general considerations legal forms

8/19/2019 General Considerations Legal Forms

1/61

XERXES A. ABADIANO,

Petitioner,

- versus -

SPOUSES JESUS and LOLITA MARTIR,

Resondents.

!.R. No. "#$%"&

Present'

(NARES-SANTIA!O, J.,

)*airerson,

AUSTRIA-MARTINE+,

)I)O-NA+ARIO,

NA)URA, and

RE(ES, JJ.

Prou/ated'

Ju0 %", 1&&2

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

NACHURA, J .:


2/61

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure

assailing the Decision1[1] of the Court of Aeals !CA" dated #arch 14$ %&&% and its Resolution %[%] dated 'ove()er %1

%&&% in CA-*+R+ C, 'o+ 51./+ 0he CA affir(ed the Decision of the Regional 0rial Court !R0C" of a)an2alan$ 'egros

3ccidental[] declaring resondents as the owners of the roert in 6uestion+

0he case ste((ed fro( an action for 6uieting of title and7or recover of ossession4[4] of a arcel of land filed )

herein resondents against Ro)erto A)adiano$ 8austino #ontao$ and 9uirico #andaguit+ Petitioner :erxes A+ A)adiano

intervened in that case+

;ot 'o+ 11< of the a)an2alan Cadastre consists of 4$%une 1$ 1/%% over ;ot 'o+ 11


3/61

3C0 'o+ %&41 was ad(inistrativel reconstituted on 8e)ruar 15$ 1/% and in lieu thereof 3C0 'o+ R3-


4/61

ac2nowledged )efore 'otar Pu)lic >ose Peralta and )earing notarial inscrition Doc+ 'o+ 4$ Pag+ 'o+ &$ Boo2 'o+ ===$

series of 1/%%+ 0he sale was allegedl affir(ed ) David A)adiano in a docu(ent dated ete()er &$ 1//+1%[1%]

0he further alleged that fro( the ti(e of the sale$ ,ictor *arde and his heirs were in continuous$ u)lic

eaceful$ and uninterruted ossession and occuation in the concet of an owner of ;ot 'o+ 11


5/61

=n their Answer with Counterclai($1/[1/] defendants denied that the su)ect roert was ever sold ) Ra(on and

David A)adiano$ and that$ conse6uentl$ defendant Ro)erto A)adiano had inherited the sa(e fro( Ra(on+ 0he also

alleged$ ) wa of ecial and Affir(ative Defenses$ that the su)ect land still )elonged to the estate of Ra(on and David

A)adiano and was never alienated+ 0he alleged further that the act of souses #artir in lanting sugarcane on the land

was without Ro)ertos consent@ that Ro)erto had de(anded that the souses #artir a hi( reasona)le rental for the land

)ut that the had ersistentl refused to do so@ and that so(eti(e in #arch 1/une %$ 1//5$ ruling in favor of the souses #artir$ thus?

EFRF83RF$ udg(ent is here) rendered in favor of the laintiffs and against the defendants

declaring laintiffs souses >esus and ;olita #artir as the true and legiti(ate owners of ortions of ;ot

'o+ 11< a)an2alan Cadastre deno(inated as ;ots 11


6/61

!" 0o a the costs of this suit+

3 3RDFRFD+%%[%%]

0he trial court reected therein defendants contention that the Compra Y Venta was null and void )ecause the co-

owner$ David A)adiano$ did not sign the sa(e+ =t held that the ure(e Court has ruled to the effect that the sale ) a co-

owner of the entire roert without the consent of the other co-owners was not null and void )ut that onl the rights of

the co-owner-seller are transferred$ (a2ing the )uer a co-owner+ 0he trial court also held that although the Compra Y

Venta was not annotated either on the 3C0 or on the reconstituted 3C0$ the validit of the sale was not vitiated+ 0he

registration or annotation is re6uired onl to (a2e the sale valid as to third ersons+ 0hus$ the trial court concluded that

the Compra Y Venta was valid )etween the arties$ Ra(on A)adiano and ,ictor *arde+

0he trial court also )rushed aside the defendants contention that the Compra Y Venta contained the sa(e notarial

inscrition as the Deed of Partition+ =t said that assu(ing this to )e true$ this (a )e considered an error which did not

nullif the Compra Y Venta; at (ost$ the docu(ent would )e non-registra)le )ut still valid+

3n the contention that the alleged confir(ation executed ) David A)adiano was for the Deed of Partition and

not for the Compra Y Venta$ the trial court agreed+ =t$ however$ interreted the sa(e to (ean that David A)adiano (ust

not have authoried his )rother to sell his share in ;ot 'o+ 11


7/61

Defendants aealed to the CA+ Eowever$ the sa(e was su((aril dis(issed in a Resolution dated 8e)ruar 11$

1//. due to defendants failure to a the re6uired doc2et fee within the eriod set+ 'onetheless$ the records were retained

for the aeal of :erxes A)adiano$ intervenor in the trial court+

3n #arch 14$ %&&%$ the CA rendered a Decision affir(ing the Decision of the R0C in toto+%[%]

:erxes A)adiano now co(es )efore this Court raising the following argu(ents?

A

0EF E3'3RAB;F C3GR0 38 APPFA; FRRFD$ BAFD 3' =0 #=APPRFEF'=3' A'D73R

3#==3' 38 0EF 8AC0$ =' D=RF*ARD='* 0EF PR=#3RD=A; =GF 38 EF0EFR 3R

'30 0EF DFFD 38 A;F !C3#PRA H ,F'0A" = A PGR=3G D3CG#F'0

B

0EF E3'3RAB;F C3GR0 38 APPFA; FRRFD =' 8='D='* PF0=0=3'FR *G=;0H 38

;ACEF 3,FR RF*=0FRFD ;A'D%4[%4]

0he Petition is i(ressed with (erit+ e )elieve the trial court and the CA erred in ruling for the resondents

Accordingl$ we reverse the assailed Decision and Resolution+

=t is well settled that the findings of fact of the trial court$ eseciall when affir(ed ) the CA$ are accorded the

highest degree of resect$ and generall will not )e distur)ed on aeal+ uch findings are )inding and conclusive on the

Court+ 8urther$ it is not the Courts function under Rule 45 of the 1//. Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to review$

exa(ine and evaluate or weigh the ro)ative value of the evidence resented+ 0he urisdiction of the Court in a etition

1%

13


8/61

for review under Rule 45 is li(ited to reviewing onl errors of law+ Gnless the case falls under the recognied excetions

the rule shall not )e distur)ed+%5[%5]

Eowever$ this Court has consistentl recognied the following excetions? !1" when the findings are grounded

entirel on seculation$ sur(ises$ or conectures@ !%" when the inference (ade is (anifestl (ista2en$ a)surd$ or

i(ossi)le@ !" when there is grave a)use of discretion@ !4" when the udg(ent is )ased on a (isarehension of facts@ !5"

when the findings of fact are conflicting@ !" when in (a2ing its findings$ the CA went )eond the issues of the case$ or its

findings are contrar to the ad(issions of )oth the aellant and the aellee@ !." when the findings are contrar to those

of the trial court@ !


9/61

%+ 0hat defendants ad(it laintiffs allegation in aragrah 4 that there has )een no articular

designation of lot nu()er !sic" for each of the co-owner !sic" of ;ot 'o+ 11< )ut secificall den under

oath the other allegations thereof the truth )eing that the roert referred to here as ;ot 'o+ 11<

re(ains undivided to this da that the owners thereof as shown ) the 0C0 'o+ 1


10/61

0hese state(ents were enough to i(ugn the due execution of the docu(ent+ hile it is true that this Court had

reviousl ruled that (ere denials would not have sufficed to i(each the docu(ent$ in this case$ there was an effective

secific denial as conte(lated ) law in accordance with our ruling that -

defendant (ust declare under oath that he did not sign the docu(ent or that it is otherwise false or

fa)ricated+ 'either does the state(ent of the answer to the effect that the instru(ent was rocured )

fraudulent reresentation raise an issue as to its genuineness or due execution+ 3n the contrar such a

lea is an ad(ission )oth of the genuineness and due execution thereof$ since it see2s to avoid the

instru(ent uon a ground not affecting either+%[%]

=t was error then for the R0C to have )rushed aside this issue and then (a2e so sweeing a conclusion in the face

of such oosition+ =n light of this challenge to the ver existence of the Compra Y Venta$ the trial court should have first

resolved the issue of the docu(ents authenticit and due execution )efore deciding on its validit+ Gnfortunatel$ the CA

did not even discuss this issue+

e are cogniant$ however$ that it is now too late in the da to re(and the case to the trial court for the

deter(ination of the urorted Compra Y Ventas authenticit and due execution+ 0hus$ we will resolve this ver issue here

and now in order to ut an end to this rotracted litigation+

0here is no dening that 0C0 'o+ 1


11/61

Rule 1&$ ection of the Revised Rules of Court reads?

