[(SGD.) PAULA CORTES VILLAMOR]
[SGD.] GAUDENCIO R. JUEZAN HIPOLITO ALO & FERMIN
Atty. for Ireneo Cortes YAP
Villamor and Paula Cortes By:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Villamor [SGD.] FERMIN YAP
Attys. for Sixta Ceniza &
[SGD.] DIOSDADO CAMOMOT Administrator Diosdado Camomot
Administrator of the of the estate of Bartolome
estate of Bartolome Cortes in Sp. Proc. No. 227.
Cortes in Sp. Proc. No. 227 PRIMITIVO N. SATO
In his own behalf and that of Moises
Mendoza, as administrators in
Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 and 343
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
We, Sixta Ceniza, Rev. Diosdado Camomot, Ireneo Cortes Villamor and Paula Cortes Villamor, after being first duly sworn to, do hereby depose and say: That we are the parties referred to in the foregoing Project of Partition, which we have voluntarily made and that the contents thereof are true and correct.
SIXTA CENIZA [SGD.] REV. DIOSDADO CAMOMOT
[SGD.] PAULA CORTES
VILLAMOR [SGD.] IRENEO CORTES VILLAMOR
Ad. in Sp. Proc. No. 343
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of December, 1946, at the municipality of Mandaue, Cebu, Philippines; Affiants exhibited to me their respective Residence Certificates:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Rev. Diosdado Camomot - Res. Cert. No. A-1236398 issued on March 11, 1946 at San Fernando, Cebu; Sixta Ceniza — Res. Cert. No. A-149873 issued on Dec. 10, 1946 at Mandaue, Cebu; Ireneo Cortes Villamor — Res. Cert. No. A-419863 issued on Dec. 5, 1946 at Mandaue, Cebu; Paula Cortes Villamor — Res. Cert. No. A-419786 issued on Nov. 7, 1946 at Mandaue, Cebu.
[SGD.] EERMIN YAP
Until December 31, 1946
Doc. No. 53
Page No. 20
Book No. II
Series of 1946
APPROVED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Cebu City, Feb. 1, 1947
[SGD.] EDMUNDO S. PICCIO
On April 14, 1948, Judge S. C. Moscoso approved the project of partition, and on September 30, 1948, the administrators delivered the seven parcels of land to Ireneo and Paula Villamor. Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 were ordered closed and terminated by Judge Florentino Saguin on November 25, 1953. Entry of judgment was made on March 18, 1954.
On November 23, 1960, Ireneo and Paula Villamor sold the parcel of land described in the Project of Partition as parcel 5 to Claudia Labos and Gregoria Suico, and on September 23, 1966, Ireneo Villamor obtained free patent titles over parcels 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Only parcel no. 3 remained unregistered.
After Ireneo’s death, his children, now petitioners, executed an extra-judicial partition, dividing the remaining 6 parcels of land among themselves.
Meanwhile, upon the death of Sixta Ceniza on July 28, 1948, one Cristina Ceniza, sister of respondent Daniela Ceraza Urot, instituted Special Proceedings No. 364-R for the administration of the estate of Sixta Ceniza. One Escolastico Ceniza, brother of respondent, was appointed special administrator. The latter’s appointment, however, was revoked on February 20, 1954 upon petition of Fr. Nicanor Cortes through his counsel, Atty. Fermin Yap on January 14, 1954, and in his stead, Victorio Perez was appointed the special administrator. In this proceedings, the nephews and nieces of Sixta Ceniza, including herein respondent, prayed that they be declared the sole and only forced heirs of Sixta Ceniza, although at the time, Fr. Nicanor Cortes, the only surviving child of Sixta Ceniza, was still alive.
