Miguel - Rodriguez

7/23/2019 Miguel - Rodriguez

1/112

Miguel v Catalino

Direct appeal from the judgment in Civil Case No. 1090 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio, dismissing the plaintiffs

complaint for recover! of possession of a parcel of land, registered under "ct #9$, in the name of one Baca%uio,1 a long&

deceased illiterate non&Christian resident of 'ountain (rovince, and declaring the defendant to )e the true o*ner thereof.

+n anuar! --, 19$-, appellants imeon, /milia and 'arcelina 'iguel, and appellant race entura )rought suit in theCourt )elo* against Florendo Catalino for the recover! of the land a)ove&descri)ed, plaintiffs claiming to )e the children

and heirs of the original registered o*ner, and averred that defendant, *ithout their 2no*ledge or consent, had unla*full!

ta2en possession of the land, gathered its produce and unla*full! e3cluded plaintiffs therefrom. Defendant ans*ered

pleading o*nership and adverse possession for 40 !ears, and counterclaimed for attorne!s fees. "fter trial the Court

dismissed the complaint, declared defendant to )e the rightful o*ner, and ordered the 5egister of Deeds to issue a

transfer certificate in lieu of the original. (laintiffs appealed directl! to this Court, assailing the trial Courts findings of fact

and la*.

"s found )! the trial Court, the land in dispute is situated in the Barrio of an (ascual, 'unicipalit! of 6u)a, Benguet,

'ountain (rovince and contains an area of 49,##$ s%uare meters, more or less. It is covered )! +riginal Certificate of

6itle No. 41, *hich *as issued on -7 Decem)er 19-8 in the name of Baca%uio or Ba2a2e*:, a *ido*er. No encum)rance

or sale has ever )een annotated in the certificate of title.

6he plaintiff&appellant race entura- is the onl! child of Baca%uio )! his first *ife, De)sa!, and the other plaintiffs&

appellants, imeon, /milia and 'arcelina, all surnamed ;'iguel;, are his children )! his third *ife, Cosamang. (hil. 1-17= Del Castillo v. uerro, ?&1199#, -> ul! 19$0= ")u!o, et al.

v. De ua@o, ?&-1-0-, -9 +ct. 19$$= 17 C5" $00, $01:. Ae are thus constrained to discard appellants second and third

assignments of error.

In their first assignment, appellants assail the admission in evidence over the o)jection of the appellant of /3hi)it ;4;. 6his

e3hi)it is a decision in favor of the defendant&appellee against herein plaintiff&appellant race entura, )! the council of

Barrio of an (ascual, 6u)a, Benguet, in its "dministrative Case No. #, for the settlement of o*nership and possession of

the land. 6he decision is ultra vires )ecause )arrio councils, *hich are not courts, have no judicial po*ers ec. 1, "rt.

III, Constitution= see ec. 1-, 5ep. "ct -480, other*ise 2no*n as the Barrio Charter:. 6herefore, as contended )!

appellants, the e3hi)it is not admissi)le in a judicial proceeding as evidence for ascertaining the truth respecting the fact

of o*nership and possession ec. 1, 5ule 1-7, 5ules of Court:.

"ppellants are li2e*ise correct in claiming that the sale of the land in 19-7 )! Baca%uio to Catalino "g!apao, defendants

father, is null and void a) initio, for lac2 of e3ecutive approval 'anga!ao et al. vs. ?asud, et al., ?&19->-, -9 'a! 19$#:.


2/112

Not*ithstanding the errors aforementioned in the appealed decision, *e are of the opinion that the judgment in favor of

defendant&appellee Florendo Catalino must )e sustained. For despite the invalidit! of his sale to Catalino "g!apao, father

of defendant&appellee, the vendor Baca%uio suffered the latter to enter, possess and enjo! the land in %uestion *ithout

protest, from 19-7 to 19#4, *hen the seller died= and the appellants, in turn, *hile succeeding the deceased, also

remained inactive, *ithout ta2ing an! step to reivindicate the lot from 19## to 19$-, *hen the present suit *as

commenced in court. /ven granting appellants proposition that no prescription lies against their fathers recorded title,

their passivit! and inaction for more than 4# !ears 19-7&19$-: justifies the defendant&appellee in setting up the e%uita)le

defense of laches in his o*n )ehalf. "s a result, the action of plaintiffs&appellants must )e considered )arred and theCourt )elo* correctl! so held. Courts can not loo2 *ith favor at parties *ho, )! their silence, dela! and inaction, 2no*ingl!

induce another to spend time, effort and e3pense in cultivating the land, pa!ing ta3es and ma2ing improvements thereon

for 40 long !ears, onl! to spring from am)ush and claim title *hen the possessors efforts and the rise of land values offer

an opportunit! to ma2e eas! profit at his e3pense. In 'ejia de ?ucas vs. amponia, 100 (hil. -88, -71, this Court laid

do*n a rule that is here s%uarel! applica)le

pon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, *e are constrained to find, ho*ever, that *hile no legal

defense to the action lies, an e%uita)le one lies in favor of the defendant and that is, the e%uita)le defense of laches. Ae

hold that the defense of prescription or adverse possession in derogation of the title of the registered o*ner Domingo

'ejia does not lie, )ut that of the e%uita)le defense of laches. +ther*ise stated, *e hold that *hile defendant ma! not )e

considered as having ac%uired title )! virtue of his and his predecessors long continued possession for 48 !ears, the

original o*ners right to recover )ac2 the possession of the propert! and title thereto from the defendant has, )! the longperiod of 48 !ears and )! patentees inaction and neglect, )een converted into a stale demand.

"s in the amponia case, the four elements of laches are present in the case at )ar, namel! a: conduct on the part of

the defendant, or of one under *hom he claims, giving rise to the situation of *hich complaint is made and for *hich the

complaint see2s a remed!= ): dela! in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant having had 2no*ledge or

notice, of the defendants conduct and having )een afforded an opportunit! to institute a suit= c: lac2 of 2no*ledge or

notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant *ould assert the right on *hich he )ases his suit= and d: injur! or

prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to )e )arred. In the

case at )ar, Baca%uio sold the land in 19-7 )ut the sale is void for lac2 of the governors approval. 6he vendor, and also

his heirs after him, could have instituted an action to annul the sale from that time, since the! 2ne* of the invalidit! of the

sale, *hich is a matter of la*= the! did not have to *ait for 4# !ears to institute suit. 6he defendant *as made to feel

secure in the )elief that no action *ould )e filed against him )! such passivit!, and also )ecause he ;)ought; again theland in 19#9 from race entura *ho alone tried to %uestion his o*nership= so that the defendant *ill )e plainl!

prejudiced in the event the present action is not held to )e )arred.

6he difference )et*een prescription and laches *as ela)orated in Nielsen Co., Inc. vs. ?epanto Consolidated 'ining

Co., ?&-1$01, 18 Decem)er 19$$, 17 C5" p. 10#0, as follo*s

"ppellee is correct in its contention that the defense of laches applies independentl! of prescription. ?aches is different

from the statute of limitations. (rescription is concerned *ith the fact of dela!, *hereas laches is concerned *ith the effect

of dela!. (rescription is a matter of time= laches is principall! a %uestion of ine%uit! of permitting a claim to )e enforced,

this ine%uit! )eing founded on some change in the condition of the propert! or the relation of the parties. (rescription is

statutor!= laches is not. ?aches applies in e%uit!, *hereas prescription applies at la*. (rescription is )ased on fi3ed time

laches is not, 40 C..., p. >--. ee also (omero!s /%uit! urisprudence, ol. -, >th ed., p. 188: 17 C5" 10>4:.

Aith reference to appellant race entura, it is *ell to remar2 that her situation is even *orse than that of her co&heirs

and co&plaintiffs, in vie* of her e3ecuting an affidavit of transfer /3h. $: attesting under oath to her having sold the land in

controvers! to herein defendant&appellee, and the lo*er Courts finding that in 19#9 she *as paid (400.00 for it, )ecause

she, ;)eing a smart *oman of enterprise, threatened to cause trou)le if the defendant failed to give her (400.00 more,

)ecause her stand of )eing the o*ner of the land: *as )uttressed )! the fact that +riginal Certificate of 6itle No. 41 is still

in the name of her father, Baca%uio; Decision, 5ecord on "ppeal, p. -#:. 6his sale, that *as in fact a %uitclaim, ma! not

)e contested as needing e3ecutive approval= for it has not )een sho*n that race entura is a non&christian inha)itant

li2e her father, an essential fact that cannot )e assumed ale de (or2an vs. Eatco, 80 (hil. 1$1, 18>:.

ince the plaintiffs&appellants are )arred from recover!, their divestiture of all the elements of o*nership in the land is

complete= and the Court a %uo *as justified in ordering that Baca%uios original certificate )e cancelled, and a ne*transfer certificate in the name of Florendo Catalino )e issued in lieu thereof )! the 5egister of Deeds.

F+5 6


3/112

6he Case

Before us is a (etition for 5evie* on Certiorari under 5ule #> of the 5ules of Court, assailing the Novem)er -$, 1998

Decision of the Court of "ppeals,1G *hich disposed as follo*s

IN I/A +F 600,000.00: *ith interest at t*elve percent 1-H: per annum. Dra*ings from saiddemand loan *ere made on different dates as evidenced )! several promissor! notes and *ere credited to the account of

Fil&/astern. 6o secure the pa!ment of the said loan Fil&/astern as principal and sureties Ferreria, "tien@a, Novales, "gra,

and amo e3ecuted a uret! "greement *here)! the sureties, jointl! and severall! *ith the principal, guaranteed and

*arranted to (NB, its successors or assigns, prompt pa!ment of su)ject o)ligation including notes, drafts, )ills of

e3change, overdrafts and other o)ligations of ever! 2ind, on *hich Fil&/astern *as inde)ted or ma! thereafter )ecome

inde)ted to (NB. It *as further alleged that as of 'a! 41, 198$ the total inde)tedness of Fil&/astern and its sureties on

su)ject loan amounted to fGive mGillion tG*o hGundred nGinet!&sGeven tGhousand, nGine hGundred sGevent!&sGi3 pGesos

and sGeventeen cGentavos (>,-98,98$.18:, e3cluding attorne!s fees. Not*ithstanding repeated demands, the

defendants refused and failed to pa! their loans.