Original document must be produced; exceptions. hen the su)ect of in6uir is the contents of a

docu(ent$ no evidence shall )e ad(issi)le other than the original docu(ent itself$ excet in the following

cases?

!a" hen the original has )een lost or destroed$ or cannot )e roduced in court without )ad faith

on the art of the offeror@

!)" hen the original is in the custod or under the control of the art against who( the

evidence is offered$ and the latter fails to roduce it after reasona)le notice@

!c" hen the original consists of nu(erous accounts or other docu(ents which cannot )e

exa(ined in court without great loss of ti(e and the fact sought to )e esta)lished fro( the( is onl the

general result of the whole@

!d" hen the original is a u)lic record in the custod of a u)lic officer or is recorded in a

u)lic office+

Resondents attached onl a hotoco of the Compra Y Venta to their co(laint+ According to resondent ;olita

#artir$ the original of said docu(ent was in the office of the Register of Deeds+ 0he allegedl tried to o)tain a co fro(

that office )ut their re6uest was refused+ 'o other evidence )ut these )are assertions$ however$ was resented to rove tha

the original is indeed in the custod of the Register of Deeds or that resondents due and diligent search for the sa(e was

unsuccessful+

0he Rule states that when the original docu(ent is unavaila)le$ has )een lost or destroed$ or cannot )e roducedin court$ the offeror$ uon roof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavaila)ilit without )ad faith on his

art$ (a rove its contents ) a co$ or ) a recital of its contents in so(e authentic docu(ent$ or ) the testi(on of

witnesses in the order stated+[]

%%


12/61

=n the case at )ar$ resondents failed to esta)lish that the offer in evidence of the docu(ent was (ade in

accordance with an of the excetions allowed under the a)ove6uoted rule$ and et$ the trial court acceted the docu(ent

as genuine and roceeded to deter(ine its validit )ased on such assu(tion+

0he trial court li2ewise )rushed aside the aarent defect that the docu(ent resented contained the sa(e notarial

inscrition as the Agree(ent on Partition+ =ndeed$ the Deed of Partition and the Compra Y Venta$ though executed on

different das$ were notaried on the sa(e da$ and )oth docu(ents contained the signatures of the sa(e witnesses and

the sa(e notarial inscrition+

0his notwithstanding$ the court concluded$ Assu(ing this to )e true$ sa(e could )e considered an error which did

not nullif$ !sic" the Deed of ale or Compra Y Venta+ At (ost$ the docu(ent would )e a non-registra)le$ )ut valid

docu(ent+4[4]

e stress that a notarial docu(ent is evidence of the facts in the clear une6uivocal (anner therein exressed and

has in its favor the resu(tion of regularit+5[5]

=n this case$ while it is true that the error in the notarial inscrition would not have invalidated the sale if indeed it

too2 lace the sa(e error would have (eant that the docu(ent cannot )e treated as a notarial docu(ent and thus$ no

entitled to the resu(tion of regularit+ 0he docu(ent would )e ta2en out of the real( of u)lic docu(ents whose

genuineness and due execution need not )e roved+[]

Accordingl$ resondents not having roven the due execution and genuineness of the urorted Compra Y Venta

the weight of evidence reonderates in favor of etitioner+

%3

%#

%$


13/61

'ext$ we deter(ine if etitioner is guilt of laches+ 3n this issue$ we rule in the negative+

Gnder the Property Registration Decree$.[.] no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered

owner shall )e ac6uired ) rescrition or adverse ossession+


14/61

would assert the right on which he )ases his suit@ and !4" inur or reudice to the defendant in the event relief is

accorded to the co(lainant or the suit is not held to )e )arred+4[4]

0he reason for the rule is not si(l the lase of ti(e during which the neglect to enforce the right has existed$

)ut the changes of condition which (a have arisen during the eriod in which there has )een neglect+ =n other words

where a court finds that the osition of the arties will change$ that e6uita)le relief cannot )e afforded without doing

inustice$ or that the intervening rights of third ersons (a )e destroed or seriousl i(aired$ it will not exert its

e6uita)le owers in order to save one fro( the conse6uences of his own neglect+44[44]

0hough laches alies even to i(rescriti)le actions$ its ele(ents (ust )e roved ositivel+ ;aches is

evidentiar in nature and cannot )e esta)lished ) (ere allegations in the leadings+45[45]

Based on the foregoing$ we hold that etitioner is not guilt of laches+ 0he evidence on record does not suort

such finding+

Petitioner had reasona)le ground to )elieve that the roert$ )eing still in the na(e of his redecessor in interest

continued to )e theirs$ eseciall considering that the annotation of the urorted sale was done onl in 1/


15/61

0hus$ Ro)erto A)adiano testified?

9?Before A(ando Baares died$ did ou 2now that our father is a art owner of ;ot 'o+ 11


16/61

8ro( the testi(onies of etitioner and the defendants during trial$ it would aear that the were unaware of an

of resondents actions in relation to the roert until the death of their grandfather$ A(ando Baares+ hen the did find

out that resondents were occuing the land$ the i((ediatel too2 action to occu what the )elieved was still

rightfull theirs+

3n this oint$ etitioner testified$ thus?

9?hen did ou initiate the (ove to clai( ;ot 'o+ 11


17/61

9? hat other reactions did ou ta2e$ if anI

A? ell$ = told ( )rother that the have a confrontation in the 3ffice of the PAC;AP 2nown as the

Presidential Action Co((ission on ;and Pro)le(s+


18/61

9? Besides that confrontation at the PAC;AP$ what other action did ou ersonall ta2e as an heir of

;ot 'o+ 11


19/61

9? Hou (ean to sa that when our father was still alive$ it was A(ando Baares who was in

ossession of ;ot 'o+ 11


20/61

doctrine of laches is not strictl alied )etween near relatives$ and the fact that arties are connected )

ties of )lood or (arriage tends to excuse an otherwise unreasona)le dela+51[51]

=n addition$ several other factors (ilitate against the finding of laches on the art of the etitioner+

hen the 3riginal Certificate of 0itle was reconstituted on 8e)ruar 15$ 1/%$ no annotation therein was (ade of

the Compra Y Venta or of the Deed of ale )etween Ra(on A)adiano and ,ictor *arde+ 3nl the Agree(ent of Partition

the Confir(ation ) David A)adiano$ and the sale fro( De(etrio to ;eooldo Baares were annotated therein+ 5%[5%

'either does the Deed of ale of De(etrios share in favor of ;eooldo$ executed in 1/5.$ (ention that the roert

)elonged to anone other than the arties to the Deed of Partition+5[5]

;i2ewise$ 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle 'o+ 0-1ose *arde who ) then had suosedl ac6uired the roert )

virtue of the Declaration of Eeirshi and Deed of ale executed on Dece()er %/$ 1/1+ 54[54] As it is$ neither resondents

nor an of their redecessors in interest articiated in an of the roceedings for the issuance of the 3C0$ the

reconstituted 3C0$ or the 0C0+ 0he etitioners testi(on on the (atter is revealing?