On October 21, 1954, Fr. Cortes executed a power of attorney before the Vice-Consul of the Republic of the Philippines in Madrid, Spain, constituting and appointing Fr. Diosdado Camomot as his attorney-in-fact and giving him the power to "appear for me and in my behalf in Special Proceedings No. 364-R of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, with authority to designate and employ the services of an attorney or attorneys for the protection of my rights." 3
On January 13, 1955, Victorio Perez submitted an inventory which specifically identified the properties which came from the Project of Partition and the corresponding number of such property or parcel of land in said Project of Partition.
On August 18, 1955, the court, through Judge Clementino Diez, denied the motion of the nephews and nieces of Sixta Ceniza to be declared her heirs and declared Fr. Nicanor Cortes as the only and universal heir of Sixta Ceniza.
On May 16, 1962, Fr. Nicanor Cortes executed a Deed of Conveyance in favor of several persons wherein he conveyed ten parcels of land which included those received by his mother under the Project of Partition.
On August 28, 1969, Fr. Nicanor Cortes died in Barcelona, Spain. Special Proceedings No. 3062-R of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was thereafter instituted for the settlement of his estate. Appointed administratrix was respondent Daniela Ceniza Urot, who, on June 4, 1970 filed Civil Case No. 11726 against petitioners, successors-in-interest of Ireneo Villamor and Paula Villamor, for recovery of the seven parcels of land received in the Project of Partition, accounting and receivership.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
In the complaint, respondent alleged inter alia that upon learning of the death of Fr. Nicanor Cortes, some of his nearest of kin who are his surviving first cousins, the Cenizas [all from the side of Sixta Ceniza] initiated Special Proceedings No. 3062-R for the settlement of the estate of the deceased monk; that prior to and in the course of initiating said proceedings, the surviving first cousins came upon documents showing that Fr. Cortes during his absence from the Philippines to pursue a monastic life was deprived of his inheritance by fraud, stealth and strategem perpetrated by Paula and Ireneo Villamor; that shortly after the last world war and after the death of Fr. Bartolome Cortes and his sister Agapita, while Fr. Nicanor Cortes was in the monastery and his mother sick, aging, deaf and blind, Ireneo and Paula Villamor, who were domestics and protegees in the household of the Cortes family, initiated Special Proceedings 343-C whereby they fraudulently and falsely represented under oath, without notice to Fr. Nicanor Cortes or his legal representative, that Rufino Cortes died leaving two legitimate children, namely Paula Cortes Villamor and Ireneo Cortes Villamor; that Paula and Ireneo Cortes Villamor are not the legitimate children of Rufino who remained unmarried all his life; that Moises Mendoza, the administrator in Special Proceedings No. 343 submitted an inventory which falsely and fraudulently enumerated properties as belonging to Rufino Cortes when the truth is that Rufino Cortes neither had any property during his lifetime nor inherited any from his wealthy sisters, Casimira and Eugenia whom said Rufino predeceased; that said properties belonged to Eustaquio Cortes, Casimira and Eugenia Cortes, Bartolome Cortes, Sixta Cortes and/or Nicanor Cortes; that under the same false and fraudulent representations without notice to Fr. Cortes or his legal representative, Ireneo and Paula Villamor prepared a Project of Partition and adjudicated to themselves the seven parcels of land whereas the rest was apportioned to Sixta Ceniza through Fr. Camomot, as administrator of the estate of Bartolome Cortes; that on April 14, 1948, Ireneo and Paula Villamor, in collusion with the administrators in both proceedings, had the project of partition approved by the court; that Ireneo and Paula Villamor, without benefit of a motion for declaration of heirs, much less a hearing thereon with proper notice to Fr. Nicanor Cortes or his legal representative, took delivery and possession of a substantial part of the properties and had the two administration proceedings closed on November 25, 1953; and that on July 28, 1969, defendants herein petitioners, as heirs of Ireneo and Paula Villamor, executed an extra-judicial settlement and partition of the lands in question. It was prayed that judgment be rendered declaring as null and void the project of partition, the orders of April 14, 1948 and November 25, 1953 and the extra-judicial settlement and partition executed on July 28, 1969; that the defendants [petitioners herein] be ordered to reconvey the parcels of land in question to the administratrix in Special Proceedings No. 3062-R and to render a true and correct accounting of the income and produce thereof as far back in time as may be legally feasible and that during the pendency of the case, that the properties be placed under receivership.
