14 on the !round that they the$selves a!reed thru theirounsel to su$it the 8ou$ent to the *%< OR LAM<*A"<O*+ "his isuntenale+ "he parties did not a!ree, nor was it i$pliedly understood, that theoppositors would e in estoppel+

"he #ourt finds, therefore, that the provision of Artile &14 of the #ivil #ode isappliale to hiit T#T+ indin! the insertions, alterations andGor additions inhiit T#T not to e authentiated y the full si!nature of the testatri *atividadP+ Palaw, the #ourt will deny the ad$ission to proate of hiit T#T+

)ROR, the petition to proate hiit T#T as the holo!raphi will of *atividad P+ Palaw is herey denied+

O OR8R8+

ro$ that Order, ROR<O $oved for reonsideration ar!uin! that sine the alterations andGor insertions were the testatri, the denial to proate of her holo!raphi ill would e ontrary to





224

dou$ento ;ue las onten!a, y on $ayor $otivo cuando las pala"ras

enmendadas$ tachadas$ o entrerren)lonadas no ten)an importancia ni susciten

duda al)una acerca del pensamiento del testador , o onstituyan $eros aidentesde orto!rafia o de pure= esrituraria, sin trasendenia al!una'l(+

Mas para ;ue sea apliale la dotrina de eepion ontenida en este ulti$ofallo, es preciso que las tachaduras$ enmiendas o entrerren)lonados sin salvar

saan de pala "ras que no afecter; alteren ni uarien de modo su"stancial lae6press voluntad del testador manifiesta en el documento+ Asi lo advierte lasentenia de 29 de *ovie$re de 1916, ;ue delara nulo un testa$ento olo!rafo por no estar salvada por el testador la en$ienda del !uaris$o ulti$o del aYo en;ue fue etendido '$phasis ours(+

)ROR, this 7etition is herey dis$issed and the 8eision of respondent Jud!e, datedepte$er 3, 193, is herey affir$ed in toto+ *o osts+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!s1 8;@98-9= N!&e.'e =9, =@@?

DY YIENG SEANGIO, BARBARA D1 SEANGIO an( 2IRGINIA D1SEANGIO, 7etitioners,vs+

HON1 AMOR A1 REYES, in he ca"acit) as Pesi(in# 3$(#e, Re#i!na* Tia* C!$t,Nati!na* Ca"ita* 3$(icia* Re#i!n, Banch =8, Mani*a, ALFREDO D1 SEANGIO,ALBERTO D1 SEANGIO, ELISA D1 SEANGIO-SANTOS, 2ICTOR D1 SEANGIO,ALFONSO D1 SEANGIO, SHIRLEY D1 SEANGIO-LIM, BETTY D1 SEANGIO-OBASan( 3AMES D1 SEANGIO, Respondents+

8 # < < O *

A6C4NA, J.:

"his is a petition for certiorari1 with appliation for the issuane of a writ of preli$inary

in5untion andGor te$porary restrainin! order see.in! the nullifiation of the orders, datedAu!ust 10, 1999 and Otoer 14, 1999, of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Manila, %ranh 21 'theR"#(, dis$issin! the petition for proate on the !round of preterition, in the onsolidated ases,do.eted as 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 9&90&0 and 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 9993396, and entitled, T<n the Matter ofthe <ntestate state of e!undo #+ ean!io v+ Alfredo 8+ ean!io, et al+T and T<n the Matter of the7roate of the ill of e!undo #+ ean!io v+ 8y Nien! ean!io, %arara 8+ ean!io andHir!inia ean!io+T

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_140371_2006.html#fnt1




22-

"he fats of the ases are as follows>

On epte$er 21, 19&&, private respondents filed a petition for the settle$ent of the intestateestate of the late e!undo ean!io, do.eted as p+ 7ro+ *o+ 9&F90&0 of the R"#, and prayin!for the appoint$ent of private respondent lisa 8+ ean!ioFantos as speial ad$inistrator and

!uardian ad lite$ of petitioner 8y Nien! ean!io+

7etitioners 8y Nien!, %arara and Hir!inia, all surna$ed ean!io, opposed the petition+ "heyontended that> 1( 8y Nien! is still very healthy and in full o$$and of her faultiesB 2( thedeeased e!undo eeuted a !eneral power of attorney in favor of Hir!inia !ivin! her the power to $ana!e and eerise ontrol and supervision over his usiness in the 7hilippinesB 3( Hir!iniais the $ost o$petent and ;ualified to serve as the ad$inistrator of the estate of e!undo eause she is a ertified puli aountantB and, 4( e!undo left a holo!raphi will, datedepte$er 20, 199-, disinheritin! one of the private respondents, Alfredo ean!io, for ause+ <nview of the purported holo!raphi will, petitioners averred that in the event the deedent is foundto have left a will, the intestate proeedin!s are to e auto$atially suspended and replaed y

the proeedin!s for the proate of the will+

On April , 1999, a petition for the proate of the holo!raphi will of e!undo, do.eted as 7+7ro+ *o+ 99F93396, was filed y petitioners efore the R"#+ "hey li.ewise reiterated that the proate proeedin!s should ta.e preedene over 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 9&F90&0 eause testate proeedin!s ta.e preedene and en5oy priority over intestate proeedin!s+2

"he dou$ent that petitioners refer to as e!undoEs holo!raphi will is ;uoted, as follows>

Pasulatan sa pa!aalis n! $ana

"antunin n! sinu$an

A.o si e!undo ean!io ilipino $ay asawa naninirahan sa 46-A lores t+, r$ita, Manila atna!tatalay n! $aiwana! na pa!iisip at disposisyon ay tahasan at haya!an! inaalisan .o n! lahatat anu$an! $ana an! pa!anay .on! ana. na si Alfredo ean!io dahil siya ay na!in! lapastan!ansa a.in at isan eses siya n! sasalita n! $asa$a harapan .o at $!a .apatid niya na si Hir!iniaean!io lais .on! .inasa$a n! loo .o at sasae rin ni Alfredo sa a.in na a.o nasa iaaw!ayon !unit daratin an! araw na a.o nasa ilali$ siya at siya nasa iaaw+

/ais .on! i.inasa$a n! loo .o an! !a$it ni Alfredo n! a.in pa!alan para $a.apa!utan! na.uarta siya at .anya asawa na si Merna de los Reyes sa #hina %an!.in! #orporation na $illon

pesos at hindi n! aayad at hindi n! aayad ito ay na!dulot sa a.in! n! $ala.in! .ahihiya sa$!a $ayari at sto.holders n! #hina %an.in!+

At i.ina!alit .o pa rin an! pa!.uha ni Alfredo at n! .anyan! asawa na $!a usto$e?r@ n! "ravel#enter of the 7hilippines na pina!asiwaan .o at n! ana. .o si Hir!inia+





226

8ito a.o na!alit din .aya !ayon ayo.o na ilanin si Alfredo n! ana. .o at hayanan .on!inaalisan n! lahat at ano$an $ana na si Alfredo at si Alfredo ean!io ay hindi .o siya ana. athindi siya $a.oha $ana+

*ila?!@daan .o n!ayon i.a 20 n! etye$re 199- sa lon!sod n! Manila sa harap n! tatlon!

sa.si+3

'si!ned(

e!undo ean!io

*ila!daan sa harap na$in

'si!ned(

8y Nien! ean!io 'si!ned(

Knan! a.si i.alawan! sa.si

'si!ned(

i.atlon! sa.si

On May 29, 1999, upon petitionersE $otion, 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 9&F90&0 and 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 99F93396were onsolidated+4

On July 1, 1999, private respondents $oved for the dis$issal of the proate

proeedin!s-

pri$arily on the !round that the dou$ent purportin! to e the holo!raphi will ofe!undo does not ontain any disposition of the estate of the deeased and thus does not $eetthe definition of a will under Artile &3 of the #ivil #ode+ Aordin! to private respondents, thewill only shows an alle!ed at of disinheritane y the deedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, andnothin! elseB that all other o$pulsory heirs were not na$ed nor instituted as heir, devisee orle!atee, hene, there is preterition whih would result to intestay+ uh ein! the ase, privaterespondents $aintained that while proedurally the ourt is alled upon to rule only on theetrinsi validity of the will, it is not arred fro$ delvin! into the intrinsi validity of the sa$e,and orderin! the dis$issal of the petition for proate when on the fae of the will it is lear that itontains no testa$entary disposition of the property of the deedent+

7etitioners filed their opposition to the $otion to dis$iss ontendin! that> 1( !enerally, theauthority of the proate ourt is li$ited only to a deter$ination of the etrinsi validity of thewillB 2( private respondents ;uestion the intrinsi and not the etrinsi validity of the willB 3(disinheritane onstitutes a disposition of the estate of a deedentB and, 4( the rule on preteritiondoes not apply eause e!undoEs will does not onstitute a universal heir or heirs to theelusion of one or $ore o$pulsory heirs+6











22

On Au!ust 10, 1999, the R"# issued its assailed order, dis$issin! the petition for proate proeedin!s>

A perusal of the dou$ent ter$ed as TwillT y oppositorsGpetitioners 8y Nien! ean!io, et al+,learly shows that there is preterition, as the only heirs $entioned thereat are Alfredo and

Hir!inia+ ?"@he other heirs ein! o$itted, Artile &-4 of the *ew #ivil #ode thus applies+)owever, insofar as the widow 8y Nien! ean!io is onerned, Artile &-4 does not apply, shenot ein! a o$pulsory heir in the diret line+

As suh, this #ourt is ound to dis$iss this petition, for to do otherwise would a$ount to anause of disretion+ "he upre$e #ourt in the ase of Aain v+ <nter$ediate Appellate #ourt ?1--#RA 100 '19&(@ has $ade its position lear> Tfor V respondents to have tolerated the proateof the will and allowed the ase to pro!ress when, on its fae, the will appears to e intrinsiallyvoid V would have een an eerise in futility+ <t would have $eant a waste of ti$e, effort,epense, plus added futility+ "he trial ourt ould have denied its proate outri!ht or ould have passed upon the intrinsi validity of the testa$entary provisions efore the etrinsi validity of

the will was resolved'undersorin! supplied(+

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, the Motion to uspend 7roeedin!s is herey 8*<8 forla. of $erit+ peial 7roeedin!s *o+ 99F93396 is herey 8<M<8 without pronoune$entas to osts+

O OR8R8+

7etitionersE $otion for reonsideration was denied y the R"# in its order dated Otoer 14,1999+

7etitioners ontend that>

") R7O*8*" JK8 A#"8 <* L# O )R JKR<8<#"<O* OR <")RAH A%K O 8<#R"<O* AMOK*"<* "O /A#P OR L# OJKR<8<#"<O* A*8 8#<88 A K"<O* O /A *O" <* A##OR8 <") /AA*8 JKR<7RK8*# <* <K<* ") K"<O*8 OR8R, 8A"8 10 AKK"1999 A*8 14 O#"O%R 1999 'A""A#)M*" TAT A*8 T%T )RO( #O*<8R<*")A">

<

") R7O*8*" JK8, <")OK" H* #OM7/N<* <") #"<O* 3 A*8 4O RK/ 6 O ") RK/ O #OKR" O* ") 7RO7R 7RO#8KR OR ""<*") #A OR <*<"<A/ )AR<* OR ") "A%/<)M*" O ")JKR<8<#"<O*A/ A#", 8<M<8 ") ""A" #A O* ") A//8ROK*8 ")A" ") ""A"ORE <// < HO<8 A//8/N %#AK O ")L<"*# O 7R"R<"<O*, )<#) O <*"O ") <*"R<*<# HA/<8<"N O ")<//, 87<" ") A#" ")A" <" < A ""/8 RK/ ")A" ") AK")OR<"N O7RO%A" #OKR" < /<M<"8 O*/N "O A 8"RM<*A"<O* O ") L"R<*<#





22&

HA/<8<"N O ") <//, <++, ") 8K L#K"<O* ")RO, ") ""A"ORE""AM*"ARN #A7A#<"N A*8 ") #OM7/<A*# <") ") RK<<" ORO/M*<"< 7R#R<%8 %N /AB

<<

H* AKM<* AR!8E>/0 ")A" ") R7O*8*" JK8 )A ")AK")OR<"N "O RK/ K7O* ") <*"R<*<# HA/<8<"N O ") <// O ")""A"OR, <" < <*8K%<"A%/ ROM ") A# O ") ""A"ORE <// ")A" *O 7R"R<"O* L<" A*8 ")A" ") <// < %O") <*"R<*<#A//N A*8L"R<*<#A//N HA/<8B A*8,

<<<

R7O*8*" JK8 A 8K"N %OK*8 "O K7*8 ") 7RO#8<* <* ")<*""A" #A #O*<8R<* ")A" <" < A ""/8 RK/ ")A" ""A"

7RO#8<* "AP 7R#8*# OHR <*""A" 7RO#8<*+

7etitioners ar!ue, as follows>

irst, respondent 5ud!e did not o$ply with etions 3 and 4 of Rule 6 of the Rules of #ourtwhih respetively $andate the ourt to> a( fi the ti$e and plae for provin! the will when allonerned $ay appear to ontest the allowane thereof, and ause notie of suh ti$e and plaeto e pulished three wee.s suessively previous to the appointed ti$e in a newspaper of!eneral irulationB and, ( ause the $ailin! of said notie to the heirs, le!atees and devisees ofthe testator e!undoB

eond, the holo!raphi will does not ontain any institution of an heir, ut rather, as its titlelearly states, asulatan n) Pa)1Aalis n) Mana$ si$ply ontains a disinheritane of a o$pulsoryheir+ "hus, there is no preterition in the deedentEs will and the holo!raphi will on its fae is notintrinsially voidB

"hird, the testator intended all his o$pulsory heirs, petitioners and private respondents ali.e,with the sole eeption of Alfredo, to inherit his estate+ *one of the o$pulsory heirs in thediret line of e!undo were preterited in the holo!raphi will sine there was no institution of anheirB

ourth, inas$uh as it learly appears fro$ the fae of the holo!raphi will that it is oth

intrinsially and etrinsially valid, respondent 5ud!e was $andated to proeed with the hearin!of the testate aseB and,

/astly, the ontinuation of the proeedin!s in the intestate ase will wor. in5ustie to petitioners,and will render nu!atory the disinheritane of Alfredo+



229

"he purported holo!raphi will of e!undo that was presented y petitioners was dated, si!nedand written y hi$ in his own handwritin!+ ept on the !round of preterition, privaterespondents did not raise any issue as re!ards the authentiity of the dou$ent+

"he dou$ent, entitled asulatan n) Pa)1Aalis n) Mana, un$ista.aly showed e!undoEs

intention of eludin! his eldest son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the reasons that he itedtherein+ <n effet, Alfredo was disinherited y e!undo+

or disinheritane to e valid, Artile 916 of the #ivil #ode re;uires that the sa$e $ust eeffeted throu!h a will wherein the le!al ause therefor shall e speified+ ith re!ard to thereasons for the disinheritane that were stated y e!undo in his dou$ent, the #ourt elievesthat the inidents, ta.en as a whole, an e onsidered a for$ of $altreat$ent of e!undo y hisson, Alfredo, and that the $atter presents a suffiient ause for the disinheritane of a hild ordesendant under Artile 919 of the #ivil #ode>

Artile 919+ "he followin! shall e suffiient auses for the disinheritane of hildren and

desendants, le!iti$ate as well as ille!iti$ate>

'1( hen a hild or desendant has een found !uilty of an atte$pt a!ainst the life of thetestator, his or her spouse, desendants, or asendantsB

'2( hen a hild or desendant has aused the testator of a ri$e for whih the law presries i$prison$ent for si years or $ore, if the ausation has een found!roundlessB

'3( hen a hild or desendant has een onvited of adultery or onuina!e with thespouse of the testatorB

'4( hen a hild or desendant y fraud, violene, inti$idation, or undue influeneauses the testator to $a.e a will or to han!e one already $adeB

'-( A refusal without 5ustifiale ause to support the parents or asendant who disinheritsuh hild or desendantB

5N4 Maltreatment of the testator "y 'ord or deed$ "y the child or descendant7&

'( hen a hild or desendant leads a dishonorale or dis!raeful lifeB

'&( #onvition of a ri$e whih arries with it the penalty of ivil interdition+

*ow, the ritial issue to e deter$ined is whether the dou$ent eeuted y e!undo an eonsidered as a holo!raphi will+

A holo!raphi will, as provided under Artile &10 of the #ivil #ode, $ust e entirely written,dated, and si!ned y the hand of the testator hi$self+ <t is su5et to no other for$, and $ay e$ade in or out of the 7hilippines, and need not e witnessed+





230

e!undoEs dou$ent, althou!h it $ay initially o$e aross as a $ere disinheritane instru$ent,onfor$s to the for$alities of a holo!raphi will presried y law+ <t is written, dated andsi!ned y the hand of e!undo hi$self+ An intent to dispose mortis causaICJ an e learlydedued fro$ the ter$s of the instru$ent, and while it does not $a.e an affir$ative dispositionof the latterEs property, the disinheritane of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an at of disposition in

itself+ <n other words, the disinheritane results in the disposition of the property of the testatore!undo in favor of those who would sueed in the asene of Alfredo+10

Moreover, it is a funda$ental priniple that the intent or the will of the testator, epressed in thefor$ and within the li$its presried y law, $ust e reo!ni=ed as the supre$e law insuession+ All rules of onstrution are desi!ned to asertain and !ive effet to that intention+ <tis only when the intention of the testator is ontrary to law, $orals, or puli poliy that it annot e !iven effet+11

)olo!raphi wills, therefore, ein! usually prepared y one who is not learned in the law, asillustrated in the present ase, should e onstrued $ore lierally than the ones drawn y an

epert, ta.in! into aount the iru$stanes surroundin! the eeution of the instru$ent and theintention of the testator+12 <n this re!ard, the #ourt is onvined that the dou$ent, even ifaptioned as asulatan n) Pa)1Aalis n) Mana$ was intended y e!undo to e his lasttesta$entary at and was eeuted y hi$ in aordane with law in the for$ of a holo!raphiwill+ Knless the will is proated,13 the disinheritane annot e !iven effet+14

ith re!ard to the issue on preterition,1- the #ourt elieves that the o$pulsory heirs in the diretline were not preterited in the will+ <t was, in the #ourtEs opinion, e!undoEs last epression to e;ueath his estate to all his o$pulsory heirs, with the sole eeption of Alfredo+ Also, e!undodid not institute an heir 16 to the elusion of his other o$pulsory heirs+ "he $ere $ention of thena$e of one of the petitioners, Hir!inia, in the dou$ent did not operate to institute her as the

universal heir+ )er na$e was inluded plainly as a witness to the alteration etween e!undoand his son, Alfredo+,-'phi,

#onsiderin! that the ;uestioned dou$ent is e!undoEs holo!raphi will, and that the law favorstestay over intestay, the proate of the will annot e dispensed with+ Artile &3& of the #ivil#ode provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved andallowed in aordane with the Rules of #ourt+ "hus, unless the will is proated, the ri!ht of a person to dispose of his property $ay e rendered nu!atory+1

<n view of the fore!oin!, the trial ourt, therefore, should have allowed the holo!raphi will to e proated+ <t is settled that testate proeedin!s for the settle$ent of the estate of the deedent ta.e preedene over intestate proeedin!s for the sa$e purpose+1&

0HEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED+ "he Orders of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Manila,%ranh 21, dated Au!ust 10, 1999 and Otoer 14, 1999, are set aside+ Respondent 5ud!e isdireted to reinstate and hear 7 7ro+ *o+ 9993396 for the allowane of the holo!raphi will ofe!undo ean!io+ "he intestate ase or 7+ 7ro+ *o+ 9&90&0 is herey suspended until theter$ination of the aforesaid testate proeedin!s+



























231

*o osts+

O OR8R8+

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE G1R1 N!1 8?>8;;PETITION TO APPRO2E THE 0ILLOF R4PERTA PALAGANAS 0ITHPRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENTOF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MAN4EL MIG4EL PALAGANAS an(BEN3AMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS, 7etitioners, 7resent>

#AR7<O, % +, #hairperson,

versus *A#)KRA, A%A8, M*8OIA, and R*O,Q %%.

ERNESTO PALAGANAS, Respondent+ 7ro$ul!ated>

January 26, 2011

'EC0S043

ABAD, J +>

"his ase is aout the proate efore 7hilippine ourt of a will eeuted aroad y aforei!ner althou!h it has not een proated in its plae of eeution+

The Facts an( the Case

On *ove$er &, 2001 Ruperta #+ 7ala!anas 'Ruperta(, a ilipino who ea$e anaturali=ed Knited tates 'K++( iti=en, died sin!le and hildless+ <n the last will and testa$entshe eeuted in #alifornia, she desi!nated her rother, er!io #+ 7ala!anas 'er!io(, as the

eeutor of her will for she had left properties in the 7hilippines and in the K++

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/169144.htm#_ftn1





232

On May 19, 2003 respondent rnesto #+ 7ala!anas 'rnesto(, another rother of Ruperta,

filed with the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of Malolos, %ulaan, a petition for the proate of RupertaEs will and for his appoint$ent as speial ad$inistrator of her estate+ ?1@ On Otoer 1-,2003, however, petitioners Manuel Mi!uel 7ala!anas 'Manuel( and %en5a$in re!orio7ala!anas '%en5a$in(, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the !round that RupertaEswill should not e proated in the 7hilippinesut in the K++ where she eeuted it+ Manuel and%en5a$in added that, assu$in! RupertaEs will ould e proated in the7hilippines, it is invalidnonetheless for havin! een eeuted under duress and without the testatorEs full understandin!of the onse;uenes of suh at+ rnesto, they lai$ed, is also not ;ualified to at asad$inistrator of the estate+

Meanti$e, sine RupertaEs forei!nased silin!s, loria Hillalu= and er!io, were onseparate oasions in the 7hilippinesfor a short visit, respondent rnesto filed a $otion with the

R"# for leave to ta.e their deposition, whih it !ranted+ On April, 13, 2004 the R"# direted the parties to su$it their $e$orandu$ on the issue of whether or not RupertaEs K++ will $ay e

proated in and allowed y a ourt in the 7hilippines+

On June 1, 2004 the R"# issued an order>?2@ 'a( ad$ittin! to proate RupertaEs last willB'( appointin! respondent rnesto as speial ad$inistrator at the re;uest of er!io, the K++ ased eeutor desi!nated in the willB and '( issuin! the /etters of peial Ad$inistration tornesto+

A!!rieved y the R"#Es order, petitioner nephews Manuel and %en5a$in appealed to the

#ourt of Appeals '#A(,?3@ ar!uin! that an unproated will eeuted y an A$erian iti=en inthe K++ annot e proated for the first ti$e in the 7hilippines+

On July 29, 200- the #A rendered a deision, ?4@ affir$in! the assailed order of the R"#,?-@ holdin! that the R"# properly allowed the proate of the will, su5et to respondent rnestoEssu$ission of the authentiated opies of the dou$ents speified in the order and his postin! of re;uired ond+ "he #A pointed out that etion 2, Rule 6 of the Rules of #ourt does notre;uire prior proate and allowane of the will in the ountry of its eeution, efore it an e proated in the 7hilippines+ "he present ase, said the #A, is different fro$ reproate, whihrefers to a will already proated and allowed aroad+ Reproate is !overned y different rules or proedures+ Knsatisfied with the deision, Manuel and %en5a$in a$e to this #ourt+

The Iss$e Pesente(

"he .ey issue presented in this ase is whether or not a will eeuted y a forei!ner aroad$ay e proated in the 7hilippinesalthou!h it has not een previously proated and allowed in

the ountry where it was eeuted+














233

The C!$ts R$*in#

7etitioners Manuel and %en5a$in $aintain that wills eeuted y forei!ners aroad $ust

first e proated and allowed in the ountry of its eeution efore it an e proated here+ "his,they lai$, ensures prior o$pliane with the le!al for$alities of the ountry of itseeution+ "hey insist that loal ourts an only allow proate of suh wills if the proponent proves that> 'a( the testator has een ad$itted for proate in suh forei!n ountry, '( the will has een ad$itted to proate there under its laws, '( the proate ourt has 5urisdition over the proeedin!s, 'd( the law on proate proedure in that forei!n ountry and proof of o$plianewith the sa$e, and 'e( the le!al re;uire$ents for the valid eeution of a will+

%ut our laws do not prohiit the proate of wills eeuted y forei!ners aroad althou!hthe sa$e have not as yet een proated and allowed in the ountries of their eeution+ A

forei!n will an e !iven le!al effets in our 5urisdition+ Artile &16 of the #ivil #ode statesthat the will of an alien who is aroad produes effet in the 7hilippines if $ade in aordane

with the for$alities presried y the law of the plae where he resides, or aordin! to thefor$alities oserved in his ountry+?6@

<n this onnetion, etion 1, Rule 3 of the 199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure provides that if the deedent is an inhaitant of a forei!n ountry, the R"# of the provine where he has an estate$ay ta.e o!ni=ane of the settle$ent of suh estate+ etions 1 and 2 of Rule 6 further statethat the eeutor, devisee, or le!atee na$ed in the will, or any other person interested in theestate, $ay, at any ti$e after the death of the testator, petition the ourt havin! 5urisdition to

have the will allowed, whether the sa$e e in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed+

Our rules re;uire $erely that the petition for the allowane of a will $ust show, so far as.nown to the petitioner> 'a( the 5urisditional fatsB '( the na$es, a!es, and residenes of theheirs, le!atees, and devisees of the testator or deedentB '( the proale value and harater of the property of the estateB 'd( the na$e of the person for who$ letters are prayedB and 'e( if thewill has not een delivered to the ourt, the na$e of the person havin! ustody of it+ %urisdictional facts refer to the fat of death of the deedent, his residene at the ti$e of hisdeath in the provine where the proate ourt is sittin!, or if he is an inhaitant of a forei!nountry, the estate he left in suh provine+ ?@ "he rules do not re;uire proof that the forei!n willhas already een allowed and proated in the ountry of its eeution+

<n insistin! that RupertaEs will should have een first proated and allowed y the ourt of #alifornia, petitioners Manuel and %en5a$in oviously have in $ind the proedure for the reprobate of will efore ad$ittin! it here+ %ut, reproate or reauthentiation of a willalready proated and allowed in a forei!n ountry is different fro$ that proate where the will is









234

presented for the first ti$e efore a o$petent ourt+ Reproate is speifially !overned y Rule of the Rules of #ourt+ #ontrary to petitionersE stane, sine this latter rule applies only toreproate of a will, it annot e $ade to apply to the present ase+ <n reproate, the loal ourta.nowled!es as indin! the findin!s of the forei!n proate ourt provided its 5urisdition over the $atter an e estalished+

%esides, petitionersE stand is frau!ht with i$pratially+ <f the instituted heirs do not havethe $eans to !o aroad for the proate of the will, it is as !ood as deprivin! the$ outri!ht of their inheritane, sine our law re;uires that no will shall pass either real or personal propertyunless the will has een proved and allowed y the proper ourt+?&@

*otaly, the assailed R"# order of June 1, 2004 is nothin! $ore than an initial rulin! that

the ourt an ta.e o!ni=ane of the petition for proate of RupertaEs will and that, in the$eanti$e, it was desi!natin! rnesto as speial ad$inistrator of the estate+ "he parties have yet

to present evidene of the due eeution of the will, i.e. the testatorEs state of $ind at the ti$e of the eeution and o$pliane with the for$alities re;uired of wills y the laws

of #alifornia+ "his eplains the trial ourtEs diretive for rnesto to su$it the dulyauthentiated opy of RupertaEs will and the ertified opies of the /aws of uession and7roate of ill of #alifornia+

0HEREFORE, the #ourt DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the #ourt of Appealsdeision in #A+R+ #H &3-64 dated July 29, 200-+

SO ORDERED1

G1R1 N!1 9?98; 3$ne =, 8>>;

SAL4D TEODORO 2DA1 DE

PERE6

, petitioner,vs+HON1 6OTICO A1 TOLETE in his ca"acit) as Pesi(in# 3$(#e, Banch 8<, RTC,B$*acan, respondent+

>atividad T. Pere2 for petitioner.

Benedicto T. Li"rojo for private respondents.





23-

74IASON, J.:

"his is a petition for certiorari under Rule 6- of the Revised Rules of #ourt to set aside the

Order dated *ove$er 19, 19&6 of the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 1&, %ulaan presided yrespondent Jud!e Iotio A+ "olete, in peial 7roeedin!s *o+ 193M+

e !rant the petition+

<<

8r+ Jose + #unanan and his wife, 8r+ velyn 7ere=#unanan, who ea$e A$erian iti=ens,estalished a suessful $edial pratie in *ew Nor., K++A+ "he #unanans lived at *o+ 2&96#itation 8rive, 7o$pey, yrause, *ew Nor., with their hildren, Joelyn, 1&B Ja;ueline, 16Band Josephine, 14+

On Au!ust 23, 199, 8r+ #unanan eeuted a last will and testa$ent, e;ueathin! to his wife Tallthe re$ainderT of his real and personal property at the ti$e of his death Twheresoever situatedT' Rollo, p+ 3-(+ <n the event he would survive his wife, he e;ueathed all his property to hishildren and !randhildren with 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ as trustee+ )e appointed his wife aseeutri of his last will and testa$ent and 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ as sustitute eeutor+Artile H<<< of his will states>

<f $y wife, H/N* 7RI#K*A*A*, and < shall die under suhiru$stanes that there is not suffiient evidene to deter$ine the order of ourdeaths, then it shall e presu$ed that < predeeased her, and $y estate shall e

ad$inistered and distriuted, in all respets, in aordane with suh presu$ption' Rollo, p+ 41(+

our days later, on Au!ust 2, 8r+ velyn 7+ #unanan eeuted her own last will and testa$entontainin! the sa$e provisions as that of the will of her husand+ Artile H<<< of her will states>

<f $y husand, JO + #K*A*A*, and < shall die under suh iru$stanesthat there is not suffiient evidene to deter$ine the order of our deaths, then itshall e presu$ed that he predeeased $e, and $y estate shall e ad$inisteredand distriuted in all respets, in aordane with suh presu$ption+ ' Rollo, p+31(+

On January 9, 19&2, 8r+ #unanan and his entire fa$ily perished when they were trapped y firethat !utted their ho$e+ "hereafter, 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ as trustee and sustitute eeutorof the two wills, filed separate proeedin!s for the proate thereof with the urro!ate #ourt ofthe #ounty of Ononda!a, *ew Nor.+ On April , these two wills were ad$itted to proate andletters testa$entary were issued in his favor+



236

On eruary 21, 19&3, alud "eodoro 7ere=, the $other of 8r+ velyn 7+ #unanan, and petitioner herein, filed with the Re!ional 7+ #unanan, and petitioner herein, filed with the Re!ional "rial#ourt, Malolos, %ulaan a petition for the reproate of the two ills anillary to the proate proeedin!s in *ew Nor.+ he also as.ed that she e appointed the speial ad$inistratri of theestate of the deeased ouple onsistin! pri$arily of a far$ land in an Mi!uel, %ulaan+

On Marh 9, the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 16, Malolos, %ulaan, presided y Jud!eualerto J+ de la /lana, issued an order, diretin! the issuane of letters of speialad$inistration in favor of petitioner upon her filin! of a 710,000+00 ond+ "he followin! day, petitioner posted the ond and too. her oath as speial ad$inistration+

As her first at of ad$inistration, petitioner filed a $otion, prayin! that the 7hilippine /ife<nsurane #o$pany e direted to deliver the proeeds in the a$ount of 7-0,000+00 of the lifeinsurane poliy ta.en y 8r+ Jose + #unanan with 8r+ velyn 7ere=#unanan and their dau!hter Joelyn as enefiiaries+ "he trial ourt !ranted the $otion+

#ounsel for the 7hilippine A$erian /ife <nsurane #o$pany then filed a $anifestation, statin!that said o$pany then filed a $anifestation, statin! that said o$pany had delivered to petitioner the a$ount of 749,6-+&-, representin! the proeeds of the life insurane poliy of 8r+Jose + #unanan+

<n a $otion dated May 19, 19&3, petitioner as.ed that 8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+ e ordered todeliver to her a 7hilippine "rust #o$pany passoo. with 72-,-94+00 in savin!s deposit, and thea$ily avin!s %an. ti$e deposit ertifiates in the total a$ount of 712,412+-2+

On May 31, Atty+ ederio Alday filed a notie of appearane as ounsel for the heirs of 8r+ Jose+ #unanan, na$ely, 8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+, 7risilla #unanan %autista, /ydia #unanan

<!naio, elipe + #unanan and /oreto #unanan #onepion '#unanan heirs(+ )e also$anifested that efore reeivin! petitionerDs $otion of May 19, 19&3, his lients were unawareof the filin! of the testate estate ase and therefore, Tin the interest of si$ple fair play,T theyshould e notified of the proeedin!s 'Reords, p+ 110(+ )e prayed for defer$ent of the hearin!on the $otions of May 19, 19&3+

7etitioner then filed a ounter $anifestation dated June 13, 19&3, assertin!> '1( that theT#unanan ollaterals are neither heirs nor reditors of the late 8r+ Jose + #unananT andtherefore, they had Tno le!al or proprietary interests to protetT and Tno ri!ht to interveneTB '2(that the wills of 8r+ Jose + #unanan and 8r+ velyn 7ere=#unanan, ein! A$erian iti=ens,were eeuted in aordane with the sole$nities and for$alities of *ew Nor. laws, and

produed Teffets in this 5urisdition in aordane with Art+ 16 in relation to Art+ &16 of the#ivil #odeTB '3( that under Artile H<<< of the two wills, it was presu$ed that the husand predeeased the wifeB and '4( that Tthe #unanan ollaterals are neither distriutees, le!atees or enefiiaries, $uh less, heirs as heirship is only y institutionT under a will or y operation ofthe law of *ew Nor. 'Reords, pp+ 112113(+

On June 23, the proate ourt !ranted petitionerDs $otion of May 19, 19&3+ )owever, on July 21,the #unanan heirs filed a $otion to nullify the proeedin!s and to set aside the appoint$ent of,



23

or to dis;ualify, petitioner as speial ad$inistratri of the estates of 8r+ Jose + #unanan and 8r+velyn 7ere=#unanan+ "he $otion stated> '1( that ein! the Trothers and sisters and the le!aland survivin! heirsT of 8r+ Jose + #unanan, they had een Tdelierately eludedT in the petitionfor the proate of the separate wills of the #unanan spouses therey $isleadin! the %ulaanourt to elieve that petitioner was the sole heir of the spousesB that suh T$isrepresentationT

deprived the$ of their ri!ht to Tdue proess in violation of etion 4, Rule 6 of the RevisedRules of #ourtB '2( that 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+, the eeutor of the estate of the #unananspouses, was li.ewise not notified of the hearin!s in the %ulaan ourtB '3( that theT$isrepresentation and oneal$ent o$$itted yT petitioner rendered her unfit to e a speialad$inistratriB '4( that 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ had, y virtue of a verified power of attorney,authori=ed his father,8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+, to e his attorneyinfatB and '-( that 8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+ is;ualified to e a re!ular ad$inistrator Tas pratially all of the su5et estate in the 7hilippines elon!s to their rother, 8r+ Jose + #unananT 'Reords, pp+ 11&122(+ )ene, they prayed> '1(that the proeedin!s in the ase e delared null and voidB '2( that the appoint$ent of petitioneras speial ad$inistratri e set asideB and '3( that 8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+ e appointed the

re!ular ad$inistrator of the estate of the deeased spouses+

"hereafter, the #unanan heirs filed a $otion re;uirin! petitioner to su$it an inventory oraountin! of all $onies reeived y her in trust for the estate+

<n her opposition, petitioner asserted> '1( that she was the Tsole and only heirT of her dau!hter,8r+ velyn 7ere=#unanan to the elusion of the T#unanan ollateralsTB hene they wereo$plete stran!ers to the proeedin!s and were not entitled to notieB '2( that she ould not haveTonealedT the na$e and address of 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ eause his na$e was pro$inently $entioned not only in the two wills ut also in the derees of the A$eriansurro!ate ourtB '3( that the rule appliale to the ase is Rule , not Rule 6, eause it

involved the allowane of wills proved outside of the 7hilippines and that nowhere in etion 2of Rule is there a $ention of notie ein! !iven to the eeutor who, y the sa$e provision,should hi$self file the neessary anillary proeedin!s in this ountryB '4( that even if the%ulaan estate a$e fro$ the TapitalT of 8r+ Jose + #unanan, he had willed all his worldly!oods to his wife and nothin! to his rothers and sistersB and '-( that 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+had unlawfully disursed [21-,000+00 to the #unanan heirs, $isappropriated [1-,000+00 forhi$self and irre!ularly assi!ned assets of the estates to his A$erian lawyer 'Reords, pp+ 1-1160(+

<n their reply, the #unanan heirs stressed that on *ove$er 24, 19&2, petitioner and the #unananheirs had entered into an a!ree$ent in the Knited tates Tto settle and divide e;ually the estates,Tand that under etion 2 of Rule the Tourt shall fi a ti$e and plae for the hearin! and ausenotie thereof to e !iven as in ase of an ori!inal will presented for allowaneT 'Reords, pp+1&41&-(+

7etitioner as.ed that 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ e ited for onte$pt of ourt for failure too$ply with the Order of June 23, 19&3 and for appropriatin! $oney of the estate for his own enefit+ he also alle!ed that she had i$pu!ned the a!ree$ent of *ove$er 24, 19&2 efore theurro!ate #ourt of Ononda!a, *ew Nor. whih rendered a deision on April 13, 19&3, findin!



