12-16 oblic final batch of cases

8/17/2019 12-16 Oblic Final Batch of Cases

1/32

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-29838 March 18, 1983

FERMIN BOBIS and EMILI GU!LUPE, plaintiffs-appellants

vs.

T"E PRO#INCIL S"ERIFF OF CMRINES NORTE and $OSIMO RI#ER, defendants-

appellees.

Tomas Trinidad for plaintiffs-appellants.

James Pajares for defendants-appellees.

CONCEPCION, %R., J.:

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of irst Instan!e of Camarines Norte" dismissing the

!omplaint for the annulment of an e#e!ution sale" $hi!h $as !ertified to this Court %& the Court of

Appeals upon the ground that onl& 'uestions of la$ are involved in the appeal.

(he fa!ts are not disputed. It appears that )ufina Camino and *astor E!o $ere the registered

o$ners of a par!el of land" $ith an area of +,.+ he!tares" !overed %& (ransfer Certifi!ate of (itle

No. (-/0. (he said par!el of land $as !ultivated %& the spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia

2uadalupe. On 3ul& 45" +5," one Alfonso Ortega filed a !omplaint against )ufina Camino" *astorE!o" Emilia 2uadalupe" and ermin 1o%is $ith the Court of irst Instan!e of Camarines Norte"

do!6eted therein as Civil Case No. 4/" for the re!over& of possession of one-half 7+849 of the

!leared and planted portion of the land" or the pa&ment of the amount of *+":5,.,," the value of the

improvements introdu!ed %& him on the par!el of land in 'uestion. On August +:" +5," the parties

e#e!uted a !ompromise agreement $here%& the& agreed;

+. (he defendants )ufina Camino and *astor E!o shall pa& the plaintiff the sum of

One


2/32

=. (hat plaintiff in !onsideration of this ami!a%le settlement renoun!es his !laim for

damages.

On August 4:" +5," )ufina Camino and *astor E!o sold the par!el of land to their !o-defendants"

spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe" and (C( No. (-0/0 $as issued in their names. On

3anuar& +" +5+" the parties su%mitted the !ompromise agreement to the !ourt> and on 3anuar& 44"+5+" the !ourt promulgated a de!ision" approving the said !ompromise agreement.

(he defendants )ufina Camino and *astor E!o" ho$ever" onl& paid the amount of *5,.,, to Alfonso

Ortega $hen the o%ligation %e!ame due on e%ruar& 40" +5+. As a result" a $rit of e#e!ution $as

issued on 3ul& +0" +5+" !ommanding the *rovin!ial Sheriff of Camarines Norte that the goods and

!hattels of the defendants )ufina Camino" *astor E!o" Emilia 2uadalupe" and ermin 1o%is %e

!aused to %e made the sum of *+=,.,,. Conse'uentl&" the Sheriff levied upon the land $hi!h )ufina

Camino and *astor E!o had sold to ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe. @pon learning of the lev&

on e#e!ution" Emilia 2uadalupe and ermin 1o%is filed a motion see6ing the modifi!ation of the $rit

of e#e!ution to e#!lude them therefrom %e!ause under the judgment sought to %e e#e!uted onl& the

defendants )ufina Camino and *astor E!o $ere o%ligated to pa& the plaintiff Alfonso Ortega. 1ut"the trial !ourt denied the motion. Su%se'uentl&" on Septem%er /" +5+" the *rovin!ial Sheriff sold the

par!el of land in 'uestion at an e#e!ution sale to osimo )ivera" the highest %idder.

After the e#piration of one &ear" or on Septem%er +" +54" $ith neither )ufina Camino" *astor E!o"

Emilia 2uadalupe" nor ermin 1o%is e#er!ising the right of redemption" the *rovin!ial Sheriff

e#e!uted an Offi!erBs Deed of Sale of the land in favor of the said osimo )ivera. (he Offi!erBs Deed

of Sale $as su%mitted to" and approved %&" the trial !ourt on Mar!h 4/" +5/.

(hereupon" osimo )ivera as6ed for a $rit of possession. (he *rovin!ial is!al of Camarines Norte"

in his !apa!it& as ex oficio )egister of Deeds of the provin!e" also filed a motion pra&ing that Emilia

2uadalupe %e dire!ted to surrender the o$nerBs dupli!ate of (C( No. (-0/0 so that the SheriffBs sale!ould %e annotated therein. (he !ourt granted %oth motions and dire!ted the issuan!e of a $rit of

possession" and ordered Emilia 2uadalupe to surrender the o$nerBs dupli!ate !op& of (C( No. (-

0/0 $ithin five 759 da&s from noti!e. Emilia 2uadalupe" ho$ever" did not surrender her dupli!ate

!op& of the !ertifi!ate of title and" instead" filed a motion for the re!onsideration of the order. (he

motion for re!onsideration $as denied %& the !ourt" %ut still" Emilia 2uadalupe refused to surrender

the o$nerBs dupli!ate !op& of the !ertifi!ate of title. Nor did she va!ate the land despite the $rit of

possession. As a result" a petition to de!lare her in !ontempt of !ourt $as filed. After due hearing"

Emilia 2uadalupe $as de!lared guilt& of !ontempt for diso%e&ing a la$ful order and for o%stru!ting

the administration of justi!e and senten!ed to undergo imprisonment until su!h time as she !omplies

$ith the orders of the !ourt.

On Mar!h ="+:," ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe filed the instant a!tion against the *rovin!ial

Sheriff of Camarines Norte and osimo )ivera $ith the Court of irst Instan!e of Camarines Norte"

do!6eted therein as Civil Case No. ++:" for the annulment of the sheriffBs deed of sale and for

damages" upon the ground that the $rit of e#e!ution issued in Civil Case No. 4/ $as not in

!onformit& $ith the judgment rendered therein and therefore" void and of no legal effe!t. @pon the

filing of the !omplaint" the !ourt ordered the release of Emilia 2uadalupe $ho had %een !onfined in

jail for a%out 0 months.


3/32

On 3une /" +:=" the trial !ourt rendered a de!ision" the dispositive portion of $hi!h reads" as

follo$s;

IN VIE O ( 7%9 de!laring the sale e#e!uted %& Camino

and E!o in favor of Emilia 2uadalupe res!inded> 7!9 de!laring the sale e#e!uted %&defendant *rovin!ial Sheriff in favor of osimo )ivera valid and legal> 7d9 de!laring

said defendant osimo )ivera the o$ner of the land des!ri%ed in the !omplaint> and

7e9 ordering Emilia 2uadalupe to e#e!ute a deed of !onve&an!e in favor of defendant

osimo )ivera. 1

(he plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals" %ut the latter !ourt elevated the !ase to this Court for

final determination for the reason that onl& 'uestions of la$ are involved in the appeal.

(he appellants !ontend that the trial !ourt erred;

+. In de!laring that the sale e#e!uted %& the provin!ial Sheriff in favor of osimo)ivera valid and legal and that osimo )ivera is no$ the o$ner of the land in

'uestion>

4. In dismissing the !omplaint for annulment of the sale made %& the *rovin!ial

Sheriff $hi!h is void from the %eginning>

/. In de!laring the sale e#e!uted %& Camino and E!o in favor of Emilia 2uadalupe

res!inded $hen there is no a!tion for the same>

=. In ordering Emilia 2uadalupe to e#e!ute a deed of !onve&an!e in favor of

defendant osimo )ivera $hen the propert& is of the !onjugal partnership of ermin1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe> and

5. In not granting damages against osimo )ivera and the *rovin!ial Sheriff $hen

the ma!hination to deprive plaintiffs of their land is ver& evident in their a!tuations not

onl& %e!ause of the ridi!ulousl& niggardl& pri!e %ut also %e!ause the true plaintiff

7Ortega9 $as not %enefited %& the sale.

e find the appeal impressed $ith merit. (he $rit of e#e!ution issued in Civil Case No. 4/ is null

and void $ith respe!t to the spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe> hen!e" the sale of their

propert& at a su%se'uent sale at pu%li! au!tion to the defendant osimo )ivera is" li6e$ise" void and

of no legal effe!t. (he judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 4/ de!reed;

l. (hat defendants )ufina Camino and *astor E!o shall pa& the plaintiff the sum of

One


4/32

4. (hat plaintiff has no other !laim against the defendants e#!ept for the

improvements>

/. (hat hereafter" the plaintiff shall re!ogni?e and respe!t the a%solute and e#!lusive

o$nership of the land in 'uestion> and

=. (hat plaintiff in !onsideration of this ami!a%le settlement renoun!es his !laim for

damages.

As $ill %e seen" onl& )ufina Camino and *astor E!o $ere adjudged to pa& Alfonso Ortega the

amount of *+=,.,, on e%ruar& 40" +5+. Although the& $ere in!luded as part& defendants" the

spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe $ere not ordered to pa& Alfonso Ortega. O%viousl&"

the& $ere a%solved from lia%ilit&. A!!ordingl&" as to them" there $as nothing to e#e!ute sin!e the&

have %een a%solved from lia%ilit&. hen" therefore" the lo$er !ourt" in issuing the $rit of e#e!ution of

the judgment" !ommanded the *rovin!ial Sheriff that the goods and !hattels of the defendants

)ufina Camino and *astor E!o" Emilia 2uadalupe and ermin 1o%is %e !aused to %e made the sum

of *+=,.,, $here%& ma6ing the spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe e'uall& lia%le for the judgment de%t of the spouses )ufina Camino and *astor E!o" adding to the judgment sought to %e

e#e!uted a ne$ relief" it a!ted in e#!ess of jurisdi!tion" if not a%use of authorit&. As the late Chief

3usti!e Moran sa&s in his Comments on the )ules of Court" (he $rit of e#e!ution must !onform to

the judgment $hi!h is to %e e#e!uted" as it ma& not var& the terms of the judgment it see6s to

enfor!e. Nor ma& it go %e&ond the terms of the judgment sought to %e e#e!uted. here the

e#e!ution is not in harmon& $ith the judgment $hi!h gives it life and e#!eeds it" it has pro tanto no

validit&. (o maintain other$ise $ould %e to ignore the !onstitutional provision against depriving a

person of his propert& $ithout due pro!ess of la$. 2

1esides" the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 4/ $as %ased upon a !ompromise agreement of

the parties. In the !ase of Yboleon vs. Sison" 3

this Court ruled that a judge or !ourt" $hi!h sets aside a judgment rendered upon !onsent of the parties and %ased on a !ompromise entered into %& them" $hi!h

is !onverted into su!h judgment" !annot amend or set it aside $ithout the !onsent of said parties" or

$ithout first having de!lared in an in!idental preliminar& hearing that su!h !ompromise is vitiated %& an&

of the grounds for nullit& enumerated in Arti!le +0+ 7no$ Art. 4,/09 of the Civil Code. Sin!e the

modifi!ation and amendment of the judgment $as made unilaterall& in the $rit of e#e!ution" $ithout an&

preliminar& hearing" it $as unjustified.

