Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52978:gr-167995-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:05:34+00:00

Document:
JULITA V. IMUAN, RODOLFO VELASQUEZ, ARTURO VELASQUEZ, ARCADIO VELASQUEZ, BETTY VELASQUEZ, ROSA V. PETUYA, FELICIDAD VELASQUEZ, RAYMUNDO IMUAN, GERARDO IMUAN, JR., and ANDONG VELASQUEZ, Petitioners, v. JUANITO CERENO, FEBELINDA G. CERENO, GEMMA C. GABARDA, LEDESMA G. CERENO, BLECERIA C. SULA and SALLY G. CERENO, Respondents.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari which seeks to set aside the Decision1 dated August 24, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 69446, which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Dagupan City, in Civil Case No. 99-02910-D. Also assailed is the CA Resolution2 dated April 29, 2005 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
During his lifetime, Pablo de Guzman (Pablo) contracted two marriages. His first marriage was with Teodora Soriano (Teodora), with whom he had three children, namely, Alfredo de Guzman (Alfredo), Cristita G. Velasquez (Cristita), and Inday G. Soriano (Inday). His second marriage was in 1919 with Juana Velasquez (Juana), with whom he also had three children, namely: Nena De Guzman (Nena), Teodora de Guzman (Teodora), and Soledad G. Cereno (Soledad). All these children are now dead.
Petitioners are Pablo's grandchildren by his first marriage, while respondent Juanito Cereno (Juanito) is Soledad's husband and the other respondents are their children.
On July 15, 1936, Pablo died intestate leaving two parcels of land, to wit: (1) a parcel of coconut land located at Salaan Mangaldan, Pangasinan, containing an area of nine hundred eighty-six (986) square meters, more or less, declared under Tax Declaration No. 8032; and (2) a parcel of cornland located at (Inlambo) Palua, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, containing an area of three thousand three hundred thirty-four (3,334) square meters, more or less, declared under Tax Declaration No. 5155.
After Pablo's death in 1936, his second wife Juana and their children continued to be in possession of the parcel of land located at Salaan, Mangaldan, Pangasinan (the disputed property), where they lived since they were married in 1919.
On January 24, 1970, Juana executed a Deed of Absolute Sale3 in favor of respondents-spouses, Soledad, Juana and Pablo's daughter, and her husband Juanito conveying the subject property. The deed was duly registered with the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
On January 26, 1970, a Joint Affidavit4 was executed by Alfredo de Guzman and Teofilo Cendana attesting to the fact that Pablo ceded the property in favor of Juana on the occasion of their marriage, but the document was lost.
Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. 238035 was issued in the names of respondents-spouses who religiously paid the taxes due on the property. Since then respondents-spouses enjoyed exclusive, open and uninterrupted possession of the property. Later, the disputed property which originally consisted of one whole lot was traversed by a barangay road dividing it into two (2) lots, namely, Lot 3533, with an area of 690 square meters covered by Tax Declaration No. 212686; and Lot 3559, with an area of 560 square meters covered by Tax declaration No. 21269.7 Respondents-spouses Cereno built their house on Lot 3559 and had planted fruit-bearing trees on Lot 3533. Meanwhile, the parcel of cornland in Palua, Mangaldan, Pangasinan has never been in possession of any of the parties since it eroded and was submerged under water, eventually forming part of the riverbed.
Sometime in January 1999, petitioners entered and took possession of Lot 3533 by building a small nipa hut thereon. Respondents then filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mangaldan, Pangasinan an ejectment case against petitioners. In an Order8 dated December 9, 1999, the MTC dismissed the case as both parties prayed for its dismissal considering that petitioners had already left Lot 3533 immediately after the filing of the complaint.
On April 5, 1999, petitioners filed with the RTC of Dagupan City a Complaint for annulment of document, reconveyance and damages against respondents alleging that: (1) the estate of their grandfather Pablo has not yet been settled or partitioned among his heirs nor had Pablo made disposition of his properties during his lifetime; (2) it was only through their tolerance that Juana and his children constructed their house on Lot 3559; (3) the sale of the disputed property made by Juana to respondents-spouses Cereno and the issuance of tax declarations in the latter's names are null and void. Petitioners prayed for the annulment of the deed of sale, cancellation of Tax Declaration Nos. 21268 and 21269, the reconveyance of the property to them and damages.