Petitioners, instead of filing an answer, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment and by the statute of limitations. On July 27, 1970, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. When petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 19, 1970, petitioners came to this Court by means of certiorari on August 31, 1970, but the same was denied on September 15, 1970 for "being premature." On October 9, 1970, petitioners filed their answer and alleged as special defenses that aside from the fact that Special Proceedings No. 343-C was a proceeding in rem and all the requirements to obtain jurisdiction over the person of anybody have been complied with, Fr. Nicanor Cortes had personal knowledge of Special Proceedings No. 343-C; that the question of legitimacy of Ireneo and Paula Villamor had been duly pleaded and raised as the principal issue in Special Proceedings No. 343-C; that the question of declaration of heirship of the two Villamors had already been resolved by the court in said proceedings and have long become final, entry of judgment having been made on March 18, 1954; that with the age, respectability and social standing of Sixta Ceniza, no court could have tolerated the alleged acts of Ireneo and Paula Villamor committed against Sixta Ceniza; that Sixta Ceniza had the best legal advice and ample protection from her counsels, a legal luminary at the time and a dean of the University of Visayas and Fr. Diosdado Camomot, then the secretary to the Archbishop of Cebu, and after the death of Sixta Ceniza, Fr. Nicanor Cortes appeared through counsel in Special Proceedings No. 363 where Escolastico Ceniza applied as administrator but was denied by the court in favor of Fr. Camomot upon the recommendation of Fr. Nicanor Cortes; and that all these times, Fr. Nicanor Cortes never complained nor raised any objection to the inventory of Special Proceedings No. 364 which was taken as a part of the inventories in Special Proceedings 262-C and 343-C. As affirmative defenses, the petitioners alleged that the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action, intrinsic fraud being the basis of the complaint; that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment and by the statute of limitations; and, that the complaint states no valid cause of action.
On May 13, 1971, a receiver was appointed by the court in the person of Atty. Andres Taneo, Branch Clerk of Court. After trial, on January 21, 1972, the court rendered judgment against the petitioners holding that Ireneo and Paula Villamor took advantage of the helplessness of Sixta Ceniza when they had the Project of Partition thumbmarked by her; that Ireneo and Paula Villamor resorted to false and fraudulent representations in Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 in that they misrepresented that they were the legitimate children of Rufino Cortes, when in truth, they were merely natural children of Rufino Cortes and that the properties described in the inventory pertained to Rufino Cortes when in fact, said properties belonged to Eugenia Cortes and after her death, the same passed to Eustaquio Cortes; that Fr. Nicanor Cortes had no knowledge of the fraudulent proceedings as well as the Project of Partition; that Ireneo and Paula Villamor, in collusion with the administrator Moises Mendoza and with the support and encouragement of Fr. Camomot who enjoyed the implicit trust of Fr. Nicanor Cortes, misled the probate court into authorizing the delivery of the parcels of land to them; that when the probate court approved the project of partition, there was no hearing for the purpose of determining the parties lawfully entitled to the estate nor was there an opportunity given to Fr. Nicanor Cortes to intervene or oppose; that under the circumstances, the fraud committed by Ireneo and Paula Villamor was extrinsic or collateral; and that the fraud was discovered for the first time by Atty. Ramon Ceniza, son of Jose Ceniza, one of the heirs at law of Fr. Cortes only in March 1970.cralawnad
On appeal, the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals, as adverted to above, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, hence, the present recourse.