It results that the $rit of e#e!ution is null and void and of no legal effe!t $ith respe!t to the spouses

ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe. (he annulment of the $rit of e#e!ution !arries $ith it the

annulment of the sale made %& the sheriff pursuant to the said $rit" as $ell as the order of the !ourt

approving the sale. (he lim%s !annot survive after the trun6 has perished. &

Sin!e the right of osimo )ivera over the land in 'uestion is derived from a void e#e!ution sale" he

a!'uired no title therein.

1esides" Se!tion /5" )ule / of the )ules of Court provides that a pur!haser of real propert& at an

e#e!ution sale shall %e su%stituted to and a!'uire all the right" title" interest" and !laim of the

judgment de%tor to the propert& as of the time of the lev&. It follo$s that if at that time the judgment

de%tor had no more right to" or interest in" the propert& %e!ause he had alread& sold it to another"


5/32

then the pur!haser a!'uires nothing. Su!h appears to %e the !ase here for it is not disputed that

%efore the e#e!ution sale" and even %efore the lev& on e#e!ution" or the rendition of the judgment in

Civil Case No. 4/" the judgment de%tors )ufina Camino and *astor E!o had alread& deeded the

propert& to ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe and a ne$ !ertifi!ate of title $as issued in the

names of the vendees.

In dismissing the !omplaint filed in the instant !ase" the trial !ourt found that the sale of the land to

ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe $as tainted $ith fraud sin!e the said sale $as made during the

penden!& of Civil Case No. 4/" and that the pri!e $as inade'uate.

(he rule" ho$ever" is that fraud is not presumed. As fraud is !riminal in nature" it must %e proved %&

!lear preponderan!e of eviden!e. ' In order that a !ontra!t ma& %e res!inded as in fraud of !reditors" it is

essential that it %e sho$n that %oth !ontra!ting parties have a!ted mali!iousl& and $ith fraud and for the

purpose of prejudi!ing said !reditors" and that the latter are deprived %& the transa!tion of all means %&

$hi!h the& ma& effe!t !olle!tion of their !laims. All these !ir!umstan!es must !on!ur in a given !ase. (he

presen!e of onl& one of them is not enough. ( In this parti!ular !ase" there is no eviden!e that the

spouses )ufina Camino and *astor E!o !onnived $ith the spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe

to defraud Alfonso Ortega. Nor is there eviden!e to sho$ that the sale of the land to ermin 1o%is and

Emilia 2uadalupe tended to deprive Alfonso Ortega of means to !olle!t his !laim from the spouses )ufina

Camino and *astor E!o As a matter of fa!t" no oral or do!umentar& eviden!e $as presented %& the

parties" and the trial !ourt merel& assumed that the sale to ermin 1o%is and Emilia 2uadalupe $as

fraudulent %e!ause of the inade'ua!& of the pri!e" and that the sale $as e#e!uted during the penden!& of

Civil Case No. 4/. hile these !ir!umstan!es ma& %e !onsidered %adges of fraud" )the sale !annot %e

!onsidered in fraud of !reditors in the a%sen!e of proof that the vendors )ufina Camino and *astor E!o

had no other propert& e#!ept that par!el of land the& sold to the spouses ermin 1o%is and Emilia

2uadalupe. 1esides" Alfonso Ortega 6ne$ of su!h sale and did nothing to have it annulled as in fraud of

!reditors. No$ did he !ause a !autionar& noti!e to %e ins!ri%ed in the !ertifi!ate of title to prote!t his

interests. Moreover" the sale $as not fi!titious" designed to es!ape pa&ment of the o%ligation to Alfonso

Ortega. (he tena!it& %& $hi!h Emilia 2uadalupe had !lung to her propert& to the e#tent of undergoingimprisonment is indi!ative of their good faith.

In his ans$er" the defendant osimo )ivera !laimed that the appellantBs !ause of a!tion is %arred %&

a prior judgment. Apparentl&" the said defendant $as referring to the denial of the appellantBs motion

to modif& the $rit of e#e!ution filed in Civil Case No. 4/.


6/32

ordered him to !ause the goods and !hattels of Emilia 2uadalupe" ermin 1o%is" )ufina Camino"

and *astor E!o to %e made the sum of *+=,.,," and the sheriff merel& follo$ed the order. (he

defe!t $as in the $rit of e#e!ution issued %& the lo$er !ourt and not in the lev& or in the sale at

pu%li! au!tion.


7/32

. A #le )on !(e$i" & n in#ol%en" $e"o(.

6. E%i$en!e o+ l('e in$e"e$ne## o( !o*le"e in#ol%en!&.

8. The "(n#+e( o+ ll o( ne(l& ll o+ hi# (oe("& & $e"o(, e#e!ill& /hen he i# in#ol%en" o( '(e"l&e*((##e$ +inn!ill&.

9. The +!" "h" "he "(n#+e( i# *$e e"/een +"he( n$ #on, /hen "he(e (e (e#en" o"he( o+ "he o%e!i(!)*#"n!e#.

:. The +il)(e o+ "he %en$ee "o "e e-!l)#i%e o##e##ion o+ ll o+ "he (oe("&.

8. ID.; PROCEDURE in #i$ !o)(". S)#e7)en" "o "he e'innin' o+ "he o%e!"ion#, n$ on o( o)" "he ?"h $& o+ A(il, 1>1?, "he *e*e(# o+ "he !o*n& o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co.,

on !!o)n" o+ "he e-i("ion o+ "he "i*e #""e$ in "hei( '(ee*en" o+ !o("ne(#hi, $i##ol%e$ "hei( (el"ion#n$ en"e(e$ in"o li7)i$"ion. On "he 1#" $& o+ B)ne, 1>1?, To*# O(i &


8/32

Don 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= en''e# n$ )n$e("e# "o & n$ "o #e""le "he #)* '(ee$ )on +o( "hi##le, !e##ion n$ "(n#+e( /i"hin e(io$ o+ "/el%e 10 &e(#, +)("he( en''in' n$ )n$e("in' "o &

e!h &e( #)* o+ no" le## "hn "en "ho)#n$ 1?,??? e#o# n$ " "he en$ o+ #i$ e(io$ "o #e""le "heln!e o+ #i$ (i!e.

A+"e( "he +i(#" #i- 9 &e(# o+ "he e(io$ +o( "he &*en" o+ "he #"i)l"e$ (i!e, "h" i#, $)(in' "he l#"#i- &e(# o+ #i$ e(io$, Don 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= en''e# n$ )n$e("e# "o & in"e(e#" " e( !en"

&e( on "he (i!e #"i)l"e$ o( "he (" "he(eo+ )ni$ " #)!h "i*e; (o%i$e$, "h" "hi# i# *)")loli'"ion n$ "he in"e(e#" &le nn)ll&.

! Don 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= +)("he( en''e# n$ )n$e("e# "o & "o Don To*# O(i, Don C#i*i(oO(i n$ Don A$ol+o F)#"e( $)(in' "he "i*e "h" "he& (e*in in "he Philiine# n$ $o no" (e#i$e (o$, "he

#)* o+ one h)n$(e$ n$ +i+"& 18? e#o# *on"hl&; /hi!h oli'"ion #hll e )n$e(#"oo$ "o e !on"(!"e$in$i%i$)ll& /i"h e!h o+ "he #i$ ("ie#; n$ "he *o)n"# #o i$ "o e!h n$ ll o+ "he* #hll e !h('e$"o "he !!o)n" o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co., in li7)i$"ion, in $i#!h('e o+ "he #"i)l"e$ !on#i$e("ion n$ "hein#"ll*en"# "he(eo+ n$ in"e(e#" "he(eon /hen $)e.

$ Don 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= en''e# n$ )n$e("e# no" "o #ell, lien"e, "(n#+e( o( *o("''e, ei"he(/holl& o( in (", "he (oe("& he(e& #ol$ "o hi*, /i"ho)" "he /(i""en )"ho(i="ion o+ Don To*# O(i #li7)i$"o( o+ "he +i(* o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co., #o lon' # "he !on#i$e("ion o+ "hi# #le i# no" +)ll& #"i#+ie$,

"o ')(n"ee /hi!h "hi# (e#"(i!"ion i# i*o#e$3 (o%i$e$, "h" "hi# (e#"(i!"ion lie# onl& "o "he %e##el#, (ele#""e n$ (n!h #"o(e# in "he "o/n# *en"ione$ in "he +o)("h #e!"ion o+ "hi# in#"()*en", no" "o "he (e#" o+

"he (oe("&.

e Don 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= en''e# n$ )n$e("e# "o !e$e '(")i"o)#l& in "he $/ellin'ho)#e in "he"o/n o+ Lon', he(e& #ol$, "he )#e o+ "he #*e o( "he o("ion "he(eo+ "h" *& e ne!e##(& +o( Don

To*# O(i "o e#"li#h "he(ein "he li7)i$"ion o++i!e o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co.; (o%i$e$, "h" "hi# !e##ion i#*$e +o( e(io$ o+ onl& "/o 0 &e(#.

+ Don To*# O(i & 1?, !#e No. ::1>, o%e (e+e((e$ "o, /# (e#ol%e$ & "he Co)(" o+ Fi(#"In#"n!e in +%o( o+ G)"ie((e= He(*no# n$ 'in#" O(i He(*no# @ Co. +o( "he #)* $e*n$e$ in "he!o*lin". The !)#e /# ele$ "o "he S)(e*e Co)(" n$, "he 4)$'*en" "he(ein h%in' een ++i(*e$,1 e-e!)"ion /# i##)e$ "he(eon n$ l!e$ in "he hn$# o+ "he #he(i++ o+ 2nil. The #he(i++ i**e$i"el&

$e*n$e$ "h" To*# O(i &


9/32

n$ "he #)* /hi!h i" i$ ein' "he hi'he#" #)* i$$en +o( "he #*e.