23&

that Tall assets are payale to 8r+ velyn 7+ #unananEs eeutor to e then distriuted pursuant to7"/41+1 sud ?a@ par ?4@T ' Rollo, p+ -2(+

On their part, the #unanan heirs replied that petitioner was estopped fro$ lai$in! that theywere heirs y the a!ree$ent to divide e;ually the estates+ "hey asserted that y virtue of etion

2 of Rule of the Rules of #ourt, the provisions of etions 3, 4 and - of Rule 6 on there;uire$ent of notie to all heirs, eeutors, devisees and le!atees $ust e o$plied with+ "heyreiterated their prayer> '1( that the proeedin!s in the ase e nullifiedB '2( that petitioner edis;ualified as speial ad$inistratriB '3( that she e ordered to su$it an inventory of all !oods,hattels and $onies whih she had reeived and to surrender the sa$e to the ourtB and '4( that8r+ Rafael #unanan, r+ e appointed the re!ular ad$inistrator+

7etitioner filed a re5oinder, statin! that in violation of the April 13, 19&3 deision of theA$erian ourt 8r+ Rafael + #unanan, Jr+ $ade Tunauthori=ed disurse$ents fro$ the estates asearly as July , 19&2T 'Reords, p+ 231(+ "hereafter, petitioner $oved for the suspension of the proeedin!s as she had Tto attend to the settle$ent proeedin!sT of the estate of the #unanan

spouses in *ew Nor. 'Reords, p+ 242(+ "he #unanans heirs opposed this $otion and filed a$anifestation, statin! that petitioner had reeived [21-,000+00 Tfro$ the urro!ateEs #ourt as part of le!ayT ased on the aforesaid a!ree$ent of *ove$er 24, 19&2 'Reords, p+ 24&(+

On eruary 21, 19&4, Jud!e de la /lana issued an order, disallowin! the reproate of the twowills, reallin! the appoint$ent of petitioner as speial ad$inistratri, re;uirin! the su$issionof petitioner of an inventory of the property reeived y her as speial ad$inistratri anddelarin! all pendin! inidents $oot and aade$i+ Jud!e de la /lana reasoned out that petitioner failed to prove the law of *ew Nor. on proedure and allowane of wills and the ourthad no way of tellin! whether the wills were eeuted in aordane with the law of *ew Nor.+<n the asene of suh evidene, the presu$ption is that the law of suession of the forei!n

ountry is the sa$e as the law of the 7hilippines+ )owever, he noted, that there were only twowitnesses to the wills of the #unanan spouses and the 7hilippine law re;uires three witnesses andthat the wills were not si!ned on eah and every pa!e, a re;uire$ent of the 7hilippine law+

On Au!ust 2, 19&-, petitioner filed a $otion for reonsideration of the Order dated eruary 21,19&4, where she had suffiiently proven the appliale laws of *ew Nor. !overnin! theeeution of last wills and testa$ents+

On the sa$e day, Jud!e de la /lana issued another order, denyin! the $otion of petitioner for thesuspension of the proeedin!s ut !ave her 1- days upon arrival in the ountry within whih toat on the other order issued that sa$e day+ #ontendin! that the seond portion of the seondorder left its finality to the disretion of ounsel for petitioner, the #unanans filed a $otion forthe reonsideration of the o5etionale portion of the said order so that it would onfor$ withthe pertinent provisions of the Judiiary Reor!ani=ation At of 19&0 and the <nteri$ Rules of#ourt+

On April 30, 19&-, the respondent Jud!e of %ranh 1& of the Re!ional "rial #ourt, Malolos, towhih the reproate ase was reassi!ned, issued an order statin! that T'(hen the last will andtesta$ent + + + was denied proate,T the ase was ter$inated and therefore all orders theretofore



239

issued should e !iven finality+ "he sa$e Order a$ended the eruary 21, 19&4 Order yre;uirin! petitioner to turn over to the estate the inventoried property+ <t onsidered the proeedin!s for all intents and purposes, losed 'Reords, p+ 302(+

On Au!ust 12, petitioner filed a $otion to resu$e proeedin!s on aount of the final settle$entand ter$ination of the proate ases in *ew Nor.+ "hree days later, petitioner filed a $otion prayin! for the reonsideration of the Order of April 30, 19&- on the stren!th of the eruary 21,19&4 Order !rantin! her a period of 1- days upon arrival in the ountry within whih to at onthe denial of proate of the wills of the #unanan spouses+ On Au!ust 19, respondent Jud!e!ranted the $otion and reonsidered the Order of April 30, 19&-+

On Au!ust 29, ounsel for petitioner, who happens to e her dau!hter, *atividad, filed a $otion prayin! that sine petitioner was ailin! in ort /ee, *ew Jersey, K++A+ and thereforeinapaitated to at as speial ad$inistratri, she 'the ounsel( should e na$ed sustitutespeial ad$inistratri+ he also filed a $otion for the reonsideration of the Order of eruary

21, 19&4, denyin! proate to the wills of the #unanan spouses, alle!in! that respondent Jud!eTfailed to appreiate the si!nifiant proative value of the ehiits + + + whih all refer to the offerand ad$ission to proate of the last wills of the #unanan spouses inludin! all proeduresunderta.en and derees issued in onnetion with the said proateT 'Reords, pp+ 313323(+

"hereafter, the #unanans heirs filed a $otion for reonsideration of the Order of Au!ust 19,19&-, alle!in! la. of notie to their ounsel+

On Marh 31, 19&6, respondent Jud!e to whih the ase was reassi!ned denied the $otion forreonsideration holdin! that the dou$ents su$itted y petitioner proved Tthat the wills of thetestator do$iiled aroad were properly eeuted, !enuine and suffiient to possess real and

personal propertyB that letters testa$entary were issuedB and that proeedin!s were held on aforei!n triunal and proofs ta.en y a o$petent 5ud!e who in;uired into all the fats andiru$stanes and ein! satisfied with his findin!s issued a deree ad$ittin! to proate the willsin ;uestion+T )owever, respondent Jud!e said that the dou$ents did not estalish the law of *ew Nor. on the proedure and allowane of wills 'Reords, p+ 3&1(+

On April 9, 19&6, petitioner filed a $otion to allow her to present further evidene on the forei!nlaw+ After the hearin! of the $otion on April 2-, 19&6, respondent Jud!e issued an order whereinhe oneded that insuffiieny of evidene to prove the forei!n law was not a fatal defet andwas urale y adduin! additional evidene+ )e !ranted petitioner 4- days to su$it theevidene to that effet+

)owever, without waitin! for petitioner to addue the additional evidene, respondent Jud!eruled in his order dated June 20, 19&6 that he found Tno o$pellin! reason to distur its rulin! of Marh 31, 19&6T ut allowed petitioner to Tfile anew the appropriate proate proeedin!s foreah of the testatorT 'Reords, p+ 391(+

"he Order dated June 20, 19&6 pro$pted petitioner to file a seond $otion for reonsiderationstatin! that she was Tready to su$it further evidene on the law otainin! in the tate of *ew



240

Nor.T and prayin! that she e !ranted Tthe opportunity to present evidene on what the law ofthe tate of *ew Nor. has on the proate and allowane of willsT 'Reords, p+ 393(+

On July 1&, respondent Jud!e denied the $otion holdin! that to allow the proate of two wills ina sin!le proeedin! Twould e a departure fro$ the typial and estalished $ode of proate

where one petition ta.es are of one will+T )e pointed out that even in *ew Nor. Twhere thewills in ;uestion were first su$itted for proate, they were dealt with in separate proeedin!sT'Reords, p+ 39-(+

On Au!ust 13, 19&6, petitioner filed a $otion for the reonsideration of the Order of July 1&,19&6, itin! etion 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of #ourt, whih provides that no party $ay institute$ore than one suit for a sin!le ause of ation+ he pointed out that separate proeedin!s for thewills of the spouses whih ontain asially the sa$e provisions as they even na$ed eah otheras a enefiiary in their respetive wills, would !o a!ainst Tthe !rain of inepensive, 5ust andspeedy deter$ination of the proeedin!sT 'Reords, pp+ 40-40(+

On epte$er 11, 19&6, petitioner filed a supple$ent to the $otion for reonsideration,itin! Beni)no v+ /e La Pea, - 7hil+ 30- '1932( 'Reords, p+ 411(, ut respondent Jud!e found that this pleadin! had een filed out of ti$e and that theadverse party had not een furnished with a opy thereof+ <n her o$pliane, petitioner statedthat she had furnished a opy of the $otion to the ounsel of the #unanan heirs and reiterated her $otion for a Tfinal rulin! on her supple$ental $otionT 'Reords, p+ 421(+

On *ove$er 19, respondent Jud!e issued an order, denyin! the $otion for reonsideration filed y petitioner on the !rounds that Tthe proate of separate wills of two or $ore different personseven if they are husand and wife annot e underta.en in a sin!le petitionT 'Reords, pp+ 363&(+

)ene, petitioner instituted the instant petition, ar!uin! that the evidene offered at the hearin!of April 11, 19&3 suffiiently proved the laws of the tate of *ew Nor. on the allowane of wills,and that the separate wills of the #unanan spouses need not e proated in separate proeedin!s+

<<

7etitioner ontends that the followin! piees of evidene she had su$itted efore respondentJud!e are suffiient to warrant the allowane of the wills>

'a( two ertifiates of authentiation of the respetive wills of velyn and Jose y

the #onsulate eneral of the 7hilippines 'hs+ TT and TT(B'( two ertifiations fro$ the eretary of tate of *ew Nor. and #ustodian ofthe reat eal on the fats that Jud!e %ernard /+ Rea!an is the urro!ate of the#ountry of Ononda!a whih is a ourt of reord, that his si!nature and seal ofoffie are !enuine, and that the urro!ate is duly authori=ed to !rant opy of therespetive wills of velyn and Jose'hs+ T1T and T1T(B



241

'( two ertifiates of Jud!e Rea!an and #hief #ler. 8onald + Moore statin! thatthey have in their reords and files the said wills whih were reorded on April ,19&2 'hs+ T2T and T2T(B

'd( the respetive wills of velyn and Jose 'hs+ T3T, T6T and h+ T3T S

T6T(B

'e( ertifiates of Jud!e Rea!an and the #hief #ler. ertifyin! to the !enuinenessand authentiity of the ee$plified opies of the two wills 'hs+ TT and TT(B

'f( two ertifiates of authentiation fro$ the #onsulate eneral of the7hilippines in *ew Nor. 'h+ T)T and TT(+

'!( ertifiations fro$ the eretary of tate that Jud!e Rea!an is duly authori=edto !rant ee$plified opies of the deree of proate, letters testa$entary and all

proeedin!s had and proofs duly ta.en'hs+ T)1T and T<1T(B

'h( ertifiates of Jud!e Rea!an and the #hief #ler. that letters testa$entary wereissued to Rafael + #unanan 'hs+ T)2T and T<2T(B

'i( ertifiation to the effet that it was durin! the ter$ of Jud!e Rea!an that aderee ad$ittin! the wills to proate had een issued and appointin! Rafael +#unanan as alternate eeutor 'hs+ T)3T andT<10T(B

'5( the derees on proate of the two wills speifyin! that proeedin!s were heldand proofs duly ta.en 'hs+ T)4T and T<-T(B

'.( derees on proate of the two wills statin! that they were properly eeuted,!enuine and valid and that the said instru$ents were ad$itted to proate andestalished as wills valid to pass real and personal property 'hs+ T)-T and T<-T(B and

'l( ertifiates of Jud!e Rea!an and the #hief #ler. on the !enuineness andauthentiity of eah otherEs si!natures in the ee$plified opies of the derees of proate, letters testa$entary and proeedin!s held in their ourt 'hs+ T)6T and

T<6T( ' Rollo, pp+ 1316(+7etitioner adds that the wills had een ad$itted to proate in the urro!ate #ourtEs 8eision ofApril 13, 19&3 and that the proeedin!s were ter$inated on *ove$er 29, 19&4+

"he respetive wills of the #unanan spouses, who were A$erian iti=ens, will only e effetivein this ountry upon o$pliane with the followin! provision of the #ivil #ode of the7hilippines>



242

Art+ &16+ "he will of an alien who is aroad produes effet in the 7hilippines if$ade with the for$alities presried y the law of the plae in whih he resides,or aordin! to the for$alities oserved in his ountry, or in onfor$ity withthose whih this #ode presries+

"hus, proof that oth wills onfor$ with the for$alities presried y *ew Nor. laws or y7hilippine laws is i$perative+

"he evidene neessary for the reproate or allowane of wills whih have een proated outsideof the 7hilippines are as follows> '1( the due eeution of the will in aordane with the forei!nlawsB '2( the testator has his do$iile in the forei!n ountry and not in the 7hilippinesB '3( thewill has een ad$itted to proate in suh ountryB '4( the fat that the forei!n triunal is a proate ourt, and '-( the laws of a forei!n ountry on proedure and allowane of wills '<<<Moran #o$$entaries on the Rules of #ourt, 190 ed+, pp+ 419429B untay v+ untay, 9- 7hil+-00 ?19-4@B lue$er v+ )i, -4 7hil+ 610 ?1930@(+ ept for the first and last re;uire$ents, the petitioner su$itted all the needed evidene+

"he neessity of presentin! evidene on the forei!n laws upon whih the proate in the forei!nountry is ased is i$pelled y the fat that our ourts annot ta.e 5udiial notie of the$'7hilippine #o$$erial and <ndustrial %an. v+ solin, -6 #RA 266 ?194@(+

7etitioner $ust have pereived this o$ission as in fat she $oved for $ore ti$e to su$it the pertinent proedural and sustantive *ew Nor. laws ut whih re;uest respondent Jud!e 5ust!lossed over+ hile the proate of a will is a speial proeedin! wherein ourts should rela therules on evidene, the !oal is to reeive the est evidene of whih the $atter is suseptile efore a purported will is proated or denied proate 'Hda+ de Ra$os v+ #ourt of Appeals, &1#RA 393 ?19&@(+

"here is $erit in petitionerEs insistene that the separate wills of the #unanan spouses should e proated 5ointly+ Respondent Jud!eEs view that the Rules on allowane of wills is ouhed insin!ular ter$s and therefore should e interpreted to $ean that there should e separate proate proeedin!s for the wills of the #unanan spouses is too literal and si$plisti an approah+ uhview overloo.s the provisions of etion 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of #ourt, whih advisethat the rules shall e Tlierally onstrued in order to pro$ote their o5et and to assist the partiesin otainin! 5ust, speedy, and inepensive deter$ination of every ation and proeedin!+T

A literal appliation of the Rules should e avoided if they would only result in the delay in thead$inistration of 5ustie 'Aain v+ <nter$ediate Appellate #ourt, 1-- #RA 100 ?19&@B Roerts

v+ /eonidas, 129 #RA 33 ?19&4@(+hat the law epressly prohiits is the $a.in! of 5oint wills either for the testatorEs reiproal enefit or for the enefit of a third person '#ivil #ode of the 7hilippines, Artile &1&(+ <n the aseat enh, the #unanan spouses eeuted separate wills+ ine the two wills ontain essentiallythe sa$e provisions and pertain to property whih in all proaility are on5u!al in nature, pratial onsiderations ditate their 5oint proate+ As this #ourt has held a nu$er of ti$es, it



243

will always strive to settle the entire ontroversy in a sin!le proeedin! leavin! no root or ranhto ear the seeds of future liti!ation 'Motoo$ull v+ 8ela 7a=, 1& #RA 43 ?1990@(+

"his petition annot e o$pletely resolved without touhin! on a very !larin! fat S petitionerhas always onsidered herself the sole heir of

8r+ velyn 7ere= #unanan and eause she does not onsider herself an heir of 8r+ Jose +#unanan, she notiealy failed to notify his heirs of the filin! of the proeedin!s+ "hus, even inthe instant petition, she only i$pleaded respondent Jud!e, for!ettin! that a 5ud!e whose order is ein! assailed is $erely a no$inal or for$al party '#alderon v+ oliitor eneral, 21- #RA &6?1992@(+

"he rule that the ourt havin! 5urisdition over the reproate of a will shall Tause notie thereofto e !iven as in ase of an ori!inal will presented for allowaneT 'Revised Rules of #ourt, Rule2, etion 2( $eans that with re!ard to noties, the will proated aroad should e treated as ifit were an Tori!inal willT or a will that is presented for proate for the first ti$e+ Aordin!ly,o$pliane with etions 3 and 4 of Rule 6, whih re;uire puliation and notie y $ail or

personally to the T.nown heirs, le!atees, and devisees of the testator resident in the 7hilippinesTand to the eeutor, if he is not the petitioner, are re;uired+

"he rothers and sisters of 8r+ Jose + #unanan, ontrary to petitionerDs lai$, are entitled tonoties of the ti$e and plae for provin! the wills+ Knder etion 4 of Rule 6 of the RevisedRules of #ourt, the Tourt shall also ause opies of the notie of the ti$e and plae fied for provin! the will to e addressed to the desi!nated or other .nown heirs, le!atees, and devisees of the testator, + + + T

)ROR, the ;uestioned Order is " A<8+ Respondent Jud!e shall allow petitionerreasonale ti$e within whih to su$it evidene needed for the 5oint proate of the wills of the

#unanan spouses and see to it that the rothers and sisters of 8r+ Jose + #unanan are !iven allnoties and opies of all pleadin!s pertinent to the proate proeedin!s+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!1 9?;?; Fe'$a) =>, 8><<

TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ALDINA MALOTOCASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, P4RIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMANCATHOLIC CH4RCH OF MOLO, AND ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners,vs+CO4RT OF APPEALS, PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO, respondents+



244

SARMIENTO, J.:

"his is not the first ti$e that the parties to this ase o$e to us+ <n fat, two other ases diretlyrelated to the present one and involvin! the sa$e parties had already een deided y us in the past+ <n +R+ *o+ /3049, 8whih was a petition for ertiorari and $anda$us instituted y the

petitioners herein, we dis$issed the petition rulin! that the $ore appropriate re$edy of the petitioners is a separate proeedin! for the proate of the will in ;uestion+ 7ursuant to the saidrulin!, the petitioners o$$ened in the then #ourt of irst <nstane of <loilo, peial7roeedin! *o+ 216, for the proate of the disputed will, whih was opposed y the privaterespondents presently, 7anfilo and elino oth surna$ed Maloto+ "he trial ourt dis$issed the petition on April 30, 190+ #o$plainin! a!ainst the dis$issal, a!ain, the petitioners a$e to this#ourt on a petition for review y ertiorari+ = Atin! on the said petition, we set aside the trialourtDs order and direted it to proeed to hear the ase on the $erits+ "he trial ourt, afterhearin!, found the will to have already een revo.ed y the testatri+ Adriana Maloto, and thus,denied the petition+ "he petitioners appealed the trial ourtDs deision to the <nter$ediateAppellate #ourt whih, on June , 19&-, affir$ed the order+ "he petitionersD $otion for

reonsideration of the adverse deision proved to e of no avail, hene, this petition+

or a etter understandin! of the ontroversy, a fatual aount would e a !reat help+

On Otoer 20, 1963, Adriana Maloto died leavin! as heirs her niee and nephews, the petitioners Aldina Maloto#asiano and #onstanio, Maloto, and the private respondents 7anfiloMaloto and elino Maloto+ %elievin! that the deeased did not leave ehind a last will andtesta$ent, these four heirs o$$ened on *ove$er 4, 1963 an intestate proeedin! for thesettle$ent of their auntDs estate+ "he ase was instituted in the then #ourt of irst <nstane of<loilo and was do.eted as peial 7roeedin! *o+ 136+ )owever, while the ase was still in pro!ress, or to e eat on eruary 1, 1964, the parties S Aldina, #onstanio, 7anfilo, and

elino S eeuted an a!ree$ent of etra5udiial settle$ent of AdrianaDs estate+ "he a!ree$ent provided for the division of the estate into four e;ual parts a$on! the parties+ "he Malotos then presented the etra5udiial settle$ent a!ree$ent to the trial ourt for approval whih the ourtdid on Marh 21, 1964+ "hat should have si!nalled the end of the ontroversy, ut, unfortunately,it had not+

"hree years later, or so$eti$e in Marh 196, Atty+ ulpiio 7al$a, a for$er assoiate ofAdrianaDs ounsel, the late Atty+ liseo )ervas, disovered a dou$ent entitled TPA"A7KA* *A 7A%K%K/A"A* '"esta$ento(,T dated January 3,1940, and purportin! to e the lastwill and testa$ent of Adriana+ Atty+ 7al$a lai$ed to have found the testa$ent, the ori!inalopy, while he was !oin! throu!h so$e $aterials inside the ainet drawer for$erly used yAtty+ )ervas+ "he dou$ent was su$itted to the offie of the ler. of the #ourt of irst <nstaneof <loilo on April 1, 196+ <nidentally, while 7anfilo and elino are still na$ed as heirs in thesaid will, Aldina and #onstanio are e;ueathed $uh i!!er and $ore valuale shares in theestate of Adriana than what they reeived y virtue of the a!ree$ent of etra5udiial settle$entthey had earlier si!ned+ "he will li.ewise !ives devises and le!aies to other parties, a$on! the$ ein! the petitioners Asilo de Molo, the Ro$an #atholi #hurh of Molo, and 7urifiaionMiraflor+



24-

"hus, on May 24, 196, Aldina and #onstanio, 5oined y the other devisees and le!atees na$edin the will, filed in peial 7roeedin! *o+ 136 a $otion for reonsideration and annul$ent ofthe proeedin!s therein and for the allowane of the will hen the trial ourt denied their$otion, the petitioner a$e to us y way of a petition for ertiorari and $anda$us assailin! theorders of the trial ourt + As we stated earlier, we dis$issed that petition and advised that a

separate proeedin! for the proate of the alle!ed will would e the appropriate vehile to threshout the $atters raised y the petitioners+

i!nifiantly, the appellate ourt while findin! as inonlusive the $atter on whether or not thedou$ent or papers alle!edly urned y the househelp of Adriana, uadalupe Maloto Hda+ de#oral, upon instrutions of the testatri, was indeed the will, ontradited itself and found thatthe will had een revo.ed+ "he respondent ourt stated that the presene of animus revocandi inthe destrution of the will had, nevertheless, een suffiiently proven+ "he appellate ourt asedits findin! on the fats that the dou$ent was not in the two safes in AdrianaDs residene, y thetestatri !oin! to the residene of Atty+ )ervas to retrieve a opy of the will left in the latterDs possession, and, her see.in! the servies of Atty+ 7al$a in order to have a new will drawn up+

or reasons shortly to e eplained, we do not view suh fats, even onsidered olletively, assuffiient ases for the onlusion that Adriana MalotoDs will had een effetively revo.ed+

"here is no dout as to the testa$entary apaity of the testatri and the due eeution of thewill+ "he heart of the ase lies on the issue as to whether or not the will was revo.ed y Adriana+

"he provisions of the new #ivil #ode pertinent to the issue an e found in Artile &30+

Art+ &30+ *o will shall e revo.ed eept in the followin! ases>

'1( %y i$pliation of lawB or

'2( %y so$e will, odiil, or other writin! eeuted as provided in ase of wills>or

'3( By "urnin)$ tearin)$ cancellin)$ or o"literatin) the 'ill 'ith the intention of

revo+in) it$ "y the testator himself$ or "y some other person in his presence$ and

"y his e6press direction. (f "urned$ torn cancelled$ or o"literated "y some other person$ 'ithout the e6press direction of the testator$ the 'ill may still "e

esta"lished$ and the estate distri"uted in accordance there'ith$ if its contents$ and

due e6ecution$ and the fact of its unauthori2ed destruction$ cancellation$ oro"literation are esta"lished accordin) to the Rules of *ourt + '$phasis upplied+(

<t is lear that the physial at of destrution of a will, li.e urnin! in this ase, does not per seonstitute an effetive revoation, unless the destrution is oupled with animus revocandi on the part of the testator+ <t is not i$perative that the physial destrution e done y the testatorhi$self+ <t $ay e perfor$ed y another person ut under thee6press direction and inthe presence of the testator+ Of ourse, it !oes without sayin! that the dou$ent destroyed $ust e the will itself+



246

<n this ase, while animus revocandi or the intention to revo.e, $ay e oneded, for that is astate of $ind, yet that re;uisite alone would not suffie+ T Animus revocandi is only one of theneessary ele$ents for the effetive revoation of a last will and testa$ent+ "he intention torevo.e $ust e ao$panied y the overt physial at of urnin!, tearin!, oliteratin!, oranellin! the will arried out y the testator or y another person in his presene and under his

epress diretion+ "here is pauity of evidene to show o$pliane with these re;uire$ents+ orone, the dou$ent or papers urned y AdrianaDs $aid, uadalupe, was not satisfatorilyestalished to e a will at all, $uh less the will of Adriana Maloto+ or another, the urnin! wasnot proven to have een done under the epress diretion of Adriana+ And then, the urnin! wasnot in her presence+ %oth witnesses, uadalupe and ladio, were one in statin! that they were theonly ones present at the plae where the stove 'presu$aly in the .ithen( was loated in whihthe papers proffered as a will were urned+

"he respondent appellate ourt in assessin! the evidene presented y the private respondents asoppositors in the trial ourt, onluded that the testi$ony of the two witnesses who testified infavor of the willDs revoation appear Tinonlusive+T e share the sa$e view+ *owhere in the

reords efore us does it appear that the two witnesses, uadalupe Hda+ de #orral and ladio<thon, oth illiterates, were une;uivoaly positive that the dou$ent urned was indeedAdrianaDs will+ uadalupe, we thin., elieved that the papers she destroyed was the will only eause, aordin! to her, Adriana told her so+ ladio, on the other hand, otained hisinfor$ation that the urned dou$ent was the will eause uadalupe told hi$ so, thus, histesti$ony on this point is doule hearsay+

At this 5unture, we reiterate that T'it( is an i$portant $atter of puli interest that a purportedwin is not denied le!ali=ation on duious !rounds+ Otherwise, the very institution oftesta$entary suession will e sha.en to its very foundations ++++T ;

"he private respondents in their id for the dis$issal of the present ation for proate instituted y the petitioners ar!ue that the sa$e is already arred y res adjudicata. "hey lai$ that this ar was rou!ht aout y the petitionersD failure to appeal ti$ely fro$ the order dated *ove$er 16, 196& of the trial ourt in the intestate proeedin! 'peial 7roeedin! *o+ 136( denyin!their 'petitionersD( $otion to reopen the ase, and their prayer to annul the previous proeedin!stherein and to allow the last will and testa$ent of the late Adriana Maloto+ "his is untenale+

"he dotrine of res adjudicata finds no appliation in the present ontroversy+ or a 5ud!$ent to e a ar to a suse;uent ase, the followin! re;uisites $ust onur> '1( the presene of a finalfor$er 5ud!$entB '2( the for$er 5ud!$ent was rendered y a ourt havin! 5urisdition over thesu5et $atter and the partiesB '3( the for$er 5ud!$ent is a 5ud!$ent on the $eritsB and '4( thereis, etween the first and the seond ation, <dentity of parties, of su5et $atter, and of ause ofation+ e do not find here the presene of all the enu$erated re;uisites+

or one, there is yet, stritly spea.in!, no final 5ud!$ent rendered insofar as the proate ofAdriana MalotoDs will is onerned+ "he deision of the trial ourt in peial 7roeedin! *o+136, althou!h final, involved only the intestate settle$ent of the estate of Adriana+ As suh, that 5ud!$ent ould not in any $anner e onstrued to e final with respet to the proate of thesuse;uently disovered will of the deedent+ *either is it a 5ud!$ent on the $erits of the ation



24

for proate+ "his is understandaly so eause the trial ourt, in the intestate proeedin!, waswithout 5urisdition to rule on the proate of the ontested will + ? After all, an ation for proate,as it i$plies, is founded on the presene of a will and with the o5etive of provin! its dueeeution and validity, so$ethin! whih an not e properly done in an intestate settle$ent ofestate proeedin! whih is prediated on the assu$ption that the deedent left no will+ "hus,

there is li.ewise no <dentity etween the ause of ation in intestate proeedin! and that in anation for proate+ %e that as it $ay, it would e re$e$ered that it was preisely eause of our rulin! in +R+ *o+ /3049 that the petitioners instituted this separate ation for the proate ofthe late Adriana MalotoDs will+ )ene, on these !rounds alone, the position of the privaterespondents on this sore an not e sustained+

One last note+ "he private respondents point out that revoation ould e inferred fro$ the fatthat T'a( $a5or and sustantial ul. of the properties $entioned in the will had een disposed of>while an insi!nifiant portion of the properties re$ained at the ti$e of death 'of the testatri(Band, further$ore, $ore valuale properties have een a;uired after the eeution of the will onJanuary 3,1940+T 9 uffie it to state here that as these additional $atters raised y the private

respondents are etraneous to this speial proeedin!, they ould only e appropriately ta.en upafter the will has een duly proated and a ertifiate of its allowane issued+

)ROR, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered RHR<* and ""<* A<8 the 8eisiondated June , 19&- and the Resolution dated Otoer 22, 19&6, of the respondent #ourt ofAppeals, and a new one *"R8 for the allowane of Adriana MalotoDs last will andtesta$ent+ #osts a!ainst the private respondents+

"his 8eision is <MM8<A"/N L#K"ORN+

O OR8R8+

G1R1 N!1 L-=< Se"te.'e =8, 8>8

Testate Estate !% the Decease( MARIANO MOLO Y LEGASPI1 34ANA 34AN 2DA1 DEMOLO, petitionerappellee,vs+L46, GLICERIA an( CORNELIO MOLO, oppositorsappellants+

*laro M. Recto and #erafin *. /i2on for appellants.

/el)ado @ lores for appellee.

BA4TISTA ANGELO, J.:

"his is an appeal fro$ an order of the #ourt of irst <nstane of Ri=al ad$ittin! to proate thelast will and testa$ent of the deeased Mariano Molo y /e!aspi eeuted on Au!ust 1, 191&+"he oppositorsappellants rou!ht the ase on appeal to this #ourt for the reason that the value of the properties involved eeeds 7-0,000+



24&

Mariano Molo y /e!aspi died on January 24, 1941, in the $uniipality of 7asay, provine ofRi=al, without leavin! any fored heir either in the desendin! or asendin! line+ )e wassurvived, however, y his wife, the herein petitioner Juana Juan Hda+ de Molo, and y his nieesand nephew, the oppositorsappellants, /u= lieria and #ornelio, all surna$ed Molo, who werethe le!iti$ate hildren of #andido Molo y /e!aspi, deeased rother of the testator+ Mariano

Molo y /e!aspi left two wills, one eeuted on Au!ust 1, 191&, 'hiit A( and anothereeuted on June 20, 1939+ 'hiit <(+ "he later will eeuted in 191&+

On eruary , 1941, Juana Juan Hda+ de Molo, filed in the #ourt of irst <nstane of Ri=al a petition, whih was do.eted as speial proeedin! *o+ &022 see.in! the proate of the willeeuted y the deeased on June 20, 1939+ "here ein! no opposition, the will was proated+)owever, upon petition filed y the herein oppositors, the order of the ourt ad$ittin! the will to proate was set aside and the ase was reopened+ After hearin!, at whih oth parties presentedtheir evidene, the ourt rendered deision denyin! the proate of said will on the !round that the petitioner failed to prove that the sa$e was eeuted in aordane with law+

<n view of the disallowane of the will eeuted on June 20, 1939, the widow on eruary 24,1944, filed another petition for the proate of the will eeuted y the deeased on Au!ust 1,191&, whih was do.eted as speial proeedin! *o+ -6, in the sa$e ourt+ A!ain, the sa$eoppositors filed an opposition to the petition ased on three !rounds> '1( that petitioner is nowestopped fro$ see.in! the proate of the will of 191&B '2( that said will has not een eeuted inthe $anner re;uired y law and '3( that the will has een suse;uently revo.ed+ %ut efore theseond petition ould e heard, the attle for lieration a$e and the reords of the ase weredestroyed+ #onse;uently, a petition for reonstitution was filed, ut the sa$e was found to ei$possile eause neither petitioner nor oppositors ould produe the opies re;uired for itsreonstitution+ As a result, petitioner filed a new petition on epte$er 14, 1946, si$ilar to theone destroyed, to whih the oppositors filed an opposition ased on the sa$e !rounds as those

ontained in their for$er opposition+ "hen, the ase was set for trial, and on May 2&, 194&, theourt issued an order ad$ittin! the will to proate already stated in the early part of this deision+ro$ this order the oppositors appealed assi!nin! si errors, to wit+

<+ "he proate ourt erred in not holdin! that the present petitioner voluntarily anddelierately frustrated the proate of the will dated June 20, 1939, in speial proeedin! *o+ &022, in order to enale her to otain the proate of another alle!ed will of Molodated 191+

<<+ "he ourt a quo erred in not holdin! that the petitioner is now estopped fro$ see.in!the proate of MoloDs alle!ed will of 191&+

<<<+ "he lower ourt erred in not holdin! that petitioner herein has o$e to ourt withTunlean handsT and as suh is not entitled to relief+

<H+ "he proate ourt erred in not holdin! that MoloDs alle!ed will of Au!ust 1, 191&was not eeuted in the $anner re;uired y law+



249

H+ "he proate ourt erred in not holdin! that the alle!ed will of 191& was delieratelyrevo.ed y Molo hi$self+

H<+ "he lower ourt erred in not holdin! that MoloDs will of 191& was suse;uentlyrevo.ed y the deedentDs will of 1939+

<n their first assi!n$ent of error, ounsel for oppositors ontend that the proate ourt erred innot holdin! that the petitioner voluntarily and delierately frustrated the proate of the will datedJune 20, 1939, in order to enale her to otain the proate of the will eeuted y the deeasedon Au!ust 1, 191&, pointin! out ertain fats and iru$stanes with their opinion indiate that petitioner onnived with the witness #anuto

7ere= in an effort to defeat and frustrate the proate of the 1939 will eause of her .nowled!e thatsaid will intrinsially defetive in that Tthe one and only testa$entory disposition thereof was aTdisposiion aptatoriaT+ "hese iru$stanes, ounsel for the appellants ontend, onstitute a

series of steps delierately ta.en y petitioner with a view to insurin! the reali=ation of her planof seurin! the proate of the 191& will whih she elieved would etter safe!uard her ri!ht toinherit fro$ the deease+

"hese i$putations of fraud and ad faith alle!edly o$$itted in onnetion with speial proeedin!s *o+ &022, now losed and ter$inated, are vi!orously $et y ounsel for petitionerwho ontends that to raise the$ in these proeedin!s whih are entirely new and distint ando$pletely independent fro$ the other is i$proper and unfair as they find no support whatsoever in any evidene su$itted y the parties in this ase+ "hey are $erely ased on the presu$ptionsand on5etures not supported y any proof+ or this reason, ounsel, ontends, the lower ourtwas 5ustified in disre!ardin! the$ and in passin! the$ su silentio in its deision+

A areful ea$ination of the evidene availale in this ase see$s to 5ustify this ontention+"here is indeed no evidene whih $ay 5ustify the insinuation that petitioner had delieratelyintended to frustrate the proate of the 1939 will of the deeased to enale her to see. the proateof another will other than a $ere on5eture drawn fro$ the apparently unepeted testi$ony of#anuto 7ere= that he went out of the roo$ to answer an ur!ent all of nature when Arte$ioReyes was si!nin! the will and the failure of petitioner later to i$peah the harater of saidwitness in spite of the opportunity !iven her y the ourt to do so+ Apart fro$ this insuffiienyof evidene, the reord disloses that this failure has een eplained y petitioner when sheinfor$ed the ourt that she was unale to i$peah the harater of her witness #anuto 7ere= eause of her inaility to find witnesses who $ay i$peah hi$, and this eplanation standsunontradited+ hether this eplanation is satisfatory or not, it is not now, for us to deter$ine+<t is an inident that o$es within the provine of the for$er ase+ "he failure of petitioner to present the testi$ony of Arte$io Reyes at the hearin! has also een eplained, and it appearsthat petitioner has filed eause his whereaouts ould not e found+ hether this is true or notis also for this #ourt to deter$ine+ <t is li.ewise within the provine and funtion of the ourt inthe for$er ase+ And the unfairness of this i$putation eo$es $ore !larin! when we sto. ofthe develop$ents that had ta.en plae in these proeedin!s whih show in old relief the true



2-0

nature of the ondut, ehavior and harater of the petitioner so itterly assailed and held indisrepute y the oppositors+

<t should e realled that the first petition for the proate of the will eeuted on June 20, 1939,was filed on eruary , 1941, y the petitioner+ "here ein! no opposition, the will was

proated+ use;uently, however, upon petition of the herein oppositors, the order of the ourtad$ittin! said will to proate was set aside, over the vi!orous opposition of the herein petitioner,and the ase was reopened+ "he reopenin! was ordered eause of the stron! opposition of theoppositors who ontended that he will had not een eeuted as re;uired y law+ After theevidene of oth parties had een presented, the oppositors filed an etensive $e$orandu$wherein they reiterated their view that the will should e denied proate+ And on the stren!ht ofthis opposition, the ourt disallowed the will+

<f petitioner then .new that the 1939 will was inherently defetive and would $a.e thetesta$entary disposition in her favor invalid and ineffetive, eause it is a TdisposiionaptatoriaT, whih .nowled!e she $ay easily a;uire throu!h onsultation with a lawyer, there

was no need her to !o throu!h the order of filin! the petition for the proate of the will+ heould ao$plish her desire y $erely suppressin! the will or tearin! or destroyin! it, and thenta.e steps leadin! to the proate of the will eeuted in 191&+ %ut for her onsiene was learand ade her to ta.e the only proper step possile under the iru$stanes, whih is to institutethe neessary proeedin!s for the proate of the 1939 will+ "his she did and the will wasad$itted to proate+ %ut then the unepeted happened+ Over her vi!orous opposition, the hereinappellants filed a petition for reopenin!, and over her vi!orous o5etion, the sa$e was !rantedand the ase was reopened+ )er $otion for reonsideration was denied+ <s it her fault that thease was reopenedC <s it her fault that the order ad$ittin! the will to proate was set asideC "hatwas a ontin!eny whih petitioner never epeted+ )ad appellants not filed their opposition tothe proate of the will and had they li$ited their o5etion to the intrinsi validity of said will,

their plan to defeat the will and seure the intestay of the deeased would have perhaps eenao$plished+ %ut they failed in their strate!y+ <f said will was denied proate it is due to theirown effort+ <t is now unfair to i$pute ad faith petitioner si$ply eause she eerted every effortto protet her own interest and prevent the intestay of the deeased to happen+

)avin! reahed the fore!oin! onlusions, it is ovious that the ourt did not o$$it the seondand third errors i$puted to it y the ounsel for appellants+ <ndeed, petitioner annot eonsidered !uilty or estoppel whih would prevent her fro$ see.in! the proate of the 191& willsi$ply eause of her effort to otain the allowane of the 1939 will has failed onsiderin! thatin oth the 191& and 1939 wills she was in y her husand as his universal heir+ *or an she ehar!ed with ad faith far havin! done so eause of her desire to prevent the intestay of herhusand+ he annot e la$ed ein! =ealous in protetin! her interest+

"he net ontention of appellants refers to the revoatory lause ontained in 1939 will of thedeeased whih was denied proate+ "hey ontend that, notwithstandin! the disallowane of saidwill, the revoatory lause is valid and still has the effet of nullifyin! the prior of 191&+



2-1

#ounsel for petitioner $eets this ar!u$ent y invo.in! the dotrine laid down in the aseof #amson vs. >aval , '41 7hil+, &3&(+ )e ontends that the fats involved in that ase are on allfours with the fats of this ase+ )ene, the dotrine is that ase is here ontrollin!+

"here is $erit in this ontention+ e have arefully read the fats involved in the a$son ase

we are indeed i$pressed y their stri.in! si$ilarity with the fats of this ase+ e do not need toreite here what those fats areB it is enou!h to point out that they ontain $any points andiru$stanes in o$$on+ *o reason, therefore, is seen y the dotrine laid down in that ase'whih we ;uote hereunder( should not apply and ontrol the present ase+

A suse;uent will, ontainin! a lause revo.in! a previous will, havin! een disallowed,for the reason that it was not eeuted in onfor$ity with the provisions of setion 61& of the #ode of #ivil 7roedure as to the $a.in! of wills, annot produe the effet ofannullin! the previous will, inas$uh as said revoatory lause is void+ '41 7hil+, &3&+(

Apropos of this ;uestion, ounsel for oppositors $a.e the re$ar. that, while they do not

disa!ree with the soundness of the rulin! laid down in the a$son ase, there is reason toaandon said rulin! eause it is arhai or anti;uated and runs ounter to the $odern trend prevailin! in A$erian 5urisprudene+ "hey $aintain that said rulin! is no lon!er ontrollin! ut$erely represents the point of view of the $inority and should, therefore, e aandoned, $ore soif we onsider the fat that setion 623 of our #ode of #ivil 7roedure, whih !overns therevoation of wills, is of A$erian ori!in and as suh should follow the prevailin! trend of the$a5ority view in the Knited tates+ A lon! line of authorities is ited in support of thisontention+ And these authorities hold the view, that Tan epress revoation is i$$ediatelyeffetive upon the eeution of the suse;uent will, and does not re;uire that it first under!o thefor$ality of a proate proeedin!T+ 'p+ 63, appellantsD rief +

hile they are $any ases whih uphold the view entertained y ounsel for oppositors, and thatview appears to e in ontrollin! the states where the deisions had een pro$ul!ated, however,we are relutant to fall in line with the assertion that is now the prevailin! view in the Knitedtates+ <n the searh we have $ade of A$erian authorities on the su5et, we found ourselves ina pool of onflitin! opinions perhaps eause of the peuliar provisions ontained in the statutesadopted y eah tate in the su5et of revoation of wills+ %ut the i$pression we !athered fro$a review and the study of the pertinent authorities is that the dotrine laid down in the a$sonase is still a !ood law+ On pa!e 32& of the A$erian Jurisprudene Hol+ -, whih is a revision7ulished in 194&, we found the followin! passa!es whih in our opinion truly reflet the presenttrend of A$erian 5urisprudene on this $atter affetin! the revoation of wills>

#+ 41+ 0"servance of ormalities in E6ecution of (nstrument + S Ordinarily, statuteswhih per$it the revoation of a will y another writin! provide that to e effetive as arevoation, the writin! $ust e eeuted with the sa$e for$alities whih are re;uired to e oserved in the eeution of a will+ Aordin!ly, where, under the statutes, attestationis neessary to the $a.in! of a valid will, an unattested non testa$entary writin! is noteffetive to revo.e a prior will+ <t has een held that a writin! fails as a revo.in!instru$ent where it is not eeuted with the for$alities re;uisite for the eeution of awill, even thou!h it is insried on the will itself, althou!h it $ay effet a revoation y



2-2

anellation or oliteration of the words of the will+ A testator annot reserve to hi$selfthe power to $odify a will y a written instru$ent suse;uently prepared ut noteeuted in the $anner re;uired for a will+

#, 42+ #u"sequent 8ne6ecuted$ (nvalid$ or (neffective 3ill or *odicil + S A will

whih is invalid eause of the inapaity of the testator, or of undue influene an haveno effet whatever as a revo.in! will+ Moreover, a will is not revo.ed y the uneeuteddraft of a later one+ *or is a will revo.ed y a defetively eeuted will or odiil, eventhou!h the latter ontains a lause epressly revo.in! the for$er will, in a 5urisditionwhere it is provided y a ontrollin! statute that no writin! other than a testa$entaryinstru$ent is suffiient to revo.e a will, for the si$ple reason that there is no revo.in!will+ i$ilarly where the statute provides that a will $ay e revo.ed y a suse;uent willor other writin! eeuted with the sa$e for$alities as are re;uired in the eeution ofwills, a defetively eeuted will does not revo.e a prior will, sine it annot e said thatthere is a writin! whih o$plies with the statute+ Moreover, a will or odiil whih, onaount of the $anner in whih it is eeuted, is suffiient to pass only personally does

not affet dispositions of real estate $ade y a for$er will, even thou!h it $ay epressly purport to do so+ "he intent of the testator to revo.e is i$$aterial, if he has not o$pliedwith the statute+ '- A$+ Jur+, 32&, 329+(

e find the sa$e opinion in the A$erian /aw Reports, Annotated, edited in 1939+ On pa!e1400, Holu$e 123, there appear $any authorities on the Tappliation of rules where seond willis invalidT, a$on! whih a typial one is the followin!>

<t is universally a!reed that where the seond will is invalid on aount of not ein!eeuted in aordane with the provisions of the statute, or where the testator who hasnot suffiient $ental apaity to $a.e a will or the will is proured throu!h undue

influene, or the suh, in other words, where the seond will is really no will, it does notrevo.e the first will or affet it in any $anner+ Mort vs+ %a.er Kniversity '193-( 229Mo+ App+, 632, & ++ '2d(, 49&+

"hese treaties annot e $ista.en+ "hey uphold the view on whih the rulin! in the a$son aseis prediated+ "hey reflet the opinion that this rulin! is sound and !ood and for this reason, wesee no 5ustifiation for aondonin! it as now su!!ested y ounsel for the oppositors+

<t is true that our law on the $atter 'se+ 623, #ode #ivil 7roedure( provides that a will $ay eso$e will, odiil, or other writin! eeuted as proved in ase of willsT ut it annot e said thatthe 1939 will should e re!arded, not as a will within the $eanin! of said word, ut as Totherwritin! eeuted as provided in the ase of willsT, si$ply eause it was denied proate+ Andeven if it e re!arded as any other 'ritin) within the $eanin! of said lause, there is authorityfor holdin! that unless said writin! is ad$itted to proate, it annot have the effet of revoation+'ee - A$+ Jur+ pp+ 329330(+

%ut ounsel for oppositors onte$ned that, re!ardless of said revoatory lause, said will of 191&annot still e !iven effet eause of the presu$ption that it was delierately revo.ed y thetestator hi$self+ "he oppositors ontend that the testator, after eeutin! the 1939 will, and with





2-4

and if, for any reason, the new will intended to e $ade as a sustitute is inoperative, therevoation fails and the ori!inal will re$ains in full fore+ 'ardner, pp+ 232, 233+(

"his is the dotrine of dependent relative revoation+ "he failure of a new testa$entarydisposition upon whose validity the revoation depends, is e;uivalent to the non

fulfill$ent of a suspensive onditions, and hene prevents the revoation of the ori!inalwill+ %ut a $ere intent to $a.e at so$e ti$e a will in the plae of that destroyed will notrender the destrution onditional+ <t $ust appear that the revoation is dependent uponthe valid eeution of a new will+ '1 Aleander, p+ -1B ardner, p+ 2-3+(

e hold therefore, that even in the supposition that the destrution of the ori!inal will y thetestator ould e presu$ed fro$ the failure of the petitioner to produe it in ourt, suhdestrution annot have the effet of defeatin! the prior will of 191& eause of the fat that it isfounded on the $ista.en elief that the will of 1939 has een validly eeuted and would e!iven due effet+ "he theory on whih this priniple is prediated is that the testator did notintend to die intestate+ And this intention is learly $anifest when he eeuted two wills on two

different oasion and instituted his wife as his universal heir+ "here an therefore e no $ista.eas to his intention of dyin! testate+

