Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > February 1991 Decisions > G.R. No. 87550 February 11, 1991 - DIVINA J. VICTORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 87550. February 11, 1991.]

DIVINA J. VICTORIANO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF CRISPIN ARCILLA, represented by LADISLAWA A. MASIGLA, Respondents.

J .C . Baldoz & Associates for Petitioner.

Baltazar J . Llamas for Private Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


MEDIALDEA, J.:


This petition seeks the review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 1989, which reversed the ruling of the trial court declaring petitioner Divina J. Victoriano (hereafter "Victoriano") as owner of Lot 897, and instead, declaring the heirs of Crispin Arcilla, herein represented by Ladislawa A. Masigla (hereafter "Masigla") as true owners thereof. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside. In lieu thereof, judgment is hereby rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Declaring plaintiffs-appellants as the owners of Lot #897 located in Barangay Santol, Tansa, Cavite;

"2. Ordering defendant-appellee to execute the proper deed of sale to enable plaintiffs-appellants to transfer the title to the property in their name and in case of failure of defendant-appellee to do so within 30 days from finality hereof, the Register of Deeds of Cavite is hereby directed to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-124731 in the name of defendant-appellant and issue a new one in the name of plaintiffs-appellants.

"SO ORDERED." (pp. 21-22, Rollo)

The facts of the case, as obtained from the Court of Appeals’ decision, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Masigla was in possession of Lot 897 which is situated in Barangay Santol, Tanza, Cavite. In 1987, her son, Domingo Masigla entered the adjoining property, Lot 898, owned by Victoriano, and prohibited her and her tenants from cultivating the land. Victoriano filed a criminal case for theft, malicious mischief, usurpation and squatting against Domingo. In the process, Victoriano discovered that title to Lot No. 897 was registered in the name of her grandfather, Cirilo Tamio (TCT No. 1648). She secured an extrajudicial partition from all the heirs of Cirilo Tamio, who thus waived their shares in the lot in her favor. Victoriano thereafter secured a title (TCT No. 124731) to said lot in her name.

The heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Masigla, filed a complaint in court (RTC-Cavite, Trece Martires, Br. 23) for reconveyance of Lot No. 897, claiming that their father, Crispin Arcilla, had bought the lot from Cirilo Tamio, and that they had been in possession thereof since 1927. Masigla could not, however, present a deed of sale evidencing the transfer of the property from Cirilo Tamio to Crispin Arcilla. All that she and her heirs could present were a "Sinumpaang Salaysay" dated January 20, 1927, wherein the children of Cirilo Tamio authorized their mother to sell Lot 897 to Crispin Arcilla; the owner’s duplicate of the title to the property in the name of Cirilo Tamio and real property tax receipts and tax declarations, the earliest of which is 1944. Masigla claimed that taxes were being paid since 1927 but the receipt had been lost or destroyed.cralawnad

Victoriano on the other hand, presented the Transfer Certificate of Title in her name (TCT 124731), a tax declaration and a receipt dated March 30, 1983 (p. 18, Rollo).

In a decision dated October 5, 1987 (p. 61, Rollo), the trial court ruled in favor of Victoriano, declaring her the lawful and absolute owner of Lot No. 897.

Masigla appealed, assigning as errors, the failure of the trial court to consider Masigla’s evidence submitted in support of her claim for reconveyance and rendering instead a decision allowing recovery of possession in favor of Victoriano, based on the allegation and evidence in her counterclaim.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and declared Masigla and her co-heirs as true owners of the property. In the resolution dated March 17, 1989, it denied Victoriano’s motion for reconsideration.

Victoriano filed this petition on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The respondent Court of Appeals abused its discretion by deciding this case based on the principles of the ‘Statute of Frauds’ and then on the principle of ‘laches’ which principles were never raised in the lower court.

"2. The respondent Court of Appeals decided questions of substance in a way not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court." (p. 9, Rollo).

We uphold the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The trial court’s ruling was anchored solely on the failure of Masigla to prove transfer of ownership from Cirilo Tamio to their predecessor-in-interest, Crispin Arcilla, because of the absence of a deed of sale.

Apparently, the trial court relied on the Statute of Frauds principle which requires "an agreement for the sale . . ." of real property or an interest therein (Art. 1 403(e)) to be in writing. It overlooked the fact that this principle applies only to executory contracts. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘The Statute of Frauds is applicable only to executory contracts, not to contracts either totally or partially performed. Thus, where a contract of sale is alleged to be consummated, it matters not that neither the receipt for the consideration nor the sale itself was in writing, because oral evidence of the alleged consummated sale is not forbidden by the Statute of Frauds and may not be excluded in court. (Iñigo v. Estate of Maloto, 21 SCRA (1901) 246)’

"Thus, the testimony of plaintiffs-appellants on this point is admissible to prove the existence of the sale, it being of record that the land has been in their possession since 1927." (CA Decision, pp. 19-20, Rollo)

Performance of the contract, whether total or partial, takes it out of the operation of the statute (Gomez v. Salcedo, 26 Phil. 485; Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 196). This performance, necessarily must be duly proved. And it is in this light that Masigla pointed out the circumstances to show performance on the contract or transfer of ownership, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Plaintiffs-appellants are in possession of the owner’s copy of the title;

"2. They have been undisturbed in their possession of the land for more than fifty years;

"3. They are in possession of a ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay’ wherein the children of Cirilo Tamio authorized their mother to sell Lot 897 specifically to Crispin Arcilla, the predecessor of plaintiffs-appellants;

"4. They introduced improvements on the land;

"5. They incurred expenses for the resurvey of the land when they had the title in the name of Cirilo Tamio reconstituted (TSN p. 30, Nov. 29, 1983);

"6. The tax declarations over the property were in the name of plaintiffs father;

"7. Plaintiffs-appellants have been religious in paying taxes over the property;

"8. The immediate heirs of Cirilo Tamio, that is, his wife and children, never contested plaintiffs-appellants’ possession of the land, nor did they set up any claim over the property. This behavior negates any pretense that there was no sale in favor of Crispin Arcilla." (ibid., p. 20, Rollo)

In ruling in favor of Masigla, the Court of Appeals mentioned the principle of the Statute of Frauds merely to point out the trial court’s improper reliance thereon. It was not raised as a new issue. Precisely, the inapplicability of the Statute of Frauds allows the filing of Masigla’s complaint seeking the reconveyance of property, which was erroneously registered in Victoriano’s name.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Likewise, We agree with the Court of Appeals when it barred Victoriano’s action to recover possession of Lot No. 897, premised on the principle of laches. Defined as "such neglect or omission to assert a right taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity." (Heirs of Batiog Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan, G.R. No. L-27088, July 31, 1975, 65 SCRA 125) the Court of Appeals observed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, defendant-appellee disregards the fact that plaintiffs-appellants have been in continuous possession of the land since 1927 and they were not ousted therefrom by the grandfather of defendant-appellee who sold the property to them, nor by the immediate successors of the seller. It was only after decades had passed that it was discovered that the sale was never registered or the title cancelled and transferred in the name of plaintiffs-appellants. True, titled lands cannot be acquired by prescription, however, defendant-appellee’s inaction for more than 50 years now bars her from acquiring possession of the land on the ground of laches." (p. 25, Rollo)

Again, the principle of laches was mentioned to refute Victoriano’s claims that "no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession (Sec. 46, Act No. 496, now Sec. 47 of PD No. 1529). Thus, the Court of Appeals stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"At this state, therefore, respondents-appellants’ claim of absolute ownership over the land cannot be countenanced. It has been held that while a person may not acquire title to the registered property through continuous adverse possession, in derogation of the title of the original registered owner, the heir of the latter, however, may lose his right to recover back the possession of such property and the title thereto, by reason of laches." (p. 25, Rollo)

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 1989 as well as its Resolution dated March 17, 1989 declaring the heirs of Crispin Arcilla, represented by Ladislawa A. Masigla as the owners of Lot No. 897 are AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 84450 February 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA A. UMALI , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91231 February 4, 1991 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82882 February 5, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85156 February 5, 1991 - LOURDES R. QUISUMBING, ET AL. v. MANUEL LUIS GUMBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90870 February 5, 1991 - ALEXANDER LOZANO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 30712 February 6, 199

    REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. VISAYAN PACKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53485 February 6, 1991 - PATRIA ESUERTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72121 February 6, 1991 - RAFAEL PAGSUYUIN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75080 February 6, 1991 - CRISOSTOMO SUCALDITO, ET AL. v. JUAN MONTEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76591 February 6, 1991 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77778 February 6, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO YAMBAO