On "he 1>"h $& o+ O!"oe(, 1>11, "he lin"i++ e'n "he (e#en" !"ion, /hi!h h# +o( i"# o4e!", # #ho/n& "he (&e( o+ "he !o*lin"3 Fi(#", "he i##)n!e o+ (eli*in(& in4)n!"ion "o (e%en" "he #le o+ #i$

#"e*#hi; n$, #e!on$, "he $e!l("ion "h" "he lin"i++ i# "he o/ne( o+ #i$ #"e*#hi n$ i# en"i"le$ "o"he o##e##ion o+ "he #*e, n$ "h" "he $e+en$n" e (e7)i(e$ "o (e#"o(e "he #*e "o "he lin"i++ n$ "o& P1?,??? $*'e# +o( i"# $e"en"ion.

Uon "he "(il 4)$'*en" /# +o)n$ in +%o( o+ "he $e+en$n" n$ 'in#" "he lin"i++, n$ "he !o*lin" /#$i#*i##e$ )on "he *e(i"# /i"h !o#"#. F(o* "h" 4)$'*en" "hi# el i# "en.

The #)#"n"il 7)e#"ion (e#en"e$ +o( o)( !on#i$e("ion i# "he %li$i"& o+ "he #le +(o* O(i He(*no# @ Co.

"o 2n)el O(i & Gon=le= # 'in#" "he !(e$i"o(# o+ #i$ !o*n&. I" i# "he !on"en"ion o+ G)"ie((e=He(*no# "h" #i$ #le i# +()$)len" # 'in#" "he !(e$i"o(# o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co., n$ "h" "he "(n#+e("he(e& !on#)**"e$ o+ "he #"e*#hi in 7)e#"ion /# %oi$ # "o #i$ !(e$i"o(# n$ # "o G)"ie((e=He(*no# in ("i!)l(.

The(e i# #o*e !on"en"ion on "he (" o+ "he lin"i++# "h" #i$e +(o* "he (oe("& in!l)$e$ in "he #le(e+e((e$ "o, O(i He(*no# @ Co. h$ #)++i!ien" o"he( (oe("& "o & "he 4)$'*en" o+ G)"ie((e= He(*no#.The "(il !o)(" +o)n$, ho/e%e(, 'in#" "he lin"i++ in "hi# (e'($. A !(e+)l e-*in"ion o+ "he (e!o($ +il# "o

$i#!lo#e n& #)++i!ien" (e#on +o( "he (e%e(#l o+ "hi# +in$in'. While "he e%i$en!e i# #o*e/h" !on+li!"in', /e(e o+ "he oinion "h" "he(e i# #)++i!ien" "o #)#"in "he +in$in'# *$e.

In $e"e(*inin' /he"he( o( no" "he #le in 7)e#"ion /# +()$)len" # 'in#" !(e$i"o(#, "he#e +!"# *)#" e

e" in *in$3 !hn(o1e# %i(")l 1/li((&

1. A" "he "i*e o+ #i$ #le "he %l)e o+ "he ##e"# o+ O(i He(*no# @ Co., # #""e$ & "he ("ne(#"he*#el%e#, /# P0:6,???.

0. Th" " "he "i*e o+ #i$ #le !"ion# /e(e en$in' 'in#" #i$ !o*n& & one #in'le !(e$i"o( +o( #)*#

''(e'"in' in *o)n" ne(l& P19?,???.

. The %en$ee o+ #i$ #le /# #on o+ To*# O(i & . The (ohii"ion in "he !on"(!" 'in#" "he #le o+ !e("in o("ion# o+ "he (oe("& & "he lin"i++ o++e(# no(o"e!"ion /h"e%e( "o "he !(e$i"o(#. S)!h (ohii"ion i# no" #e!)(i"&. The ("ie# /ho *$e "he o(i'inl"(n#+e( !n /i%e n$ (ele#e i" " le#)(e. S)!h (e#"(i!"ion i# o+ no %l)e "o "he !(e$i"o(# o+ "he !o*n&.

The& !n no" )"ili=e i" +o( "he (e$)!"ion o+ "hei( !li*# o( in n& o"he( ene+i!il /&.


10/32

In $e"e(*inin' /he"he( o( no" !e("in !on%e&n!e i# +()$)len" "he 7)e#"ion in e%e(& !#e i# /he"he( "he!on%e&n!e /# on +i$e "(n#!"ion o( "(i! n$ !on"(i%n!e "o $e+e" !(e$i"o(#, o( /he"he( i"

!on#e(%e# "o "he $e"o( #e!il (i'h". I" i# no" #)++i!ien" "h" i" i# +o)n$e$ on 'oo$ !on#i$e("ion o( i# *$e/i"h on +i$e in"en"3 i" *)#" h%e o"h ele*en"#. I+ $e+e!"i%e in ei"he( o+ "he#e ("i!)l(#, l"ho)'h 'oo$

e"/een "he ("ie#, i" i# %oi$le # "o !(e$i"o(#. The ()le i# )ni%e(#l o"h " l/ n$ in e7)i"& "h"/h"e%e( +()$ !(e"e# 4)#"i!e /ill $e#"(o&. The "e#" # "o /he"he( o( no" !on%e&n!e i# +()$)len" #, $oe#i" (e4)$i!e "he (i'h"# o+ !(e$i"o(#5

In "he !on#i$e("ion o+ /he"he( o( no" !e("in "(n#+e(# /e(e +()$)len", !o)("# h%e li$ $o/n !e("in ()le#& /hi!h "he +()$)len" !h(!"e( o+ "he "(n#!"ion *& e $e"e(*ine$. The +ollo/in' (e #o*e o+ "he!i(!)*#"n!e# ""en$in' #le# /hi!h h%e een $eno*in"e$ & "he !o)("# $'e# o+ +()$3 !hn(o1e#%i(")l 1/li((&

1. The +!" "h" "he !on#i$e("ion o+ "he !on%e&n!e i# +i!"i"io)# o( i# in$e7)"e.

0. A "(n#+e( *$e & $e"o( +"e( #)i" h# een e')n n$ /hile i" i# en$in' 'in#" hi*.

. A #le )on !(e$i" & n in#ol%en" $e"o(.

6. E%i$en!e o+ l('e in$e"e$ne## o( !o*le"e in#ol%en!&.

8. The "(n#+e( o+ ll o( ne(l& ll o+ hi# (oe("& & $e"o(, e#e!ill& /hen he i# in#ol%en" o( '(e"l&e*((##e$ +inn!ill&.

9. The +!" "h" "he "(n#+e( i# *$e e"/een +"he( n$ #on; /hen "he(e (e (e#en" o"he( o+ "he o%e

!i(!)*#"n!e#.

:. The +il)(e o+ "he %en$ee "o "e e-!l)#i%e o##e##ion o+ ll "he (oe("&.

The !#e " ( (e#en"# e%e(& one o+ "he $'e# o+ +()$ o%e en)*e("e$. Te#"e$ & "he in7)i(&, $oe#"he #le (e4)$i!e "he (i'h"# o+ !(e$i"o(#, "he (e#)l" i# !le(. The #le in "he +o(* in /hi!h i" /# *$e le%e#

"he !(e$i"o(# #)#"n"ill& /i"ho)" (e!o)(#e. The (oe("& o+ "he !o*n& i# 'one, i"# in!o*e i# 'one, "he)#ine## i"#el+ i# liel& "o +il, "he (oe("& i# ein' $i##i"e$, n$ i# $e(e!i"in' in %l)e. A# (e#)l", e%eni+ "he !li*# o+ "he !(e$i"o(# #ho)l$ li%e "/el%e &e(# n$ "he !(e$i"o(# "he*#el%e# /i" "h" lon', i" i# *o(e"hn liel& "h" no"hin' /o)l$ e +o)n$ "o #"i#+& "hei( !li*# " "he en$ o+ "he lon' /i". Re'l$o %.

L)!h#in'e( @ Co., 8 Phil. Re., 908; (". 10>:, Ci%il Co$e, (. 1; 2n(e## Co**en"(ie#, %ol. , . :1:1>.

Sin!e "he (e!o($ #ho/# "h" "he(e /# no (oe("& /i"h /hi!h "he 4)$'*en" in 7)e#"ion !o)l$ e i$, "he$e+en$n"# /e(e oli'e$ "o (e#o(" "o n$ le%& )on "he #"e*e( in #)i". The !o)(" elo/ /# !o((e!" in+in$in' "he #le +()$)len" n$ %oi$ # "o G)"ie((e= He(*no# in #o +( # /# ne!e##(& "o e(*i" "he!olle!"ion o+ i"# 4)$'*en". A# !o(oll(&, "he !o)(" elo/ +o)n$ "h" "he e%i$en!e +ile$ "o #ho/ "h" "helin"i++ /# "he o/ne( o( en"i"le$ "o "he o##e##ion o+ "he #"e*e( in 7)e#"ion " "he "i*e o+ "he le%& n$

#le !o*line$ o+, o( "h" he /# $*'e$ "he(e&. De+en$n" h$ "he (i'h" "o *e "he le%& n$ "e#" "he%li$i"& o+ "he #le in "h" /&, /i"ho)" +i(#" (e#o("in' "o $i(e!" !"ion "o nn)l "he #le. The !(e$i"o( *&

""! "he #le & i'no(in' i" n$ #ei=in' )n$e( hi# e-e!)"ion "he (oe("&, o( n& ne!e##(& o("ion "he(eo+,/hi!h i# "he #)4e!" o+ "he #le.

Fo( "he#e (e#on# "he 4)$'*en" i# ++i(*e$, /i"ho)" #e!il +in$in' # "o !o#"#. So o($e(e$.

A(ellno, C.J., To((e#, 2, Bohn#on, C(#on, n$ T(en", JJ., !on!)(.

)epu%li! of the *hilippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN 1ANC

G.R. No. L-118)2 !+c++r 1, 191)


11/32

!OMINGO MERC!O and %OSEF MERC!O, plaintiffs-appellants"

vs.

%OSE ESPIRITU, adn/0ra0or o 0h+ +/0a0+ o 0h+ d+c+a/+d L/ E/r0, defendant-appellee.

Perfecto Salas odri)ue* for appellants.

+icente ,o* for appellee.

TORRES, J.:

(his is an appeal %& %ill of e#!eptions" filed %& the !ounsel for the plaintiffs from the judgment of

Septem%er 44" ++=" in $hi!h the judge of the Seventh 3udi!ial Distri!t dismissed the !omplaint filed

%& the plaintiffs and ordered them to 6eep perpetual silen!e in regard to the litigated land" and to pa&

the !osts of the suit.

1& a !omplaint dated April " ++/" !ounsel for Domingo and 3osefa Mer!ado %rought suit in theCourt of irst Instan!e of 1ula!an" against uis Espiritu" %ut" as the latter died soon thereafter" the

!omplaint $as amended %& %eing dire!ted against 3ose Espiritu in his !apa!it& of his administrator

of the estate of the de!eased uis Espiritu. (he plaintiffs alleged that the& and their sisters

Con!ep!ion and *a?" all surnamed Mer!ado" $ere the !hildren and sole heirs of Margarita Espiritu"

a sister of the de!eased uis Espiritu> that Margarita Espiritu died in +0" leaving as her

paraphernal propert& a tra!t of land of =0 he!tares in area situated in the %arrio of *andu!ot"

muni!ipalit& of Calumpit" 1ula!an" and %ounded as des!ri%ed in paragraph = of the amended

!omplaint" $hi!h hereditar& portion had sin!e then %een held %& the plaintiffs and their sisters"

through their father en!eslao Mer!ado" hus%and of Margarita Espiritu> that" a%out the &ear ++,"

said uis Espiritu" %& means of !ajoler&" indu!ed" and fraudulentl& su!!eeded in getting the plaintiffs

Domingo and 3osefa Mer!ado to sign a deed of sale of the land left %& their mother" for the sum of*=,," $hi!h amount $as divided among the t$o plaintiffs and their sisters Con!ep!ion and *a?"

not$ithstanding the fa!t that said land" a!!ording to its assessment" $as valued at */"5> that one-

half of the land in 'uestion %elonged to Margarita Espiritu" and one-half of this share" that is" one-

fourth of said land " to the plaintiffs" and the other one-fourth" to their t$o sisters Con!ep!ion and

*a?> that the part of the land %elonging to the t$o plaintiffs !ould produ!e +0, !avanes of ri!e per

annum" at *4.5, per !avan" $as e'uivalent to *=5, per annum> and that uis Espiritu had re!eived

said produ!ts from +,+ until the time of his death. Said !ounsel therefore as6ed that judgment %e

rendered in plaintiffsB favor %& holding to %e null and void the sale the& made of their respe!tive

shares of their land" to uis Espiritu" and that the defendant %e ordered to deliver and restore to the

plaintiffs the shares of the land that fell to the latter in the partition of the estate of their de!eased

mother Margarita Espiritu" together $ith the produ!ts thereof" un!olle!ted sin!e +,+" or theire'uivalent" to $it" *=5, per annum" and to pa& the !osts of the suit.

In due season the defendant administrator ans$ered the aforementioned !omplaint" den&ing ea!h

and all of the allegations therein !ontained" and in spe!ial defense alleged that the land" the su%je!t-

matter of the !omplaint" had an area of onl& 4+ !avanes of seed ri!e> that" on Ma& 45" +0=" its

o$ner" the de!eased Margarita Espiritu & Futo!" the plaintiffsB mother" $ith the due authori?ation of

her hus%and en!eslao Mer!ado & Arnedo Cru? sold to uis Espiritu for the sum of *4",,, a portion


12/32

of said land" to $it" an area su!h as is usuall& re'uired for fifteen !avanes of seed> that

su%se'uentl&" on Ma& +=" +,+" en!eslao Mer!ado & Arnedo Cru?" the plaintiffsB father" in his

!apa!it& as administrator of the propert& of his !hildren sold under pacto de retro to the same uis

Espiritu at the pri!e of */5 the remainder of the said land" to $it" an area !overed %& si# !avanes of

seed to meet the e#penses of the maintenan!e of his 7en!eslaoBs9 !hildren" and this amount %eing

still insuffi!ient the su!!essivel& %orro$ed from said uis Espiritu other sums of mone& aggregating atotal of *:,,> %ut that later" on Ma& +"++," the plaintiffs" alleging themselves to %e of legal age"

e#e!uted" $ith their sisters Maria del Consejo and Maria dela *a?" the notarial instrument inserted

integrall& in the 5th paragraph of the ans$er" %& $hi!h instrument" ratif&ing said sale under pacto de

retro of the land that had %elonged to their mother Margarita Espiritu" effe!ted %& their father

en!eslao Mer!ado in favor of uis Espiritu for the sum of *4":,," the& sold a%solutel& and

perpetuall& to said uis Espiritu" in !onsideration of *=,," the propert& that had %elonged to their

de!eased mother and $hi!h the& a!6no$ledged having re!eived from the aforementioned

pur!haser. In this !ross-!omplaint the defendant alleged that the !omplaint filed %& the plaintiffs $as

unfounded and mali!ious" and that there%& losses and damages in the sum of *+",,, had %een

!aused to the intestate estate of the said uis Espiritu.


13/32

passed %& inheritan!e to his four !hildren named Vi!toria" Ines" Margarita" and uis> and that" in the

partition of said de!edentBs estate" the par!el of land des!ri%ed in the !omplaint as !ontaining fort&-

seven and odd he!tares $as allotted to the %rother and sister uis and Margarita" in e'ual shares.

Margarita Espiritu" married to en!eslao Mer!ado & Ardeno Cru?" had %& this hus%and five !hildren"

Maria Consejo" Maria de la *a?" Domingo" 3osefa" and Amalia" all surnamed Mer!ado & Espiritu"

$ho" at the death of their mother in +0: inherited" %& operation of la$" one-half of the landdes!ri%ed in the !omplaint.

(he plaintiffsB petition for annulment of the sale and the !onse'uent restitution to them of t$o-fourths

of the land left %& their mother" that is" of one-fourth of all the land des!ri%ed in the !omplaint" and

$hi!h" the& stated" amounts to ++ he!tares" 0: ares and / !entares. (o this !laim the defendant

e#!epted" alleging that the land in 'uestion !omprised onl& an area su!h as is !ustomaril& !overed

%& 4+ !avanes of seed.

It $as also dul& proven that" %& a notarial instrument of Ma& 45" +0=" the plaintiffsB mother !onve&ed

%& a!tual and a%solute sale for the sum of *4",,," to her %rother uis Espiritu a portion of the land

no$ on litigation" or an area su!h as is usuall& !overed %& a%out +5 !avanes of seed> and that" ona!!ount of the loss of the original of said instrument" $hi!h $as on the possession of the pur!haser

uis Espiritu" and furthermore %e!ause" during the revolution" the proto!ols or registers of pu%li!

do!uments of the *rovin!e of 1ula!an $ere %urned" en!eslao Mer!ado & Arnedo Cru?" the

$ido$er of the vendor and father of the plaintiffs" e#e!uted" at the instan!e of the interested part&

uis Espiritu" the notarial instrument E#hi%it +" of the date of Ma& 4," +,+" in his o$n name and

those of his minor !hildren Maria Consejo" Maria de la *a?" Domingo" 3osefa" and Amalia" and

therein set forth that it $as true that the sale of said portion of land had %een made %& his

aforementioned $ife" then de!eased" to uis Espiritu in +0=.


14/32

reason that the de!eased pur!haser uis Espiritu availed himself of de!eit and fraud in o%taining

their !onsent for the e#e!ution of said deed.

As it $as proven %& the testimon& of the !ler6 of the paro!hial !hur!h of Apalit 7plaintiffs $ere %orn in

Apalit9 that the %aptismal register %oo6s of that parish pertaining to the &ears +0,-+0+" $ere lost

or %urned" the $itness Maria Consejo Mer!ado re!ogni?ed and identified the %oo6 E#hi%it A" $hi!hshe testified had %een 6ept and ta6en !are of %& her de!eased father en!eslao Mer!ado" pages

/: and / of $hi!h %ear the attestation that the plaintiff Domingo Mer!ado $as %orn on August ="

+0," and 3osefa Mer!ado" on 3ul& +=" +0+. urthermore" this $itness !orro%orated the averment

of the plaintiffsB minorit&" %& the personal registration !ertifi!ate of said Domingo Mer!ado" of the &ear

++=" E#hi%it C" %& $hi!h it appears that in ++, he $as onl& 4/ &ears old" $here%& it $ould also %e

appear that 3osefa Mer!ado $as 44 &ears of age in ++," and therefore" on Ma& +"++," $hen the

instrument of pur!hase and sale" E#hi%it /" $as e#e!uted" the plaintiffs must have %een"

respe!tivel&" + and +0 &ears of age.

(he $itness Maria Consejo Mer!ado also testified that after her fatherBs death her %rother and

sisters removed to Manila to live there" although her %rother Domingo used to reside $ith his un!leuis Espiritu" $ho too6 !harge of the administration of the propert& left %& his prede!essors in

interest> that it $as her un!le uis $ho got for her %rother Domingo the other !edula" E#hi%it 1"

pertaining to the &ear ++," $here in it appears that the latter $as then alread& 4/ &ears of age> that

she did not 6no$ $h& her un!le did so> that she and her %rother and sisters merel& signed the deed

of Ma& +" ++,> and that her father en!eslao Mer!ado" prior to his death had pledged the land to

her un!le uis Espiritu.

(he $itness Ines Espiritu testified that after the death of the plaintiffsB father" it $as uis Espiritu $ho

dire!ted the !ultivation of the land in litigation. (his testimon& $as !orro%orated %& her sister Vi!toria

Espiritu" $ho added that her nephe$" the plaintiff Domingo" had lived for some time" she did not

6no$ just ho$ long" under the !ontrol of uis Espiritu.