6he defendants herein sureties: filed separate ans*ers pp. #9, $7, -0>, -07 and -41:. Collating these, Ae dre* the

follo*ing "ll of them claimed that the! onl! signed the uret! "greement *ith the understanding that the same *as amere formalit! re%uired of the officers of the corporation. 6he! did not in an! *a! or manner receive a single cent from the

proceeds of said loan andor derive an! profit therefrom. Neither did the! receive an! consideration valua)le or other*ise,

from defendant Fil&/astern. 6he! further claim that the loan in %uestion *as negotiated and approved under highl!

irregular, anomalous and suspicious circumstances to the point that the uret! "greement e3ecuted thereafter is invalid,

null and void and *ithout force and effect. 6he e3tension of time of pa!ment of the loan in %uestion released and

discharged the ans*ering defendants from an! lia)ilit! under the uret! "greement. 6he uret! "greement is null and

void from the )eginning due to a defect in the consent of the defendants and that their lia)ilities under the uret!

"greement, if an!, has )een e3tinguished )! novation. 6he cause of action of the complainant is )arred )! laches and

estoppel in that the plaintiff *ith full 2no*ledge of the deteriorating financial condition of Fil&/astern did not ta2e steps to

collect from said defendant corporation *hile still solvent. 6he! also maintained that if an!one is lia)le for the pa!ment of

said loan, it is Felipe Esmael, r. and not them or it is onl! Fil&/astern and the controlling officers *ho profited and made

use of the proceeds of the loan. Defendant "gra li2e*ise said that he *as made to sign the uret! "greement and he didit )ecause of the moral influence and pressure e3erted upon him )! Felipe Esmael, r. their emplo!er at the time of

signing:, there)! arousing strong fears of losing a much needed emplo!ment to support his famil! should he refuse to

sign as uret!.

In the order of the trial court dated +cto)er 40, 1987, defendant Fil&/astern *as declared in default for its failure to

ans*er the complaint *ithin the reglementar! period and the case *as scheduled for pre&trial conference. 6he individual

defendants *ith the courts approval thereafter filed an amended third&part! complaint against Felipe Esmael, r.


4/112

6he amended third&part! complaint alleged that at the time of e3ecution of the alleged uret! "greement su)ject matter of

the principal complaint, third&part! plaintiffs *ere )ut emplo!ees of Esmael teel 'anufacturing Co., o*ned )! third&part!&

defendant. 6hird&part!&plaintiffs *ere in no financial position to act as sureties to a (-.> million loan. 6he! )ecame

incorporators of original defendant Fil&/astern )ecause of fear of losing their emplo!ment )rought a)out )! the

tremendous pressure and moral influence e3erted upon them )! their emplo!er&third&part!&defendant. 6he! signed the

uret! "greement upon the order of the third&part!&defendant. In signing the said document, the third&part!&plaintiffs *ere

assured )! the third&part!&defendant that the! had nothing to fear and *orr! a)out )ecause the latter *ill assume all

lia)ilities as *ell as profits therefrom and that the loan su)ject of the uret! "greement *as *ith the prior approval and)lessing of a high government official. 6he! *ere li2e*ise assured that the suret! agreement *as )ut a formalit! and that

)ecause of such pressure, influence as *ell as assurances, third&part!&plaintiffs signed the uret! "greement.

6hird&part!&defendant Felipe Esmael, r. in his ans*er alleged that the uret! "greement *as freel! and voluntaril!

signed and e3ecuted )! third&part!&plaintiffs *ithout an! intimidation, undue, improper or fraudulent representations.

Further, granting arguendo that the consent of third&part! plaintiffs in signing said uret! "greement *as vitiated *ith

intimidation, undue influence or fraudulent representation on the part of third&part!&defendant, said uret! "greement is

onl! voida)le and therefore )inding unless annulled )! a proper action in court. 6he third&part!&plaintiffs did not file the

proper court action for the annulment of said agreement. 6he! are no* )arred from filing an action for annulment of said

agreement, the prescriptive period therefor )eing onl! four #: !ears from the time the defect of the consent had ceased,

and from the discover! of the alleGged fraud. In addition, third&part! plaintiffs had ratified said agreement *hich the!

signed in ul! 19$8 )! signing their names on and e3ecution of several promissor! thereafter.

"t the pre&trial conference held on 'arch -1, 1970, the parties failed to agree on a possi)le amica)le settlement hence

the case *as set for trial on the merits. +n ul! >, 197#, during the pendenc! of the trial, third&part! defendant Felipe

Esmael, r. died. G

6he Court of "ppeals also noted that the prescriptive period did not )egin to run from Decem)er 41, 19$7 as herein

petitionersG presupposed. It *as onl! from the time of the judicial demand on "ugust 40, 198$ that the cause of action

accrued. 6hus, private respondentG *as *ell *ithin the prescriptive period of ten !ears *hen it instituted the case in court.

6he Court of "ppeals further ruled that placing the )lame on (NBG for its failure to immediatel! pounce upon its de)tors

the moment the loan matured is grossl! unfair for 333 demand upon the sureties to pa! is not necessar!.

6he appellate court also held that petitioners proved onl! the first of the follo*ing four essential elements of laches 1:conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under *hom he claims, giving rise to the situation of *hich complaint is made

and for *hich the complainant see2s a remed!= -: dela! in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant having had

2no*ledge or notice of the defendants conduct and having )een afforded an opportunit! to institute a suit= 4: lac2 of

2no*ledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant *ould assert the right on *hich he )ases his suit=

and #: injur! or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held )arred.

Issues

In their 'emorandum, petitioners raise the follo*ing issues$G

1. A


5/112

1&) A


6/112

Ae shall no* go to the main issue of this case Ahether petitioners ma! invo2e the defense of laches, considering that

(NBs claim had not !et prescri)ed.

'ain Issue ?aches

(etitioners admit that (NBs claim, though filed more than seven !ears from the maturit! of the o)ligation, fell *ithin the

ten&!ear prescriptive period. 6he! argue, ho*ever, that the cause *as alread! )arred )! laches, *hich is defined as the

failure or neglect for an unreasona)le or une3plained length of time to do that *hich )! e3ercising due diligence, could or

should have )een done earlier *arranting a presumption that he has a)andoned his right or declined to assert it.8G Inarguing that the appellate court erred in rejecting the defense of laches, petitioners cite four reasons 1: the defense of

laches applies independentl! of prescription= -: the cause of action against petitioners accrued from the maturit! of the

o)ligation, not from the time of judicial demand= 4: the four *ell&settled elements of laches *ere dul! proven= and #: (NB

v. C" applies in the instant case. "s *ill )e sho*n )elo*, all these arguments are devoid of merit.

"pplication of ?aches

"ssailing the C" ruling that laches *as inapplica)le )ecause the claim *as )rought *ithin the ten&!ear prescriptive period,

petitioners stress that the defense of laches differs from and is applied independentl! of prescription. In support, the! cite,

among others, Nielson Co., Inc. v. ?epanto Consolidated 'ining Co.,7G in *hich the upreme Court ruled

6Ghe defense of laches applies independentl! of prescription. ?aches is different from the statute of limitations.(rescription is concerned *ith the fact of dela!, *hereas laches is concerned *ith the effect of dela!. (rescription is a

matter of time= laches is principall! a %uestion of ine%uit! of permitting a claim to )e enforced, this ine%uit! )eing founded

on some change in the condition of the propert! or the relation of the parties. (rescription is statutor!= laches is not.

?aches applies in e%uit!= *hereas prescription applies at la*. (rescription is )ased on fi3ed time, laches is not.

6rue, prescription is different from laches, )ut petitioners reliance on Nielson is misplaced. "s held in the aforecited case,

laches is principall! a %uestion of e%uit!. Necessaril!, there is no a)solute rule as to *hat constitutes laches or staleness

of demand= each case is to )e determined according to its particular circumstances. 6he %uestion of laches is addressed

to the sound discretion of the court and since laches is an e%uita)le doctrine, its application is controlled )! e%uita)le

considerations.9G (etitioners, ho*ever, failed to sho* that the collection suit against herein sureties *as ine%uita)le.

5emedies in e%uit! address onl! situations tainted *ith ine%uit!, not those e3pressl! governed )! statutes. Indeed, the

petitioners failed to prove the presence of all the four esta)lished re%uisites of laches, vi@

1: conduct on the part of the defendant or one under *hom he claims, giving rise to the situation of *hich complaint is

made and for *hich the complainant see2s a remed!=

-: dela! in asserting the complainants right, the complainant having had 2no*ledge or notice of defendants conduct and

having )een afforded an opportunit! to institute a suit=

4: lac2 of 2no*ledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant *ould assert the right on *hich he )ases

his claim= and

#: injur! or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held )arred.10G

6hat the first element e3ists is undisputed. Neither Fil&/astern nor the sureties, herein petitioners, paid the o)ligation

under the uret! "greement.

6he second element cannot )e deemed to e3ist. "lthough the collection suit *as filed more than seven !ears after the

o)ligation of the sureties )ecame due, the lapse *as *ithin the prescriptive period for filing an action. In this light, *e find

immaterial petitioners insistence that the cause of action accrued on Decem)er 41, 19$7, *hen the o)ligation )ecame

due, and not on "ugust 40, 198$, *hen the judicial demand *as made. In either case, )oth su)missions fell *ithin the

ten&!ear prescriptive period. In an! event, the fact of dela!, standing alone, is insufficient to constitute laches.11G

(etitioners insist that the dela! of seven !ears *as unreasona)le and une3plained, )ecause demand *as not necessar!.

