ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 127861.November 21, 2001]
ROMEO FRAGINAL et al vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentleman :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 21 2001.
G.R. No. 127861(Romeo Fraginal and Cresenciana Neri-Fraginal and Naga Regional Development Bank vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Carmelita O. Illo.)
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated October 15, 1996 and Resolution dated January 17, 1997 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 35, in Civil Case No. lR-1203. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the RTC reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the court finds the preponderance of evidence for the plaintiff and
against the defendants. The plaintiff is hereby declared the owner of the land
in question described in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and entitled to the
peaceful possession thereof. Defendant spouses, Romeo and Cresenciana Fraginal
are directed to remove their house constructed on the land. The mortgage made
by said defendant spouses with defendant Naga Regional Development Bank is
hereby annulled. Defendant spouses Romeo and Cresenciana Fraginal are directed
to pay to plaintiff the sum of P3,000.00 in concept of damages and a
further sum of P5,000.00 for attorney's fees and also the sum of P3,000.00
as expenses for litigation, and to pay the costs.
1
Rollo, pp. 55-56.The case
originated from an action for quieting of title, recovery of possession with
annulment of mortgage and damages filed by respondent Carmencita
2
Referred to as "Carmelita " in the
title of this case and in the caption of the petition for review on certiorari.Illo
against petitioner spouses Romeo Fraginal and Cresenciana Neri-Fraginal, and
the Naga Regional Development Bank (NRDB).
Respondent Illo claimed
that in 1968, Eligio Mu�oz sold the subject property to her. In 1969, the
petitioners Fraginal spouses requested that they be allowed to transfer their
nipa hut to the subject property as they were being ejected from the land they
were then occupying. Illo acceded to the request on condition that the
Fraginals would merely construct a house of a temporary nature and that they
would vacate the subject property any time she would need the same. However, in
January 1983, she found out that the Fraginals transferred their house from its
original location and converted it into a semi-concrete structure but located
in the same parcel of land; that the Fraginal spouses declared the subject
parcel of land in their names as shown in a Declaration of Ownership of
Property and mortgaged it to NRDB to secure a loan of Sixteen Thousand Pesos (P16,000.00).
Illo maintained that the mortgage is a nullity since the Fraginal spouses are
not the owners of the subject property. Illo attempted to talk to the Fraginal
spouses to settle the matter out of court but the latter refused and instead
asserted ownership of the subject property. Hence, she filed the complaint for
quieting of title in the RTC. In support of her complaint, Illo testified and
presented in evidence a Deed of Sale dated May 23, 1968 executed by Eligio
Mu�oz in her favor, at the back of which was a sketch of the subject property,
and the following other documents allegedly turned over to her by Eligio Mu�oz:
(1) Declaration of Property of Jose De Lima;
(2) Deed of Sale dated January 8, 1966 executed by Sixto Ensano in favor of Eligio Munoz;
(3) Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land dated December 28, 1959 executed by Jose De Lima in favor of Digna Magistrado;
(4) Deed of Sale of Real Property dated September 19, 1963 executed by Digna Magistrado in favor of Sixto Ensano;
(5) Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Estate dated January 23, 1964 executed by Jose De Lima in favor of Eligio Mufloz, which was registered with the Register of Deeds on June 15, 1964; and
(6) Decision in Civil Case No. 5712, entitled "Sixto Ensano v. Eligio Mu�oz," promulgated on October 1, 1965. 3 Rollo p. 51.
Illo also presented a
receipt allegedly signed by petitioner Cresenciana Neri-Fraginal to show that
at the time the Fraginals asked permission to transfer their nipa hut to the
subject property, Cresenciana even borrowed the amount of Twenty Pesos (P20.00)
from her to buy nipa.
In the meantime, the
Fraginals claimed that Eligio Mu�oz sold the subject property to them in July
1967 for Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) which amount was even
borrowed by petitioner Cresenciana's father from Jose Llagas; that they
immediately took possession of the subject property and have been in peaceful
possession thereof since 1967; and that their transaction with Eligio Mu�oz was
evidenced by a private document in the Bicol dialect, written by hand by Eligio
Mu�oz, in their presence and that of Pedro Oliva. One copy was given to the Fraginals
and the other to Pedro Oliva. The Fraginals placed their copy of the document
in an envelope and kept it in a chest. However, said copy was lost. Cresenciana
stated the chest was lost during a typhoon while petitioner Romeo Fraginal
claimed that the chest was found on the road but its contents were already
missing. On February 13, 1980, the Fraginal spouses executed a Declaration of
Ownership of Property wherein they declared the subject property in their names
for taxation purposes, and paid the taxes thereon. To prove their claim of
ownership, the Fraginal spouses offered in evidence their testimonies and that
of Jose Liagas as well as the following documents:
1. Mortgage executed by Jose Liagas and Andres Neil;
2. Declaration of Ownership dated February 13, 1980 executed by
Romeo Fraginal;
3. 3rd Endorsement 4 Should be "2nd Endorsement," not "3rd Endorsement."of Emelio 5 Should be "Emilio," not "Emelio."Nadal showing that the Fraginals obtained the necessary permit from Iriga City when they built their house; 6 RTC Records, p. 188. This endorsement dated May 19, 1980 provides that the Office of the City Development Coordinator interposed no objection to the processing of the application of the Fraginals, the site of the proposed building and use thereof being in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 29 (Zoning Ordinance), series of 1979, subject, however, to existing regulations on set-backs, structure and heights of buildings.and