)o'ue 2alang" married to a sister of uis Espiritu" stated that the land that fell to his $ife and to his

sister-in-la$ Vi!toria" and $hi!h had an area of a%out 0 he!tares less than that of the land allotted to

the aforementioned uis and Margarita produ!ed for his $ife and his sister-in-la$ Vi!toria a net and

minimum &ield of 5, !avanes in +," in spite of its %eing high land and of inferior 'ualit&" as

!ompared $ith the land in dispute" and that its &ield $as still larger in ++=" $hen the said t$o

sistersB share $as := !avanes.

*atri!io (anju!to" the notar& %efore $hom the deed E#hi%it / $as ratified" $as a $itness for the

defendant.


15/32

Antonio Espiritu" :, &ears of age" $ho 6ne$ u!as Espiritu and the properties o$ned %& the latter"

testified that EspirituBs land !ontained an area of 0= !avanes" and after its o$nerBs death" $as under

$itnessB administration during to harvest t$o harvest seasons> that the produ!ts &ielded %& a portion

of this land" to $it" an area su!h as is so$n %& a%out +5 !avanes of seed" had %een" sin!e +0="

utili?ed %& uis Espiritu" %& reason of his having a!'uired the land> and that" after Margarita EspirituBs

death" her hus%and en!eslao Mer!ado too6 possession of another portion of the land" !ontainingan area of si# !avanes of seed and $hi!h had %een left %& this de!eased" and that he held same

until +,+" $hen he !onve&ed it to uis Espiritu. lapi.net

(he defendant-administrator" 3ose Espiritu" son of the de!eased uis Espiritu" testified that the

plaintiff Domingo Mer!ado used to live off and on in the house of his de!eased father" a%out the &ear

+, or ++," and used to go %a!6 and forth %et$een his fatherBs house and those of his other

relatives.

and in !onsideration of the fa!t that the said vendor uis Espiritu paid them" as an in!rease" the sum

of *=,," %& virtue of the !ontra!t made $ith him" the& de!lare having sold to him a%solutel& and in

perpetuit& said par!el of the land" $aive and then!eforth an& and all rights the& ma& have" inasmu!h

as said sum !onstitutes the just pri!e of the propert&.


16/32

So that said do!ument E#hi%it / is virtuall& an a!6no$ledgment of the !ontra!t of sale of the par!el

or portion of land that $ould !ontain +5 !avanes of seed ri!e made %& the vendorsB mother in favor of

the pur!haser uis Espiritu" their un!le" and li6e$ise an a!6no$ledgment of the !ontra!t of pledge or

mortgage of the remainder of said land" an area of si# !avanes" made $ith the same pur!haser" at

an in!rease of *=,, over the pri!e of *4":,," ma6ing an aggregate sum of */",,," de!omposed as

follo$s; *4",,," !olle!ted during her lifetime" %& the vendorsB father> and the said in!rease of *=,,"!olle!ted %& the plaintiffs.

In the aforementioned sale" a!!ording to the deed of Ma& 45" +0=" Margarita Espiritu !onve&ed to

her %rother uis the par!el of +5 !avanes of seed" E#hi%it +" and after her death the plaintiffsB

$ido$ed father mortgaged or pledged the remaining par!el or portion of : !avanes of seed to her

%rother-in-la$" uis Espiritu" in Ma&" +,+ 7E#hi%it 49. So it is that the notarial instrument E#hi%it /"

$hi!h $as assailed %& the plaintiffs" re!ogni?ed the validit& of the previous !ontra!ts" and the totalit&

of the land" !onsisting of an area !ontaining 4+ !avanes of seed ri!e" $as sold a%solutel& and in

perpetuit&" the vendors re!eiving in e#!hange *=,, more> and there is no !on!lusive proof in the

re!ord that this last do!ument $as false and simulated on a!!ount of the emplo&ment of an&

violen!e" intimidation" fraud" or de!eit" in the pro!uring of the !onsent of the vendors $ho e#e!utedit.

Considering the relation that e#ists %et$een the do!ument E#hi%it / and those of previous dates"

E#hi%its + and 4" and ta6ing into the a!!ount the relationship %et$een the !ontra!ting parties" and

also the general !ustom that prevails in man& provin!es of these Islands for the vendor or de%tor to

o%tain an in!rease in the pri!e of the sale or of the pledge" or an in!rease in the amount loaned"

$ithout proof to the !ontrar&" it $ould %e improper and illegal to hold" in vie$ of the fa!ts hereina%ove

set forth" that the pur!haser uis Espiritu" no$ de!eased" had an& need to forge or simulate the

do!ument E#hi%it / inasmu!h as" sin!e Ma&" +0=" he has held in the !apa!it& of o$ner %& virtue of

a prior a!'uisition" the par!el of land of +5 !avanes of seed" and li6e$ise" sin!e Ma&" +,+"

a!!ording to the !ontra!t of mortgage or pledge" the par!el of : !avanes" or the remainder of thetotal area of 4+ !avanes.

So that uis Espiritu $as" during his lifetime" and no$" after his death" his testate or intestate estate

is in la$ful possession of the par!el of land situated in *andu!ot that !ontains 4+ !avanes of seed"

%& virtue of the title of !onve&an!e of o$nership of the land measuring +5 !avanes" and" in

!onse'uen!e of the !ontra!t of pledge or mortgage in se!urit& for the sum of *:,," is li6e$ise in

la$ful possession of the remainder of the land" or an area !ontaining : !avanes of seed.

(he plaintiffs have a%solutel& no right $hatever to re!over said first par!el of land" as its o$nership

$as !onve&ed to the pur!haser %& means of a singular title of pur!hase and sale> and as to the other

portion of : !avanes of seed" the& !ould have redeemed it %efore Ma& +" ++," upon the pa&mentor the return of the sum $hi!h their de!eased father en!eslao Mer!ado had" during his lifetime"

re!eived as a loan under se!urit& of the pledged propert&> %ut" after the e#e!ution of the do!ument

E#hi%it /" the !reditor uis Espiritu definitel& a!'uired the o$nership of said par!el of : !avanes. It is

therefore a rash venture to attempt to re!over this latter par!el %& means of the !ontra!t of final and

a%solute sale" set forth in the deed E#hi%it /.


17/32

Moreover" the notarial do!ument E#hi%it +" are regards the statements made therein" is of the nature

of a pu%li! do!ument and is eviden!e of the fa!t $hi!h gave rise to its e#e!ution and of the date of

the latter" even against a third person and his prede!essors in interest su!h as are the plaintiffs. 7Civ.

Code" art. +4+0.9

(he plaintiffsB father" en!eslao Mer!ado" re!ogni?ing it to %e perfe!tl& true that his $ife MargaritaEspiritu sold said par!el of land $hi!h she inherited from her father" of an area of a%out +5 !avanes

of seed" to her %rother uis Espiritu" %& means of an instrument e#e!uted %& her on Ma& 45"+0= G

an instrument that disappeared or $as %urned G and li6e$ise re!ogni?ing that the proto!ols and

register %oo6s %elonging to the *rovin!e of 1ula!an $ere destro&ed as a result of the past

revolution" at the re'uest of his %rother-in-la$ uis Espiritu he had no o%je!tion to give the testimon&

re!orded in said notarial instrument" as it $as the truth regarding $hat had o!!urred" and in so doing

he a!ted as the plaintiffsB legitimate father in the e#er!ise of his parental authorit&" inasmu!h as he

had personal 6no$ledge of said sale" he himself %eing the hus%and $ho authori?ed said

!onve&an!e" not$ithstanding that his testimon& affe!ted his !hildrenBs interest and prejudi!ed his

o$n" as the o$ner of an& fruits that might %e produ!ed %& said real propert&.

(he signature and hand$riting of the do!ument E#hi%it 4 $ere identified as authenti! %& one of the

plaintiffs" Consejo Mer!ado" and as the re!ord sho$s no eviden!e $hatever that this do!ument is

false" and it does not appear to have %een assailed as su!h" and as it $as signed %& the plaintiffsB

father" there is no legal ground or $ell-founded reason $h& it should %e reje!ted. It $as therefore

properl& admitted as eviden!e of the !ertaint& of the fa!ts therein set forth.

(he prin!ipal defe!t attri%uted %& the plaintiffs to the do!ument E#hi%it / !onsists in that" on the date

of Ma& +" ++," $hen it $as e#e!uted that the& signed it" the& $ere minors" that is" the& had not &et

attained the age of 4+ &ears fi#ed %& A!t No. +0+" though no eviden!e appears in the re!ord that

the plaintiffs 3osefa and Domingo Mer!ado $ere in fa!t minors" for no !ertified !opies $ere

presented of their %aptismal !ertifi!ates" nor did the plaintiffs addu!e an& supplemental eviden!e$hatever to prove that Domingo $as a!tuall& + and 3osefa +0 &ears of age $hen the& signed the

do!ument E#hi%it /" on Ma& +" ++," inasmu!h as the !op&%oo6" E#hi%it A" not$ithstanding the

testimon& of the plaintiff Consejo Mer!ado" does not !onstitute suffi!ient proof of the dates of %irths

of the said Domingo and 3osefa.


18/32

against him does not violate the la$s relative to the sale of minorsB propert&" nor the juridi!al rules

esta%lished in !onsonan!e there$ith. 7De!isions of the supreme !ourt of Spain" of April 4" +0:,"

3ul& ++" +0:0" and Mar!h +" +05.9 itc/alf

ith respe!t to the true age of the plaintiffs" no proof $as addu!ed of the fa!t that it $as uis Espiritu

$ho too6 out Domingo Mer!adoBs personal registration !ertifi!ate on April +/" ++," !ausing the ageof 4/ &ears to %e entered therein in order to !orro%orate the date of the notarial instrument of Ma&

+th of the same &ear> and the supposition that he did" $ould also allo$ it to %e supposed" in order

to sho$ the propriet& of the !laim" that the !edula E#hi%it C $as ta6en out on e%ruar& +=" ++="

$here in it is re!orded that Domingo Mer!ado $as on that date 4/ &ears of age" for %oth these fa!ts

are not proved> neither $as an& proof addu!ed against the statement made %& the plaintiffs Domingo

and 3osefa in the notarial instrument E#hi%it /" that" on the date $hen the& e#e!uted it" the& $ere

alread& of legal age" and" %esides the annotation !ontained in the !op&%oo6 E#hi%it A" no

supplemental proof of their true ages $as introdu!ed.

