ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 144192. November 15, 2000]
LUIS DE KEYSER, et al. vs. HEIRS OF EMILIA SANTILLAN, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 15 2000.
G.R. No. 144192 (Luis de Keyser, et al. vs. Heirs Of Emilia Santillan, et al.)
Petitioners seek the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 24, 2000, upholding the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.
The pertinent facts are found in the impugned decision of the Court of Appeals:
The instant controversy involves two (2) parcels of land situated in Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan which were previously registered in the name of Felipe Santillan as evidenced by TCT Nos. T-118274 and T-112042 issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan. Felipe Santillan had six (6) sisters, namely, Emilia, Beatriz, Francisca, Leonila, Felisa and defendant Estelita, the latter as the only surviving sibling. Sometime before November, 1975, Felipe Santillan was suffering from a chronic liver ailment which later caused a bulging stomach.
On November 19, 1975, the document, "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" was executed whereby the subject parcels of land were sold by Felipe Santillan to her (sic) sisters Emilia, Beatriz, defendant Estelita and her nephew Virgilio Santoyo, for and in consideration of one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00). The document was thumbmarked by Felipe Santillan, notarized by Municipal Judge Arturo E. Cruz and also signed by two witnesses. On November 21, 1975, Felipe Santillan, who was single and without issue, died.
Sometime in March 1976, the subject properties were transferred in the names of Emilia Santillan, Beatriz Santillan, Estelita Santillan and Virgilio Santoyo, under TCT Nos. T-229174 and T-229175. On October 27, 1981, plaintiffs who are the children and legal heirs of Francisca Santillan, filed a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 7 (now 12) which was docketed as Civil Case No. 6352-M, against the heirs of Emilia Santillan (represented by Carmen Sangalang), Estelita Santillan and Virgilio Santoyo. The Complaint alleged that: (1) Felipe Santillan, who was bedridden and seriously ill of chronic liver disease, could not have executed knowingly and with full consent the document "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" which was prepared by his sisters Emilia, Beatriz, Estelita, and his nephew Virgilio Santoyo; (2) no consideration was ever received by said Felipe Santillan in view of his state of health; (3) by virtue of said deed of sale which was null and void, Emilia Santillan, Beatriz Santillan, Estelita Santillan and Virgilio Santoyo were able to transfer the subject parcels of land; (4) on account of the foregoing unlawful acts of defendants Estelita Santillan and Virgilio Santoyo, and of Emilia Santillan and Beatriz Santillan, both of whom are now deceased, plaintiffs suffered damages and were deprived of their rights and participation over the said parcels of land as heirs of the deceased Felipe Santillan in representation of their mother Francisca Santillan; and (5) plaintiffs have been demanding from the defendants the annulment of the aforementioned deed of sale and the partition of the subject parcels of land among the legal heirs of Felipe Santillan, but defendants refused and continue to refuse plaintiffs' valid and just claim. Plaintiffs thus prayed for judgment declaring as null and void the "Kasulatang ng Bilihang Patuluyan"; ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-229174 and T-229175 in the names of Emilia Santillan, Beatriz Santillan, Estelita Santillan and Virgilio Santoyo; ordering defendants to execute together with the plaintiffs the necessary deed of partition over the subject properties, pay attorney's fees P8,000.00 and costs of suit. (Rollo, pp. 10-11.)
After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. The trial court upheld the validity of the deed of sale executed by Felipe Santillan in favor of the defendants. Aggrieved, petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which, however, affirmed the decision of the RTC. It held:
After a careful review of the evidence and arguments of the parties in this appeal, We find no basis for reversing the assailed decision of the court a quo.
A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud is voidable. The requisites of consent are: (1) it should be intelligent, or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers, (2) it should be free, and (3) it should be spontaneous. Intelligence in consent is vitiated by error; freedom by violence, intimidation, or undue influence; and spontaneity by fraud.