Petitioners maintain that the Court of Appeals, like the trial court, totally ignored the letters of Fr. Nicanor Cortes disclaiming ownership and acknowledging the fact that petitioners and/or their predecessors-in-interest are the owners and possessors of the lands in question, which exhibits could have decided outright all the issues that Fr. Cortes had personal knowledge of Special Proceedings Nos. 262-C and 343-C and that the predecessors-in-interest of petitioners did not commit fraud against him. Petitioners insist that the helplessness of Sixta Ceniza could not have vitiated the project of partition for although she had become blind and could not walk by herself at the time she affixed her thumbmark on the project of partition, her mental faculty was very clear. It is further argued that all the fraud alleged by private respondent were within the line of deliberation of the probate court or intrinsic fraud and could not have been extrinsic or collateral fraud; and therefore the cause of action of private respondent had long prescribed, considering that from September 1948 or some 22 years since petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest came to possess the lands, petitioners have been in peaceful, notorious, public, actual and continuous possession, adversely against the whole world in concepto de dueño until they were disturbed in June 1970 when they received copies of the complaint in Civil Case No. R-11726.
On the other hand, private respondent contends that the issues raised in the petition largely dwell as challenging the findings of fact of the trial court and/or the Court of Appeals, which cannot be done in a petition for review on certiorari.
We find for the petitioners.
After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree that the courts below forced their conclusions against the evidence adduced during the trial which error justifies a review of said evidence. This case is an exception to the general rule that only questions of law may be reviewed in an appeal by certiorari and that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court, if supported by substantial evidence.
Thus, while it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to the latter, its findings of fact being conclusive, 4 it is also settled that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals may be set aside:  when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures;  the inference made is manifestly mistaken;  there is grave abuse of discretion;  the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;  the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee;  the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;  said findings of facts are conclusions without citation or specific evidence on which they are based;  the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and  when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record. 5
We cannot sustain the findings of the courts that Fr. Nicanor Cortes had no personal knowledge of Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 for the evidence on record is abundant to contradict such findings.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
In his testimony, Fr. Diosdado Camomot declared categorically that he informed Fr. Nicanor Cortes about Special Proceedings No. 343 6 and that he sent him a copy of the project of partition. 7 He explained that as administrator of the estate of Fr. Bartolome Cortes, he encountered trouble with the administrator in Sp. Proc. No. 343, Moises Mendoza, who claimed that the properties under his [Camomot’s] administration belonged to Rufino Cortes; that when informed of said problem, Sixta Ceniza advised him to write Fr. Nicanor Cortes about it, which he did; that in reply to his letter, Fr. Nicanor Cortes recommended that he settle the case amicably; and that after a long process of negotiation, the project of partition in question was executed and approved by the court, a copy of which he sent to Fr. Nicanor Cortes.
Highly significant is the fact that among the witnesses who testified before the trial court, it was only Fr. Camomot who had personal knowledge of the events leading to the execution of the project of partition. Notwithstanding, the trial court, instead of according great weight to his testimony, summarily brushed it aside and even reached the unwarranted conclusion that he was in collusion with Ireneo and Paula Villamor. The testimony of Fr. Diosdado Camomot, however, is too detailed and straightforward to be a mere product of concoction or fabrication or a device to cover-up the collusion imputed to him by the trial court. Furthermore, said testimony is corroborated by other evidence on record that sustains its veracity. That he communicated with Fr. Nicanor Cortes was corroborated by Roure Ceniza-Sanchez, a witness for therein plaintiff-administratrix Daniela Ceniza Urot. She testified that being the administrator, it was Fr. Camomot who informed Fr. Nicanor Cortes about the properties of his parents. 