Aside from the foregoing" from a !areful e#amination of the re!ord in this !ase" it !annot %e

!on!luded that the plaintiffs" $ho !laim to have minors $hen the& e#e!uted the notarial instrumentE#hi%it /" have suffered positive and a!tual losses and damages in their rights and interests as a

result of the e#e!ution of said do!ument" inasmu!h as the sale effe!ted %& the plaintiffsB mother"

Margarita Espiritu" in Ma&" +0=" of the greater part of the land of 4+ !avanes of seed" did not

o!!asion an& damage or prejudi!e to the plaintiffs" inasmu!h as their father stated in the do!ument

E#hi%it 4 that he $as o%liged to mortgage or pledge said remaining portion of the land in order to

se!ure the loan of the */5 furnished %& uis Espiritu and $hi!h $as su%se'uentl& in!reased to

*:,, so as to provide for !ertain engagements or perhaps to meet the needs of his !hildren" the

plaintiff> and therefore" to judge from the statements made %& their father himself" the& re!eived

through him" in e#!hange for the land of : !avanes of seed" $hi!h passed into the possession of the

!reditor uis Espiritu" the %enefit $hi!h must have a!!rued to them from the sums of mone& re!eived

as loans> and" finall&" on the e#e!ution of the impugned do!ument E#hi%it /" the plaintiffs re!eivedand divided %et$een themselves the sum of *=,," $hi!h sum" added to that *4",,, re!eived %&

Margarita Espiritu" and to that of the *:,, !olle!ted %& en!eslao Mer!ado" $ido$er of the latter

and father of the plaintiffs" ma6es all together the sum of */",,," the amount paid %& the pur!haser

as the pri!e of all the land !ontaining 4+ !avanes of seed" and is the just pri!e of the propert&" $as

not impugned" and" !onse'uentl&" should %e !onsidered as e'uivalent to" and !ompensator& for" the

true value of said land.

or the foregoing reasons" $here%& the errors assigned to the judgment appealed from have %een

refuted" and deeming said judgment to %e in a!!ordan!e $ith la$ and the eviden!e of re!ord" $e

should" and do here%&" affirm the same" $ith !osts against the appellants. So ordered.

$rellano" C. J." Jonson" Street" and Malcolm" JJ." concur.


19/32

)epu%li! of the *hilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN 1ANC

G.R. No. L-12&)1 r4 13, 19'9

ROSRIO L. !E BRGN$, ET L., petitioners"vs.FERNN!O F. !E #ILL BRILLE, respondent.

0scar M. 1errera for petitioners.. P. Sarandi and ,. +alde* $nama for respondents.

BENG$ON, J .5

)osario . de 1ragan?a and her sons )odolfo and 2uillermo petition for revie$ of the Court of

AppealBs de!ision $here%& the& $ere re'uired solidaril& to pa& ernando . de Villa A%rille the sumof *+,",,, plus 4 J interest from O!to%er /," +==.

(he a%ove petitioners" it appears" re!eived from Villa A%rille" as a loan" on O!to%er /," +==*,",,, in 3apanese $ar notes and in !onsideration thereof" promised in $riting 7E#hi%it A9 to pa&him *+,",,, in legal !urren!& of the *. I. t$o &ears after the !essation of the present hostilities or assoon as International E#!hange has %een esta%lished in the *hilippines" plus 4 J per annum.

1e!ause pa&ment had not %een made" Villa A%rille sued them in Mar!h +=.

In their ans$er %efore the Manila !ourt of first Instan!e" defendants !laimed to have re!eived*=,",,, onl& G instead of *,",,, as plaintiff asserted. (he& also averred that 2uillermo and

)odolfo $ere minors $hen the& signed the promissor& note E#hi%it A. After hearing the parties andtheir eviden!e" said !ourt rendered judgment" $hi!h the appellate !ourt affirmed" in the terms a%ovedes!ri%ed.

(here !an %e no 'uestion a%out the responsi%ilit& of Mrs. )osario . 1ragan?a %e!ause the minorit&of her !onsigners note release her from lia%ilit&> sin!e it is a personal defense of the minors.


20/32

e !annot agree to a%ove !on!lusion. rom the minorsB failure to dis!lose their minorit& in te same promissor2 note te2 si)ned " it does not follo$ as a legal proposition" that the& $ill not %e permittedthereafter to assert it. (he& had no juridi!al dut& to dis!lose their ina%ilit&. In fa!t" a!!ording toCorpu? 3uris Se!undum" =/ p. 4,:>

. . . . Some authorities !onsider that a false representation as to age in!luding a !ontra!t as

part of the !ontra!t and a!!ordingl& hold that it !annot %e the %asis of an a!tion in tort. Otherauthorities hold that su!h misrepresentation ma& %e the %asis of su!h an a!tion" on thetheor& that su!h misrepresentation is not a part of" and does not gro$ out of" the !ontra!t" orthat the enfor!ement of lia%ilit& for su!h misrepresentation as tort does not !onstitute anindire!t of enfor!ing lia%ilit& on the !ontra!t. 3n order to old infant liable" oever" te fraudmust be actual and not constructure. 3t as been eld tat is mere silence en makin) acontract as to a)e does not constitute a fraud ic can be made te basis of an action ofdecit . 7Emphasis Ours.9

(he fraud of $hi!h an infant ma& %e held lia%le to one $ho !ontra!ts $ith him in the %eliefthat he is of full age must %e a!tual not !onstru!tive" and mere failure of the infant to dis!losehis age is not suffi!ient. 74 Ameri!an 3urispruden!e" p. 0+.9

(he Me!ado !ase+ !ited in the de!ision under revie$ is different %e!ause the do!ument signedtherein %& the minor specificall2 stated e as of a)e> here E#hi%it A !ontained no su!h statement.In other $ords" in the Mer!ado !ase" the minor $as guilt& of a!tive misrepresentation> $hereas inthis !ase" if the minors $ere guilt& at all" $hi!h $e dou%t it is of passive 7or !onstru!tive9misrepresentation. Indeed" there is a gro$ing sentiment in favor of limiting the s!ope of theappli!ation of the Mer!ado ruling" $hat $ith the !onsideration that the ver& minorit& $hi!hin!apa!itated from !ontra!ting should li6e$ise e#empt them from the results of misrepresentation.

e hold" on this point" that %eing minors" )odolfo and 2uillermo 1ragan?a !ould not %e legall&%ound %& their signatures in E#hi%it A.

It is argued" nevertheless" %& respondent that inasmu!h as this defense $as interposed onl& in +5+"and inasmu!h as )odolfo rea!hed the age of majorit& in +=" it $as too late to invo6e it %e!ausemore than = &ears had elapsed after he had %e!ome eman!ipated upon rea!hing the age ofmajorit&. (he provisions of Arti!le +/,+ of the Civil Code are 'uoted to the effe!t that an a!tion toannul a !ontra!t %& reason of majorit& must %e filed $ithin = &ears after the minor has rea!hedmajorit& age. (he parties do not spe!if& the e#a!t date of )odolfoBs %irth. It is undenied" ho$ever"that in O!to%er +==" he $as +0 &ears old. On the %asis of su!h datum" it should %e held that inO!to%er +=" he $as 4+ &ears old" and in O!to%er +5+" he $as 45 &ears old. So that $hen thisdefense $as interposed in 3une +5+" four &ears had not &et !ompletel& elapsed from O!to%er +=.

urthermore" there is reason to dou%t the pertinen!& of the =-&ears period fi#ed %& Arti!le +/,+ ofthe Civil Code $here minorit& is set up onl& as a defense to an a!tion" $ithout the minors as6ing foran& positive relief from the !ontra!t. or one thing" the& have not filed in this !ase an action for

annulment.4

(he& merel& interposed an e#!use from lia%ilit&.

@pon the other hand" these minors ma& not %e entirel& a%solved from monetar& responsi%ilit&. Ina!!ordan!e $ith the provisions of Civil Code" even if their $ritten !onta!t is unenfor!ea%le %e!auseof non-age" the& shall ma6e restitution to the e#tent that the& have profited %& the mone& the&re!eived. 7Art. +/=,9 (here is testimon& that the funds delivered to them %& Villa A%rille ere usedfor teir support during the 3apanese o!!upation. Su!h %eing the !ase" it is %ut fair to hold that the&had profited to the e#tent of the value of su!h mone&" $hi!h value has %een authoritativel&


21/32

esta%lished in the so-!alled 1allantine S!hedule; in O!to%er +==" *=,.,, 3apanese notes $eree'uivalent to *+ of !urrent *hilippine mone&.

herefore" as the share of these minors $as 48/ of *,",,, of *=:":::.::" the& should no$ return*+"+::.:./(heir promise to pa& *+,",,, in *hilippine !urren!&" 7E#hi%it A9 !an not %e enfor!ed" asalread& stated" sin!e the& $ere minors in!apa%le of %inding themselves. (heir lia%ilit&" to repeat" is

presentl& de!lared $ithout regard of said E#hi%it A" %ut solel& in pursuan!e of Arti!le +/,= of the CivilCode.

A!!ordingl&" the appealed de!ision should %e modified in the sense that )osario 1ragan?a shall pa&+8/ of *+,",,, i.e." */"///.//= plus 4J interest from O!to%er +==> and )odolfo and 2uillermo1ragan?a shall pa& jointl&5 to the same !reditor the total amount of *+"+::.: plus :J interest%eginning Mar!h " +=" $hen the !omplaint $as filed. No !osts in this instan!e.

Paras" C.J." Padilla" Montema2or" e2es" $." 4autista $n)elo" 5abrador" Concepcion and &ndencia"JJ." concur.

SECOND DIVISION

6G.R. No. 1*9312. March 29, 199(7

"EIRS OF PLCI!O MIRN!, petitioners, vs. T"E COURT OF

PPELS, "ON. RO!OLFO TOLE!NO, Pr+/dn %d+ o

RTC, Ia, $aa4+/, Branch (9, GERICO MIRN! and h/ +

%UN MRCI, C"RITO MIRN! and h+r h/and

TIMOTEO PULE, h+r+n r+r+/+n0+d : 0h+r 00orn+:-In-Fac0,

E!IT" $UNIG, and T"E REGISTER OF !EE!S OF IB,

$MBLES, respondents.