In their Answer, respondents claimed that after the death of Pablo's first wife, Pablo partitioned his property among his children and that spouses Nicomedes and Cristita Velasquez acquired most of the properties as they were more financially capable; that at the time Pablo married Juana, the properties he had were his exclusive share in the partition; that of the two parcels of land Pablo had at that time, he donated the subject property to Juana in a donation propter nuptias when they married; that the deed of donation was lost during the Japanese occupation and such loss was evidenced by the Joint Affidavit executed by Alfredo de Guzman and Teofilo Cendana attesting to such donation; that Juana could validly convey the property to the Spouses Cereno at the time of the sale because she was the owner; and that they have been in public and uninterrupted possession of the disputed lot since its acquisition and have been paying the realty taxes due thereon. As affirmative defense, respondents contended that petitioners' rights over the property were already barred by the statute of limitations.
(b) Ordering the defendants (1) to reconvey the property in question to the plaintiffs and to peacefully surrender the possession of the premises to the plaintiffs; and (2) to pay plaintiffs litigation expenses in the amount of P10,000.00.
The RTC found that Juana and her children of the second nuptial built their house on the disputed property by tolerance of Pablos' children of the first marriage; that Juana alone sold the property to respondents Spouses Cereno and such sale was not valid because she was not the owner of the property at the time she sold the same; that the estate of Pablo has not been settled among the heirs since the property was still in the name of Pablo at the time Juana sold the same; that respondents Spouses Cereno's claim that the property was donated to Juana by Pablo by way of donation propter nuptias was not supported by evidence; that Pablo could not have donated the property to Juana because Pablo's children were the legal heirs of his first wife, and have rights and interests over the property. The RTC found the Joint Affidavit dated January 26, 1970 executed by Alfredo, Pablo's son by first marriage, and Teofilo Cendana, a former Chief of Police of Mangaldan, Pangasinan, attesting that the donation propter nuptias executed by Pablo in favor of Juana was lost during the Japanese occupation was inconsequential, since it cannot substitute for the donation which validity was highly questionable; that petitioners were able to prove that the property was the conjugal property of Pablo and his first wife which has not been divided between Pablo and his children of the first nuptial.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the appeal. The assailed decision dated November 10, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Dagupan City, in Civil Case No. 99-02910-D is consequently REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs against the plaintiffs-appellees.
While the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC that there was no evidence that Pablo undertook a partition of the properties of his first marriage before he contracted his second marriage and that the Joint Affidavit dated January 26, 1970 could not be considered as conclusive proof of the transfer of the property by Pablo to Juana, it was not a sufficient basis for Juana to validly transfer the property to respondent Spouses Cereno, however, the CA gave probative value to the joint affidavit as it was executed long before the present controversy arose. The CA found that the joint affidavit was executed by Alfredo, one of Pablo's children by his first marriage who was necessarily affected by the claimed donation propter nuptias and who ought to know the facts attested to; that the affidavit was evidence of the basis of Juana's own good faith belief that the property was hers to dispose of when she sold it to respondents Spouses Cereno; that the same affidavit can also be the basis of respondents Spouses Cereno's good faith belief that Juana, who had undisputably been in possession of the disputed property at the time of the sale, was the owner and could transfer the property to them by sale.
sale of the disputed property. The CA found that the deed of sale and the joint affidavit assumed great importance on the issue of prescription.
The CA found that Juana possessed the property in the concept of an owner, which is a sufficient basis for the belief that Juana was the owner of the property she conveyed by sale and respondents Spouses Cereno had the good faith that acquisition by prescription requires when they became the purchasers in the contract of sale with her . The CA further stated that a sale, coupled with the delivery of the property sold, is one of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership of real property and that respondents Spouses Cereno immediately took possession of the property which showed that respondent Spouses Cereno have just title to the property.
The CA further found that respondents Spouses Cereno are in peaceful possession of the property for 29 years and, thus, have satisfied the ten-year period of open, public and adverse possession in the concept of an owner that the law on prescription requires. The CA added that petitioners are now barred by laches from claiming ownership of the disputed property as they have been negligent in asserting their rights.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated April 29, 2005.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAGUPAN CITY.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY IN ISSUE WHEN IT RENDERED ITS DECISION.
