Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-2659 October 12, 1950In the matter of the testate estate of Emil Maurice Bachrach, deceased. MARY McDONALD BACHRACH,petitioner-appellee,vs.SOPHIE SEIFERT and ELISA ELIANOFF,oppositors-appellants.Ross, Selph, Carrascoso and Janda for appellants.Delgado and Flores for appellee.OZAETA,J.:Is a stock dividend fruit or income, which belongs to the usufructuary, or is it capital or part of the corpus of the estate, which pertains to the remainderman? That is the question raised in the appeal.The deceased E. M. Bachrach, who left no forced heir except his widow Mary McDonald Bachrach, in his last will and testament made various legacies in cash and willed the remainder of his estate as follows:Sixth:It is my will and do herewith bequeath and devise to my beloved wife Mary McDonald Bachrach for life all the fruits and usufruct of the remainder of all my estate after payment of the legacies, bequests, and gifts provided for above; and she may enjoy said usufruct and use or spend such fruits as she may in any manner wish.The will further provided that upon the death of Mary McDonald Bachrach, one-half of the all his estate "shall be divided share and share alike by and between my legal heirs, to the exclusion of my brothers."The estate of E. M. Bachrach, as owner of 108,000 shares of stock of the Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc., received from the latter 54,000 shares representing 50 per cent stock dividend on the said 108,000 shares. On June 10, 1948, Mary McDonald Bachrach, as usufructuary or life tenant of the estate, petitioned the lower court to authorize the Peoples Bank and Trust Company as administrator of the estate of E. M. Bachrach, to her the said 54,000 share of stock dividend by endorsing and delivering to her the corresponding certificate of stock, claiming that said dividend, although paid out in the form of stock, is fruit or income and therefore belonged to her as usufructuary or life tenant. Sophie Siefert and Elisa Elianoff, legal heirs of the deceased, opposed said petition on the ground that the stock dividend in question was not income but formed part of the capital and therefore belonged not to the usufructuary but to the remainderman. And they have appealed from the order granting the petition and overruling their objection.While appellants admits that a cash dividend is an income, they contend that a stock dividend is not, but merely represents an addition to the invested capital. The so-called Massachusetts rule, which prevails in certain jurisdictions in the United States, supports appellants' contention . It regards cash dividends, however large, as income, and stock dividends, however made, as capital. (Minot vs. Paine, 99 Mass., 101; 96 Am. Dec., 705.) It holds that a stock dividend is not in any true sense any true sense any dividend at all since it involves no division or severance from the corporate assets of the dividend; that it does not distribute property but simply dilutes the shares as they existed before; and that it takes nothing from the property of the corporation, and nothing to the interests of the shareholders.On the other hand, so called Pennsylvania rule, which prevails in various other jurisdictions in the United States, supports appellee's contention. This rule declares that all earnings of the corporation made prior to the death of the testator stockholder belong to the corpus of the estate, and that all earnings, when declared as dividends in whatever form, made during the lifetime of the usufructuary or life tenant. (Earp's Appeal, 28 Pa., 368.). . . It is clear that testator intent the remaindermen should have only the corpus of the estate he left in trust, and that all dividends should go the life tenants. It is true that profits realized are not dividends until declared by the proper officials of the corporation, but distribution of profits, however made, in dividends, and the form of the distribution is immaterial. (In reThompson's Estate, 262 Pa., 278; 105 Atl. 273, 274.)In Hitevs.Hite (93 Ky., 257; 20 S. W., 778, 780), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, speaking thru its Chief Justice, said:. . . Where a dividend, although declared in stock, is based upon the earnings of the company, it is in reality, whether called by one name or another, the income of the capital invested in it. It is but a mode of distributing the profit. If it be not income, what is it? If it is, then it is rightfully and equitably the property of the life tenant. If it be really profit, then he should have it, whether paid in stock or money. A stock dividend proper is the issue of new shares paid for by the transfer of a sum equal to their par value from the profits and loss account to that representing capital stock; and really a corporation has no right to a dividend, either in cash or stock, except from its earnings; and a singular state of case it seems to us, an unreasonable one is presented if the company, although it rests with it whether it will declare a dividend, can bind the courts as to the proper ownership of it, and by the mode of payment substitute its will for that of that of the testator, and favor the life tenants or the remainder-men, as it may desire. It cannot, in reason, be considered that the testator contemplated such a result. The law regards substance, and not form, and such a rule might result not only in a violation of the testator's intention, but it would give the power to the corporation to beggar the life tenants, who, in this case, are the wife and children of the testator, for the benefit of the remainder-men, who may perhaps be unknown to the testator, being unborn when the will was executed. We are unwilling to adopt a rule which to us seems so arbitrary, and devoid of reason and justice. If the dividend be in fact a profit, although declared in stock, it should be held to be income. It has been so held in Pennsylvania and many other states, and we think it the correct rule. Earp's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 368; Cook, Stocks & S. sec. 554. . . .We think the Pennsylvania rule is more in accord with our statutory laws than the Massachusetts rule. Under section 16 of our Corporation Law, no corporation may make or declareanydividend except from the surplus profits arising from its business. Any dividend, therefore, whether cash or stock, represents surplus profits. Article 471 of the Civil Code provides that the usufructuary shall be entitled to receiveallthe natural, industrial, and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. And articles 474 and 475 provide as follows:ART. 474. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue day by day, and belong to the usufructuary in proportion to the time the usufruct may last.ART. 475. When a usufruct is created on the right to receive an income or periodical revenue, either in money or fruits, or the interest on bonds or securities payable to bearer, each matured payment shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits such right.When it consists of the enjoyment of the benefits arising from an interest in an industrial or commercial enterprise, the profits of which are not distributed at fixed periods, such profits shall have the same consideration.lawphil.netIn either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be applied in accordance with the rules prescribed by the next preceding article.The 108,000 shares of stock are part of the property in usufruct. The 54,000 shares of stock dividend are civil fruits of the original investment. They represent profits, and the delivery of the certificate of stock covering said dividend is equivalent to the payment of said profits. Said shares may be sold independently of the original shares, just as the offspring of a domestic animal may be sold independently of its mother.The order appealed from, being in accordance with the above-quoted provisions of the Civil Code, his hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. 107132 October 8, 1999MAXIMA HEMEDES,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINIUM REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ENRIQUE D. HEMEDES and R & B INSURANCE CORPORATION,respondents.G.R. No. 108472 October 8, 1999R & B INSURANCE CORPORATION,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINIUM REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, ENRIQUE D. HEMEDES and MAXIMA HEMEDES,respondents.GONZAGA-REYES,J.:Assailed in these petitions for review oncertiorariis the decision1of the eleventh division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 22010 promulgated on September 11, 1992 affirmingin totothe decision of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Laguna in Civil Case No. B-1766 dated February 22, 1989,2and the resolution dated December 29, 1992 denying petitioner R & B Insurance Corporation's (R & B Insurance) motion for reconsideration. As the factual antecedents and issues are the same, we shall decide the petitions jointly.The instant controversy involves a question of ownership over an unregistered parcel of land, identified as Lot No. 6, plan Psu-111331, with an area of 21,773 square meters, situated in Sala, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was originally owned by the late Jose Hemedes, father of Maxima Hemedes and Enrique D. Hemedes. On March 22, 1947 Jose Hemedes executed a document entitled "Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory Conditions"3whereby he conveyed ownership over the subject land, together with all its improvements, in favor of his third wife, Justa Kauapin, subject to the following resolutory conditions:(a) Upon the death or remarriage of the DONEE, the title to the property donated shall revert to any of the children, or their heirs, of the DONOR expressly designated by the DONEE in a public document conveying the property to the latter; or(b) In absence of such an express designation made by the DONEE before her death or remarriage contained in a public instrument as above provided, the title to the property shall automatically revert to the legal heirs of the DONOR in common.Pursuant to the first condition above mentioned, Justa Kausapin executed on September 27, 1960 a "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion"4conveying to Maxima Hemedes the subject property under the following terms That the said parcel of land was donated unto me by the said Jose Hemedes, my deceased husband, in a deed of "DONATION INTER VIVOS WITH RESOLUTORY CONDITIONS" executed by the donor in my favor, and duly accepted by me on March 22, 1947, before Notary Public Luis Bella in Cabuyao, Laguna;That the donation is subject to the resolutory conditions appearing in the said deed of "DONATION INTER VIVOS WITH RESOLUTORY CONDITIONS," as follows:(a) Upon the death or remarriage of the DONEE, the title to the property donated shall revert to any of the children, or their heirs, of the DONOR expressly designated by the DONEE in a public document conveying the property