6G.R. No. 12*2&'. March 29, 199(7

ISMEL ESMELE, LFRE!O MIRN!, NOE MIRN!, SR., NOE

MIRN!, %R., MOR LE!IN, FER!INN! LE!IN, PE!RO

RE;ES, FELI< RE;ES, NRCISO RE;ES, RO; BOR%, REMIGIO

ENCRNCION, ROBERTO !E LUN, and SPS. E!EN LE!IN

and "ECTOR SE#ILL, petitioners, vs. T"E COURT OFPPELS, "ON. FELI< MMENT, %R., Pr+/dn %d+, RTC,

Branch )*, Ia, $aa4+/, C"RITO MIRN!, and h+r h/and

TIMOTEO PULE, h+r+n r+r+/+n0+d : 0h+r 00orn+:-n-Fac0,

E!IT" $UNIG, respondents.

HDe!ision

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm


22/32

S;LLBUS

+. CI#IL L=> MO!ES OF C?UIRING O=NERS"IP> PRESCRIPTION>

T< RECEIPTS N! !ECLRTION OF O=NERS"IP FOR

T CONTRCTS> #OI!BLE CONTRCTS> RTICLE 1391 OF T"E

CI#IL CO!E PRESUPPOSES T"T NO C?UISITI#E PRESCRIPTION

"S SET IN. - *etitioners !ontend that under Art. +/+ of the Civil Code

the& had a period of four 7=9 &ears $ithin $hi!h to %ring an a!tion for annulment and that this period !ommen!ed to run onl& from Novem%er

++" $hen the& allegedl& dis!overed the fraud !ommitted against

them. Art. +/+ presupposes" ho$ever" that no a!'uisitive pres!ription has

set in" for after the favora%le effe!ts of a!'uisitive pres!ription have set in"

rights of o$nership over a propert& are rendered indisputa%le.


23/32

=. I!.> I!.> I!.> PETITIONERS CONTENTION T"T T"E CONTRCT

OF SLE IN CSE T BR IS BSOLUTEL; SIMULTE! N!,

T"EREFORE, T"E CTION TO !ECLRE ITS NULLIT; IS

IMPRESCRIPTIBLE IS INCONSISTENT =IT" "IS T"EOR; T"T T"E

PRI#TE RESPON!ENT C?UIRE! T"E LN! T"ROUG" FRU!>CSE T BR. - Nor is it !orre!t to sa& that the sale to private

respondents is a%solutel& simulated and" therefore" the a!tion to de!lare

its nullit& is impres!ripti%le. As Art. +/=5 of the Civil Code provides" a

!ontra!t is simulated if the parties did pot intend to %e %ound at all. (his is

!ompletel& the opposite of petitioners theor& that private

respondent Ageri!o Miranda a!'uired the land fromMa#imo Miranda

through fraud.

5. REME!IL L=> CI#IL PROCE!URE> PRESCRIPTION M; BEEFFECTI#EL; PLE!E! IN MOTION TO !ISMISS IF T"E

COMPLINT S"O=S ON ITS FCE T"T T"E CTION "S

LRE!; PRESCRIBE! T T"E TIME IT =S FILE!. - (he )egional

(rial Court dismissed the !omplaint upon motion %& the private

respondents and after petitioners had %een given full opportunit& to

oppose the motion to dismiss through the presentation of argument. As

the 'uestion $as $hether petitioners a!tion $as %arred %& pres!ription or

private respondents had a!'uired o$nership %& pres!ription" there $as noneed for the re!eption of oral eviden!e. *etitioners themselves stated in

their !omplaint that the sale" $hi!h the& $ere see6ing to annul" had %een

made on Novem%er 6" +5. Sin!e their !omplaint $as filed onl& on 3une

4" +4" after almost /5 &ears" it $as !lear that a!'uisitive pres!ription

had set in. *res!ription ma& %e effe!tivel& pleaded in a motion to dismiss if

the !omplaint sho$s on its fa!e that the a!tion had alread& pres!ri%ed at

the time it $as filed. In fa!t the trial !ourt !ould have dismissed the

!ase motu proprio on this ground even though the private respondents did

not present a motion for the dismissal of the !omplaint.

:. I!.> I!.> PPELS> PRT; CNNOT SUBSTITUTE T"E SPECIL

CI#IL CTION OF CERTIORRI UN!ER RULE (' OF T"E RULES OF

COURT FOR T"E REME!; OF PPEL. - Instead of appealing"

petitioners filed a petition for !ertiorari against the trial !ourts order of


24/32

dismissal. (he issue in this !ase is $hether the Court of Appeals erred in

dismissing petitioners a!tion on the ground that !ertiorari $as not the

proper remed& against the order of the trial !ourt. e hold that the

appellate !ourt did not err. (he !orre!t pro!edural re!ourse $as appeal

not onl& %e!ause" as alread& e#plained" the trial !ourt did not !ommit an&grave a%use of dis!retion in dismissing petitioners a!tion $ithout the

presentation of oral testimonies %ut also %e!ause the order of dismissal

$as a final order from $hi!h petitioners !ould have appealed in

a!!ordan!e $ith )ule =+" 4. Certiorari generall& lies onl& $hen there is no

appeal nor an& other plain" speed& or ade'uate remed& availa%le to

petitioners.


25/32

. I!.> BTS PMBNS BLG. 129> INFERIOR COURTS M;

!ETERMINE ?UESTIONS OF O=NERS"IP IN E%ECTMENT CSES

="ENE#ER NECESSR; TO !ECI!E T"E ?UESTION OF

POSSESSION. - All eje!tment !ases are no$ !overed %& the summar&

pro!edure regardless of $hether the& involve 'uestions of o$nership. @nder the )evised )ules on Summar& *ro!edure" the

adjudi!ation of !ases is done on the %asis of affidavits and position

papers. (he !ourt is no longer allo$ed to hold hearings to re!eive

testimonial eviden!e.Should the Court find it ne!essar& to !larif& !ertain

issues" it ma& re'uire the parties instead to su%mit affidavits or other

eviden!e. (he pro!eeding is re'uired to %e summar& so as to promote the

speed& disposition of eje!tment !ases. Nor !ould the penden!& of the

a!tion for annulment of sale and re!onve&an!e in the )egional (rial Court

%e su!!essfull& pleaded in a%atement of an a!tion for unla$ful detainer or

for!i%le entr&. It is no$ settled that the !ourt in eje!tment !ases ma&

determine 'uestions of o$nership $henever ne!essar& to de!ide the

'uestions of possession. Nor ma& petitioners" %& filing an a!tion involving

the o$nership of the land" frustrate the eje!tment suit" %rought %& private

respondent. Inferior !ourts are not divested of jurisdi!tion

over eje!tment !ases just %e!ause the defendants assert o$nership over

the litigated propert&. Indeed" the onl& issue in su!h !ases is ph&si!al or

material possession or possession de facto" independent of an& !laim of o$nership set forth %& an& of the part& litigants. (he purpose of the suit is

the restoration to the aggrieved part& of the possession of the premises

from $hi!h he has %een for!i%l& eje!ted or $hi!h has %een $ithheld from

him" and an&one $ho !an prove prior possession de facto ma& re!over

su!h possession. (his rule holds true regardless of the !hara!ter of a

part&s possession" provided that he has in his favor priorit& of time $hi!h

entitles him to sta& on the propert& until he is la$full& eje!ted.

! E C I S I O N

MEN!O$, J .5


26/32

(hese !ases have %een !onsolidated as the& involve the same parties and

su%je!t matter 7a 4+-he!tare land in *a$a-(alon and 2uintoan" *alauig"

am%ales9 and related issues.

G.R. No. 1*9312 is a petition for revie$ of the de!isionH+

of the Court of Appeals" sustaining the dismissal %& the )egional (rial Court" 1ran!h : at

I%a" am%ales" of a !omplaint $hi!h petitioners had filed for the annulment of

the sale of the land in 'uestion to private respondents. On the other

hand" G.R. No. 12*2&' is a petition for revie$ of another de!ision H4 of the

Court of Appeals" affirming the eje!tment of petitioners from the land $hi!h is

the su%je!t of 2.). No. +,/+4.

(he fa!ts are as follo$s;

*la!ido Miranda and his $ife $ere o$ners of a par!el of land" !onsisting of

a%out 4+ he!tares" in *a$a-(alon and 2uintoan" *alauig" am%ales. @pon

their death" the land $as administered %& their son Ma#imo

Miranda. On Novem%er 6" +5 Ma#imo Miranda sold the land to Ageri!o

Miranda" then *rovin!ial (reasurer of am%ales. On Novem%er +5" +0=" ree

*atent (itle No. :,,+0 7OC( No. *-5/9" !overing the land in 'uestion" $as

issued to Ageri!o Mirandas daughter" Charito. Sin!e the& a!'uired it from

Ma#imo Miranda" Ageri!o Miranda has %een in possession and !ultivation of

the land in %ehalf of his daughter" no$ a resident of Ne$ 3erse&" @.S.A.

On De!em%er 40" ++" the heirs of *la!ido Miranda entered the land and

prevented private respondents from !ultivating it" !laiming that the& $ere the

rightful o$ners and possessors %e!ause Ma#imo Miranda $as merel& the

administrator of *la!ido Mirandas estate" and that Ageri!o Miranda" as

*rovin!ial (reasurer" !aused the preparation of a ta# de!laration in $hi!h it

$as made to appear that Ma#imo Miranda $as the sole o$ner of the land.

On 3anuar& 4=" +4 private respondents %rought an a!tion for for!i%leentr& in the Muni!ipal Cir!uit (rial Court of Masinlo! and *alauig" Masinlo!"

am%ales against petitioners. (he !omplaint $as dismissed %& the !ourt on

the ground that it had no jurisdi!tion over the !ase" %ut on appeal the )egional

(rial Court at I%a" am%ales reversed and remanded the !ase to the MC(C.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn2


27/32

On the %asis of the parties position papers" the do!umentar& eviden!e

su%mitted %& them and their o$n pleadings" the MC(C

on August 6" +/ rendered judgment for private respondents" ordering

petitioners to va!ate the land. Its de!ision $as affirmed in toto %& the )egional

(rial Court. *etitioners filed a *etition for )evie$ in this Court 72.). No.++==9 $hi!h referred the !ase to the Court of Appeals. On e%ruar& 4="

+5" the appellate !ourt rendered a de!ision dismissing the !ase for la!6 of

merit. *etitioners filed a motion for re!onsideration $hi!h $as denied. (he

Court of Appeals de!ision is su%je!t of the present petition for revie$ on

!ertiorari in G.R. No. 12*2&'.