"he re$ainin! ;uestion to e deter$ined refers to the suffiieny of the evidene to prove thedue eeution of the will+

"he will in ;uestion was attested, as re;uired y law, y three witnesses, /oren=o Morales,Rufino nri;ue=, and An!el #uena+ "he first two witnesses died efore the o$$ene$ent ofthe present proeedin!s+ o the only instru$ental witness availale was An!el #uena and under our law and preedents, his testi$ony is suffiient to prove the due eeution of the will+)owever, petitioner presented not only the testi$ony of #uena ut plaed on the witness stand

Juan aledo, the notary puli who prepared and notari=ed the will upon the epress desire andinstrution of the testator, "he testi$ony of these witnesses shows that the will had eeneeuted in the $anner re;uired y law+ e have read their testi$ony and we were i$pressed ytheir readiness and sinerity+ e are onvined that they told the truth+

herefore, the order appealed fro$ is herey affir$ed, with osts a!ainst theappellants+,-'phOl.nt



2--

ED4ARDO G1 AGTARAP,7etitioner,

versus

SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, 3OSEPH AGTARAP,TERESA AGTARAP, 0ALTER DE SANTOS,an( ABELARDO DAGORO,

Respondents+

SEBASTIAN G1 AGTARAP,7etitioner,

versus

ED4ARDO G1 AGTARAP, 3OSEPH AGTARAP,TERESA AGTARAP, 0ALTER DE SANTOS,an( ABELARDO DAGORO,

Respondents+

G1R1 N!1 899@>>

G1R1 N!1 8998>=

7resent> #AR7<O, %.$ *hairperson$

*A#)KRA,7RA/"A,A%A8, andM*8OIA, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

June &, 2011



2-6

DECISION

NACH4RA, J 1:

%efore us are the onsolidated petitions for review on certiorari of petitioners eastian +A!tarap 'eastian(?1@ and duardo + A!tarap 'duardo(,?2@ assailin! the 8eision dated *ove$er 21, 2006?3@ and the Resolution dated Marh 2, 200?4@of the #ourt of Appeals '#A( in#A+R+ #H *o+ 3916+

"he anteedent fats and proeedin!sS

On epte$er 1-, 1994, duardo filed with the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(, %ranh114, 7asay #ity, a verified petition for the 5udiial settle$ent of the estate of his deeased father

Joa;uin A!tarap 'Joa;uin(+ <t was do.eted as peial 7roeedin!s *o+ 9440--+"he petition alle!ed that Joa;uin died intestate on *ove$er 21, 1964

in 7asay #ity without any .nown dets or oli!ations+ 8urin! his lifeti$e, Joa;uin ontratedtwo $arria!es, first with /uia aria '/uia(,?-@ and seond with #aridad aria'#aridad(+ /uia died on April 24, 1924+ Joa;uin and /uia had three hildrenSJesus 'diedwithout issue(, Mila!ros, and Jose 'survived y three hildren, na$ely, loria, ?6@ Joseph, and"eresa?@(+ Joa;uin $arried #aridad on eruary 9, 1926+ "hey also had three hildrenS duardo, eastian, and Meredes 'survived y her dau!hter #eile(+ At the ti$e of his death,Joa;uin left two parels of land with i$prove$ents in 7asay #ity, overed y "ransfer #ertifiates of "itle '"#"( *os+ &3'3&2-4( and &4'3&2--(+ Joseph, a !randson of Joa;uin,had een leasin! and i$provin! the said realties and had een appropriatin! for hi$self726,000+00 per $onth sine April 1994+

duardo further alle!ed that there was an i$perative need to appoint hi$ as speial

ad$inistrator to ta.e possession and har!e of the estate assets and their ivil fruits, pendin! theappoint$ent of a re!ular ad$inistrator+ <n addition, he prayed that an order e issued 'a(onfir$in! and delarin! the na$ed o$pulsory heirs of Joa;uin who would e entitled to partiipate in the estateB '( apportionin! and alloatin! unto the na$ed heirs their ali;uot sharesin the estate in aordane with lawB and '( entitlin! the distriutees the ri!ht to reeive andenter into possession those parts of the estate individually awarded to the$+

On epte$er 26, 1994, the R"# issued an order settin! the petition for initial hearin!

and diretin! duardo to ause its puliation+ On 8ee$er 2&, 1994, eastian filed his o$$ent, !enerally ad$ittin! the alle!ations

in the petition, and onedin! to the appoint$ent of duardo as speial ad$inistrator+ Joseph, loria, and "eresa filed their answerGopposition+ "hey alle!ed that the two

su5et lots elon! to the on5u!al partnership of Joa;uin with /uia, and that, upon /uiaEs


















2-

death in April 1924, they ea$e the pro indiviso owners of the su5et properties+ "hey saidthat their residene was uilt with the elusive $oney of their late father Jose, and the epensesof the etensions to the house were shouldered y loria and "eresa, while the restaurant'Manon!Es Restaurant( was uilt with the elusive $oney of Joseph and his usiness partner+ "hey opposed the appoint$ent of duardo as ad$inistrator on the followin! !rounds>

'1( he is not physially and $entally fit to do soB '2( his interest in the lots is $ini$alB and '3( hedoes not possess the desire to earn+ "hey lai$ed that the est interests of the estate ditate thatJoseph e appointed as speial or re!ular ad$inistrator+

On eruary 16, 199-, the R"# issued a resolution appointin! duardo as re!ular

ad$inistrator of Joa;uinEs estate+ #onse;uently, it issued hi$ letters of ad$inistration+ On epte$er 16, 199-, Aelardo 8a!oro filed an answer in intervention, alle!in! that

Meredes is survived not only y her dau!hter #eile, ut also y hi$ as her husand+ )e alsoaverred that there is a need to appoint a speial ad$inistrator to the estate, ut lai$ed thatduardo is not the person est ;ualified for the tas.+

After the parties were !iven the opportunity to e heard and to su$it their respetive proposed pro5ets of partition, the R"#, on Otoer 23, 2000, issued an Order of 7artition,?&@ withthe followin! dispositionS

<n the li!ht of the filin! y the heirs of their respetive proposed pro5ets

of partition and the pay$ent of inheritane taes due the estate as early as 196-,and there ein! no lai$ in #ourt a!ainst the estate of the deeased, the estate of JOAK<* A"ARA7 is now onse;uently F ripe F for distriution a$on! theheirs $inus the survivin! spouse #aridad aria who died on Au!ust 2-, 1999+

#onsiderin! that the ul. of the estate property were a;uired durin! the

eistene of the seond $arria!e as shown y "#" *o+ '3&2-4( and "#" *o+'3&2--( whih showed on its fae that deedent was $arried to #aridad aria,whih fat oppositors failed to ontradit y evidene other than their ne!ativealle!ations, the !reater part of the estate is perfore aounted y the seond$arria!e and the o$pulsory heirs thereunder+

"he Ad$inistrator, duardo A!tarap rendered a true and 5ust aountin! of

his ad$inistration fro$ his date of assu$ption up to the year endin! 8ee$er 31, 1996 per inanial and Aountin! Report dated June 2, 199 whih wasapproved y the #ourt+ "he aountin! report inluded the ino$e earned andreeived for the period and the epenses inurred in the ad$inistration,sustenane and allowane of the widow+ <n aordane with said inanial andAountin! Report whih was duly approved y this #ourt in its Resolution datedJuly 2&, 199& F the deeased JOAK<* A"ARA7 left real properties onsistin!of the followin!>

< /A*8>





2-&

"wo lots and two uildin!s with one !ara!e ;uarter loated at \3030 A!tarapt+, 7asay #ity, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *os+ 3&2-4 and 3&2-- andre!istered with the

Re!istry of 8eeds of 7asay #ity, Metro Manila, desried as follows>

"#" *O+ /O" *O+ ARAG+M+ IO*A/HA/K AMOK*"3&2-4 4-%1 1,33- s;+ $+ 7-,000+00 76,6-,000+00 3&2-- 4-%2 1,331 s;+ $+ 7-,000+00 76,6--,000+00"O"A/713,330,000+00 << %K</8<* A*8 <M7ROHM*"> %K</8<* < '/ot \ 4-%1( 73-0,000+00%K</8<* << '/ot \ 4-%2( 320,000+00

%uildin! <$prove$ents 9,-00+00Restaurant &0,000+00"O"A/ 7&4,-00+00 "O"A/ *" OR") 714,1,-00+00

)ROR, the net assets of the estate of the late JOAK<*A"ARA7 with a total value of 714,1,-00+00, to!ether with whatever interestfro$ an. deposits and all other ino$es or inre$ents thereof aruin! after theAountin! Report of 8ee$er 31, 1996, after dedutin! therefro$ theo$pensation of the ad$inistrator and other epenses allowed y the #ourt, areherey ordered distriuted as follows> "O"A/ "A" F 714,1,-00+00#AR<8A8 A"ARA7 F ] of the estate as her on5u!al share F 7,0&&,-0+00,the other half of 7,0&&,-0+00 F to e divided a$on! the o$pulsory heirs asfollows> 1( JO 'deeased( 71,1&1,-4&+302( M</ARO 'deeased( 71,1&1,-4&+303( MR#8 'deeased( 71,1&1,-4&+304( %A"<A* 71,1&1,-4&+30-( 8KAR8O 71,1&1,-4&+306( #AR<8A8 71,1&1,-4&+30

"he share of Mila!ros A!tarap as o$pulsory heir in the a$ountof 71,1&1,-4&+30 and who died in 1996 will !o to "eresa A!tarap and JosephA!tarap, alter de antos and half rothers duardo and eastian A!tarap ine;ual proportions+



2-9

"RA A"ARA7 7236,291+66 JO7) A"ARA7 7236,291+66 A/"R 8 A*"O 7236,291+66 %A"<A* A"ARA7 7236,291+66 8KAR8O A"ARA7 7236,291+66

Jose A!tarap died in 196+ )is o$pulsory heirs are as follows> #OM7K/ORN )<R>1( /OR<A F 'deeased( F represented y alter de antos F 729-,364+-2( JO7) A"ARA7 729-,364+-3( "RA A"ARA7 729-,364+-4( 7R<#<//A A"ARA7 729-,364+-

)ene, 7risilla A!tarap will inherit 729-,364+-+

Addin! their share fro$ Mila!ros A!tarap, the followin! heirs of the first$arria!e stand to reeive the total a$ount of> )<R O ") <R" MARR<A> 1( JO7) A"ARA7 7236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros A!tarap 7 29-,364+- F as o$pulsory heir of

7-31,6-6+23 Jose A!tarap

2( "RA A"ARA7 7236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros A!tarap 7 29-,364+- F as o$pulsory heir of


3( A/"R 8 A*"O 7236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros A!tarap 7 29-,364+- F as o$pulsory heir of


)<R O ") #O*8 MARR<A>

a( #AR<8A8 A"ARA7 died on Au!ust 2-, 1999 7,0&&,-0+00 as on5u!al share 7 1,1&1,4-&+30 as o$pulsory heir "otal of 7&,20,20&+30

( %A"<A* A"ARA7 71,1&1,4-&+3& F as o$pulsory heir 7 236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros

( 8KAR8O A"ARA7 71,1&1,4-&+3& F as o$pulsory heir 7 236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros



260



261

d( MR#8 as represented y Aelardo 8a!oro as the survivin! spouse of a o$pulsory heir 71,1&1,4-&+3&

RMA<*<* )<R O #AR<8A8 A"ARA7>

1( %A"<A* A"ARA72( 8KAR8O A"ARA7

MR#8 A"ARA7 '7redeeased #aridad A!tarap(

<n su$, eastian A!tarap and duardo A!tarap stand to inherit>

%A"<A* F 74,13-,104+10 F share fro$ #aridad aria 71,1&1,4-&+30 F as o$pulsory heir 7 236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros 7-,-22,&-4+06

8KAR8O F 74,13-,104+10 F share fro$ #aridad aria 71,1&1,4-&+30 F as o$pulsory heir 7 236,291+66 F share fro$ Mila!ros 7-,-22,&-4+06

O OR8R8+?9@

duardo, eastian, and oppositors Joseph and "eresa filed their respetive $otions for

reonsideration+ On Au!ust 2, 2001, the R"# issued a resolution?10@ denyin! the $otions for

reonsideration of duardo and eastian, and !rantin! that of Joseph and "eresa+ <t alsodelared that the real estate properties elon!ed to the on5u!al partnership of Joa;uin and/uia+ <t also direted the $odifiation of the Otoer 23, 2000 Order of 7artition to reflet theorret sharin! of the heirs+ )owever, efore the R"# ould issue a new order of partition,duardo and eastian oth appealed to the #A+

On *ove$er 21, 2006, the #A rendered its 8eision, the dispositive portion of whih

readsS

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the instant appealsare DISMISSED for la. of $erit+ "he assailed Resolution dated Au!ust 2,2001 is AFFIRMED and pursuant thereto, the su5et properties '/ot *o+ 4-%1 ?"#" *o+ 3&2-4@ and /ot *o+ 4-%2 ?"#" *o+ 3&2--@( and the estate of thelate Joa;uin A!tarap are herey partitioned as follows>

"he two '2( properties, to!ether with their i$prove$ents, e$raed y

"#" *o+ 3&2-4 and "#" *o+ 3&2--, respetively, are first to e distriuteda$on! the followin!>









263

inherited y loria 'represented y her husand alter de antos and her dau!hter a$antha(, Joseph A!tarap and "eresaA!tarap, 'in representation of Mila!rosE rother Jose A!tarap( and 1G& eah shall e

inherited y Meredes 'represented y her husand Aelardo 8a!oro and her dau!hter #eile(, eastian and duardo, allsurna$ed A!tarap+

Jose A!tarap 1G6 of the estate+ %ut sine he died in 196,

his inheritane shall e a;uired y his wife7risilla, and hildren loria 'represented yher husand alter de antos and her dau!hter a$antha(, Joseph A!tarap and"eresa A!tarap in e;ual shares+

Meredes A!tarap 1G6 of the estate+ %ut sine she died in 19&4,her inheritane shall e a;uired y her husand Aelardo 8a!oro and her dau!hter #eile in e;ual shares+

eastian A!tarap 1G6 of the estate+ duardo A!tarap 1G6 of the estate+ SO ORDERED1?11@

A!!rieved, eastian and duardo filed their respetive $otions for reonsideration+ <n its Resolution dated Marh 2, 200, the #A denied oth $otions+ )ene, these

petitions asriin! to the appellate ourt the followin! errors> G1R1 N!1 8998>=

1+ F "he #ourt of Appeals erred in not onsiderin! the afore$entionedi$portant fats?12@ whih alter its 8eisionB

2+ F "he #ourt of Appeals erred in not onsiderin! the neessity of

hearin! the issue of le!iti$ay of respondents as heirsB 3+ F "he #ourt of Appeals erred in allowin! violation of the law and in

not applyin! the dotrines of ollateral atta., estoppel, and res 5udiata+?13@

G1R1 N!1 899@>>









264

") #OKR" O A77A/ 'ORMR "/") 8<H<<O*( 8<8 *O"A#K<R JKR<8<#"<O* OHR ") "A" O M</ARO +A"ARA7 A*8 RR8 <* 8<"R<%K"<* )R <*)R<"A*# ROM") "A" O JOAK<* A"ARA7 *O"<")"A*8<* ")L<"*# O )R /A" <// A*8 ""AM*" <* H<O/A"<O* O

") 8O#"R<* O 7R#8*# O ""A" 7RO#8<* OHR <*""A" 7RO#8<*+

<<+

") #OKR" O A77A/ 'ORMR "/") 8<H<<O*( RR8 <*8<M<<* ") 8#<<O* A77A/8 ROM OR /A#P O MR<"A*8 <* A<RM<* ") AA</8 RO/K"<O* 8A"8 AKK" 2,2001 O ") /OR #OKR")O/8<* ")A" ") 7AR#/ O /A*8#OHR8 %N "#" *O+ 3&2-4 A*8 "#" '*O+( 3&2-- O ") R<"RNO 88 OR ") #<"N O 7AAN %/O* "O ") #O*JKA/

7AR"*R)<7 O JOAK<* A"ARA7 MARR<8 "O /K#<A AR#<AM*8<""A *O"<")"A*8<* ")<R R<"RA"<O* K*8R ")<R L<"<* #R"<<#A" O "<"/ A R<"R8 <* ") *AM O JOAK<* A"ARA7, *A#A/0 *0> #AR<8A8AR#<A+ K*8R L<"<* JKR<7RK8*#, ") 7RO%A" #OKR")A *O 7OR "O 8"RM<* ") O*R)<7 O ") 7RO7R"N8#R<%8 <* ") #R"<<#A" O "<"/ )<#) )OK/8 %RO/H8 <* A* A77RO7R<A" 7ARA" A#"<O* OR A "ORR*"<"/ K*8R ") /A < *8O8 <") <*#O*""A%</<"NK*"</ <" )A %* " A<8 <* ") MA**R <*8<#A"8 <* ")/A <"/+?14@

As re!ards his first and seond assi!n$ents of error, eastian ontends that Joseph and"eresa failed to estalish y o$petent evidene that they are the le!iti$ate heirs of their father Jose, and thus of their !randfather Joa;uin+ )e draws attention to the ertifiate of title '"#" *o+ &026( they su$itted, statin! that the wife of their father Jose is 7resentaion aria, whilethey lai$ that their $other is 7risilla+ )e avers that the $arria!e ontrats proffered y Josephand "eresa do not ;ualify as the est evidene of JoseEs $arria!e with 7risilla, inas$uh as theywere not authentiated and for$ally offered in evidene+ eastian also asseverates that heatually ;uestioned the le!iti$ay of Joseph and "eresa as heirs of Joa;uin in his $otion toelude the$ as heirs, and in his reply to their opposition to the said $otion+ )e further lai$sthat the failure of Aelardo 8a!oro and alter de antos to oppose his $otion to elude the$as heirs had the effet of ad$ittin! the alle!ations therein+ )e points out that his $otion wasdenied y the R"# without a hearin!+

ith respet to his third assi!ned error, eastian $aintains that the ertifiates of title of real estate properties su5et of the ontroversy are in the na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap, $arried to#aridad aria, and as suh are onlusive proof of their ownership thereof, and thus, they arenot su5et to ollateral atta., ut should e threshed out in a separate proeedin! for that






26-

purpose+ )e li.ewise ar!ues that estoppel applies a!ainst the hildren of the first $arria!e, sinenone of the$ re!istered any o5etion to the issuane of the "#"s in the na$e of #aridad andJoa;uin only+ )e avers that the estate $ust have already een settled in li!ht of the pay$ent of the estate and inheritane ta y Mila!ros, Joseph, and "eresa, resultin! to the issuane of "#" *o+ &92- in Mila!rosE na$e and of "#" *o+ &026 in the na$es of Mila!ros and Jose+ )e also

alle!es that res judicata is appliale as the ourt order diretin! the deletion of the na$e of /uia, and replain! it with the na$e of #aridad, in the "#"s had lon! eo$e final andeeutory+

<n his own petition, with respet to his first assi!n$ent of error, duardo alle!es that the

#A erroneously settled, to!ether with the settle$ent of the estate of Joa;uin, the estates of /uia,Jesus, Jose, Meredes, loria, and Mila!ros, in ontravention of the priniple of settlin! only oneestate in one proeedin!+ )e partiularly ;uestions the distriution of the estate of Mila!ros inthe intestate proeedin!s despite the fat that a proeedin! was onduted in another ourt for the proate of the will of Mila!ros, e;ueathin! all to duardo whatever share that she wouldreeive fro$ Joa;uinEs estate+ )e states that this violated the rule on preedene of testate over

intestate proeedin!s+ Anent his seond assi!n$ent of error, duardo ontends that the #A !ravely erred when

it affir$ed that the ul. of the realties su5et of this ase elon! to the first $arria!e of Joa;uinto /uia, notwithstandin! that the ertifiates of title were re!istered in the na$e of Joa;uinA!tarap casado con '$arried to:( #aridad aria+ Aordin! to hi$, the R"#, atin! as anintestate ourt with li$ited 5urisdition, was not vested with the power and authority todeter$ine ;uestions of ownership, whih properly elon!s to another ourt with !eneral 5urisdition+



266

#he Courts /uling

As to eastianEs and duardoEs o$$on issue on the ownership of the su5et real

properties, we hold that the R"#, as an intestate ourt, had 5urisdition to resolve the sa$e+

"he !eneral rule is that the 5urisdition of the trial ourt, either as a proate or an intestateourt, relates only to $atters havin! to do with the proate of the will andGor settle$ent of theestate of deeased persons, ut does not etend to the deter$ination of ;uestions of ownershipthat arise durin! the proeedin!s+?1-@ "he patent rationale for this rule is that suh ourt $erelyeerises speial and li$ited 5urisdition+?16@ As held in several ases,?1@ a proate ourt or one inhar!e of estate proeedin!s, whether testate or intestate, annot ad5udiate or deter$ine title to properties lai$ed to e a part of the estate and whih are lai$ed to elon! to outside parties,not y virtue of any ri!ht of inheritane fro$ the deeased ut y title adverse to that of thedeeased and his estate+ All that the said ourt ould do as re!ards said properties is to deter$inewhether or not they should e inluded in the inventory of properties to e ad$inistered y thead$inistrator+ <f there is no dispute, there poses no prole$, ut if there is, then the parties, the

ad$inistrator, and the opposin! parties have to resort to an ordinary ation efore a ourteerisin! !eneral 5urisdition for a final deter$ination of the onflitin! lai$s of title+ )owever, this !eneral rule is su5et to eeptions as 5ustified y epedieny and

onveniene+irst, the proate ourt $ay provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proeedin!

the ;uestion of inlusion in, or elusion fro$, the inventory of a piee of property without pre5udie to the final deter$ination of ownership in a separate ation+?1&@ eond, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or the ;uestion is one of ollation or advane$ent, or the partiesonsent to the assu$ption of 5urisdition y the proate ourt and the ri!hts of third parties arenot i$paired, then the proate ourt is o$petent to resolve issues on ownership+ ?19@ Herily,its 5urisdition etends to $atters inidental or ollateral to the settle$ent and distriution of theestate, suh as the deter$ination of the status of eah heir and whether the property in theinventory is on5u!al or elusive property of the deeased spouse+ ?20@

e hold that the !eneral rule does not apply to the instant ase onsiderin! that the

parties are all heirs of Joa;uin and that no ri!hts of third parties will e i$paired y theresolution of the ownership issue+ More i$portantly, the deter$ination of whether the su5et properties are on5u!al is ut ollateral to the proate ourtEs 5urisdition to settle the estate of Joa;uin+

<t should e re$e$ered that when duardo filed his verified petition for 5udiial

settle$ent of Joa;uinEs estate, he alle!ed that the su5et properties were owned y Joa;uin and#aridad sine the "#"s state that the lots were re!istered in the na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap,$arried to #aridad aria+ )e also ad$itted in his petition that Joa;uin, prior to ontratin!$arria!e with #aridad, ontrated a first $arria!e with /uia+ Oppositors to the petition, Josephand "eresa, however, were ale to present proof efore the R"# that "#" *os+ 3&2-4 and 3&2--were derived fro$ a $other title, "#" *o+ -239, dated Marh 1, 1920, in the na$eof RA>*(#*0 V(*T0R BAR>E# %0A98(> A!TARAP$ el primero casado con Emilia

Muscat$ y el #e)undo con Lucia !arcia Mendietta 'RA*#<#O H<#"OR















26

%AR* y JOAK<* A"ARA7, the first $arried to $ilia Musat, and the seond $arried to/uia aria Mendietta(+?21@ hen "#" *o+ -239 was divided etween raniso %arnes andJoa;uin A!tarap, "#" *o+ 10&64, in the na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap, $arried to /uia ariaMendietta, was issued for a parel of land, identified as /ot *o+ 4- of the #adastral urvey of 7asay, #adastral #ase *o+ 23, +/+R+O+ #adastral Reord *o+ 136&, onsistin! of &,&2 s;uare

$eters+ "his sa$e lot was overed y "#" *o+ -- '321&4(?22@

issued on April 23, 193, also inthe na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap, $arried to /uia aria Mendietta+ "he findin!s of the R"# and the #A show that /uia died on April 24, 1924, and

suse;uently, on eruary 9, 1926, Joa;uin $arried #aridad+ <t is worthy to note that "#" *o+-- '321&4( ontained an annotation, whih readsS

Ap4966 F *O"A> e ha en$endado el presente ertifiado de titulo, tal o$oaparee, tanhando las palaras on /uia aria Mendiet?t@a: y poniendo en sulu!ar, entre lineas y en tinta enarnada, las palaras en se!undas nupias on#aridad aria:, en o$pli$iento de un orden de feha 2& de aril de 193,

ditada por el )on+ ito de la #osta, 5ue= del Ju=!ado de 7ri$era <nstania deRi=al, en el epediente adastal *o+ 23, +/+R+O+ #ad+ Reord *o+ 136&B opia deual orden has sido presentada on el *o+ 4966 del /iro 8iario, "o$o 6+0 y,arhivada en el /e!a5o "*o+ 321&4+ 7asi!, Ri=al, a 29 aril de 193+?23@

"hus, per the order dated April 2&, 193 of )on+ ito de la #osta, presidin! 5ud!e of the #ourtof irst <nstane of Ri=al, the phrasecon Lucia !arcia MendietItJa was rossed out and replaed y en se)undas nuptias con *aridad !arcia, referrin! to the seond $arria!e of Joa;uin to#aridad+ <t annot e !ainsaid, therefore, that prior to the replae$ent of #aridadEs na$e in "#" *o+ 321&4, /uia, upon her de$ise, already left, as her estate, onehalf '1G2( on5u!al share in"#" *o+ 321&4+ /uiaEs share in the property overed y the said "#" was arried over to the properties overed y the ertifiates of title derivative of "#" *o+ 321&4, now "#" *os+ 3&2-4and 3&2--+ And as found y oth the R"# and the #A, /uia was survived y her o$pulsoryheirs F Joa;uin, Jesus, Mila!ros, and Jose+

etion 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of #ourt provides that when the $arria!e is dissolved ythe death of the husand or the wife, the o$$unity property shall e inventoried, ad$inistered,and li;uidated, and the dets thereof paidB in the testate or intestate proeedin!s of the deeasedspouse, and if oth spouses have died, the on5u!al partnership shall e li;uidated in the testateor intestate proeedin!s of either+ "hus, the R"# had 5urisdition to deter$ine whether the properties are on5u!al as it had to li;uidate the on5u!al partnership to deter$ine the estate of the deedent+ <n fat, should Joseph and "eresa institute a settle$ent proeedin! for the intestateestate of /uia, the sa$e should e onsolidated with the settle$ent proeedin!s of Joa;uin, ein! /uiaEs spouse+?24@ Aordin!ly, the #A orretly distriuted the estate of /uia, withrespet to the properties overed y "#" *os+ 3&2-4 and 3&2-- su5et of this ase, to her o$pulsory heirs+












26&

"herefore, in li!ht of the fore!oin! evidene, as orretly found y the R"# and the #A,the lai$ of eastian and duardo that "#" *os+ 3&2-4 and 3&2-- onlusively show that theowners of the properties overed therein were Joa;uin and #aridad y virtue of the re!istrationin the na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap casado con '$arried to( #aridad aria, deserves santonsideration+ "his annot e said to e a ollateral atta. on the said "#"s+ <ndeed, si$ple

possession of a ertifiate of title is not neessarily onlusive of a holderEs true ownership of property+?2-@ A ertifiate of title under the "orrens syste$ ai$s to protet do$inionB it annot eused as an instru$ent for the deprivation of ownership+ ?26@ "hus, the fat that the properties werere!istered in the na$e of Joa;uin A!tarap, $arried to #aridad aria, is not suffiient proof thatthe properties were a;uired durin! the spousesE overture+?2@ "he phrase $arried to #aridadaria: in the "#"s is $erely desriptive of the ivil status of Joa;uin as the re!istered owner,and does not neessarily prove that the realties are their on5u!al properties+ ?2&@

*either an eastianEs lai$ that Joa;uinEs estate ould have already een settled in 196-

after the pay$ent of the inheritane ta e upheld+ 7ay$ent of the inheritane ta, per se, doesnot settle the estate of a deeased person+ As provided in etion 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of

#ourtS #"<O* 1+ 3hen order for distri"ution of residue made. hen the

dets, funeral har!es, and epenses of ad$inistration, the allowane to thewidow, and inheritane ta, if any, har!eale to the estate in aordane withlaw, have een paid, the ourt, on the appliation of the eeutor or ad$inistrator,or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearin! upon notie, shall assi!nthe residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the sa$e, na$in! the$ and the proportions, or parts, to whih eah is entitled, and suh persons $ay de$and andreover their respetive shares fro$ the eeutor or ad$inistrator, or any other person havin! the sa$e in his possession+ <f there is a ontroversy efore theourt as to who are the lawful heirs of the deeased person or as to the distriutiveshare to whih eah person is entitled under the law, the ontroversy shall eheard and deided as in ordinary ases+

*o distriution shall e allowed until the pay$ent of the oli!ations aove$entioned has een $ade or provided for, unless the distriutees, or any of the$,!ive a ond, in a su$ to e fied y the ourt, onditioned for the pay$ent of saidoli!ations within suh ti$e as the ourt direts+

"hus, an estate is settled and distriuted a$on! the heirs only after the pay$ent of the dets of the estate, funeral har!es, epenses of ad$inistration, allowane to the widow, and inheritaneta+ "he reords of these ases do not show that these were o$plied with in 196-+

As re!ards the issue raised y eastian on the le!iti$ay of Joseph and "eresa, suffie itto say that oth the R"# and the #A found the$ to e the le!iti$ate hildren of Jose+ "he R"#found that eastian did not present lear and onvinin! evidene to support his aver$ents inhis $otion to elude the$ as heirs of Joa;uin, aside fro$ his ne!ative alle!ations+ "he R"#also noted the fat of Joseph and "eresa ein! the hildren of Jose was never ;uestioned yeastian and duardo, and the latter two even ad$itted this in their petitions, as well as in the











269

stipulation of fats in the Au!ust 21, 199- hearin!+ ?29@ urther$ore, the #A affir$ed this findin!of fat in its *ove$er 21, 2006 8eision+?30@

Also, eastianEs insistene that Aelardo 8a!oro and alter de antos are not heirs to the

estate of Joa;uin annot e sustained+ 7er its Otoer 23, 2000 Order of 7artition, the R"#

found that loria A!tarap de antos died on May 4, 199-, and was later sustituted in the proeedin!s elow y her husand alter de antos+ loria e!ot a dau!hter with alter deantos, eor!ina a$antha de antos+ "he R"# li.ewise noted that, on epte$er 16, 199-,Aelardo 8a!oro filed a $otion for leave of ourt to intervene, alle!in! that he is the survivin!spouse of Meredes A!tarap and the father of #eilia A!tarap 8a!oro, and his answer inintervention+ "he R"# later !ranted the $otion, therey ad$ittin! his answer on Otoer 1&,199-+?31@ "he #A also noted that, durin! the hearin! of the $otion to intervene on Otoer 1&,199-, eastian and duardo did not interpose any o5etion when the intervention wassu$itted to the R"# for resolution+?32@

<ndeed, this #ourt is not a trier of fats, and there appears no o$pellin! reason to hold

that oth ourts erred in rulin! that Joseph, "eresa, alter de antos, and Aelardo 8a!orori!htfully partiipated in the estate of Joa;uin+ <t was inu$ent upon eastian to presento$petent evidene to refute his and duardoEs ad$issions that Joseph and "eresa were heirs of Jose, and thus ri!htful heirs of Joa;uin, and to ti$ely o5et to the partiipation of alter deantos and Aelardo 8a!oro+ Knfortunately, eastian failed to do so+ *evertheless, alter deantos and Aelardo 8a!oro had the ri!ht to partiipate in the estate in representation of theJoa;uinEs o$pulsory heirs, loria and Meredes, respetively+?33@

"his #ourt also differs fro$ duardoEs asseveration that the #A erred in settlin!, to!ether

with Joa;uinEs estate, the respetive estates of /uia, Jesus, Jose, Meredes, and loria+ A perusal of the *ove$er 21, 2006 #A 8eision would readily show that the disposition of the properties related only to the settle$ent of the estate of Joa;uin+ 7ursuant to etion 1, Rule 90of the Rules of #ourt, as ited aove, the R"# was speifially !ranted 5urisdition to deter$inewho are the lawful heirs of Joa;uin, as well as their respetive shares after the pay$ent of theoli!ations of the estate, as enu$erated in the said provision+ "he inlusion of /uia, Jesus,Jose, Meredes, and loria in the distriution of the shares was $erely a neessary onse;ueneof the settle$ent of Joa;uinEs estate, they ein! his le!al heirs+

)owever, we a!ree with duardoEs position that the #A erred in distriutin! Joa;uinEs

estate pertinent to the share allotted in favor of Mila!ros+ duardo was ale to show that aseparate proeedin! was instituted for the proate of the will alle!edly eeuted y Mila!ros efore the R"#, %ranh 10&, 7asay #ity+?34@ hile there has een no showin! that the alle!edwill of Mila!ros, e;ueathin! all of her share fro$ Joa;uinEs estate in favor of duardo, hasalready een proated and approved, prudene ditates that this #ourt refrain fro$ distriutin!Mila!rosE share in Joa;uinEs estate+

<t is also worthy to $ention that eastian died on January 1-, 2010, per his #ertifiate of 8eath+?3-@ )e is survived y his wife "eresita %+ A!tarap '"eresita( and his hildren Joa;uinJulian %+ A!tarap 'Joa;uin Julian( and Ana Ma+ A!tarap 7anlilio 'Ana Ma+(+



















20

)eneforth, in li!ht of the fore!oin!, the assailed *ove$er 21, 2006 8eision and theMarh 2, 200 Resolution of the #A should e affir$ed with $odifiations suh that the shareof Mila!ros shall not yet e distriuted until after the final deter$ination of the proate of her purported will, and that eastian shall e represented y his o$pulsory heirs+

0HEREFORE, the petition in +R+ *o+ 1192 is DENIED for la. of $erit, while the petition in +R+ *o+ 1099 isPARTIALLY GRANTED, suh that the 8eision dated *ove$er 21, 2006 and the Resolution dated Marh 2, 200 of the #ourt of Appealsare AFFIRMED with the followin! MODIFICATIONS> that the share awarded in favor of Mila!ros A!tarap shall not e distriuted until the final deter$ination of the proate of her will,and that petitioner eastian + A!tarap, in view of his de$ise on January 1-, 2010, shall erepresented y his wife "eresita %+ A!tarap and his hildren Joa;uin Julian %+ A!tarap and AnaMa+ A!tarap 7anlilio+

"hese ases are herey re$anded to the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 114, 7asay #ity, for further proeedin!s in the settle$ent of the estate of Joa;uin A!tarap+ *o pronoune$ent as to

osts+ SO ORDERED+

DIOSDADO S1 MAN4NGAS, 7etitioner,

versus

MARGARITA A2ILA LORETO an(FLORENCIA A2ILAPARREQO,

Respondents+

G1R1 N!1 8>8?8 7resent>

H/A#O, JR+, % +, #hairperson,7RA/"A,A%A8,M*8OIA, andR*O,Q %% + 7ro$ul!ated> Au!ust 22, 2011

D E C I S I O N

2ELASCO, 3R1, J.:

The Case






21

"his 7etition for Review on #ertiorari under Rule 4- see.s the reversal of the April 30,2009 8eision?1@ and July 21, 2010 Resolution?2@ of the #ourt of Appeals '#A(, in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 4-31M<*, entitled Mar)arita Avila Loreto and lorencia Avila Parreo v. &on. Erasto /.#alcedo$ Actin) Presidin) %ud)e$ RT* 5Branch <4$ Ta)um *ity$ and /iosdado #alinas

5Manun)as4+ "he #A 8eision set aside as null and void the Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002 ?3@ of

the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(, %ranh 2 in "a!u$ #ity, 8avao del *orte, in peial7roeedin!s *o+ 0& entitled (n the Matter of the (ntestate Estate of the /eceased En)racia >.

