ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136186. February 3, 1999]

JULIA DEL VALLE VDA. DE STA. MARIA, vs. QUINTIN ORTEGA, JR.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 3, 1999.

G.R. No. 136186 (Julia del Valle Vda. de Sta. Maria, represented by Rodolfo V. Sta. Maria vs. Quintin Ortega, Jr., as heir of Paz del Valle.)

Petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying the decision of the regional trial court, thus ruling that the mere annotation of the Absolute Sale of Portion on the certificate of title without presenting the deed of absolute sale itself is not sufficient to give effect to the sale.

The present controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner for partition and quieting of title, alleging that she is co-owner to the extent of 1/5 of a parcel of land owned by her deceased parents; that she has four siblings, namely, Marcela, Paz, Estefania, and Leoncio who are each entitled to the same share of 1/5 of the land; that on September 15, 1948 Paz sold her share to petitioner; that on May 27, 1974 Leoncio sold 1/2 hectare of his share; and that with petitioner's original share of 25,985 sq.m., plus the 25,985 sq.m. sold by Paz, and the 5,000 sq.m. sold by Leoncio, her aggregate share totals 56.970 sq.m.

The trial court decided in favor of petitioner, prompting the heirs of Paz to appeal.

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals nullified the trial court's decision insofar as the portion pertaining to the share of Paz was concerned, there being no proof that Paz sold the same to petitioner.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

Upon perusal, the record shows that in 1948 Macaria Castillo, the mother of the parties, was still living and owned 6/12 shares of the subject property while Paz owned only 1/12 share therein and there is no evidence indicating that Paz already owned as much portion of the property which petitioner claimed to have bought. It is also significant to note the fact that petitioner failed to present the alleged absolute deed of sale which was merely mentioned in the annotation at the back of the original certificate of title of the subject property. These circumstances can but cast doubt on petitioner's claim.

The Court finds nothing erroneous in the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case at bar is akin to the case of Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Tse, 51 Phil 317 [1927] where the Court declared that it would be hazardous to accept such notations or memoranda as conclusive proof of contents of the documents or juridical orders noted, because then the document itself which is an unquestionable and indubitable evidence of its contents would be supplanted by an extract of its contents made by the registrar, which extract might be erroneous and might not give the true sense of the conditions stipulated therein.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE