ManilaEN
BANC
PERSHING
TAN QUETO,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. L-35648
May 16, 1983
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS, JUAN POMBUENA,
RESTITUTA TACALINAR and GUANGCO DE
POMBUENA,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Before Us is a
Petition to Review the Decision
of the defunct Court of Appeals [now Intermecdiate Appellate Court] in
CA-G. R. No. 39492-R entitled "Restituta T. Guangco,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus Juan Pombuena, Defendant-Appellee, and Pershing Tan Queto,
Defendant-Appellant."
The Decision was penned by Justice Ramon C. Fernandez who was joined by
Justices Cecilia Munoz Palma and Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr. It
should
be noted that all of the aforementioned justices later joined this
Court.
Justice Concepcion is still with the Court and is obviously not taking
part in this Decision.
The appealed
Decision is not long and having been
written by a jurist with impressive credentials, it readily provides
both
the factual background and the issues involved. For this reason, the
full
text of the Decision is reproduced as follows:
This action for reconveyance of title,
annulment
of barter and recovery of property and damages was instituted by
Restituta
T. Guangco against Juan Pombuena and Pershing Tan Queto on October 9,
1964
in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.
The petition states that the plaintiff
is one
of the legitimate children of the late Benito Guangco and Basilides
Takalinar,
both having died intestate; that Benito Guangco and Basilides Takalinar
were the owner in fee simple of that parcel of urban land situated at
Centro,
Ozamiz City, Philippines, known as Lot No. 304, containing an area of
702
square meters, more or less; that in their lifetime until their
respective
deaths, Benito Guangco and Basilides Takalinar lived with their
daughter,
the plaintiff, then married to the defendant, Juan Pombuena, in the
house
built on the southern part of said lot; that it was the plaintiff who
took
good care of her parents, Benito Guangco and Basilides Takalinar, until
their respective deaths; that Benito Guangco died ahead of his wife,
Basilides
Takalinar; that sometime before her death, Basilides Takalinar, wished
and instructed that after her death, one-half [1/2] portion of the
aforementioned
lot be given to Buenaventura Guangco and the other one-half [1/2] be
given
to the daughter, the plaintiff; that the other sisters and brothers
agreed
and respected this wish, instruction and adjudication, so that since
February
11, 1927, when the instruction was given, the plaintiff possessed and
owned
said property as a realty orally bequeathed to her by her mother and it
thus, became her only paraphernal property; that in order to strengthen
her ownership together with her husband, the defendant, Juan Pombuena,
a Deed of Sale was executed with the consideration P50.00 that was
never
paid for it was only a simulated price, in favor of the plaintiff and
said
defendant; that after the subdivision of the said lot, the southern
portion
belonging to the plaintiff was designated Lot No. 304-B; that Lot No.
304-B
was designated as Cad. Lot No. 5944. Misamis Cadastre; that through
fraud,
error and/or mistake, defendant Juan Pombuena, obtained for said Cad.
Lot
No. 5944 O.C.T. No. 0-1160 in his name on April 23, 1962, from the
Registry
of Property of Ozamis City, to the damage and prejudice of the true
owner,
the plaintiff who knew of the title only very recently; that the title
being now indefeasible, this action for reconveyance was filed; that
the
plaintiff, as owner leased portion of Lot 304-B to the defendant,
Pershing
Tan Queto on September 22, 1949; that during the existence of the lease
contract, the defendant-lessee, Pershing Tan Queto, had shown unusual
interest
in the property by sending different persons persuading the plaintiff
to
sell or barter the property to him but the plaintiff flatly told the
said
defendant and his emissaries that she was not selling or bartering the
property because it is her only paraphernal property which she
inherited
from her deceased parents and she wants to preserve the integrity of
the
property in order to cherish and keep the memories of her late parents;
that persuasion having failed, the defendant Tan Queto employed the
more
clever and subtle strategy by allowing the defendant Juan Pombuena and
some of plaintiff's children to obtain credit in his store; that
defendant
Tan Queto also loaned money to Pombuena and plaintiff's children,
entrapping
defendant, Juan Pombuena, in many debts which grew to an amount which
was
quite difficult for the plaintiff and her husband, Juan Pombuena, to
pay,
so that at the time the lease contract expired, the defendant Pershing
Tan Queto refused to surrender and return the property to the
plaintiff;
that in order to recover possession of said property, the plaintiff
filed
an unlawful detainer case in the Municipal Court of Ozamiz City, which
was decided against defendant Pershing Tan Queto; that meanwhile
defendant
Pershing Tan Queto continued to cajole the plaintiff into selling or
bartering
the said property to him and the plaintiff stood firmly on her
conviction
never to sell or barter Lot 304-B; that in spite of the firm refusal of
the plaintiff not to sell the property, without her knowledge and
consent,
through deceit and misrepresentation, the defendant Pershing Tan Queto,
finally succeeded in unduly influencing the defendant, Jduan Pombuena,
into signing a barter contract on October 10, 1962; that after she knew
of the barter contract, the Plaintiff immediately protested against
this
deceitful act and one of her children Napoleon Pombuena, wrote an angry
letter to defendant Pershing Tan Queto vehemently protesting against
the
barter contract and said Napoleon Pombuena and his brother, Dr. Solomon