"gain *e point that, unless reasons of ine%uita)le proportions are adduced, a dela! *ithin the prescriptive period is

sanctioned )! la* and is not considered to )e a dela! that *ould )ar relief. In Chave@ v. Bonto&(ere@,1-G the Court

reiterated an earlier holding, vi@

?aches is a doctrine in e%uit! *hile prescription is )ased on la*. +ur courts are )asicall! courts of la* and not courts of

e%uit!. 6hus, laches cannot )e invo2ed to resist the enforcement of an e3isting legal right. Ae have ruled in "rsenal v.

Intermediate "ppellate Court 3 3 3 that it is a long standing principle that e%uit! follo*s the la*. Courts e3ercising e%uit!

jurisdiction are )ound )! rules of la* and have no ar)itrar! discretion to disregard them. In a)at, r. v. Court of "ppeals 3

3 3, this Court *as more emphatic in upholding the rules of procedure. Ae said therein


7/112

"s for e%uit!, *hich has )een aptl! descri)ed as justice outside legalit!, this is applied onl! in the a)sence of, and never

against, statutor! la* or, as in this case, judicial rules of procedure. "e%uetas nun%uam contravenit legis. 6his pertinent

positive rules )eing present here, the! should preempt and prevail over all a)stract arguments )ased onl! on e%uit!.

6hus, *here the claim *as filed *ithin the three&!ear statutor! period, recover! therefore cannot )e )arred )! laches.

(etitioners also failed to prove the third element of laches. It is a)surd to maintain that petitioners did not 2no* that (NB

*ould assert its right under the uret! "greement. It is unnatural, if not unheard of, for )an2s to condone de)ts *ithout

ade%uate recompense in some other form. (etitioners have not given us reason *h! the! assumed that (NB *ould notenforce the "greement against them.

Finall!, petitioners maintain that the fourth element is present )ecause the! *ould suffer damage or injur! as a result of

(NBs claim. 6his is the cru3 of the controvers!. In addition to the pa!ment of the amount stipulated in the "greement,

other e%uita)le grounds *ere enumerated )! petitioners, vi@

1. (etitioners acted as sureties under pressure from Felipe Ba)! Esmael, r., the headman of the Esmael roup of

Companies *here the petitioners *ere all emplo!ed in various e3ecutive positions.

-. (etitioners did not receive a single centavo in consideration of their acting as sureties.

4. 6he suret! agreement *as not reall! a re%uisite for the grant of the loan to FI?&/"6/5N )ecause the first release onthe loan *as made on ul! 18, 19$8, or even )efore the uret! "greement *as e3ecuted )! petitioners on ul! -1, 19$8.

#. (etitioners *ere assured that the uret! "greement *as merel! a formalit!, and the! had reason to )elieve that

assurance )ecause the loan *as principall! secured )! an assignment of 1>H of the proceeds of the sale of logs of FI?&

/"6/5N to I*ai Co., ?td., and such assignment *as clearl! stated in (NB Board 5esolution No. #08. In fact, *hile it

*as e3pressl! stated in all of the eight 7: promissor! notes covering the releases of the loan that the said loan *as

secured )! 1>H of the contract of sale *ith I*ai Co., ?td., onl! three 4: promissor! notes stated that the loan *as also

secured )! the joint and several signatures of the officers of the corporation. It is to )e noted that no mention *as even

made of the joint and several signatures of petitioners as sureties. In other *ords, the principal securit! *as the

assignment of 1>H of the contract for the sale of logs to I*ai Co., ?td.

>. For reasons not e3plained )! (NB, (NB did not collect the 1>H of the proceeds of the sale of the logs to I*ai Co.,?td., and such failure resulted in the non&collection of the (-,>00,000.00 demand loan, or at least a portion of it.

$. For reasons li2e*ise une3plained )! (NB, (NB did not ma2e an! demand upon petitioners to pa! the unpaid loan of

FI?&/"6/5N until after FI?&/"6/5N had )ecome )an2rupt, and (NB *as a*are of this fact )ecause it foreclosed the

chattel mortgages on the other loans of FI?&/"6/5N *hich *ere secured )! said chattel mortgages.14G /mphasis

found in the original.:

6hese circumstances do not justif! the application of laches. 5ather, the! disclose petitioners failure to understand the

language and the nature of the uret! "rrangement. 6he! cannot no* argue that the uret! "greement *as merel! a

formalit!, secondar! to the assignment of 1> percent of the proceeds of the sale of Fil&/asterns logs to I*ai and Co., ?td.

Neither can the! rel! on (NBs failure to collect the assigned share in the sale of the logs or to ma2e a demand on

petitioners until after Fil&/astern had )ecome )an2rupt. 6he Court stresses that the o)ligation of a suret! is direct, primar!

and a)solute. 6hus, the Court has held

"Glthough the contract of a suret! is in essence secondar! onl! to a valid principal o)ligation, his lia)ilit! to the creditor or

promisee of the principal is said to )e direct, primar!, and a)solute= in other *ords, he is directl! and e%uall! )ound *ith

the principal. 6he suret! therefore )ecomes lia)le for the de)t or dut! of another although he possesses no direct or

personal interest over the o)ligations nor does he receive an! )enefit therefrom.1#G

Ahen petitioners signed as sureties, the! e3pressl! and une%uivocall! agreed to the stipulation that the lia)ilit! on this

guarant! shall )e solidar!, direct and immediate and not contingent upon the pursuit )! the creditor, its successors,

indorsees or assigns, of *hatever remedies it or the! have against the principal or the securities or liens it or the! ma!

possess.

If the! had mista2en the import of the uret! "greement, the! could have easil! as2ed for its revocation. 6he "greementstipulates that it ma! )e revo2ed )! the uret! at an! time, )ut onl! after fort!&eight hours notice in *riting to the Creditor,

and such revocation shall not operate to relieve the uret! from responsi)ilit! for o)ligations incurred )! the (rincipal prior

to the termination of such period. 6his the! did not do.

/%uall! unavailing is petitioners allegation that the uret! "greement *as not a re%uisite for the grant of the loan. /ven if

their assertion is true, the fact remains that the! signed the contract and voluntaril! )ound themselves to )e solidaril!

lia)le for the loan amounting to (-,>00,000.


8/112

6he other e%uita)le circumstances a)ove enumerated fail to support petitioners cause. "s earlier stated, petitioners are

alread! )arred from %uestioning the voluntariness of their consent. Furthermore, this Court has categoricall! ruled that a

suret! is lia)le for the de)t of another, although he or she received no )enefit therefrom.1>G

Clearl!, aside from the fact that the collection suit *as filed onl! after the lapse of seven !ears from the date the o)ligation

)ecame due and demanda)le, petitioners failed to adduce an! sho*ing of ine%uit!. , (NBs International Department

noticed an error and sent a service message to /("C Ban2. 6he latter replied *ith the instructions that the amount of

O1#,000 should onl! )e for O1,#00.

+n the )asis of the ca)le message dated Fe)ruar! -#, 198>, Cashiers Chec2 No. -$9>-- in the amount of O1,#00

(9,88-.9$: representing reim)ursement from tar List, *as issued )! the tar List for the account of 'ata on Fe)ruar!

->, 198> through the Insular Ban2 of "sia and "merica IB"":.


9/112

"rrangement, and the la* sa!s that the said contract can )e enforced )! action *ithin ten !ears. 6he )an2 and the

sureties all 2ne* that the action to enforce the contract did not have to )e filed immediatel!. In other *ords, the )an2

committed no mista2e or ine%uita)le conduct that needed correction, and the sureties had no misconception a)out their

lia)ilities under the contract.

Clearl!, petitioners have no recourse in e%uit!, )ecause the! failed to sho* an! ine%uit! on the part of (NB.

"dditional Issue ?ia)ilit! of Conjugal "ssets

In their 'emorandum, petitioners )elatedl! as2 the Court to rule that, in case of a court ruling adverse to them, the

conjugal properties *ould not )e lia)le for the hus)ands de)ts that did not redound to the )enefit of the conjugal

partnership.17G

6his issue cannot )e allo*ed, for it is )eing raised for the first time onl! in petitioners 'emorandum. Issues, arguments,

theories and causes of action not raised )elo* ma! no longer )e posed on appeal.19G Furthermore, petitioners are

as2ing the Court to issue a ruling on a h!pothetical situation. In effect, the! are as2ing the Court to render an advisor!

opinion, a tas2 *hich is )e!ond its constitutional mandate.

A


10/112

ometime in anuar! 1999, petitioners entered and too2 possession of ?ot 4>44 )! )uilding a small nipa hut thereon.

5espondents then filed )efore the 'unicipal 6rial Court '6C: of 'angaldan, (angasinan an ejectment case against

petitioners. In an +rder7G dated Decem)er 9, 1999, the '6C dismissed the case as )oth parties pra!ed for its dismissal

considering that petitioners had alread! left ?ot 4>44 immediatel! after the filing of the complaint.

+n "pril >, 1999, petitioners filed *ith the 56C of Dagupan Cit! a Complaint for annulment of document, reconve!ance

and damages against respondents alleging that 1: the estate of their grandfather (a)lo has not !et )een settled or

partitioned among his heirs nor had (a)lo made disposition of his properties during his lifetime= -: it *as onl! through

their tolerance that uana and his children constructed their house on ?ot 4>>9= 4: the sale of the disputed propert! made

)! uana to respondents&spouses Cereno and the issuance of ta3 declarations in the latters names are null and void.

(etitioners pra!ed for the annulment of the deed of sale, cancellation of 6a3 Declaration Nos. -1-$7 and -1-$9, the

reconve!ance of the propert! to them and damages.

