Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54867
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:01:07+00:00

Document:
ANICETO BANGIS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: RODOLFO B. BANGIS, RONNIE B. BANGIS, ROGELIO B. BANGIS, RAQUEL B. QUILLO, ROMULO B. BANGIS, ROSALINA B. PARAN, ROSARIO B. REDDY, REYNALDO B. BANGIS, AND REMEDIOS B. LASTRE, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND SALUD ADOLFO, NAMELY: LUZ A. BANNISTER, SERAFIN ADOLFO, JR., AND ELEUTERIO ADOLFO REP. BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MILAGROS, JOEL, MELCHOR, LEA, MILA, NELSON, JIMMY AND MARISSA, ALL SURNAMED ADOLFO, RESPONDENTS.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the March 30, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station (CA) and its December 2, 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 00722-MIN which declared that the transaction between the parties was a mortgage, not a sale, and ordered petitioners to surrender the possession of the disputed lot upon respondents' full payment of their indebtedness.
The spouses Serafin, Sr. and Saludada Adolfo were the original registered owners of a 126,622 square meter lot covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-489 issued on December 15, 1954 (derived from Homestead Patent No. V-34974), located in Valencia, Malaybalay, Bukidnon. This property was mortgaged to the then Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the Philippines or DBP) on August 18, 1955, and upon default in the payment of the loan obligation, was foreclosed and ownership was consolidated in DBP's name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-1152. Serafin Adolfo, Sr., however, repurchased the same and was issued TCT No. 6313 on December 1, 1971, a year after his wife died in 1970.
Sometime in 1975, Serafin Adolfo, Sr. (Adolfo) allegedly mortgaged the subject property for the sum of P12,500.00 to Aniceto Bangis (Bangis) who immediately took possession of the land. The said transaction was, however, not reduced into writing.
When Adolfo died, his heirs, namely, Luz Adolfo Bannister, Serafin Adolfo, Jr. and Eleuterio Adolfo (Heirs of Adolfo), executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated December 24, 1997 covering the subject property and TCT No. T-65152 was issued to them. On May 26, 1998, the said property was subdivided and separate titles were issued in names of the Heirs of Adolfo, as follows: TCT Nos. T-66562 and T-66563 for Luz Adolfo Banester; TCT Nos. T-66560 and T-66561 in the name of Serafin Adolfo, Jr.; and TCT Nos. T-66564 and T-66565 in favor of Eleuterio Adolfo.
In June 1998, the Heirs of Adolfo expressed their intention to redeem the mortgaged property from Bangis but the latter refused, claiming that the transaction between him and Adolfo was one of sale. During the conciliation meetings in the barangay, Bangis' son, Rudy Bangis, showed them a copy of a deed of sale and a certificate of title to the disputed lot. The parties having failed to amicably settle their differences, a certificate to file action was issued by the barangay.
On July 26, 2000, the Heirs of Adolfo filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for annulment of deed of sale and declaration of the purported contract of sale as antichresis, accounting and redemption of property and damages against Bangis, docketed as Civil Case No. 2993-00. The complaint was amended on September 11, 2001 to include a prayer for the cancellation of TCT No. T-10567 and the tax declarations in the name of Bangis in view of the manifestation filed by Ex-Officio Register of Deeds, Atty. Phoebe Loyola Toribio of the Registry of Deeds, Malaybalay City which states that the said title was of "dubious" origin since there was no deed of conveyance upon which the said transfer certificate of title was based and that its derivative title, TCT No. T-10566, does not exist in the files of the Registry of Deeds. On November 12, 2001, the complaint was again amended to reflect the other certificates of titles issued in the names of the Heirs of Adolfo and the amount of P12,500.00 representing the mortgage debt, followed by another amendment on October 13, 2003 to include the allegation that they have partitioned the subject lot on December 24, 1997 and that no copy of the supposed deed of sale in favor of Bangis can be found in the records of the Provincial Assessor's Office and the Registrar of Deeds. They further prayed, in the alternative, to be allowed to redeem the subject lot under the Homestead Law and that Bangis be ordered to indemnify them: (a) P50,000.00 each as moral damages; (b) 20% of the value of the property as attorney's fees; and (c) P50,000.00 as litigation expenses as well as the costs of suit.