Pombuena, wrote the Register of Deeds of Ozamiz City not to register
said
barter contract; that in spite of the vehement protest of plaintiff and
her children against the said barter contract, the defendant Pershing
Tan
Queto started and persisted in the construction of the present concrete
building, a portion of which is now illegally standing on the whole of
Lot 304-B; that since she had knowledge of the barter contract, the
plaintiff
suffered actual and moral damages; that since October 10, 1962, when
defendant
Pershing Tan Queto took possession of Lot 304-B, the plaintiff failed
to
collect the monthly rental at the rate of P250.00 per month or a total
of P6,000.00 for the period of 24 months up to and including October
10,
1964; that from the time of the filing of this case until its final
termination
the plaintiff is entitled to a monthly rental of P250.00 or when
defendant
Pershing Tan Queto shall have made business with the portion of the
building
on Lot 304-B, the rental shall be at P 900.00 per month; and that
because
of the refusal of defendant Pershing Tan Queto to annul the barter
contract
and return the possession of the property to plaintiff, the latter had
to engage counsel whom she agreed to pay P2,000.00 attorney's fees.
In their Answer filed on October 24,
1964,
the
defendants admit paragraphs I and VIII of the petition and deny the
rest
of the material allegations therein. As affirmative defenses, they aver
that on February 11, 1927, defendant Juan Pombuena and the plaintiff
acquired
by purchase the land now designated as Lot 304-B, from plaintiff's
mother
Basilides Takalinar for the purchase price of P50.00; that the
plaintiff
and her defendant-husband had entered upon the actual occupation and
enjoyment
of the land as their conjugal property since then up to October 2, 1952
when the husband conveyed it by barter to defendant Pershing Tan Queto;
that the primitive owner of the land, together with the other half
portion
now known as Lot 304-A, was Benito Guangco; that in the hearing before
the Cadastral Court plaintiff never asserted or claimed the land in
question
as her paraphernal property, so said court adjudicated on November 22,
1938 this portion of Lot 304 as conjugal property of the plaintiff and
defendant, Juan Pobuena resulting in the issuance of O.C.T. No. 0-1160;
that plaintiff somehow managed this property because defendant Juan
Pombuena,
her husband, had been enmeshed in earning livehood for himself, his
wife
and growing family, working almost overtime even at night as a sawmill
employee; that consequently, the wife sort of administered the land in
question, their only conjugal property; that on September 22, 1949, the
plaintiff negotiated with defendant Pershing Tan Queto the lease over
this
land, but in the consummation of the lease, defendant Juan Pombuena, as
husband of plaintiff, affixed his signature to the contract of lease
thereby
giving his consent to the transaction; that in fact, in Civil Case No.
448 of the City Court of Ozamiz City for illegal detainer and damages
against
defendant Pershing Tan Queto filed by plaintiff and her husband,
paragraph
III of their complaint averred that the spouses "executed the contract
of lease in favor of the defendant"; that neither in the complaint nor
in the contract of lease was it therein expressly adverted that
plaintiff
Restituta Takalinar was exclusive owner of the land as her paraphernal
property; that defendant Pershing Tan Queto and his co-defendant Juan
Pombuena,
after the illegal detainer case was decided by the City Court of
Ozamiz,
both appealed to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental;
that
meanwhile, an agreement of barter was reached by both defendants hereto
whereby the land in question would be exchanged for a land with an
already
standing house thereon which the plaintiff and her husband and children
are, and have long been, occupying and in addition thereto the
plaintiff
and her defendant-husband were given P4,000.00 and the indebtedness
adjudged
against them by the City Court of Ozamiz was condoned; that the
plaintiff
and her defendant-husband, as well as their children, knew and
impliedly
assented to this transaction of barter because they are still making
use
of the house and land bartered to them as absolute owners and
possessors;
that the two sons Dominador and Napoleon, both surnamed Pombuena,
through
their mother, the plaintiff, have each made use of the P4,000.00; that
defendant Pershing Tan Queto before entering into the barter
transaction
diligently inquired and found that the land was adjudicated to
plaintiff
and defendant Juan Pombuena as their conjugal property having alleged
and
proved in the cadastral hearing that they acquired it on February 11,
1927
from Basilides Takalinar resulting in the issuance of the torrens title
in question, that both being advised that the husband could dispose
without
the consent of the wife property acquired as conjugal property before
the
effectivity of the new civil code, the defendants went ahead with the
barter;
that had defendant Pershing Tan Queto agreed to spend for the
remodelling
of the house bartered to the Pombuena family at an enormous cost, this
case would not have arisen; that plaintiff, her husband, children and
grandchildren
have not been paying rental any more on the house and lot to them
bartered
by defendant Pershing Tan Queto since April 1962, which was at the rate
of P 50.00 monthly; that the petition states no cause of action; that
the
instant action primarily involves the husband and wife but there is no
allegation in the petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise
have
been made; that the property being conjugal, no reconveyance is
feasible;
and that annulment of barter will not lie in this case because no
ground
for either rescission or avoidance of the contract appears indubitable.