Vda de Manun)as$ /iosdado Manun)as$ petitioner , wherein the R"# reversed its appoint$entof respondent lorenia Avila 7arreYo '7arreYo( as the speial ad$inistrator of the estate of n!raia Manun!as and appointed petitioner 8iosdado alinas Manun!as '8iosdado( in her stead+

The Facts

n!raia Manun!as was the wife of lorentino Manun!as+ "hey had no hildren+ <nstead,

they adopted a$uel 8avid Avila 'Avila( on Au!ust 12, 196&+ lorentino Manun!as died

intestate on May 29, 19, while Avila predeeased his adoptive $other +

?4@

Avila was survived yhis wife arah Aarte Hda+ de Manun!as+

"hereafter, n!raia Manun!as filed a Motion for 7artition of state on Marh 31, 19&0in the intestate estate proeedin!s of lorentino Manun!as, of whih she was the ad$inistratri+"here, she stated that there are no other le!al and o$pulsory heirs of lorentino Manun!aseept for herself, Avila and a Ra$on Manun!as who$ she a.nowled!ed as the natural son of lorentino Manun!as+?-@ Meanwhile, AvilaEs widow eeuted a aiver of Ri!hts and7artiipation on Otoer 29, 19&0, renounin! her ri!hts over the separate property of her husand in favor of n!raia Manun!as+ "hereafter, a 8eree of inal 8istriution was issued inthe intestate estate proeedin!s of lorentino Manun!as distriutin! the properties to n!raiaManun!as and Ra$on Manun!as, the survivin! heirs+?6@

On Otoer 2-, 199-, the R"#, %ranh 4 in 7anao #ity, appointed 7arreYo, the niee of

n!raia Manun!as, as the Judiial uardian of the properties and person of her ino$petentaunt+?@

n!raia Manun!as, throu!h 7arreYo, then instituted #ivil #ase *o+ -19696 a!ainst thespouses 8iosdado alinas Manun!as and Mila!ros 7aifio for ille!al detainer and da$a!es withthe Muniipal "rial #ourt 'M"#( in 7anao #ity+ <n their answer, the spouses alinas lai$edthat 8iosdado is the ille!iti$ate son of lorentino Manun!as+ )owever, the answer was filed eyond the re!le$entary period and was not onsidered y the M"#+ "hus, the M"# issued asu$$ary 5ud!$ent in favor of n!raia Manun!as, orderin! the spouses to vaate the pre$isesand to restore possession to n!raia Manun!as+ "he 8eision was appealed y thespouses alinas to the R"# of "a!u$, 8avao #ity whih affir$ed in toto the 8eision of theM"#+?&@ On appeal to this #ourt, defendantsE petition was denied for havin! een filed out of ti$e in a Resolution whih ea$e final on April 20, 199&+?9@

"hereafter, on Au!ust , 199&, 8iosdado instituted a petition for the issuane of letters of

ad$inistration over the state of n!raia Manun!as 'state of Manun!as( in his favor eforethe R"#, %ranh 2 in "a!u$ #ity, 8avao+ )e alle!ed that he, ein! an ille!iti$ate son of























22

lorentino Manun!as, is an heir of n!raia Manun!as+?10@ "he petition was opposed yMar!arita Avila /oreto '/oreto( and 7arreYo alle!in! that 8iosdado was ino$petent as anad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as lai$in! that he was not a Manun!as, that he was not anheir of n!raia Manun!as, he was not a reditor of n!raia Manun!as or her estate and that hewas in fat a detor of the estate havin! een found liale to n!raia Manun!as for 7h7

1,000 y virtue of a 8eision issued y the M"# in #ivil #ase *o+ -19696+ On May 1-,2002, the R"# issued an Order appointin! 7arreYo as the ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as, the dispositive portion of whih reads>

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin!, lorenia A+ 7arreYo is herey

appointed as peial Ad$inistrator of the property of the late n!raia *+ Hda+ deManun!as+ "he peial Ad$inistrator is herey direted to post a ond in thea$ount of 7200,000+00 pursuant to e+ 4 of Rule &1+

O OR8R8+?11@

8iosdado filed a Motion for Reconsideration 'ith a Prayer for Temporary Restrainin) 0rder and Preliminary (njunction.?12@<n his $otion, 8iosdado ar!ued that 7arreYoEs appoint$entas speial ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as was y virtue of her ein! the 5udiial!uardian of the latter ut whih relation eased upon n!raia Manun!asE death, onludin! thather appoint$ent as speial ad$inistrator was without asis+ )e added that 7arreYo was not fit to eo$e a speial ad$inistrator havin! already een fined y the ourt for failin! to render ati$ely aountin! of n!raia Manun!asE property as her 5udiial !uardian+ 8iosdado alsoreasoned that 7arreYo is a $ere niee, a ollateral relative, of n!raia Manun!as, while he is theille!iti$ate son of lorentino Manun!as+

On *ove$er 4, 2002, the R"# issued an Order reversin! itself and orderin! therevoation of its earlier appoint$ent of 7arreYo as the ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!aswhile appointin! 8iosdado as the peial Ad$inistrator+?13@

7arreYo and /oreto appealed the rulin! of the R"# to the #A+ "he #A issued its assailed

April 30, 2009 8eision findin! that the R"# ated with !rave ause of disretion in revo.in! itsearlier appoint$ent of 7arreYo as the ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as and appointin!8iosdado instead+ "he #A further reinstated 7arreYo as the speial ad$inistrator of the estate+"he dispositive portion reads>

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the petition is GRANTED+ "heOrder dated *ove$er 4, 2002 settin! aside the appoint$ent of lorenia 7arreYoas speial ad$inistrator of the estate of the late n!raia Hda+ de Manun!as, anddenyin! the property ond posted y lorenia 7arreYo ?is@ hereydelared N4LL an( 2OID and SET ASIDE as havin! een issued y 7uliRespondent Jud!e of the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ranh 2, "a!u$ #ity, 8avao del *orte with !rave ause of disretion a$ountin! to la. or eess of 5urisdition+

SO ORDERED+?14@













23

8iosdado assailed the #A 8eision in a Motion for Reonsideration dated May 1-,2009?1-@ whih the #A denied in the July 21, 2010 Resolution+

)ene, e have this petition+

The Iss$es 8iosdado raises the followin! issues>

"he #ourt a uo utterly disre!arded the 5urisprudene that ertiorari

annot e a sustitute for an appeal where the latter re$edy is availale+ ?16@

"he #ourt a uo in denyin! petitionerEs Motion for Reonsideration

!rossly violated the rule that one a deision or order is final and eeutory, it eo$es i$$utale and unalterale+?1@

"he #ourt a uo o$$itted a !rave error when it ruled to annul theappoint$ent of petitioner, 8iosdado Manun!as as 5udiial ad$inistrator andreinstatin! the appoint$ent of lorenia 7arreYo as speial ad$inistrator +?1&@

"he #ourt a uo !ravely erred in ?!ivin!@ due ourse to oppositorsE

petition that is flawed+?19@

The C!$ts R$*in#

"he petition $ust e denied+

The RTC O(e (ate( N!&e.'e ;, =@@= is an inte*!c$t!) !(e "he first two issues raised y 8iosdado revolve around the issue of whether the R"#

Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002 is an interloutory order+ 8iosdado alle!es that, followin! the rulin! of this #ourt that #ertiorari annot e the

sustitute for a lost appeal, 7arreYo should have appealed the R"# Order dated *ove$er 4,2002 to the #A throu!h a petition for review on ertiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt+8iosdado ontends that the Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002 ea$e final and eeutory, 7arreYohavin! failed to file the petition within the re!le$entary periodB thus, the Order annot e thesu5et of review even y this #ourt+ )owever, 8iosdadoEs position assu$es that the R"# Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002 is a final order instead of an interloutory order+

<n Philippine Business Ban+ v. *hua,?20@ the #ourt stated what an interloutory order is>

C!n&ese*), an !(e that (!es n!t %ina**) (is"!se !% the case, an( (!esn!t en( the C!$ts tas !% a($(icatin# the "aties c!ntenti!ns an((ete.inin# thei i#hts an( *ia'i*ities as e#a(s each !the, '$t !'&i!$s*)in(icates that !the thin#s e.ain t! 'e (!ne ') the C!$t, isinte*!c$t!), e+!+, an order denyin! a $otion to dis$iss under Rule 16 of the
















24

Rules + Knli.e a final 5ud!$ent or order, whih is appealale, as aove pointed out, an interloutory order $ay not e ;uestioned on appeal eept onlyas part of an appeal that $ay eventually e ta.en fro$ the final 5ud!$entrendered in the ase+

"he #ourt has onsidered an appoint$ent of a speial ad$inistrator as an interloutory or preli$inary order to the $ain ase for the !rant of letters of ad$inistration in a testate or intestate proeedin!+ <n 0campo v. 0campo,?21@ the #ourt suintly held, "he appoint$ent or re$oval of speial ad$inistrators, ein! disretionary, is thus interloutory and $ay e assailedthrou!h a petition for ertiorari under Rule 6- of the Rules of #ourt+:

ith suh ate!orial rulin! of the #ourt, the Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002 is learly aninterloutory order+ As suh, the order annot e the su5et of an appeal under Rule 4- of theRules of #ourt as ar!ued y petitioner+ "he proper re$edy is the filin! of a 7etition for #ertiorariunder Rule 6-+ "hus, etion 1'( of Rule 41 states>

etion 1+ u5et of appeal+ An appeal $ay e ta.en fro$ a 5ud!$ent or final order that o$pletely

disposes of the ase, or of a partiular $atter therein when delared y theseRules to e appealale+

*o appeal $ay e ta.en fro$>

'( An interloutory orderB

<n all the aove instanes where the 5ud!$ent or final order is notappealale, the a!!rieved party $ay file an appropriate speial ivil ation under Rule 6-+

Herily, respondents $ade use of the proper $ode of review y filin! a petition for

ertiorari under Rule 6- with the #A+ Respondents filed the petition well within the presried period under this rule+ Thee was n! necessit) t! %i*e a .!ti!n %! ec!nsi(eati!n

As properly noted y petitioner, the !eneral rule is that a $otion for reonsideration isre;uired efore a deision $ay e appealed throu!h a petition for ertiorari under Rule 6-+ Knder the rule, there $ust e no other plain, speedy and ade;uate re$edy in the ordinary ourse of law,suh as a $otion for reonsideration, to 5ustify the filin! of a petition for ertiorari+ "hus, petitioner ar!ues that respondentEs failure to $ove for the reonsideration of the Order dated






2-

*ove$er 4, 2002 is fatal to an appeal fro$ it+ uh !eneral rule, however, ad$its of eeptionsas eplained in /elos Reyes v. lores>?22@

e have held in a litany of ases that the etraordinary re$edies of

ertiorari and $anda$us are availale only when there is no other plain, speedy,

and ade;uate re$edy in the ordinary ourse of law, suh as a $otion for reonsideration+ "he writ of ertiorari does not lie where another ade;uate re$edyis availale for the orretion of the error+ H!we&e, thee ae se&ea*e/ce"ti!ns whee a "etiti!n %! ceti!ai wi** *ie with!$t the "i! %i*in# !% a.!ti!n %! ec!nsi(eati!n, t! wit:

i+ whee the iss$e aise( is !ne "$e*) !% *aw or where puli interest isinvolved+ '$phasis supplied+(

"he instant ase is learly an eeption to the !eneral rule+ An ea$ination of the issuesraised y respondents in appealin! the Order dated *ove$er 4, 2002, reveals that the issues areonly ;uestions of law+ r!o, there is no need for a $otion for reonsideration+

<n addition, the #ourt has even allowed the filin! of a petition for ertiorari despite theeistene of an appeal or other appropriate re$edy in several instanes, inludin! when theourt a quo ated with !rave ause of disretion a$ountin! to la. of or in eess of 5urisditionin issuin! the assailed order+?23@

"hus, while respondent failed to $ove for the reonsideration of the *ove$er 4, 2002

Order of the R"#, a petition for ertiorari $ay still prosper, as in this ase+

The RTC acte( with #a&e a'$se !% (isceti!n

"he lower ourt stated in its *ove$er 4, 2002 Order that> After arefully srutini=in! the ar!u$ents and !rounds raised y oth petitioner and oppositors, this #ourt finds $erit in the ontention of petitioner+ <nthe ase of !on2ales vs. *ourt of Appeals, 29& #RA 324, the upre$e #ourtruled>

"he presene of ille!iti$ate hildren preludes suession yollateral relatives to his estateB

8iosdado Manun!as, ein! the ille!iti$ate son of lorentino Manun!as

inherits the latterEs property y operation of lawB

)ROR, in view of the fore!oin! the order appointin! lorenia7arreYo as speial ad$inistrator of the estate of the late n!raia Hda+ deManun!as is ordered set aside+







26

uh reasonin! is a non sequitur +

"he fat that 8iosdado is an heir to the estate of lorentino Manun!as does not $ean thathe is entitled or even ;ualified to eo$e the speial ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as+

Jurisprudene teahes us that the appoint$ent of a speial ad$inistrator lies within thedisretion of the ourt+ <n &eirs of Belinda /ahlia A. *astillo v. Lacuata1!a"riel ,?24@ it was statedthat>

<t is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred

ri!ht of ertain persons to the appoint$ent of ad$inistrator under etion 1, Rule&1, as well as the statutory provisions as to auses for re$oval of an eeutor or ad$inistrator under setion 6-3 of At *o+ 190, now etion 2, Rule &3, do notapply to the seletion or re$oval of speial ad$inistrator+ As the *aw (!esn!t sa) wh! sha** 'e a""!inte( as s"ecia* a(.inistat! an( the$a*i%icati!ns the a""!intee .$st ha&e, the $(#e ! c!$t has (isceti!n in

the se*ecti!n !% the "es!n t! 'e a""!inte(, (isceti!n which .$st 'e s!$n(,that is, n!t whi.sica* ! c!nta) t! eas!n, $stice ! e$it)1 '$phasissuppliedB itation o$itted+( "his priniple was reiterated in the 0campo ase, where the #ourt ruled that>

hile the R"# onsidered that respondents were the nearest of .in to their

deeased parents in their appoint$ent as 5oint speial ad$inistrators, this is not a$andatory re;uire$ent for the appoint$ent+ <t has lon! een settled that theseletion or re$oval of speial ad$inistrators is not !overned y the rulesre!ardin! the seletion or re$oval of re!ular ad$inistrators+ "he proate ourt$ay appoint or re$ove speial ad$inistrators ased on !rounds other than thoseenu$erated in the Rules at its disretion, suh that the need to first pass upon andresolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the appliation of the order of preferene under etion 6 of Rule &, as would e proper in the ase of a re!ular ad$inistrator, do not otain+ As *!n# as the (isceti!n is e/ecise( with!$t#a&e a'$se, an( is 'ase( !n eas!n, e$it), $stice, an( *e#a* "inci"*es,inte%eence ') hi#he c!$ts is $nwaante(+?2-@ '$phasis supplied+(

hile the trial ourt has the disretion to appoint anyone as a speial ad$inistrator of the

estate, suh disretion $ust e eerised with reason, !uided y the diretives of e;uity, 5ustieand le!al priniples+ <t $ay, therefore, not e re$iss to reiterate that the role of a speialad$inistrator is to preserve the estate until a re!ular ad$inistrator is appointed+ As stated in e+2, Rule &0 of the Rules>

etion 2+ Po'ers and duties of special adminsitrator + S uh speial

ad$inistrator shall ta.e possession and har!e of the !oods, hattels, ri!hts,redits, and estate of the deeased and "ese&e the sa.e %! the e/ec$t!s !a(.inistat! a%tewa(s a""!inte(, and for that purpose $ay o$$ene and$aintain suits as ad$inistrator+ )e $ay sell only suh perishale and other








2

property as the ourt orders sold+ A speial ad$inistrator shall not e liale to payany dets of the deeased unless so ordered y the ourt+ iven this duty on the part of the speial ad$inistrator, it would, therefore, e prudent

and reasonale to appoint so$eone interested in preservin! the estate for its eventual distriution

to the heirs+ uh hoie would ensure that suh person would not epose the estate to losses thatwould effetively di$inish his or her share+ hile the ourt $ay use its disretion and departfro$ suh reasonin!, still, there is no lo!ial reason to appoint a person who is a detor of theestate and otherwise a stran!er to the deeased+ "o do so would e tanta$ount to !rave ause of disretion+

)ene, the #A ruled that the trial ourt erred in issuin! the *ove$er 4, 2002 Order,

atin! with !rave ause of disretion in appointin! 8iosdado as the speial ad$inistrator of n!raia Manun!asE estate>

<n any ase, the trial ourt erred in revo.in! the appoint$ent of lorenia

Avila 7arreYo as peial Ad$inistrator on the !round that it found $erit in8iosdadoEs ontention that he is the ille!iti$ate hild of the late lorentinoManan!us+ The e&i(ence !n ec!( sh!ws that Di!s(a(! is n!t e*ate( t! the*ate En#acia an( s! he is n!t inteeste( in "ese&in# the *attes estate1 Onthe other hand, lorenia, who is a for$er Judiial !uardian of n!raia when shewas still alive and who is also the niee of the latter, is interested in protetin! and preservin! the estate of her late aunt n!raia, as y doin! so she would reap the enefit of a wise ad$inistration of the deedentEs estate+ Hence, the O(e !% the*!we c!$t e&!in# the a""!int.ent !% F*!encia A&i*a Pae! as s"ecia*a(.inistat! c!nstit$tes n!t !n*) a e&esi'*e e!, '$t a*s! a #a&e a'$se!% (isceti!n a.!$ntin# t! *ac ! e/cess !% $is(icti!n1 In the instant case,the *!we c!$t e/ecise( its "!we in a (es"!tic, a'ita) ! ca"ici!$s.anne, as t! a.!$nt t! an e&asi!n !% "!siti&e ($t) ! t! a &it$a* e%$sa* t!"e%!. the ($t) en!ine( ! t! act at a** in c!nte."*ati!n !% *aw1?26@

'$phasis supplied+(

"o reiterate, the su5et of the intestate proeedin!s is the estate of n!raia Manun!as+ <t$ust e re$e$ered that the estate of lorentino Manun!as was already the su5et of intestate proeedin!s that have lon! een ter$inated with the proeeds distriuted to the heirs with theissuane of a 8eree of inal 8istriution+?2@ ith the ter$ination of the intestate estate proeedin!s of lorentino Manun!as, 8iosdado, as an ille!iti$ate heir of lorentino Manun!as,is still not an heir of n!raia Manun!as and is not entitled to reeive any part of the state of Manun!as+ <n fat, 8iosdado is a detor of the estate and would have no interest in preservin! itsvalue+ "here is no reason to appoint hi$ as its speial ad$inistrator+ "he trial ourt ated with!rave ause of disretion in appointin! 8iosdado as speial ad$inistrator of the state of Manun!as+ "he #A orretly set aside the *ove$er 4, 2002 Order of the R"#+

#onse;uently, with the settin! aside of the *ove$er 4, 2002 Order of the trial ourt,reversin! its May 1-, 2002 Order and appointin! 8iosdado as the speial ad$inistrator of







2&

n!raia Manun!asE estate, the May 1-, 2002 Order is neessarily reinstated and 7arreYoEsappoint$ent as speial ad$inistrator is revived+

0HEREFORE, the petition is herey DENIED+ "he #AEs April 30, 2009 8eision andJuly 21, 2010 Resolution in #A+R+ 7 *o+ 4-31M<* delarin! as null and void the

*ove$er 4, 2002 Order of the R"# in peial 7roeedin!s *o+ 0&areAFFIRMED1 #onse;uently, the Order dated May 1-, 2002 of the R"# isherey REINSTATED and lorenia Avila 7arreYo isREINSTATED as the speialad$inistrator of the estate of n!raia Manun!as+

SO ORDERED1

3OHNNY S1 RABADILLA,8 petitioner- vs. CO4RT OF APPEALS AND MARIAMARLENA= COSCOL4ELLA Y BELLE6A 2ILLACARLOS, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

P4RISIMA, J 1:

"his is a petition for review of the deision of the #ourt of Appeals,?3@ dated 8ee$er23, 1993, in #A+R+ *o+ #H3----, whih set aside the deision of %ranh -2 of theRe!ional "rial #ourt in %aolod #ity, and ordered the defendantsappellees 5includin)

herein petitioner4$ as heirs of 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, to reonvey title over /ot *o+ 1392,to!ether with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Ale5a %elle=a+

"he anteedent fats are as follows>

<n a #odiil appended to the /ast ill and "esta$ent of testatri Ale5a %elle=a, 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla, predeessorininterest of the herein petitioner, Johnny + Raadilla, wasinstituted as a devisee of -11, &-- s;uare $eters of that parel of land surveyed as /ot *o+ 1392 of the %aolod #adastre+ "he said #odiil, whih was duly proated andad$itted in peial 7roeedin!s *o+ 4046 efore the then #ourt of irst <nstane of *e!ros Oidental, ontained the followin! provisions>

T<R"

< !ive, leave and e;ueath the followin! property owned y $e to 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla resident of 141 7+ Hillanueva, 7asay #ity>









29

'a( /ot *o+ 1392 of the %aolod #adastre, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ R"4002 '10942(, whih is re!istered in $y na$e aordin! to the reords ofthe Re!ister of 8eeds of *e!ros Oidental+

'( "hat should Jor!e Raadilla die ahead of $e, the afore$entioned property and

the ri!hts whih < shall set forth hereinelow, shall e inherited and a.nowled!ed y the hildren and spouse of Jor!e Raadilla+

OKR")

'a(++++<t is also $y o$$and, in this $y addition '#odiil(, that should < die andJor!e Raadilla shall have already reeived the ownership of the said /ot *o+1392 of the %aolod #adastre, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ R"4002 '10942(, and also at the ti$e that the lease of %alinito + uan=on of the

said lot shall epire, Jor!e Raadilla shall have the oli!ation until he dies, everyyear to !ive to Maria Marlina #osolluela y %elle=a, eventy '-( 'si( piuls ofport su!ar and "wenty ive '2-( piuls of 8o$esti su!ar, until the said MariaMarlina #osolluela y %elle=a dies+

<")

'a( hould Jor!e Raadilla die, his heir to who$ he shall !ive /ot *o+ 1392 of the%aolod #adastre, overed y "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ R"4002 '10492(,shall have the oli!ation to still !ive yearly, the su!ar as speified in the ourth para!raph of his testa$ent, to Maria Marlina #osolluela y %elle=a on the $onth

of 8ee$er of eah year+

<L")

< o$$and, in this $y addition '#odiil( that the /ot *o+ 1392, in the event thatthe one to who$ < have left and e;ueathed, and his heir shall later sell, lease,$ort!a!e this said /ot, the uyer, lessee, $ort!a!ee, shall have also the oli!ationto respet and deliver yearly O* )K*8R8 '100( piuls of su!ar to MariaMarlina #osolluela y %elle=a, on eah $onth of 8ee$er, H*"N <H'-( piuls of port and "*"N <H '2-( piuls of 8o$esti, until MariaMarlina shall die, lastly should the uyer, lessee or the $ort!a!ee of this lot, not

have respeted $y o$$and in this $y addition '#odiil(, Maria Marlina#osolluela y %elle=a, shall i$$ediately sei=e this /ot *o+ 1392 fro$ $y heirand the latterDs heirs, and shall turn it over to $y near desendants, 'si( and thelatter shall then have the oli!ation to !ive the O* )K*8R8 '100( piuls ofsu!ar until Maria Marlina shall die+ < further o$$and in this $y addition'#odiil( that $y heir and his heirs of this /ot *o+ 1392, that they will oey andfollow that should they deide to sell, lease, $ort!a!e, they annot ne!otiate withothers than $y near desendants and $y sister+T?4@





2&0

7ursuant to the sa$e #odiil, /ot *o+ 1392 was transferred to the deeased, 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla, and "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ 4449& thereto issued in his na$e+

8r+ Jor!e Raadilla died in 19&3 and was survived y his wife Rufina and hildrenJohnny 'petitioner(, Aurora, Ofelia and Ienaida, all surna$ed Raadilla+

On Au!ust 21, 19&9, Maria Marlena #osolluela y %elle=a Hillaarlos rou!ht ao$plaint, do.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ --&&, efore %ranh -2 of the Re!ional "rial#ourt in %aolod #ity, a!ainst the aove$entioned heirs of 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, toenfore the provisions of su5et #odiil+ "he #o$plaint alle!ed that the defendantheirsviolated the onditions of the #odiil, in that>

1+ /ot *o+ 1392 was $ort!a!ed to the 7hilippine *ational %an. and the Repuli7lanters %an. in disre!ard of the testatriDs speifi instrution to sell, lease, or$ort!a!e only to the near desendants and sister of the testatri+

2+ 8efendantheirs failed to o$ply with their oli!ation to deliver one hundred'100( piuls of su!ar '- piuls eport su!ar and 2- piuls do$esti su!ar( to plaintiff Maria Marlena #osolluela y %elle=a fro$ su!ar rop years 19&- up tothe filin! of the o$plaint as $andated y the #odiil, despite repeated de$andsfor o$pliane+

3+ "he an.s failed to o$ply with the 6th para!raph of the #odiil whih provided that in ase of the sale, lease, or $ort!a!e of the property, the uyer,lessee, or $ort!a!ee shall li.ewise have the oli!ation to deliver 100 piuls ofsu!ar per rop year to herein private respondent+

"he plaintiff then prayed that 5ud!$ent e rendered orderin! defendantheirs toreonveyGreturn/ot *o+ 1392 to the survivin! heirs of the late Ale5a %elle=a, theanellation of "#" *o+ 4449& in the na$e of the deeased, 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, and theissuane of a new ertifiate of title in the na$es of the survivin! heirs of the late Ale5a%elle=a+

On eruary 26, 1990, the defendantheirs were delared in default ut on Marh 2&,1990 the Order of 8efault was lifted, with respet to defendant Johnny + Raadilla, whofiled his Answer, aordin!ly+

8urin! the pretrial, the parties ad$itted that>

On *ove$er 1-, 199&, the plaintiff 5private respondent4 and a ertain Alan A=urin, soninlaw of the herein petitioner who was lessee of the property and atin! as attorneyinfat of defendantheirs, arrived at an a$iale settle$ent and entered into aMe$orandu$ of A!ree$ent on the oli!ation to deliver one hundred piuls of su!ar, tothe followin! effet>



2&1

T"hat for rop year 19&&&9, the annuity $entioned in ntry *o+ 4904 of "#" *o+ 444&9 will e delivered not later than January of 19&9, $ore speifially, towit>

- piuls of DAD su!ar, and 2- piuls of D%D su!ar, or then eistin! in

any of our na$es, Mary Rose Raadilla y A=urin or Alan A=urin,durin! 8ee$er of eah su!ar rop year, in A=uar u!ar #entralBand, this is onsidered o$pliane of the annuity as $entioned,and in the sa$e $anner will o$pliane of the annuity e in thenet sueedin! rop years+

"hat the annuity aove stated for rop year 19&-&6, 19&6&, and 19&&&, will e o$plied in ash e;uivalent of the nu$er of piuls as $entioned therein andwhih is as herein a!reed upon, ta.in! into onsideration the o$posite prie ofsu!ar durin! eah su!ar rop year, whih is in the total a$ount of O*)K*8R8 <H ")OKA*8 7O '710-,000+00(+

"hat the aove$entioned a$ount will e paid or delivered on a sta!!ered ashinstall$ent, payale on or efore the end of 8ee$er of every su!ar rop year, to wit>

or 19&-&6, "*"N <L ")OKA*8 "O )K*8R8 <"N '726,2-0+00(7esos, payale on or efore 8ee$er of rop year 19&&&9B

or 19&6&, "*"N <L ")OKA*8 "O )K*8R8 <"N '726,2-0+00(7esos, payale on or efore 8ee$er of rop year 19&990B

or 19&&&, "*"N <L ")OKA*8 "O )K*8R8 <"N '726,2-0+00(

7esos, payale on or efore 8ee$er of rop year 199091B and

or 19&&&9, "*"N <L ")OKA*8 "O )K*8R8 <"N '726,2-0+00(7esos, payale on or efore 8ee$er of rop year 199192+T?-@

)owever, there was no o$pliane with the aforesaid Me$orandu$ of A!ree$ent eeptfor a partial delivery of -0+&0 piuls of su!ar orrespondin! to su!ar rop year 19&&19&9+

On July 22, 1991, the Re!ional "rial #ourt a$e out with a deision, dis$issin! theo$plaint and disposin! as follows>

T)ROR, in the li!ht of the afore!oin! findin!s, the #ourt finds that theation is pre$aturely filed as no ause of ation a!ainst the defendants has as yetarose in favor of plaintiff+ hile there $aye the nonperfor$ane of theo$$and as $andated eation fro$ the$ si$ply eause they are the hildrenof Jor!e Raadilla, the title holderGowner of the lot in ;uestion, does not warrantthe filin! of the present o$plaint+ "he re$edy at ar $ust fall+ <nidentally, ein! in the ate!ory as reditor of the left estate, it is opined that plaintiff $ay





2&2

initiate the intestate proeedin!s, if only to estalish the heirs of Jor!e Raadillaand in order to !ive full $eanin! and se$lane to her lai$ under the #odiil+

<n the li!ht of the afore!oin! findin!s, the #o$plaint ein! pre$aturely filed is8<M<8 without pre5udie+

O OR8R8+T?6@

On appeal y plaintiff, the irst 8ivision of the #ourt of Appeals reversed the deision ofthe trial ourtB ratioinatin! and orderin! thus>

T"herefore, the evidene on reord havin! estalished plaintiffappellantDs ri!ht toreeive 100 piuls of su!ar annually out of the produe of /ot *o+ 1392BdefendantsappelleeDs oli!ation under Ale5a %elle=aDs odiil, as heirs of the$odal heir, Jor!e Raadilla, to deliver suh a$ount of su!ar to plaintiffappellantBdefendantsappelleeDs ad$itted nono$pliane with said oli!ation sine 19&-B

and, the punitive onse;uenes en5oined y oth the odiil and the #ivil #ode, of sei=ure of /ot *o+ 1392 and its reversion to the estate of Ale5a %elle=a in ase ofsuh nono$pliane, this #ourt dee$s it proper to order the reonveyane of titleover /ot *o+ 1392 fro$ the estates of Jor!e Raadilla to the estate of Ale5a%elle=a+ )owever, plaintiffappellant $ust institute separate proeedin!s to reopen Ale5a %elle=aDs estate, seure the appoint$ent of an ad$inistrator, anddistriute /ot *o+ 1392 to Ale5a %elle=aDs le!al heirs in order to enfore her ri!ht,reserved to her y the odiil, to reeive her le!ay of 100 piuls of su!ar per year out of the produe of /ot *o+ 1392 until she dies+

Aordin!ly, the deision appealed fro$ is " A<8 and another one entered

orderin! defendantsappellees, as heirs of Jor!e Raadilla, to reonvey title over/ot *o+ 1392, to!ether with its fruits and interests, to the estate of Ale5a %elle=a+

O OR8R8+T?@

8issatisfied with the aforesaid disposition y the #ourt of Appeals, petitioner found hisway to this #ourt via the present petition, ontendin! that the #ourt of Appeals erred inorderin! the reversion of /ot 1392 to the estate of the testatri Ale5a %elle=a on the asisof para!raph 6 of the #odiil, and in rulin! that the testa$entary institution of 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla is a $odal institution within the purview of Artile &&2 of the *ew #ivil #ode+

"he petition is not i$pressed with $erit+7etitioner ontends that the #ourt of Appeals erred in resolvin! the appeal in aordanewith Artile &&2 of the *ew #ivil #ode on $odal institutions and in deviatin! fro$ thesole issue raised whih is the asene or pre$aturity of the ause of ation+ 7etitioner$aintains that Artile &&2 does not find appliation as there was no $odal institution andthe testatri intended a $ere si$ple sustitution i.e+ the instituted heir, 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla, was to e sustituted y the testatriDs Tnear desendantsT should the







2&3

oli!ation to deliver the fruits to herein private respondent e not o$plied with+ Andsine the testatri died sin!le and without issue, there an e no valid sustitution andsuh testa$entary provision annot e !iven any effet+

"he petitioner theori=es further that there an e no valid sustitution for the reason that

the sustituted heirs are not definite, as the sustituted heirs are $erely referred to asTnear desendantsT without a definite identity or referene as to who are the TneardesendantsT and therefore, under Artiles &43?&@ and &4-?9@ of the *ew #ivil #ode, thesustitution should e dee$ed as not written+

"he ontentions of petitioner are untenale+ #ontrary to his supposition that the #ourt ofAppeals deviated fro$ the issue posed efore it, whih was the propriety of the dis$issalof the o$plaint on the !round of pre$aturity of ause of ation, there was no suhdeviation+ "he #ourt of Appeals found that the private respondent had a ause of ationa!ainst the petitioner+ "he dis;uisition $ade on $odal institution was, preisely, to stressthat the private respondent had a le!ally de$andale ri!ht a!ainst the petitioner pursuant

to su5et #odiilB on whih issue the #ourt of Appeals ruled in aordane with law+

<t is a !eneral rule under the law on suession that suessional ri!hts are trans$ittedfro$ the $o$ent of death of the deedent?10@and o$pulsory heirs are alled to sueed y operation of law+ "he le!iti$ate hildren and desendants, in relation to theirle!iti$ate parents, and the widow or widower, are o$pulsory heirs+?11@ "hus, the petitioner, his $other and sisters, as o$pulsory heirs of the instituted heir, 8r+ Jor!eRaadilla, sueeded the latter y operation of law, without need of further proeedin!s,and the suessional ri!hts were trans$itted to the$ fro$ the $o$ent of death of thedeedent, 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla+

Knder Artile 6 of the *ew #ivil #ode, inheritane inludes all the property, ri!hts andoli!ations of a person, not etin!uished y his death+ #onfor$aly, whatever ri!hts 8r+Jor!e Raadilla had y virtue of su5et #odiil were trans$itted to his fored heirs, atthe ti$e of his death+ And sine oli!ations not etin!uished y death also for$ part ofthe estate of the deedentB orollarily, the oli!ations i$posed y the #odiil on thedeeased 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, were li.ewise trans$itted to his o$pulsory heirs upon hisdeath+

<n the said #odiil, testatri Ale5a %elle=a devised /ot *o+ 1392 to 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla,su5et to the ondition that the usufrut thereof would e delivered to the herein privaterespondent every year+ Kpon the death of 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, his o$pulsory heirssueeded to his ri!hts and title over the said property, and they also assu$ed his'deedentDs( oli!ation to deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein privaterespondent+ uh oli!ation of the instituted heir reiproally orresponds to the ri!ht of private respondent over the usufrut, the fulfill$ent or perfor$ane of whih is now ein! de$anded y the latter throu!h the institution of the ase at ar+ "herefore, privaterespondent has a ause of ation a!ainst petitioner and the trial ourt erred in dis$issin!the o$plaint elow+












2&4

7etitioner also theori=es that Artile &&2 of the *ew #ivil #ode on $odal institutions isnot appliale eause what the testatri intended was a sustitution 8r+ Jor!e Raadillawas to e sustituted y the testatriDs near desendants should there e nono$plianewith the oli!ation to deliver the piuls of su!ar to private respondent+

A!ain, the ontention is without $erit+

ustitution is the desi!nation y the testator of a person or persons to ta.e the plae ofthe heir or heirs first instituted+ Knder sustitutions in !eneral, the testator $ay either '1( provide for the desi!nation of another heir to who$ the property shall pass in ase theori!inal heir should die efore hi$Gher, renoune the inheritane or e inapaitated toinherit, as in a si$ple sustitution,?12@ or '2( leave hisGher property to one person with theepress har!e that it e trans$itted suse;uently to another or others, as in afideio$$issary sustitution+?13@ "he #odiil sued upon onte$plates neither of the two+

<n si$ple sustitutions, the seond heir ta.es the inheritane in default of the first heir y

reason of inapaity, predeease or renuniation+?14@

<n the ase under onsideration, the provisions of su5et #odiil do not provide that should 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla default dueto predeease, inapaity or renuniation, the testatriDs near desendants would sustitutehi$+ hat the #odiil provides is that, should 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla or his heirs not fulfillthe onditions i$posed in the #odiil, the property referred to shall e sei=ed and turnedover to the testatriDs near desendants+

*either is there a fideio$$issary sustitution here and on this point, petitioner isorret+ <n a fideio$$issary sustitution, the first heir is stritly $andated to preservethe "!"et) an( t! tans.it the sa$e later to the seond heir+?1-@ <n the ase underonsideration, the instituted heir is in fat allowed under the #odiil to alienate the

property provided the ne!otiation is with the near desendants or the sister of thetestatri+ "hus, a very i$portant ele$ent of a fideio$$issary sustitution is la.in!B theoli!ation learly i$posin! upon the first heir the preservation of the property and itstrans$ission to the seond heir+ Tithout this oli!ation to preserve learly i$posed ythe testator in his will, there is no fideio$$issary sustitution+T?16@ Also, the neardesendantsD ri!ht to inherit fro$ the testatri is not definite+ "he property will only passto the$ should 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla or his heirs not fulfill the oli!ation to deliver part ofthe usufrut to private respondent+

Another i$portant ele$ent of a fideio$$issary sustitution is also $issin! here+ KnderArtile &63, the seond heir or the fideio$$issary to who$ the property is trans$itted$ust not e eyond one de!ree fro$ the first heir or the fiduiary+ A fideio$$issarysustitution is therefore, void if the first heir is not related y first de!ree to the seondheir+?1@ <n the ase under srutiny, the near desendants are not at all related to theinstituted heir, 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla+

"he #ourt of Appeals erred not in rulin! that the institution of 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla undersu5et #odiil is in the nature of a $odal institution and therefore, Artile &&2 of the















2&-

*ew #ivil #ode is the provision of law in point+ Artiles &&2 and &&3 of the *ew #ivil#ode provide>

Art+ &&2+ "he state$ent of the o5et of the institution or the appliation of the property left y the testator, or the har!e i$posed on hi$, shall not e onsidered

as a ondition unless it appears that suh was his intention+

"hat whih has een left in this $anner $ay e lai$ed at one provided that theinstituted heir or his heirs !ive seurity for o$pliane with the wishes of thetestator and for the return of anythin! he or they $ay reeive, to!ether with itsfruits and interests, if he or they should disre!ard this oli!ation+

Art+ &&3+ hen without the fault of the heir, an institution referred to in the preedin! artile annot ta.e effet in the eat $anner stated y the testator, itshall e o$plied with in a $anner $ost analo!ous to and in onfor$ity with hiswishes+

"he institution of an heir in the $anner presried in Artile &&2 is what is .nown in thelaw of suession as an institucion su" modoor a $odal institution+ <n a $odal institution,the testator states '1( the o5et of the institution, '2( the purpose or appliation of the property left y the testator, or '3( the har!e i$posed y the testator upon the heir+?1&@ AT$odeT i$poses an oli!ation upon the heir or le!atee ut it does not affet the effiayof his ri!hts to the suession+?19@ On the other hand, in a onditional testa$entarydisposition, the ondition $ust happen or e fulfilled in order for the heir to e entitled tosueed the testator+ "he ondition suspends ut does not oli!ateB and the $odeoli!ates ut does not suspend+?20@ "o so$e etent, it is si$ilar to a resolutory ondition+?21@

ro$ the provisions of the #odiil liti!ated upon, it an e !leaned unerrin!ly that thetestatri intended that su5et property e inherited y 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla+ <t is li.ewiselearly worded that the testatri i$posed an oli!ation on the said instituted heir and hissuessorsininterest to deliver one hundred piuls of su!ar to the herein privaterespondent, Marlena #osolluela %elle=a, durin! the lifeti$e of the latter+ )owever, thetestatri did not $a.e 8r+ Jor!e RaadillaDs inheritane and the effetivity of hisinstitution as a devisee, dependent on the perfor$ane of the said oli!ation+ <t is lear,thou!h, that should the oli!ation e not o$plied with, the property shall e turned overto the testatriDs near desendants+ "he $anner of institution of 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla undersu5et #odiil is evidently $odal in nature eause it i$poses a har!e upon theinstituted heir without, however, affetin! the effiay of suh institution+

"hen too, sine testa$entary dispositions are !enerally ats of lierality, an oli!ationi$posed upon the heir should not e onsidered a ondition unless it learly appears fro$the ill itself that suh was the intention of the testator+ <n ase of dout, the institutionshould e onsidered as $odal and not onditional+?22@















2&6

*either is there tenaility in the other ontention of petitioner that the private respondenthas only a ri!ht of usufrut ut not the ri!ht to sei=e the property itself fro$ the institutedheir eause the ri!ht to sei=e was epressly li$ited to violations y the uyer, lessee or$ort!a!ee+

<n the interpretation of ills, when an unertainty arises on the fae of the ill, as to theappliation of any of its provisions, the testatorDs intention is to e asertained fro$ thewords of the ill, ta.in! into onsideration the iru$stanes under whih it was $ade+?23@ uh onstrution as will sustain and uphold the ill in all its parts $ust e adopted+?24@

u5et #odiil provides that the instituted heir is under oli!ation to deliver One)undred '100( piuls of su!ar yearly to Marlena %elle=a #osuella+ uh oli!ation isi$posed on the instituted heir, 8r+ Jor!e Raadilla, his heirs, and their uyer, lessee, or$ort!a!ee should they sell, lease, $ort!a!e or otherwise ne!otiate the property involved+"he #odiil further provides that in the event that the oli!ation to deliver the su!ar is not

respeted, Marlena %elle=a #osuella shall sei=e the property and turn it over to thetestatriDs near desendants+ "he nonperfor$ane of the said oli!ation is thus with thesantion of sei=ure of the property and reversion thereof to the testatriDs neardesendants+ ine the said oli!ation is learly i$posed y the testatri, not only on theinstituted heir ut also on his suessorsininterest, the santion i$posed y the testatriin ase of nonfulfill$ent of said oli!ation should e;ually apply to the instituted heir andhis suessorsininterest+

i$ilarly unsustainale is petitionerDs su$ission that y virtue of the a$ialesettle$ent, the said oli!ation i$posed y the #odiil has een assu$ed y the lessee,and whatever oli!ation petitioner had eo$e the oli!ation of the lesseeB that petitioner

is dee$ed to have $ade a sustantial and onstrutive o$pliane of his oli!ationthrou!h the onsu$$ated settle$ent etween the lessee and the private respondent, andhavin! onsu$$ated a settle$ent with the petitioner, the reourse of the privaterespondent is the fulfill$ent of the oli!ation under the a$iale settle$ent and not thesei=ure of su5et property+

uffie it to state that a ill is a personal, sole$n, revoale and free at y whih a person disposes of his property, to ta.e effet after his death+?2-@ ine the ill epressesthe $anner in whih a person intends how his properties e disposed, the wishes anddesires of the testator $ust e stritly followed+ "hus, a ill annot e the su5et of ao$pro$ise a!ree$ent whih would therey defeat the very purpose of $a.in! a ill+

0HEREFORE, the petition is herey 8<M<8 and the deision of the #ourt ofAppeals, dated 8ee$er 23, 1993, in #A+R+ *o+ #H3---- A<RM8+ *o pronoune$ent as to osts

SO ORDERED1









2&

REGINA FRANCISCO AND 6ENAIDA PASC4AL, petitioners- vs1 AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO, respondent 1

D E C I S I O NPARDO, J 1:

May a le!iti$ate dau!hter e deprived of her share in the estate of her deeased father y asi$ulated ontrat transferrin! the property of her father to his ille!iti$ate hildrenC

"he ase efore the #ourt is an appeal via certiorari fro$ the deision of the #ourt of Appeals?1@ delarin! void the deed of sale of two parels of land onveyed to petitioners who areille!iti$ate hildren of the deeased to the elusion of respondent, his sole le!iti$ate dau!hter+

"he fats?2@ are>

Respondent Aida ranisoAlfonso 'hereafter Aida( is the only dau!hter of spousesre!orio raniso and #irila de la #ru=, who are now oth deeased+

7etitioners, on the other hand, are dau!hters of the late re!orio raniso with his o$$onlaw wife Julia Mendo=a, with who$ he e!ot seven '( hildren+

re!orio raniso 'hereafter re!orio( owned two parels of residential land, situated in%aran!ay /olo$oy, %oaue, %ulaan, overed y "#" *os+ "3240 and "11160+ henre!orio was onfined in a hospital in 1990, he onfided to his dau!hter Aida that the ertifiatesof title of his property were in the possession of Re!ina raniso and Ienaida 7asual+

After re!orio died on July 20, 1990,?3@ Aida in;uired aout the ertifiates of title fro$ her half sisters+ "hey infor$ed her that re!orio had sold the land to the$ on Au!ust 1-,

19&3+ After verifiation, Aida learned that there was indeed a deed of asolute sale in favor of Re!ina raniso and Ienaida 7asual+ "hus, on Au!ust 1-, 19&3, re!orio eeuted aPasulatan sa anap na %ilihan, wherey for 72-,000+00, he sold the two parels of land toRe!ina raniso and Ienaida 7asual+ %y virtue of the sale, the Re!ister of 8eeds of %ulaanissued "#" *o+ "-9+-&- to Re!ina raniso and "#" "-9+-&6 to Ienaida 7asual+?4@

On April 1, 1991, Aida filed with the Re!ional "rial #ourt, %ulaan a o$plaint a!ainst petitioners for annul$ent of sale with da$a!es+?-@ he alle!ed that the si!nature of her late father,re!orio raniso, on the asulatan sa !anap na Bilihan dated Au!ust 1-, 19&3, was a for!ery+

<n their 5oint answer to the o$plaint, petitioners denied the alle!ed for!ery or si$ulation of the deed of sale+ After due proeedin!s, on July 21, 1994, the trial ourt rendered a deision

dis$issin! the o$plaint+ "he dispositive portion reads>

)ROR, on the asis of the evidene addued and the lawappliale thereon, the #ourt herey renders 5ud!$ent>

a( sustainin! the validity of the Pasulatan a anap *a %ilihan: 'h+:( eeuted on 1-Au!ust 1993 y the late re!orio raniso in favor of the defendantsB

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/138774.htm#_edn1














2&&

( affir$in! the validity of the "ransfer #ertifiates of "itle *o+ "-9+-&- 'h+ <:( issued todefendant Re!ina raniso and *o+ "-9+3&6 'h+ ):( issued to defendant Ienaida 7asualBand

( dis$issin! the o$plaint as well as the defendantsE ounterlai$ for da$a!es and attorneyEs

fees for la. of $erit+:?6@

<n ti$e?@, respondent Alfonso appealed to the #ourt of Appeals+?&@

After due proeedin!s, on April 30, 1999, the #ourt of Appeals pro$ul!ated its deisionreversin! that of the trial ourt, the dispositive portion of whih reads>

)ROR, the 8eision dated July 21, 1994 of the ourt a quo is RHR8 and "A<8 and another rendered as follows>

1+ "he Pasulatan a anap na %ilihan dated Au!ust 1-, 19&3 'hiit :( is delared null andvoid fro$ the e!innin! and "#" *os+ "-9+-&- 'M( and "-9-&6 'M(, oth of the

Re!istry of 8eeds of %ulaan 'Meyauayan %ranh( in the na$es of Re!ina raniso and Ienaida7asual, respetively, are annulled and anelledB

2+ "he Re!ister of 8eeds of %ulaan 'Meyauayan %ranh( is ordered to anel theafore$entioned "#" *os+ "-9+-&- 'M( and "-9+-&6 'M( and to reinstate "ransfer #ertifiatesof "itle *os+ "13240 and "11160 oth in the na$e of re!orio raniso+

3+ 8efendantsappellees Re!ina raniso and Ienaida 7asual 5ointly and solidarily areordered to pay plaintiffappellant Alfonso the a$ount of 7-,000+00 as $oral da$a!es, 7-,000+00

as ee$plary da$a!es and 7-,000+00 as attorneyEs fees+

4+ "he ounterlai$ of defendantsappellees is dis$issed for la. of $erit+

#osts of suit a!ainst said defendantsappellees+: ?9@

)ene, this petition+?10@

"he $ain issue raised is whether the upre$e #ourt $ay review the fatual findin!s of theappellate ourt+ "he 5urisdition of this #ourt in ases rou!ht efore it fro$ the #ourt of Appeals under Rule 4- of the Revised Rules of #ourt is li$ited to review of pure errors of

law+ <t is not the funtion of this #ourt to analy=e or wei!h evidene all over a!ain, unless thereis a showin! that the findin!s of the lower ourt are totally devoid of support or are !larin!lyerroneous as to onstitute !rave ause of disretion+?11@

"he findin!s of fat of the #ourt of Appeals supported y sustantial evidene areonlusive and indin! on the parties and are not reviewale y this #ourt, ?12@ unless the asefalls under any of the reo!ni=ed eeptions to the rule+?13@

7etitioner has failed to prove that the ase falls within the eeptions+ ?14@
























2&9

e affir$ the deision of the #ourt of Appeals eause>

irst> "he +asulatan was si$ulated+ "here was no onsideration for the ontrat of sale+ eliitas de la #ru=, a fa$ily friend of the ranisos, testified that Ienaida 7asual andRe!ina raniso did not have any soure of ino$e in 19&3, when they ou!ht the property,until the ti$e when eliitas testified in 1991+?1-@

As proof of ino$e, however, Ienaida 7asual testified that she was en!a!ed in operatin! aanteen, wor.in! as ashier in Mayon *i!ht #lu as well as uyin! and sellin! R" 'Ready toear( ite$s in Au!ust of 19&3 and prior thereto+

Ienaida alle!ed that she paid her father the a$ount of 710,000+00+ he did not withdraw$oney fro$ her an. aount at the Rural %an. of Meyauayan, %ulaan, to pay for the property+ he had personal savin!s other than those deposited in the an.+ )er !ross earnin!sfro$ the R" for three years was 79,000+00, and she earned 7-0+00 a ni!ht at the lu+ ?16@

Re!ina raniso, on the other hand, was a $ar.et vendor, sellin! nilu)a', earnin! a netino$e of 7300+00 a day in 19&3+ he ou!ht the property fro$ the deeased for 71-,000+00+?1@

he had no other soure of ino$e+e find it inredile that en!a!in! in uy and sell ould raise the a$ount of 710,000+00, or

that earnin!s in sellin! )oto ould save enou!h to pay 71-,000+00, in ash for the land+

"he testi$onies of petitioners were inredile onsiderin! their inonsistent state$ents as towhether there was onsideration for the sale and also as to whether the property was ou!ht elow or aove its supposed $ar.et value+ "hey ould not even present a sin!le witness tothe +asulatan that would prove reeipt of the purhase prie+

ine there was no ause or onsideration for the sale, the sa$e was a si$ulation and hene,null and void+?1&@

eond> ven if the +asulatan was not si$ulated, it still violated the #ivil#ode?19@ provisions insofar as the transation affeted respondentEs le!iti$e+ "he sale waseeuted in 19&3, when the appliale law was the #ivil #ode, not the a$ily #ode+

Oviously, the sale was re!orioEs way to transfer the property to his ille!iti$atedau!hters?20@ at the epense of his le!iti$ate dau!hter+ "he sale was eeuted to preventrespondent Alfonso fro$ lai$in! her le!iti$e and ri!htful share in said property+ %efore hisdeath, re!orio had a han!e of heart and infor$ed his dau!hter aout the titles to the property+

Aordin! to Artile &&&, #ivil #ode>

"he le!iti$e of le!iti$ate hildren and desendants onsists of onehalf of the hereditary estate

of the father and of the $other+

"he latter $ay freely dispose of the re$ainin! half su5et to the ri!hts of ille!iti$ate hildrenand of the survivin! spouse as hereinafter provided+:

re!orio raniso did not own any other property+ <f indeed the parels of land involvedwere the only property left y their father, the sale in fat would deprive respondent of her share

















290

in her fatherEs estate+ %y law, she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his onlyle!iti$ate hild+?21@

"he le!al heirs of the late re!orio raniso $ust e deter$ined in proper testate or intestate proeedin!s for settle$ent of the estate+ )is o$pulsory heir an not e deprived of her share in the estate save y disinheritane as presried y law+?22@

0HEREFORE, the petition is herey 8*<8+ "he deision of the #ourt of Appeals in#A+ R+ #H *o+ 4&-4- is A<RM8, in toto+

*o osts+

SO ORDERED1

SPO4SES IL4MINADA CAPITLE an(CIRILO CAPITLE,

7etitioners,

versus

FORT4NATA ELBAMB4ENAan( ROSALINDA C1 OLAR,

Respondents+

G1R1 N!1 8?>8>

7resent> K<KM%<*, % +, #hairperson,#AR7<O,#AR7<O MORA/,"<*A, andH/A#O, JR+, %% +

7ro$ul!ated>

*ove$er 30, 2006

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

"he parel of a!riultural land su5et of the present ontroversy ontains 1+&144 hetares,identified as /ot 1&49 'the lot(, and situated in %aran!ay Halle, "alavera, *ueva i5a+

A #ertifiate of /and Ownership Award '#/OA( was issued to #ristoal Olar 'Olar(overin! the lot on aount of whih he was issued "ransfer #ertifiate of "itle *o+ #/OA03-14+







291

Respondents ortunata la$uena 'ortunata( and Rosalinda Olar 'Rosalinda(, spouseand dau!hterinlaw, respetively, of Olar, now deeased, lai$ that Olar relin;uished onehalf or 0+902 hetare of the lot to Rosalinda y a asunduan:?1@ dated July 1, 1992 the eeutionof whih was witnessed y petitioner #irilo #apitleB and that the re$ainin! portion of the lotwas surrendered to ortunata y an undated dou$ent+?2@

Respondents, alle!ed that on petitionersE re;uest, petitioners were allowed to oupy thelot to pursue a $eans of livelihood+ ine 1990, however, petitioners did not pay rentals despitede$and therefor, and neither did they heed the de$and to return the possession of the lot,drawin! respondents to file a 7etition for Reovery of 7ossession and 7ay$ent of %a. Rentals?3@ a!ainst petitioners efore the 8epart$ent of A!rarian Refor$ Ad5udiation %oard'8ARA%( Re!ional Offie in "alavera, *ueva i5a, do.eted as 8ARA% #ase *o+-9&E**E96+

7etitioners, on the other hand, lai$in! that they have een in possession of the lot sine1960, presented a aiver of Ri!hts:?4@ eeuted y Olar wherein he renouned in their favor his

ri!hts and partiipation over the lotB a #inumpaan) #alaysay:

?-@

wherein Olar a.nowled!edthat he opossessed the lot with petitioner #apitle sine 1960B and a Pina)saman)

Patunay?6@ fro$ the %aran!ay A!rarian Refor$ #o$$ittee '%AR#( #hair$an and aran!ayhair$an of Halle ertifyin! that they 'petitioners( are the atual tillers and possessors of the lot+

7etitioners further lai$ that sine 19-9, respondent ortunata was already separated

fro$ Olar and she even re$arried, thus !ivin! her no ri!ht to inherit fro$ Olar+

hile respondentsE petition in 8ARA% #ase *o+ -9&D**D96 was pendin! efore the7rovinial A!rarian Refor$ Ad5udiator '7ARA8(, petitioners filed efore the MuniipalA!rarian Refor$ Offier 'MARO( of "alavera, *ueva i5a a petition for anellation of the#/OA issued to Olar, do.eted as 8ARA% #ase *o+ 6261D**D9, lai$in! that they are thenew far$erenefiiaries as shown y, a$on! other thin!s, the aiver of Ri!hts: eeuted yOlar+

%y 8eision?@ dated Au!ust 20, 199 whih 5ointly resolved 8ARA% #ase *os+-9&D**D96 and 6261E**E9, the 7ARA8 ruled in favor of petitioners, the deretal portion of whih reads>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered>

OR8R<* A*8 8#/AR<*

1+ 8ARA% #ase *o+ -9&E**E96 8<M<8 for la. of $eritB 2+ "he reallGanellation of "#" *o+ #/OA03-14 previously issued

to the late #ristoal OlarB 3+ "he 7ARO, 8AR*orth, "alavera, *ueva i5a thru the #hief,

/anded state etion to ause the issuane of a new #/OA in thena$e of <lu$inada #apitle $arried to #irilo #apitleB

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/169193.htm#_ftn1

















292

4+ "he Re!ister of 8eeds of *ueva i5a to anel "#" *o+ #/OA0

3-14 adverted to if the sa$e is already re!istered and ause there!istration of a new #/OA in the na$e of <lu$inada #apitle $arriedto #?i@rilo #apitleB and

-+ Other lai$s and ounterlai$s li.ewise 8<M<8 for la. of le!al asis+?&@

Respondents appealed the deision to the 8ARA%, ar!uin! that the 7ARA8 erred inholdin! that>

<+

+ + + 7"<"<O*R OR"K*A"A /%AM%K*A A*8 ROA/<*8A O/AR

#A* *O /O*R R#OHR 7O<O* OHR ") K%J#" ARM/O", MK#) / 8MA*8 7ANM*" O /A R*"A/ ROM ")R7O*8*"+

<<+

+ + + ") 7"<"<O* OR R#A//G#A*#//A"<O* O "#" *O+ #/OA03-14 7RH<OK/N <K8 "O ") /A" #R<"O%A/ O/AR OK/87RO7R+?9@

%y 8eision?10@ of 8ee$er 29, 2003, the 8ARA% set aside the 7ARA8Es deision,disposin! as follows>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, the appealed deision is "A<8 and a new 5ud!$ent is herey rendered>

1+ Orderin! pouses #apitle and any or all persons atin! in their ehalf to i$$ediately vaate the su5et landholdin! and deliver thesa$e to ortunata la$uena and Rosalinda #+ OlarB

2+ Orderin! the issuane of #/OA in favor of ortunata la$uena

and Rosalinda #+ Olar as le!al heirs of #ristoal Olar+ 3+ ettin! aside the deision of the Ad5udiator a quo in 8ARA%

Re!ional #ase *o+ 6261E**E9 for la. of 5urisdition over the persons of the )eirs of #ristoal OlarB

4+ "he de$and for a. lease rentals y ?respondents@ is denied for

la. of $erit+?11@











293

7etitioners elevated the ase to the #ourt of Appeals via petition for review, ar!uin! thatthe 8ARA% erred>

1+ <* #O*#/K8<* ")A" ") 7O<O* O /O" *O+ 1&49 sine1960 8RH *O MR<" ")R %<* *O %A< %O") <* A#"A*8 <* /AB

2+ ")A" ") 7RKM7"<O*, ") #/OA A <K8 "O

#R<"O%A/ O/AR <* ") RK/AR #OKR ?O@ O<#<A/K*#"<O* A *HR OHR#OM %N #O*"RARN H<8*#B

3+ ")A" ") A<HR L#K"8 %N #R<"O%A/ O/AR <*

AHOR O 7+ #A7<"/ < HO<8 OR %<* #O*"RARN "O /AA*8 7K%/<# 7O/<#NB

4+ <* #O*#/K8<* ")A" ") "RA*R A#"<O* #O*8K#"8%N ") AMA)A* *ANO* O HA//, "A/AHRA, *KHA #<JA#O*"A<* K%"A*"<A/ A*8 MA"R<A/ 8#"B ?and@

-+ <* #O*#/K8<* ")A" ") #A*#//A"<O* O "#" *o+ #/OA0

3-14 8O *O" %<*8 OR"K*A"A /%AM%K*A A*8ROA/<*8A O/AR %#AK ")N R *O" MA8 7AR"N "O8ARA% #A *O+ 6261E**E9+?12@

%y the hallen!ed 8eision of *ove$er 23, 2004,?13@ the appellate ourt affir$ed in

toto the 8ARA% deision, ratioinatin! as follows>

"he 8ARA% orretly found that petitionersappellantsE possession of the;uestioned property sine 1960 is of duious le!ality+ *o a$ount of possessionunder whatever lai$ 'atual tillin! and atual possession( an lothe petitionerappellants with any lawful ri!ht over the ;uestioned property+ Reason> <t an e!leaned fro$ the fatual anteedents that petitionersappellantsE stay in #ristoalOlarEs property was, or had een , y $ere tolerane of respondentsappellees+<ndeed, so $uh is lear fro$ the aver$ents on pa!e - of their petition> H6667

that *risto"al 0lar "e)innin) ,CC up to the time of his death in ,CC lived all

alone b) hi*self and his companions in his house are the #pouses (luminadaand *irilo *apitle 666.K "hese aver$ents, ein! in the nature of 5udiialad$issions, are onlusive and indin! on petitionersappellants and an nolon!er e ontroverted+ "his si$ply $eant that no title of ownership as far$er enefiiary was passed unto the #apitles, therey renderin! ineffetive theertifiation issued y the MARO of "alavera, *ueva i5a+ ven the %oardResolution of the a$ahan! *ayon of Halle, "alavera, *ueva i5a, na$in! the#apitles as new alloatees of the landholdin!, had no indin! effet, as the said









294

sa$ahan! nayon is not the proper authority under the law with power to passupon the le!al issue as to who ri!htfully deserves to own #ristoal OlarEslandholdin! after hi$+ %esides whih, there was nothin! a$iss with the8ARA%Es rulin! relative to the issuane of the #ertifiate of /and OwnershipAward to #ristoal Olar, as this was done in the re!ular ourse of an offiial

funtion+ <t si$ply estalished the fat that petitionersappellantsE lai$ ould inno way le!ally stand a!ainst #ristoal Olar, whose title under the #/OA annot e overthrown or supplanted y so$e or!ani=ational resolution andGor aran!ayattestationsGertifiations+ On the other hand, #ristoal OlarEs death sustantially passed all his ri!hts and interest in and over the su5et property to his le!al heirs y operation of law+ <n the ase at enh, to herein respondentsappellees> toortunata la$uena, ein! his survivin! wife, and to Rosalinda Olar, his sonEssurvivin! spouse, atin! for and in ehalf of her hildren with *e$esio Olar+ "hisis as it should, onsiderin! that ri!hts to the suession are trans$itted fro$ the$o$ent of death of the deedent+ And sine ortunata la$uena and RosalindaOlarEs relationship with #ristoal Olar was in this ase never put in issue, their

ein! le!al heirs of the deeased !ave the$ un;ualified ri!ht to partiipate in all proeedin!s affetin! the su5et property+

hat is $ore, as shown in the reords, the respondent in 8ARA% #ase *o+ 6261E**?E@9 was the MARO O "A/AHRA, *++ 7rivate respondentsappellees were not i$pleaded therein+ %ut as heirs of #ristoal Olar, privaterespondentsappellees ou!ht to have een so i$pleaded+ "he Rules $andate thatthe full na$es of all the real parties in interest whether natural or 5uridial personsor entities authori=ed y law shall e stated in the aption of the o$plaint or petition+ ho is a real party in interest:C )e is that party who stands to e enefited or in5ured y the 5ud!$ent in the suit, or the party entitled to the availsof the suit+ "ested y this riterion, ortunata la$uenaEs le!iti$e andRosalinda Olar stood to e in5ured: y the !larin!ly erroneous deision of the7ARA8, "alavera, *ueva i5a+ )ene, that deision $ust e vaated, it havin!trans!ressed sustantive ri!hts proteted y law+?14@ '$phasis and italis in theori!inalB undersorin! supplied(

)ene, the present petition whih reiterates the aoveenu$erated errors petitioners proffered efore the appellate ourt+

7etitioners $aintain that their possession sine 1960 was satisfatorily estalished yevidene inludin! OlarEs aiver of Ri!hts,: %oard Resolution of the #amahan) >ayon of Hallena$in! petitioners as new alloatee, Joint #ertifiation of the %AR# #hair$an and aran!ayhair$an, and MARO #ertifiation that they have een in atual possession of the lot+

Althou!h the #/OA was issued to Olar, petitioners ontend that their preferential ri!htover the lot should e reo!ni=ed, they ein! the transferees pursuant to the aiver of Ri!hts:and the atual tillers thereof+





29-

7etitioners onede that althou!h OlarEs death passed all his ri!hts and interest over the lotto his le!al heirs, his intent of not e;ueathin! the$ to his estran!ed wife ut to a relative, whohelped hi$ in tillin! the lot and who too. are of hi$, should e aorded respet over the intentof the law on hereditary suession+

inally, petitioners lai$ that respondents are not ;ualified to eo$e far$erenefiiariesunder the #AR7 as they did not till or ultivate the property nor help Olar in his far$in!ativities+

"he petition fails+ 7etitionersE ar!u$ent that ?i@t would e asurd for ?Olar@ to e;ueath his property to his

estran!ed wife not to a relative who had indeed helped hi$ in tillin! the property and ?too.@!ood are of his needs $:?1-@ is a virtual ad$ission that their possession was not in the onept of owners, they havin! $erely helped: in tillin! the lot, therey a.nowled!in! that Olar was the atual possessor and tiller+

Asent evidene to the ontrary, the presu$ption that the puli offiers who issued the#/OA to Olar re!ularly perfor$ed their duties, inludin! adherin! to the provisions of etion 22of the #o$prehensive A!rarian Refor$ /aw '#AR/( whih provides>

#"<O* 22+ ualified %enefiiaries+ F "he lands overed y the#AR7 shall e distriuted as $uh as possile to landless residents of the sa$e aran!ay, or in the asene thereof, landless residents of the sa$e $uniipality inthe followin! order of priority>

'a( a!riultural lessees and share tenantsB'( re!ular far$wor.ersB'( seasonal far$wor.ersB'd( other far$wor.ersB'e( atual tillers or oupants of puli landsB'f( olletives or ooperatives of the aove enefiiariesB and'!( others diretly wor.in! on the land+

7rovided, however, "hat the hildren of landowners who are ;ualified

under etion 6 of this At shall e !iven preferene in the distriution of the landof their parentsB And provided further, "hat atual tenanttillers in the landholdin!shall not e e5eted or re$oved therefro$+

%enefiiaries under 7residential 8eree *o+ 2 who have ulpaly sold,

disposed of, or aandoned their land are dis;ualified to eo$e enefiiariesunder this 7ro!ra$+

A asi ;ualifiation of a enefiiary shall e his willin!ness, aptitude andaility to ultivate and $a.e the land as produtive as possile+ "he 8AR shalladopt a syste$ of $onitorin! the reord of perfor$ane of eah enefiiary, sothat any enefiiary !uilty of ne!li!ene or $isuse of the land or any support






296

etended to hi$ shall forfeit his ri!ht to ontinue as suh enefiiary+ "he 8AR shall su$it reports on the perfor$ane of the enefiiaries to the 7AR#+

,

thus stands+

ven assu$in! ar)uendo that petitioners were indeed the atual tillers of the lot, their petition for the anellation of the #/OA issued in favor of Olar would not ind respondents asthey were not i$pleaded+

Althou!h estran!ed fro$ Olar, respondent ortunata re$ained his wife and le!al heir, $ereestran!e$ent not ein! a le!al !round for the dis;ualifiation of a survivin! spouse as an heir of the deeased spouse+?16@ Rosalinda, on the other hand, is the survivin! spouse of OlarEs son+ "hetwo are thus real partiesininterest who stand to e in5ured or enefited y the 5ud!$ent on the

anellation of the #/OA issued in OlarEs na$e+

?1@

0HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED+

#osts a!ainst petitioners+

SO ORDERED1

LA4RO G1 2I6CONDE, petitioner- vs1, CO4RT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIALCO4RT, Banch 8=@, Ca*!!can Cit), an( RAMON G1 NICOLAS, respondents1

D E C I S I O N

FRANCISCO, J 1:

7etitioner /auro + Hi=onde and his wife strellita *iolasHi=onde had twohildren, vi2 +, #ar$ela and Jennifer+ 7etitionerEs wife, strellita, is one of the five silin!s of spouses Rafael *iolas and alud on=ales*iolas+ "he other hildren of Rafael and alud are

Antonio *iolasB Ra$on *iolasB "eresita *iolas de /eon, and Riardo *iolas, anino$petent+ Antonio predeeased his parents and is now survived y his widow, Ienaida, andtheir four hildren+

On May 22, 199, strellita purhased fro$ Rafael a parel of land with an area of 10,110s;+ $+ loated at Halen=uela, %ulaan 'hereafter Halen=uela property( overed y "#" *o+ '"3634( 13206 for One )undred "hirty ive "housand 7esos '713-,000+00(, evidened y a/uusan! %ilihan n! %aha!i n! /upa na *asasa.upan n! "itulo "#" *O+ "3634+:?1@ <n view



http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/feb1998/118449.htm#_edn1








29&

in the estate+?1-@ use;uently, the R"# in an Order dated January -, 1994, re$oved Ra$on asalud and RiardoEs !uardian for sellin! his wardEs property without the ourtEs .nowled!e and per$ission+?16@

o$eti$e on January 13, 1994, the R"# released an Order !ivin! petitioner ten '10( days within whih to file any appropriate petition or $otion related to the pendin! petition insofar

as the ase is onerned and to file any opposition to any pendin! $otion that has een filed y oth the ounsels for Ra$on *iolas and "eresita de /eon+: <n response, petitioner filed aManifestation, dated January 19, 1994, stressin! tha the was neither a o$pulsory heir nor anintestate heir of Rafael and he has no interest to partiipate in the proeedin!s+ "he R"# notedsaid Manifestation in its Order dated eruary 2, 1994+ ?1@ 8espite the Manifestation, Ra$on,throu!h a $otion dated eruary 14, 1994, $oved to inlude petitioner in the intestate estate proeedin! and as.ed that the 7araYa;ue property, as well as the ar and the alane of the proeeds of the sale of the Halen=uela property, e ollated+?1&@ Atin! on Ra$onEs $otion, thetrial ourt on Marh 10, 1994 !ranted the sa$e in an Order whih pertinently reads as follows>

On the Motion "o <nlude /auro + Hi=onde <n <ntestate proeedin!s in instant ase andonsiderin! the o$$ent on hi Manifestation, the sa$e is herey !ranted+:?19@

7etitioner filed its $otion for reonsideration of the aforesaid Order whih Ra$on opposed+?20@ On Au!ust 12, 1994, the R"# rendered an Order denyin! petitionerEs $otion for reonsideration+ <t provides>

"he enterpoint of oppositorappliantEs ar!u$ent is that spouses Hi=onde were thenfinanially inapale of havin! purhased or a;uired for a valuale onsideration the property atHalen=uela fro$ the deeased Rafael *iolas+ Ad$ittedly, the spouses Hi=onde were thenlivin! with the deeased Rafael *iolas in the latterEs anestral ho$e+ <n fat, as the ar!u$entfurther !oes, said spouses were dependent for support on the deeased Rafael *iolas+ And/auro Hi=onde left for the Knited tates in, de1facto separation, fro$ the fa$ily for so$eti$eand returned to the 7hilippines only after the ourrene of violent deaths of strellita and hertwo dau!hters+

"o dispute the ontention that the spouses Hi=onde were finanially inapale to uy the property fro$ the late Rafael *iolas, /auro Hi=onde lai$s that they have een en!a!ed in

usiness venture suh as tai usiness, anteen onessions and !ar$ent$anufaturin!+ )owever, no o$petent evidene has een su$itted to induitaly support the usiness underta.in!s adverted to+

<n fine, there is no suffiient evidene to show that the a;uisition of the property fro$ Rafael *iolas was for a valuale onsideration+















299

Aordin!ly, the transfer of the property at Halen=uela in favor of strellita y her father was!ratuitous and the su5et property in 7araYa;ue whih was purhased out of the proeeds of thesaid transfer of property y the deeased Rafael *iolas in favor of strellita, is su5et toollation+:

)ROR, the $otion for reonsideration is herey 8*<8+:?21@

'Kndersorin! added(

7etitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohiition with respondent #ourt of Appeals+ <n itsdeision of 8ee$er 14, 1994, respondent #ourt of Appeals ?22@ denied the petition stressin! thatthe R"# orretly ad5udiated the ;uestion on the title of the Halen=uela property as the 5urisdition of the proate ourt etends to $atters inidental and ollateral to the eerise of itsreo!ni=ed powers in handlin! the settle$ent of the estate of the deeased '#f+> e+ 1, Rule 90,Revised Rules of #ourt(+:?23@ 8issatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for reviewon certiorari+ indin! prima facie $erit, the #ourt on 8ee$er 4, 199-, !ave due ourse to the petition and re;uired the parties to su$it their respetive $e$oranda+

"he ore issue hin!es on the validity of the proate ourtEs Order, whih respondent #ourt of

Appeals sustained, nullifyin! the transfer of the Halen=uela property fro$ Rafael to strellita anddelarin! the 7araYa;ue property as su5et to ollation+

"he appeal is well ta.en+

%asi priniples of ollation need to e e$phasi=ed at the outset+ Artile 1061 of the #ivil#ode spea.s of ollation+ <t states>

Art+ 1061+ very o$pulsory heir, who sueeds with other o$pulsory heirs, $ust rin! intothe $ass of the estate any property or ri!ht whih he $ay have reeived fro$ the deedent,durin! the lifeti$e of the latter, y way of donation, or any other !ratuitous title, in order that it$ay e o$puted in the deter$ination of the le!iti$e of eah heir, and in the aount of the

partition+:

#ollation is the at y virtue of whih desendants or other fored heirs who intervene in thedivision of the inheritane of an asendant rin! into the o$$on $ass, the property whih theyreeived fro$ hi$, so that the division $ay e $ade aordin! to law and the will of the testator+?24@ #ollation is only re;uired of o$pulsory heirs sueedin! with other o$pulsory heirs andinvolves property or ri!hts reeived y donation or !ratuitous title durin! the lifeti$e of thedeedent+?2-@ "he purpose for it is presu$ed that the intention of the testator or predeessor ininterest in $a.in! a donation or !ratuitous transfer to a fored heir is to !ive hi$ so$ethin! inadvane on aount of his share in the estate, and that the predeessorEs will is to treat all hisheirs e;ually, in the asene of any epression to the ontrary+ ?26@#ollation does not i$pose any

lien on the property or the su5et $atter of ollationale donation+ hat is rou!ht to ollationis not the property donated itself, ut rather the value of suh property at the ti$e it was donated,?2@ the rationale ein! that the donation is a real alienation whih onveys ownership upon itsaeptane, hene any inrease in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is for the aount of the heir or donee+?2&@

"he attendant fats herein do no $a.e a ase of ollation+ e find that the proate ourt, aswell as respondent #ourt of Appeals, o$$itted reversile errors+
























301

interested parties, in a proper ation, to raise the ;uestion earin! on the ownership or eisteneof the ri!ht or redit+:?34@

"hird> "he order of the proate ourt su5etin! the 7araYa;ue property to ollation is pre$ature+ Reords indiate that the intestate estate proeedin!s is still in its initiatory

sta!e+ e find nothin! herein to indiate that the le!iti$ate of any of RafaelEs heirs has eeni$paired to warrant ollation+ e thus advert to our rulin! in Kdare v+ Jurado, -9 7hil+ 11, 1314, to wit>

e are of the opinion that this ontention is untenale+ <n aordane with the provisions ofartile 103-?3-@ of the #ivil #ode, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to alle!e and prove that thedonations reeived y the defendants were inoffiious in whole or in part and pre5udied thele!iti$ate or hereditary portion to whih they are entitled+ <n the asene of evidene to thateffet, the ollation sou!ht is untenale for la. of !round or asis therefor+:

ourth> ven on the assu$ption that ollation is appropriate in this ase the proate ourt,

nonetheless, $ade a reversile error in orderin! ollation of the 7araYa;ue property+ e notethat what was transferred to strellita, y way of a deed of sale, is the Halen=uela property+ "he7araYa;ue property whih strellita a;uired y usin! the proeeds of the sale of the Halen=uela property does not eo$e ollationale si$ply y reason thereof+ <ndeed ollation of the7araYa;ue property has no statutory asis+?36@ "he order of the proate ourt presupposes that the7araYa;ue property was !ratuitously onveyed y Rafael to strellita+ Reords indiate,however, that the 7araYa;ue property was onveyed for and in onsideration of 7900,000+00,?3@ y 7re$ier )o$es, <n+, to strellita+ Rafael, the deedent, has no partiipation therein, and petitioner who inherited and is now the present owner of the 7araYa;ue property is not one of RafaelEs heirs+ "hus, the proate ourtEs order of ollation a!ainst petitioner is unwarranted for the oli!ation to ollate is lod!ed with strellita, the heir, and not to herein petitioner who does

not have any interest in RafaelEs estate+ As it stands, ollation of the 7araYa;ue property isi$proper for, to repeat, ollation overs only properties !ratuitously !iven y the deedentdurin! his lifeti$e to his o$pulsory heirs whih fat does not otain anent the transfer of the7araYa;ue property+ Moreover, Rafael, in a puli instru$ent, voluntarily and willfully waivedany lai$s, ri!hts, ownership and partiipation as heir:?3&@ in the 7araYa;ue property+

ifth> inally, it is futile for the proate ourt to asertain whether or not the Halen=uela property $ay e rou!ht to ollation+ strellita, it should e stressed, died ahead of Rafael+ <nfat, it was Rafael who inherited fro$ strellita an a$ount $ore than the value of the Halen=uela property+?39@ )ene, even assu$in! that the Halen=uela property $ay e ollated ollation $aynot e allowed as the value of the Halen=uela property has lon! een returned to the estate of Rafael+ "herefore, any deter$ination y the proate ourt on the $atter serves no valid and

indin! purpose+0HEREFORE, the deision of the #ourt of Appeals appealed fro$ is herey RHR8

A*8 " A<8+

SO ORDERED1















302

OFELIA HERNANDO BAG4N4, petitioner- vs. PASTORA PIEDAD, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

2IT4G, J 1:

On 2& Au!ust 199-, herein petitioner Ofelia )ernando %a!unu $oved to intervene inpeial 7roeedin!s *o+ 36-2, entitled T<n the Matter of the <ntestate 7roeedin!s of the stateof Au!usto )+ 7iedad,T pendin! efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'TR"#T(, %ranh 11, of 7asay#ity+ Assertin! entitle$ent to a share of the estate of the late Au!usto )+ 7iedad, petitioner assailed the finality of the order of the trial ourt awardin! the entire estate to respondent 7astora7iedad ontendin! that the proeedin!s were tainted with proedural infir$ities, inludin! anino$plete puliation of the notie of hearin!, la. of personal notie to the heirs and reditors,

and irre!ularity in the disurse$ents of allowanes and withdrawals y the ad$inistrator of theestate+ "he trial ourt denied the $otion, pro$ptin! petitioner to raise her ase to the #ourt of Appeals+ Respondent sou!ht the dis$issal of the appeal on the thesis that the issues rou!ht upon appeal only involved pure ;uestions of law+ indin! $erit in that ar!u$ent, the appellateourt dis$issed the appeal, itin! etion 2'( of Rule 41 of the 199 Revised Rules on #ivil7roedure whih would re;uire all appeals involvin! nothin! else ut ;uestions of law to eraised efore the upre$e #ourt y petition for review on certiorari in aordane with Rule 4-thereof and onsistently with #irular 290 of the #ourt+

<n a wellwritten resolution, the #ourt of Appeals elaored the distintions etween;uestions of law and ;uestions of fat, thus>

T"here is a ;uestion of law in a !iven ase when the dout or differene arises as to what the lawis on a ertain state of fats, and there is a ;uestion of fat when the dout or differene arises asto the truth or the falsehood of alle!ed fats+ "here is ;uestion of fat when the ;ueryneessarily invites aliration of the whole evidene onsiderin! $ainly the rediility ofwitnesses, eistene and relevane of speifi surroundin! iru$stanes, and their relation toeah other and to the whole and the proailities of the situation+T?1@

Justie u!enio + /aitoria, spea.in! for the appellate ourt, ratioinated that whether or not theR"# erred in denyin! the intervention onsiderin! '1( that the intervenorappellant had a prima facie interest over the ase, '2( that the 5urisdition over the person of the proper parties was nota;uired in view of the defiient puliation or notie of hearin!, and '3( that the proeedin!shad yet to e losed and ter$inated, were issues whih did not ;ualify as T;uestions of fatT as to plae the appeal within the 5urisdition of the appellate ourtB thus>

T"he issues are evidently pure ;uestions of law eause their resolution are ased on fats not indispute+ Ad$itted are the fats that intervenorappellant is a ollateral relative within the fifthde!ree of Au!usto )+ 7iedadB that she is the dau!hter of the first ousin of Au!usto )+ 7iedadBthat as suh, intervenorappellant see. to inherit fro$ the estate of Au!usto )+ 7iedadB that thenotie of hearin! was pulished for three onseutive wee.s in a newspaper of !eneral

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/140975.htm#_edn1




303

irulationB that there was no order of losure of proeedin!s that has een issued y the intestateourtB and that the intestate ourt has already issued an order for the transfer of the re$ainin!estate of Au!usto )+ 7iedad to petitionerappellee+

T"hese fats are undisputed+

T<n this ase, there is no dout nor differene that arise as to the truth or falsehood on alle!edfats+ "he ;uestion as to whether intervenorappellant as a ollateral relative within the fifthivil de!ree, has le!al interest in the intestate proeedin! whih would 5ustify her interventionBthe ;uestion as to whether the puliation of notie of hearin! $ade in this ase is defetivewhih would a$ount to la. of 5urisdition over the persons of the parties and the ;uestion as towhether the proeedin!s has already een ter$inated when the intestate ourt issued the order oftransfer of the estate of Au!usto )+ 7iedad to petitionerappellee, in spite the asene of an orderof losure of the intestate ourt, all all for the appliation and interpretation of the properlaw+ "here is dout as to what law is appliale on a ertain undisputed state of fats+

T"he resolution of the issues raised does not re;uire the review of the evidene, nor therediility of witnesses presented, nor the eistene and relevane of speifi surroundin!iru$stanes+ Resolution on the issues $ay e had even without !oin! to ea$ination of fatson reord+T?2@

till unsatisfied, petitioner ontested the resolution of the appellate ourt in the instant petition for review on certiorari+

"he #ourt finds no reversile error in the rulin! of the appellate ourt+ %ut let us set asidethe alle!ed proedural derepitude and ta.e on the asi sustantive issue+ peifially, an petitioner, a ollateral relative of the fifth ivil de!ree, inherit alon!side respondent, a ollateralrelative of the third ivil de!reeC lsewise stated, does the rule of proi$ity in intestate

suession find appliation a$on! ollateral relativesC

Au!usto )+ 7iedad died without any diret desendants or asendants+ Respondent is the$aternal aunt of the deedent, a thirdde!ree relative of the deedent, while petitioner is thedau!hter of a first ousin of the deeased, or a fifthde!ree relative of the deedent+

"he various provisions of the #ivil #ode on suession e$ody an al$ost o$plete set of law to !overn, either y will or y operation of law, the trans$ission of property, ri!hts andoli!ations of a person upon his death+ ah artile is onstrued in on!ruity with, rather than inisolation of, the syste$ set out y the #ode+

"he rule on proi$ity is a onept that favors the relatives nearest in de!ree to the deedent

and eludes the $ore distant ones eept when and to the etent that the ri!ht of representationan apply+ "hus, Artile 962 of the #ivil #ode provides>

JART1 >?=1 In e&e) inheitance, the e*ati&e neaest in (e#ee e/c*$(es the .!e (istant!nes, sa&in# the i#ht !% e"esentati!n when it "!"e*) taes "*ace1





304

TRelatives in the sa$e de!ree shall inherit in e;ual shares, su5et to the provisions of artile1006 with respet to relatives of the full and half lood, and of artile 9&, para!raph 2,onernin! division etween the paternal and $aternal lines+T

%y ri!ht of representation, a $ore distant lood relative of a deedent is, y operation of

law, Traised to the sa$e plae and de!reeT of relationship as that of a loser lood relative of thesa$e deedent+ "he representative therey steps into the shoes of the person he represents andsueeds, not fro$ the latter, ut fro$ the person to whose estate the person represented wouldhave sueeded+

JART1 >9@1 Re"esentati!n is a i#ht ceate( ') %icti!n !% *aw, ') &it$e !% which thee"esentati&e is aise( t! the "*ace an( the (e#ee !% the "es!n e"esente(, an( ac$iesthe i#hts which the *atte w!$*( ha&e i% he wee *i&in# ! i% he c!$*( ha&e inheite(1J

TAR"+ 91+ "he representative is alled to the suession y the law and not y the personrepresented+ "he representative does not sueed the person represented ut the one who$ the

person represented would have sueeded+T

<n the diret line, ri!ht of representation is proper only in the desendin!, never in theasendin!, line+ <n the ollateral line, the ri!ht of representation $ay only ta.e plae in favor of the hildren of rothers or sisters of the deedent when suh hildren survive with their unles or aunts+

JART1 >9=1 The i#ht !% e"esentati!n taes "*ace in the (iect (escen(in# *ine, '$tne&e in the ascen(in#1

JIn the c!**atea* *ine, it taes "*ace !n*) in %a&! !% the chi*(en !% '!thes ! sistes,

whethe the) 'e !% the %$** ! ha*% '*!!(1J

TAR"+ 94+ henever there is suession y representation, the division of the estate shall e $ade per stirpes, in suh $anner that the representative or representatives shall not inherit$ore than what the person they represent would inherit, if he were livin! or ould inherit+T

JART1 >91 0hen chi*(en !% !ne ! .!e '!thes ! sistes !% the (ecease( s$&i&e,the) sha** inheit %!. the *atte ') e"esentati!n, i% the) s$&i&e with thei $nc*es !a$nts1 B$t i% the) a*!ne s$&i&e, the) sha** inheit in e$a* "!ti!ns1J

"he ri!ht of representation does not apply to T!the ollateral relatives within the fifth ivil

de!reeT 'to whih !roup oth petitioner and respondent elon!( who are si/th in the order of preferene followin!, firstly, the le!iti$ate hildren and desendants, secondly, the le!iti$ate parents and asendants, thirdly, the ille!iti$ate hildren anddesendants, fourthly$ the survivin) spouse, and fifthly, the rothers and sistersGnephews andniees, of the deedent+ A$on! ollateral relatives, eept only in the ase of nephews andniees of the deedent onurrin! with their unles or aunts, the rule of proi$ity, epressed inArtile 962, afore;uoted, of the #ode, is an asolute rule+ <n deter$inin! the de!ree of



30-

relationship of the ollateral relatives to the deedent, Artile 966 of the #ivil #ode !ivesdiretion+

TArtile 966+

T<n the ollateral line, asent is $ade to the o$$on anestor and then desent is $ade to the person with who$ the o$putation is to e $ade+ "hus, a person is two de!rees re$oved fro$his rother, three fro$ his unle, who is the rother of his father, four fro$ his first ousin and soforth+T

Aordin!ly F

Respondent, ein! a relative within the third ivil de!ree, of the late Au!usto )+ 7iedad eludes petitioner, a relative of the fifth de!ree, fro$ sueedin! a" intestato to the estate of thedeedent+

"he provisions of Artile 1009 and Artile 1010 of the #ivil #ode F

TArtile 1009+ hould there e neither rothers nor sisters nor hildren of rothers or sisters, theother ollateral relatives shall sueed to the estate+

T"he latter shall sueed without distintion of lines or preferene a$on! the$ y reason ofrelationship y the whole lood+T

TArtile 1010+ "he ri!ht to inherit a" intestato shall not etend eyond the fifth de!ree ofrelationship in the ollateral line+T

invo.ed y petitioner do not at all support her ause+ "he law $eans only that a$on! the !thec!**atea* e*ati&es 'the sith in the line of suession(, no preferene or distintion shall e !'se&e( J') eas!n !% relationship y the wh!*e '*!!(1J <n fine, a $aternal aunt aninherit alon!side a paternal unle, and a first ousin of the full lood an inherit e;ually with afirst ousin of the half lood, ut an unle or an aunt, ein! a thirdde!ree relative, eludes theousins of the deedent, ein! in the fourthde!ree of relationshipB the latter, in turn, would have priority in suession to a fifthde!ree relative+

0HEREFORE, the instant 7etition is 8*<8+ *o osts+



306

SO ORDERED1

NELSON CABALES an( G1R1 N!1 8?=;=8

RITO CABALES,

7etitioners,

7resent>

7K*O, *.%.$ #hairperson,

A*8OHA/K"<RRI,

versus #ORO*A,

AI#K*A, and

AR#<A, %%.