In their "ns*er, respondents claimed that after the death of (a)los first *ife, (a)lo partitioned his propert! among his

children and that spouses Nicomedes and Cristita elas%ue@ ac%uired most of the properties as the! *ere more

financiall! capa)le= that at the time (a)lo married uana, the properties he had *ere his e3clusive share in the partition=

that of the t*o parcels of land (a)lo had at that time, he donated the su)ject propert! to uana in a donation propter

nuptias *hen the! married= that the deed of donation *as lost during the apanese occupation and such loss *as

evidenced )! the oint "ffidavit e3ecuted )! "lfredo de u@man and 6eofilo Cendana attesting to such donation= that

uana could validl! conve! the propert! to the pouses Cereno at the time of the sale )ecause she *as the o*ner= andthat the! have )een in pu)lic and uninterrupted possession of the disputed lot since its ac%uisition and have )een pa!ing

the realt! ta3es due thereon. "s affirmative defense, respondents contended that petitioners rights over the propert! *ere

alread! )arred )! the statute of limitations.

"fter trial, the 56C rendered its Decision9G dated Novem)er 10, -000, the dispositive portion of *hich reads

A


11/112

in possession of the disputed propert! at the time of the sale, *as the o*ner and could transfer the propert! to them )!

sale.

6he C" also gave pro)ative value to the deed of sale e3ecuted )! uana in favor of respondents pouses Cereno as it is

still an evidence of the fact of transaction )et*een uana and respondents pouses Cereno for the sale of the disputed

propert!. 6he C" found that the deed of sale and the joint affidavit assumed great importance on the issue of prescription.

6he C" found that uana possessed the propert! in the concept of an o*ner, *hich is a sufficient )asis for the )elief that

uana *as the o*ner of the propert! she conve!ed )! sale and respondents pouses Cereno had the good faith thatac%uisition )! prescription re%uires *hen the! )ecame the purchasers in the contract of sale *ith her . 6he C" further

stated that a sale, coupled *ith the deliver! of the propert! sold, is one of the recogni@ed modes of ac%uiring o*nership of

real propert! and that respondents pouses Cereno immediatel! too2 possession of the propert! *hich sho*ed that

respondent pouses Cereno have just title to the propert!.

6he C" further found that respondents pouses Cereno are in peaceful possession of the propert! for -9 !ears and, thus,

have satisfied the ten&!ear period of open, pu)lic and adverse possession in the concept of an o*ner that the la* on

prescription re%uires. 6he C" added that petitioners are no* )arred )! laches from claiming o*nership of the disputed

propert! as the! have )een negligent in asserting their rights.

(etitioners motion for reconsideration *as denied in a 5esolution dated "pril -9, -00>.

(etitioners raise the follo*ing issues for our consideration

A


12/112

6he good faith of the possessor consists in the reasona)le )elief that the person from *hom he received the thing *as the

o*ner thereof, and could transmit his o*nership.--G For purposes of prescription, there is just title *hen the adverse

claimant came into possession of the propert! through one of the modes recogni@ed )! la* for the ac%uisition of

o*nership or other real rights, )ut the grantor *as not the o*ner or could not transmit an! right.-4G

5ecords sho* that as earl! as 1980, *hen the propert! *as sold )! uana to respondents pouses Cereno, the latter

immediatel! too2 possession of the propert!. ince then, respondents possessed the propert! continuousl!, openl!,

peacefull!, in the concept of an o*ner, e3clusivel! and in good faith *ith just title, to the e3clusion of the petitioners and

their predecessors&in&interest until the filing of the complaint in 1999 *hich is the su)ject of this present petition.

Nota)l!, the propert! *as traversed )! a )aranga! road, thus, it *as divided into t*o lots. 6he house of respondents is

located on the eastern part of the road, *hile the lot on the *estern part of the road *as planted to fruit& )earing trees )!

respondents.-#G It *as admitted )! petitioners that the! sa* the house of respondents constructed on the lot and !et

never %uestioned the same.->G It *as also esta)lished that respondents are the ones gathering the fruits of the land and

enjo!ing the same-$G to the e3clusion of petitioners and !et the latter never prevented them from doing so. In fact, *hile

petitioners learned of the sale of the propert! )! uana to the pouses Cereno in 1970, the! never too2 an! action to

protect *hatever rights the! have over the propert! nor raised an! o)jection on respondents possession of the propert!.

(etitioners inaction is aggravated )! the fact that petitioners just live a mere 100 meters a*a! from the propert!.-8G

'oreover, immediatel! after the sale of the propert! to the pouses Cereno, the! declared the propert! in their names for

ta3ation purposes-7G and since then religiousl! paid the ta3es-9G due on the propert!. (etitioners admitted that the!

2ne* that the pouses Cerenos are the ones pa!ing the ta3es=40G !et, the! never challenged the same for a long period

of time *hich clearl! esta)lishes respondents claim as o*ners of the propert!. urisprudence is clear that although ta3

declarations or realt! ta3 pa!ments of propert! are not conclusive evidence of o*nership, nevertheless, the! are good

indicia of possession in the concept of o*ner, for no one in his right mind *ould )e pa!ing ta3es for a propert! that is not

in his actual or at least constructive possession.41G 6he! constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over

the propert!.4-G "s is *ell 2no*n, the pa!ment of ta3es, coupled *ith actual possession of the land covered )! the ta3

declaration, strongl! supports a claim of o*nership.44G

5espondent uanito also e3ercised dominion over the propert! )! mortgaging the same to 'anaoag 5ural Ban2 in

199#4#G and the mortgage *as cancelled onl! in anuar! 1999.4>G

Ahile there is a %uestion regarding the alleged donation propter nuptias at the time uana e3ecuted the deed of sale in

favor of the pouses Cereno in 1980, ho*ever, the re%uirement of just title and good faith are still satisfied in this case. "s

the C" said

3 3 3 6Ghe joint affidavit that the defendants&appellants presented, attesting to the donation propter nuptias of the disputed

propert! )! (a)lo to uana, can )e the )asis of the )elief in good faith that uana *as the o*ner of the disputed propert!.

5elated to this, it is undisputed that (a)lo and uana had lived in the disputed propert! from the time of their marriage in

1919, and uana continued to live and to possess this propert! in the concept of an o*ner from the time of (a)los death

in 194$ up to the time she sold it to spouses Cereno in 1980. 6hese circumstances, in our vie*, are sufficient )ases for

the )elief that uana *as the o*ner of the propert! she conve!ed )! sale, and leave us convinced that the spouses

Cereno had the good faith that ac%uisition )! prescription re%uires *hen the! )ecame the purchasers in the contract of

sale *ith uana.4$G

Nota)l!, one of the affiants in the joint affidavit *hich *as e3ecuted in 1980 *as "lfredo, (a)los son )! his first marriage,

*here he attested that the propert! *as given )! his father (a)lo to uana )! donation propter nuptias. Not one among

"lfredos children had ever come out to assail the validit! of the affidavit e3ecuted )! their father. In fact, not one of

"lfredos heirs joined petitioners in this case.48G 'oreover, not one among the children of the first marriage *hen the!

*ere still alive ever made a claim on their successional rights over the propert! )! as2ing for its partition. uch joint

affidavit could constitute a legal )asis for uanas adverse and e3clusive character of the possession of the propert!47G

and *ould sho* the pouses Cerenos good faith )elief that uana *as the o*ner of the propert!. 6hus, *hen petitioners

filed the instant case, more than -9 !ears had alread! elapsed, thus, the ten&!ear period for ac%uisitive prescription has

alread! )een satisfied.

Ae li2e*ise agree *ith the C" *hen it found that petitioners are guilt! of laches that *ould )ar them from )elatedl!

asserting their claim.

?aches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasona)le and une3plained length of time, *arranting a

presumption that the part! entitled to assert it has either a)andoned or declined to assert it. 6his e%uita)le defense is

)ased upon grounds of pu)lic polic!, *hich re%uires the discouragement of stale claims for the peace of societ!.49G

uana sold the propert! to the pouses Cereno in 1980 and since then have possessed the propert! peacefull! and

pu)licl! *ithout an! opposition from petitioners. Ahile petitioners claim that the! 2ne* a)out the sale onl! in 1970 !et the!

did not ta2e an! action to recover the same and *aited until 1999 to file a suit *ithout offering an! e3cuse for such dela!.


13/112

5ecords do not sho* an! justifia)le reason for petitioners inaction for a long time in asserting *hatever rights the! have

over the propert! given the pu)licit! of respondents conduct as o*ners of the propert!.

A of

the Court of "ppeals in C"&.5. C No. $9##$ are "FFI5'/D.

+ +5D/5/D.

Abalos v Torio

Before the Court is a petition for revie* on certiorari see2ing to set aside the Decision1 dated une 40, -00$ and

5esolution- dated Novem)er 14, -00$ )! the Court of "ppeals C": in C"&.5. ( No. 91778. 6he assailed Decision

reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated une 1#, -00> of the 5egional 6rial Court 56C: of ?inga!en, (angasinan,

Branch $9, *hile the %uestioned 5esolution denied petitioners 'otion for 5econsideration.

6he factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follo*s

+n ul! -#, 199$, herein respondents filed a Complaint for 5ecover! of (ossession and Damages *ith the 'unicipal 6rial

Court '6C: of Binmale!, (angasinan against aime ")alos aime: and the spouses Feli3 and Consuelo ala@ar.