The defendant Pershing Tan Queto asks for
moral
damages and attorney's fees.
The plaintiff seasonably filed an
answer
to the counterclaim.
The trial court
rendered a decision dated January
12, 1967 the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
a. Annulling the barter agreement
dated
October
10, 1962, Exhibit "J";
b. Ordering the mutual restitution of
properties
stated in the barter by reason of said annulment;
c. Ordering the Register of Deeds of
Ozamiz
City
to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1160 and to issue in lieu
thereof, a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Restituta
Takalinar
Guangco of legal age, Filipino, married to Juan Pombuena, and residing
at Ozamiz City, as her paraphernal property;
d. Ordering the defendants to pay the
costs.
SO ORDERED.
City of Ozamiz, January 12, 1967.
[Sgd.] GERONIMO R. MARAVE
Judge
[Record on Appeal, pp. 40-41].
The plaintiff
and defendant, Pershing Tan Queto,
appealed to this Court.
The plaintiff
assigns the following errors:
I.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT
DECLARINGDEFENDANT-APPELLANT A BUILDER IN
BAD
FAITH.chanrobles virtual law libraryII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT
ORDERINGTHE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO PAY
THE
RENTALS
IN ARREARS.chanrobles virtual law libraryIII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT
ORDERINGTHE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PAY
DAMAGES.chanrobles virtual law libraryIV.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
NOT
ORDERINGTHE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PAY
THE
ATTORNEY'S FEES.chanrobles virtual law library[Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant, pp.
1-2].
The defendant,
Pershing Tan Queto, contends that
the trial court erred in the following manner:
I.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
FINDING
THAT
THE CONTRACT OF SALE, EXHIBIT "B", IS TRULY A SALE, NOT JUST A MERE
CONVEYANCE.chanrobles virtual law libraryII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT
THE LAND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT ACTION IS A PARAPHERNAL PROPERTY
OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NOT A CONJUGAL PROPERTY OF THE APPELLEE
AND SAID APPELLANT.chanrobles virtual law libraryIII.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
GIVING
FULL
FORCE, EFFECT AND VIRTUE TO THE BARTER AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT "G".chanrobles virtual law libraryIV.chanrobles virtual law libraryTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT WITH COSTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT; IN NOT GRANTING
TO
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT THE REMEDY OR RELIEF HE HAS PRAYED IN HIS
COUNTERCLAIM.chanrobles virtual law library[Brief of Defendant-Appellant, pp.
1-2]
We shall first
take up the appeal of the defendant,
Pershing Tan Queto.cralaw:red
By whatever name
Exh. "B" is called, under the
circumstances surrounding its execution and viewed in the light of Exh.
"C- 1", the real intention of Basilides Takalinar was to convey the
land
in question to her daughter, Restituta Takalinar, as the share of the
latter
in the future hereditary estate of the former.cralaw:red
The trial court,
therefore, did not commit the
first error assigned by appellant Tan Queto. That the land in question
is a paraphernal property of plaintiff-appellant was admitted by
defendant,
Juan Pombuena, and appellant, Tan Queto in the illegal detainer action,
Civil Case No. 448 of the City Court of Ozamiz
Thus paragraph II
of the complaint in illegal
detainer case reads:
That plaintiff Restituta Guangco de
Pombuena
is an owner of a certain portion of residential land and improvements
existing
thereon, situated in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, bounded and more
particularly described as follows:
Bounded on the North by remaining
portion
of Lot 304 now the share of Buenaventura Guangco and measures 66 ft.;
East
by Heirs of Pangilinan and Rosa Vayson and measures 55 ft.; South
by Heirs of Ramon Bernad and measures 66 ft.; West by Rizal street and
measures 55 ft.; containing an approximate area of 3,630 sq. ft.;
a portion only of the bigger lot designated as Lot No. 304 of the City
of Ozamiz Cadastre and covered by Tax Dec. No. 32756 in the name of
Benito
Guangco deceased father of the plaintiff Restituta Guangco de Pombuena.