  • G.R. No. 82193 February 6, 1991 - CARMEN BASCON TIBAJIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83208 February 6, 1991 - MANUEL CONCEPCION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89571 February 6, 1991 - FRANCISCO LIM TUPAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991 - EMMA ADRIANO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90780 February 6, 1991 - RAYMUNDO ACENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 34386 February 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO C. DOCTOLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48345 February 7, 1991 - TERESITA BELARMINO v. C.R. AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62380 February 7, 1991 - LUIS GAVIERES, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO G. FALCIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78657-60 February 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO H. ESCANO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82249 February 7, 1991 - WILTSHIRE FILE CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87051 February 7, 1991 - ESCO HALE SHOE COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90394-97 February 7, 1991 - HERMINIGILDO ILAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90664 February 7, 1991 - SABAS B. VILLENA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91029 February 7, 1991 - NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91334 February 7, 1991 - INVESTOR FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91478 February 7, 1991 - ROSITA PEÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91670 February 7, 1991 - ALBERT NABUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91779 February 7, 1991 - GRAND FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95095 February 7, 1991 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. LUIS R. REYES

  • G.R. No. 95522 February 7, 1991 - WHITE PLAINS ASSO., INC. v. GODOFREDO L. LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2490 February 7, 1991 - FULGENCIO A. NGAYAN, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE

  • G.R. No. 78569 February 11, 1991 - EARTH MINERALS EXPLORATION, INC. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86505 February 11, 1991 - FOUNTAINHEAD INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87550 February 11, 1991 - DIVINA J. VICTORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95016 February 11, 1991 - CONRADO C. LINDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 66401-03 February 13, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MARTINADA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-395 February 13, 1991 - FRANCISCO A. VILLA v. SERGIO AMONOY

  • G.R. No. 55992 February 14, 1991 - LOLITA BAÑARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74259 February 14, 1991 - GENEROSO P. CORPUZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 83972 February 14, 1991 - EMILIANO RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85795 February 14, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR C. LAGOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92649 February 14, 1991 - LEONOR BADUA, ET AL. v. CORDILLERA BODONG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94408 February 14, 1991 - EMILIANO CIMAFRANCA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 575 February 14, 1991 - MARCIANO JOSON v. GLORIA M. BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 74736 February 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR ALAN ALITAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76137 February 18, 1991 - FRANCISCO CAYENA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82471 February 18, 1991 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83754 February 18, 1991 - TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84354 February 18, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO TERESO

  • G.R. No. 85588 February 18, 1991 - PHILSA INT’L. PLACEMENT AND SERVICES CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88866 February 18, 1991 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50553 February 19, 1991 - NAZARIO VITA v. SOLEDAD MONTANANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51333 February 19, 1991 - RAMONA R. LOCSIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75282 February 19, 1991 - ARCHIPELAGO BUILDERS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79670 February 19, 1991 - ARTURO LIPATA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79684 February 19, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85200 February 19, 1991 - ARTURO Q. SALIENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88401 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR C. SEGWABEN

  • G.R. No. 91131 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SOLIAO

  • G.R. No. 91261 February 19, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY FRANCIS YAP TONGSON

  • G.R. No. 91777 February 19, 1991 - ANDRES MALIMATA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92140 February 19, 1991 - REYNALDO D. LOPEZ v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93868 February 19, 1991 - ARDELIZA MEDENILLA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 94054-57 February 19, 1991 - VICENTE LIM, SR., ET AL. v. NEMESIO S. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80821 February 21, 1991 - GREGORIO FAVOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991 - CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 82465 February 25, 1991 - ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85082 February 25, 1991 - PASTOR VALDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91374 February 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN GABRIEL GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. 91461 February 25, 1991 - NORMAL HOLDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93711 February 25, 1991 - EMILY M. MAROHOMBSAR v. AHMAD E. ALONTO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94961 February 25, 1991 - MARITA V.T. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63480 February 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS S. MISION

  • G.R. No. 87759 February 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO BELON

  • G.R. No. 91602 February 26, 1991 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94595 February 26, 1991 - ROMAN CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 55963 & 61045 February 27, 1991 - JOSE FONTANILLA, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO D. MALIAMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57490 February 27, 1991 - GLORIA F. BERIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74613 February 27, 1991 - FIDEL CALALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78713 February 27, 1991 - CAILO DEFERIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79497 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID CINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82797 February 27, 1991 - GOOD EARTH EMPORIUM, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83372 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON T. RUEDAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89734 February 27, 1991 - MACARIA JOYA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90173 February 27, 1991 - MANGGAGAWA NG KOMUNIKASYON SA PILIPINAS, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 92305 February 27, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOUIE EUGENIO

  • G.R. No. 92710 February 27, 1991 - CARLITO TULOD v. FIRST CITY LINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 93530-36 February 27, 1991 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.