ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
D E C I S I O NPERALTA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which assails the DecisioncЃa1cЃacЃaląw dated August 30, 2002 and the ResolutioncЃa2cЃacЃaląw dated November 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 38031.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners Fe Davis Maramba, Renato Davis, Flordeliza D. Yeh, Jocelyn D. Queblatin and Betty Davis are the heirs of the late Primitiva Lejano Davis (Primitiva), the owner of the ½ undivided portion (subject property) of two parcels of land (fishpond), situated in Meycauayan, Bulacan, covered by TCT No. T-6358 of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. Petitioner Manuel T. de Guia alleged to be the owner of the subject property, having acquired the same from his co-petitioners.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The antecedents, as borne by the records, are as follows: On August 8, 1973, Primitiva executed a document denominated
as Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit ”J”),cЃa3cЃacЃaląw a
deed of mortgage, in favor of respondents spouses Teofilo R. Morte and Angelina
C. Villarico (respondents Spouses Morte) over the subject property in
consideration of Primitiva's loan in the amount of On February 15, 1974, Primitiva executedanother document, Kasunduan ng Bilihang
Tuluyan (Exhibit “F”),cЃa4cЃacЃaląw a
deed of sale, over the same subjectproperty in favor of spousesRuperto
C. Villarico and Milagros D. Barretto (respondents Spouses Villarico) for and
in consideration of the amount of On
February 14, 1977, respondents Spouses Villaricoexecuted a document denominated as Kasunduan
ng Bilihang Tuluyan (Exhibit “G”),cЃa5cЃacЃaląw a
deed of sale, wherein they sold back the subject property to Primitiva for the
same amount of On March 26, 1977, Primitiva executed another document, Kasunduan
ng Bilihang Tuluyan (Exhibit“H”),cЃa6cЃacЃaląw a
deed of sale, wherein she again sold the subject property to respondents
Spouses Villarico for the amount of On March
28, 1977, Primitiva executed a Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit “I”),cЃa7cЃacЃaląw a
deed of mortgage, over the subject property in favor ofrespondents Spouses Mortein consideration of a loan in the amount of Except for Exhibit “H,” all documents were duly notarized and petitioner Renato was one of the instrumental witnesses in all these documents.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On November 10, 1979, Primitiva, respondents Spouses Villarico and Spouses Morte executed before Notary Public Mamerto A. Abaño the following five (5) documents, each of which was signed by petitioner Renato as an instrumental witness, to wit: 1. cralawKasulatan ng
Sanglaan (Exhibit “A”)cЃa8cЃacЃaląw -
executed by Primitiva mortgaging the subject property to respondent Spouses
Morte in consideration of a loan in the amount of 2. cralawGeneral Power of Attorney (Exhibit “B”)cЃa9cЃacЃaląw - executed by Primitiva appointing respondent Spouses Villarico as her attorney-in-fact in the exercise of general control and supervision over the subject propertywith full authority to act as her representative and agent, to lease, mortgage or sell said share, among other things, for and in her behalf;cralaw 3. cralawKasulatan ng
Pagpapabuwis ng Palaisdaan (Exhibit “C”)cЃa10cЃacЃaląw -
executed between Primitiva, as lessor, and respondent Spouses Villarico, as
lessees, over the same subject property at 4. cralawPagpapawalang
Saysay ng Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit
“D”)cЃa11cЃacЃaląw -
executed by respondent spouses Morte cancelingand rendering without any valid force and effect the“Kasulatan ng Sanglaan” (Exhibit “I”) dated
March 28, 1977 for a loan of 5. cralawKasulatan ng Pagpapawalang Saysay at Pagpapawalang Bisa ng mga Kasulatan (Exhibit “E”)cЃa12cЃacЃaląw - executed by Primitiva and respondent Spouses Villarico canceling the following documents: a) Kasunduan ng Bilihang Tuluyan (Exhibit “F”) dated February 15, 1974;cralaw b) Kasunduan ng Bilihang Tuluyan (Exhibit “G”) dated February 14, 1977; and c) Kasunduan ng Bilihang Tuluyan (Exhibit“H”) dated March 26, 1977;cralaw because the amounts stated in those deeds had already been returned by Primitiva to respondent Spouses Villarico.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Primitiva failed to pay her loan in the amount of On February 17, 1986, petitioner De Guia, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of the other co-petitioners, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, an Amended Complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage and contract of lease with preliminary injunction against respondents Spouses Morte, Spouses Villarico, and Deputy Sheriff Benjamin C. Hao.Petitioners sought to annul the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit “A”) and Kasulatan ng Pagbubuwisng Palaisdaan (Exhibit “C”), both executed by Primitiva in favor of respondents Spouses onNovember 10, 1979, contending that the documents were null and void, since Primitiva signed them under threat ofimmediate foreclosure of mortgage on the subject property and without any valuable consideration; and that respondent Sheriff Hao had scheduled the auction sale of the subject property which would cause great and irreparable injury to petitioners.Thus, they prayed that the public auction be enjoined.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In their Answer, respondents Spouses argued that these documents were executed for valuable consideration, and that petitioner Renato was one of the instrumental witnesses in these documents; that Atty. Mamerto Abaño, the Notary Public who notarized the questioned documents, was then Primitiva's lawyer and not of respondents.Respondents clarified that the documents Pagpapawalang Saysay ng Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit “D”) and the Pagpapawalang Saysay at Pagpapawalang Bisa ng Mga Kasulatan (Exhibit “E”), both dated November 10, 1979, which made the earlier documents, to wit: Exhibits “F,” “G,” “H” and “I,” executed between Primitiva and the respondents Spouses of no force and effect, were executed to avoid confusion and to show that the latest documents datedNovember 10, 1979 represented the actual and subsisting transactions between the parties.In their Counterclaim, respondents Spouses Villarico claimed that they should have been in possession of the fishpond since 1979 if not for the unwarranted refusal of petitioner De Guia to vacate the fishpond despite demands.