On the other hand" petitioners herein filed on 3une 4" +4 a !omplaint for

De!laration of Nullit&" Annulment of (itle and Deed of Sale and Can!ellation of

(itle and )e!onve&an!e $ith Damages and *artition against privaterespondents. *etitioners reiterated their !ontention that the sale of the land to

Ageri!o $as fraudulent and therefore void. In addition the& !ontended that the

!ertifi!ate of title issued in the name of Ageri!os daughter" Charito Miranda"

$as null and void %e!ause the latter $as dis'ualified from o$ning lands in

the *hilippines" having %e!ome a foreign !iti?en. (he& argued that in an&

event pres!ription did not set in %e!ause a!tions to de!lare the ine#isten!e of

an a%solutel& simulated !ontra!t do not pres!ri%e H/ and that if there $as an

appli!a%le period of pres!ription" it $ould %e four 7=9 &ears from Novem%er ++" $hen the& allegedl& dis!overed the fraud !ommitted against them %&

private respondents.

In ans$er" private respondents alleged that sin!e +5" the& had %een in

possession and !ultivation of the land" planting it to mango and !o!onut trees.

After Charito Miranda had gone to the @.S.A." the land $as administered %&

her father" Ageri!o Miranda. *rivate respondents !omplained that petitioners

entered said land and prevented them from going into it.

@pon motion of private respondents" the )egional (rial Court dismissed

the !omplaint on the ground of pres!ription. Instead of appealing from the

de!ision" petitioners filed a spe!ial !ivil a!tion for !ertiorari in the Court of

Appeals" $hi!h" on Mar!h +:" +/" dismissed their a!tion. Its de!ision is no$

the su%je!t of revie$ in 2.). No. +,/+4.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn3


28/32

*ro!edural and su%stantive issues are raised in these appeals for the

!onsideration of this Court. e shall deal $ith these appeals in inverse order.

In G.R. No. 1*9312 petitioners !ontend that %e!ause the Court of Appeals

did not set aside the order of the )egional (rial Court $hi!h dismissed their a!tion for the annulment of the sale on the ground of pres!ription" the

appellate !ourt san!tioned a dismissal %ased purel& on te!hni!alities $hi!h

deprived petitioners of the opportunit& to present eviden!e and thus violated

their right to due pro!ess.

(he !ontention is $ithout merit. (he )egional (rial Court dismissed the

!omplaint upon motion %& the private respondents and after petitioners had

%een given full opportunit& to oppose the motion to dismiss through the

presentation of argument. As the 'uestion $as $hether petitioners a!tion $as%arred %& pres!ription or private respondents had a!'uired o$nership %&

pres!ription" there $as no need for the re!eption of oral eviden!e. *etitioners

themselves stated in their !omplaint that the sale" $hi!h the& $ere see6ing to

annul" had %een made onNovem%er 5" +5. Sin!e their !omplaint $as filed

onl& on 3une 4" +4" after almost /5 &ears" it $as !lear that a!'uisitive

pres!ription had set in. *res!ription ma& %e effe!tivel& pleaded in a motion to

dismiss if the !omplaint sho$s on its fa!e that the a!tion had alread&

pres!ri%ed at the time it $as filed. In fa!t the trial !ourt !ould have dismissed

the !ase motu proprio on this ground even though the private respondents did

not present a motion for the dismissal of the !omplaint.H=

Indeed private respondent Ageri!o Miranda a!'uired the land %& virtue of

a deed of sale.


29/32

!onstitute the foundation of a pres!riptive right" it must %e under a !laim of title

or it must %e adverse or in the !on!ept of o$ner. H In this !ase" therefore" on

the %asis alone of possession for more than /, &ears" private respondents

o$nership" a!'uired through e#traordinar& pres!ription" is %e&ond 'uestion.

*etitioners !ontend that under Art. +/+ of the Civil Code the& had a

period of four 7=9 &ears $ithin $hi!h to %ring an a!tion for annulment and that

this period !ommen!ed to run onl& from Novem%er ++" $hen the& allegedl&

dis!overed the fraud !ommitted against them. Art. +/+ presupposes"

ho$ever" that no a!'uisitive pres!ription has set in" for after the favora%le

effe!ts of a!'uisitive pres!ription have set in" rights of o$nership over a

propert& are rendered indisputa%le.H+,

Nor is it !orre!t to sa& that the sale to private respondents is a%solutel&simulated and" therefore" the a!tion to de!lare its nullit& is impres!ripti%le. As

Art. +/=5 of the Civil Code provides" a !ontra!t is simulated if the parties did

not intend to %e %ound at all. (his is !ompletel& the opposite of petitioners

theor& that private respondent Ageri!o Miranda a!'uired the land from

Ma#imo Miranda through fraud.

Instead of appealing" petitioners filed a petition for !ertiorari against the

trial !ourts order of dismissal. (he issue in this !ase is $hether the Court of

Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners a!tion on the ground that !ertiorari$as not the proper remed& against the order of the trial !ourt. e hold that the

appellate !ourt did not err. (he !orre!t pro!edural re!ourse $as appeal not

onl& %e!ause" as alread& e#plained" the trial !ourt did not !ommit an& grave

a%use of dis!retion in dismissing petitioners a!tion $ithout the presentation of

oral testimonies %ut also %e!ause the order of dismissal $as a final order from

$hi!h petitioners !ould have appealed in a!!ordan!e $ith )ule =+" 4.

Certiorari generall& lies onl& $hen there is no appeal nor an& other plain"

speed& or ade'uate remed& availa%le to petitioners.


30/32

A part& !annot su%stitute the spe!ial !ivil a!tion of !ertiorari under )ule :5

of the )ules of Court for the remed& of appeal. (he e#isten!e and availa%ilit&

of the right of appeal are antitheti!al to the availa%ilit& of the spe!ial !ivil a!tion

of !ertiorari.H++ As this Court held in ,ajardo v. 4autista7H+4

Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and hence a

proper subject of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are

mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly, although the

special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary appeal is available, it

may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be inadequate, slow,

insuffucient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the

order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual. Nevertheless,

certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, where such

loss is occasioned by the petitioners own neglect or error in the choice of remedies.

(he Court of Appeals therefore did not err in holding;

The remedy of a petition for certiorari is unavailing. This court possesses no authority

to rule upon nonjurisdictional issues in a certiorari proceeding. A writ of certiorari

may issue only when the tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or

with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In G.R. No. 12*2&' petitioners argue that the use of summar& pro!edure

in the MC(C $as improper %e!ause there $as a 'uestion of o$nership

involved and a hearing should instead have %een held a!!ording to regular

pro!edure. In support of their !laim petitioners !ite the follo$ing provision of

the )ules on Summar& *ro!edure;

!. Scope. This "ules shall govern the procedure in the #etropolitan Trial $ourts, the

#unicipal Trial $ourts, and the #unicipal circuit Trial $ourts in the following cases%

A. $ivil $ases%

&!' $ases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, except where the question of

ownership is involved, or where the damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered

by the plaintiff exceed twenty thousand pesos &()*,***.**' at the time of the filing of

the complaint+

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn12


31/32

(he pro!eedings %elo$ $ere held" ho$ever" pursuant to the )evised

)ules on Summar& *ro!edure $hi!h too6 effe!t on Novem%er +5" ++" $hi!h

no$ provide;

!. Scope. This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the #etropolitan Trial$ourts, the #unicipal Trial $ourts in $ities, the #unicipal Trial $ourts, and the

#unicipal $ircuit Trial $ourts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction%

A. Civil Cases:

&!' All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of

damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. here attorneys fees are awarded,

the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos &()*,***.**'.

All eje!tment !ases are no$ !overed %& the summar& pro!edure

regardless of $hether the& involve 'uestions of o$nership.H+/ @nder the

)evised )ules on Summar& *ro!edure" the adjudi!ation of !ases is done on

the %asis of affidavits and position papers. H+= (he !ourt is no longer allo$ed to

hold hearings to re!eive testimonial eviden!e. Should the Court find it

ne!essar& to !larif& !ertain issues" it ma& re'uire the parties instead to su%mit

affidavits or other eviden!e. (he pro!eeding is re'uired to %e summar& so as

to promote the speed& disposition of eje!tment !ases.H+5

Nor !ould the penden!& of the a!tion for annulment of sale and

re!onve&an!e in the )egional (rial Court %e su!!essfull& pleaded in

a%atement of an a!tion for unla$ful detainer or for!i%le entr&. It is no$ settled

that the !ourt in eje!tment !ases ma& determine 'uestions of o$nership

$henever ne!essar& to de!ide the 'uestions of possession. Nor ma&

petitioners" %& filing an a!tion involving the o$nership of the land" frustrate the

eje!tment suit" %rought %& private respondent. Inferior !ourts are not divested

of jurisdi!tion over eje!tment !ases just %e!ause the defendants assert

o$nership over the litigated propert&.H+:

Indeed" the onl& issue in su!h !ases is ph&si!al or material possession or

possession de facto" independent of an& !laim of o$nership set forth %& an&

of the part& litigants. (he purpose of the suit is the restoration to the aggrieved

part& of the possession of the premises from $hi!h he has %een for!i%l&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn16


32/32

eje!ted or $hi!h has %een $ithheld from him" and an&one $ho !an prove prior

possession de facto ma& re!over su!h possession. (his rule holds true

regardless of the !hara!ter of a part&s possession" provided that he has in his

favor priorit& of time $hi!h entitles him to sta& on the propert& until he is

la$full& eje!ted.H+

="EREFORE" the petitions for revie$ in these !ases are DISMISSED

and the de!isions of the Court of Appeals are AI)MED.

SO OR!ERE!.

e)alado" omero" and Puno" JJ." !on!ur .

Torres" Jr." J." on leave.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/109312.htm#_edn17

12-16 oblic final batch of cases

Documents