to the latter; or(b) In absence of such an express designation made by the DONEE before her death or remarriage contained in a public instrument as above provided, the title to the property shall automatically revert to the legal heirs of the DONOR in common.That, wherefore, in virtue of the deed of donation above mentioned and in the exercise of my right and privilege under the terms of the first resolutory condition therein contained and hereinabove reproduced, and for and in consideration of my love and affection, I do hereby by these presents convey, transfer, and deed unto my designee, MAXIMA HEMEDES, of legal age, married to RAUL RODRIGUEZ, Filipino and resident of No. 15 Acacia Road, Quezon City, who is one of the children and heirs of my donor, JOSE HEMEDES, the ownership of, and title to the property hereinabove described, and all rights and interests therein by reversion under the first resolutory condition in the above deed of donation; Except the possession and enjoyment of the said property which shall remain vested in me during my lifetime, or widowhood and which upon my death or remarriage shall also automatically revert to, and be transferred to my designee, Maxima Hemedes.Maxima Hemedes, through her counsel, filed an application for registration and confirmation of title over the subject unregistered land. Subsequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (0-941) 0-1985was issued in the name of Maxima Hemedes married to Raul Rodriguez by the Registry of Deeds of Laguna on June 8, 1962, with the annotation that "Justa Kausapin shall have the usufructuary rights over the parcel of land herein described during her lifetime or widowhood."It is claimed by R & B Insurance that on June 2, 1964, Maxima Hemedes and her husband Raul Rodriguez constituted a real estate mortgage over the subject property in its favor to serve as security for a loan which they obtained in the amount of P6,000.00. On February 22, 1968, R & B Insurance extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage since Maxima Hemedes failed to pay the loan even after it became due on August 2, 1964. The land was sold at a public auction on May 3, 1968 with R & B Insurance as the highest bidder and a certificate of sale was issued by the sheriff in its favor. Since Maxima Hemedes failed to redeem the property within the redemption period, R & B Insurance executed an Affidavit of Consolidation dated March 29, 1974 and on May 21, 1975 the Register of Deeds of Laguna cancelled OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 and issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 41985 in the name of R & B Insurance. The annotation of usufruct in favor of Justa Kausapin was maintained in the new title.6Despite the earlier conveyance of the subject land in favor of Maxima Hemedes, Justa Kausapin executed a "Kasunduan" on May 27, 1971 whereby she transferred the same land to her stepson Enrique D. Hemedes, pursuant to the resolutory condition in the deed of donation executed in her favor by her late husband Jose Hemedes. Enrique D. Hemedes obtained two declarations of real property in 1972, and again, in 1974, when the assessed value of the property was raised. Also, he has been paying the realty taxes on the property from the time Justa Kausapin conveyed the property to him in 1971 until 1979. In the cadastral survey of Cabuyao, Laguna conducted from September 8, 1974 to October 10, 1974, the property was assigned Cadastral No. 2990, Cad. 455-D, Cabuyao Cadastre, in the name of Enrique Hemedes. Enrique Hemedes is also the named owner of the property in the records of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform office at Calamba, Laguna.On February 28, 1979, Enriques D. Hemedes sold the property to Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation (Dominium). On April 10, 1981, Justa Kausapin executed an affidavit affirming the conveyance of the subject property in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes as embodied in the "Kasunduan" dated May 27, 1971, and at the same time denying the conveyance made to Maxima Hemedes.On May 14, 1981, Dominium leased the property to its sister corporation Asia Brewery, Inc. (Asia Brewery) who, even before the signing of the contract of lease, constructed two warehouses made of steel and asbestos costing about P10,000,000.00 each. Upon learning of Asia Brewery's constructions upon the subject property, R & B Insurance sent it a letter on March 16, 1981 informing the former of its ownership of the property as evidenced by TCT No. 41985 issued in its favor and of its right to appropriate the constructions since Asia Brewery is a builder in bad faith. On March 27, 1981, a conference was held between R & B Insurance and Asia Brewery but they failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.1wphi1.ntOn May 8, 1981, Maxima Hemedes also wrote a letter addressed to Asia Brewery wherein she asserted that she is the rightful owner of the subject property by virtue of OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 and that, as such, she has the right to appropriate Asia Brewery's constructions, to demand its demolition, or to compel Asia Brewery to purchase the land. In another letter of the same date addressed to R & B Insurance, Maxima Hemedes denied the execution of any real estate mortgage in favor of the latter.On August 27, 1981, Dominium and Enrique D. Hemedes filed acomplaint7with the Court of First Instance of Binan, Laguna for the annulment of TCT No. 41985 issued in favor of R & B Insurance and/or the reconveyance to Dominium of the subject property. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Dominium was the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of the February 28, 1979 deed of sale executed by Enrique D. Hemedes, who in turn obtained ownership of the land from Justa Kausapin, as evidenced by the "Kasunduan" dated May 27, 1971. The plaintiffs asserted that Justa Kausapin never transferred the land to Maxima Hemedes and that Enrique D. Hemedes had no knowledge of the registration proceedings initiated by Maxima Hemedes.After considering the merits of the case, the trial court rendered judgment on February 22, 1989 in favor of plaintiffs Dominium and Enrique D. Hemedes, the dispositive portion of which states WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:(a) Declaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41985 of the Register of Deeds of Laguna null and void and ineffective;(b) Declaring Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation the absolute owner and possessor of the parcel of land described in paragraph 3 of the complaint;(c) Ordering the defendants and all persons acting for and/or under them to respect such ownership and possession of Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation and to forever desist from asserting adverse claims thereon nor disturbing such ownership and possession; and(d) Directing the Register of Deeds of Laguna to cancel said Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41985 in the name of R & B Insurance Corporation, and in lieu thereof, issue a new transfer certificate of title in the name of Dominium Realty and Construction Corporation. No pronouncement as to costs and attorney's fees.8Both R & B Insurance and Maxima Hemedes appealed from the trial court's decision. On September 11, 1992 the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decisionin totoand on December 29, 1992, it denied R & B Insurance's motion for reconsideration. Thus, Maxima Hemedes and R & B Insurance filed their respective petitions for review with this Court on November 3, 1992 and February 22, 1993, respectively.In G.R. No. 1071329, petitioner Maxima Hemedes makes the following assignment of errors as regards public respondent's ruling IRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING ARTICLE 1332 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE IN DECLARING AS SPURIOUS THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE OF UNREGISTERED REAL PROPERTY BY REVERSION EXECUTED BY JUSTA KAUSAPIN IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER MAXIMA HEMEDES.IIRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS VOID AND OF NO LEGAL EFFECT THE "KASUNDUAN" DATED 27 MAY 1971 EXECUTED BY JUSTA KAUSAPIN IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT ENRIQUE HEMEDES AND THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY RESPONDENT ENRIQUE HEMEDES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT DOMINIUM REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.IIIRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING RESPONDENTS ENRIQUE AND DOMINIUM IN BAD FAITH.IVRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING THAT ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. (0-941) 0-198 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER MAXIMA HEMEDES NULL AND VOID.VRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT NO LOAN WAS OBTAINED BY PETITIONER MAXIMA HEMEDES FROM RESPONDENT R & B INSURANCE CORPORATION.VIRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT NO REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS EXECUTED BY PETITIONER MAXIMA HEMEDES IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT R & B INSURANCE CORPORATION.VIIRESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE VALID TITLE COVERING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. (0-941) 0-198 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER MAXIMA HEMEDES AND NOT THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (TCT) NO. 41985 IN THE NAME OF R & B INSURANCE CORPORATION.10Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 10847211, petitioner R & B Insurance assigns almost the same errors, except with regards to the real estate mortgage allegedly executed by Maxima Hemedes in its favor. Specifically, R & B Insurance alleges that:IRESPONDENT COURT ERRONEOUSLY ERRED IN APPLYING ARTICLE 1332 OF THE CIVIL CODE.IIRESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE ON (sic) THE KASUNDUAN BY AND BETWEEN JUSTA KAUSAPIN AND ENRIQUE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT JUSTA KAUSAPIN BY WAY OF A DEED OF CONVEYANCE OF UNREGISTERED REAL PROPERTY BY REVERSION CEDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MAXIMA SOME ELEVEN (11) YEARS EARLIER.IIIRESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE ON (sic) THE AFFIDAVIT OF REPUDIATION OF JUSTA KAUSAPIN NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SHE IS A BIAS (sic) WITNESS AND EXECUTED THE SAME SOME TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE IN FAVOR OF MAXIMA.IVRESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT OF ENRIQUE AND DOMINIUM HAS PRESCRIBED AND/OR THAT ENRIQUE AND DOMINIUM WERE GUILTY OF LACHES.VRESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FINDINGR & B AS A MORTGAGEE NOT IN GOOD FAITH.VIRESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE DAMAGES PRAYED FOR BY R & B IN ITS COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIM.12The