#"

#1

#%

#3


21/61

9? Based on our investigation$ did ou find records of the roceedings of the reconstitution of title of

;ot 11< or an evidence as to the articiation of the laintiffs in this Reconstitution PetitionI

A? Based on the existing records$ the did not articiate+

9? Eow a)out in the Reconstitution of 3riginal Certificate of 0itle 'o+ !sic" did the laintiffs

articiate thereinI

A? 0he did not also+

9? Eow a)out in the issuance of the new 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle$ did the laintiffs articiate

thereinI

A? 'o$ sir +55[55]

Again$ the 0C0 )ears out the fact that the urorted Compra Y Venta to ,ictor *arde was annotated thereon onl

on Aril %$ 1/


22/61

that it was A(ando Baares and not ,ictor *arde who had ossession of the roert during the for(ers lifeti(e$ or that

after A(andos death$ the lot re(ained unoccuied+

=n su($ we find that etitioner is not guilt of such neglect or inaction as would )ar his clai( to the roert in

6uestion+ =n contrast$ it is (ost telling that resondents$ who are clai(ing to have )een in ossession of the roert )

virtue of an alleged dul constituted sale for al(ost & ears$ have the(selves failed within that long eriod to have the

sa(e roert transferred in their na(e or even onl to have the sale annotated on the title of the roert+

8inall$ we co(e to the issue of da(ages+ Petitioner ras that resondents )e (ade to a actual da(ages of not

less that P&$&&&+&& lus rentals on the roert fro( the ti(e of the latters occuation$ (oral da(ages a(ounting to

P1&&$&&&+&&$ and exe(lar da(ages$ as well as attornes fees+

0he record shows that etitioner testified on the revailing rate of rentals on the su)ect roert fro( the ti(e of

A(ando Baares death in 1/. until the ti(e of the trial+ According to etitioner$ the rental rate fro( 1/. until 1/


23/61

Attornes fees are recovera)le when exe(lar da(ages are awarded$ or when the court dee(s it ust and

e6uita)le+ 0he grant of attornes fees deends on the circu(stances of each case and lies within the discretion of the

court+%[%] *iven the circu(stances of this case$ we grant the raer for attornes fees+

!HERE"ORE$ the foregoing re(ises considered$ the Petition is #RAN$ED+ 0he Decision and Resolution of

the Court of Aeals in CA-*+R+ C, 'o+ 51./ are RE%ERSED AND SE$ ASIDE+ A new one is entered?

!1" reversing the Decision of the Regional 0rial Court of a)an2alan$ 'egros 3ccidental in Civil

Case 'o+ 11@

!%" declaring the heirs of Ra(on and David A)adiano as the lawful owners of ;ot 'o+ 11


24/61

DO&ORES &. DE&A CRU',A.C. N. (()*

+I&A#ROS &. RINCIE,

NARCISA &. "AUS$INO, Present?

-OR#E %. &E#ASI, and

-UANI$O %. &E#ASI, 9G=G#B='*$ J.$ Chairerson$

Co(lainants$ CARP=3 #3RA;F$

0='*A$

,F;AC3$ >R+$ and

- versus - BR=3'$ JJ.

Pro(ulgated?

A$$. -OSE R. DI+AANO, -R.,

Resondent+ ete()er 1%$ %&&<

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N

%E&ASCO, -R., J .:


25/61

=n their co(laint for dis)ar(ent against resondent Att+ >ose R+ Di(aano$ >r+$ Dolores ;+ Dela Cru$ #ilagros

;+ Princie$ 'arcisa ;+ 8austino$ >orge ,+ ;egasi$ and >uanito ,+ ;egasi alleged that on >ul 1$ %&&4$ resonden

notaried a docu(ent deno(inated as xtra!udicial "ettlement o# the state $ith %ai&er o# Rights urortedl executed

) the( and their sister$ Kenaida ,+;+ 'avarro. Co(lainants further alleged that? !1" their signatures in this docu(ent

were forged@ !%" the did not aear and ac2nowledge the docu(ent on >ul 1$ %&&4 )efore resondent$ as notariing

officer@ and !" their urorted co((unit tax certificates indicated in the docu(ent were not theirs+

According to co(lainants$ resondent had (ade untruthful state(ents in the ac2nowledg(ent ortion of the

notaried docu(ent when he (ade it aear$ a(ong other things$ that co(lainants ersonall ca(e and aeared )efore

hi( and that the affixed their signatures on the docu(ent in his resence+ =n the rocess$ co(lainants added$ resonden

effectivel ena)led their sister$ 'avarro$ to assu(e full ownershi of their deceased arents roert in 0i)agan$ an

#iguel$ Bulacan$ covered ) 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle 'o+ 0-&/ and sell the sa(e to the Deart(ent of Pu)lic

or2s and Eighwas+

=n his answer$ resondent ad(itted having a hand in the rearation of the docu(ent in 6uestion$ )ut ad(itted

having indeed notaried it+ Ee exlained that he notaried [the] docu(ent in good faith reling on the reresentation and

assurance of Kenaida 'avarro that the signatures and the co((unit tax certificates aearing in the docu(ent were true

and correct+ 'avarro would not$ according to resondent$ lie to hi( having 2nown$ and )eing neigh)ors of$ each other for

& ears+ 8inall$ resondent disclai(ed lia)ilit for an da(age or inur considering that the falsified docu(ent had

)een revo2ed and canceled+

=n his Reort and Reco((endation$ the =nvestigating Co((issioner of the 3ffice of the Co((ission on Bar

Disciline$ =ntegrated Bar of the Philiines !=BP"$ found the following as esta)lished? !1" the 6uestioned docu(ent )ore

the signatures and co((unit tax certificates of$ and urorts to have )een executed )$ co(lainants and 'avarro@ !%"

resondent indeed notaried the 6uestioned docu(ent on >ul 1$ %&&4@ !" co(lainants did not aear and ac2nowledge

the docu(ent )efore resondent on >ul 1$ %&&4@ !4" resondent notaried the 6uestioned docu(ent onl on 'avarros

reresentation that the signatures aearing and co((unit tax certificates were true and correct@ and !5" resondent did

not ascertain if the urorted signatures of each of the co(lainants aearing in the docu(ent )elonged to the(+

0he Co((ission concluded that with resondents ad(ission of having notaried the docu(ent in 6uestion against

the factual )ac2dro as thus esta)lished$ a clear case of falsification and violation of the 'otarial ;aw had )een co((itted

when he stated in the Ac2nowledg(ent that?


26/61

Before (e$ on this 1th da of >ul 1$ %&&4 at #anila$ ersonall ca(e and aeared the a)ove-

na(ed ersons with their resective Co((unit 0ax Certificates as follows?

x x x x

who are 2nown to (e to )e the sa(e ersons who executed the foregoing instru(ent and the

ac2nowledge to (e that the sa(e is their own free act and deed+ x x x

8or the stated infraction$ the Co((ission reco((ended$ confor(a)l with the Courts ruling in 'on(ales &

Ramos$[1] that resondent )e susended fro( the ractice of law for one !1" ear@ that his notarial co((ission$ if still

existing$ )e revo2ed@ and that he )e dis6ualified for reaoint(ent as notar u)lic for two !%" ears+ 3n ete()er %


27/61

ithout the aearance of the erson who actuall executed the docu(ent in 6uestion$ notaries u)lic would )e

una)le to verif the genuineness of the signature of the ac2nowledging art and to ascertain that the docu(ent is the

arts free act or deed+5[] 8urther(ore$ notaries u)lic are re6uired ) the 'otarial ;aw to certif that the art to the

instru(ent has ac2nowledged and resented )efore the notaries u)lic the roer residence certificate !or exe(tion fro(

the residence certificate" and to enter its nu()er$ lace$ and date of issue as art of certification+ [4] Rule ==$ ec+ 1% of

the )**+ Rules on ,otarial Practice [5] now re6uires a art to the instru(ent to resent co(etent evidence of identit

ec+ 1% rovides?

ec+ 1%+ Co(etent Fvidence of =dentit+0he hrase co(etent evidence of identit refers to the

identification of an individual )ased on?

!a" at least one current identification docu(ent issued ) an official agenc )earing the

hotograh and signature of the individual$ such as )ut not li(ited to$ assort$ drivers license$

Professional Regulations Co((ission =D$ 'ational Bureau of =nvestigation clearance$ olice clearance$ ostal =D$ voters =D$ /arangay certification$ *overn(ent ervice =nsurance ste( !*=" e-card$ ocial

ecurit ste( !" card$ Philhealth card$ senior citien card$ 3verseas or2ers elfare

Ad(inistration !3A" =D$ 38 =D$ sea(ans )oo2$ alien certificate of registration7i((igrant

certificate of registration$ govern(ent office =D$ certificate fro( the 'ational Council for the elfare of

Disa)led Persons !'CDP"$ Deart(ent of ocial elfare and Develo(ent certification [as a(ended

) A+#+ 'o+ &%-


28/61

(a2ing it ad(issi)le in evidence without the necessit of reli(inar roof of its authenticit and due execution+


29/61

Petitioners$

- versus -

HONORA1&E COUR$ O" AEA&S AND

ARCADIO "RIAS,

Resondents+

0='*A$

,F;AC3$ >R+$ and

BR=3'$ JJ +

Pro(ulgated?

ete()er &$ %&&<

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E C I S I O N

CARIO +ORA&ES, J.:

Petitioner ;eonor Ca(ca( !;eonor" and her hus)and ;aureano alvador !;aureano" were the registered owners

of two arcels of land$ ;ot 'os+ 1/554 and 1ose and 8ortunato$ all surna(ed alvador@ and the heirs of his deceased )rother ;uis alvador


30/61

!;uis"$ na(el$ etitioners ,irginia$ *loria$ 8lorendo$ Delfin$ Rodrigo$ Fleuterio$ 'arciso$ 3nofre$ Kenaida$ and Aurelia$

all surna(ed alvador+

3n 8e)ruar /$ 1/ose$ 8ortunato$ and ;uis heirs$ filed

)efore the Regional 0rial Court of an Carlos Cit$ Pangasinan a Co(laint$/[1] doc2eted as Civil Case 'o+ CC-


31/61

=n 'ove()er 1/


32/61

the said docu(ents did not reflect the true intention of the arties x x x$ (oreover$ the shares of the

laintiffs$ other than laintiff Ca(ca($ were included without their 2nowledge$ articiation and

consent x x x@

!%" Declaring null and void$ the Deed f Etra5udicial artitin and Sale dated N7em8er 2,

*4)3 [Fxhi)it A7] )ased on the fact that it is a)solutel fictitious and si(ulated x x x@

!" 0hat as a conse6uence of the nullit of [Fxhi)it A7]$ 0C0 'os+ 14.5% and 14.5 )e declared

null and void and ordering the Register of Deeds of ;ingaen$ Pangasinan to cancel said transfer

certificates of titles issued in the na(e of defendant 8rias and the annotations on 3C0 'os+ 114

and 1%&%. relative to the cancellation )e cancelled@ or$ in the alternative$ the defendant 8rias xxx )e

ordered to execute a deed of reconveance over the arcels su)ect of this suit in favor of the

laintiffs$ in the following roortion$ to wit? one half !17%" to laintiff Ca(ca($ and the other half

shall ertain to the other laintiffs$ na(el$ Agaito$ >ose$ 8ortunato and the heirs of the late ;uis$

all surna(ed alvador$ in e6ual roortion@

!4" Declaring laintiffs Agaito$ >ose$ 8ortunato$ and the late ;uis$ all surna(ed alvador$ the latter

)eing reresented in this suit ) his heirs$ as the onl legiti(ate heirs to inherit the estate of their

deceased )rother$ ;aureano alvador who died on Dece()er /$ 1/41$ there) excluding the widow

fro( articiating xxx@

!5" Declaring the defendant lia)le for actual$ co(ensator and (oral da(ages to laintiffs and

litigation exenses$ assessa)le in ter(s of (one in such a(ount as will )e roved in court$ and to

a exe(lar da(ages as (a )e assessed ) the court@

!" Declaring the defendant lia)le for the attornes fees in the a(ount of P1&$&&&+&& and to a the

costs+..[/] !F(hasis and underscoring sulied"

0he li2ewise raed for other ust and e6uita)le reliefs+.


33/61

Gon the other hand$ 8rias advanced the following version?

;eonor inherited the two lots$ to the exclusion of her co-etitioners$ under the old Civil Code ./[11] and it was she

who convinced hi( to )u the(+

;eonor later changed her (ind and was willing to sell onl the whole of the residential land$ ;ot 'o+ 1/554$ and

of the (ango and coconut land$ ;ot 'o+ 1


34/61

B Decision


35/61

EFRF83RF the ther half half 8eln;


36/61


37/61

Aside fro( the ano(alous situation created ) the irregularl executed deeds and advantageousl

e(loed ) the rivate resondent$ in order to conceal the aarent irregularities$ the rivate resondent

clai(ed that the Deed of Partition and ale !Annex A or Fxh A7" dated 'ove()er 4$ 1/


38/61

x x x [8]ro( a civil law ersective$ the a)sence of notariation of the Deed o# "ale would not

necessaril invalidate the transaction evidenced therein+ Article 15< of the Civil Code re6uires that the

for( of a contract that trans(its or extinguishes real rights over i((ova)le roert should )e in a u)lic

docu(ent$ et it is also an acceted rule that the failure to o)serve the roer for( does not render the

transaction invalid+ 0hus$ it has )een unifor(l held that the for( re6uired in Article 15< is not essential

to the validit or enforcea)ilit of the transaction$ )ut re6uired (erel for convenience+ e have even

affir(ed that a sale of real roert though not consigned in a u)lic instru(ent or for(al writing$ is

nevertheless valid and )inding a(ong the arties$ for the ti(e-honored rule is that even a ver)al contract

of sale or real estate roduces effects )etween the arties+//[1] !Gnderscoring sulied"

Petitioners alleged fraud on 8rias art$ hence$ the had the )urden of esta)lishing the sa(e ) clear and

convincing evidence+1&&[%] 0his the failed to discharge+

B ;eonors account$ she signed the three docu(ents reling on 8rias word that the were deeds of (ortgage$ and

she did not read the( )ecause she [did] not 2now how to read$1&1[] hen as2ed$ however$ on cross-exa(ination a)out

her educational attain(ent$ ;eonor answered that she finished the third ear of a nursing course at an >uan de Dios

Eosital+

1&%

[4]

Clarifing her state(ent that she did not 2now how to read$ ;eonor exlained that she 2new how to read )ut her

eesight was )lurred+1&[5] ;eonors granddaughter-witness *ertrudes Calo !*ertrudes" who signed as witness in Fxhi)it

52

55

"&&

"&"

"&1

"&%


39/61

B71 declared$ however$ that she read the contents of Fxhi)it B71 to ;eonor$ 1&4[] thus )eling etitioners clai( that

;eonor signed the sa(e without 2nowing its true contents+

As for Fxhi)it A7 which etitioners (aintain is surious$ ;eonors signature therein )eing allegedl forged$1&5[.

;eonor herself ad(itted having signed the sa(e$1&[


40/61

SO ORDERED.