In his Answer with Counterclaim, Bangis claimed to have bought the subject property from Adolfo for which TCT No. T-10567 was issued. He also alleged to have been in open and adverse possession of the property since 1972 and that the cause of action of the Heirs of Adolfo has prescribed. On November 11, 2001, Bangis died and was substituted in this suit by his heirs, namely, Rodolfo B. Bangis, Ronie B. Bangis, Rogelio B. Bangis, Raquel B. Quillo, Romulo B. Bangis, Rosalina B. Paran, Rosario B. Reddy, Reynaldo B. Bangis and Remedios B. Lastre (Heirs of Bangis).
During the trial, one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis, presented a photocopy of an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 30, 1971 for the purpose of proving the sale of the subject lot by Adolfo and his heirs in favor of his predecessors-in-interest, Aniceto Bangis and Segundino Cortel, for the sum of P13,000.00. He also presented a Promissory Note of even date purportedly executed by Bangis and Segundino Cortel undertaking to pay the balance of the purchase price in the amount of P1,050.00. Both documents were notarized by Atty. Valentin Murillo who testified to the fact of their execution. Rodolfo Bangis likewise testified that they have been paying the taxes due on the property and had even used the same as collateral for a loan with a bank.
On rebuttal, one of the Heirs of Adolfo, Luz Adolfo Bannister, denied the due execution and genuineness of the foregoing Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale alleging forgery.
4. Declaring all the transfer certificates of title issued in favor of the plaintiffs namely, Luz Adolfo-Bannister, Serafin Adolfo, Jr. and Eleuterio Adolfo, as above-mentioned as the ones valid and issued in accordance with PD 1529.
Aggrieved, the Heirs of Bangis appealed the foregoing disquisition to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC finding that the contract between the parties was a mortgage, not a sale. It noted that while Bangis was given possession of the subject property, the certificate of title remained in the custody of Adolfo and was never cancelled. The CA also ordered the Heirs of Adolfo to pay the Heirs of Bangis the mortgage debt of P12,500.00 with twelve (12%) percent interest reckoned from 1975 until 1998 and to deliver to them the possession of the property upon full payment. It, however, deleted the RTC order directing the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. T-10567 in the name of Bangis for being a collateral attack proscribed under PD 1529.
Dissatisfied, the Heirs of Bangis filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the CA erred in disregarding their testimonial and documentary evidence, particularly, the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale (Exh. 2) which purportedly established the sale in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Aniceto Bangis. The said motion was, however, denied in the Resolution dated December 2, 2009.
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari based on the lone assignment of error that the transaction between the parties was one of sale and not a mortgage or antichresis. In support, petitioner Heirs of Bangis maintain that the CA erred in not giving probative weight to the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale which supposedly bolsters their claim that their father, Aniceto Bangis, bought the subject parcel of land from Adolfo. Hence, the corresponding title, TCT No. T-10567, issued as a consequence should be respected.
On their part, respondent Heirs of Adolfo averred that no reversible error was committed by the CA in upholding that no sale transpired between the parties' predecessors-in-interest. Moreover, petitioners' TCT No. T-10567 was not offered in evidence and worse, certified as of dubious origin per the Manifestation of the Registrar of Deeds.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court involves only questions of law and not of facts. A question of law exists when there is doubt as to what the law is on a given set of facts while a question of fact arises when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
The Heirs of Bangis, in insisting that both the RTC and the CA erroneously disregarded the evidence of sale they presented, are effectively asking the Court to re-evaluate factual issues which is proscribed under Rule 45. "Such questions as to whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."
Nonetheless, the Court perused the records and found substantial evidence supporting the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the nature of the transaction between the parties' predecessors-in-interest was a mortgage and not a sale. Thus, the maxim that factual findings of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive on the Court obtains in this case.