primary issue to be resolved in these consolidated petitions is which of the two conveyances by Justa Kausapin, the first in favor of Maxima Hemedes and the second in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes, effectively transferred ownership over the subject land.The Register of Deeds of Laguna issued OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 in favor of Maxima Hemedes on the strength of the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" executed by Justa Kausapin. Public respondent upheld the trial court's finding that such deed is sham and spurious and has "no evidentiary value under the law upon which claimant Maxima Hemedes may anchor a valid claim of ownership over the property." In ruling thus, it gave credence to the April 10, 1981 affidavit executed by Justa Kausapin repudiating such deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes and affirming the authenticity of the "Kasunduan" in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes. Also, it considered as pivotal the fact that the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes was in English and that it was not explained to Justa Kausapin, although she could not read nor understand English; thus, Maxima Hemedes failed to discharge her burden, pursuant to Article 1332 of the Civil Code, to show that the terms thereof were fully explained to Justa Kausapin. Public respondent concluded by holding that the registration of the property on the strength of the spurious deed of conveyance is null and void and does not confer any right of ownership upon Maxima Hemedes.13Maxima Hemedes argues that Justa Kausapin's affidavit should not be given any credence since she is obviously a biased witness as it has been shown that she is dependent upon Enrique D. Hemedes for her daily subsistence, and she was most probably influenced by Enrique D. Hemedes to execute the "Kasunduan" in his favor. She also refutes the applicability of article 1332. It is her contention that for such a provision to be applicable, there must be a party seeking to enforce a contract; however, she is not enforcing the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" as her basis in claiming ownership, but rather her claim is anchored upon OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 issued in her name, which document can stand independently from the deed of conveyance. Also, there exist various circumstances which show that Justa Kausapin did in fact execute and understand the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes.First, the "Donation Intervivos With Resolutory Conditions" executed by Jose Hemedes in favor of Justa Kausapin was also in English, but she never alleged that she did not understand such document.Secondly, Justa Kausapin failed to prove that it was not her thumbmark on the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes and in fact, both Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium objected to the request of Maxima Hemedes' counsel to obtain a specimen thumbmark of Justa Kausapin.14Public respondent's finding that the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property By Reversion" executed by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes is spurious is not supported by the factual findings in this case. It is grounded upon the mere denial of the same by Justa Kausapin. A party to a contract cannot just evade compliance with his contractual obligations by the simple expedient of denying the execution of such contract. If, after a perfect and binding contract has been executed between the parties, it occurs to one of them to allege some defect therein as a reason for annulling it, the alleged defect must be conclusively proven, since the validity and fulfillment of contracts cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties.15Although a comparison of Justa Kausapin's thumbmark with the thumbmark affixed upon the deed of conveyance would have easily cleared any doubts as to whether or not the deed was forged, the records do not show that such evidence was introduced by private respondents and the lower court decisions do not make mention of any comparison having been made.16It is a legal presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.17The failure of private respondents to refute the due execution of the deed of conveyance by making a comparison with Justa Kausapin's thumbmark necessarily leads one to conclude that she did in fact affix her thumbmark upon the deed of donation in favor of her stepdaughter.Moreover, public respondent's reliance upon Justa Kausapin's repudiation of the deed of conveyance is misplaced for there are strong indications that she is a biased witness. The trial court found that Justa Kausapin was dependent upon Enrique D. Hemedes for financial assistance.18Justa Kausapin's own testimony attests to this fact Atty. Conchu:Q: Aling Justa, can you tell the Honorable Court why you donated this particular property to Enrique Hemedes?A: Because I was in serious condition and he was the one supporting me financially.Q: As of today, Aling Justa are you continuing to receive any assistance from Enrique Hemedes?A: Yes Sir.(TSN pp. 19 and 23, November 17, 1981)19Even Enrique Hemedes admitted that Justa Kausapin was dependent upon him for financial support. The transcripts state as follows:Atty. Mora:Now you said that Justa Kausapin has been receiving from you advances for food, medicine & other personal or family needs?E. Hemedes:A: Yes.Q: Was this already the practice at the time this "Kasunduan" was executed?A: No that was increased, no, no, after this document.xxx xxx xxxQ: And because of these accommodations that you have given to Justa Kausapin; Justa Kausapin has in turn treated you very well because she's very grateful for that, is it not?A: I think that's human nature.Q: Answer me categorically, Mr. Hemedes she's very grateful?A: Yes she might be grateful but not very grateful.(TSN, p. 34, June 15, 1984)20A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the truth, or to state what is false.21At the time the present case was filed in the trial court in 1981, Justa Kausapin was already 80 years old, suffering from worsening physical infirmities and completely dependent upon her stepson Enrique D. Hemedes for support. It is apparent that Enrique D. Hemedes could easily have influenced his aging stepmother to donate the subject property to him. Public respondent should not have given credence to a witness that was obviously biased and partial to the cause of private respondents. Although it is a well-established rule that the matter of credibility lies within the province of the trial court, such rule does not apply when the witness' credibility has been put in serious doubt, such as when there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, which has been overlooked or the significance of which has beenmisinterpreted.22Finally, public respondent was in error when it sustained the trial court's decision to nullify the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" for failure of Maxima Hemedes to comply with article 1332 of the Civil Code, which states:When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.Art. 1332 was intended for the protection of a party to a contract who is at a disadvantage due to his illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap.23This article contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by mistake or fraud committed by the other contracting party.24This is apparent from the ordering of the provisions under Book IV, Title II, Chapter 2, section 1 of the Civil Code, from which article 1332 is taken. Article 1330 states that A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable.This is immediately followed by provisions explaining what constitutes mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud sufficient to vitiate consent.25In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract.26Fraud, on the other hand, is present when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.27Clearly, article 1332 assumes that the consent of the contracting party imputing the mistake or fraud was given, although vitiated, and does not cover a situation where there is a complete absence of consent.1wphi1.ntIn this case, Justa Kausapin disclaims any knowledge of the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" in favor of Maxima Hemedes. In fact, she asserts that it was only during the hearing conducted on December 7, 1981 before the trial court that she first caught a glimpse of the deed of conveyance and thus, she could not have possibly affixed her thumbmark thereto.28It is private respondents' own allegations which render article 1332 inapplicable for it is useless to determine whether or not Justa Kausapin was induced to execute said deed of conveyance by means of fraud employed by Maxima Hemedes, who allegedly took advantage of the fact that the former could not understand English, when Justa Kausapin denies even having seen the document before the present case was initiated in 1981.It has been held by this Court that ". . . mere preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to overthrow a certificate of a notary public to the effect that the grantor executed a certain document and acknowledged the fact of its execution before him. To accomplish this result, the evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate, and when the evidence is conflicting, the certificate will beupheld."29In the present case, we hold that private respondents have failed to produce clear, strong, and convincing evidence to overcome the positive value of the "Deed Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" a notarized document. The mere denial of its execution by the donor will not suffice for the purpose.In upholding the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes, we must concomitantly rule that Enrique D. Hemedes and his transferee, Dominium, did not acquire any rights over the subject property. Justa Kausapin sought to transfer to her stepson exactly what she had earlier transferred to Maxima Hemedes the ownership of the subject property pursuant to the first condition stipulated in the deed of donation executed by her husband. Thus, the donation in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes is null and void for the purported object thereof did not exist at the time of the transfer, having already been transferred to his sister.30Similarly, the sale of the subject property by Enrique D. Hemedes to Dominium is also a nullity for the latter cannot acquire more rights than its predecessor-in-interest and is definitely not an innocent purchaser for value since Enrique D. Hemedes did not present any certificate of title upon which it relied.The declarations of real property by Enrique D. Hemedes, his payment of realty taxes, and his being designated as owner of the subject property in the cadastral survey of Cabuyao, Laguna and in the records of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform office in Calamba, Laguna cannot defeat a certificate of title, which is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.31Particularly, with regard to tax declarations and tax receipts, this Court has held on several occasions that the same do not by themselves conclusively prove title to land.32We come now to the question of whether or not R & B Insurance should be considered an innocent purchaser of the land in question. At the outset, we note that both the trial court and appellate court found that Maxima Hemedes did in fact execute a mortgage over the subject property in favor of R & B Insurance. This finding shall not be disturbed because, as we stated earlier, it is a rule that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to respect, and should not be disturbed onappeal.33In holding that R & B Insurance is not a mortgagee in good faith, public respondent stated that the fact that the certificate of title of the subject property indicates upon its face that the same is subject to an encumbrance,i.e. usufructuary rights in favor of Justa Kausapin during her lifetime or widowhood, should have prompted R & B Insurance to ". . . investigate further the circumstances behind this encumbrance on the land in dispute," but which it failed to do. Also, public respondent considered against R & B Insurance the fact that it made it appear in the mortgage contract that the land was free from all liens, charges, taxes and encumbrances.34R & B Insurance alleges that, contrary to public respondent's ruling, the presence of an encumbrance on the certificate of title is not reason for the purchaser or a prospective mortgagee to look beyond the face of the certificate of title. The owner of a parcel of land may still sell the same even though such land is subject to a usufruct; the buyer's title over the property will simply be restricted by the rights of the usufructuary. Thus, R & B Insurance accepted the mortgage subject to the usufructuary rights of Justa Kausapin. Furthermore, even assuming that R & B Insurance was legally obliged to go beyond the title and search for any hidden defect or inchoate right which could defeat its right thereto, it would not have discovered anything since the mortgage was entered into in 1964, while the "Kasunduan" conveying the land to Enrique D. Hemedes was only entered into in 1971 and the affidavit repudiating the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes was executed by Justa Kausapin in 1981.35We sustain petitioner R & B Insurance's claim that it is entitled to the protection of a mortgagee in good faith.It is a well-established principle that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.36An innocent purchaser for value37is one who buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim of another person.38The annotation of usufructuary rights in favor of Justa Kausapin upon Maxima Hemedes' OCT dose not impose upon R & B Insurance the obligation to investigate the validity of its mortgagor's title. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form andsubstance.39The usufructuary is entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil fruits of the property40and may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a gratuitous title, but all the contracts he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the usufruct.41Clearly, only thejus utendiandjus fruendiover the property is transferred to the usufructuary.42The owner of the property maintains thejus disponendior the power to alienate, encumber, transform, and even destroy the same.43This right is embodied in the Civil Code, which provides that the owner of property the usufruct of which is held by another, may alienate it, although he cannot alter the property's form or substance, or do anything which may be prejudicial to the usufructuary.44There is no doubt that the owner may validly mortgage the property in favor of a third person and the law provides that, in such a case, the usufructuary shall not be obliged to pay the debt of the mortgagor, and should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof.45Based on the foregoing, the annotation of usufructuary rights in favor of Justa Kausapin is not sufficient cause to require R & B Insurance to investigate Maxima Hemedes' title, contrary to public respondent's ruling, for the reason that Maxima Hemedes' ownership over the property remained unimpaired despite such encumbrance. R & B Insurance had a right to rely on the certificate of title and was not in bad faith in accepting the property as a security for the loan it extended to Maxima Hemedes.Even assumingin gratia argumentithat R & B Insurance was obligated to look beyond the certificate of title and investigate the title of its mortgagor, still, it would not have discovered any better rights in favor of private respondents. Enrique D. Hemedes and Dominium base their claims to the property upon the "Kasunduan" allegedly executed by Justa Kausapin in favor of Enrique Hemedes. As we have already stated earlier, such contract is a nullity as its subject matter was inexistent. Also, the land was mortgaged to R & B Insurance as early as 1964, while the "Kasunduan" was executed only in 1971 and the affidavit of Justa Kausapin affirming the conveyance in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes was executed in 1981. Thus, even if R & B Insurance investigated the title of Maxima Hemedes, it would not have discovered any adverse claim to the land in derogation of its mortgagor's title. We reiterate that at no point in time could private respondents establish any rights or maintain any claim over the land.It is a well-settled principle that where innocent third persons rely upon the correctness of a certificate of title and acquire rights over the property, the court cannot just disregard such rights. Otherwise, public confidence in the certificate of title, and ultimately, the Torrens system, would be impaired for everyone dealing with registered property would still have to inquire at every instance whether the title has been regularly or irregularly issued.46Being an innocent mortgagee for value, R & B Insurance validly acquired ownership over the property, subject only to the usufructuary rights of Justa Kausapin thereto, as this encumbrance was properly annotated upon its certificate of title.The factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the appellate court, carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal, except under certain circumstances.47One such circumstance that would compel the Court to review the factual findings of the lower courts is where the lower courts manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.48Also, it is axiomatic that the drawing of the proper legal conclusions from such factual findings are within the peculiar province of this Court.49As regards R & B Insurance's prayer that Dominium be ordered to demolish the warehouses or that it be declared the owner thereof since the same were built in bad faith, we note that such warehouses were constructed by Asia Brewery, not by Dominium. However, despite its being a necessary party in the present case, the lower courts never acquired jurisdiction over Asia Brewery, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, and their respective decisions did not pass upon the constructions made upon the subject property. Courts acquire jurisdiction over a party plaintiff upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the person of a party defendant is acquired upon the service of summons in the manner required by law or by his voluntary appearance. As a rule, if a defendant has not been summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and any personal judgment rendered against such defendant is null and void.50In the present case, since Asia Brewery is a necessary party that was not joined in the action, any judgment rendered in this case shall be without prejudice to its rights.51As to its claim for moral damages, we hold that R & B Insurance is not entitled to the same for it has not alleged nor proven the factual basis for the same. Neither is it entitled to exemplary damages, which may only be awarded if the claimant is entitled to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.52R & B Insurance's claim for attorney's fees must also fail. The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. Its award pursuant to article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification and cannot be left to speculation and conjecture.53Under the circumstances prevailing in the instant case, there is no factual or legal basis for an award of attorney's fees.WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of public respondent and its resolution dated February 22, 1989 are REVERSED. We uphold petitioner R & B Insurance's assertion of ownership over the property in dispute, as evidenced by TCT No. 41985, subject to the usufructuary rights of Justa Kausapin, which encumbrance has been properly annotated upon the said certificate of title. No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.Melo, J., please see dissenting opinion.Vitug, J., please see separate (concurring) opinion.Separate OpinionsVITUG,J.,separate opinion;I share the opinion expressed by my esteemed colleague, Mme. Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, in herponencia.I just would like to add that a donation would not be legally feasible if the donor has neither ownership nor real right that he can transmit to the donee. Unlike an ordinary contract, a donation, under Article 712, in relation to Article 725, of the Civil Code is also a mode of acquiring and transmitting ownership and other real rights by an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously that ownership or real right in favor of another who accepts it. It would be an inefficacious process if the donor would have nothing to convey at the time it is made.Art. 744 of the Civil Code states that the "donation of the same thing to two or more different donees shall be governed by the provisions concerning the sale of the same thing to two or more persons,"i.e., by Article 1544 of the same Code, as if so saying that there can be a case of "double donations" to different donees with opposing interest. Article 744 is a new provision, having no counterpart in the old Civil Code, that must have been added unguardedly. Being a mode of acquiring and transmitting ownership or other real rights, a donation once perfected would deny the valid execution of a subsequent inconsistent donation (unless perhaps if the prior donation has provided a suspensive condition which still pends when the later donation is made).In sales, Article 1544, providing for the rules to resolve the conflicting rights of two or more buyers, is appropriate since the law does not prohibit but, in fact, sanctions the perfection of a sale by a non-owner, such as the sale of future things or a short sale, for it is only at the consummation stage of the sale,i.e., delivery of the thing