5espondents contended that the! are the children and heirs of one icente 6orio icente: *ho died intestate on

eptem)er 11, 1984= at the time of the death of icente, he left )ehind a parcel of land measuring -,9>0 s%uare meters,

more or less, *hich is located at an Isidro Norte, Binmale!, (angasinan= during the lifetime of icente and through his

tolerance, aime and the pouses ala@ar *ere allo*ed to sta! and )uild their respective houses on the su)ject parcel of

land= even after the death of icente, herein respondents allo*ed aime and the pouses ala@ar to remain on the

disputed lot= ho*ever, in 197>, respondents as2ed aime and the pouses ala@ar to vacate the su)ject lot, )ut the!

refused to heed the demand of respondents forcing respondents to file the complaint.#

aime and the pouses ala@ar filed their "ns*er *ith Counterclaim, den!ing the material allegations in the Complaint

and asserting in their pecial and "ffirmative Defenses that respondents cause of action is )arred )! ac%uisitive

prescription= the court a %uo has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action and the persons of the defendants= the

a)solute and e3clusive o*ners and possessors of the disputed lot are the deceased predecessors of defendants=defendants and their predecessors&in&interest had )een in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the su)ject lot

as o*ners since time immemorial= defendants are faithfull! and religiousl! pa!ing real propert! ta3es on the disputed lot

as evidenced )! 5eal (ropert! 6a3 5eceipts= the! have continuousl! introduced improvements on the said land, such as

houses, trees and other 2inds of ornamental plants *hich are in e3istence up to the time of the filing of their "ns*er.>

+n the same date as the filing of defendants "ns*er *ith Counterclaim, herein petitioners filed their "ns*er in

Intervention *ith Counterclaim. ?i2e the defendants, herein petitioners claimed that their predecessors&in&interest *ere the

a)solute and e3clusive o*ners of the land in %uestion= that petitioners and their predecessors had )een in possession of

the su)ject lot since time immemorial up to the present= the! have paid real propert! ta3es and introduced improvements

thereon.$

"fter the issues *ere joined, trial ensued.

+n Decem)er 10, -004, the '6C issued a Decision, the dispositive portion of *hich reads as follo*s

A0 s%.

m., more or less, )ounded and descri)ed in paragraph 4 of the Complaint:G= ordering the defendants and defendants&

intervenors to remove their respective houses standing on the land in dispute= further ordering the defendants and

defendants&intervenors, either singl! or jointl! to pa! the plaintiffs land rent in the amount of (1-,000.00 per !ear to )e

rec2oned starting the !ear 199$ until defendants and defendants&intervenors *ill finall! vacate the premises= furthermore,

defendants and defendants&intervenors are also ordered to pa!, either singl! or jointl!, the amount of (10,000.00 as and

)! *a! of attorne!s fees and costs of suit.

+ +5D/5/D.8

aime and the pouses ala@ar appealed the Decision of the '6C *ith the 56C of ?inga!en, (angasinan.7 , the 56C ruled in favor of aime and the pouses ala@ar, holding that the! have

ac%uired the su)ject propert! through prescription. "ccordingl!, the 56C dismissed herein respondents complaint.

"ggrieved, herein respondents filed a petition for revie* *ith the C" assailing the Decision of the 56C.


14/112

+n une 40, -00$, the C" promulgated its %uestioned Decision, the dispositive portion of *hich reads, thus

A


15/112

In the present case, the findings of fact of the '6C and the C" are in conflict *ith those of the 56C.

"fter a revie* of the records, ho*ever, the Court finds that the petition must fail as it finds no error in the findings of fact

and conclusions of la* of the C" and the '6C.

(etitioners claim that the! have ac%uired o*nership over the disputed lot through ordinar! ac%uisitive prescription.

"c%uisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights ma! )e ordinar! or e3traordinar!.1$ +rdinar! ac%uisitive

prescription re%uires possession in good faith and *ith just title for ten 10: !ears.18 Aithout good faith and just title,ac%uisitive prescription can onl! )e e3traordinar! in character *hich re%uires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirt!

40: !ears.17

(ossession in good faith consists in the reasona)le )elief that the person from *hom the thing is received has )een the

o*ner thereof, and could transmit his o*nership.19 6here is just title *hen the adverse claimant came into possession of

the propert! through one of the modes recogni@ed )! la* for the ac%uisition of o*nership or other real rights, )ut the

grantor *as not the o*ner or could not transmit an! right.-0

In the instant case, it is clear that during their possession of the propert! in %uestion, petitioners ac2no*ledged o*nership

thereof )! the immediate predecessor&in&interest of respondents. 6his is clearl! sho*n )! the 6a3 Declaration in the name

of aime for the !ear 197# *herein it contains a statement admitting that aimes house *as )uilt on the land of icente,

respondents immediate predecessor&in&interest.-1 (etitioners never disputed such an ac2no*ledgment. 6hus, having2no*ledge that the! nor their predecessors&in&interest are not the o*ners of the disputed lot, petitioners possession could

not )e deemed as possession in good faith as to ena)le them to ac%uire the su)ject land )! ordinar! prescription. In this

respect, the Court agrees *ith the C" that petitioners possession of the lot in %uestion *as )! mere tolerance of

respondents and their predecessors&in&interest. "cts of possessor! character e3ecuted due to license or )! mere

tolerance of the o*ner are inade%uate for purposes of ac%uisitive prescription.-- (ossession, to constitute the foundation

of a prescriptive right, must )e en concepto de dueo, or, to use the common la* e%uivalent of the term, that possession

should )e adverse, if not, such possessor! acts, no matter ho* long, do not start the running of the period of

prescription.-4

'oreover, the C" correctl! held that even if the character of petitioners possession of the su)ject propert! had )ecome

adverse, as evidenced )! their declaration of the same for ta3 purposes under the names of their predecessors&in&

interest, their possession still falls short of the re%uired period of thirt! 40: !ears in cases of e3traordinar! ac%uisitiveprescription. 5ecords sho* that the earliest 6a3 Declaration in the name of petitioners *as in 198#. 5ec2oned from such

date, the thirt!&!ear period *as completed in -00#. In the present case, the Court finds no error on the

part of the C" in holding that petitioners failed to present competent evidence to prove their alleged good faith in neither

possessing the su)ject lot nor their adverse claim thereon. Instead, the records *ould sho* that petitioners possession

*as )! mere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors&in&interest.

Finall!, as to the issue of *hether the due e3ecution and authenticit! of the deed of sale upon *hich respondents anchortheir o*nership *ere not proven, the Court notes that petitioners did not raise this matter in their "ns*er as *ell as in their

(re&6rial Brief. It *as onl! in their Comment to respondents (etition for 5evie* filed *ith the C" that the! raised this

issue. ettled is the rule that points of la*, theories, issues, and arguments not ade%uatel! )rought to the attention of the

trial court need not )e, and ordinaril! *ill not )e, considered )! a revie*ing court.-$ 6he! cannot )e raised for the first

time on appeal. 6o allo* this *ould )e offensive to the )asic rules of fair pla!, justice and due process.-8

/ven granting that the issue of due e3ecution and authenticit! *as properl! raised, the Court finds no cogent reason to

depart from the findings of the C", to *it

Based on the foregoing, respondents aime ")alos and the pouses Feli3 and Consuelo ala@arG have not inherited the

disputed land )ecause the same *as sho*n to have alread! )een validl! sold to 'arcos 6orio, *ho, thereupon, assigned

the same to his son icente, the father of petitioners herein respondentsG. " valid sale *as ampl! esta)lished and thesaid validit! su)sists )ecause the deed evidencing the same *as dul! notari@ed.

6here is no dou)t that the deed of sale *as dul! ac2no*ledged )efore a notar! pu)lic. "s a notari@ed document, it has in

its favor the presumption of regularit! and it carries the evidentiar! *eight conferred upon it *ith respect to its due

e3ecution. It is admissi)le in evidence *ithout further proof of its authenticit! and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its

face.-7


16/112

Indeed, settled is the rule in our jurisdiction that a notari@ed document has in its favor the presumption of regularit!, and to

overcome the same, there must )e evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merel! preponderant= other*ise, the

document should )e upheld.-9 In the instant case, petitioners )are denials *ill not suffice to overcome the presumption of

regularit! of the assailed deed of sale.

A>-, *ith an area of >80 s%. m., located at 'agsa!sa! "venue, one

>, Bulan, orsogon. "fter he died, his five children, alvacion, "spren, Isa)el, 'acario, and Dionisia divided ?ot No. >>-

e%uall! among themselves. ?ater, Dionisia died *ithout issue ahead of her four si)lings, and 'acario too2 possession of

Dionisias share. In an affidavit of transfer of real propert!#G dated Novem)er 1, 19#7, 'acario claimed that Dionisia had

donated her share to him in 'a! 19#>.

6hereafter, on "ugust 9, 1988, 'acario and his daughters Bett! ulla)a and aida a)elo sold>G --> s%. m. to his son

5oger /spinocilla, hus)and of respondent Belen /spinocilla and father of respondent Ferdinand /spinocilla. +n 'arch 7,

197>, 5oger /spinocilla sold$G 11# s%. m. to Caridad "tien@a. (er actual surve! of ?ot No. >>-, respondent Belen

/spinocilla occupies 109 s%. m., Caridad "tien@a occupies 1-0 s%. m., Caroline Eu occupies -09 s%. m., and petitioner,

alvacions son, occupies 14- s%. m.8G

6he case for petitioner

(etitioner sued the respondents to recover t*o portions an area of -7.>7G s%. m. *hich he )ought from "spren and

another -7.> s%. m. *hich allegedl! )elonged to him )ut *as occupied )! 'acarios house.9G -, having inherited 1#-.> s%. m. from his mother alvacion and )ought -7.>

s%. m. from his aunt "spren. "ccording to him, his mothers inheritance is 1#-.> s%. m., that is, 11# s%. m. from Doroteo

plus -7.> s%. m. from Dionisia. ince the area he occupies is onl! 14- s%. m.,10G he claims that respondents encroach on

his share )! 49 s%. m.11G

6he case for respondents

5espondents agree that Doroteos five children each inherited 11# s%. m. of ?ot No. >>-. s%. m. of ?ot No. >>-. /ach inherited

11# s%. m. from Doroteo and -7.> s%. m. from Dionisia. 6he 56C further ruled that 'acario *as not entitled to --7 s%. m.