CO4RT OF APPEALS, 7ro$ul!ated>

3ES4S FELIANO an(

AN4NCIACION FELIANO,

Respondents+ Au!ust 31, 200



30

D E C I S I O N

P4NO, C.J.:

"his is a petition for review on ertiorari see.in! the reversal of the deision 8 of the #ourtof Appeals dated Otoer 2, 2003, in #A+R+ #H *o+ 6&319 entitled H>elson *a"ales and

Rito *a"ales v. %esus eliano and Anunciacion eliano$K whih affir$ed with $odifiation thedeision= of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Maasin, outhern /eyte, %ranh 2-, dated Au!ust 11,2000, in #ivil #ase *o+ R2&&+ "he resolution of the #ourt of Appeals dated eruary 23,2004, whih denied petitionersE $otion for









309

orrespondin! and elon!in! to the )eirs of Alerto #aales and to Rito #aaleswho are still $inors upon the eeution of this instru$ent are held

in trust y the H*8 and to e paid and delivered only to the$ upon reahin!

the a!e of 21+

On 8ee$er 1, 19&-, the Re!ister of 8eeds of outhern /eyte issued Ori!inal

#ertifiate of "itle *o+ 103- over the purhased land in the na$es of respondentsspouses+

On 8ee$er 30, 19&-, aturnina and her four '4( hildren eeuted an affidavit to theeffet that petitioner *elson would only reeive the a$ount of 716+34 fro$ respondentsspouses when he reahes the a!e of 21 onsiderin! that aturnina paid 8r+ #orro$pido 7966+66

for the oli!ation of petitioner *elsonEs late father Alerto, i.e., 7666+66 for his share in therede$ption of the sale with pacto de retro as well as his vale: of 7300+00+

On July 24, 19&6, 24year old petitioner Rito #aales a.nowled!ed reeipt of the su$of 71,143+00 fro$ respondent Jesus eliano, representin! the for$erEs share in the proeeds of the sale of su5et property+

<n 19&&, aturnina died+ 7etitioner *elson, then residin! in Manila, went a. to hisfatherEs ho$etown in outhern /eyte+ "hat sa$e year, he learned fro$ his unle, petitioner Rito,of the sale of su5et property+ <n 1993, he si!nified his intention to redee$ the su5et landdurin! a "aran)ay oniliation proess that he initiated+

On January 12, 199-, ontendin! that they ould not have sold their respetive shares in

su5et property when they were $inors, petitioners filed efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Maasin, outhern /eyte, a o$plaint for rede$ption of the su5et land plus da$a!es+

<n their answer, respondentsspouses $aintained that petitioners were estopped fro$lai$in! any ri!ht over su5et property onsiderin! that '1( petitioner Rito had already reeivedthe a$ount orrespondin! to his share of the proeeds of the sale of su5et property, and '2( that petitioner *elson failed to onsi!n to the ourt the total a$ount of the rede$ption prie



310

neessary for le!al rede$ption+ "hey prayed for the dis$issal of the ase on the !rounds of lahes and presription+

*o a$iale settle$ent was reahed at pretrial+ "rial ensued and on Au!ust 11, 2000, thetrial ourt ruled a!ainst petitioners+ <t held that '1( Alerto or, y his death, any of his heirsinludin! petitioner *elson lost their ri!ht to su5et land when not one of the$ repurhased itfro$ 8r+ #orro$pidoB '2( aturnina was effetively suro!ated to the ri!hts and interests of Alerto when she paid for AlertoEs share as well as his oli!ation to 8r+ #orro$pidoB and '3( petitioner Rito had no $ore ri!ht to redee$ his share to su5et property as the sale y aturnina,his le!al !uardian pursuant to etion , Rule 93 of the Rules of #ourt, was perfetly validB andit was shown that he reeived his share of the proeeds of the sale on July 24, 19&6, when he was24 years old+

On appeal, the #ourt of Appeals $odified the deision of the trial ourt+ <t held that the

sale y aturnina of petitioner RitoEs undivided share to the property was unenforeale for la. of authority or le!al representation ut that the ontrat was effetively ratified y petitioner RitoEs reeipt of the proeeds on July 24, 19&6+ "he appellate ourt also ruled that petitioner *elson is oowner to the etent of oneseventh '1G( of su5et property as aturnina was notsuro!ated to AlertoEs ri!hts when she repurhased his share to the property+ <t further direted petitioner *elson to pay the estate of the late aturnina #aales the a$ount of 7966+66,representin! the a$ount whih the latter paid for the oli!ation of petitioner *elsonEs late father

Alerto+ inally, however, it denied petitioner *elsonEs lai$ for rede$ption for his failure totender or onsi!n in ourt the rede$ption $oney within the period presried y law+

<n this petition for review on ertiorari, petitioners ontend that the #ourt of Appealserred in '1( reo!ni=in! petitioner *elson #aales as oowner of su5et land ut denied hi$the ri!ht of le!al rede$ption, and '2( not reo!ni=in! petitioner Rito #aales as oowner of su5et land with si$ilar ri!ht of le!al rede$ption+

irst, we shall delineate the ri!hts of petitioners to su5et land+

hen Rufino #aales died intestate, his wife aturnina and his si '6( hildren,%onifaio, Alino, raniso, /eonora, Alerto and petitioner Rito, survived and sueededhi$+ Artile 996 of the *ew #ivil #ode provides that ?i@f a widow or widower and le!iti$ate



311

hildren or desendants are left, the survivin! spouse has in the suession the sa$e share as thatof eah of the hildren+: Herily, the seven '( heirs inherited e;ually on su5et property+ 7etitioner Rito and Alerto, petitioner *elsonEs father, inherited in their own ri!hts andwith e;ual shares as the others+

%ut efore partition of su5et land was effeted, Alerto died+ %y operation of law, hisri!hts and oli!ations to oneseventh of su5et land were transferred to his le!al heirs F his wifeand his son petitioner *elson+

e shall now disuss the effets of the two '2( sales of su5et land to the ri!hts of the parties+

"he first sale with pacto de retro to 8r+ #orro$pido y the rothers and oowners%onifaio, Alino and Alerto was valid ut only as to their pro1indiviso shares to theland+ hen Alerto died prior to repurhasin! his share, his ri!hts and oli!ations weretransferred to and assu$ed y his heirs, na$ely his wife and his son, petitioner *elson+ %ut thereords show that it was aturnina, AlertoEs $other, and not his heirs, who repurhased for hi$+ As orretly ruled y the #ourt of Appeals, aturnina was not suro!ated to AlertoEs or his heirsE ri!hts to the property when she repurhased the share+

<n Pa$*.itan &1 C!$t !% A""ea*s,

we held that a oowner who redee$ed the propertyin its entirety did not $a.e her the owner of all of it+ "he property re$ained in a ondition of oownership as the rede$ption did not provide for a $ode of ter$inatin! a oownership+ ; %utthe one who redee$ed had the ri!ht to e rei$ursed for the rede$ption prie and untilrei$ursed, holds a lien upon the su5et property for the a$ount due+ *eessarily, when

aturnina redee$ed for AlertoEs heirs who had then a;uired his pro1indiviso share in su5et property, it did not vest in her ownership over the pro1indiviso share she redee$ed+ %ut she hadthe ri!ht to e rei$ursed for the rede$ption prie and held a lien upon the property for thea$ount due until rei$urse$ent+ "he result is that the heirs of Alerto, i.e., his wife and his son petitioner *elson, retained ownership over their pro1indiviso share+

Kpon rede$ption fro$ 8r+ #orro$pido, the su5et property was resold to respondentsspouses y the oowners+ 7etitioners Rito and *elson were then $inors and as indiated in the8eed of ale, their shares in the proeeds were held in trust y respondentsspouses to e paidand delivered to the$ upon reahin! the a!e of $a5ority+









312

As to petitioner Rito, the ontrat of sale was unenforeale as orretly held y the#ourt of Appeals+ Artiles 320 and 326 of the *ew #ivil #ode? state that>

Art+ 320+ "he father, or in his asene the $other, is the le!alad$inistrator of the property pertainin! to the hild under parental authority+ <f the property is worth $ore than two thousand pesos, the father or $other shall!ive a ond su5et to the approval of the #ourt of irst <nstane+

Art+ 326+ hen the property of the hild is worth $ore than two thousand pesos, the father or $other shall e onsidered a !uardian of the hildEs property,su5et to the duties and oli!ations of !uardians under the Rules of #ourt+

<n other words, the father, or, in his asene, the $other, is onsidered le!al ad$inistrator of the property pertainin! to the hild under his or her parental authority without need of !ivin! a ond in ase the a$ount of the property of the hild does not eeed two thousand pesos+9 #orollary to this, Rule 93, etion of the Revised Rules of #ourt of 1964, appliale to thisase, auto$atially desi!nates the parent as le!al !uardian of the hild without need of any 5udiial appoint$ent in ase the latterEs property does not eeed two thousand pesos,< thus>

e+ + 7arents as !uardians+ F hen the property of the hild under parental authority is worth two thousand pesos or less, the father or the $other,without the neessity of ourt appoint$ent, shall e his le!al !uardian >

aturnina was learly petitioner RitoEs le!al !uardian without neessity of ourtappoint$ent onsiderin! that the a$ount of his property or oneseventh of su5et propertywas 71,143+00, whih is less than two thousand pesos+ )owever, Rule 96, e+ 18@ providesthat>

etion 1+ "o what !uardianship shall etend. F A !uardian appointed shallhave the are and ustody of the person of his ward, and the $ana!e$ent of hisestate, or the $ana!e$ent of the estate only, as the ase $ay e+ "he !uardian of the estate of a nonresident shall have the $ana!e$ent of all the estate of the wardwithin the 7hilippines, and no ourt other than that in whih suh !uardian wasappointed shall have 5urisdition over the !uardianship+













313

<ndeed, the le!al !uardian only has the plenary power of ad$inistration of the $inorEs property+ <t does not inlude the power of alienation whih needs 5udiial authority+88 "hus,when aturnina, as le!al !uardian of petitioner Rito, sold the latterEs pro1indiviso share in su5etland, she did not have the le!al authority to do so+

Artile 1403 of the *ew #ivil #ode provides, thus>

Art+ 1403+ "he followin! ontrats are unenforeale, unless they areratified>

'1( "hose entered into in the na$e of another person y one who has een!iven no authority or le!al representation, or who has ated eyond his powersB

Aordin!ly, the ontrat of sale as to the pro1indiviso share of petitioner Rito wasunenforeale+ )owever, when he a.nowled!ed reeipt of the proeeds of the sale on July 24,

19&6, petitioner Rito effetively ratified it+ "his at of ratifiation rendered the sale valid and

indin! as to hi$+

ith respet to petitioner *elson, on the other hand, the ontrat of sale was void+ )e wasa $inor at the ti$e of the sale+ aturnina or any and all the other oowners were not his le!al!uardians with 5udiial authority to alienate or enu$er his property+ <t was his $other whowas his le!al !uardian and, if duly authori=ed y the ourts, ould validly sell his undividedshare to the property+ he did not+ *eessarily, when aturnina and the others sold the su5et property in its entirety to respondentsspouses, they only sold and transferred title to their pro1

indiviso shares and not that part whih pertained to petitioner *elson and his

$other+ #onse;uently, petitioner *elson and his $other retained ownership over their undividedshare of su5et property+8=

%ut $ay petitioners redee$ the su5et land fro$ respondentsspousesC Artiles 10&&

and 1623 of the *ew #ivil #ode are pertinent>







314

Art+ 10&&+ hould any of the heirs sell his hereditary ri!hts to a stran!er efore the partition, any or all of the oheirs $ay e suro!ated to the ri!hts of the purhaser y rei$ursin! hi$ for the prie of the sale, provided they do sowithin the period of one $onth fro$ the ti$e they were notified in writin! of thesale y the vendor+

Art+ 1623+ "he ri!ht of le!al pree$ption or rede$ption shall not e

eerised eept within thirty days fro$ the notie in writin! y the prospetivevendor, or y the vendor, as the ase $ay e+ "he deed of sale shall not ereorded in the Re!istry of 7roperty, unless ao$panied y an affidavit of thevendor that he has !iven written notie thereof to all possile rede$ptioners+

"he ri!ht of rede$ption of oowners eludes that of ad5oinin! owners+

#learly, le!al rede$ption $ay only e eerised y the oowner or oowners who didnot part with his or their pro1indivisoshare in the property held in o$$on+ As de$onstrated,the sale as to the undivided share of petitioner Rito ea$e valid and indin! upon hisratifiation on July 24, 19&6+ As a result, he lost his ri!ht to redee$ su5et property+

)owever, as li.ewise estalished, the sale as to the undivided share of petitioner *elsonand his $other was not valid suh that they were not divested of their ownershipthereto+ *eessarily, they $ay redee$ the su5et property fro$ respondentsspouses+ %ut they$ust do so within thirty days fro$ notie in writin! of the sale y their oowners vendors+ <nre.onin! this period, we held in A*!n! &1 Inte.e(iate A""e**ate C!$t,8 thus>

we test a law y its resultsB and li.ewise, we $ay add, y its

purposes+ <t is a ardinal rule that, in see.in! the $eanin! of the law, the firstonern of the 5ud!e should e to disover in its provisions the intent of thelaw$a.er+ Kn;uestionaly, the law should never e interpreted in suh a way asto ause in5ustie as this is never within the le!islative intent+ An indispensale part of that intent, in fat, for we presu$e the !ood $otives of the le!islature,is to render justice.





31-

"hus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of ut inonsonane with 5ustie+ /aw and 5ustie are inseparale, and we $ust .eep the$so+

hile we $ay not read into the law a purpose that is not there, we

nevertheless have the ri!ht to read out of it the reason for its enat$ent+ <n doin!so, we defer not to the letter that .illeth: ut to the spirit that vivifieth,: to !iveeffet to the law$a.erEs will+

<n re;uirin! written notie, Artile 10&& 'and Artile 1623 for that $atter(8; see.s to ensure that the rede$ptioner is properly notified of the sale and toindiate the date of suh notie as the startin! ti$e of the 30day period of rede$ption+ #onsiderin! the shortness of the period, it is really neessary, as a

!eneral rule, to pinpoint the preise date it is supposed to e!in, to oviate the prole$ of alle!ed delays, so$eti$es onsistin! of only a day or two+

<n the instant ase, the ri!ht of rede$ption was invo.ed not days ut years after the salewas $ade in 19&+ e are not un$indful of the fat that petitioner *elson was a $inor when thesale was perfeted+ *evertheless, the reords show that in 19&&, petitioner *elson, then of $a5ority a!e, was infor$ed of the sale of su5et property+ Moreover, it was noted y theappellate ourt that petitioner *elson was li.ewise infor$ed thereof in 1993 and he si!nified his

intention to redee$ su5et property durin! a"aran)ay oniliation proess+ %ut he only filedthe o$plaint for le!al rede$ption and da$a!es on January 12, 199-, ertainly $ore than thirtydays fro$ learnin! aout the sale+

<n the fae of the estalished fats, petitioner *elson annot fei!n i!norane of the sale of su5et property in 19&+ "o re;uire strit proof of written notie of the sale would e toountenane an ovious false lai$ of la. of .nowled!e thereof, thus o$$endin! the letter of the law over its purpose, i.e., the notifiation of rede$ptioners+

"he #ourt is satisfied that there was suffiient notie of the sale to petitioner *elson+ "hethirtyday rede$ption period o$$ened in 1993, after petitioner *elson sou!htthe "aran)ay oniliation proess to redee$ his property+ %y January 12, 199-, when petitioner *elson filed a o$plaint for le!al rede$ption and da$a!es, it is lear that the thirtyday periodhad already epired+





316

As in A*!n!, the #ourt, after due onsideration of the fats of the instant ase, hereyinterprets the law in a way that will render 5ustie+8

7etitioner *elson, as orretly held y the #ourt of Appeals, an no lon!er redee$

su5et property+ %ut he and his $other re$ain oowners thereof with respondents

spouses+ Aordin!ly, title to su5et property $ust inlude the$+

IN 2IE0 0HEREOF, the petition is 8*<8+ "he assailed deision and resolution of the #ourt of Appeals of Otoer 2, 2003 and eruary 23, 2004 are A<RM8 <")MO8<<#A"<O*+ "he Re!ister of 8eeds of outhern /eyte is OR8R8 to anel Ori!inal

#ertifiate of "itle *o+ 103- and to issue in lieu thereof a new ertifiate of title in the na$e of respondentsspouses Jesus and Anuniaion eliano for the 6G portion, and petitioner *elson#aales and his $other for the re$ainin! 1G portion, pro indiviso+

SO ORDERED1

REP4BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES e"esente( ') the REGISTER OF DEEDS OFPASAY CITY, petitioner- vs.CO4RT OF APPEALS SPECIAL FORMER RDDI2ISION AND AMADA H1 SOLANO, assiste( ') he h$s'an( ROMEOSOLANO, respondents1

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO , J 1:

"his petition for certiorari see.s to nullify two '2( Resolutions of the #ourt of Appealsdated 12 *ove$er 199& and 4 May 2000 !ivin! due ourse to the petition for annul$ent of 5ud!$ent filed y private respondent A$ada )+ olano on 3 eruary 199 and denyin! petitionerDs $otion for reonsideration+

or $ore than three '3( deades 'fro$ 19-2 to 19&-( private respondent A$ada olanoserved as the allaround personal do$esti helper of the late li=aeth )an.ins, a widow and arenh national+ 8urin! Ms+ )an.insD lifeti$e and $ost espeially durin! the wanin! years of






31

her life, respondent olano was her faithful !irl riday and a onstant o$panion sine no loserelative was availale to tend to her needs+

<n reo!nition of olanoDs faithful and dediated servie, Ms+ )an.ins eeuted in her favor two '2( deeds of donation involvin! two '2( parels of land overed y "#" *os+ &0 and &0&of the Re!istry of 8eeds+ 7rivate respondent alle!ed that she $isplaed the deeds of donation

and were nowhere to e found+

hile the deeds of donation were $issin!, the Repuli filed a petition for the esheat of theestate of li=aeth )an.ins efore theRe!ional "rial #ourt of 7asay #ity+?1@ 8urin! the proeedin!s, a $otion for intervention was filed y Ro$eo olano, spouse of private respondent,and one audenio Re!osa, ut on 24 June 19& the $otion was denied y the trial ourt for thereason that Tthey $iseraly failed to show valid lai$ or ri!ht to the properties in;uestion+T?2@ ine it was estalished that there were no .nown heirs and persons entitled to the properties of deedent )an.ins, the lower ourt esheated the estate of the deedent in favor of petitioner Repuli of the7hilippines+

%y virtue of the deision of the trial ourt, the

Re!istry of 8eeds of 7asay #ity anelled "#" *os+ &0 and &0& and issued new ones, "#" *os+129--1 and 129--2, oth in the na$e of 7asay #ity+

<n the $eanti$e, private respondent lai$ed that she aidentally found the deeds of donation she had een loo.in! for for a lon! ti$e+ <n view of this develop$ent, respondentA$ada olano filed on 2& January 199 a petition efore the #ourt of Appeals for the annul$entof the lower ourtDs deision alle!in!, a$on! other, that?3@

13+1+ "he deeased li=aeth )an.ins havin! donated the su5et properties to the petitioner in19&3 'for "#" *o+ &0( and 19&4 'for "#" *o+ &0&(, these properties did not and ould not

for$ part of her estate when she died on epte$er 20, 19&-+ #onse;uently, they ould notvalidly e esheated to the 7asay #ity overn$entB

13+2+ ven assu$in! ar!uendo that the properties ould e su5et of esheat proeedin!s, thedeision is still le!ally infir$ for esheatin! the properties to an entity, the 7asay #ityovern$ent, whih is not authori=ed y law to e the reipient thereof+ "he property shouldhave een esheated in favor of the Repuli of the 7hilippines under Rule 91, etion 1 of the *ew Rules of #ourt

On 1 Marh 199 the Offie of the oliitor eneral representin! puli respondents R"#and the Re!ister of 8eeds 'herein petitioner( filed an answer settin! forth their affir$ative

defenses, to wit> 'a( la. of 5urisdition over the nature of the ationB and, '( the ause of ationwas arred y the statute of li$itations+

indin! no o!ent reason to 5ustify the dis$issal of the petition for annul$ent, the #ourt of Appeals issued on 12 *ove$er 199& the first of its assailed Resolutions !ivin! due ourse tothe petition for annul$ent of 5ud!$ent and settin! the date for trial on the $erits+ <n upholdin!the theory of respondent olano, the Appeals #ourt ruled that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/143483.htm#_edn1









31&

)erein petitioner invo.es la. of 5urisdition over the su5et $atter on the part of respondentR"# to entertain the esheat proeedin!s eause the parels of land have een earlierdonated to herein petitioner in 19&3 and 19&4 prior to the death of said )an.insB and therefore,respondent ourt ould not have ordered the esheat of said properties in favor of the Repuliof the 7hilippines, assi!n the$ to respondent 7asay #ity !overn$ent, order the anellation of

the old titles in the na$e of )an.ins and order the properties re!istered in the na$e ofrespondent 7asay #ity "he 199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure speifially laid down the!rounds of annul$ent filed efore this #ourt, to wit> etrinsi fraud and la. of 5urisdition+ Jurisdition over the su5et $atter is onferred y law and this 5urisdition isdeter$ined y the alle!ations of the o$plaint+ <t is aio$ati that the aver$ents of theo$plaint deter$ine the nature of the ation and onse;uently the 5urisdition of theourts+ "hus whether or not the properties in ;uestion are no lon!er part of the estate of thedeeased )an.ins at the ti$e of her deathB and, whether or not the alle!ed donations are valid areissues in the present petition for annul$ent whih an e resolved only after a full lown trial

<t is for the sa$e reason that respondentEs espousal of the statute of li$itations a!ainst herein petition for annul$ent annot prosper at this sta!e of the proeedin!s+ <ndeed, etion 4, Rule91 of the Revised Rules of #ourt epressly provides that a person entitled to the estate $ust filehis lai$ with the ourt a ;uo within five '-( years fro$ the date of said 5ud!$ent+ )owever, itis lear to this #ourt that herein petitioner is not lai$in! anythin! fro$ the estate of thedeeased at the ti$e of her death on epte$er 20, 19&-B rather she is lai$in! that the su5et parels of land should not have een inluded as part of the estate of the said deedent as she isthe owner thereof y virtue of the deeds of donation in her favor+

<n effet, herein petitioner, who alle!es to e in possession of the pre$ises in ;uestion, islai$in! ownership of the properties in ;uestion and the onse;uent reonveyane thereof in her

favor whih ause of ation presries ten '10( years after the issuane of title in favor ofrespondent 7asay #ity on Au!ust , 1990+ )erein petition was seasonaly filed on eruary 3,199 under Artile 1144, to wit>

Art+ 1144+ "he followin! ations $ust e rou!ht within ten years fro$ the ti$e the ri!ht ofation arues> '1( Kpon a written ontratB '2( Kpon an oli!ation reated y lawB '3( Kpon a 5ud!$ent+

And Artile 14-6, to wit>

Art+ 14-6+ <f property is a;uired throu!h $ista.e or fraud, the person otainin! it is, y fore of law, onsidered a trustee of an i$plied trust for the enefit of the person fro$ who$ the propertyo$es+?4@

<n its Resolution of 4 May 2000 the #ourt of Appeals denied the $otion for reonsiderationfiled y puli respondents Re!ister of 8eeds of 7asay #ity and the 7residin! 5ud!e of the lower ourt and set the trial on the $erits for June 1- and 16, 2000+

<n its effort to nullify the Resolutions herein efore $entioned, petitioner points out that the#ourt of Appeals o$$itted !rave ause of disretion a$ountin! to la. or eess of 5urisdition





319

'a( in denyin! petitionerDs affir$ative defenses set forth in its answer and $otion for reonsideration, and in settin! the ase for trial and reeption of evideneB and, '( in !ivin! dueourse to private respondentDs petition for annul$ent of deision despite the palpale settin!inof the -year statute of li$itations within whih to file lai$s efore the ourt a quo set forth inRule 91 of the Revised Rules of #ourt and Art+ 1014 of the #ivil #ode+

7etitioner ar!ues that the lower ourt had 5urisdition when it esheated the properties in;uestion in favor of the ity !overn$ent and the filin! of a petition for annul$ent of 5ud!$enton the !round of suse;uent disovery of the deeds of donation did not divest the lower ourt of its 5urisdition on the $atter+ <t further ontends that Rule 4 of the 199 Rules of #ivil7roedure only provides for two '2( !rounds for the annul$ent of 5ud!$ent, na$ely> etrinsifraud and la. of 5urisdition+ As suh the disovery of the deeds of donation seven '( yearsafter the finality of the esheat proeedin!s is an etraneous $atter whih is learly not aninstane of etrinsi fraud nor a !round to oust the lower ourt of its 5urisdition+

7etitioner also insists that notwithstandin! the eeution of the deeds of donation in favor of private respondent, the -year statute of li$itations within whih to file lai$s efore the ourt a

quo as set forth in Rule 91 of the Revised Rules of #ourt has set in+"he present ontroversy revolves around the nature of the parels of land purportedly

donated to private respondent whih will ulti$ately deter$ine whether the lower ourt had 5urisdition to delare the sa$e esheated in favor of the state+

e rule for the petitioner+ sheat is a proeedin!, unli.e that of suession or assi!n$ent,wherey the state, y virtue of its soverei!nty, steps in and lai$s the real or personal property of a person who dies intestate leavin! no heir+ <n the asene of a lawful owner, a property islai$ed y the state to forestall an open Tinvitation to selfservie y the first o$ers+T ?-@ ineesheat is one of the inidents of soverei!nty, the state $ay, and usually does, presrie theonditions and li$its the ti$e within whih a lai$ to suh property $ay e $ade+ "he

proedure y whih the esheated property $ay e reovered is !enerally presried y statue,and a ti$e li$it is i$posed within whih suh ation $ust e rou!ht+

<n this 5urisdition, a lai$ant to an esheated property $ust file his lai$ Twithin five '-(years fro$ the date of suh 5ud!$ent, suh person shall have possession of and title to the sa$e,or if sold, the $uniipality or ity shall e aountale to hi$ for the proeeds, after dedutin!the estateB ut a lai$ not $ade shall e arred forever+T ?6@ "he -year period is not a devieapriiously on5ured y the state to defraud any lai$antB on the ontrary, it is deidedly presried to enoura!e woulde lai$ants to e puntilious in assertin! their lai$s, otherwisethey $ay lose the$ forever in a final 5ud!$ent+

<nidentally, the ;uestion $ay e as.ed> 8oes herein private respondent, not ein! an heir

ut alle!edly a donee, have the personality to e a lai$ant within the purview of e+ 4, Rule91, of the Revised Rules of #ourtC <n this re!ard, we a!ree with the oliitor eneral that thease of Municipal *ouncil of #an Pedro$ La)una v. *ole)io de #an %ose$ (nc.,?@ is appliale atleast insofar as it onerns the #ourtDs disussion on who is an Tinterested partyT in an esheat proeedin!

<n a speial proeedin! for esheat under setions -0 and -1 the petitioner is not the sole andelusive interested party+ Any person alle!in! to have a diret ri!ht or interest in the property









320

sou!ht to e esheated is li.ewise an interested party and $ay appear and oppose the petition foresheat+ <n the present ase, the #ole!io de an Jose, <n+ and #arlos Noun! appeared alle!in! tohave a $aterial interest in the )aienda de an 7edro "unasanB the for$er eause it lai$s to ethe elusive owner of the haienda, and the latter eause he lai$s to e the lessee thereofunder a ontrat le!ally entered with the for$er 'underscorin) supplied (+

<n the instant petition, the esheat 5ud!$ent was handed down y the lower ourt as earlyas 2 June 19&9 ut it was only on 2& January 199, $ore or less seven '( years after, when private respondent deided to ontest the esheat 5ud!$ent in the !uise of a petition for annul$ent of 5ud!$ent efore the #ourt of Appeals+ Oviously, private respondentDs elatedassertion of her ri!ht over the esheated properties $ilitates a!ainst reovery+

A 5ud!$ent in esheat proeedin!s when rendered y a ourt of o$petent 5urisdition isonlusive a!ainst all persons with atual or onstrutive notie, ut not a!ainst those who arenot parties or privies thereto+ As held in &amilton v. Bro'n,?&@ Ta 5ud!$ent of esheat was heldonlusive upon persons notified y advertise$ent to all persons interested+ Asolute la. onthe part of petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any ri!ht, or in any way

in5ure hi$, onstitutes due proess of law, proper notie havin! een oserved+T ith the lapseof the -year period therefore, private respondent has irretrievaly lost her ri!ht to lai$ and thesupposed Tdisovery of the deeds of donationT is not enou!h 5ustifiation to nullify the esheat 5ud!$ent whih has lon! attained finality+

<n the $ind of this #ourt the su5et properties were owned y the deedent durin! the ti$ethat the esheat proeedin!s were ein! onduted and the lower ourt was not divested of its 5urisdition to esheat the$ in favor of 7asay #ity notwithstandin! an alle!ation that they had een previously donated+ e reall that a $otion for intervention was earlier denied y theesheat ourt for failure to show Tvalid lai$ or ri!ht to the properties in ;uestion+T ?9@ here a person o$es into an esheat proeedin! as a lai$ant, the urden is on suhintervenor to

estalish his title to the property and his ri!ht to intervene+ A fortiori, the ertifiates of titleoverin! the su5et properties were in the na$e of the deedent indiatin! that no transfer of ownership involvin! the disputed properties was ever $ade y the deeased durin! her lifeti$e+ <n the asene therefore of any lear and onvinin! proof showin! that the su5etlands had een onveyed y )an.ins to private respondent olano, the sa$e still re$ained, atleast efore the esheat, part of the estate of the deedent and the lower ourt was ri!ht not toassu$e otherwise+ "he #ourt of Appeals therefore annot perfuntorily presuppose that thesu5et properties were no lon!er part of the deedentDs estate at the ti$e the lower ourt handeddown its deision on the stren!th of a elated alle!ation that the sa$e had previously eendisposed of y the owner+ <t is settled that ourts deide only after a lose srutiny of every pieeof evidene and analy=e eah ase with delierate preision and unadulterated thorou!hness, the 5ud!$ent not ein! diluted y speulations, on5etures and unsustantiated assertions+

0HEREFORE, the petition is RA*"8+ "he assailed Resolution of the #ourt of Appeals dated 12 *ove$er 199& !ivin! due ourse to the petition for annul$ent of 5ud!$ent,and its Resolution dated 4 May 2000 denyin! petitionerDs $otion for reonsideration, are "A<8+ "he deision of the R"#%r+ 114, 7asay #ity, dated 2 June 19&9, is R<*"A"8+

SO ORDERED1

AMELIA P1 ARELLANO, e"esente( G1R1 N!1 8<>99?








321

') he ($*) a""!inte( #$a(ians,AGNES P1 ARELLANO an( NONA P1ARELLANO,

Petitioner ,

- &es$s -

FRANCISCO PASC4AL an(MIG4EL PASC4AL,

Respondents.

7resent> #AR7<O MORA/, %.$ *hairperson$

7RA/"A,Q

%RAM<*,M*8OIA,QQ andR*O, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

8ee$er 1-, 2010

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:An!el *+ 7asual Jr+ died intestate on January 2, 1999 leavin! as heirs his silin!s,

na$ely> petitioner A$elia 7+ Arellano who is represented y her dau!hters ?1@ A!nes 7+ Arellano'A!nes( and *ona 7+ Arellano, and respondents raniso 7asual and Mi!uel *+ 7asual+?2@

<n a petition for Judiial ettle$ent of <ntestate state and <ssuane of /etters of Ad$inistration,: do.eted as peial 7roeedin! #ase *o+ M-034, filed y respondents onApril 2&, 2000 efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of Ma.ati, respondents alle!ed, inter alia,that a parel of land 'the donated property( loated in "eresa Hilla!e, Ma.ati, whih was, y8eed of 8onation, transferred y the deedent to petitioner the validity of whih donation

respondents assailed, $ay e onsidered as an advane le!iti$e: of petitioner+

RespondentEs nephew Hitor was, as they prayed for, appointed as Ad$inistrator of theestate y %ranh 13- of the Ma.ati R"#+?3@

Respetin! the donated property, now overed in the na$e of petitioner y "ransfer

#ertifiate of "itle *o+ 1&1&&9 of the Re!ister of 8eeds of Ma.ati, whih respondents assailed ut whih they, in any event, posited that it $ay e onsidered as an advane le!iti$e: to petitioner, the trial ourt, atin! as proate ourt, held that it was preluded fro$ deter$inin! thevalidity of the donation+

7rovisionally passin!, however, upon the ;uestion of title to the donated property only for the purpose of deter$inin! whether it for$ed part of the deedentEs estate, ?4@ the proate ourtfound the 8eed of 8onation valid in li!ht of the presu$ption of validity of notari=eddou$ents+ <t thus went on to hold that it is su5et to ollation followin! Artile 1061 of the *ew #ivil #ode whih reads>?-@

very o$pulsory heir, who sueeds with other o$pulsory heirs, $ust

rin! into the $ass of the estate any property or ri!ht whih he $ay have reeived

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/189776.htm#_ftn1

















322

fro$ the deedent, durin! the lifeti$e of the latter, y way of donation, or anyother !ratuitous title in order that it $ay e o$puted in the deter$ination of thele!iti$e of eah heir, and in the aount of the partition+

"he proate ourt thereafter partitioned the properties of the intestate estate+ "hus itdisposed>)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered

delarin! that> 1+ "he property overed y "#" *o+ 1&1&&9 of the Re!ister of 8eeds of

Ma.ati as part of the estate of An!el *+ 7asualB

2+ "he property overed y "#" *o+ 1&1&&9 to e su5et to ollationB

3+ 1G3 of the rental reeivales due on the property at the $e==anine and

the 3

rd

floor of Knit 1110 "anay t+, Ma.ati #ity for$ part of the estate of An!el *+ 7asualB

4+ "he followin! properties for$ part of the estate of An!el *+ 7asual>

a+ 1G3 share in the )ouse and /ot at 1110 "anay t+, Ri=al Hilla!eMa.ati "#" *o+ 34&341 and 1G3 share in the rental ino$e thereonB

+ 1G3 share in the Haant /ot with an area of 21 s;uare $eters loated

at "anay t+, Ri=al Hilla!e, Ma.ati #ity, "#" *o+ 119063B

+ A!riultural land with an area of 3+& hetares loated at 7uertaalera Mindoro overed y O#" *o+ 721-9B

d+ hares of sto.s in an Mi!uel #orporation overed y the

followin! #ertifiate *u$ers> A0011036, A006144, A0&2906,A0060&, A06-96, A1199, A049-21, #&69-0, #63096, #--316,#-4&24, #12032&, A011026, #12&6-, A10439, A021401, A0021&,A031, 29239, 4012&, -&30&, 69309B

e+ hares of sto.s in 7aper <ndustries #orp+ overed y the followin!

#ertifiate *u$ers> 29239, 4012&, -&30&, 69309, A0060&,06&0, A020&6, 1&-39, 14649B

f+ ^ share in duardo 7asualEs shares in %a!uio old Minin! #o+B

!+ #ash in %ano 8e Oro avin!s Aount *o+ 2 014 12292 4 in the

na$e of *ona ArellanoB



323

i+ 7roperty previously overed y "#" *o+ 1190-3 now overed y"#" *o+ 1&1&&9, Re!ister of 8eeds of Ma.ati #ityB

5+ Rental reeivales fro$ Raul Arellano per Order issued y %ranh

64 of the #ourt on *ove$er 1, 199-+

-+ AND the "!"eties ae "atiti!ne( as %!**!ws:

a+ "o heir A$elia 7+ Arellanothe property overed y "#" *o+1&1&&9B

+ "o heirs raniso *+ 7asual and Mi!uel *+ 7asualthe real

properties overed y "#" *os+ 34&341 and 119063 of the Re!ister of 8eeds of Ma.ati #ity and the property overed y O#" *o+ 21-9, to e divided e;ually etween the$ up to the etent that eah of their share have een e;uali=ed with the atual value of the property in -'a(

at the ti$e of donation, the value of whih shall e deter$ined y anindependent appraiser to e desi!nated y A$elia 7+ Arellano, Mi!uel *+ 7asual and raniso *+ 7asual+ <f the real properties are notsuffiient to e;uali=e the shares, then ranisoEs and Mi!uelEs shares$ay e satisfied fro$ either in ash property or shares of sto.s, at therate of ;uotation+ "he re$ainin! properties shall e divided e;uallya$on! raniso, Mi!uel and A$elia+ 'e$phasis and undersorin!supplied(

%efore the #ourt of Appeals, petitioner faulted the trial ourt in holdin! that

< + + + ") 7RO7R"N 8O*A"8 "O A77//A*" AM/<A 7A#KA/AR//A*O < 7AR" O ") "A" O A*/ 7A#KA/, JR+

<<

+ + + ") 7RO7R"N 8O*A"8 "O A77//A*" < K%J#" "O#O//A"<O* K*8R AR"<#/ 1061 O ") * #<H</ #O8+

<<< + + + A77// )O AR MR/N #O//A"RA/ R/A"<H O8#A8 A*/ *+ 7A#KA/ JR+ A )< #OM7K/ORN)<R *"<"/8 "O /<"<M+



324

and

H

+ + + <* *O" 7AR"<"<O*<* ") "A" O A*/ *+ 7A#KA/JR+ KA//N AMO* )< /A/ OR <*""A" )<R+ ?6@ 'undersorin!supplied(

%y 8eision?@ of July 20, 2009, the #ourt of Appeals found petitionerEs appeal partly$eritorious+: <t sustained the proate ourtEs rulin! that the property donated to petitioner issu5et to ollation in this wise>

%earin! in $ind that in intestate suession, what !overns is the rule on

e;uality of division, e hold that the "!"et) s$'ect !% (!nati!n inter vivos in

%a&! !% A.e*ia is s$'ect t! c!**ati!n+ A$elia annot e onsidered a reditor of the deedent and we elieve that under the iru$stanes, the value of suhi$$ovale thou!h not stritly in the onept of advane le!iti$e, should ededuted fro$ her share in the net hereditary estate+ "he trial ourt thereforeo$$itted no reversile error when it inluded the said property as for$in! partof the estate of An!el *+ 7asual+?&@ 'itation o$ittedB e$phasis and undersorin!supplied(

"he appellate ourt, however, held that, ontrary to the rulin! of the proate ourt, herein petitioner was ale to su$it prima facie evidene of shares of sto.s owned y the ?deedent@whih have not een inluded in the inventory su$itted y the ad$inistrator+:

"hus, the appellate ourt disposed, quoted ver"atim>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered, the present appeal is herey7AR"/N RA*"8+ "he 8eision dated January 29, 200& of the Re!ional "rial#ourt of Ma.ati #ity, %ranh 13- in peial 7roeedin! #ase *o+ M-034 isherey RHR8 and " A<8 insofar as the order of inlusion of properties of the <ntestate state of An!el *+ 7asual, Jr+ as well as the partitionand distriution of the sa$e to the oheirs are onerned+

"he ase is herey RMA*88 to the said ourt for further proeedin!s

in aordane with the dis;uisitions herein+?9@ 'undersorin! supplied(

7etitionerEs 7artial Motion for Reonsideration?10@ havin! een denied y the appellateourt y Resolution?11@ of Otoer , 2009, the present petition for review on ertiorari was filed,asriin! as errors of the appellate ourt its rulin!

















32-

<

+ + + ")A" ") 7RO7R"N 8O*A"8 %N A*/ *+ 7A#KA/, JR+ "O7"<"<O*R AM/<A 7A#KA/ AR//A*O < 7AR" O )< "A" A"") "<M O )< 8A")+

<< + + + ")A" ") 7RO7R"N 8O*A"8 "O 7"<"<O*R < K%J#" "O#O//A"<O* K*8R AR"<#/ 1061 O ") * #<H</ #O8+

<<< + + + ")A" R7O*8*" AR #OM7K/ORN )<R O ")<R 8#A8 %RO")R A*/ *+ 7A#KA/ JR+ A*8 AR*"<"/8 "O/<"<M+

<H + + + <* *O" 7AR"<"<O*<* ") "A" O A*/ *+ 7A#KA/,JR+ KA//N AMO* 7"<"<O*R A*8 R7O*8*", A )< /A/OR <*""A" )<R+?12@ 'undersorin! supplied(

7etitioners thus raise the issues of whether the property donated to petitioner is su5et toollationB and whether the property of the estate should have een ordered e;ually distriuteda$on! the parties+

On the first issue>

"he ter$ ollation has two distint onepts> first , it is a $ere $athe$atial operation ythe addition of the value of donations $ade y the testator to the value of the hereditaryestateB and second , it is the return to the hereditary estate of property disposed of y lurativetitle y the testator durin! his lifeti$e+?13@

"he purposes of ollation are to seure e;uality a$on! the o$pulsory heirs in so far as

is possile, and to deter$ine the free portion, after findin! the le!iti$e, so that inoffiiousdonations $ay e redued+?14@

#ollation ta.es plae when there are compulsory heirs, one of its purposes ein! todeter$ine the le!iti$e and the free portion+ <f there is no o$pulsory heir, there is no le!iti$e to e safe!uarded+?1-@

"he reords do not show that the deedent left any pri$ary, seondary, or onurrin!

o$pulsory heirs+ )e was only survived y his silin!s, who are his collateral relatives and,therefore, are not entitled to any le!iti$e F that part of the testatorEs property whih he annotdispose of eause the law has reserved it for compulsory heirs+?16@

















326

"he o$pulsory heirs $ay e lassified into '1( pri$ary, '2( seondary, and '3(onurrin!+ "he pri$ary o$pulsory heirs are those who have preedene over and elude other o$pulsory heirsB le!iti$ate hildren and desendants are pri$ary o$pulsory heirs+ "he seondary o$pulsory heirs are those who

sueed only in the asene of the pri$ary heirsB the le!iti$ate parents andasendants are seondary o$pulsory heirs+ "he onurrin! o$pulsory heirs arethose who sueed to!ether with the pri$ary or the seondary o$pulsory heirsBthe ille!iti$ate hildren, and the survivin! spouse are onurrin! o$pulsoryheirs+?1@

"he deedent not havin! left any o$pulsory heir who is entitled to any le!iti$e, he wasat lierty to donate all his properties, even if nothin! was left for his silin!sollateral relativesto inherit+ )is donation to petitioner, assu$in! that it was valid,?1&@ is dee$ed as donation $adeto a stran!er,: har!eale a!ainst the free portion of the estate+?19@ "here ein! no o$pulsory

heir, however, the donated property is not su5et to ollation+On the seond issue> "he deedentEs re$ainin! estate should thus e partitioned equally a$on! his heirs

silin!sollateral relatives, herein petitioner and respondents, pursuant to the provisions of the#ivil #ode, vi2 >

At1 8@@1 <f there are no desendants, asendants, ille!iti$ate hildren, or

a survivin! spouse, the ollateral relatives shall sueed to the entire estate of thedeeased in aordane with the followin! artiles+ 'undersorin! supplied(

At1 8@@;1 hould the only survivors e rothers and sisters of the full

lood, they shall inheit in e$a* shaes+ 'e$phasis and undersorin! supplied(

0HEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED+ "he #ourt of Appeals 8eision orderin! theollation of the property donated to petitioner, A$elia *+ Arellano, to the estate of the deeasedAn!el *+ 7asual, Jr+ is " A<8+

/et the reords of the ase e RMA*88 to the ourt of ori!in, %ranh 13- of theMa.ati Re!ional "rial #ourt, whih is ordered to ondut further proeedin!s in the ase for the purpose of deter$inin! what finally for$s part of the estate, and thereafter to divide whatever re$ains of it e;ually a$on! the parties+

SO ORDERED1

HILARION, 3R1 an( ENRICO ORENDAIN, G1R1 N!1 8?<??@









32

e"esente( ') FE D1 ORENDAIN,

7etitioners,?1@

versus

TR4STEESHIP OF THE ESTATE OF DOQAMARGARITA RODRIG4E6,

Respondent+

7resent>

N*ARA*"<AO, %.$

*hairperson$

#)<#O*AIAR<O,

H/A#O, JR+,

*A#)KRA, and

7RA/"A, %%.