sold, that ownership would be deemed transmitted to the buyer. In the meanwhile, a subsequent sale to another of the same thing by the same seller can still be a legal possibility. This rule on double sales finds no relevance in an ordinary donation where the law requires the donor to have ownership of the thing or the real right he donates at the time of its perfection (see Article 750, Civil Code) since a donation constitutes a mode, not just a title, in an acquisition and transmission of ownership.MELO,J.,dissenting opinion;I find myself unable to join the majority. The opinion written by my esteemed colleague, Madame Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, will have far-reaching ramifications on settled doctrines concerning the finality and conclusiveness of the factual findings of the trial court in view of its unique advantage of being able to observe at first-hand the demeanor and deportment of witnesses, and especially when such findings of facts are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which is the final arbiter of questions of fact (People vs. Edao, 64 SCRA 675 [1975]; People vs. Tala, 141 SCRA 240; People vs. Canada and Dondoy, 144 SCRA 121 [1986]; People vs. Clore, 184 SCRA 638 [1990]; Binalay vs. Manalo, 195 SCRA 374 [1991]; People vs. Miscala, 202 SCRA 26 [1991]; People vs. Lagrosa, 230 SCRA. 298 [1994]). All these conditions are present in the case at bar, and I have grave reservations about the propriety of setting aside time-tested principles in favor of a finding that hinges principally on the credibility of a single witness, whom we are asked to disbelieve on the basis merely of her recorded testimony without the benefit of the advantage that the trial court had, disregarding in the process another long-established rule that mere relationship of a witness to a party does not discredit his testimony in court (U.S. vs. Mante, 27 Phil 124; People vs. Pagaduan, 37 Phil 90; People vs. Reyes, 69 SCRA 474 [1976]; People vs. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484 [1976]; Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 329 [1976]; People vs. Estocada, 75 SCRA 295 [1977]; People vs. Ciria, 106 SCRA 381 [1981]; People vs. Ramo, 132 SCRA 174 [1984]; People vs. Atencio, 156 SCRA 242 [1987]; People vs. Gutierrez. Jr., 158 SCRA 614 [1988]; People vs. Bandoquillo, 167 SCRA 549 [1988]; People vs. Suitos, 220 SCRA 419 [1993]).The primordial issue is whether or not the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" dated September 27, 1960 conveying the subject property to Maxima Hemedes is valid. If the transfer is not valid, no title passed to her successor-in-interest, R & B Insurance Corporation.The Court of Appeals, confirming and summarizing the findings of fact and law made by the trial court, declared:We sustain the findings of the trial court.To begin with, the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" was nullified by the trial court on two (2) grounds:First, MAXIMA failed to comply with the requirements laid down by Article 1332 of the Civil Code. Said provision reads:Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged,the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.In her testimony, MAXIMA admitted the entire document was written in English, a language not known to Justa Kausapin (TSN, 17 November 1981, pp. 7-8; Deposition of Justa Kausapin). Yet, MAXIMA failed to introduce sufficient evidence that would purportedly show that the deed of conveyance was explained to Justa Kausapin before the latter allegedly affixed her thumbmark. On the contrary, she admitted having failed to translate the deed of conveyance to Justa Kausapin because according to her, the latter has "no voice" anyway insofar as the property is concerned. Her testimony reads:Q In connection with this deed of conveyance which has been marked as Exh. "2-Maxima," we note that this is written in English, do you know, Mrs. Hernandez (MAXIMA), whether this document was ever translated to Justa Kausapin?A Justa Kausapin has no voice because that's the order of my father, so anyway. . .Court Answer the question, you were only asked whether that was translated.A No. (TSN 26 November, 1984, pp. 36-37, Maxima Hemedes).Second, MAXIMA failed to repudiate the allegation of Justa Kausapin disclaiming knowledge of her having executed such a deed. As a matter of fact, Justa Kausapin claimed that it was only during the hearing conducted on 07 December 1981 that she first caught glimpse of the deed of conveyance (TSN, 07 December 1981, pp. 22-23,ibid.) She therefore could not have possibly affixed her thumbmark therein. In the light of such a denial, the burden of proving that the deed of conveyance was indeed genuine laid on MAXIMA. After all, any party who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable judgment (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 290).1wphi1.ntInstead, what was clearly established from the deposition of Justa Kausapin is the fact that she never executed any document donating the property to anybody else except ENRIQUE. This can be readily gleaned from her testimony, reading:Q From the time, Aling Justa, that your husband Jose Hemedes donated the property to you up to the time you in turn donated the same to Enrique Hemedes in 1971, do you recall having executed any document donating this particular property to anybody else?A None, Sir. (TSN, 17 November 1981, p. 21)(pp. 63-64,Rollo.)There is no dispute that Justa Kausapin twice repudiated the conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes. As found by the trial court:In an Affidavit dated April 10, 1981 executed by Justa Kausapin before three witnesses (Exh. D-Dominium), said affiant disowned the alleged "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" invoked by defendant Maxima Hemedes, and expressly stated that she never granted any right over the property to Maxima Hemedes, whether as owner or mortgagor, that she never allowed her to use the land as security or collateral for a loan. In the same affidavit, Justa Kausapin affirmed the authenticity of the "Kasunduan" whereby she transferred ownership of the disputed land to Enrique Hemedes, her stepson and reliable source of assistance throughout the years that she was in need of help. The testimony of Justa Kausapin was also taken by deposition on November 17, December 7 and 14, 1981 and on January 14, 1982, wherein all the contending parties were represented and had the opportunity to cross-examine her. In her testimony (the entire transcript of which has been submitted as Exh. K-Enrique), Justa Kausapin reiterated her repudiation of the Deed of Conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes and re-affirmed the validity of the "Kasunduan" in favor of Enrique Hemedes, as well as the subsequent sale of the land by Enrique Hemedes to Dominium.(pp. 83-84,Rollo.)The majority would hold that the twin repudiations cannot be given credence because the witness is biased in favor of Enrique Hemedes, who, by providing support and financial assistance to the witness before, during and after the execution of the "Kasunduan," is said to have influenced her into signing the same. This issue refers to the credibility of witnesses which, as stated earlier, is best left for determination by the trial court (People vs. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158 [1998],citingPeople vs. Pontillar, Jr., 275 SCRA 338 [1997]; People vs. Rubio, 257 SCRA 528 [1996]; People vs. Del Prado, 253 SCRA 731 [1996]). I am not prepared to substitute my judgment for that of the trial court on the credibility of Justa Kausapin on the basis alone of the relationship between her and Enrique Hemedes. To reiterate, the rule is: "Mere relationship of a witness to a party does not discredit his testimony in court." (U.S. vs. Mante,supra; Aznar vs. Court of Appeals, 70 SCRA 329 [1976]; People vs. Letigio, 268 SCRA 227, 243 [1997]).I cannot infer from the mere circumstance that Justa Kausapin was receiving support and sustenance from Enrique Hemedes that she had any improper motives to testify in favor of Enrique and against Maxima. It must be remembered that Justa Kausapin had a legal right to such financial assistance, not only from respondent Enrique Hemedes, but also from Maxima Hemedes, who are both her stepchildren. If one must impute improper motives in favor of Enrique, one could just as easily ascribe these to Maxima. Furthermore, it must be noted that Justa Kausapin's entitlement to support flowed from her usufructuary rights contained in the "Donation Inter Vivos with Resolutory Conditions" executed by her late husband, Jose Hemedes, the common father of petitioner Maxima and respondent Enrique Hemedes. In supporting his stepmother, Enrique was, therefore, merely performing a legal or contractual duty in favor of Justa Kausapin. There was nothing improper in Justa Kausapin's repudiation of the conveyance in favor of Maxima, especially so if one considers the fact that the latter did not adduce any other evidence to defeat the presumption that Justa Kausapin was stating the truth when she said that she never conveyed the property to Justa Maxima. As the trial court found:. . . The actuation of Enrique Hemedes towards Justa Kausapin is legally and morally justified. It must be remembered that Justa Kausapin is the stepmother of Enrique Hemedes; she was also the usufructuary of the property in dispute. It is only natural and in keeping with law and custom, or Filipino tradition, for a son to support his mother (even if she happens to be a stepmother); and form a legal standpoint, the naked owner Enrique Hemedes was bound to support Justa Kausapin by way of giving her what she was entitled to as usufructuary.(p. 104,Rollo.)The trial court's ruling on the invalidity of the title of Maxima is not based solely on Justa Kausapin's repudiation of the deed of conveyance, but likewise on the very acts of Maxima and her transferee R & B Surety and Insurance. The factual findings of the trial court are to the effect that despite the alleged transfer of ownership from Justa Kausapin to Maxima Hemedes on September 27, 1960 and the subsequent transfer to R & B Insurance on May 3, 1968 by way of foreclosure and public auction sale, neither do these petitioners exercised their rights of ownership over the disputed property, never even asserting their supposed ownership rights until it was too late. The following findings of the trial court stand unassailed:There are other indications which led this Court to believe that neither defendant Maxima Hemedes nor defendant R & B INSURANCE consider themselves the owner of the property in question. Both of these claimants never declared themselves as owners of the property for tax purposes; much less did they pay a single centavo in real estate taxes. The argument that since Justa Kausapin was in possession of the property as usufructuary she should pay the taxes contravenes the clear provision of the Civil Code that the taxes which may be imposed directly on the capital during the usufruct, in this case the realty taxes, shall be at the expense of the owner (Article 597, Civil Code). If Maxima Hemedes and R & B INSURANCE were convinced that they were the owners of the property, why did they not pay taxes for the same? This attitude is not consistent with that of an owner in good faith. The Court has noted that the very owner of R & B INSURANCE has admitted in her testimony that they declared the property as one of the assets of R & B INSURANCE only in 1976, which is eight years after they supposedly bought it at public auction in 1968 (TSN, July 6, 1987, pp. 22-23) (Decision, pp. 32-33).