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On March 6, 1986, the RTC issued an Order granting petitioners' application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the filing of an injunction bond.A writ of preliminary injunction was, subsequently, issued and was served on Sheriff Hao and respondents Spouses.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Thereafter, trial ensued.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On February 28, 2002, the RTC rendered its Decision,cЃa13cЃacЃaląw the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the evidence having shown the plaintiffs, particularly Manuel de Guia, their successor-in-interest, not entitled upon the facts and the law to the relief prayed for in the amended complaint, the same is hereby DISMISSED with costs against said plaintiff. Instead as prayed for by defendants, judgment is hereby rendered : 1. Declaring the “Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhs. “A” & “1”) dated November 10, 1979, and the “Kasulatan ng Pagpapabuwis ng Palaisdaan (Exhs. “C” & “3”) also dated November 10, 1979, as valid for all legal intents and purposes;cralaw 2. Ordering the Ex-Officio Sheriff, RTC, Bulacan, to proceed with the extrajudicial foreclosure of the subject real estate mortgage; and 3. Ordering plaintiffs to pay
defendants attorney's fees in the amount of SO ORDERED.cЃa14cЃacЃaląw The RTC found that petitioner Renato, Primitiva's son and an instrumental witness to all the questioned documents, did not deny the outstanding obligations of his mother to respondents; that he explicitly declared that his mother had to execute Exhibit “A” to restructure her indebtedness to respondents Spouses Morte, so as to avoid the foreclosure ofthe mortgage over the subject property; that there was no other force or intimidation used by respondents Spouses upon him or his mother.The RTC ruled that if respondents Spouses Morte threatened to foreclose the mortgage because of Primitiva's failure to pay her indebtedness to them, they were only exercising their right as mortgagees and it was within their right to file a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. The RTC also found that Primitiva executed the questioned documents for valuable consideration as established by petitioner Renato's testimony that his mother executed the documents to restructure her outstanding obligation with respondents. And it was also established by Atty. Abaño, a former lawyer of Primitiva, that in his presence, certain amounts of money were given or paid by respondents Spouses to Primitiva.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners filed their appeal with the CA.On August 30, 2002, the CA issued its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the judgment appealed from must be, as it hereby is AFFIRMED. Costsshall be taxed against appellants.cЃa15cЃacЃaląw Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 28, 2003.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Hence, petitioners filed a petition for review raising the following issues, to wit: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE “TRANSACTIONS” EXECUTED ON SAME DATE, NOVEMBER 10, 1979, ARE NOT VOID AND SIMULATED;cralaw B.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT DECLARING
THE SAID REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE FOR C. THE INSTANT PETITION INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW WELL WITHIN THE POWER OF REVIEW BY THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL.cЃa16cЃacЃaląw The issue for resolution of whether the CA committed a reversible error when it upheld the RTC judgment declaring the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Exhibit “A”) and the Kasulatan ng Pagpapabuwis ng Palaisdaan (Exhibit “C”), both dated November 10, 1979, as valid, is a factual issue.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In petitions for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner can raise only questions of law – the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts.cЃa17cЃacЃaląwA departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record,cЃa18cЃacЃaląw which we found not obtaining in this case.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners' claim that Exhibit “A” was simulated, since the signatures of Primitiva and petitioner Renato, as one of the instrumental witnesses, were obtained under threat of an immediate foreclosure of the subject property, is devoid of merit.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The CA affirmed the RTC's finding that petitioner Renato admitted his mother's outstanding obligations to respondents Spouses Morte when hetestified that his mother had to execute Exhibit “A” to restructure her indebtedness to respondents Spouses Morte to avoid the foreclosure of the mortgage on the subject property; that other than the threat of foreclosure, petitioner Renato declared that there was no other force or intimidation exerted on them by respondents Spouses Morte to execute Exhibit “A”; and that a threat to enforce one's just and legal claim through a competent authority did not vitiate Primitiva and petitioner Renato's consent.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary We agree.Records show that petitioner Renato indeed
admitted that his mother Primitiva was not able to pay her loan in the amount
of ATTY. PUNO: x x x x Q. Tell us,
Mr. Davis, what was your participation in that mortgage for A. I signed as witness to the document, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. And I supposed that your mother signed as the mortgagor, is it not? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary x x x x Q. Now after
this document or mortgage for A. The same was not paid also, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. It was not paid by your mother? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. And so what happened? A.Because of that the interest on the same loan
was added to that making it bigger than the previously Q. How long