#.R. N. *(232? +arch 3?, 3?*9

SOUSES &EHNER and &UD +AR$IRES, Petitioners$

vs++ENE&IA CHUA, Resondent+

D F C = = 3 '

ERA&$A, J.:

Before the Court is a etition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court see2ing to reverse and set aside

the A(ended Decision$1 as well as the Resolutions% of the Court of Aeals !CA"$ dated ete()er &$ %&&5$ >ul 5$ %&&

and August %


41/61

u)se6uentl$ without foreclosure of the (ortgage$ ownershi of the su)ect lots were transferred in the na(e of

etitioners via a Deed of 0ransfer +5

3n >une %$ 1//.$ resondent filed with the Regional 0rial Court !R0C" of 9ueon Cit a Co(laint against etitioners$

#anila #e(orial Par2 =nc+$ the co(an which owns the Eol Cross #e(orial Par2$ and the Register of Deeds of

9ueon Cit$ raing for the annul(ent of the contract of (ortgage )etween her and etitioners on the ground that the

interest rates i(osed are unust and exor)itant+ Resondent also sought accounting to deter(ine her lia)ilit under the

law+ he li2ewise raed that the Register of Deeds of 9ueon Cit and #anila #e(orial Par2$ =nc+ )e directed to

reconve the disuted roert to her+

3n 'ove()er %&$ 1//anuar %5$ 1///$ etitioners did not oose resondentJs (otion+


42/61

=nsofar as defendant-aellee #anila #e(orial Par2 Ce(eter$ =nc+ is concerned$ the attorneJs fees awarded is reduced

to P1&$&&&+&& lus costs of suit+

3 3RDFRFD+1&

0he CA ruled that resondent voluntaril entered into a contract of loan and that the execution of the Deed of 0ransfer is

sufficient evidence of etitionersJ ac6uisition of ownershi of the su)ect roert+

Resondent filed a #otion for Reconsideration+11 Petitioners oosed it+1%

3n ete()er &$ %&&5$ the CA ro(ulgated its assailed A(ended Decision with the following disositive ortion?

EFRF83RF$ the Court grants the (ovantJs #otion for Reconsideration+

Accordingl$ the decision of this Court dated Aril &$ %&&4 in CA-*+R+ C, 'o+ .


43/61

3 3RDFRFD+1

0he CA reconsidered its findings and concluded that the Deed of 0ransfer which$ on its face$ transfers ownershi of the

su)ect roert to etitioners$ is$ in fact$ an e6uita)le (ortgage+ 0he CA held that the true intention of resondent was

(erel to rovide securit for her loan and not to transfer ownershi of the roert to etitioners+ 0he CA so ruled on the

)asis of its findings that? !1" the consideration$ a(ounting to P15&$&&&+&&$ for the alleged Deed of 0ransfer is unusuall

inade6uate$ considering that the su)ect roert consists of %4 (e(orial lots@ !%" the Deed of 0ransfer was executed )

reason of the sa(e loan extended ) etitioners to resondent@ !" the Deed of 0ransfer is inco(lete and defective@ and

!4" the lots su)ect of the Deed of 0ransfer are one and the sa(e roert used to secure resondentJs P15&$&&&+&& loan

fro( etitioners+

Petitioners filed a #otion for Reconsideration$14 )ut the CA denied it in its Resolution dated >ul 5$ %&&+

3n >ul %$ %&&$ etitioners filed a econd #otion for Reconsideration$15 )ut again$ the CA denied it via its Resolution

dated August %ul %$ %&&$ the filed a #otion to Ad(it econd #otion for

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_174240_2013.html#fnt16


44/61

Reconsideration attaching thereto the said econd #otion for Reconsideration@ !" on ete()er 5$ %&&$ the received a

co of the August %ul 1


45/61

sa(e office as well as ) the testi(on of the court e(loee who reared the Certification issued ) the Cler2 of Court

to the effect that the su)ect Deed of 0ransfer cannot$ in fact$ )e found in their files@ !%" resondentJs categorical denial

that she executed the su)ect Deed of 0ransfer@ and !" the su)ect docu(ent did not state the date of execution and lac2s

the (arital consent of resondentJs hus)and+

=ndeed$ etitionersJ heav reliance on the Certification issued ) the notar u)lic who suosedl notaried the said

deed$ as well as the Certification issued ) the Cler2 of Court of the 'otarial ection of the R0C of #a2ati Cit$ is

(islaced for the following reasons? first$ the ersons who issued these Certifications were not resented as witnesses

and$ as such$ the could not )e cross-exa(ined with resect to the truthfulness of the contents of their Certifications@

second$ as (entioned a)ove$ these Certifications were contradicted ) the Certification issued ) the Ad(inistrative

3fficer of the 'otarial ection of the R0C of #a2ati Cit as well as ) the ad(ission$ on cross-exa(ination$ of the cler2

who reared the Certification of the Cler2 of Court$ that their office cannot$ in fact$ find a co of the su)ect Deed of

0ransfer in their files@% and third$ the further ad(ission of the said cler2 that the Certification$ which was issued ) the

cler2 of court and relied uon ) etitioners$ was not )ased on docu(ents existing in their files$ )ut was si(l )ased on

the Certification issued ) the notar u)lic who allegedl notaried the said Deed of 0ransfer+%.

Assu(ing further that the notariation of the disuted Deed of 0ransfer was regular$ the Court$ nonetheless$ is not

ersuaded ) etitionersJ argu(ent that such Deed is a sufficient evidence of the validit of the agree(ent )etween

etitioners and resondent+

hile indeed a notaried docu(ent enos the resu(tion of regularit$ the fact that a deed is notaried is not a

guarantee of the validit of its contents+%


46/61

3ne of the circu(stances rovided for under Article 1&% of the Civil Code$ where a contract shall )e resu(ed to )e an

e6uita)le (ortgage$ is Lwhere it (a )e fairl inferred that the real intention of the arties is that the transaction shall

secure the a(ent of a de)t or the erfor(ance of an other o)ligation+L =n the instant case$ it has )een esta)lished that

the intent of )oth etitioners and resondent is that the su)ect roert shall serve as securit for the latterJs o)ligation to

the for(er+ As correctl ointed out ) the CA$ the circu(stances surrounding the execution of the disuted Deed of

0ransfer would show that the said docu(ent was executed to circu(vent the ter(s of the original agree(ent and derive

resondent of her (ortgaged roert without the re6uisite foreclosure+

ith resect to the foregoing discussions$ it )ears to oint out that in #isena v+ Rongavilla$1 a case which involves a

factual )ac2ground si(ilar to the resent case$ this Court arrived at the sa(e ruling+ =n the said case$ the resondent

(ortgaged a arcel of land to the etitioner as securit for the loan which the for(er o)tained fro( the latter+

u)se6uentl$ ownershi of the roert was conveed to the etitioner via a Deed of A)solute ale+ Aling Article

1&% of the Civil Code$ this Court ruled in favor of the resondent holding that the suosed sale of the roert was$ in

fact$ an e6uita)le (ortgage as the real intention of the resondent was to rovide securit for the loan and not to transfer

ownershi over the roert+

ince the original transaction )etween the arties was a (ortgage$ the su)se6uent assign(ent of ownershi of the su)ect

lots to etitioners without the )enefit of foreclosure roceedings$ arta2es of the nature of a actu( co((issoriu($ as

rovided for under Article %&


47/61

o)ligation to etitioners+ Considering that the disuted roert was (ortgaged to secure the a(ent of her o)ligation$

the (ost logical and ractical thing that she could have done$ if she is una)le to a her de)t$ is to wait for it to )e

foreclosed+ he stands to lose less of the value of the su)ect roert if the sa(e is foreclosed$ rather than if the title

thereto is directl transferred to etitioners+ 0his is so )ecause in foreclosure$ unli2e in the resent case where ownershi

of the roert was assigned to etitioners$ resondent can still clai( the )alance fro( the roceeds of the foreclosure

sale$ if there )e an+ =n such a case$ she could still recover a ortion of the value of the su)ect roert rather than losing

it co(letel ) assigning its ownershi to etitioners+

As to the second assigned error$ the Court is not ersuaded ) etitionersJ contention that the issue of whether or not the

su)ect Deed of 0ransfer is$ in fact$ an e6uita)le (ortgage was not raised ) the latter either in the R0C or the CA+

=t is true that$ as a rule$ no issue (a )e raised on aeal unless it has )een )rought )efore the lower tri)unal for its

consideration+5 Eigher courts are recluded fro( entertaining (atters neither alleged in the leadings nor raised during

the roceedings )elow$ )ut ventilated for the first ti(e onl in a (otion for reconsideration or on aeal+ Eowever$ as

with (ost rocedural rules$ this (axi( is su)ect to excetions+. =n this regard$ the CourtJs ruling in #endoa v+

Bautista


48/61


49/61

#ercado and etitioner 0hel(a #+ Aranas !0hel(a"+

F(igdio inherited and ac6uired real roerties during his lifeti(e+ Ee owned cororate shares in #ervir Realt