6hus, respondents must return 49 s%. m. to petitioner *ho occupies onl! 14- s%. m.14G

6here )eing no pu)lic document to prove Dionisias donation, the 56C also held that 'acarios 19#7 affidavit is void and isan invalid repudiation of the shares of his sisters alvacion, "spren, and Isa)el in Dionisias share. "ccordingl!, 'acario

cannot ac%uire said shares )! prescription. 6he 56C further held that the oral partition of ?ot No. >>- )! Doroteos heirs

did not include Dionisias share and that partition should have )een the main action. 6hus, the 56C ordered partition and

deferred the transfer of possession of the 49 s%. m. pending partition.1#G 6he dispositive portion of the 56C decision

reads

A


17/112

a: (artiall! declaring the nullit! of the Deed of ")solute ale of (ropert! dated "ugust 9, 1988 3 3 3 e3ecuted )! 'acario

/spinocilla, Bett! /. ulla)a and aida /. a)elo in favor of 5oger /spinocilla, insofar as it affects the portion or the

share )elonging to alvacion /spinocilla, mother of petitioner,G relative to the propert! left )! Dionisia /spinocilla,

including 6a3 DeclarationG No. 14$$8 and other documents of the same nature and character *hich emanated from the

said sale=

): 6o leave as is the Deeds of ")solute ale of 'a! 11, 1974 and 'arch 7, 197>, it having )een determined that the! did

not involve the portion )elonging to petitionerG 3 3 3.

c: 6o effect an effective and real partition among the heirs for purposes of determining the e3act location of the share 11#

s%. m.: of the late Dionisia /spinocilla together *ith the -7.> s%. m. )elonging to petitionersG mother alvacion, as *ell as,

the e3act location of the 49 s%. m. portion )elonging to the petitionerG )eing encroached )! the respondentsG, *ith the

assistance of the Commissioner /ngr. Fundano: appointed )! this court.

d: 6o hold in a)e!ance the transfer of possession of the 49 s%. m. portion to the petitionerG pending the completion of the

real partition a)ove&mentioned.1>G

6he C" decision

+n appeal, the C" reversed the 56C decision and dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that e3traordinar!

ac%uisitive prescription has alread! set in in favor of respondents. 6he C" found that Doroteos four remaining childrenmade an oral partition of ?ot No. >>- after Dionisias death in 19#> and occupied specific portions. 6he oral partition

terminated the co&o*nership of ?ot No. >>- in 19#>. aid partition also included Dionisias share )ecause the lot *as

divided into four parts onl!. "nd since petitioners complaint *as filed onl! on ul! 14, -000, the C" concluded that

prescription has set in.1$G 6he C" disposed the appeal as follo*s

A, 5oger also e3ercised

an act of o*nership *hen he sold 11# s%. m. to Caridad "tien@a. It *as onl! in the !ear -000, upon receipt of the

summons to ans*er petitioners complaint, that respondents peaceful possession of the remaining portion 109 s%. m.:


18/112

*as interrupted. B! then, ho*ever, e3traordinar! ac%uisitive prescription has alread! set in in favor of respondents. 6hat

the 56C found 'acarios 19#7 affidavit void is of no moment. /3traordinar! prescription is unconcerned *ith 'acarios title

or good faith. "ccordingl!, the 56C erred in ruling that 'acario cannot ac%uire )! prescription the shares of alvacion,

"spren, and Isa)el, in Dionisias 11#&s%. m. share from ?ot No. >>-.

'oreover, the C" correctl! dismissed petitioners complaint as an action for reconve!ance )ased on an implied or

constructive trust prescri)es in 10 !ears from the time the right of action accrues.-#G 6his is the other 2ind of prescription

under the Civil Code, called e3tinctive prescription, *here rights and actions are lost )! the lapse of time.->G (etitioners

action for recover! of possession having )een filed >> !ears after 'acario occupied Dionisias share, it is also )arred )!

e3tinctive prescription. 6he C" *hile condemning 'acarios fraudulent act of depriving his three sisters of their shares in

Dionisias share, e%uall! emphasi@ed the fact that 'acarios sisters *asted their opportunit! to %uestion his acts.

A of the 1998 5evised 5ules of Civil (rocedure assail

the "pril -0, -00# Decision1G of the Court of "ppeals C":, and its +cto)er 1#, -00# 5esolution-G in C.".&.5. C No.

81499, *hich affirmed *ith modification the "pril -$, -001 Decision4G of the 5egional 6rial Court, Branch 9, Lali)o, "2lan

56C: in Civil Case No. >0-$.

6he Facts

In his lifetime, "lfonso reta "lfonso: )egot 1# children, namel!, (olicronio, ?i)erato, Narciso, (rudencia, icente,

Francisco, Inocensio, 5o%ue, "dela, Aenefreda, 'erlinda, Benedicto, orge, and "ndres. 6he children of (olicronio , neither (olicronio nor his heirs ever too2

possession of the su)ject lands.

+n "pril 19, 1979, "lfonsos heirs e3ecuted a Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition,7G *hich included all the lands that *ere

covered )! the four #: deeds of sale that *ere previousl! e3ecuted )! "lfonso for ta3ation purposes. Conrado,(olicronios eldest son, representing the , the


19/112

Believing that the si3 parcels of land )elonged to their late father, and as such, e3cluded from the Deed of /3tra&udicial

(artition, the = and that all the produce *ere turned over )! the tenants to

"lfonso and the administrators of his estate and never to (olicronio or his heirs.

6he 56C further found that there *as no mone! involved in the sale. /ven granting that there *as, as claimed )! the


20/112

6he C" affirmed the finding of the 56C that the Deed of ale *as void. It found the Deed of ale to )e a)solutel!

simulated as the parties did not intend to )e legall! )ound )! it. "s such, it produced no legal effects and did not alter the

juridical situation of the parties. 6he C" also noted that "lfonso continued to e3ercise all the rights of an o*ner even after

the e3ecution of the Deed of ale, as it *as undisputed that he remained in possession of the su)ject parcels of land and

enjo!ed their produce until his death.

(olicronio, on the other hand, never e3ercised an! rights pertaining to an o*ner over the su)ject lands from the time the!

*ere sold to him up until his death. : and 1>: of the Civil Code. Aithout a special po*er of attorne!, it

*as held that Conrado lac2ed the legal capacti! to give the consent of his co&heirs, thus, rendering the Deed of /3tra&

udicial (artition voida)le under "rticle 1490 1: of the Civil Code.

"s a conse%uence, the C" ordered the remand of the case to the 56C for the proper partition of the estate, *ith the option

that the parties ma! still voluntaril! effect the partition )! e3ecuting another agreement or )! adopting the assailed Deed

of (artition *ith the 56Cs approval in either case. +ther*ise, the 56C ma! proceed *ith the compulsor! partition of the

estate in accordance *ith the 5ules.

Aith regard to the claim for damages, the C" agreed *ith the 56C and dismissed the claim for actual and compensator!

damages for lac2 of factual and legal )asis.

Both parties filed their respective 'otions for 5econsideration, *hich *ere denied )! the C" for lac2 of merit in a

5esolution dated +cto)er 1#, -00#.

In their 'otion for 5econsideration, the +cto)er

19$9K Ahether prescription applies to )ar an! collateral attac2 on the validit! of the deed of a)solute sale e3ecuted -1

!ears earlierK


21/112

III. Ahether the Court of "ppeals correctl! ruled in nullif!ing the Deed of /3trajudicial (artition )ecause Conrado reta

signed the same *ithout the *ritten authorit! from his si)lings in contravention of "rticle 1787 in relation to "rticle 1490 of

the Civil Code and in relation there*ith, *hether the defense of ratification andor preterition raised for the first time on

appeal ma! )e entertainedK

6he issues presented for resolution )! the


22/112

6he Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the finding of the C" that the Deed of ale is null and void for )eing

a)solutel! simulated. 6he Civil Code provides

"rt. 14#>. imulation of a contract ma! )e a)solute or relative. 6he former ta2es place *hen the parties do not intend to

)e )ound at all= the latter, *hen the parties conceal their true agreement.

"rt. 14#$. "n a)solutel! simulated or fictitious contract is void. " relative simulation, *hen it does not prejudice a third

person and is not intended for an! purpose contrar! to la*, morals, good customs, pu)lic order or pu)lic polic! )inds the

parties to their real agreement.

alerio v. 5efresca14G is instructive on the matter of simulation of contracts

In a)solute simulation, there is a colora)le contract )ut it has no su)stance as the parties have no intention to )e )ound

)! it. 6he main characteristic of an a)solute simulation is that the apparent contract is not reall! desired or intended to

produce legal effect or in an! *a! alter the juridical situation of the parties. "s a result, an a)solutel! simulated or fictitious

contract is void, and the parties ma! recover from each other *hat the! ma! have given under the contract.


23/112

6he other Deeds of ale e3ecuted )! "lfonso in favor of his children (rudencia and ?i)erato, and second *ife aleriana,

all )earing the same date of e3ecution, *ere dul! presented in evidence )! the


24/112

In their "ns*er,-4G the


25/112

ection 9. /vidence of *ritten agreements. Ahen the terms of an agreement have )een reduced to *riting, it is

considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can )e, )et*een the parties and their successors in

interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the *ritten agreement.

G In this case, )oth the


26/112

In the case at )ench, there *ere other prevailing circumstances *hich corro)orate the testimon! of "mparo Castillo. First,

the other Deeds of ale *hich *ere e3ecuted in favor of ?i)erato, (rudencia, and aleriana on the same da! as that of

(olicronios *ere all presented in evidence. econd, all the properties su)ject therein *ere included in the Deed of /3tra&

udicial (artition of the estate of "lfonso. 6hird, (olicronio, during his lifetime, never e3ercised acts of o*nership over the

su)ject properties as he never demanded or too2 possession of them, never demanded or received the produce thereof,

and never paid real estate ta3es thereon:. Fourth, (olicronio never informed his children of the sale.

"s the


27/112

till, the Court disagrees.

"rticle 7#- of the Civil Code provides

"rt. 7#-. +ne *ho has no compulsor! heirs ma! dispose )! *ill of all his estate or an! part of it in favor of an! person

having capacit! to succeed.

+ne *ho has compulsor! heirs ma! dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code

*ith regard to the legitime of said heirs.