(pp. 101-02,Rollo.)Faced with the categorical and straightforward repudiations of the conveyance supposedly made in her favor, Maxima Hemedes could only gratuitously assert otherwise, as no other testimonial or documentary evidence was adduced in support thereof. Maxima's self-serving assertions, however, are legally infirm in view of her admission that the deed of conveyance in her favor was written in a language unknown to the person who supposedly executed the same and the terms thereof were not fully explained to the person who executed the same. These are the facts as found by the trial court:Questioned about the execution of the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" which is the basis of her claim, defendant Maxima Hemedes admitted that the document which is in English was not translated or explained to Justa Kausapin before the latter supposedly affixed her thumbmark to the document (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 34; TSN, December 10, 1984, p. 9). The Court has noted from the records that the Notary Public before whom the said document was notarized was not presented as a wittiness by defendant Maxima Hemedes, if only to attest to the execution of said document by Justa Kausapin, considering that the latter is an illiterate when it comes to documents written in English. Maxima explained the non-translation of the Deed of Conveyance into a language understood by Justa Kausapin with the statement that the latter (Justa Kausapin) "has no voice" anyway in so far as the property is concerned (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 36) . . . the Notary Public before whom the said document was supposed to have been axknowledged was also not presented as a witness, and there was no explanation as to why he was not also presented. In the face of such an admission and failure on the part of defendant Maxima Hemedes, coupled with the straightforward repudiation by Justa Kausapin herself of the document relied upon by said defendant the Court finds and so concludes that the "Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" is not a credible and convincing evidence and is of no evidentiary value under the law upon which claimant Maxima Hemedes may anchor a valid claim of ownership over the property subject of this action.(pp. 91-93,Rollo.)It is argued that private respondents failed to have the thumbmarks of Justa Kausapin appearing on the deeds executed in favor of Maxima and Enrique compared and this failure may be taken as wilful suppression of evidence that is presumed to be adverse if produced (Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3(e). The applicability of this rule presupposes that the suppressed evidence is not available to the other party for production in court (People vs. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484 [1976]; People vs. Silvestre, 279 SCRA 474, 495 [1997]). This is not the case here for the same documents were available to petitioners. In fact, the records show that counsel for Maxima Hemedes pledged to submit the document which will be compared with the specimen thumbmark to be obtained from Justa Kausapin (TSN, December 7, 1981, p. 28). The records, however, do not show that said counsel persisted in his request for comparison of Kausapin's thumbmarks. If petitioners were convinced that the specimen thumbprint of Justa Kausapin was of crucial importance to their cause, they should have insisted on presenting her as a witness and, thereupon, obtaining her thumbprint. Their own failure to pursue the production of the specimen thumbprint of Justa Kausapin negated any belated claim that the said specimen was suppressed (People vs. Tulop,citingPeople vs. Pagal, 272 SCRA 443 [1998]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Tokyo Shipping Company, Ltd., 244 SCRA 332 [1995];citingNicolas vs. Nicolas, 52 Phil 265 [1928] and Ang Seng Quiem vs. Te Chico, 7 Phil 541 [1907]).1wphi1.ntThe two courts below were, to my mind, most perceptive when they held that proof of authenticity of the thumbprint of Justa Kausapin would not render valid an otherwise void document in light of the admission of Maxima Hemedes that she did not explain the English contents thereof to Justa Kausapin in a language understood by her.On the other hand, the validity of the conveyance to Enrique Hemedes is amply proven by the evidence on record. Thus, largely uncontested are the following findings of fact of the trial court:Enough has already been said hereinabove concerning the claim of ownership of plaintiff Enrique. From an overall evaluation of the facts found by the Court to be substantiated by the evidence on record, the Court is convinced and so holds that the three conflicting claimants, it is party plaintiffs, Enrique Hemedes and now DOMINIUM, who have both law and equity on their side. Plaintiff Enrique Hemedes' title to the property in question by virtue of the "Kasunduan" dated May 27, 1971 was confirmed twice by his grantor, Justa Kausapin; he complied with his obligations as naked owner by giving Justa Kausapin her usufructuary rights in the form of financial and other assistance; he declared his ownership of the property openly and adversely to other claimants by recording the same in the appropriate government agencies, namely, the Municipal and Provincial Assessor's Office, the Ministry of Agrarian Reform and the Bureau of Lands; he was openly known in the community where the property is located as the owner thereof; he paid the taxes on the property conscientiously from the time he acquired the same to the time he sold the same to co-plaintiff DOMINIUM; he was in continuous possession of the property during the said period; he paid the tenant, Nemesio Marquez, the disturbance fee required under the Land Reform Law.(pp., 102-103,Rollo.)The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not err in holding that since the deed of conveyance to Maxima was found to be spurious, it necessarily follows that OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 issued in her name is null and void. This is because the registration will not invalidate a forged or invalid document.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-123December 12, 1945JOSEFA FABIE,petitioner,vs.JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID, Judge of First Instance of Manila, NGO BOO SOO and JUAN GREY,respondents.Sancho Onocencio for petitioner.Serverino B. Orlina for respondent Ngo Soo.No appearance for other respondents.OZAETA,J.:The petitioner Josefa Fabie is the usufructuary of the income of certain houses located at 372-376 Santo Cristo, Binondo, and 950-956 Ongpin, Santa Cruz, Manila, under the ninth clause of the will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey, which textually reads as follows:NOVENO. Lego a mi ahijada menor de edad, Maria Josefa de la Paz Fabie, en usufructo vitalicio las rentas de las fincas situadas en la Calle Santo Cristo Numeros 372 al 376 del Disrito de Binondo, de esta Ciudad de Manila, descrita en el Certificado Original de Titulo No. 3824; y en la Calle Ongpin, Numeros 950 al 956 del Distrito de Santa Cruz, Manila descrita en el Certificado Original de Titulo No. 5030, expedidos por el Registrador de Titulos de Manila, y prohibo enajene, hipoteque, permute o transfiera de algun modo mientras que ella sea menor de edad. Nombro a Serafin Fabie Macario, mi primo por linea paterna tutor de la persona y bienes de mi ahijada menor, Maria Josefa de la Paz Fabie.The owner of Santo Cristo property abovementioned is the respondent Juan Grey, while those of the Ongpin property are other person not concern herein. Previous to September 1944 litigation arose between Josefa Fabie as plaintiff and Juan Grey as defendant and the owner of the Ongpin property as intervenors, involving the administration of the houses mentioned in clause 9 of the will above quoted (civil case No. 1659 of the Court of First Instance of Manila). That suit was decided by the court on September 2, 1944, upon a stipulation in writing submitted by the parties to and approved by the court. The pertinent portions of said stipulation read as follows:(4) Heretofore, the rent of said properties have been collected at times by the respective owners of the properties, at other times by the usufructuary, and lastly by the defendant Juan Grey as agent under a written agreement dated March 31, 1942, between the owners of both properties and the usufructuary.(5) When the rents were collected by the owners, the net amounts thereof were duly paid to the usufructuary after the expenses for real estate taxes, repairs and insurance premiums, including the documentary stamps, on the properties and the expenses of collecting the rents had been deducted, and certain amount set aside as a reserve for contingent liabilities. When the rents were collected by the usufructuary, she herself paid the expenses aforesaid. When the rents are collected by the defendant Juan Grey under the agreement of March 31, 1942, the net amounts thereof were duly paid to the usufructuary, after deducting and setting aside the items aforesaid, monthly, until the month of October 1943, when the usufructuary refused to continue with the agreement of March 31, 1942.x x x x x x x x xII. The parties hereto jointly petition the Court to render judgment adopting the foregoing as finding of facts and disposing that:(8) Beginning with the month of September 1944, the usufructuary shall collect all the rents of the both the Sto. Cristo and the Ongpin properties.(9) The usufructuary shall, at her own cost and expense, pay all the real estate taxes, special assessments, and insurance premiums, including the documentary stamps, and make all the necessary repairs on each of the properties, promptly when due or, in the case of repairs, when the necessary, giving immediate, written notice to the owner or owners of the property concerned after making such payment or repairs. In case of default on the part of the usufructuary, the respective owners of the properties shall have the right to make the necessary payment, including penalties and interest, if any, on the taxes and special assessments, and the repairs and in that event the owner or owners shall entitled to collect all subsequent rents of the property concerned until the amount paid by him or them and the expenses of collection are fully covered thereby, after which the usufructuary shall again collect the rents in accordance herewith.