Cororation !#ervir Realt" and Ce)u F(erson 0ransortation Cororation !Ce)u F(erson"+ Ee assigned his real

roerties in exchange for cororate stoc2s of #ervir Realt$ and sold his real roert in Badian$ Ce)u !;ot 5

covered ) 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle 'o+ %5%" to #ervir Realt+

3n >une $ 1//1$ 0hel(a filed in the Regional 0rial Court !R0C" in Ce)u Cit a etition for the aoint(ent of 0eresita as

the ad(inistrator of F(igdioNs estate !ecial Proceedings 'o+ &/4OCFB"+1 0he R0C granted the etition considering

that there was no oosition+ 0he letters of ad(inistration in favor of 0eresita were issued on ete()er .$ 1//%+

As the ad(inistrator$ 0eresita su)(itted an inventor of the estate of F(igdio on Dece()er 14$ 1//% for the consideration

and aroval ) the R0C+ he indicated in the inventor that at the ti(e of his death$ F(igdio had left no real roerties

)ut onl ersonal roertiesQ worth P$.5$45+%5 in all$ consisting of cash of P%$141+%&@ furniture and fixtures worth

P%&$&&&+&&@ ieces of ewelr valued at P15$&&&+&&@ 44$


50/61

ith the arties agreeing to su)(it the(selves to the urisdiction of the court on the issue of what roerties should )e

included in or excluded fro( the inventor$ the R0C set dates for the hearing on that issue+GD*F EA C3##=00FD *RA,F ABGF 38 >GR=D=C0=3' !sic"


51/61

A#3G'0='* 03 ;AC 3R F:CF 38 >GR=D=C0=3' =' E3;D='* 0EA0 0EF RFA; PR3PFR0H E=CE

A 3;D BH 0EF ;A0F F#=*D=3 + #FRCAD3 DGR='* E= ;=8F0=#F 03 A PR=,A0F C3RP3RA0=3'

!#FR,=R RFA;0H C3RP3RA0=3'" BF ='C;GDFD =' 0EF =',F'03RH 38 0EF F0A0F 38 0EF ;A0F

F#=*D=3 + #FRCAD3+

==

0EF E3'3RAB;F RFP3'DF'0 >GD*F EA C3##=00FD *RA,F ABGF 38 >GR=D=C0=3' !sic"

A#3G'0='* 03 ;AC 3R F:CF 38 >GR=D=C0=3' =' E3;D='* 0EA0 RFA; PR3PFR0=F E=CE ARF

=' 0EF P3F=3' 38 A'D A;RFADH RF*=0FRFD =' 0EF 'A#F !38" PR=,A0F C3RP3RA0=3'

!#FR,=R RFA;0H C3RP3RA0=3'" BF ='C;GDFD =' 0EF =',F'03RH 38 0EF F0A0F 38 0EF ;A0F

F#=*D=3 + #FRCAD3+

===

0EF E3'3RAB;F RFP3'DF'0 >GD*F EA C3##=00FD *RA,F ABGF 38 D=CRF0=3' A#3G'0='*

03 ;AC 3R F:CF 38 >GR=D=C0=3' =' E3;D='* 0EA0 PF0=0=3'FR ARF '3 F03PPFD 8R3#

9GF0=3'='* =0 >GR=D=C0=3' =' PA='* GP3' 0EF =GF 38 EA0 PR3PFR0=F E3G;D BF

='C;GDFD =' 0EF =',F'03RH 38 0EF F0A0F 38 0EF ;A0F F#=*D=3 #FRCAD3+ 1%

3n #a 15$ %&&%$ the CA artl granted the etition for certiorari$ disosing as follows?1

EFRF83RF$ 83RF*3='* PRF#=F C3'=DFRFD$ this etition is #RAN$ED partially+ 0he assailed 3rders

dated #arch 14$ %&&1 and #a 1


52/61

1&$ 1//1$ additional seven !." arcels of land were includedQ@ that as to the >anuar 1&$ 1//1 deed of assign(ent$ #ervir

Realt had )een even at the losing end considering that such arcels of land$ su)ect (atter!s" of the Deed of Assign(ent

dated 8e)ruar 1%$ 1/anuar 1&$ 1//1$ the arcels of land could not )e included in the

inventor considering that there is nothing wrong or o)ectiona)le a)out the estate lanning sche(eQ@ that the R0C$ as an

intestate court$ also had no ower to ta2e cogniance of and deter(ine the issue of title to roert registered in the na(e

of third ersons or cororation@ that a roert covered ) the 0orrens sste( should )e afforded the resu(tive

conclusiveness of title@ that the R0C$ ) disregarding the resu(tion$ had transgressed the clear rovisions of law and

infringed settled urisrudence on the (atter@ and that the R0C also gravel a)used its discretion in holding that 0eresita$

et al. were estoed fro( 6uestioning its urisdiction )ecause of their agree(ent to su)(it to the R0C the issue of which

roerties should )e included in the inventor+

0he CA further oined as follows?

=n the instant case$ u)lic resondent court erred when it ruled that etitioners are estoed fro( 6uestioning its urisdiction considering that the have alread agreed to su)(it the(selves to its urisdiction of deter(ining what

roerties are to )e included in or excluded fro( the inventor to )e su)(itted ) the ad(inistratrix$ )ecause actuall$ a

reading of etitionersN #otion for Reconsideration dated #arch %$ %&&1 filed )efore u)lic resondent court clearl

shows that etitioners are not 6uestioning its urisdiction )ut the (anner in which it was exercised for which the are not

estoed$ since that is their right$ considering that there is grave a)use of discretion a(ounting to lac2 or in excess of

li(ited urisdiction when it issued the assailed 3rder dated #arch 14$ %&&1 dening the ad(inistratrixNs (otion for

aroval of the inventor of roerties which were alread titled and in ossession of a third erson that is$ #ervir Realt

Cororation$ a rivate cororation$ which under the law ossessed a ersonalit distinct and searate fro( itsstoc2holders$ and in the a)sence of an cogenc to shred the veil of cororate fiction$ the resu(tion of conclusiveness

of said titles in favor of #ervir Realt Cororation should stand undistur)ed+

Besides$ u)lic resondent court acting as a ro)ate court had no authorit to deter(ine the alica)ilit of the doctrine of

iercing the veil of cororate fiction and even if u)lic resondent court was not (erel acting in a li(ited caacit as a

ro)ate court$ rivate resondent nonetheless failed to adudge co(etent evidence that would have ustified the court to

i(ale the veil of cororate fiction )ecause to disregard the searate urisdictional ersonalit of a cororation$ the

wrongdoing (ust )e clearl and convincingl esta)lished since it cannot )e resu(ed+14

3n 'ove()er 15$ %&&%$ the CA denied the (otion for reconsideration of 0eresita$ et al+15

Issue

Did the CA roerl deter(ine that the R0C co((itted grave a)use of discretion a(ounting to lac2 or excess of

urisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain roerties in the inventor notwithstanding that such roerties had )een

either transferred ) sale or exchanged for cororate shares in #ervir Realt ) the decedent during his lifeti(eI


53/61

Rulin; f the Curt

0he aeal is (eritorious+

I

!as certiorari the prper recurse

t assail the Buestined rders f the R$C

0he first issue to )e resolved is rocedural+ 0hel(a contends that the resort to the secial civil action for certiorari to

assail the orders of the R0C ) 0eresita and her coOresondents was not roer+

0hel(aNs contention cannot )e sustained+

0he roriet of the secial civil action for certiorari as a re(ed deended on whether the assailed orders of the R0C

were final or interlocutor in nature+ =n PahilaA'arrido &. >ortogo$1 the Court distinguished )etween #inal and

interlocutory orders as follows?