6his article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition )! *ill. Ahat is involved in the case at )ench is not a

disposition )! *ill )ut )! Deed of ale. G 6herefore, the


28/112

alidit! of the Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition

6he Court no* resolves the issue of the validit! of the Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition.

nenforcea)ilit!

6he : 6o enter into an! contract )! *hich the o*nership of an immova)le is transmitted or ac%uired either gratuitousl! or for

a valua)le consideration=

1>: "n! other act of strict dominion.


29/112

"rt. 1490. 6he follo*ing contracts are voida)le or annulla)le, even though there ma! have )een no damage to the

contracting parties

1: 6hose *here one of the parties is incapa)le of giving consent to a contract=

-: 6hose *here the consent is vitiated )! mista2e, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

6hese contracts are )inding, unless the! are annulled )! a proper action in court. 6he! are suscepti)le of ratification.

6his Court finds that "rticle 1787 >: and 1>: is inapplica)le to the case at )ench. It has )een held in several cases#7G

that partition among heirs is not legall! deemed a conve!ance of real propert! resulting in change of o*nership. It is not a

transfer of propert! from one to the other, )ut rather, it is a confirmation or ratification of title or right of propert! that an

heir is renouncing in favor of another heir *ho accepts and receives the inheritance. It is merel! a designation and

segregation of that part *hich )elongs to each heir. 6he Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition cannot, therefore, )e considered

as an act of strict dominion.


30/112


31/112

"rt. 7>#. 6he preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsor! heirs in the direct line, *hether living at the

time of the e3ecution of the *ill or )orn after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir= )ut the devises and

legacies shall )e valid insofar as the! are not inofficious.

If the omitted compulsor! heirs should die )efore the testator, the institution shall )e effectual, *ithout prejudice to the

right of representation.

(reterition has )een defined as the total omission of a compulsor! heir from the inheritance. It consists in the silence of

the testator *ith regard to a compulsor! heir, omitting him in the testament, either )! not mentioning him at all, or )! notgiving him an!thing in the hereditar! propert! )ut *ithout e3pressl! disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in the *ill in

the latter case.>8G (reterition is thus a concept of testamentar! succession and re%uires a *ill. In the case at )ench, there

is no *ill involved. 6herefore, preterition cannot appl!.

5emand nnecessar!

6he Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition is in itself valid for compl!ing *ith all the legal re%uisites, as found )! the 56C, to *it

" persual of the Deed of /3tra&judicial (artition *ould reveal that all the heirs and children of "lfonso reta *ere

represented therein= that no)od! *as left out= that all of them received as much as the others as their shares= that it

distri)uted all the properties of "lfonso reta e3cept a portion of parcel -9 containing an area of 1#,000 s%uare meters,

more or less, *hich *as e3pressl! reserved= that "lfonso reta, at the time of his death, left no de)ts= that the heirs of(olicronio reta, r. *ere represented )! Conrado B. reta= all the parties signed the document, *as *itnessed and dul!

ac2no*ledged )efore Notar! (u)lic "dolfo '. Iligan of Lali)o, "2lan= that the document e3pressl! stipulated that the heirs

to *hom some of the properties *ere transferred )efore for ta3ation purposes or their children, e3pressl! recogni@e and

ac2no*ledge as a fact that the properties *ere transferred onl! for the purpose of effective administration and

development convenience in the pa!ment of ta3es and, therefore, all instruments conve!ing or effecting the transfer of

said properties are null and void from the )eginning /3hs. 1, 8&d:.>7G

Considering that the Deed of ale has )een found void and the Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition valid, *ith the consent of

all the 940 is 5"N6/D. 6he assailed

"pril -0, -00# Decision and +cto)er 1#, -00# 5esolution of the Court of "ppeals in C"&.5. C No. 81499, are here)!'+DIFI/D in this *ise

1: 6he Deed of /3tra&udicial (artition, dated "pril 19, 1979, is "?ID, and

-: 6he order to remand the case to the court of origin is here)! D/?/6/D.

+ +5D/5/D.

Brito v Dianala

Before the Court is a petition for revie* on certiorari see2ing to annul and set aside the Decision1 dated anuar! 1-, -00>and 5esolution- dated Fe)ruar! 14, -00$ of the Court of "ppeals C": in C"&.5. C No. 80009. 6he assailed Decision

set aside the oint +rders4 dated une -9, -000 of the 5egional 6rial Court 56C: of Negros +ccidental, Branch $0,

Cadi@ Cit!, *hile the %uestioned 5esolution denied petitioners 'otion for 5econsideration.

6he factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follo*s

u)ject of the present petition is a parcel of land located at Barrio ica)a, Cadi@ Cit!, Negros +ccidental. 6he said tract of

land is a portion of ?ot No. 1>4$&B, formerl! 2no*n as ?ot No. >91&B, originall! o*ned )! a certain /ste)an Dichimo and

his *ife, /ufemia Dianala, )oth of *hom are alread! deceased.

+n eptem)er -8, 198$, 'argarita Dichimo, assisted )! her hus)and, 5amon Brito, r., together *ith Bienvenido

Dichimo, Francisco Dichimo, /dito Dichimo, 'aria Dichimo,


32/112

their respective spouses, also died intestate leaving their pro indiviso shares of ?ot No. 1>4$&B as part of the inheritance

of the complainants in Civil Case No. 1-778.

+n ul! -9, 1974, herein respondents filed an "ns*er&in&Intervention claiming that prior to his marriage to /ufemia,

/ste)an *as married to a certain Francisca Dumalagan= that /ste)an and Francisca )ore five children, all of *hom are

alread! deceased= that herein respondents are the heirs of /ste)an and Franciscas children= that the! are in open,

actual, pu)lic and uninterrupted possession of a portion of ?ot No. 1>4$&B for more than 40 !ears= that their legal interests

over the su)ject lot prevails over those of petitioner and his co&heirs= that, in fact, petitioner and his co&heirs have alread!

disposed of their shares in the said propert! a long time ago.

+n Novem)er -$, 197$, the trial court issued an +rder dismissing *ithout prejudice respondents "ns*er&in&Intervention

for their failure to secure the services of a counsel despite ample opportunit! given them.

Civil Case No. 1-778 then *ent to trial.

u)se%uentl!, the parties in Civil Case No. 1-778 agreed to enter into a Compromise "greement *herein ?ot No. 1>4$&B

*as divided )et*een ose 'aria ole@, on one hand, and the heirs of icente, namel! 'argarita, Bienvenido, and

Francisco, on the other. It *as stated in the said agreement that the heirs of /use)io had sold their share in the said lot to

the mother of ole@. 6hus, on eptem)er 9, 1997, the 5egional 6rial Court 56C: of Bacolod Cit!, Branch #> rendered a

decision approving the said Compromise "greement.

6hereafter, 6C6 No. 6&1->$1 *as issued )! the 5egister of Deeds of Cadi@ Cit! in the name of 'argarita, Bienvenido and

Francisco.

+n anuar! 17, 1999, herein petitioner and his co&heirs filed another Complaint for 5ecover! of (ossession and

Damages, this time against herein respondents. 6he case, filed *ith the 56C of Cadi@ Cit!, Branch $0, *as doc2eted as

Civil Case No. >#7&C. #7&CG is here)! ordered

DI'I/D for violation of the rule on forum shopping=

-. 6he 'otion to Dismiss Civil Case No. >77&C is li2e*ise here)! 5"N6/D and the Complaint dated "ugust 14, 1999 is

here)! DI'I/D for *ant of jurisdiction.

4. "ll counterclaims in )oth cases, Civil Case No. >#7&C and >77&C are li2e*ise ordered DI'I/D.

+ +5D/5/D.#

6he parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration, )ut )oth *ere denied )! the 56C in an +rder dated +cto)er

>, -000.

77&C. Further, let the entire records of this case )e remanded to the court a %uo for

the trial and hearing on the merits of Civil Case No. >77&C.

+ +5D/5/D.>

(etitioner filed a 'otion for 5econsideration, )ut the C" denied it in a 5esolution dated Fe)ruar! 14, -00$.


33/112

II. 6


34/112

reliance on erona vs. de u@man. But in erona, the fraud *as discovered on une ->, 19#7, hence ection #44: of

"ct No. 190, *as applied, the ne* Civil Code not coming into effect until "ugust 40, 19>0 as mentioned earlier. It must )e

stressed, at this juncture, that article 11## and article 1#>$, are ne* provisions. 6he! have no counterparts in the old Civil

Code or in the old Code of Civil (rocedure, the latter )eing then resorted to as legal )asis of the four&!ear prescriptive

period for an action for reconve!ance of title of real propert! ac%uired under false pretenses.

"n action for reconve!ance has its )asis in ection >4, paragraph 4 of (residential Decree No. 1>-9, *hich provides

In all cases of registration procured )! fraud, the o*ner ma! pursue all his legal and e%uita)le remedies against theparties to such fraud *ithout prejudice, ho*ever, to the rights of an! innocent holder of the decree of registration on the

original petition or application, 3 3 3.

6his provision should )e read in conjunction *ith "rticle 1#>$ of the Civil Code, 3 3 3

6he la* there)! creates the o)ligation of the trustee to reconve! the propert! and the title thereto in favor of the true

o*ner. Correlating ection >4, paragraph 4 of (residential Decree No. 1>-9 and "rticle 1#>$ of the Civil Code *ith "rticle

11##-: of the Civil Code, supra, the prescriptive period for the reconve!ance of fraudulentl! registered real propert! is ten

10: !ears rec2oned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. 3 3 311

In the instant case, 6C6 No. 6&1->$1 *as o)tained )! petitioner and his co&heirs on eptem)er -7, 1990, *hile

respondents filed their complaint for reconve!ance on "ugust 17, 1999.