(10) The foregoing shall be in effect during the term of the usufruct and shall be binding on the successors and assigns of each of the parties.(11) Nothing herein shall be understood as affecting any right which the respective owners of the properties have or may have as such and which is not specifically the subject of this stipulation.In June 1945 Josefa Fabie commenced an action of unlawful detainer against the herein respondent Ngo Boo Soo (who says that his correct name is Ngo Soo), alleging in her amended complaint that the defendant is occupying the premises located at 372-376 Santo Cristo on a month-to month rental payable in advance not latter than the 5th of each month; that she is the administratrix and usufructuary of said premises; "that the defendant offered to pay P300 monthly rent payable in advance not later than the 5th of every month, beginning the month of April 1945, for the said of premises including the one door which said defendant, without plaintiff's consent and contrary to their agreement, had subleased to another Chinese, but plaintiff refused, based on the fact that the herein plaintiff very badly needs the said house to live in, as her house was burned by the Japanese on the occasion of the entry of the American liberators in the City and which was located then at No. 38 Flores, Dominga, Pasay; that defendant was duly notified on March 24 and April 14, 1945, to leave the said premises, but he refused"; and she prayed for judgment of eviction and for unpaid rentals.The defendant answered alleging that he was and since 1908 had been a tenant of the premises in question, which he was using and had always used principally as a store and secondarily for living quarters; that he was renting it from its owner and administrator Juan Grey; "that plaintiff is merely the usufructuary of the income therefrom, and by agreement between her and said owner, which is embodied in a final judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, her only right as usufructuary of the income is to receive the whole of such income; that she has no right or authority to eject tenants, such right being in the owner and administrator of the house, the aforesaid Juan Grey, who has heretofore petitioned this Court for permission to intervene in this action; that plaintiff herein has never had possession of said property; that defendant's lease contract with the owner of the house is for 5-year period, with renewal option at the end of each period, and that his present lease due to expire on December 31, 1945 . . .; that on June 1, 1945, defendant made a written offer to plaintiff to compromise and settle the question of the amount of rent to be paid by defendant . . . but said plaintiff rejected the same for no valid reason whatever and instituted the present action; that the reason plaintiff desires to eject defendant from the property is that she wishes to lease the same to other persons for a higher rent, ignoring the fact that as usufructuary of the income of the property she has no right to lease the property; that the defendant has subleased no part of the house to any person whomsoever.Juan Grey intervened in the unlawful detainer suit, alleging in his complaint in intervention that he is the sole and absolute owner of the premises in question; that the plaintiff Josefa Fabie is the usufructuary of the income of said premises; by virtue of a contract between him and the intervenor which will expire on December 31, 1945, with the option to renew it for another period of five years from and after said date; that under the agreement between the intervenor and plaintiff Josefa Fabie in civil case No. 1659 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was approved by the court and incorporated in its decision of September 2, 1944, the only right recognized in favor of Josefa Fabie as usufructuary of the income of said premises is to receive the rents therefrom when due; and that as usufructuary she has no right nor authority to administer the said premises nor to lease them nor to evict tenants, which right and authority are vested in the intervenor as owner of the premises.The municipal court (Judge Mariano Nable presiding) found that under paragraph 9 of the stipulation incorporated in the decision of the Court First Instance of Manila in civil; case No. 1659, the plaintiff usufructuary is the administratrix of the premises in question, and that the plaintiff had proved her cause. Judgment was accordingly rendered ordering the defendant Ngo Soo to vacate the premises and to pay the rents at the rate of P137.50 a month beginning April 1, 1945. The complaint in intervention was dismissed.Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance of Manila the latter (thru Judge Arsenio P. Dizon) dismissed the case for the following reason: "The main issue *** is not a mere question of possession but precisely who is entitled to administer the property subject matter of this case and who should be the tenant, and the conditions of the lease. These issues were beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court. This being case, this Court, as appellate court, is likewise without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present case." A motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff was denied by Judge Jose Gutierrez David, who sustained the opinion of Judge Dizon.lawphi1.netThe present original action was instituted in this Court by Josefa Fabie to annul the order of the dismissal and to require to the Court of First Instance to try and decide the case on the merits. The petitioner further prays that the appeal of the intervenor Juan Grey be declared out of time on the ground that he receive copy of the decision on August 3 but did not file his notice of appeal until August 25, 1945.1. The first question to determine is whether the action instituted by the petitioner Josefa Fabie in the municipal court is a purely possessory action and as such within the jurisdiction of said court, or an action founded on property right and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court. In other words, is it an action of unlawful detainer within the purview of section 1 of Rule 72, or an action involving the title to or the respective interests of the parties in the property subject of the litigation?Said section 1 of Rule 72 provides that "a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one year after such unlawful deprivation of withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper inferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with the damages and costs."It is admitted by the parties that the petitioner Josefa Fabie is the usufructuary of the income of the property in question and that the respondent Juan Grey is the owner thereof. It is likewise admitted that by virtue of a final judgment entered in civil case No. 1659 of the Court of First Instance of Manila between the usufructuary and the owner, the former has the right to collect all the rents of said property for herself with the obligation on her part to pay all the real estate taxes, special assessments, and insurance premiums, and make all necessary repairs thereon, and in case default on her part the owner shall have the right to do all those things, in which event he shall be entitled to collect all subsequent rents of the property concerned until the amount paid by him and the expenses of collection are fully satisfied, after which the usufructuary shall again collect the rents. There is therefore no dispute as to the title to or the respective interests of the parties in the property in question. The naked title to the property is to admittedly in the respondent Juan Grey, but the right to all the rents thereof, with the obligation to pay the taxes and insurance premiums and make the necessary repairs, is, also admittedly, vested in the usufructuary, the petitioner Josefa Fabie, during her lifetime. The only question between the plaintiff and the intervenor is: Who has the right to manage or administer the property to select the tenant and to fix the amount of the rent? Whoever has that right has the right to the control and possession of the property in question, regardless of the title thereto. Therefore, the action is purely possessory and not one in any way involving the title to the property. Indeed, the averments and the prayer of the complaint filed in the municipal court so indicate, and as a matter of fact the defendant Ngo Soo does not pretend to be the owner of the property, but on the contrary admits to be a mere tenant thereof. We have repeatedly held that in determining whether an action of this kind is within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court or of the Court of First Instance, the averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are primarily to be consulted; that the defendant in such an action cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace or municipal court by setting up title in himself; and that the factor which defeats the jurisdiction of said court is the necessity to adjudicate the question of title. (Mediranvs.Villanueva, 37 Phil., 752, 759; Medelvs.Militante, 41 Phil., 526, 529; Sevillavs.Tolentino, 51 Phil., 333; Supia and Batiocovs.Quintero and Ayala, 59 Phil., 312; Lizovs.Carandang, G.R. No. 47833, 2 Off. Gaz., 302; Aguilarvs.Cabrera and Flameo, G.R. No. 49129.)The Court of First Instance was evidently confused and led to misconstrue the real issue by the complaint in intervention of Juan Grey, who, allying himself with the defendant Ngo Soo, claimed that he is the administrator of the property with the right to select the tenant and dictate the conditions of the lease, thereby implying that it was he and not the plaintiff Josefa Fabie who had the right to bring the action and oust the tenant if necessary. For the guidance of that court and to obviate such confusion in its disposal of the case on the merits, we deem it necessary and proper to construe the judgment entered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in civil case No. 1659, entitled "Josefa Fabie and Jose Carandang, plaintiffs,vs.Juan Grey, defendant, and Nieves G. Vda. de Grey, et al., intervenors-defendants" which judgment was pleaded by the herein respondents Juan Grey and Ngo Soo in the municipal court. According the decision, copy of which was submitted to this Court as Appendix F of the petition and as Annex 1 of the answer, there was an agreement, dated March 31, 1942, between the usufructuary Josefa Fabie and the owner Juan Grey whereby the latteras agentcollected the rents of the property in question and delivered the same to the usufructuary after deducting the expenses for taxes, repairs, insurance premiums and the expenses of collection; that in the month of October 1943 the usufructuary refused to continue with the said agreement of March 31, 1942, and thereafter the said case arose between the parties, which by stipulation approved by the court was settled among them in the following manner: Beginning with the month of September 1944 the usufructuary shall collect all the rents of the property in question; shall, at her own cost and expense, pay all the real estate taxes, special assessments, and insurance premiums, including the documentary stamps, and make all the necessary repairs on the property; and in case of default on her part the owner shall the right to do any or all of those things, in which event he shall be entitled to collect all subsequent rents until the amounts paid by him are fully satisfied, after which the usufructuary shall again collect the rents. It was further stipulated by the parties and decreed by the court that "the foregoing shall be in effect during the term of the usufruct and shall be binding on the successors and assigns of each of the parties."Construing said judgment in the light of the ninth clause of the will of the deceased Rosario Fabie y Grey, which was quoted in the decision and by which Josefa Fabie was made by the usufructuary during her lifetime of the income of the property in question, we find that the said usufructuary has the right to administer the property in question. All the acts of administration to collect the rents for herself, and to conserve the property by making all necessary repairs and paying all the taxes, special assessments, and insurance premiums thereon were by said judgment vested in the usufructuary. The pretension of the respondent Juan Grey that he is the administrator of the property with the right to choose the tenants and to dictate the conditions of the lease is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the said clause of the will, the stipulation of the parties, and the judgment of the court. He cannot manage or administer the property after all the acts of management and administration have been vested by the court, with his consent, in the usufructuary. He admitted that before said judgment he had been collecting the rentsas agentof the usufructuary under an agreement with the latter. What legal justification or valid excuse could he have to claim the right to choose the tenant and fix the amount of the rent when under the will, the stipulation of the parties, and the final judgment of the court it is not he but the usufructuary who is entitled to said rents? As long as the property is properly conserved and insured he can have no cause for complaint, and his right in that regard is fully protected by the terms of the stipulation and the judgment of the court above mentioned. To permit him to arrogate to himself the privilege to choose the tenant, to dictate the conditions of the lease, and to sue when the lessee fails to comply therewith, would be to place the usufructuary entirely at his mercy. It would place her in the absurd situation of having a certain indisputable right without the power to protect, enforce, and fully enjoy it.One more detail needs clarification. In her complaint fordesahucioJosefa Fabie alleges that she needs the premises in question to live in, as her former residence was burned. Has she the right under the will and the judgment in question to occupy said premises herself? We think that, as a corollary to her right to all the rent, to choose the tenant, and to fix the amount of the rent, she necessarily has the right to choose herself as the tenant thereof, if she wishes to; and, as she fulfills her obligation to pay the taxes and insure and conserve the property properly, the owner has no legitimate cause to complain. As Judge Nable of the municipal court said in his decision, "the pretension that the plaintiff, being a mere usufructuary of the rents, cannot occupy the property, is illogical if it be taken into account that that could not have been the intention of the testatrix."We find that upon the pleadings, the undisputed facts, and the law the action instituted in the municipal court by the petitioner Josefa Fabie against the respondent Ngo Soo is one of unlawful detainer, within the original jurisdiction of said court, and that therefore Judges Dizon and Gutierrez David of the Court of First Instance erred in holding otherwise and in quashing the case upon appeal.2. The next question to determine is the propriety of the remedy availed of by the petitioner in this Court. Judging from the allegations and the prayer of the petition, it is in the nature ofcertiorariandmandamus, to annul the order of dismissal and to require the Court of First Instance to try and decide the appeal on the merits. Under section 3 of Rule 67, when any tribunal unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, it may be compelled bymandamusto do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner. If, as we find, the case before the respondent judge is one of unlawful detainer, the law specifically requires him to hear and decide that case on the merits, and his refusal to do so would constitute an unlawful neglect in the performance of that duty within section 3 of Rule 67. Taking into consideration that the law requires that an unlawful detainer case be promptly decided (sections 5 and 8, Rule 72),it is evident that an appeal from the order of dismissal would not be a speedy and adequate remedy; and under the authority ofCecilio vs. Belmonte(48 Phil., 243, 255), andAguilar vs. Cabrera and Flameo(G.R. No. 49129), we hold thatmandamuslies in this case.3. The contention of the petitioner that the appeal of the intervenor Juan Grey was filed out of time is not well founded. Although said respondent received copy of the decision of the municipal court on August 3, 1945, according to the petitioner (on August 6, 1945, according to the said respondent), it appears from the sworn answer of the respondent Ngo Soo in this case that on August 8 he filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted in part on August 18. Thus, if the judgment was modified on August 18, the time for the intervenor Juan Grey to appeal therefrom did not run until he was notified of said judgment as modified, and since he filed his notice of appeal on August 23, it would appear that his appeal was filed on time. However, we observe in this connection that said appeal of the intervenor Juan Grey, who chose not to answer the petition herein, would be academic in view of the conclusions we have reached above that the rights between him as owner and Josefa Fabie as usufructuary of the property in question have been definitely settled by final judgment in civil case No. 1659 of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the sense that the usufructuary has the right to administer and possess the property in question, subject to certain specified obligations on her part.The orders of dismissal of the respondent Court of First Instance, dated September 22 and October 31, 1945, in thedesahuciocase (No. 71149) are set aside that court is directed to try and decide the said case on the merits; with the costs hereof against the respondent Ngo Soo.Moran, C.J., Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.Separate OpinionsHILADO,J.,concurring:I concur on the sole ground that, in my opinion, the amended complaint, dated July 12, 1945, filed by plaintiff in the Municipal Court of Manila, expressly alleges an agreement between her and defendant Ngo Boo Soo regarding the leasing of the premises in question, and that said amended complaint contains further allegations which, together with the allegations of said agreement, under a liberal construction (Rule 1, section 2, Rules of the Court), would constitute aprima facieshowing that the case is one of unlawful detainer. Of course, this is only said in view of the allegations of the amended complaint, without prejudice to the evidence which the parties may adduce at the trial in the merits, in view of which the court will judge whether or not, in point of fact, the case is one of unlawful detainer.Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISIONG.R. No. L-51333 February 19, 1991RAMONA R. LOCSIN, accompanied by her husband RENATO L. LOCSIN; TERESITA R. GUANZON, accompanied by her husband ROMEO R. GUANZON; CELINA R. SIBUG accompanied by her husband CARLOS V. SIBUG; MA. LUISA R. PEREZ, accompanied by her husband JOSE V. PEREZ; EDITHA R. YLANAN, accompanied by her husband CARLOS W. YLANAN; and ANA MARIE R. BENEDICTO, accompanied by her husband JOSE LUIS U. BENEDICTO,petitioners,vs.HONORABLE JUDGE VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch III and SPOUSES JOSEPH SCHON and HELEN BENNETT SCHON,respondents.G.R. No. L-52289 February 19, 1991RAMONA R. LOCSIN, accompanied by her husband RENATO R. LOCSIN; TERESITA R. GUANZON, accompanied by her husband ROMEO G. GUANZON; CELINA R. SIBUG, accompanied by her husband CARLOS V. SIBUG; MA. LUISA R. PEREZ, accompanied by her husband JOSE V. PEREZ; EDITHA R. YLANAN, accompanied by her husband CARLOS W. YLANAN; and ANA MARIE R. BENEDICTO, accompanied by her husband JOSE LUIS U. BENEDICTO,petitioners,vs.CARLOS PANALIGAN, AMADO MARQUEZ, HERBERT PEDROS, ANTONIO FELICIANO, JR., HUGO AGUILOS, ALBERTO GUBATON, JULIA VDA. DE ESQUELITO, SERAFIN JANDOQUELE, SEREFIAS ESQUESIDA, CARLOS DELA CRUZ, ELISEO GELONGOS, ESPINDION JOCSON, SALVADOR MUNUN, ULFIANO ALEGRIA, and IRINEO BALERA, and the Spouses JOSEPH SCHON and HELEN BENNETT SCHONrespondents.Mirano, Mirano & Associates Law Offices for petitioners.Jose V. Valmayor and Samuel SM Lezama for respondents in 51333.Ledesma, Guinez, Causing, Espino & Serftno Law Office for private respondents in G.R. No. 51333.Bonifacio R. Cruz for private respondents in G.R. No. 52289.FELICIANO,J.:pThere are two (2) petitions for review before us: (1) G.R. No. 51333 which asks for review of the decision of the then Court of First Instance CFI of Negros Occidental, Branch 3, in Civil Case No. 13823; and (2) G.R. No. 52289 which seeks review of the decision of the then Court of Agrarian Relations ("CAR"), 11th Judicial District, in CAR Case No. 76. Both the CFI of Negros Occidental and the CAR dismissed petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 16 June 1982, consolidated G.R. Nos. 51333 and 52289.In a Resolution1dated 18 May 1989, the Court partly resolved the consolidated petitions by declaring that the appropriate Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the two (2) cases.The facts relevant for resolution of the remaining substantive aspects of the CFI case and the CAR case, may be summarized from the Court's Resolution of 18 May 1989 Petitioner Ramona R. Locsin, Teresita Guanzon, Celia R. Sibug, Maria Rosa R. Perez, Editha Ylanan and Ana Marie R. Benedicto were co-owners of a large tract of agricultural land known as "Hacienda Villa Regalado" located in Barrio Panubigan Canlaon City, Negros Occidental. The tract of land was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-494 and there more particularly described in the following terms:TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-494A parcel of land . . . containing an area of THREE MILLION THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND AND FORTY-EIGHT (3