0he distinction )etween a final order and an interlocutor order is well 2nown+ 0he first disoses of the su)ect (atter in

its entiret or ter(inates a articular roceeding or action$ leaving nothing (ore to )e done excet to enforce ) execution

what the court has deter(ined$ )ut the latter does not co(letel disose of the case )ut leaves so(ething else to )e

decided uon+ An interlocutor order deals with reli(inar (atters and the trial on the (erits is et to )e held and the

udg(ent rendered+ 0he test to ascertain whether or not an order or a udg(ent is interlocutor or final is? does the order

or !udgment lea&e something to be done in the trial court $ith respect to the merits o# the caseB =f it does$ the order or

udg(ent is interlocutor@ otherwise$ it is final+

0he order dated 'ove()er 1%$ %&&%$ which granted the alication for the writ of reli(inar inunction$ was an

interlocutor$ not a final$ order$ and should not )e the su)ect of an aeal+ 0he reason for disallowing an aeal fro( an

interlocutor order is to avoid (ultilicit of aeals in a single action$ which necessaril susends the hearing and

decision on the (erits of the action during the endenc of the aeals+ Per(itting (ultile aeals will necessaril dela

the trial on the (erits of the case for a considera)le length of ti(e$ and will co(el the adverse art to incur unnecessar

exenses$ for one of the arties (a interose as (an aeals as there are incidental 6uestions raised ) hi( and as there

are interlocutor orders rendered or issued ) the lower court+ An interlocutor order (a )e the su)ect of an aeal$ )ut

onl after a udg(ent has )een rendered$ with the ground for aealing the order )eing included in the aeal of the

udg(ent itself+

0he re(ed against an interlocutor order not su)ect of an aeal is an aroriate secial civil action under Rule 5$


54/61

rovided that the interlocutor order is rendered without or in excess of urisdiction or with grave a)use of discretion+

0hen is certiorari under Rule 5 allowed to )e resorted to+

0he assailed order of #arch 14$ %&&1 dening 0eresitaNs (otion for the aroval of the inventor and the order dated #a

1


55/61

#ultile aeals are er(itted in secial roceedings as a ractical recognition of the ossi)ilit that (aterial issues (a

)e finall deter(ined at various stages of the secial roceedings+ ection 1$ Rule 1&/ of the Rules o# Court enu(erates

the secific instances in which (ultile aeals (a )e resorted to in secial roceedings$ &i( ?

ection 1+ Orders or !udgments #rom $hich appeals may be taen + O An interested erson (a aeal in secial

roceedings fro( an order or udg(ent rendered ) a Court of 8irst =nstance or a >uvenile and Do(estic Relations Court$where such order or udg(ent?

!a" Allows or disallows a will@

!)" Deter(ines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased erson$ or the distri)utive share of the estate to which such erson

is entitled@

!c" Allows or disallows$ in whole or in art$ an clai( against the estate of a deceased erson$ or an clai( resented on )ehalf of the estate in offset to a clai( against it@

!d" ettles the account of an executor$ ad(inistrator$ trustee or guardian@

!e" Constitutes$ in roceedings relating to the settle(ent of the estate of a deceased erson$ or the ad(inistration of a

trustee or guardian$ a final deter(ination in the lower court of the rights of the art aealing$ excet that no aeal shall

)e allowed fro( the aoint(ent of a secial ad(inistrator@ and

!f" =s the final order or udg(ent rendered in the case$ and affects the su)stantial rights of the erson aealing$ unless it

)e an order granting or dening a (otion for a new trial or for reconsideration+

Clearl$ the assailed orders of the R0C$ )eing interlocutor$ did not co(e under an of the instances in which (ultile

aeals are er(itted+

II

Did the R$C cmmit ;ra7e a8use f discretin

in directin; the inclusin f the prperties

in the estate f the decedent

=n its assailed decision$ the CA concluded that the R0C co((itted grave a)use of discretion for including roerties in the

inventor notwithstanding their having )een transferred to #ervir Realt ) F(igdio during his lifeti(e$ and for

disregarding the registration of the roerties in the na(e of #ervir Realt$ a third art$ ) aling the doctrine of


56/61


57/61

adudicate title to roerties clai(ed to )e a art of the estate )ut are clai(ed to )elong to third arties ) title adverse to

that of the decedent and the estate$ not ) virtue of an right of inheritance fro( the decedent+ All that the trial court can

do regarding said roerties is to deter(ine whether or not the should )e included in the inventor of roerties to )e

ad(inistered ) the ad(inistrator+ uch deter(ination is rovisional and (a )e still revised+ As the Court said in

8gtarap &. 8gtarap?%

0he general rule is that the urisdiction of the trial court$ either as a ro)ate court or an intestate court$ relates onl to(atters having to do with the ro)ate of the will and7or settle(ent of the estate of deceased ersons$ )ut does not extend

to the deter(ination of 6uestions of ownershi that arise during the roceedings+ 0he atent rationale for this rule is that

such court (erel exercises secial and li(ited urisdiction+ As held in several cases$ a ro)ate court or one in charge of

estate roceedings$ whether testate or intestate$ cannot adudicate or deter(ine title to roerties clai(ed to )e a art of

the estate and which are clai(ed to )elong to outside arties$ not ) virtue of an right of inheritance fro( the deceased

)ut ) title adverse to that of the deceased and his estate+ All that the said court could do as regards said roerties is to

deter(ine whether or not the should )e included in the inventor of roerties to )e ad(inistered ) the ad(inistrator+ =f

there is no disute$ there oses no ro)le($ )ut if there is$ then the arties$ the ad(inistrator$ and the oosing artieshave to resort to an ordinar action )efore a court exercising general urisdiction for a final deter(ination of the

conflicting clai(s of title+

Eowever$ this general rule is su)ect to excetions as ustified ) exedienc and convenience+

9irst $ the pr8ate curt may pr7isinally pass upn in an intestate r a testate prceedin; the Buestin f inclusin

in, r eclusin frm, the in7entry f a piece f prperty 6ithut pre5udice t final determinatin f 6nership in

a separate actin+ "econd $ if the interested arties are all heirs to the estate$ or the 6uestion is one of collation oradvance(ent$ or the parties cnsent t the assumptin f 5urisdictin 8y the pr8ate curt and the ri;hts f third

parties are nt impaired, then the pr8ate curt is cmpetent t resl7e issues n 6nership+ ,eril$ its urisdiction

extends to (atters incidental or collateral to the settle(ent and distri)ution of the estate$ such as the deter(ination of the

status of each heir and 6hether the prperty in the in7entry is cn5u;al r eclusi7e prperty f the deceased

spuse+%. !=talics in the original@ )old e(hasis sulied"

=t is clear to us that the R0C too2 ains to exlain the factual )ases for its directive for the inclusion of the roerties in

6uestion in its assailed order of #arch 14$ %&&1$ &i( ?

=n the first lace$ the ad(inistratrix of the estate ad(itted that F(igdio #ercado was one of the heirs of everina #ercado

who$ uon her death$ left several roerties as listed in the inventor of roerties su)(itted in Court in ecial

Proceedings 'o+ &OR which are suosed to )e divided a(ong her heirs+ 0he ad(inistratrix ad(itted$ while )eing

exa(ined in Court ) the counsel for the etitioner$ that she did not include in the inventor su)(itted ) her in this case

the shares of F(igdio #ercado in the said estate of everina #ercado+ Certainl$ said roerties constituting F(igdio


58/61

#ercadoNs share in the estate of everina #ercado should )e included in the inventor of roerties re6uired to )e

su)(itted to the Court in this articular case+

=n the second lace$ the ad(inistratrix of the estate of F(igdio #ercado also ad(itted in Court that she did not include in

the inventor shares of stoc2 of #ervir Realt Cororation which are in her na(e and which were aid ) her fro(

(one derived fro( the taxica) )usiness which she and her hus)and had since 1/55 as a conugal underta2ing+ As these

shares of stoc2 arta2e of )eing conugal in character$ oneOhalf thereof or of the value thereof should )e included in theinventor of the estate of her hus)and+