8 That the petition in Special Proceedings No. 343 was among the matters brought to the attention of Fr. Nicanor Cortes by Fr. Camomot can be deduced from the letter of Fr. Nicanor Cortes dated August 20, 1948, addressed to Pesing [Dra. Felicisima Cortes-Veloso]. The pertinent portion of the letter reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"As for the administration of Nanay’s properties, I received from Atty. Primitivo Sato a letter asking my consent to the appointment of my cousin Escolastico Ceniza as Administrator. Apparently, a new court trouble is brewing before the old one is completely settled. I cannot meddle on the matter for I am too far away. You discuss the matter among you [Poure, Lucio, Father Camomot and the lawyers.] You had better select your administrator, whom you could trust implicitly, and submit his name to Father Camomot. And to avoid ill feeling among the other cousins, make it known that Father Camomot has taken charge of Nanay’s affair, with my consent, about ten years now and I personally keep my hands off, being in the impossibility of knowing what is going on." 9
If it were not true that Fr. Camomot had informed Fr. Nicanor Cortes about Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 there would be no basis for Fr. Cortes to observe or comment that "apparently, a new court trouble is brewing before the old one is completely settled.’ At that time, the only court proceedings in progress were Special Proceedings Nos. 262, 343 and 227. The "old one" adverted to by Fr. Nicanor Cortes could not refer exclusively to Special Proceedings No. 227 as surmised by Roure Ceniza-Sanchez, as the only trouble being encountered by Fr. Camomot as administrator of the estate of Fr. Bartolome Cortes in Special Proceedings No. 227 was the claim of Moises Mendoza as administrator in Special Proceedings No. 343 over the properties under Fr. Camomot’s administration. The trial court’s conclusion that the "old one" could not refer to Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 for the reason that the project of partition had been executed as early as December 7, 1946, is erroneous. While it may be true that said project of partition had already been executed, there still remained some loose ends that needed tieing up, so that it was not until November 25, 1953 that both proceedings were ordered closed and terminated. 10 The phrase "before the old one is completely settled" used by Fr. Cortes is thus apropos.
The other evidence on record from which knowledge by Fr. Nicanor Cortes of both Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 and the project of partition could be inferred are his letters dated April 6, 1967, May 11, 1967, November 29, 1962 and December 1, 1967, addressed to Ipyon [Concepcion Rosal], Mrs. Dulce Rallos Gitgano, Awang [Paula Villamor] and Mr. and Mrs. Candelario Villamor, respectively, and the Deed of Conveyance dated May 9, 1962.chanrobles law library : red
The letter addressed to Ipyon [Concepcion Rosal] reads in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Great is my desire to help there. It would be my pleasure to attend to your needs, especially about the land where you could build your house.
"But now, I have nothing to do with those lands there in our place. It is those who are in possession of it who can decide.
"Did you not try to talk with Awang and Candelario regarding your old rights and the promises of those dead as to the place where you had built your house. It is better if you try, perhaps they at Ibabao will respect on your being an old neighbor." 11
The pertinent portion of the letter addressed to Mrs. Dulce Rallos Gitgano, on the other hand, states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In reply to your letter of last month, I wish to say that I have no longer anything to do with any property, including the lot on which you have built your house. As a monk, I have made the vow of poverty and have therefore renounced to all property rights.
"I regret to say that I am not in position to help you.
"Have you not tried to ask Candelario to reduce the rent of the lot to an amount more proportionate to your limited earnings? You may submit also to him your desire to buy the lot by monthly installments." 12
In his testimony, Candelario Villamor identified the land where Concepcion Rosal wanted to build her house as parcel "No. 1 on page five of the complaint." 13 He further identified the land which Mrs. Dulce Rallos Gitgano wanted to buy as "from the land which is the share of Ireneo Cortes Villamor and Paula Cortes Villamor and found in the project of partition on page four of said project of partition and boundary number two." 14
The records show that when Fr. Nicanor Cortes left the Philippines to become a monk, he was already 44 years old. He must have known then who the owners of the lands referred to were and certainly at that time neither Awang [Paula Villamor] nor Candelario was in possession thereof. Yet, in his replies to the letters of Mesdames Rosal and Gitgano, he stated by name and with certainty the persons whom the latter should approach and who could properly exercise the right of disposition over said lands. In the absence of any showing that Awang and Candelario were designated as representatives or administrators of Fr. Cortes’ properties, the only logical conclusion reached is that Fr. Nicanor Cortes knew the circumstances under which Awang and Candelario acquired ownership and possession of the lands in question and that he recognized such ownership and possession, otherwise he would not have given the advice or suggestions found in his letters.