[Complaint, Exh. "D"].
The complaint
was verified as true of their own knowledge
by Restituta Guangco plaintiff-appellant, and her husband, defendant,
Juan
Pombuena.
In his Answer to
the complaint in the illegal
detainer case, defendant-appellant, Pershing Tan Queto alleged:
1. That he ADMITS the averments in
Paragraphs
I, II, I I I and IV of the complaint. [Exh. E-1]
We, therefore,
concur in the finding of the trial
court that the land in question is a paraphernal property of
plaintiff-appellant.
In view of the
admission by both Juan Pombuena
and Pershing Tan Queto that the land in question is the paraphernal
property
of the plaintiff- appellant, it follows that the barter agreement, Exh.
"G", has no effect. As a consequence, the trial court did not err
in not dismissing the complaint and not granting the relief prayed by
defendant-appellant
in his counterclaim.cralaw:red
We now come to
the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant.
The first error assigned is meritorious. We concur in the
finding,
being supported by overwhelming evidence, of the trial court that Tan
Queto
had more than sufficient knowledge that the land in question was the
paraphernal
property of Restituta before the barter agreement between him and Juan
Pombuena. Tan Queto, therefore, was aware that Juan Pombuena, the
person
he was dealing with, was not the owner of the land in question. The
conclusion
is inescapable that the defendant-appellant, Pershing Tan Queto, was a
builder in bad faith. Hence he has no right to be refunded the value of
whatever he constructed on the land in question. [Arts. 449 and 546,
Civil
Code of the Philippines].cralaw:red
The equity and
circumstances of the case do not
warrant that the defendant-appellant be ordered to pay the
plaintiff-appellant
rentals. Moreover, it appears that the plaintiff-appellant and her
family
have been livng on the house and land of Tan Queto without paying any
rent.cralaw:red
By the same
token, the defendant-appellant should
not be made to pay damages and attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby
affirmed with the sole modification that the defendant-appellant is not
entitled to be refunded the value of whatever he constructed on the
land
in question, without pronouncement as to costs.
The core issue
in the trial court, the Court of Appeals
and this Court is the ownership of Lot No. 304-B [Cadastral Lot No.
5944]
which is covered by. O.C.T. No. 0-1160 of the Registry of Property of
Ozamiz
City.
Restituta T.
Guangco claims that although the
lot was registered in the name of her husband, Juan Pombuena, it was
her
paraphernal property because she acquired it through a lucrative title
from her mother. Upon the other hand, Juan Pombuena and the transferee
of the lot, Pershing Tan Queto, claim that it belongs to the conjugal
partnership
of the Pombuenas and having been acquired on February 11, 1927, long
before
the Civil Code of the Philippines took effect, Juan Pombuena had the
capacity
to alienate [barter] it even without the consent of the wife. [Art.
166,
par. 2, Civil Code].cralaw:red
Both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals
found as a fact that the lot in question is the paraphernal property of
Restituta T. Guangco. How the Court of Appeals reached this conclusion
is well explained in its decision. The judgment of the Court of Appeals
is conclusive as to the facts; it cannot be reviewed by this Court. [2
Moran, Rules of Court (1976), p. 485, citing a long list of
cases].
Since the lot in question is the paraphernal property of Restituta, the
order to register it in her name as her paraphernal property is
well-taken.
Also well-taken is the order annulling the barter agreement and
directing
the mutual restitution of the objects bartered because of failure of
consideration.cralaw:red
The other
question relates to the forfeiture of
the building which Tan Queto built on the land in question. The Court
of
Appeals found as a fact that Tan Queto was a builder in bad faith
because
he knew that the land was the paraphernal property of Restituta and it
was not for Juan Pombuena to barter it.
The factual conclusion that Tan Queto is a
builder
in bad faith is well-taken. He knew that he acquired no title to the
lot
in question because of the barter and when he built on it he did so in
bad faith As a builder in bad faith he has no right to be refunded the
value of the building for Article 449 of the Civil Code stipulates:
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or
sows
in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or
sown
without right to indemnity.
The Court of
Appeals committed no error of a legal
nature in its decision.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is dismissed for lack
of merit. Costs against the petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar,
Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Teehankee, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., and De Castro,
JJ., took no part. |