4. Tax Receipt Nos. 9758912 and 4470774. 7 RTC Records, p. 182.
The Fraginals further attempted to show that Eligio Mu�oz "has no property in San Francisco, Iriga [C]ity but in [Sagrada]" 8 RTC Records, p. 182.using for this purpose a certification from the Office of the City Assessor, 9 RTC Records, p. 194. This certification dated September 5, 1988 provides that Eligio Mu�oz, a resident of San Francisco, Iriga City, has declared under his name, for taxation purposes, the following real property:
����������������� TAX DEC. NO.�� KIND OF LAND���������������������������������� LOCATION��������� AREA��� ASSD/VALUE
����������������� 011-0726���������������������������������� Abaca &���������������������������������� Sagrada 3.000������ P4,550.00
���������������������������������������������������� Forest��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2.3025 and another certification 10 RTC Records p. 192. This certification is dated January 25, 1984.from the same office that Tax Declaration No. 5718, which was used as reference in the Deed of Sale executed by Eligio Mu�oz in favor of Illo, is in the name of Jose De Lima.
The trial court ruled in favor of respondent Carmelita D. Illo, finding that:
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
From the evidence presented, the badges of truth will appear in favor of the plaintiff, especially with the documents which she presented, particularly those documents coming from the predecessors in Interest. On the other hand, the defendants have nothing but their self serving statement that they bought this from Eligio Mu�oz and their document was not even in a public instrument although by Eligio Mu�oz in his own handwriting but that this was conveniently lost and so they have to execute a Declaration of Ownership dated February 13, 1980.
But then while Cresenciana Fraginal declared (tsn. p.4, Hearing of Feb. 3, 1988) that their document of sale was destroyed by Typhoon Trix, according to her husband, Romeo Fraginal (tsn. p.4, Hearing of May 11, 1989) it was destroyed by Typhoon Sening. Then the same Cresenciana Fraginal testified that the trunk wherein the document was placed was lost by reason of the typhoon (tsn. p. 4, Hearing of Feb. 3, 1988) but according to her husband the chest was found on the road but the contents were no longer inside.
Also, defendants claim
that they got the money with which they bought the property from Eligio Mu�oz
from Jose Llagas and to prove this fact exhibited a Document (Exh. 1). It
appears however from this Document that defendants were not parties to this
document but Andres I. Neri and this appears to have been executed since
December 1966 when they supposedly bought this land in July 1967. Besides, P15,000.00
is already a big amount why did not defendants require Mu�oz to execute the
corresponding Document of Sale and why did they not also ask for the supporting
documents of Munoz that he indeed is the owner, as what the plaintiff in this
case did. Also the Court notes that despite the fact that defendant claim that
they have purch[a]sed the land from Eligio Mu�oz yet when they had the land
declared for taxation purposes under Tax Dec. No. 017-1252 (Exh. 5) it was a
new tax declaration. It did not cancel any tax declaration when this should
have already been declared in the name of Eligio Mu�oz and so should have
cancelled the tax declaration for Mu�oz and why was there two (2) documents of
Declaration of Ownership executed by defendants?
These matters affect the credibility of the evidence of defendants. Preponderance of evidence will show well therefore in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants.. 11 Rollo, 54-55.
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals adverted to the best evidence rule, stressing that before the terms of a transaction may be established by secondary evidence, it is necessary that the due execution and subsequent loss of the instrument evidencing the transaction must first be proved. It likewise did not give credence to the Declaration of Ownership of Property of the Fraginals for being self-serving and further found that due to the execution thereof the Fraginals were accused and convicted of falsification. The appellate court also took into consideration several discrepancies and misleading and conflicting statements made by the Fraginals as to the date when the document executed by Eligio Mu�oz was lost, the sinister purpose behind the execution of the Declaration of Ownership of Property and the date when their house was constructed. Failing to obtain reconsideration from the Court of Appeals, the Fraginals and NRDB now seek relief before the Court.
The Fraginals and NRDB 12 In its Manifestation dated March 11, 1997, NRDB informed the Court that it is adopting the petition for review on certiorari of the Fraginals. See Rollo, p. 104.submitted the following issues for resolution by the Court:
1. Whether this Honorable Supreme Court is bound by the findings and conclusions of the Honorable Court of Appeals, which findings and conclusions were based on a misapprehension of facts, obviously contradicted by the evidence on record, contrary to law and jurisprudence on the matter, and based on surmises and conjecture and unsupported by evidence.
2. Whether private respondent could be presumed to have acted in good faith in purchasing the disputed land in 1968, in the face of the existing evidence that the petitioners had already been in actual physical possession of said land, erected their house and actually residing thereat since 1967?
3. Whether petitioners by reason of the private sale in their favor, supported with valuable consideration and who took immediate physical possession of the disputed land and performed act of ownership openly, continuously and publicly can be considered to have acted in bad faith?
4. Whether a contract of sale can be proven by oral evidence?
5. Whether private respondent in the absence of registration of ownership of the land in dispute with the Register of Deeds, and without evidence of actual physical possession, can be considered as the lawful owner of the same? 13 Rollo, p. 14.
The Court notes that the issues propounded and the arguments proffered by the Fraginals and NRDB are essentially aimed at a review of the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. It is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by this Court on appeal. 14 Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 322, 332 (1998).
While, as argued by the Fraginals and NRDB, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the Court finds no valid and compelling reason to apply the exception to the rule to the case at bar. It is clear that apart from their own testimonies and the fact that they are in possession of the subject property upon the tolerance of respondent Illo, the petitioner Fraginal spouses have failed to adduce competent, relevant and convincing evidence to substantiate their claim of ownership of the subject parcel of land.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