7ro$ul!ated>

June 30, 2009

DECISION

NACH4RA, J 1:

"his petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 6- of the Rules of #ourt, assails the Order ?2@ of the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#( of Manila, %ranh 4 in 7+ 7RO#+ *o+ -1&2 whih denied







32&

petitionersE ')ilarion, Jr+ and nrio Orendain, heirs of )ilarion Orendain, r+( Motion to8issolve the "rusteeship of the state of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=+

irst, we revisit the lon! settled fats+

On July 19, 1960, the deedent, 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=, died in Manila, leavin! a lastwill and testa$ent+ On epte$er 23, 1960, the will was ad$itted to proate y virtue of theorder of the #ourt of irst <nstane of Manila #ity '#< Manila( in peial 7roeedin! *o+ 3&4-+On Au!ust 2, 1962, the #< Manila approved the pro5et of partition presented y the eeutor of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=Es will+

At the ti$e of her death, the deedent left no o$pulsory or fored heirs and,

onse;uently, was o$pletely free to dispose of her properties, without re!ard to le!iti$es, ?3@ as provided in her will+ o$e of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=Es testa$entary dispositionsonte$plated the reation of a trust to $ana!e the ino$e fro$ her properties for distriution to enefiiaries speified in the will, to wit>

#/AKK/A K*8A O 7A*8A/AA> <pina!uutos .o na

$atapos $a!awa an! pa!aayos n! a.in! "esta$entaria at $asara na an!pediente n! a.in! "esta$entaria, an! lahat n! pa!aare .o sa a.in! ipina!uutosna pan!asiwaan sa haan! panahon ay ipa!u.as sa Ju=!ado n! tinatawa! na<8<#OM<O: at an! ilala!ay na fideio$isario: an! $an!a taon! nasai .ona sa itaas nito, at an! .anilan! !a!anahin ay an! nasasai sa testa$enton! ito na!a!anahen n! ta!apan!asiwa at alaea+

#/AKK/A "R#RA O 7A*"A"/O> <pina!uutos .o na an!

.i.itain n! lahat n! a.in! pa!aare, na an! hindi la$an! .asa$a ay an! a.in!lupain na nasasai sa #ertifiado de "ransferenia de "itulo *o+ 1-6 '/ote *o+10&&#(, #ertifiado Ori!inal de "itulo *o+ 4-&& '/O" *o+ 2492(, #ertifiadoOri!inal de "itulo *o+ 4-&- '/ote *o+ 10&( n! lalawi!an n! ue=on, at an! aha!in! $aytani$ na palay n! lupan! nasasaysay sa #ertifiado Ori!inal de"itulo *o+ 4-& '/ote *o+ 11&0( n! ue=on, ay <<7K*<* A %A*#O upan!$aiayad sa anillara$iento, an! tinatawa! na estate "a:, an! i$puesto de





329

herenia: na dapat pa!ayaran n! a.in! pina!ii!yan na .asa$a na din an! pa!aayaran n! ideio$iso:, !astos sa ao!ado na $a!$a$a.aala$ n!testa$entaria at !astos sa )us!ado+ *!unit a!o ipaso. sa %ano an! .i.itaen n!naan!it na $an!a !a!aare, ay aalisin $una an! $an!a su$usunod na !astos>

#/AKK/A 8#<MA O 7A*AM7K> <pina!uutos .o na an! $an!a pa!aaren! nasasai sa #lausulan! ito ay pan!an!asiwaan sa haan! panahon, at

ito n!a an! ipa!uu.as n! ideio$iso: sa Jus!ado pa!.atapos na $aayos an!naiwanan .on! pa!aare+ An! pan!an!asiwaan! pa!aare ay an! $an!asu$usunod>

An# *ahat n# "a#aain# nasasa'e sa C*$s$*an# it! hin(i asa.a an##eneat! at a$t!.!&i* hin(i .aisasan*a ! .ai"a#'i'i*i ai*an .an,.a*i'an sa "a#aain# nasa 7$e!n B!$*e&a(, Ma)ni*a, na .aain# isan*a$n# wa*an# %!n(! na #a#a.itin sa i"a#"a"ai#$i ! i"a#"a"a#awa n#

"ani'a#! a*ins$n!( sa aa)$san# hinihin#i n# "anah!n1

#/AKK/A 8#<MA K*8A O 7A*/A%<* 8A/AA> An!.uartan! $atitipon sa %ano ayon sa ta!uilin na nasasaysay sa #lausulan!sinusundan nito ay !a!a$itin sa $an!a su$usunod na pa!.a.a!astusanB at !anito

din an! !a!awin sa lahat n! a.in! pa!aare na nasasa.op n! fideio$iso at walan!ian! pina!uu.ulan+ An! pa!.a.a!astusan na ito ay an! su$usunod>



330

#/AKK/A H<<MA #KAR"A O 7A*8A/AA*7K A" A7A"> <pina!uutos .o sa a.in! $an!a "a!apan!asiwa na sa fondon! ipinapaso. sa%ano para sa !astos n! *iYa Maria, Misa at ia pa, .u.uha sila na .a.ailan!anin para $aitulon! sa $an!a su$usunod> lorentina /una, Roerta 7one, Mariada7one, %enita 7one, #onstania 7ineda, Re!ino 7ineda, "o$as 7ayu$o, Rosito

7ayu$o, /oreto 7ayu$o, %ri!ido antos at uintin /aino, )ilarion Orendain at$an!a ana.+ An! $an!a dala!a .un! sa.ali at inautan n! pa!.a$atay .o na a.oay pina!tiisan at hindi hu$iwalay sa a.in, .un! $a!.asa.it ay ipa!a!a$ot atiaayad sa $edio, at iiili n! !a$ot, at .un! .ailan!an an! operaion ayipaooperaion at ipapaso. sa )ospital na .inaaa!ayan n! .aniyan! sa.it, at.ahit $aypa!.a.autan! pa sa i$puesto de herenia at estate ta: ay i.u.uha sanasain! fondo at tala!an! iaawas doon, at an! pa!!a!a$ot ay hua! pa!tutuusan, at an! $a!aala!a sa .anya ay ii!yan n! !astos sa pa!.ain at savia5e at ia pa na $an!a .ailan!an n! na!aala!a+ Pun! nasa provinia at dadalhin

ditto sa Maynila ay ii!yan n! !astos sa via5e an! $aysa.it at an! .asa$a savia5e, at an! $a!aala!a ay dito tutuloy sa ahay sa "uerias at "anduay nanatatala!a sa $an!a $ay serviio sa a.in, at .un! $a$atay at !ustin! iuwi sa provinia an! an!.ay ay iupa at doon iliin! at dapit n! 7are at hated sa niho nanatoto.a sa .anya+ anito din an! !a!awain .un! $ayasawa $an ay nasa poder .o n! a.o ay $a$atay+ An! wala sa poder .o datapua at na!serviio sa a.in,.aparis n! enar!ado, an! !a!awain! tulon! ay ipa!a!a$ot, iiili n! !a$ot at.un! .ailan!an an! operaion o $atira sa )ospital, ipaooperaion at ipa!aayadsa )ospital+?4@'e$phasis supplied(

As re!ards #lause 10 of the will whih epliitly prohiits the alienation or $ort!a!e of the properties speified therein, we had oasion to hold, in Rodri)ue2$ etc.$ et al. v. *ourt of

Appeals$ et al.,?-@ that the lause, insofar as the first twentyyear period is onerned, does notviolate Artile &0?6@ of the #ivil #ode+ e delared, thus>

"he odal provision does not need any interpretation+ <t spea.sate!orially+ hat is delared void is the testa$entary disposition prohiitin!alienation after the twentyyear period+ <n the interi$, suh a provision does notsuffer fro$ the vie of invalidity+ <t annot e stri.en down+ "i$e and ti$ea!ain, e have said, and e now repeat, that when a le!al provision is lear and










331

to the point, there is no roo$ for interpretation+ <t $ust e applied aordin! to itsliteral ter$s+

ven with the purpose that the testatri had in $ind were not asune;uivoal, still the sa$e onlusion e$er!es+ "here is no roo$ for intestay aswould e the effet if the hallen!ed resolution of January &, 196& were not setaside+ "he wishes of the testatri onstitute the law+ )er will $ust e !iven effet+

"his is so even if there ould e an ele$ent of unertainty insofar as theasertain$ent thereof is onerned+ <n the lan!ua!e of a #ivil #ode provision> <f a testa$entary disposition ad$its of different interpretations, in ase of dout, thatinterpretation y whih the disposition is to e operative shall e preferred+: *or is this all+ A later artile of the #ivil #ode e;ually alls for oservane+ "hus>"he words of a will are to reeive an interpretation whih will !ive to every

epression so$e effet, rather than one whih will render any of the epressionsinoperativeB and of two $odes of interpretin! a will, that is to e preferred whihwill prevent intestay+:

*othin! an e learer, therefore, than that ?7etra, Antonia and Rosa, all

surna$ed Rodri!ue=@ ould not hallen!e the provision in ;uestion+ ?"hey@ hadno ri!ht to vindiate+ uh a ri!ht $ay never arise+ "he twentyyear period is stillwith us+ hat would transpire thereafter is still lo.ed up in the insrutale future, eyond the power of $ere $ortals to foretell+ At any rate, e annot antiipate+ *or should e+ e do not possess the power either of onferrin! a ause of ation to a party when, under the iru$stanes dislosed, it had none+?@

Al$ost four deades later, herein petitioners )ilarion, Jr+ and nrio Orendain, heirs of )ilarion Orendain, r+ who was $entioned in #lause 24 of the deedentEs will, $oved to dissolvethe trust on the deedentEs estate, whih they ar!ued had een in eistene for $ore than twentyyears, in violation of Artiles &6?&@ and &0 of the #ivil #ode, and inonsistent with our rulin!in Rodri)ue2 v. *ourt of Appeals+?9@











332

On April 1&, 200-, the R"# issued the herein assailed Order>?10@

"he aoveited provisions of the ivil ode find no appliation in the present $otion to dissolve the trust reated y the testatri+ "here is no ;uestion

that the testa$entary disposition of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue= prohiitin! the$ort!a!e or sale of properties $entioned in lause L of her /ast ill and"esta$ent forever$ore is void after the lapse of the twenty year period+ )owever,it does not $ean that the trust reated y ?the@ testatri in order to arry out her wishes under lauses 12, 13 and 24 will also eo$e void upon epiration of thetwenty year period+ As ruled y the upre$e #ourt in $etrio %arelon v+#A, Hthe codal provision cited in Art. :Q is clear and unequivocal and does not

need any interpretation. 3hat is declared void is the testamentary disposition

prohi"itin) alienation after the t'enty year period.K )ene, the trustees $ay

dispose of the properties left y the testatri in order to arry out the latterEstesta$entary disposition+

"he ;uestion as to whether a trust an e perpetual, the sa$e finds supportin Artile 1013?,@ para!raph 4 of the #ivil #ode, whih provides that Hthe *ourt$

at the instance of an interested party or its motion$ may order the esta"lishment of

a permanent trust so that only the income from the property shall "e used.K <n the present ase, the testatri direted that all the twenty five '2-( piees of propertylisted in the tenth lause should e plaed under the trusteeship and should e

perpetually ad$inistered y the trustees and a ertain perenta!e of the ino$efro$ the trust estate should e deposited in a an. and should e devoted for the purposes speifially indiated in the lauses 12, 13 and 24+

"he wishes of the testatri onstitute the law+ )er will $ust e !iveneffet+ "his is even if there ould e an ele$ent of unertainty insofar as theasertain$ent thereof is onerned+ "his #ourt so e$phatially epressed it in adeision rendered $ore than sity years a!o+ "hus, respet for the will of a

testator as ?an@ epression of his last testa$entary disposition, onstitutes the prinipal asis of the rules whih the law presries for the orret interpretationof all of the lauses of the willB the words and provision therein written $ust e plainly onstrued in order to avoid a violation of his intentions and real purpose+"he will of the testator learly and epliitly stated $ust e respeted and

o$plied with as an inviolale law a$on! the parties in interest+ uh is the







334

uite ate!orial fro$ the last will and testa$ent of the deedent is the reation of a perpetual trust for the ad$inistration of her properties and the ino$e aruin! therefro$, for speified enefiiaries+ "he deedent, in #lause 10 of her will, listed a nu$er of properties to e plaed under perpetual ad$inistration of the trust+ <n fat, the deedent une;uivoally foradethe alienation or $ort!a!e of these properties+ <n all, the deedent did not onte$plate the

disposition of these properties, ut only sou!ht to e;ueath the ino$e derived therefro$ tovarious sets of enefiiaries+

On this sore, we held in Rodri)ue2 v. *ourt of Appeals?13@ that the perpetual prohiitionwas valid only for twenty '20( years+ e affir$ed the #AEs holdin! that the trust stipulated in thedeedentEs will prohiitin! perpetual alienation or $ort!a!e of the properties violated Artiles&6 and &0 of the #ivil #ode+ )owever, we reversed and set aside the #AEs deision whihdelared that that portion of the deedentEs estate, the properties listed in #lause 10 of the will,ou!ht to e distriuted ased on intestate suession, there ein! no institution of heirs to the properties overed y the perpetual trust+

As previously ;uoted, we reahed a different onlusion and upheld the trust, only insofar as the first twentyyear period is onerned+ e refrained fro$ forthwith delarin! the deedentEstesta$entary disposition as void and the properties enu$erated in #lause 10 of the will as su5etto intestate suession+ e held that, in the interim$ since the t'enty1year period 'as then still

upon us, the wishes of the testatri ou!ht to e respeted+

"hus, at present, there appears to e no $ore ar!u$ent that the trust reated over the

properties of the deedent should e dissolved as the twentyyear period has, ;uite palpaly,lapsed+

*otwithstandin! the fore!oin!, the R"# ruled otherwise and held that> 'a( only the perpetual prohiition to alienate or $ort!a!e is delared voidB '( the trust over her propertiesstipulated y the testatri in #lauses 12, 13 and 24 of the will re$ains validB and '( the trustees$ay dispose of these properties in order to arry out the latterEs testa$entary disposition+

e disa!ree+

Apparent fro$ the deedentEs last will and testa$ent is the reation of a trust on aspeifi set of properties and the ino$e aruin! therefro$+ *owhere in the will an it easertained that the deedent intended any of the trustEs desi!nated enefiiaries to inherit these properties+ "he deedentEs will did not institute any heir thereto, as learly shown y thefollowin!>





33-

1+ #lause 2 instruted the reation of trustB

2+ #lause 3 instruted that the re$ainin! ino$e fro$ speified properties, after theneessary dedutions for epenses, inludin! the estate ta, e deposited in a fund with a an.B

3+ #lause 10 enu$erated the properties to e plaed in trust for perpetual

ad$inistration ' pan)asi'aan sa ha"an) panahon(B

4+ #lauses 11 and 12 direted how the ino$e fro$ the properties ou!ht to e divideda$on!, and distriuted to the different enefiiariesB and

-+ #lause 24 instruted the ad$inistrators to provide $edial support to ertain enefiiaries, to e deduted fro$ the fund deposits in the an. $entioned in #lauses 2 and 3+

7lainly, the R"# was $ista.en in denyin! petitionersE $otion to dissolve and orderin! thedisposition of the properties in #lause 10 aordin! to the testatriEs wishes+ As re!ards these

properties, intestay should apply as the deedent did not institute an heir therefor+ Artile &2, inrelation to para!raph 2, Artile 960 of the #ivil #ode, provides>

Art+ &2+ An heir is a person alled to the suession either y the provisionof a will or y operation of law+

Art+ 960+ /e!al or intestate suession ta.es plae>

'2( hen the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all the

property elon!in! to the testator+ <n suh ase, le!al suession shall ta.e plaeonly with respet to the property of whih the testator has not disposedB



336

e find as erroneous the R"#Es holdin! that para!raph 4,?14@ Artile 1013 of the sa$e odespeifially allows a perpetual trust, eause this provision of law is inappliale+ uffie it tostate that the artile is a$on! the #ivil #ode provisions on intestate suession, speifially on

the tate inheritin! fro$ a deedent, in default of persons entitled to sueed+ Knder this artile,the allowane for a per$anent trust, approved y a ourt of law, overs property inherited y thetate y virtue of intestate suession+ "he artile does not ure a void testa$entary provisionwhih did not institute an heir+ Aordin!ly, the artile annot e applied to dispose of hereindeedentEs properties+

e are not un$indful of our rulin! in Palad$ et al. v. !overnor of 9ue2on Province$ et al.?1-@ where we delared, thus>

Artile &0 of the *ew #ivil #ode, whih re!ards as void any dispositionof the testator delarin! all or part of the estate inalienale for $ore than 20 years,is not violated y the trust onstituted y the late /uis 7aladB eause the will of the testator does not interdit the alienation of the parels devised+ "he will$erely direts that the ino$e of said two parels e utili=ed for theestalish$ent, $aintenane and operation of the hi!h shool+

aid Artile &0 was desi!ned to !ive $ore i$petus to the soiali=ation

of the ownership of property and to prevent the perpetuation of lar!e holdin!swhih !ive rise to a!rarian troules+: "he trust herein involved overs only two

lots, whih have not een shown to e a lar!e landholdin!+ And the ino$ederived therefro$ is ein! devoted to a puli and soial purpose F the eduationof the youth of the land+ "he use of said parels therefore is in a sense soiali=ed+"here is no hint in the reord that the trust has spawned a!rarian onflits+ ?16@

<n this ase, however, we reah a different onlusion as the testatri speifially prohiited the alienation or $ort!a!e of her properties whih were definitely $ore than the two'2( properties in the aforeited ase+ "he herein testatriEs lar!e landholdin!s annot e su5etedindefinitely to a trust eause the ownership thereof would then effetively re$ain with her evenin the afterlife+









33

<n li!ht of the fore!oin!, therefore, the trust on the testatriEs properties $ust e dissolvedand this ase re$anded to the lower ourt to deter$ine the followin!>

1+ "he properties listed in #lause 10 of the will, onstitutin! the perpetual trust, whihare still within reah and have not een disposed of as yetB and

2+ "he intestate heirs of the deedent, with the nearest relative of the deeased entitledto inherit the re$ainin! properties+

One final note+ "o oviate onfusion, we larify that the petitioners, althou!h orret in$ovin! for the dissolution of the trust after the twentyyear period, are not neessarily delaredas intestate heirs of the deedent+ Our re$and of the ase to the R"# $eans that the proateourt should now $a.e a deter$ination of the heirship of the intestate heirs of the deedentwhere petitioners, and all others lai$in! to e heirs of the deedent, should estalish their statusas suh onsistent with our rulin! in &eirs of aptinchay v. &on. del Rosario+?1@

0HEREFORE, pre$ises onsidered, the petition is GRANTED+ "he Order of theRe!ional "rial #ourt of Manila, %ranh 4 in 7+ 7RO#+ *o+ -1&2 is RE2ERSED and SETASIDE+ "he trust approved y the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Manila, %ranh 4 in 7+ 7RO#+ *o+-1&2 is DISSOL2ED+ e ORDER the Re!ional "rial #ourt of Manila, %ranh 4 in 7+ 7RO#+ *o+ -1&2 to deter$ine the followin!>

1+ the properties listed in #lause 10 of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=Es will, onstitutin!the perpetual trust, whih are still within reah and have not een disposed of as yetB and

2+ the intestate heirs of 8oYa Mar!arita Rodri!ue=, with the nearest relative of thedeedent entitled to inherit the re$ainin! properties+

SO ORDERED+

NOLI ALFONSO an( G1R1 N!1 8??=?ERLINDA F4NDIALAN,

Petitioners, 7resent>

#ORO*A, *. %.$ *hairperson$ versus H/A#O, JR+,

/O*AR8O8 #A"RO, 8/ #A"<//O, and 7RI





33&

, %%.SPO4SES HENRY an( LI0ANAG ANDRES, 7ro$ul!ated>

Respondents+ July 29, 2010

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

"ehnial rules $ay e relaed only for the furtherane of 5ustie and to enefit the deservin!+

<n the present petition for review, petitioners assail the Au!ust 10, 2004 Resolution ?1@ of the #ourt

of Appeals '#A( in #A+R+ #H+ *o+ &362, whih dis$issed the appeal efore it for failure of

petitioners to file their rief within the etended re!le$entary period+ Factual (ntecedents

"he present ase ste$$ed fro$ a o$plaint for accion pu"liciana with da$a!es filed y

respondent spouses )enry and /iwana! Andres a!ainst *oli Alfonso and spouses Reynaldo and rlindaundialan efore the Re!ional "rial #ourt 'R"#(, %ranh , an Mateo, Ri=al+

On July &, 199, the R"# rendered a 8eision ?2@ in favor of respondents+ "he dispositive portionof the 8eision states>

)ROR, pre$ises onsidered 5ud!$ent is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and a!ainst the defendants and all persons lai$in! ri!hts under the$ who areordered>

1+ to vaate the pre$ises loated at 236 eneral /una t+, 8ulon!ayan 11,an Mateo, Ri=alB

2+ to 5ointly and severally pay the su$ ?of@ 7100+00 as reasonaleo$pensation for the use of said pre$ises o$$enin! fro$ 04 epte$er 199-B ?and@

3+ to 5ointly and severally pay the su$ of 710,000+00 as and for attorneyDsfees and to pay the ost of suit+

O OR8R8+?3@

7etitioners,?4@ thus, appealed to the #A+ roceedings ,efore the Court of (ppeals

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/166236.htm#_ftn1













339

On *ove$er -, 2003, petitionersD previous ounsel was notified y the #A to file appellantsD

rief within 4- days fro$ reeipt of the notie+ "he ori!inal 4-day period epired on 8ee$er 21,2003+ %ut efore then, on 8ee$er &, 2003, petitionersD for$er ounsel filed a Motion to ithdrawAppearane+ 7etitioners onsented to the withdrawal+

On 8ee$er 19, 2003, petitioners the$selves $oved for an etension of 30 days or untilJanuary 21, 2004 within whih to file their appellantsD rief+ "hen on Marh 3, 2004, petitionersthe$selves a!ain $oved for a fresh period of 4- days fro$ Marh 3, 2004 or until April 1&, 2004 withinwhih to file their appellantsD rief+

On Marh 1, 2004, the #A issued a Resolution> ?-@ a( notin! the withdrawal of appearane of petitionersD for$er ounselB ( re;uirin! petitioners to ause the ntry of Appearane of their newounselB and ( !rantin! petitionersD $otions for etension of ti$e to file their rief for a period totalin! -days, o$$enin! fro$ 8ee$er 21, 2003 or until Marh -, 2004+

7etitioners the$selves reeived a opy of this Resolution only on April 6, 2004+ %y that ti$e, theetension to file appellantsD rief had already lon! epired+

On April 14, 2004, the 7uli AttorneyDs Offie '7AO(, havin! een approahed y petitioners,entered?6@ its appearane as new ounsel for petitioners+ )owever, on Au!ust 10, 2004, the #A issued theassailed Resolution dis$issin! petitionersD appeal, to wit>

OR failure of defendantsappellants to file their rief within the etendedre!le$entary period whih epired on Marh -, 2004 as per Judiial Reords 8ivisionreport dated July 26, 2004, the appeal is herey 8<M<8 pursuant to e+ 1 'e(, Rule-0 of the 199 Rules of #ivil 7roedure+

O OR8R8+

On epte$er 6, 2004, the 7AO filed their Motion for Reonsideration ?@ whih re;uested for afresh period of 4- days fro$ epte$er , 2004 or until Otoer 22, 2004 within whih to file appellantsD rief+ On Otoer 21, 2004, the rief ?&@ was filed y the 7AO+

On *ove$er 26, 2004, the #A issued a Resolution ?9@ whih denied petitionersD $otion for reonsideration+ )ene, this petition for review+

Iss$es

7etitioners raise the followin! issues>

<") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" O A77A/ RR8 <* 8<M<<*7"<"<O*RD A77A/ OR A</KR "O </ ")<R 8*8A*"A77//A*"E %R<, 87<" ") A""*8A*# O 7#K/<AR A#"














340

A*8 #<R#KM"A*# KRROK*8<* K#) A</KR, /<P ") ROA*8 R#P/ */<*# O ")<R ORMR #OK*/, ")A%*# O MA*<" <*"*" "O #AK 8/AN, ") R<OKK"<O* O /A 7O8 OR RO/K"<O* %OR ") A77//A"#OKR", A*8 ") A#" ")A" ") A77//A*"D %R< )A8 A/RA8N

%* </8 <") ") #OKR" O A77A/ A*8 A/RA8N ORM8 7AR"O ") R#OR8 O ") #A+

<<") 8<M<A/ O 7"<"<O*RD A77A/ %N ") )O*ORA%/ #OKR" OA77A/ < )<)/N K*JK"<<8, <*<K<"OK A*8 K*#O*#<O*A%/%#AK <" OHR/OOP8 A*8GOR 8<RAR88 ") MR<" O7"<"<O*RE #A )<#) <*HO/H A 87R<HA"<O* O ")<R 7RO7R"N R<)"+?10@

etitioners (rgu*ents 7etitioners ontend that their failure to file their appellantsD rief within the re;uired period was

due to their indi!eny and poverty+ "hey su$it that there is no 5ustifiation for the dis$issal of their appeal speially sine the 7AO had 5ust entered its appearane as new ounsel for petitioners as direted y the #A, and had as yet no opportunity to prepare the rief+ "hey ontend that appeal should eallowed sine the rief had anyway already een prepared and filed y the 7AO efore it sou!htreonsideration of the dis$issal of the appeal and is already part of the reords+ "hey ontend that thelate filin! of the rief should e eused under the iru$stanes so that the ase $ay e deided on the$erits and not $erely on tehnialities+

/espondents (rgu*ents

On the other hand, respondents ontend that failure to file appellantsD rief on ti$e is one instanewhere the #A $ay dis$iss an appeal+ <n the present ase, they ontend that the #A eerised sounddisretion when it dis$issed the appeal upon petitionersE failure to file their appellantsD rief within theetended period of - days after the ori!inal 4-day period epired+

O$ R$*in#

"he petition has no $erit+ Failure to file ,rief 4n #i*e

Rule -0 of the Rules of #ourt states>






341

etion 1+ rounds for dis$issal of appeal+An appeal $ay e dis$issed ythe #ourt of Appeals, on its own $otion or on that of the appellee, on the followin!!rounds>

'e( ailure of the appellant to serve and file the re;uired nu$er of opies of his rief or $e$orandu$ within the ti$e provided y these RulesB

7etitioners plead for the suspension of the rules and ite a nu$er of ases where the #ourteused the late filin! of a notie of appeal as well as the late filin! of the appellantDs rief+ "hey further ite /evelopment Ban+ of the Philippines v. *ourt of Appeals?11@ where the late filin! of the appellantDs rief was eused eause the #ourt found the ase i$pressed with puli interest+

"he ases ited y petitioners are not in point+ <n the present ivil ase whih involves the failureto file the appellantsD rief on ti$e, there is no showin! of any puli interest involved+ *either is there a

showin! that an in5ustie will result due to the appliation of tehnial rules+ 7overty annot e used as an euse to 5ustify petitionersD o$plaeny in allowin! $onths to

pass y efore eertin! the re;uired effort to find a replae$ent lawyer+ 7overty is not a 5ustifiation for delayin! a ase+ %oth parties have a ri!ht to a speedy resolution of their ase+ *ot only petitioners, utalso the respondents, have a ri!ht to have the ase finally settled without delay+

urther$ore, the failure to file a rief on ti$e was due pri$arily to petitionersD unwise hoiesand not really due to poverty+ 7etitioners were ale to !et a lawyer to represent the$ despite their poverty+ "hey were ale to !et two other lawyers after they onsented to the withdrawal of their firstlawyer+ %ut they hired their suse;uent lawyers too late+

<t $ust e pointed out that petitioners had a hoie of whether to ontinue the servies of their ori!inal lawyer or onsent to let hi$ !o+ "hey ould also have re;uested the said lawyer to file there;uired appellantsD rief efore onsentin! to his withdrawal fro$ the ase+ %ut they did neither of these+ "hen, not havin! done so, they delayed in en!a!in! their replae$ent lawyer+ "heir poor hoiesand la. of suffiient dili!ene, not poverty, are the $ain ulprits for the situation they now findthe$selves in+ <t would not e fair to pass on the ad onse;uenes of their hoies torespondents+ 7etitionersD low re!ard for the rules or nonhalane toward proedural re;uire$ents, whihthey a$oufla!e with the loa. of poverty, has in fat ontriuted $uh to the delay, and henefrustration of 5ustie, in the present ase+

3o co*pelling reason to disregard technicalities

7etitioners e! us to disre!ard tehnialities eause they lai$ that on the $erits their ase isstron!+ A study of the reords fails to so onvine us+

7etitioners theori=e that puliation of the deed of etra5udiial settle$ent of the estate of Marelino Alfonso is re;uired efore their father, Jose Alfonso 'Jose( ould validly transfer the su5et





342

property+ e are not onvined+ <n Alejandrino v. *ourt of Appeals,?12@ the #ourt upheld the effetivityof a deed of etra5udiial settle$ent that was neither notari=ed nor pulished+

i!nifiantly, the title of the property owned y a person who dies intestate passes at one to hisheirs+ uh trans$ission is su5et to the lai$s of ad$inistration and the property $ay e ta.en fro$ the

heirs for the purpose of payin! dets and epenses, ut this does not prevent an i$$ediate passa!e of thetitle, upon the death of the intestate, fro$ hi$self to his heirs+ ?13@ "he deed of etra5udiial settle$enteeuted y ilo$ena antos Hda+ de Alfonso and Jose evidenes their intention to partition the inherited property+ <t delineated what portion of the inherited property would elon! to who$+

"he sale to respondents was $ade after the eeution of the deed of etra5udiial settle$ent of the

estate+ "he etra5udiial settle$ent of estate, even thou!h not pulished, ein! dee$ed a partition ?14@ of the inherited property, Jose ould validly transfer ownership over the speifi portion of the property thatwas assi!ned to hi$+?1-@

"he reords show that Jose did in fat sell to respondents the su5et property+ "he deed of sale

eeuted y Jose in favor of the respondents ein! a puli dou$ent, isentitled to full faith and redit in the asene of o$petentevidene that its eeution was tainted with defets and irre!ularities that would warrant a delaration of nullity+ As found y the R"#, petitioners failed to prove any defet or irre!ularities in the eeution of thedeed of sale+ "hey failed to prove y stron! evidene, the alle!ed la. of onsent of Jose to the sale of the su5et real property+ As found y the R"#, althou!h Jose was sufferin! fro$ partial paralysis and ould no lon!er si!n his na$e,there is no showin! that his $ental faulties were affeted in suh a way as to ne!ate the eistene of his valid onsent to the sale, as $anifested y his thu$$ar. on the deed of sale+ "he reordssuffiiently show that he was apale of oardin! a triyle to !o on trips y hi$self+ uffiienttesti$onial evidene in fat shows that Jose as.ed respondents to uy the su5et property so that it ould e ta.en out fro$ the an. to whih it was $ort!a!ed+ "his fat evines that JoseEs $ental faultiesfuntioned intelli!ently+

<n view of the fore!oin!, we find no o$pellin! reason to overturn the assailed #Aresolution+ e find no in5ustie in the dis$issal of the appeal y the #A+ Justie ditates that this ase e put to rest already so that the respondents $ay not e deprived of their ri!hts+

0HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED+ "he Au!ust 10, 2004 Resolution of the #ourt of

Appeals in #A+R+ #H+ *o+ &362 isAFFIRMED+

SO ORDERED+

ALE3ANDRO B1 TY, G1R1 N!1 8??>? 7etitioner, 7resent>

7K*O, *.%.$ *hairperson$












343

#AR7<O, #ORO*A,Q

versus AI#K*A,/O*AR8O8 #A"RO, %%.

SYL2IA S1 TY, in her apaity 7ro$ul!ated>as Ad$inistratri of the <ntestatestate of Aleander "y, April 30, 200& Respondent+L L

DECISION A6C4NA, J.:

"his is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 4- of the Rules of #ourt a!ainst the8eision?1@ of the #ourt of Appeals '#A( in #A+R+ *o+ 660-3 dated July 2, 2004 and theResolution therein dated Otoer 1&, 2004+

"he fats are stated in the #A 8eision>

On May 19, 19&&, Aleander "y, son of Ale5andro %+ "y and %ella "orres,died of aner at the a!e of 34+ )e was survived y his wife, ylvia "y, and hisonly dau!hter, Pri=ia Patrina "y+ A few $onths after his death, a petition for thesettle$ent of his intestate estate was filed y ylvia "y in the Re!ional "rial #ourtof ue=on #ity+

Meanwhile, on July 20, 19&9, upon petition of ylvia "y, as

Ad$inistratri, for settle$ent and distriution of the intestate estate of Aleander in the #ounty of /os An!eles, the uperior #ourt of #alifornia ordered thedistriution of the

)ollywood ondo$iniu$ unit, theMonteello lot, and the 19&6 "oyota pi.up tru. to ylvia "y andPri=ia Patrina "y+

On *ove$er 23, 1990, ylvia "y su$itted to the intestate #ourt

in ue=on #ity an inventory of the assets of AleanderEs estate, onsistin! of shares of sto.s and a shedule of real estate properties, whih inluded thefollowin!>1+ 8A 7roperty F a parel of land with an area of 1,2& s;uare

$eters situated in 8A, reenhills, Mandaluyon!, Metro Manila,re!istered in the na$e of Aleander "y when he was still sin!le, andovered y "#" *o+ 0006-&-B







344

2+ Meridien #ondo$iniu$ F A residential ondo$iniu$ with an area of 16+- s;uare $eters situated in 29 Annapolis treet, reenhills,Mandaluyon!, Metro Manila, re!istered in the na$e of the spousesAleander "y and ylvia "y, and overed y #ondo$iniu$ #ertifiate of "itle *o+ 339-B

3+ a.a. 7roperty F A residential land with an area of 1,-&4s;uare $eters situated in *otre 8a$e, a.a., Mandaluyon!, MetroManila, re!istered in the na$e of the spouses Aleander "y and ylvia "y,and overed y "#" *o+ 6260+

On *ove$er 4, 1992, ylvia "y as.ed the intestate #ourt to sell or $ort!a!e the properties of the estate in order to pay the additional estate taof 74,14,-60+02 assessed y the %<R+

Apparently, this ation did not sit well with her fatherinlaw, the plaintiffappellee, for on 8ee$er 16, 1992, Ale5andro "y, father of the deeasedAleander "y, filed a o$plaint for reovery of properties with prayer for preli$inary in5untion andGor te$porary restrainin! order+ 8o.eted as #ivil #ase *o+ 6214, of the Re!ional "rial #ourt of 7asi!, %ranh 166, the o$plaintna$ed ylvia "y as defendant in her apaity as ?Ad$inistratri@ of the <ntestatestate of Aleander "y+

orthwith, on 8ee$er 2&, 1992, defendant ylvia "y, as Ad$inistratriof the <ntestate state of Aleander "y, tendered her opposition to the appliationfor preli$inary in5untion+ he lai$ed that plaintiff Ale5andro "y had no atualor eistin! ri!ht, whih entitles hi$ to the writ of preli$inary in5untion, for thereason that no epress trust onernin! an i$$ovale $aye proved y paroleevidene under the law+ <n addition, ylvia "y ar!ued that the lai$ is arred ylahes, and $ore than that, that irreparale in5ury will e suffered y the estate of

Aleander "y should the in5untion e issued+ "o the afore$entioned opposition, plaintiff filed a reply, reiteratin! thear!u$ents set forth in his o$plaint, and denyin! that his ause of ation is arred y lahes+

<n an order dated eruary 26, 1993, the Re!ional "rial #ourt !ranted theappliation for a writ of preli$inary in5untion+

As to the o$plaint for reovery of properties, it is asserted y plaintiff Ale5andro "y that he owns the 8A property, as well as the Meridien#ondo$iniu$, and the a.a. property, whih were inluded in theinventory of the estate of Aleander "y+ 7laintiff alle!ed that on Marh 1, 196,

he ou!ht the 8A property fro$ a ertain 7urifiaion I+ Nu5uioB and that here!istered the said property in the na$e of his son, Aleander "y, who was to holdsaid property in trust for his rothers and sisters in the event of his 'plaintiffs(sudden de$ise+ 7laintiff further alle!ed that at the ti$e the 8A property was purhased, his son and na$esa.e was still studyin! in the Knited tates, and wasfinanially dependent on hi$+

As to the two other properties, plaintiff averred that he ou!ht theMeridien #ondo$iniu$ so$eti$e in 19&- and the a.a. property



34-

so$eti$e in 19&B that titles to the afore$entioned properties were also plaed inthe na$e of his son, Aleander "y, who was also to hold these properties in trustfor his rothers and sisters+ 7laintiff asserted that at ?the@ ti$e the su5et properties were purhased, Aleander "y and ylvia "y were earnin! $ini$alino$e, and were thus finanially inapale of purhasin! said properties+ "o

olster his lai$, plaintiff presented the ino$e ta returns of Aleander fro$19&019&4, and the profit and loss state$ent of defendantEs Jo5i an eneralMerhandisin! fro$ 19&119&4+

7laintiff added that defendant ated in ad faith in inludin! the su5et properties in the inventory of Aleander "yEs estate, for she was well aware thatAleander was si$ply holdin! the said properties in trust for his silin!s+

<n her answer, defendant denied that the su5et properties were held intrust y Aleander "y for his silin!s+ he ontended that, ontrary to plaintiffEsalle!ations, Aleander purhased the 8A property with his own $oneyB thatAleander was finanially apale of purhasin! the 8A property as he had een $ana!in! the fa$ily orporations ever sine he was 1& years old, aside fro$the fat that he was personally into the usiness of i$portin! luury ars+ As tothe Meridien #ondo$iniu$ and a.a. property, defendant li.ewise ar!uedthat she and Aleander "y, havin! een en!a!ed in various profitale usinessendeavors, they had the finanial apaity to a;uire said properties+

%y way of affir$ative defenses, defendant asserted that the alle!ed veraltrust a!ree$ent over the su5et properties etween the plaintiff and Aleander "yis not enforeale under the tatute of raudsB that plaintiff is arred fro$ provin!the alle!ed veral trust under the 8ead ManEs tatuteB that the lai$ is also arred y lahesB that defendantEs title over the su5et properties annot e the su5etof a ollateral atta.B and that plaintiff and ounsel are en!a!ed in foru$

shoppin!+ <n her ounterlai$, defendant prayed that plaintiff e sentened to payattorneyEs fees and osts of liti!ation+

On *ove$er 9, 1993, a $otion for leave to intervene, and a o$plaintinintervention were filed y An!elina 7i!uin!"y, le!al wife of plaintiff Ale5andro "y+ <n this $otion, plaintiffintervenor prayed that she e allowed tointervene on the !round that the su5et properties were a;uired durin! thesusistene of her $arria!e with the plaintiff, hene said properties areon5u!al+ On April 2, 1994, the trial ourt issued an Order !rantin! theafore$entioned $otion+

8urin! the hearin!, plaintiff presented in evidene the petition filed ydefendant in peial 7roeedin!s *o+ &&64&B the ino$e ta returns andonfir$ation reeipts of Aleander "y fro$ 19&019&4B the profit and lossstate$ent of defendantEs Jo5i an eneral Merhandisin! fro$ 19&119&4B thedeed of sale of the 8A property dated Marh 1, 196B the "#"Es and ##" of the su5et propertiesB petty ash vouhers, offiial reeipts and he.s to showthe plaintiff paid for the seurity and renovation epenses of oth the Meridien#ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. propertyB he.s issued y plaintiff to



346

defendant etween June 19&& F *ove$er 1991 to show that plaintiff providedfinanial support to defendant in the a$ount of 7-1,000+00B and the artiles of inorporations of various orporations, to prove that he, plaintiff, had put upseveral orporations+

8efendant for her presented in evidene the petition dated epte$er 6,

19&& in peial 7roeedin!s *o+ &&64&B the "#"s and ##" of the su5et propertiesB the deed of sale of sto. dated July 2, 19&& etween the A%"nterprises, <norporated, and plaintiffB the transript of steno!raphi notes datedJanuary -, 1993 in # #ase *o+ 4361B the $inutes of the $eetin!s, and theartiles of inorporation of various orporationsB the onstrution a!ree$ent etween the defendant and the )o$e #onstrution, for the renovation of thea.a. propertyB the letters of )o$e #onstrution to defendant re;uestin!for pay$ent of illin!s and offiial reeipts of the sa$e, to show that defendant paid for the renovation of the a.a. propertyB the a!ree$ent etween 8ra!o8ai 8evelop$ent <nternational, <norporated, and the spouses Aleander "y andylvia "y, dated Marh, 19&, for the sale of the a.a. property overed y

"#" *o+ --206 in favor of the late Aleander "y and the defendantB a photo!raphof Pri=ia + "yB usiness ards of Aleander "yB the Order and the 8eree *o+ 10of the uperior #ourt of #alifornia, dated July 20, 19&9B the a!ree$ent etweenerry /+ #ontreras and the pouses Aleander "y and ylvia "y, dated January26, 19&&, for the Arhitetural inishin! and <nterior 8esi!n of the a.a. propertyB offiial reeipts of the eron nterprisesB oituaries pulished inseveral newspapersB and a letter addressed to 8ra!o 8ai dated eruary 10,19&+?2@

urther$ore, the followin! findin!s of fats of the ourt a quo,

the Re!ional "rial #ourt of 7asi! #ity, %ranh 166 'R"#(, in #ivil #ase *o+ 6214, were

adopted y the #A, thus>

e adopt the findin!s of the trial ourt in respet to the testi$onies of thewitnesses who testified in this ase, thus>

"he !ist of the testi$ony of defendant as adverse witness for the plaintiff>

8efendant and Aleander $et in /os An!eles, KA in 19-+ Aleander

was then only 22 years old+ "hey $arried in 19&1+ Aleander was orn in19-4+ )e finished hi!h shool at the t+ tephen )i!h hool in193+ <$$ediately after his !raduation fro$ hi!h shool, Aleander went tothe KA to study+ )e was a fullti$e student at the ooderry #olle!e where hetoo. up a usiness ad$inistration ourse+ Aleander !raduated fro$ the saidolle!e in 19+ )e a$e a. to the 7hilippines and started wor.in! in theKnion A5ino$oto, Apha letronis Mar.etin! #orporation and A%"nterprises+ After their $arria!e in 19&1, Aleander and defendant lived with





34

plaintiff at the latterEs residene at 11& out Alara= t+?,@ ue=on #ity+ 7laintiff has een en!a!ed in $anufaturin! and tradin! usiness for al$ost -0years+ 7laintiff has estalished several orporations+ hile in the KA, Aleander stayed in his own house in Monteello, #alifornia, whih he a;uired durin! hisolle!e days+ Aleander was a sto.holder of o$panies owned y plaintiffEs

fa$ily and !ot yearly dividend therefro$+ Aleander was an offier in the saido$panies and otained enefits and onuses therefro$+ As sto.holder of A5ino$oto, Royal 7orelain, #artier and other o$panies, he otained sto. dividends+ Aleander en!a!ed in uy and sell of ars+ 8efendant annot !ive theeat a$ount how $uh Aleander was !ettin! fro$ the orporation sine19&1+ <n 19&1, defendant en!a!ed in retail $erhandisin! i+e+, i$ported 5ewelryand lothes+ 8efendant leased two '2( units at the reenhillshoppesville+ 8efendant had dividends fro$ the fa$ily usiness whih is realestate and fro$ another orporation whih is 7erway+ 8urin! their $arria!e,defendant never reeived allowane fro$ Aleander+ "he a.a. propertyost 7-+- $illion+ A #ar #are #enter was estalished y Aleander and defendant

was one of the sto.holders+ 8efendant and Aleander spent for the i$prove$entof the a.a. property+ 8efendant and Aleander did not live in theondo$iniu$ unit eause they followed the #hinese tradition and lived with plaintiff up to the death of Aleander+ 8efendant and Aleander started puttin!i$prove$ents in the a.a. property in 19&&, or a few $onths eforeAleander died+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of #onhita ar$iento>

<n 1966, #onhita ar$iento was e$ployed in the Knion #he$ials asseretary of plaintiff who was the president+ ar$iento prepared the he.s for theshool epenses and allowanes of plaintiffEs hildren and their spouses+ ar$iento is fa$iliar with the a.a. property+ 7laintiff ou!ht the

a.a. property and paid the arhitet and spent for the $aterials and laor in onnetion with the onstrution of the a.a. property 'hs+ WME to WIEinlusiveB hs+ WAAE to WII,E inlusiveB hs+ WAAAE to WIII,E inlusiveB hs+WAAAAE to W,E inlusive(+ 7laintiff entrusted to Aleander the supervision of the onstrution of the a.a. property, so that hiit WME shows that the pay$ent was reeived fro$ Aleander+ 7laintiff visited the a.a. propertyseveral ti$es and even pointed the roo$ whih he intended to oupy+ ar$ientowas told y plaintiff that it was very epensive to $aintain the house+ "hedou$ents, referrin! to the nu$erous ehiits, were in the possession of plaintiff eause they were forwarded to hi$ for pay$ent+ ar$iento .nows the residentialondo$iniu$ unit eause in 19& plaintiff purhased the $aterials and

e;uip$ents for its renovation, as shown y hs+ WE to WEinlusive+ 7laintiff supported defendant after the death of Aleander, as shown yhs+ WRRRRE to W""""E inlusive+ ar$iento was plaintiffEs seretary andassisted hi$ in his offiial and personal affairs+ ar$iento .new that Aleander was reeivin! a $onthly allowane in the a$ount of 7-,000+00 fro$ Alpha+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of the plaintiff>





349

Aleander in his files+ <t was one of plaintiffEs lawyers who told hi$ that thesu5et properties were inluded in the estate of Aleander+ 7laintiff alled updefendant and told her aout the su5et properties ut she i!nored hi$ so that plaintiff was saddened and sho.ed+ 7laintiff !ave defendant $onthly supportof 7 -1, 000+00 'hs+ WRRRRE to W""""",: inlusive( 7 -0,000+00 for defendant

and 71,000+00 for the yaya+ "he a.a. property ost aout 7-+- $illion+"he !ist of the testi$ony of Roert %assi!>

)e is 3 years old and a real estate ro.er+ %assi! ated as ro.er in thesale of the 8A property fro$ 7urifiaion Nu5uio to plaintiff+ <n the 8eedof ale 'h+ WE( it was the na$e of Aleander that was plaed as the vendee, asdesired y plaintiff+ "he prie was paid y plaintiff+ %assi! never tal.ed withAleander+ )e does not .now Aleander+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of "o$ Adarne as witness for defendant>

Adarne is 4- years old and an arhitet+ )e was a friend of Aleander+ Adarne was en!a!ed y defendant for the preparation of the plans of

the a.a. property+ "he ontrator who won the iddin! was )o$e#onstrution, <n+ "he A!ree$ent 'h+ W26E( was entered into y defendant and)o$e #onstrution <n+ "he a$ount of 79--,---+00 'h+ E26AE( was for theinitial sope of the wor.+ "here were several letterproposals $ade y )o$e#onstrution 'hs+ W234A,E inlusive(+ "here were reeipts issued y )o$e#onstrution <n+ 'hs+ E3-,E W36E and W3E(+ "he proposal were aepted and perfor$ed+ "he renovation started in 1992 and was finished in 1993 or early1994+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of Rosanna Re!alado>

Re!alado is 43 years old and a real estate ro.er+ Re!alado is a lose

friend of defendant+ Re!alado ated as ro.er in the sale of the a.a. property etween defendant and Aleander and the owner+ "he sale A!ree$ent'h+ W3&E( is dated Marh -, 19&+ "he prie is 7-+- $illion in ar ast %an. and"rust #o$pany $ana!erEs he.s+ "he four '4( he.s $entioned in para!raph 1of the A!ree$ent were issued y Aleander ut she is not sure eause it waslon! ti$e a!o+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of ylvia "y>

he is 40 years old, usinesswo$an and residin! at 6- *otre8a$e, a.a. Hilla!e, Mandaluyon! #ity+ ylvia and Aleander have adau!hter na$ed Pri=ia Patrina "y, who is 16 years old+ Pri=ia is in 11th !radeat %rent <nternational hool+ Aleander was an eeutive in several o$paniesas shown y his usiness ards 'hs+ E40,E W40A,E E40%,E W40#,E W408,E W40,EW40,E and W40E(+ %efore defendant and Aleander !ot $arried, the latter a;uired a ondo$iniu$ unit in /os An!eles, KA, another propertyinMonteello, #alifornia and the 8A property+ "he properties in the KA werealready settled and ad5udiated in defendantEs favor 'hs+ W41E and W41AE(+ 8efendant did not rin! any property into the $arria!e+ After the $arria!e,defendant en!a!ed in sellin! i$ported lothes and eventually ou!ht four '4(units of stall in hoppesville reenhills and derived a $onthly ino$e



3-0

of 7-0,000+00+ the prie for one '1( unit was provided y defendantEs $other+ "heother three '3( units a$e fro$ the house and lot at a.a. Hilla!e+ "he 73+-$illion $ana!erEs he. was purhased y Aleander+ "he sale A!ree$ent wassi!ned y Aleander and defendant 'hs+ E3&AE and W3&%E(+ After the purhase,defendant and Aleander ontinued the onstrution of the property+ After

AleanderEs death, defendant ontinued the onstrution+ "he first arhitet thatdefendant and Aleander en!a!ed was erry #ontreras 'hs+ E42,E W42AE andW42A1E to W42AE(+ "he postdated he.s issued y Aleander were han!edwith the he.s of plaintiff+ After the death of Aleander, defendant en!a!ed theservies of Arhitet "o$ Adarne+ )o$e #onstrution, <n+ was ontrated toontinue the renovation+ 8efendant and Aleander $ade pay$ents to #ontrerasfro$ January to May 199& 'hs+ E43,E W43AE to W43),E inlusive(+ A !eneralontrator y the na$e of *o!oy was issued so$e reeipts 'hs+ E43JE and W43PE(+ a reeipt was also issued y "anio! 'h+ W43/E(+ the pay$ents were $ade y defendant and Aleander fro$ the latterEs aounts+ "he A!ree$ent with)o$e #onstrution <n+ 'hs+ W26E( shows defendantEs si!nature 'h+ W26

AE(+ the additional wor.s were overed y the pro!ress illin!s 'hs+ W2E to W34AE(+ 8efendant paid the$ fro$ her aount+ "he total ontrat a$ount was7-,049,2&3+04+ "he total epenses, inludin! the furnishin!s, et+ reahed thea$ount of 7& to 10 $illion and were paid fro$ defendantEs and AleanderEsfunds+ After the death of Aleander, plaintiff $ade pay$ents for the renovation of the house 'h+ WME( whih plaintiff onsidered as advanta!es ut plaintiff did not$a.e any lai$ for rei$urse$ent fro$ the estate of Aleander+ 8efendantEsrelationship with plaintiff ea$e strained when he as.ed her to waive her ri!htover the Knion A5ino$oto shares+ Aleander was a friend of 8andin! #o5uan!oand was ale to i$port luury ars+ Aleander $ade a written offer to purhasethe a.a. property+ Aleander !raduated fro$ the ooderry #olle!e in19& or 199 and returned to the 7hilippines in 199 defendant returned tothe 7hilippines aout si '6( $onths later+ 7laintiff was finanially well off or wealthy+ Aleander was very lose to plaintiff and he was the $ost trusted sonand the only one who !rew up in plaintiffEs house+ 7laintiff oserved #hinesetraditions+ Aleander was not totally dependent on plaintiff eause he had hisown earnin!s+ Kpon his return fro$ the KA, Aleander a;uired the propertiesin theKA while studyin! there+ At the ti$e of his death, Aleander was vie president of Knion A5ino$oto+ 8efendant ould not say how $uh was theo$pensation of Aleander fro$ Knion A5ino$oto+ 8efendant ould not also sayhow $uh did Aleander earn as vie president of Royal 7orelain#orporation+ Aleander was the treasurer of 7oly$ar. 7aper <ndustries+ Aleander was the one handlin! everythin! for plaintiff in )orn%lower ales nterprises, )i7rofessional 8rillin!, Round #onsu$er, MHR 7iture "ues, A%" nterprises+ 7laintiff supported defendant and her dau!hter inthe a$ount of 7-1,000+00 per $onth fro$ 19&&1990+ 8efendant did not offer torei$urse plaintiff the advanes he $ade on the renovation of the a.a. property eause their relationship ea$e strained over the A5ino$otoshares+ 8efendant ould not produe the illin!s whih were indiated in the postdated he.s paid to Arhitet #ontreras+ After the irth of her hild, defendant



3-1

en!a!ed in the outi;ue usiness+ 8efendant ould not reall how $uh shea;uired the outi;ue 'for(+ <n 19&3 or 19&4 defendant started to earn 7-0,000+00a $onth+ "he properties in the KA whih were a;uired y Aleander while stillsin!le were .nown to plaintiff ut the latter did not de$and the return of the titlesto hi$+ "he "ransfer #ertifiates of "itle of the a.a. and 8A properties

were !iven to defendant and Aleander+ "he #ondo$iniu$ #ertifiate of "itlewas also !iven to defendant and Aleander+ "he plaintiff did not de$and thereturn of the said titles+

"he !ist of the testi$ony of Atty+ Mario On!.i.o>

Atty+ On!.i.o prepared the 8eed of ale of the 8A property+ "herewas only one 8eed of ale re!ardin! the said property+ "he plaintiff was not the person introdued to hi$ y Nu5uio as the uyer +?3@

On January , 2000, the R"# rendered its deision, disposin! as follows>

)ROR, 5ud!$ent is herey rendered>

1+ 8elarin! plaintiff as the true and lawful owner of the su5et properties, as follows>

A+ A parel of land with an area of 12& s;uare $eters, situated alon! 8Areenhills, Mandaluyon! #ity, overed y "#" *o+ 006-&-+

%+ A residential land with an area of 1-&4 s;uare $eters, to!ether with thei$prove$ents thereon, situated in *otre 8a$e, a.a. Hilla!e,Mandaluyon! #ity, overed y "#" *o+ 6260+

#+ A residential ondo$iniu$ unit with an area of 16+- s;uare $eters,situated in 29 Annapolis t+, reenhills, Mandaluyon! #ity, overed y#ondo$iniu$ #ertifiate "itle *o+ 339-+

2+ Orderin! the defendant to transfer or onvey the su5et propertiesin favor of plaintiff and the Re!ister of 8eeds forMandaluyon! #ity to transferand issue in the na$e of plaintiff the orrespondin! ertifiates of title+

3+ Orderin! the defendant to pay plaintiff the a$ount of 7100,000+00,as $oral da$a!es and 7200,000+00, as attorneyEs fees plus the ost of the suit+

O OR8R8+?4@

Respondent herein, ylvia + "y, appealed fro$ the R"# 8eision to the #A, assi!nin! thefollowin! as errors>

<+

") "R<A/ #OKR" RR8 <* )O/8<* ")A" A77//7KR#)A8 ") 8A 7RO7R"N %K" 7/A#8 "<"/ ")R"O <*










3-3

was ale to show that she and her late husand had the finanial apaity to purhase said properties+

8efendantappellant li.ewise ;uestioned the ad$ission of the testi$ony of plaintiffappellee, itin! the 8ead ManEs tatuteB she also ;uestioned thead$ission of her late husandEs ino$e ta returns, itin! etion 1 of the *<R#

and the ase of Vera v. *usi$ %r.

On July 10, 2001, plaintiffappellee filed his appelleeEs %rief, whereunder he ar!ued> "hat the trial ourt did not err in findin! that the su5et properties areowned y hi$B that the said properties were $erely re!istered in AleanderEsna$e, in trust for his silin!s, as it was plaintiffappellee who atually purhasedthe su5et properties he havin! the finanial apaity to a;uire the su5et properties, while Aleander and defendantappellant had no finanial apaity todo soB that defendantappellant should e sentened to pay hi$ $oral da$a!es for the $ental an!uish, serious aniety, wounded feelin!s, $oral sho. and si$ilar in5ury y hi$ suffered, on aount of defendantappellantEs wron!ful atsB andthat defendant appellant should also pay for attorneyEs fees and liti!ation epenses y hi$ inurred in liti!atin! this ase+

<n a nutshell, it is plaintiffappelleeEs thesis that in 193, when heao$panied his son, Aleander, to A$eria, he told his son that he would putso$e of the properties in AleanderEs na$e, so that if death overta.es hi$'plaintiffappellee(, Aleander would distriute the proeeds of the propertya$on! his silin!s+ Aordin! to plaintiffappellee, the three properties su5et of this ase are the very properties he plaed in the na$e of his son and na$esa.eBthat after the death of Aleander, he re$inded his dau!hterinlaw, the defendantappellant herein, that the su5et properties were only plaed in AleanderEs na$efor Aleander to hold trust for his silin!sB ut that she re5eted his entreaty, and

refused to reonvey said properties to plaintiffappellee, therey o$pellin! hi$to sue out a ase for reonveyane+

On epte$er -, 2001, defendantappellant filed her reply %rief and a$otion to ad$it additional evidene+ "hereafter, several $otions and pleadin!swere filed y oth parties+ 7laintiffappellee filed a $otion for early resolutiondated May 1, 2002 while defendantappellant filed a $otion to resolvedated Au!ust 6, 2003 and a $otion to resolve inident dated Au!ust 12, 2003+

7laintiffappellee then filed a o$$ent on the $otion to resolve inident,to whih defendantappellant tendered a reply+ *ot to e outdone, the for$er fileda re5oinder+

"hus, on eruary 13, 2004, this #ourt issued a resolution, to set the asefor the reeption of additional evidene for the defendantappellant+

<n support of her $otion to ad$it additional evidene, defendantappellant presented reeipts of pay$ent of real estate taes for the years 19& to 2004,oviously for the purpose of provin! that she and her late husand in their ownri!ht were finanially apale of a;uirin! the ontested properties+ 7laintiffappellee however did not present any ountervailin! evidene+



3-4

7er resolution of Marh 2-, 2004, this #ourt direted oth parties tosu$it their respetive $e$orandu$ of authorities in a$plifiation of their respetive positions re!ardin! the ad$issiility of the additional evidene+

8efendantappellant in her $e$orandu$ prayed that the additionalevidene e onsidered in resolvin! the appeal in the interest of truth and

sustantial 5ustie+ 7laintiffappellee, on the other hand, in his $e$orandu$,ar!ued that the additional evidene presented y the defendantappellant isfor!otten evidene, whih an lo lon!er e ad$itted, $uh less onsidered, in thisappeal+ "hereafter, the ase was su$itted for deision+

%efore ta.in! up the $ain issue, we dee$ it epedient to address so$eollateral issues, whih the parties had raised, to wit> 'a( the ad$issiility of theadditional evidene presented to this #ourt, '( the ad$issiility of plaintiffEstesti$ony, '( the ad$issiility of the ino$e ta return, and 'd( lahes+

On the propriety of the reeption of additional evidene, this #ourt falls a.s 'si( upon the holdin! of the )i!h #ourt in Ale)re v. Reyes, 161 #RA 226

'1961( to the effet that even as there is no speifi provision in the Rules of #ourt !overnin! $otions to reopen a ivil ase for the reeption of additionalevidene after the ase has een su$itted for deision, ut efore 5ud!$ent isatually rendered, nevertheless suh reopenin! is ontrolled y no other priniplethan that of the para$ount interest of 5ustie, and rests entirely upon the sound 5udiial disretion of the ourt+ At any rate, this #ourt rules that the tadelaration reeipts for the 8A property for the years 19&199, and 1999B for the a.a. property for the years 19&619&, 19901999B and for theMeridien #ondo$iniu$ for the years 1993199& annot e ad$itted as they aredee$ed for!otten evidene+ <ndeed, these piees of evidene should have een presented durin! the hearin! efore the trial ourt+

)owever, this #ourt in the interest of truth and 5ustie $ust hold, as itherey holds, that the ta delaration reeipts for the 8A property for the years20002004B the a.a. property for the years 20002004B and the Meridien#ondo$iniu$ for the years 20002001 $ay e ad$itted to show that to this date,it is the defendantappellant, atin! as an ad$inistratri, who has een payin! thereal estate taes on the aforestated properties+

As re!ards the ad$issiility of plaintiffappelleeEs testi$ony, this #ourta!rees with the trial ourt that>

8efendantEs ar!u$ent to the effet that plaintiffEstesti$ony provin! that the deeased Aleander "y was finanially

dependent on hi$ is inad$issile in evidene eause he is arred y the 8ead ManEs tatute 'Rule 130, e+ 20, Rules of #ourt( for $a.in! suh testi$ony, is untenale+ A readin! of pa!es 10 to 4-of the "*, ta.en on *ove$er 16, 199&, whih ontain thediretea$ination testi$ony of plaintiff, and pa!es 2, 2&, 30, 34,3-, 3, 39, 40 of the "*, ta.en on January 1-, 1999B pa!e 6 of the"* ta.en on 8ee$er 11, 199&, pa!es &, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23 24 of "*, ta.en on ta.en on eruary 19, 1999B and pa!es



3--

4,-,6,,&,11,2- and 2 of the "* ta.en on Marh 22, 1999, willshow that defendantEs lawyer did not o5et to the plaintiff aswitness a!ainst defendant, and that plaintiff was ehaustivelyrossea$ined y defendantEs ounsel re!ardin! the ;uestionedtesti$ony, hene, the sa$e is not overed y the 8ead ManEs

tatute ' Marella v. Reyes, 12 7hil+ 1B A"renica v. !onda and /e!racia, 34 7hil+ 39B Ton)co v. Vian2on, -0 7hil+ 69&(+

A perusal of the transript of steno!raphi notes will show that ounsel for defendantappellant was not ale to o5et durin! the testi$ony of plaintiffappellee+ "he only ti$e that ounsel for defendantappellant interposed hiso5etion was durin! the ea$ination of Rose$arie "y, a witness 'not a party( tothis ase+ "hus the 8ead ManEs tatute annot apply+

ith re!ard to the ino$e ta returns filed y the late Aleander "y, this#ourt holds that the sa$e are ad$issile in evidene+ *either etion 1 of the *<R# nor the ase of Vera v. *usi applies in this ase+ "he ino$e ta returnswere neither otained nor opied fro$ the %ureau of <nternal Revenue, nor produed in ourt pursuant to a ourt orderB rather these were produed y plaintiffappellee fro$ his own files, as he was the one who .ept ustody of thesaid ino$e ta returns+ )ene, the trial ourt did not err in ad$ittin! the ino$eta returns as evidene+

Anent the issue of lahes, this #ourt finds that the plaintiffappellee is not!uilty of lahes+ "here is lahes when> '1( the ondut of the defendant or oneunder who$ he lai$s, !ave rise to the situation o$plained ofB '2( there wasdelay in assertin! a ri!ht after .nowled!e defendantEs ondut and after anopportunity to sueB '3( defendant had no .nowled!e or notie that the o$plainantwould assert his ri!htB and '4( there is in5ury or pre5udie to the defendant in the

event relief is aorded to the o$plainant+ "hese onditions do not otain here+ <n this ase, there was no delay on the part of plaintiffappellee in institutin!the o$plaint for reovery of real properties+ "he ase was files four years after AleanderEs deathB two years after the inventory of assets of AleanderEs estatewas su$itted to the intestate ourtB and one $onth after defendantappellant fileda $otion to sell or $ort!a!e the real estate properties+ #learly, suh len!th of ti$ewas not unreasonale+?-@

"he #A then turned to the ritial, ruial and pivotal issue of whether a trust, epress or i$plied, was estalished y the plaintiffappellee in favor of his late son and na$esa.e

Aleander "y+:

"he #A proeeded to distin!uish epress fro$ i$plied trust, then found that no epresstrust an e involved here sine nothin! in writin! was presented to prove it and the aseinvolves real property+ <t then stated that it disa!rees with the ourt a quoEs appliation of Art+144& of the #ivil #ode on i$plied trust, the soalled purhase $oney resultin! trust, statin! thatthe very Artile provides the eeption that otains when the person to who$ the title isonveyed is the hild, le!iti$ate or ille!iti$ate, of the one payin! the prie of the sale, in whih





3-6

ase no trust is i$plied y law, it ein! disputaly presu$ed that there is a !ift in favor of thehild+

"he #A therefore reasoned that even assu$in! that plaintiffappellee paid at least part of the prie of the 8A property, the law still presu$es that the onveyane was a disretion 'a

!ift of devise( in favor of Aleander+

As to plaintiffappelleeEs ar!u$ent that there was no donation as shown y his eerise of do$inion over the property, the #A held that no redile evidene was presented to sustantiatethe lai$+

Re!ardin! the residene ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. property, the #A stated that itdid not a!ree either with the findin!s of the trial ourt that an i$plied trust was reated over these properties+

"he #A went over the testi$onies of plaintiffappellee and the witness #onhita ar$iento

presented to show that spouses Aleander and ylvia + "y were finanially dependent of plaintiffappellee and did not have the finanial $eans or wherewithals to purhase these properties+ <t stated>

#onsider this testi$ony of plaintiffappellee>

8urin! the ti$e that Ale was stayin! with you, did you ever o$e to.now that Aleander and his wife did !o to the tatesC

A Nes, sir+ %ut < do not .now the eat date+ %ut they told $e they want to!o to A$eria for he. up+

as that the only ti$e that Aleander went to the tatesC

A Only that ti$e, sir+ 7reviously, he did not tell $e+ "hat last he o$e ' sic(to $e and tell ? sic@ $e that he will !o to A$eria for he. up+ "hat is theonly thin! < .now+

ould you say for the past five years efore his death Ale and his wifewere !oin! to the tates at least one a yearC

A < annot say eatly+ "hey 5ust o$e to $e and say that < ? sic@ will !o to"a+asyon+: "hey are already !rown people+ "hey donEt have to tell $ewhere they want to !o+

Nou are sayin! that Aleander did not as. you for assistane whenever he

!oes to the tatesCA o$eti$es Nes+

<n what for$C

A < !ave hi$ peso, sir+

or what purposeC

A 7o.et $oney, sir+



3-

"here is no evidene at all that it was plaintiffappellee who spent for theaner treat$ent aroad of his son+ *or is there evidene that he paid for the tripsaroad of Aleander and the defendantappellant+ Ad$ittedly, he only !ave hisson Aleander po.et $oney one in a while+ i$ply put, Aleander was notfinanially dependent upon the plaintiffappellee, !iven that Aleander ould

afford the osts of his aner treat$ent aroad, this on top of the trips he $ade tothe Knited tates at least one a year for five suessive years without the supportof his father+

"he fat that Aleander stayed with his father, the plaintiffappellee in thisase, even after he $arried ylvia and e!ot Pri=ia, does not at all prove thatAleander was dependent on plaintiffappellee+ *either does it neessarily $eanthat it was plaintiffappellee who was supportin! AleanderEs fa$ily+ <f anythin!, plaintiffappellee in his testi$ony ad$itted that Aleander and his fa$ily went tolive with hi$ in oservane of #hinese traditions+

<n addition, the ino$e ta returns of Aleander fro$ 19&019&4, and the profit and loss state$ent of defendantappellantEs Jo5i an eneral Merhandisin!fro$ 19&119&4, are not enou!h to prove that the spouses were not finaniallyapale of purhasin! the said properties+ Reason> "hese did not inlude passiveino$e earned y these two, suh as interests on an. deposits, royalties, ashdividends, and earnin!s fro$ sto. tradin! as well as ino$e fro$ aroad as was pointed out y the defendantappellant+ More i$portantly, the said dou$entsonly overed the years 19&019&4+ "he ino$e of the spouses fro$ 19&- to 19&was not shown+ )ene, it is entirely possile that at the ti$e the properties in;uestion were purhased, or a;uired, Aleander and defendantappellant hadsuffiient funds, onsiderin! that Aleander wor.ed in various apaities in thefa$ily orporations, and his own usiness enterprises, while defendantappellanthad thrivin! usinesses of her own, fro$ whih she a;uired o$$erial

properties+

And this is not even to say that plaintiffappellee is this ase failed toaddue onlusive, inontrovertile proof that the $oney use to purhase the two properties really a$e fro$ hi$B or that he paid for the prie of the two propertiesin order to have the enefiial interest or estate in the said properties+

A ritial ea$ination of the testi$ony of plaintiffappelleeEs witness,#onhita ar$iento, $ust also show that this witness did not have atual.nowled!e as to who atually purhased the a.a. property and theMeridien #ondo$iniu$+ )er testi$ony that plaintiffappellee visited the a.a. property and paid for the osts of the onstrution of the i$prove$ents over

the said property, in the very nature of thin!s, does not prove that it was the plaintiffappellee who in fat purhased the a.a. property+?6@

On the other hand, the #A found defendantappellantEs evidene onvinin!>

<n ontrast, Rosana Re!alado had atual .nowled!e of the transation shetestified to, onsiderin! that she was the real estate ro.er who ne!otiated the sale






3-&

of the a.a. property etween its previous owner 8ra!o 8ai and thespouses Aleander and ylvia "y+ <n her testi$ony, she onfir$ed that the he.s,whih were issued to pay for the purhase prie of the a.a. property, weresi!ned and issued y Aleander, therey orrooratin! the testi$ony of defendantappellant on this point+

i!nifiantly, durin! the trial, #onhita ar$iento identified so$e reeiptswherein the payor was the late Aleander "y+ Apparently, prior to the death of Aleander, it was Aleander hi$self who was payin! for the onstrution of thea.a. propertyB and that the only ti$e plaintiffappellee paid for the ostsof the onstrution was when Aleander died+

uite o$pellin! is the testi$ony of defendantappellant in this respet>

And after the death and urial of your husand, will you tell this)onorale #ourt what happened to the onstrution of this residene ina.a.C

A ell, of ourse, durin! the period < was $ournin! and < was reor!ani=in!

$yself and $y life, so < was not $ainly foused on the onstrution, so ittoo. a ouple of $onths efore < reali=ed that the postdated he.s issued y $y husand was han!ed throu!h he.s y $y fatherinlaw Mr+Ale5andro "y+

And did you had ? sic@ any onversation with Mr+ Ale5andro "y re!ardin!as to why he did thatC

A Nes, sir, that was the e!innin! of our $isunderstandin!, so < deided tohire a lawyer and that is Atty+ On!.i.o, to e ale to settle $y estate andto protet $yself fro$ with the he.s that they han!ed that $y husandissued to Arhitet erry #ontreras+

as there any point in ti$e that you yourself too. over the onstrutionCA Nes, sir, ri!ht after a year of that property after < was $ore settled+

And did you en!a!ed ? sic@ the servies of any professional or onstrutiono$pany for the purposeC

A Nes, sir+

ho was thatC

A Arhitet "o$ Adar$e+

hat is his first na$e, if you reallC

A Arhitet "o$$y Adar$e+

And was there any o$pany or offie whih helped Arhitet Adar$e inthe ontinuation of the onstrutionC

A Nes, < also si!ned a ontrat with Arhitet Adar$e and he hired )o$e#onstrution to finish the renovation and o$pletion of the onstrution ina.a., sir+



3-9

8o you have any dou$ent to show that you yourself overtoo. personallythe ontinuation of the onstrution of your resideneC

A Nes, sir < have the whole onstrution dou$ents and also the dou$entsthrou!h Arh+ erry #ontreras, that ontrat that we si!ned+

<n other words, plaintiffappellee too. over the $ana!e$ent of theonstrution of the a.a. property only eause defendantappellant wasstill in $ournin!+ And, <f ever plaintiffappellee did pay for the osts of theonstrution after the death of Aleander, it would e strethin! lo!i to asurd proportions to say that suh fat proved that he owns the su5et property+ <f at all,it only shows that he is entitled to rei$urse$ent for what he had spent for theonstrution+?@

Aordin!ly, the #A onluded, as follows>

oin! y the reords, we hold that plaintiffappellee in this ase was notale to show y lear preponderane of evidene that his son and the defendantappellant were not finanially apale of purhasin! said property+ *either was plaintiffappellee ale to prove y lear preponderane of evidene 'i.e+, rediledou$entary evidene( that the $oney used to purhase the said properties reallya$e fro$ hi$+ 'And even if we assu$e that it a$e fro$ hi$, it would still notestalish an i$plied trust, as it would a!ain e onsidered a donation, or a !ift, yepress $andate of the savin! lause of Art+ 144& of the #ivil #ode, as heretoforestated(+

<f anythin!, what is lear fro$ the evidene at enh is that Aleander and

the defendantappellant were not eatly ereft of the $eans, the finanialapaility or resoures, in their own ri!ht, to purhase, or a;uire, the Meridien#ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. property+

"he evidene on reord shows that Aleander "y was 31 years old whenhe purhased the Meridien #ondo$iniu$ and was 33 years old when he purhased the a.a. property+ <n short, when he purhased these properties,he had already een wor.in! for at least nine years+ )e had a ar are usinessand a eer !arden usiness+ )e was atively en!a!ed in the usiness dealin!s of several fa$ily orporations, fro$ whih he reeived e$olu$ents and other enefits+ As a $atter of fat, Aleander and plaintiffappellee had o$$oninterest in various fa$ily orporations of whih they were sto.holders, and

offiers and diretors, suh as> <nternational 7aper <ndustries, <n+B A!ro<ndustries peialists ervies, <n+B )i7rofessional 8rillin!s and Manufaturin!,<n+B MHR"H 7iture "ue, <n+B #rown #onsu$er 7roduts, <n+B 7hilippine#rystal Manufaturin! #orporationB and Knion $poriu$, <n+

urther$ore, at the ti$e of his death, the son Aleander was Hie7resident of Knion A5ino$oto 'h+ 40:(B eutive Hie7resident of Royal7orelain #orporation 'h+ 40A:(B "reasurer of 7oly$art 7aper <ndustries, <n+'h+ 40%:(B eneral Mana!er of )ornlower ales nterprises and





360

<nterontinental 7aper <ndustries, <n+ 'h+ 40#:(B 7resident of )i!h7rofessional 8rillin! and Manufaturin!, <n+ 'h+ 408:(B 7resident of #rown#onsu$er 7roduts, <n+ 'h+ 40:(B 'eutive Hie7resident of MHR"H7iture "ue, <n+ 'h+:40:(B and 8iretor of A%" nterprise, <n+ 'h+ 40:(+ )e even had a ontrollin! interest in A%" nterprises, whih has a $a5ority

interest in Knion A5ino$oto, <n+ hat is $ore, the ta delaration reeipts for the a.a. propertyoverin! the years 20002004, and the ta delaration reeipts for the Meridien#ondo$iniu$ overin! the years 20002001, showed that to his date it is still theestate of Aleander that is payin! for the real estate taes thereon+

<n the ontet of this for$idale iru$stanes, we are onstrained tooverturn the 5ud!$ent of the trial ourt, whih $ade these findin!s>

%ased on the fats at hand and the appliale law, theinelutale onlusion is that a fiduiary relationship or an i$pliedtrust eisted etween plaintiff and Aleander "y with the for$er as

the owner, trustor and enefiiary and the latter as the trustee,onernin! the su5et real properties+ "he death of Aleander auto$atially etin!uished the said fiduiary relationship, hene, plaintiffEs instant ation to reover the su5et properties fro$ theintestate estate of Aleander "y is $eritorious+

e do not a!ree+ "o elaor a point, we are not persuaded that an i$pliedtrust was reated onernin! the su5et properties+ On the assu$ption, aselsewhere indiated, the plaintiffappellee at the very least, paid for part of its purhase prie, the 8A property is presu$ed to e a !ift, or donation, in favor of Aleander "y, defendantappellantEs late husand, followin! the savin! lauseor eeption in Art+ 144& of the #ivil #ode+ "o repeat, it is the savin! lause, or

eeption, not the !eneral rule, that should here apply, the late Aleander "y ein!the son of 7laintiffappellee+

*or are we onvined, !iven the state of the evidene on reord, that the plaintiffappellee paid for the prie of the Meridien #ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. property+ "herefore, the !eneral rule announed in the first sentene of Art+144& of the #ivil #ode has no appliation in this ase+ Or, if the artile is to eapplied at all, it should e the eeption, or the savin! lause, that ou!ht to applyhere, the deeased Aleander "y ein! the son, as stated, of plaintiffappellee+

"o su$ up> ine plaintiffappellee has ereted his ase upon Art+ 144& of the #ivil #ode, a pri$e ea$ple of an i$plied trust, vi=+> that it was he who

alle!edly paid for the purhase prie of so$e of the realties su5et of this ase,le!al title or estate over whih he alle!edly !ranted or onveyed unto his son andna$esa.e, Aleander "y, for the latter to hold these realties in trust for his silin!sin ase of his 'plaintiffappelleeEs( de$ise, plaintiffappellee is har!ed with the urden of estalishin! the eistene of an i$plied trust y evidene desried or ate!ori=ed as suffiiently stron!,: lear and satisfatory,: or trustworthy+: Aswill e presently disussed+ ad to say, plaintiffappellee has $iseraly failed todishar!e that urden+ or, if the reords are any indiation, the evidene addued



361

y plaintiffappellee on this sore, an hardly $erit the desriptive attriutessuffiiently stron!,: or lear and satisfatory,: or trustworthy+:

<f only to e$phasi=e and reiterate what the upre$e #ourt has in the pastdelared aout i$plied trusts, these ase law rulin!s are worth $entionin! F

here a trust is to e estalished y oral proof, thetesti$ony supportin! it $ust e suffiiently stron! to prove that theri!ht of the alle!ed enefiiary with as $uh ertainty as if adou$ent were shown+ A trust annot e estalished, ontrary tothe reitals of a "orrens title, upon va!ue and inonlusive proof+

As a rule, the urden of provin! the eistene of a trust ison the party assertin! its eistene, and suh proof $ust e lear and satisfatorily show the eistene of the trust and itsele$ents+ hile i$plied trusts $ay e proved y oral evidene, theevidene $ust e trustworthy and reeived y the ourts withetre$e aution and should not e $ade to rest on loose, e;uivoal

or indefinite delarations+ "rustworthy evidene is re;uired eause oral evidene an easily e fariated+

"he route to the reversal of the trial ourtEs findin! that an i$plied trusthad een onstituted over the su5et realties is, thus, induitaly lear+

As a final point, this #ourt finds that the plaintiffappellee is not entitled to$oral da$a!es, attorneyEs fees and osts of liti!ation, onsiderin! that the instantase is learly a veatious and unfounded suit y hi$ filed a!ainst the estate of the late Ale5andro "y+ )ene, all these awards in the 5ud!$ent a ;uo are herey8/"8+?&@

"he #A therefore reversed and set aside the 5ud!$ent appealed fro$ and entered anotherone dis$issin! the o$plaint+

On Otoer 1&, 2004 the #A resolved to deny therein plaintiffappelleeEs $otion for reonsideration+?9@

)ene, this petition+

7etitioner su$its the followin! !rounds>

<* RHR<* ") "R<A/ #OKR"E JK8M*", ") #OKR" OA77A/ F

1+ MA8 A#"KA/ <*8<* ROK*88 O* MA*<"/NM<"AP* <*R*#, 7#K/A"<O*, KRM<, OR #O*J#"KR OR 7RM<8 O* ") A%*# O, OR AR







362

#O*"RA8<#"8 %N, ") H<8*# O* R#OR8, A*8 <")OK"#<"A"<O* O ") 7#<<# H<8*# O* )<#) ")N AR %A8+

2+ RK/8 ")A" ")R A A 7RKM8

8O*A"<O*:, )<#) < A MA""R *HR RA<8 A A* <K <* ")

#A A <", <* A#", #O*/<#" <") ") 7AR"<E R7#"<H")OR< O ") #A, A*8 ")K 87AR"8 ROM ") A##7"8A*8 KKA/ #OKR O JK8<#<A/ 7RO#8<* A "O #A// OR ")< )O*ORA%/ #OKR"E LR#< O <" 7OR OK7RH<<O*+

3+ A77/<8 ") 7ROH<<O* O* 7RKM7"<H

8O*A"<O* <* AHOR O A #)</8 <* AR"<#/ 144& O ") #<H</#O8 87<" A% "NE L7R 8#/ARA"<O* ")A" ) 8<8 *O"<*"*8 "O 8O*A" ") K%J#" 7RO7R"< "O A/LA*8R A*8")K 8#<88 A K"<O* O K%"A*# *O" ")R"OOR

8"RM<*8 %N ")< )O*ORA%/ #OKR"+ 4+ RK<R8 ")A" ") <M7/<8 "RK" % 7ROH*

<") 8O#KM*"ARN H<8*# A*8 ")K 8#<88 A K"<O*O K%"A*# <* A AN *O" <* A##OR8 <") /A A*8JKR<7RK8*#+?10@

"he #ourt disposes of the petition, as follows>





363

"he 8A 7roperty

7etitioner ontends that the 8A property, while re!istered in the na$e of his sonAleander "y, is overed y an i$plied trust in his favor under Artile 144& of the #ivil

#ode+ "his, petitioner ar!ues, is eause he paid the prie when the property was purhased anddid so for the purpose of havin! the enefiial interest of the property+

Artile 144& of the #ivil #ode provides>

Art+ 144&+ "here is an i$plied trust when property is sold, and the le!alestate is !ranted to one party ut the prie is paid y another for the purpose of havin! the enefiial interest of the property+ "he for$er is the trustee, while thelatter is the enefiiary+ )owever, if the person to who$ the title is onveyed is ahild, le!iti$ate or ille!iti$ate, of one payin! the prie of the sale, no trust isi$plied y law, it ein! disputaly presu$ed that there is a !ift in favor of the

hild+ "he #A oneded that at least part of the purhase prie of the 8A property a$e fro$

petitioner+ )owever, it ruled out the eistene of an i$plied trust eause of the last sentene of Artile 144&> )owever, if the person to who$ the title is onveyed is a hild, le!iti$ate or ille!iti$ate, of the one payin! the prie of the sale, no trust is i$plied y law, it ein! disputaly presu$ed that there is a !ift in favor of the hild+

7etitioner now lai$s that in so rulin!, the #A departed fro$ 5urisprudene in that suhwas not the theory of the parties+

7etitioner, however, for!ets that it was he who invo.ed Artile 144& of the #ivil #ode tolai$ the eistene of an i$plied trust+ %ut Artile 144& itself, in providin! for the soalled purhase $oney resultin! trust, also provides the para$eters of suh trust and adds, in the sa$e reath, the proviso> )owever, if the person to who$ the title is onveyed is a hild, le!iti$ateor ille!iti$ate, of the one payin! the prie of the sale, *O "RK" < <M7/<8 %N /A, it ein! disputaly presu$ed that there is a !ift in favor of the hild+: '$phasis supplied+(

tated otherwise, the outo$e is the neessary onse;uene of petitionerEs theory andar!u$ent and is inetrialy lin.ed to it y the law itself+

"he #A, therefore, did not err in si$ply applyin! the law+

Artile 144& of the #ivil #ode is lear+ <f the person to who$ the title is onveyed is thehild of the one payin! the prie of the sale, and in this ase this is undisputed, *O "RK" <<M7/<8 %N /A+ "he law, instead, disputaly presu$es a donation in favor of the hild+

On the ;uestion of whether or not petitioner intended a donation, the #A found that petitioner failed to prove the ontrary+ "his is a fatual findin! whih this #ourt sees no reasonthe reord to reverse+



364

"he net effet of all the fore!oin! is that respondent is oli!ed to ollate into the $ass of

the estate of petitioner, in the event of his death, the 8A property as an advane of AleanderEs share in the estate of his father,?11@ to the etent that petitioner provided a part of its purhase prie+

"he Meridien #ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. property+

7etitioner would have this #ourt overturn the findin! of the #A that as re!ards theMeridien #ondo$iniu$ and the a.a. property, petitioner failed to show that the $oneyused to purhase the sa$e a$e fro$ hi$+

A!ain, this is learly a fatual findin! and petitioner has advaned no onvinin! ar!u$entfor this #ourt to alter the findin!s reahed y the #A+

"he appellate ourt reahed its findin!s y a thorou!h and painsta.in! review of the

reords and has supported its onlusions point y point, providin! itations fro$ thereords+ "his #ourt is not inlined to reverse the sa$e+

A$on! the fats ited y the #A are the soures of ino$e of Aleander "y who had eenwor.in! for nine years when he purhased these two properties, who had a ar are usiness, andwas atively en!a!ed in the usiness dealin!s of several fa$ily orporations, fro$ whih hereeived e$olu$ents and other enefits+?12@

"he #A, therefore, ruled that with respet to the Meridien #ondo$iniu$ and the a.

a. property, no i$plied trust was reated eause there was no showin! that part of the purhase prie was paid y petitioner and, on the ontrary, the evidene showed that Aleander "y had the $eans to pay for the sa$e+

0HEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED in that the 8eision of the #ourt of Appeals dated July 2, 2004 and its Resolution dated Otoer 1&, 2004, in #A+R+ *o+ 660-3,are AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that respondent is oli!ed to ollate into the $assof the estate of petitioner, in the event of his death, the 8A property as an advane of Aleander "yEs share in the estate of his father, to the etent that petitioner provided a part of its purhase prie+

*o osts+

SO ORDERED1





Documents

Civ Rev_final battle!