In the case at bar, plaintiffs-appellants claimed that in view of the health condition of the late Felipe Santillan at the time of the execution of the deed of sale, he could not have given his consent freely and intelligently in disposing the subject properties, and that his sisters Emilia, Beatriz, Estelita and nephew Virgilio Santoyo had exerted undue influence over him. The evidence on the whole, however, does not support such serious allegation. What appears clear is that the execution of the deed of sale (Exhibit "B") was done with the assistance of no less than a municipal judge as notary public and witnessed by Ricardo Vicente who testified on the transaction at the house where Felipe Santillan was staying with his sisters.
The fact that the document was not signed but merely thumbmarked by Felipe Santillan is not necessarily indicative of fraud. As observed by the trial court, the unfinished signature of Felipe Santillan at the left margin of the deed of sale even corroborates defendants-appellees' account that he had tried to sign said document but already weakened by his liver illness at its terminal stage, he could no longer sign legibly so that he decided to just affix his thumbmark thereon. Despite this, however, it appears from the testimony of his attending physician, Dr. Maaba, and Ricardo Vicente, that Felipe Santillan was still of sound mind although very sick, at the time he affixed his thumbmark on the deed of sale. Ricardo Vicente who witnessed the execution of the deed of sale (Exhibit "B") testified to the fact that the contents of the document was read to Felipe Santillan before he affixed his signature and thumbmark thereon, and that he was of sound mind and judgment despite being gravely ill at the time.
The Civil Code provides that there is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice, considering certain circumstances like confidential and family relations. Sickness or illness of one party such that merely talking to him may so fatigue him that he would do anything for the sake of peace and quiet, may be considered.
However, our Supreme Court, in one case said: "Solicitation, importunings, argument and persuasion are not undue influence and a contract is not to be set aside merely because one party used these means to obtain the consent of the other. Influence obtained by persuasion or argument or by appeals to the affections is not prohibited either in law or morals and is not obnoxious even in courts of equity. The line between due and undue influence, when drawn, must be with full recognition of the liberty due every true owner to obey the voice of justice, the dictates of friendship, of gratitude and benevolence, as well as the claims of kindred, and, when not hindered by personal incapacity or particular regulations, to dispose of his own property according to his own free choice."
In the case at bar, it appears that the disposition of the subject properties was clearly made by the late Felipe Santillan with awareness of his impending death and worry over the expenses for his burial after his death. The reason for excluding the plaintiffs-appellants in said disposition was explained by the fact that Felipe Santillan as early as 1969 already gave them certain real properties, a fact admitted by the plaintiffs-appellants although they claimed that said properties really belonged to their deceased mother. No evidence, however, was presented by the plaintiffs-appellants to prove that the land given to them in 1969 by Felipe Santillan was not owned by the latter but belonged to their mother who died in 1931. At any rate, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs-appellants failed to convince Us of the alleged undue influence or fraud on the part of Felipe Santillan's sisters Emilia, Beatriz, defendant Estelita and his nephew, defendant Virgilio Santoyo, when the ailing Felipe Santillan sold to them the subject properties. Under the circumstances, it is not improbable that Felipe Santillan may have had no other purpose except to take care of the costs of his medication at the time and the expected burial expenses after his death.
Plaintiffs-appellants likewise was not successful in disproving the actual date of the death of Felipe Santillan as it was shown that the parish priest who testified on the church records was not the officer/official who made the entry nor had knowledge of circumstances under which the entry was made. On the other hand, the local civil registrar presented by the defendants-appellees in court, attested to the fact that per their official records, November 21, 1975 appears as the date of death of Felipe Santillan, and the death certificate itself having been signed by his attending physician Dr. Eduardo Maaba who indicated the cause of death as chronic liver disease.
The "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan" having been acknowledged before a notary public, the same enjoys the presumption of regularity in its execution, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Likewise, to prove defects or lack of consent the evidence must be strong and not merely preponderant. Indeed, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. Since the plaintiffs-appellants failed to substantiate allegations of fraud and undue influence, the subject deed of sale must be upheld as validly and regularly executed. (Rollo, pp. 13-15.)
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioners are thus now before this Court, contending that the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence in holding that the subject deed of sale was properly executed. Consequently, petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals should have declared said deed void.
The issue raised by petitioners is a factual matter that, by the weight of judicial precedents, cannot be inquired into by this Court in an appeal on certiorari. This Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other. (Alicsuban vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA [1997].)
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