(4) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. - When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its content in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
The bare testimony of one of the Heirs of Bangis, Rodolfo Bangis, that the subject document was only handed to him by his father, Aniceto, with the information that the original thereof "could not be found" was insufficient to justify its admissibility. Moreover, the identification made by Notary Public Atty. Valentin Murillo that he notarized such document cannot be given credence as his conclusion was not verified against his own notarial records. Besides, the Heirs of Bangis could have secured a certified copy of the deed of sale from the Assessor's Office that purportedly had its custody in compliance with Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
In sum, the Heirs of Bangis failed to establish the existence and due execution of the subject deed on which their claim of ownership was founded. Consequently, the RTC and CA were correct in affording no probative value to the said document.
That the verification from the office of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10567 in the name of Anecito Bangis is existing in the office. Machine copy of the said title is hereto attached as annex "A" but nothing in the title whether annotated or attached, any Deed of Conveyance or other Documents by which said title was issued or transferred in the name of Anecito Bangis.
That for the information and guidance of the court attached herewith is a machine copies [sic] Original Certificate of Title No. P-489 in the name of Serafin Adolfo, marked as annex "B" which supposedly the mother title of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10567 as to how this title was transferred in the name of Anecito Bangis. Nothing will show which will validly supports [sic] the said transfer, in other words the said title is dubious.
This Original Certificate of Title No. P-489 in the name of Serafin Adolfo was mortgage to the Development Bank of the Philippines and then it was consolidated and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1152 was issued in the name of Development Bank of the Philippines. From the Development Bank of the Philippines a Deed of Sale was executed by the Development Bank of the Philippines in favor of Serafin Adolfo and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-6313 marked annex "B-1" was issued in the name of Serafin Adolfo.
An Extrajudicial Settlement was now [sic] by the Heirs of Serafin Adolfo and Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-65152 annex "B-2", T-66560 annex "B-3", T-66561 annex "B-4", T-66562 annex "B-5", T-66563 annex "B-6", T-66564 annex "B-7", and T-66565 annex "B-8" were issued to the Heirs.
The titles issued to the Heirs of Serafin Adolfo were legitimately issued by this office after all its [sic] requirements and supporting documents were submitted and proper annotations were reflected at the back of the title of Serafin Adolfo.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10567 as shown on the title was derived from Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-10566 but [sic] title is not existing in this office.
As held in the case of Top Management Programs Corporation v. Luis Fajardo and the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City: "if two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of titles were derived."
Having, thus, traced the roots of the parties' respective titles supported by the records of the Register of Deeds of Malaybalay City, the courts a quo were correct in upholding the title of the Heirs of Adolfo as against TCT No. T-10567 of Bangis, notwithstanding its earlier issuance on August 18, 1976 or long before the Heirs of Adolfo secured their own titles on May 26, 1998. To paraphrase the Court's ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals: where two (2) transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, the one who holds the earlier title may prevail only in the absence of any anomaly or irregularity in the process of its registration, which circumstance does not obtain in this case.
The Court cannot sustain the CA's ruling that TCT No. T-10567 cannot be invalidated because it constitutes as a collateral attack which is contrary to the principle of indefeasibility of titles.
It must be noted that Bangis interposed a counterclaim in his Answer seeking to be declared as the true and lawful owner of the disputed property and that his TCT No. T-10567 be declared as superior over the titles of the Heirs of Adolfo. Since a counterclaim is essentially a complaint then, a determination of the validity of TCT No. T-10567 vis-a-vis the titles of the Heirs of Adolfo can be considered as a direct, not collateral, attack on the subject titles.
Besides, the prohibition against collateral attack does not apply to spurious or non-existent titles, which are not accorded indefeasibility, as in this case.
The claim of the Heirs of Bangis that since they have been in possession of the subject land since 1972 or for 28 years reckoned from the filing of the complaint in 2000 then, the present action has prescribed is untenable. It bears to note that while Bangis indeed took possession of the land upon its alleged mortgage, the certificate of title (TCT No. 6313) remained with Adolfo and upon his demise, transferred to his heirs, thereby negating any contemplated transfer of ownership. Settled is the rule that no title in derogation of that of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Moreover, even if acquisitive prescription can be appreciated in this case, the Heirs of Bangis' possession being in bad faith is two years shy of the requisite 30-year uninterrupted adverse possession required under Article 1137 of the Civil Code.
Consequently, the Heirs of Bangis cannot validly claim the rights of a builder in good faith as provided for under Article 449 in relation to Article 448 of the Civil Code. Thus, the order for them to surrender the possession of the disputed land together with all its improvements was properly made.