Petitioners contend that since the CA and the RTC found that there was no partition of the property and no valid donation propter nuptias was made by Pablo to Juana, the rule on co-ownership among Pablo's heirs should govern the property; that when Juana sold the property to respondents Cerenos, the rights of petitioners as co-owners should not have been affected; that the CA's finding that the joint affidavit attesting to the donation propter nuptias can be the basis of a belief in good faith that Juana was the owner of the disputed property is erroneous, since Juana had knowledge from the time she got married to Pablo that the property was acquired during the latter's first marriage; that respondents Spouses Cereno could not be considered in good faith since Soledad is the daughter of Juana with her marriage to Pablo and could not be considered a third party to the dispute without knowledge of the nature of the property; that being co-owners, neither prescription nor laches can be used against them to divest them of their property rights.
In their Comment, respondents argue that Juana in her own right had acquired the property by prescription; that the CA correctly considered respondents' 29 years of actual and peaceful possession of the property aside from their purchase of the property from Juana in finding them as the true owners.
Petitioners and respondents submitted their respective memoranda.
We agree with the CA that respondents have acquired the disputed property by acquisitive prescription.
Records show that as early as 1970, when the property was sold by Juana to respondents Spouses Cereno, the latter immediately took possession of the property. Since then, respondents possessed the property continuously, openly, peacefully, in the concept of an owner, exclusively and in good faith with just title, to the exclusion of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest until the filing of the complaint in 1999 which is the subject of this present petition.
Notably, one of the affiants in the joint affidavit which was executed in 1970 was Alfredo, Pablo's son by his first marriage, where he attested that the property was given by his father Pablo to Juana by donation propter nuptias. Not one among Alfredo's children had ever come out to assail the validity of the affidavit executed by their father. In fact, not one of Alfredo's heirs joined petitioners in this case.37 Moreover, not one among the children of the first marriage when they were still alive ever made a claim on their successional rights over the property by asking for its partition. Such joint affidavit could constitute a legal basis for Juana's adverse and exclusive character of the possession of the property38 and would show the Spouses Cereno's good faith belief that Juana was the owner of the property. Thus, when petitioners filed the instant case, more than 29 years had already elapsed, thus, the ten-year period for acquisitive prescription has already been satisfied.
We likewise agree with the CA when it found that petitioners are guilty of laches that would bar them from belatedly asserting their claim.
Juana sold the property to the Spouses Cereno in 1970 and since then have possessed the property peacefully and publicly without any opposition from petitioners. While petitioners claim that they knew about the sale only in 1980 yet they did not take any action to recover the same and waited until 1999 to file a suit without offering any excuse for such delay. Records do not show any justifiable reason for petitioners' inaction for a long time in asserting whatever rights they have over the property given the publicity of respondents' conduct as owners of the property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 24, 2004 and the Resolution dated April 29, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69446 are AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Eliezer R. de los Santos, concurring; rollo, pp. 90-105.
3 Exhibit "19," folder of exhibits, p. 23.
4 Exhibit"21," id at 25.
5 Exhibit "23," id at 32.
6 Exhibit "9," id. at 9.
7 Exhibit "10," id. at 10.
8 Exhibit "34," id. at 68-69.
9 Penned by Judge Deodoro J. Sison; rollo, pp. 43-48.
13 Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo v. RaÃ±on, G.R. No. 171068, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 391,404, citing Calicdan v. CendaÃ±a, 466 Phil. 894, 902 (2004).
15 Id., citing Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 214, 224 (1992).
19 Civil Code, Art. 1117.
21 Civil Code, Art. 1137.
22 Calicdan v. CendaÃ±a, supra note 13, at 903, citing Civil Code, Art. 1127.
23 Id., citing Civil Code, Art. 1129.
24 TSN, July 7, 1999, p. 4.
26 TSN, July 7, 1999 (Betty Velasquez), p. 4; TSN, August 11, 1999 (Rodolfo Velasquez), p. 5.
27 TSN, July 21, 1999, p. 15.
28 Exhibit "23," folder of exhibits, p. 32.
29 Annexes "25" to "25-A to 25-P," id. at 34-49.
30 TSN, July 21, 1999, p. 16.
31 Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo v. RaÃ±on, supra note 13, at 410, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 238, 248 (1996).
33 Id., citing Spouses Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 393 Phil. 493 (2000).
34 TSN, November 10, 1999, p. 18.
35 Exhibit "24," folder of exhibits, p. 33.
37 TSN, July 21, 1999, p. 5.
38 See Heirs of Segunda Maningding v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121157, July 31, 1997, 276 SCRA 601.
39 Vda. de Rigonan v. Derecho, G.R. No. 159571, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 627, 648, citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968).

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1117
 Art. 1137
 v. 
 Art. 1127
 Art. 1129
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.