Fr. Nicanor Cortes’ letter of November 29, 1962 to Awang reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Regarding the land. — The share of my late Mother [Nanay] Sixta was divided among those who served her and those to whom gratitude were due, by means of documents signed on October of 1947 before Notary Fermin Yap. Those documents were sent to me by Father Camomot with a letter where he stated that those were the true and voluntary will of my late Mother [Nanay]. Because I was unable to answer his letter he wrote me again, once or twice reiterating that those documents were the true and voluntary will of Mother [Nanay]." 15
His letter to Mr. and Mrs. Candelario Villamor states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I have noticed that you have now a poultry farm which must be giving you, together with the lands, quite an income." 16
In the Deed of Conveyance dated May 9, 1962 executed by Fr. Nicanor Cortes before the Consul General of the Republic of the Philippines, Madrid, Spain, wherein he ceded and transferred ten  parcels of land in favor of several persons for and in consideration of One Peso, Philippine currency and other valuable considerations, he declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"All parcels of land described above are my exclusive property having acquired the same by succession from the previous owners, namely: Eustaquio Cortes, Casimira Cortes, Eugenia Cortes, Bartolome Cortes, Sixta Ceniza de Cortes, as shown in the order of the Honorable Court of First Instance of Cebu in Special Proceedings No. 364-R, dated August 18, 1955." 17
The above-quoted portions of Fr. Cortes’ letters and Deed of Conveyance show beyond any iota of doubt that he was kept posted on the developments in the Philippines. He knew that his mother received some lands as "share" and that Candelario had acquired lands. He also knew the succession of ownership of the lands to which he succeeded as sole heir of his mother in Special Proceedings No. 364-R. From these statements, it would not be unreasonable or far-fetched to draw the conclusion that he knew about Special Proceedings Nos. 262 and 343 as well as the project of partition which were the root and origin of the "share" of his mother, the lands acquired by Candelario, as well as the lands inherited by him.
Moreover, stress must be laid on the fact that Fr. Nicanor Cortes intervened in Special Proceedings No. 364-R, the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of his mother, Sixta Ceniza. In the inventory submitted by the administrator thereof, the origin of some parcels of land included in the estate of his mother were specified thus:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
"1. A parcel of land situated in Alang-Alang, Mandaue, Cebu - Tax Declaration No. 09343 — with an area of .4737 more or less; and assessed at P70.00. Bounded on the North by Gaudencio R. Juezan; on the East by Jacinto Engracial; on the South by Roberto Archo and Cristina Cuizon; on the West by Filemon Pono.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, the said parcel is designated as parcel No. 1.
"2. A parcel of land situated in Centro, Mandaue, Cebu - Tax Declaration No. 09347 — with an area of .1347 more or less and assessed at P50.00. Bounded on the North by Rita Alilin; on the East by Jose Mendoza; on the south by Rita Alilin; and on the West by Domingo Ybasitas [Ceferino Mendoza].
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 4.
"3. A parcel of land situated in Pagsabungan, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09346 — with an area of .2246 more or less; and assessed at P70.00. Bounded on the North by Prevato Ceniza; on the East by Fernando Hatamosa; on the South by Butuanon River and Prevato Ceniza; and on the West by Prevato Ceniza and Philippine Railway.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 5.
"4. A parcel of land situated in Pagsabunga, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 02232 — with an area of 1.0351 more or less; and assessed at P370.00. Bounded on the North by Hipolito Pareja; on the East by Cesario Congeon; on the South by Hrs. of Remigio Judilla; on the West by Sotero Judilla.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 6.
"5. A parcel of land, situated in Kanduman, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09345 — with an area of 1.0324 more or less and assessed at P410.00. Bounded on the North by Jacinto Mayol; on the East by Sergio Suyco; on the south by Martin Seno; and the West by Mariano Alivio.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 7.