Finally, it is undisputed that the Heirs of Bangis made no judicial or extrajudicial demand on the Heirs of Adolfo to pay the mortgage debt. Instead, it was the latter who signified their intent to pay their father's loan obligation, admittedly in the amount of P12,500.00, which was refused. The mortgage contract therefore continued to subsist despite the lapse of a considerable number of years from the time it was constituted in 1975 because the mortgage debt has not been satisfied.
Following the Court's ruling in the iconic case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the foregoing liability, which is based on a loan or forbearance of money, shall be subject to legal interest of 12% per annum from the date it was judicially determined by the CA on March 30, 2009 until the finality of this Decision, and not from 1975 (the date of the constitution of the mortgage); nor from 1998 (when an attempt to pay was made) or in 2000 at the time the complaint was filed, because it was the Heirs of Adolfo and not Bangis who filed the instant suit to collect the indebtedness. Thereafter, the judgment award inclusive of interest shall bear interest at 12% per annum until its full satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated March 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals Mindanao Station (CA) and its Resolution dated December 2, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00722-MIN are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: (1) cancelling TCT No. T-10567; and (2) ordering respondent Heirs of Adolfo to pay petitioner Heirs of Bangis the sum of P12,500.00 with legal interest of 12% per annum reckoned from March 30, 2009 until the finality of this Decision and thereafter, 12% annual interest until its full satisfaction.
The rest of the Decision stands.
Peralta, J., *(Acting Chairperson), Abad, Villarama, Jr.,** and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012.
** Designated acting member in lieu of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.
 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Michael P. Elbinias concurring, and Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Ruben C. Ayson, dissenting; rollo, pp. 24-39.
 Sometimes referred to as "Salud" in the records.
 Folder of exhibits, Exhibit "A", pp. 269-270.
 Id., Exhibit "B" at 271.
 Id., Exhibit "C" at 272.
 TSN, March 3, 2004, p. 13.
 Exhibit "C-1", (dorsal portion) at 272.
 Supra note 4, Exhibits "D" to "F-1", at 273-278.
 TSN, March 5, 2004, pp. 19-21.
 Supra note 4, Exhibit "G" at 279.
 Folder of exhibits, Exhibit "I" for petitioners; Exhibit "2" for respondents, at 350-351.
 Id., Exhibit "1", at 349.
 TSN, May 20, 2005, p. 10; TSN, November 26, 2004, pp. 7, 11 and 12.
 TSN, November 26, 2004, p. 5; TSN, September 2, 2005, pp. 3-6.
 TSN, May 20, 2005, pp. 18-19.
 TSN, August 5, 2005, pp. 4-8.
 Supra note 14 at 204-218.
 Supra note 29 at 67-75.
 Abalos v. Sps. Darapa, G.R. No. 164693, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 200, 207 and 208.
 Heirs of Mario Pacres v. Heirs of Cecilia Ygoña, G.R. No. 174719, May 5, 2010, 620 SCRA 213, 225, citing Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990, 183 SCRA 630, 636.
 Abalos v. Spouses Darapa, supra note 37.
 Supra note 29 at 32-33.
 Supra note 4, Exhibit "I" for petitioners; Exhibit "2" for respondents, at 350-351.
 TSN, May 20, 2005, p. 5.
 TSN, November 26, 2004, pp. 14-15.
 Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Del Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 146586, January 26, 2005, 449 SCRA 299, 317.
 TSN, May 20, 2005, pp. 20-22.
 Sec.7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. - When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
 Duero v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131282, January 4, 2002, 373 SCRA 11, 17.
 Supra note 14 at 49.
 G.R. No. 150462, June 15, 2011, citing the case of Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite, G.R. No. 161433, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 108, 115.
 Supra note 29 at 34-36.
 G.R. No. 115788, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 556, 578.
 Supra note 29 at 36-38.
 Oliveros v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 173531, February 1, 2012.
 G.R. No. 159494, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 739, 750 and 751.
 Feliciano v. Spouses Zaldivar, G.R. No. 162593, September 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 182, 197.
 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 95 and 96.
 Crystal v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 180274, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 464, 470 and 471.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.