35/112

parcel of land, that it forms part of the estate of their deceased predecessor and that the! are in open, and uninterrupted

possession of the same for more than 40 !ears. 'uch more, it *ould )e tantamount to a violation of the constitutional

guarantee that no person shall )e deprived of propert! *ithout due process of la*.19

A and 5esolution dated

Fe)ruar! 14, -00$ of the Court of "ppeals in C"&.5. C No. 80009 are "FFI5'/D.

+ +5D/5/D.

Navales v ias

+n the 17th of Novem)er, 190#, icente Navales filed a complaint *ith the Court of First Instance of Ce)u against /ulogia

5ias and 'a3imo 5e%uiroso, claiming that the latter should )e sentenced to pa! him the sum of 1,-00 pesos, (hilippine

currenc!, as damages, together *ith costs and such other e3penses as the court might consider just and e%uita)le. 6o this

end he alleged that the said defendants, *ithout due cause, ordered the pulling do*n and destruction of his house

erected in Daan)uangan, to*n of Naga, Island of Ce)u, *hich *as $ meters in height *ith an area of 7.80 s%uare meters,

)uilt of *ood *ith a nipa roof, and *orth 1,000 pesos, *hich amount he e3pended in its construction. 00 pesos, and that the defendants *ere

sentenced to pa! the said sum to the plaintiff, *ith costs. 6he defendant upon )eing informed of this decision, as2ed that it

)e set aside, and also moved for a ne* trial on the ground that the decision *as not in accordance *ith the *eight of the

evidence. 6he motion *as denied, to *hich e3ception *as ta2en, and at the re%uest of the interested part!, the

corresponding )ill of e3ceptions *as limited.

6he aim of this litigation, therefore, is to o)tain pa!ment through a judicial decision, of the damages said to have )een

caused )! the e3ecution of a judgment rendered )! the justice of the peace, in an action for ejectment.

It is undenia)le that, in order to remove from the land of /ulogia 5ias, situated *ithin the jurisdiction of the to*n of Naga,

the house *hich icente Navales had constructed thereon, )! virtue of the decision of the justice in the action instituted )!

the said /ulogia 5ias against the o*ner of the house , icente Navales, the deput! sheriff *ho carried the judgment into

e3ecution *as o)liged to destro! the said house and removed it from the land, according to the usual procedure in the

action for ejectment.

In the order of e3ecution issued to the deput! sheriff, the directive portion of the judgment of the justice of the peace *as

inserted, and it contained the essential statement that the said judgment, )! reason of its not having )een appealed from,

had )ecome final, and from the contents of the same ma! )e inferred that there had )een an action for ejectment )et*eenthe a)ove&named parties, and that there *as no reason *h! it should not )e enforced *hen it had alread! )ecome final

and ac%uired the nature of res adjudicata.

ection 8- of the Code of Civil (rocedure reads

/3ecution. Q If no appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace shall )e perfected as herein provided, the justice of

the peace shall, at the re%uest of the successful part!, issue e3ecution for the enforcement of the judgment, and the

e3piration of the time limited )! la* for the perfection of an appeal.

"ssuming that the order for e3ecution of final judgment *as issued in accordance *ith the la*, and in vie* of the fact that

it has not )een alleged nor proven that the sheriff *hen compl!ing *ith the same had committed trespass or e3ceeded his

functions, it must )e presumed according to section 44# 1#: of the said Code of (rocedure, that the official dut! *as

regularl! performed. 6herefore, it is not possi)le to impute lia)ilit! to the plaintiff *ho o)tained the judgment and the

e3ecution thereof, *hen the same *as not disputed nor alleged to )e null or illegal, and much less to compel the pa!ment

of damages to the person *ho *as defeated in the action and sentenced to )e ejected from the land *hich he improperl!

occupied *ith his house.

No proof has )een su)mitted that a contract had )een entered into )et*een the plaintiff and the defendants, or that the

latter had committed illegal acts or omissions or incurred in an! 2ind of fault or negligence, from an! of *hich an o)ligation

might have arisen on the part of the defendants to indemnif! the plaintiff. For this reason, the claim for indemnit!, on


36/112

account of acts performed )! the sheriff *hile enforcing a judgment, can not under an! consideration )e sustained. "rt.

1079, Civil Code.:

6he illegalit! of the judgment of the justice of the peace, that of the *rit of e3ecution thereunder, or of the acts performed

)! the sheriff for the enforcement of the judgment, has not )een sho*n. 6herefore, for the reasons herein)efore set forth,

the judgment appealed from is here)! reversed, and the complaint for damages filed )! icente Navales against /ulogia

5ias and 'a3imo 5e%uiroso is dismissed *ithout special ruling as to costs. o ordered.

!irata v "c#oa

6his is an appeal )! certiorari, from the order of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch , in Civil Case No. B&14#

granting the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is another action pending )et*een

the same parties for the same cause. 1

6he record sho*s that on eptem)er -#, 198> one "rsenio irata died as a result of having )een )umped *hile *al2ing

along 6aft "venue, (asa! Cit! )! a passenger jeepne! driven )! 'a3imo Borilla and registered in the name +f ictoria

+choa= that Borilla is the emplo!er of +choa= that for the death of "rsenio irata, a action for homicide through rec2less

imprudence *as instituted on eptem)er ->, 198> against 'a3imo Borilla in the Court of First Instance of 5i@al at (asa!

Cit!, doc2eted as C Case No. 41$-&( of said court= that at the hearing of the said criminal case on Decem)er 1-, 198>,

"tt!. ulio Francisco, the private prosecutor, made a reservation to file a separate civil action for damages against the

driver on his criminal lia)ilit!= that on Fe)ruar! 19, 198$ "tt!. ulio Francisco filed a motion in said c case to *ithdra* thereservation to file a separate civil action= that thereafter, the private prosecutor activel! participated in the trial and

presented evidence on the damages= that on une -9, 198$ the heirs of "rsenio irata again reserved their right to

institute a separate civil action= that on ul! 19, 1988 the heirs of "rsenio irata, petitioners herein, commenced Civil No.

B&14# in the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor, Branch , for damages )ased on %uasi&delict against the driver

'a3imo Borilla and the registered o*ner of the jeepne!, ictorio +choa= that on "ugust 14, 198$ the defendants, private

respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there is another action, Criminal Case No. 41$-&(, pending

)et*een the same parties for the same cause= that on eptem)er 7, 198$ the Court of First Instance of 5i@al at (asa!

Cit! a decision in Criminal Case No. 4$1-&( ac%uitting the accused 'a3imo Borilla on the ground that he caused an injur!

)! name accident= and that on anuar! 41, 1988, the Court of First Instance of Cavite at Bacoor granted the motion to

Civil Case No. B&14# for damages. -

6he principal issue is *eather or not the of the "rsenio irata, can prosecute an action for the damages )ased on %uasi&

delict against 'a3imo Borilla and ictoria +choa, driver and o*ner, respectivel! on the passenger jeepne! that )umped

"rsenio irata.

It is settled that in negligence cases the aggrieved parties ma! choose )et*een an action under the 5evised (enal Code

or of %uasi&delict under "rticle -18$ of the Civil Code of the (hilippines. Ahat is prohi)ited )! "rticle -188 of the Civil

Code of the (hilippines is to recover t*ice for the same negligent act.

6he upreme Court has held that

"ccording to the Code Commission 6he foregoing provision "rticle -188: though at first sight startling, is not so novel or

e3traordinar! *hen *e consider the e3act nature of criminal and civil negligence. 6he former is a violation of the criminal

la*, *hile the latter is a culpa a%uiliana or %uasi&delict, of ancient origin, having al*a!s had its o*n foundation andindividualit!, separate from criminal negligence. uch distinction )et*een criminal negligence and culpa e3tra&contractual

or %uasi&delito has )een sustained )! decision of the upreme Court of pain and maintained as clear, sound and

perfectl! tena)le )! 'aura, an outstanding panish jurist. 6herefore, under the proposed "rticle -188, ac%uittal from an

accusation of criminal negligence, *hether on reasona)le dou)t or not, shall not )e a )ar to a su)se%uent civil action, not

for civil lia)ilit! arising from criminal negligence, )ut for damages due to a %uasi&delict or culpa a%uiliana. But said article

forestalls a dou)le recover!. 5eport of the Code Commission, p. 1$-.:

"lthough, again, this "rticle -188 does seem to literall! refer to onl! acts of negligence, the same argument of ustice

Boco)o a)out construction that upholds the spirit that given life rather than that *hich is literal that 2illeth the intent of the

la*ma2er should )e o)served in appl!ing the same. "nd considering that the preliminar! chapter on human relations of

the ne* Civil Code definitel! esta)lishes the separa)ilit! and independence of lia)ilit! in a civil action for acts criminal in

character under "rticles -9 to 4-: from the civil responsi)ilit! arising from crime fi3ed )! "rticle 100 of the (enal Code,and, in a sense, the 5ules of Court, under ections - and 4c:, 5ule 111, contemplate also the same separa)ilit!, it is

more congruent *ith the spirit of la*, e%uit! and justice, and more in harmon! *ith modern progress, to )orro* the

felicitous language in 5a2es vs. "tlantic ulf and (acific Co., 8 (hil. to 4>9, to hod as Ae do hold, that "rticle -18$, *here

it refers to fault covers not onl! acts not punisha)le )! la* )ut also criminal in character, *hether intentional and

voluntar! or conse%uentl!, a separate civil action lies against the in a criminal act, *hether or not he is criminall!

prosecuted and found guilt! and ac%uitted, provided that the offended part! is not allo*ed, if he is actuall! charged also

criminall!, to recover damages on )oth scores, and *ould )e entitled in such eventualit! onl! to the )igger a*ard of the,

t*o assuming the a*ards made in the t*o cases var!. In other *ords the e3tinction of civil lia)ilit! refereed to in (ar. c: of


37/112

ection 14, 5ule 111, refers e3clusivel! to civil lia)ilit! founded on "rticle 100 of the 5evised (enal Code, *hereas the

civil lia)ilit! for the same act considered as a

Documents

Miguel - Rodriguez