"6. A parcel of land situted in Kanduman, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09344 — with an area of 2.4507 more or less; assessed at P980.00. Bounded on the North by Jacinto Mayol, Policarpio and Josefa Cortes; on the East by Claudio Osmeña and Camino Vecinal; on the South by Camino Vecinal and Hrs. of Tomas Osmeña; and on the West by Jacinto Mayol;
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 8.
"7. A parcel of land situated in Maguicay, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09348 — with an area of .2799 more or less; assessed at P320.00. Bounded on the North by Ireneo Villamor; on the East by Ireneo Villamor; on the South by Marcelo Cortes and Ireneo Villamor; and on the West by Callejon.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 10.
"8. A parcel of land situated in Maguicay, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09347 — with an area of 1.2996; assessed at P520.00. Bounded on the North by Lucas Perez and Sebastian Fajardo; on the East by Juan Cortes; on the South by Paula Villamor; and on the West by Paula Villamor.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 13.
"9. A parcel of land situated in Maguicay, Mandaue, Cebu, Tax Declaration No. 09350 — with an area of 1.2699 — assessed at P320.00. Bounded on the North by Juan Cortes; on the East by Eutiquiano Mendoza; on the South by Simon Cortes and Ambrosio Cortes; and on the West by Juan Cortes.
In the Project of Partition in Sp. Proc. Nos. 262 & 343, said parcel is designated as parcel No. 14.
1. Exhs. 58 & 6, pp. 145 and 92, respectively, Folder of Documentary Exhibits for Defendants.
* There is no No. 13.
2. Exh. B, p. 2, Folder of Documentary Evidence for Plaintiff; Exh. 7, p. 93, Folder of Documentary Evidence for Defendants.
3. Exh. 20, p. 108, Folder of Documentary Evidence for Defendants.
4. Chan v. CA, 33 SCRA 737.
5. Tolentino v. De Jesus, 56 SCRA 167.
6. P. 22, tsn, June 24, 1971.
7. P. 129, Ibid.
8. P. 4, January 21, 1971.
9. Exhibit 13-A, p. 99-A, Folder of Documentary Evidence for the Defendants.
10. Exh. D, pp. 4-4-A, Folder of Documentary Evidence for Plaintiff.
11. Exh. 16-A-Translation, p. 103, Folder of Documentary Evidence for Defendants.
12. Exh. 17 & 17-A, p. 104, Ibid.
13. P. 57, tsn, July 22, 1971.
14. Pp. 62-63, tsn., July 22, 1971.
15. Exh. 77 (Trans.), p. 162, Ibid.
16. Exh. 78, p. 163, Ibid.
17. Exh. 26, p. 114-B, Ibid.
18. Exh. 21, pp. 109-109-B, Folder of Documentary Evidence for the Defendants.
19. Exh. E, p. 5, Folder of Documentary Evidence for the Plaintiff.
20. Exh. 31, p. 119, Folder of Documentary Evidence for the Defendants.
21. Pp. 20-22, tsn, January 20, 1971.
22. Neyra v. Neyra, 76 Phil. 297 citing Amata v. Tablizo, 48 Phil. 485.
23. Exh. 77-Trans., supra.
24. La. Bickham v. Pitts, 171 So. 80, 185, La. 930.
25. Confesor v. Pelayo, 111 Phil. 416.
26. N.C. Moore v. Baker, S.E. 2d. 526, 224 N.C 498.
27. Exh. 19, p. 107, Documentary Evidence for the Defendants.
28. Exh. C, pp. 3-3A, Folder of Documentary Evidence for the Plaintiff.
29. Balbin v. Medalla, 108 SCRA 666; Medina v. Court of Appeals, 109 SCRA 437.
30. Smith v. Edwards, 17P [2d] 264, 270.
31. Guerrero v. CA, 126 SCRA 109, citing Heirs of Pedro Guminpin v. CA, 120 SCRA 687; Masagandanga v. Argamora, 109 SCRA 53.