=n the third lace$ the ad(inistratrix of the estate of F(igdio #ercado ad(itted$ too$ in Court that she had a )an2 account

in her na(e at Gnion Ban2 which she oened when her hus)and was still alive+ Again$ the (one in said )an2 account

arta2es of )eing conugal in character$ and so$ oneOhalf thereof should )e included in the inventor of the roerties

constituting as estate of her hus)and+

=n the fourth lace$ it has )een esta)lished during the hearing in this case that ;ot 'o+ 5 of PlsO5.OD located inBadian$ Ce)u containing an area of 5$&1 s6uare (eters as descri)ed in and covered ) 0ransfer Certificate of 0itle 'o+

%5% of the Registr of Deeds for the Province of Ce)u is still registered in the na(e of F(igdio + #ercado until now+

hen it was the su)ect of Civil Case 'o+ CFBO1%/& which was decided on 3cto)er 1/$ 1//5$ it was the estate of the

late F(igdio #ercado which clai(ed to )e the owner thereof+ #ervir Realt Cororation never intervened in the said case

in order to )e the owner thereof+ 0his fact was ad(itted ) Richard #ercado hi(self when he testified in Court+ x x x o

the said roert located in Badian$ Ce)u should )e included in the inventor in this case+

8ifthl and lastl$ it aears that the assign(ent of several arcels of land ) the late F(igdio + #ercado to #ervirRealt Cororation on >anuar 1&$ 1//1 ) virtue of the Deed of Assign(ent signed ) hi( on the said da !Fxhi)it ' for

the etitioner and Fxhi)it 5 for the ad(inistratrix" was a transfer in conte(lation of death+ =t was (ade two das )efore

he died on >anuar 1%$ 1//1+ A transfer (ade in conte(lation of death is one ro(ted ) the thought that the transferor

has not long to live and (ade in lace of a testa(entar disosition !1/5/ Prentice Eall$ + /&/"+ ection .< of the

'ational =nternal Revenue Code of 1/.. rovides that the gross estate of the decedent shall )e deter(ined ) including

the value at the ti(e of his death of all roert to the extent of an interest therein of which the decedent has at an ti(e

(ade a transfer in conte(lation of death+ o$ the inventor to )e aroved in this case should still include the said

roerties of F(igdio #ercado which were transferred ) hi( in conte(lation of death+ Besides$ the said roerties

actuall aeared to )e still registered in the na(e of F(igdio + #ercado at least ten !1&" (onths after his death$ as

shown ) the certification issued ) the Ce)u Cit AssessorNs 3ffice on 3cto)er 1$ 1//1 !Fxhi)it 3"+%<

0here)$ the R0C strictl followed the directives of the Rules o# Court and the urisrudence relevant to the rocedure for

rearing the inventor ) the ad(inistrator+ 0he afore6uoted exlanations indicated that the directive to include the

roerties in 6uestion in the inventor rested on good and valid reasons$ and thus was far fro( whi(sical$ or ar)itrar$ or

caricious+


59/61

8irstl$ the shares in the roerties inherited ) F(igdio fro( everina #ercado should )e included in the inventor

)ecause 0eresita$ et al. did not disute the fact a)out the shares )eing inherited ) F(igdio+

econdl$ with F(igdio and 0eresita having )een (arried rior to the effectivit of the 9amily Code in August $ 1/


60/61

F(igdio would still have to )e in6uired into+ 0hat F(igdio executed the deed of assign(ent two das rior to his death

was a circu(stance that should ut an interested art on his guard regarding the exchange$ considering that there was a

finding a)out F(igdio having )een sic2 of cancer of the ancreas at the ti(e+4 =n this regard$ whether the CA correctl

characteried the exchange as a for( of an estate lanning sche(e re(ained to )e validated ) the facts to )e esta)lished

in court+

0he fact that the roerties were alread covered ) 0orrens titles in the na(e of #ervir Realt could not )e a valid )asis

for i((ediatel excluding the( fro( the inventor in view of the circu(stances ad(ittedl surrounding the execution of

the deed of assign(ent+ 0his is )ecause?

0he 0orrens sste( is not a (ode of ac6uiring titles to lands@ it is (erel a sste( of registration of titles to lands +

Eowever$ ustice and e6uit de(and that the titleholder should not )e (ade to )ear the unfavora)le effect of the (ista2e

or negligence of the tateNs agents$ in the a)sence of roof of his co(licit in a fraud or of (anifest da(age to third

ersons+ 0he real urose of the 0orrens sste( is to 6uiet title to land and ut a sto forever to an 6uestion as to the

legalit of the title$ excet clai(s that were noted in the certificate at the ti(e of registration or that (a arise su)se6uentthereto+ 3therwise$ the integrit of the 0orrens sste( shall forever )e sullied ) the inetitude and inefficienc of land

registration officials$ who are ordinaril resu(ed to have regularl erfor(ed their duties+ 5

Assu(ing that onl seven titled lots were the su)ect of the deed of assign(ent of >anuar 1&$ 1//1$ such lots should still

)e included in the inventor to ena)le the arties$ ) the(selves$ and with the assistance of the R0C itself$ to test and

resolve the issue on the validit of the assign(ent+ 0he li(ited urisdiction of the R0C as an intestate court (ight have

constricted the deter(ination of the rights to the roerties arising fro( that deed$ )ut it does not revent the R0C as

intestate court fro( ordering the inclusion in the inventor of the roerties su)ect of that deed+ 0his is )ecause the R0Cas intestate court$ al)eit vested onl with secial and li(ited urisdiction$ was still dee(ed to have all the necessar

owers to exercise such urisdiction to (a2e it effective+Q.

;astl$ the inventor of the estate of F(igdio (ust )e reared and su)(itted for the i(ortant urose of resolving the

difficult issues of collation and advance(ent to the heirs+ Article 1&1 of the Ci&il Code re6uired ever co(ulsor heir

and the surviving souse$ herein 0eresita herself$ to )ring into the (ass of the estate an roert or right which he !or

she" (a have received fro( the decedent$ during the lifeti(e of the latter$ ) wa of donation$ or an other gratuitous

title$ in order that it (a )e co(uted in the deter(ination of the legiti(e of each heir$ and in the account of the

artition+Q ection %$ Rule /& of the Rules o# Court also rovided that an advance(ent ) the decedent on the legiti(e of

an heir (a )e heard and deter(ined ) the court having urisdiction of the estate roceedings$ and the #inal order o# the

court thereon shall be binding on the person raising the ?uestions and on the heir +Q Rule /& there) exanded the secial

and li(ited urisdiction of the R0C as an intestate court a)out the (atters relating to the inventor of the estate of the

decedent ) authoriing it to direct the inclusion of roerties donated or )estowed ) gratuitous title to an co(ulsor

heir ) the decedent+


61/61

0he deter(ination of which roerties should )e excluded fro( or included in the inventor of estate roerties was well

within the authorit and discretion of the R0C as an intestate court+ =n (a2ing its deter(ination$ the R0C acted with

circu(section$ and roceeded under the guiding olic that it was )est to include all roerties in the ossession of the

ad(inistrator or were 2nown to the ad(inistrator to )elong to F(igdio rather than to exclude roerties that could turn

out in the end to )e actuall art of the estate+ As long as the R0C co((its no atent grave a)use of discretion$ its orders

(ust )e resected as art of the regular erfor(ance of its udicial dut+ 'ra&e abuse o# discretion (eans either that the

udicial or 6uasiOudicial ower was exercised in an ar)itrar or desotic (anner ) reason of assion or ersonal

hostilit$ or that the resondent udge$ tri)unal or )oard evaded a ositive dut$ or virtuall refused to erfor( the dut

enoined or to act in conte(lation of law$ such as when such udge$ tri)unal or )oard exercising udicial or 6uasiOudicial

owers acted in a caricious or whi(sical (anner as to )e e6uivalent to lac2 of urisdiction+/

=n light of the foregoing$ the CANs conclusion of grave a)use of discretion on the art of the R0C was unwarranted and

erroneous+

!HERE"ORE$ the Court #RAN$S the etition for review on certiorari; RE%ERSES and SE$S ASIDE the decision

ro(ulgated on #a 15$ %&&%@ REINS$A$ES the orders issued on #arch 14$ %&&1 and #a 1

general considerations legal forms

Documents