was the period for that mortgage for A. I could not recall how much but (interrupted).chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. How long a period? The period? A. It was also for another year at 12%.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Interest? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. And so your mother was not able to pay that and naturally the interest accumulated? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. What happened after that? A. After the interest accumulated and since we cannot pay we have to execute another mortgage in order not to foreclose the property, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Which mortgage are you referring to now, Mr. Davis? A. We
executed another mortgage for Q. Do you recall what document was that? A. It was a
mortgage for Q. You are referring to Exh. “A.” ATTY. PUNO: Q. Could you
recall , Mr. Davis, when was the due date of that mortgage for A. Actually, it was intended for only one (1) year, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. What year was that? A. About 1977, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Now is this Exhibit “A” one of the documents which you said you signed in the office of Notary Public Mamerto Abaño? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Now when you read – Before you signed this document as an instrumental witness you read its contents, Mr. Davis? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. You understood its contents? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Do you know what it meant ? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. And after that you signed as a witness? A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Q. Your mother also signed this document “Kasulatan ng Sanglaan”? A. Yes, sir.cЃa19cЃacЃaląw Petitioner Renato's claim that he and his mother were threatened of foreclosure of the subject property if his mother would not sign Exhibit “A,” thus, their consent were vitiated, does not persuade us.As correctly ruled by the lower courts, the last paragraph of Article 1335 of the New Civil Code was applicable in this case, which provides that a threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.It has been held that foreclosure of mortgaged properties in case of default in payment of a debtor is a legal remedy afforded by law to a creditor. Hence, a threat to foreclose the mortgage would not per se vitiate consent.cЃa20cЃacЃaląw We, likewise, find no merit in petitioners' contention that Exhibit “C,” executed between Primitiva and the Spouses Villarico, was also simulated. As correctly found by the CA, petitioners failed to adduce any evidence in support of such claim. It had been established that petitioner Renato, an instrumental witness to this document, admitted that he read and understood and was satisfied with the explanation of Notary Public Abaño regarding the contents of the same, before he and his mother affixed their signatures on the documents. Thus, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of both the trial and appellate courts that the assailed documents were validly executed by Primitiva in favor of the respondents Spouses.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners'
argument that both documents were executed without valuable consideration
deserves scant consideration. Notably, petitioner Renato admitted that Exhibit
“A” was executed by his mother to restructure his mother's outstanding loan
obligation to respondents Spouses Morte, which had not been paid.Moreover, respondent Teofilo Morte had also
given Petitioners
tried to show the fraudulent character of the assailed documents by alleging
that several documents had earlier been executed between Primitiva and the
respondents Spouses involving the subject property, to wit: Deed of Sale dated
February 15, 1974 (Exhibit “F”), where Primitiva sold the subject property to
the Spouses Villarico for We are not persuaded.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Respondent Milagros Villarico provided the explanation for the execution of Exhibits “F,” “G” and “H.” She testified that she, her husband Ruperto and Primitiva executed Exhibit “F.”However, when they went to the house of Judge Teofilo Abejo, the co-owner of the other ½ undivided portion of the property covered by TCT No. T-6358, (the other half is the subject property) to ask his consent to the sale, the latter did not give his consent thereto as he wanted to buy the subject property.cЃa22cЃacЃaląwThus, they (respondents Spouses Villarico) had to execute Exhibit “G” selling back the subject property to Primitiva.However, Primitiva executed Exhibit “H,” selling the subject property again to respondents Spouses Villarico.Again, Judge Abejo did not give his consent to such sale, thus, the sale did not push through, and in fact, the deed was not notarized.cЃa23cЃacЃaląw Notably, Milagros's testimony was corroborated by the fact that Primitiva executed on November 10, 1979, a document denominated as Pagpapawalang Saysay at Pagpapawalang Bisa ng mga Kasulatan (Exhibit “E”), wherein she declared Exhibits “F, “G” and “H,” of no force and effect. It bears stressing that petitioner Renato was one of the instrumental witnesses in the execution of Exhibit “E” and he testified that Notary Public Abaño had explained to him the reason why Exhibit “E” was executed, together with the other documents, including the assailed documents, i.e., the documents executed on November 10, 1979 which were the latest transactions between the parties, were intended to show the nullity of the previously signed documents.As petitioner Renato was satisfied with such explanation, coupled with the fact that he read and understood the document, he and his mother then affixed their signatures on Exhibit “E.” Finally, petitioner De Guia's claim that he was an innocent purchaser for value, who bought the subject property without notice of the mortgage on the subject property, was not raised in the trial court.As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.cЃa24cЃacЃaląw WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated August 30, 2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 38031, is AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR:
ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice Third Division, Chairperson CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice cralawEndnotes:
|
|