THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187013, April 22, 2015
SPOUSES MAGDALINO AND CLEOFE BADILLA, Petitioners, v. FE BRAGAT, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated October 9, 2008 and Resolution dated February 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 70423-MIN.
The case involves the issue of ownership of the subject real property.
The facts follow.
Azur Pastrano and his wife Profitiza Ebaning (Spouses Pastrano) were the original owners of Lot No. 19986 (subject property), located at Tablon, Cagayan de Oro City. Its Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2035, consisting of 1,015 sq. m. was issued on November 18, 1980.1 The OCT was in the name of Azur Pastrano.2redarclaw
Before the issuance of the OCT, however, the Spouses Pastrano, on November 18, 1968, sold the lot to Eustaquio P. Ledesma, Jr. (Ledesma), as evidenced by a Deed of Definite Sale of Unregistered Coconut and Residential Land.3redarclaw
The petitioners, the spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla (Spouses Badilla) claimed that in 1970, Ledesma sold to them, "on installment" basis, a portion amounting to 200 sq. m. of Lot No. 19986 (subject property). The sale was not reduced in writing, however, possession of the portion sold was transferred to the Badillas, which portion the Badillas claim was designated as Lot No. 19986-B.4redarclaw
On April 18, 1978, the spouses Florito Bragat and Fe Bragat (Spouses Bragat) bought 991 sq. m. of the property from Ledesma and his wife, via a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Residential Lot.5 Two (2) tax declarations were allegedly issued as a result of the sale: one designated a lot as Lot No. 19986-A with an area of 642 sq. m.,6 while another designated the other lot as Lot No. 19986-B with an area of 349 sq. m.7redarclaw
On May 5, 1984, the Spouses Pastrano executed another Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land in favor of herein petitioner Fe Bragat (Bragat), covered by OCT No. P-2035 and with an area of 1,015 sq. m.8 On the same date, Azur Pastrano executed an Affidavit of Loss reporting the loss of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035.9redarclaw
It was Bragat, however, who petitioned the court for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035. Thus, on July 24, 1987, the RTC ordered the issuance of a new owner's copy of OCT No. P-2035.10redarclaw
On October 2, 1987, the Spouses Pastrano executed yet another Deed of Sale of Registered Land in favor of Bragat, which land is again covered by OCT No. P-2035 with an area of 1,015 sq. m.11 As a result, OCT No. P-2035 was canceled and TCT No. T-47759 was issued in the name of Bragat.12redarclaw
On March 7, 1991, Bragat, through her counsel, made a written demand to vacate against the Spouses Badilla. In response, the Spouses Badilla, also through their counsel's letter, refused the demand and raised the earlier sale made by the Spouses Pastrano to Ledesma and the subsequent sale by Ledesma to the Badillas.13redarclaw
Hence, the parties filed their respective complaints within days of each other.
Bragat filed her Complaint for Recovery of Posession and Damages against the spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla on June 5, 1992, alleging therein that she is the absolute owner of Lot No. 19986, covered by TCT No. T-47759. She claimed to have purchased the property, first, from Eustaquio Ledesma, Jr., but later, when she found out that Ledesma was "unauthorized" to sell, she again allegedly made another purchase of the same property from Azur Pastrano, on May 5, 1984. This led to the cancellation of Pastrano's OCT No. P-2035 and the issuance of Bragat's TCT No. T-47759. Thus, she prays for the Spouses Badilla to be ordered to vacate the around 149-square-meter portion that they occupy in the property.14redarclaw
Just six days later, on June 11, 1992, the Spouses Badilla filed their own Complaint for Quieting of Title, Declaration of Nullity of TCT No. T-47759 and Damages against Bragat, claiming that the Spouses Badilla are the lawful owners and possessors of Lot No. 19986-B (a portion of Lot No. 19986), having acquired it in 1970 from Ledesma. The latter, on his part, allegedly bought the bigger Lot No. 19986 from Pastrano earlier on November 18, 1968. The Spouses Badilla alleged that they took possession of and built a house on the property upon their purchase thereof from Ledesma and has since remained in possession. However, they claimed that Pastrano was subsequently able to obtain a free patent and a title, OCT No. P-2035, over Lot No. 19986. According to the Badillas, Pastrano made a sale to Bragat on October 2, 1987, but such sale is not valid since Pastrano was no longer the owner of the property on that date. Consequently, the Spouses Badilla prayed that TCT No. T-47759 issued to Bragat pursuant to that sale be declared null and void.15redarclaw
After Answers were filed for both complaints, the two cases were consolidated and heard by one court, Branch 25 of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City, as they involved exactly the same parties and subject lot.
After trial, the RTC found for Bragat, noting that the sketch map shows the 152-square-meter portion occupied by the Spouses .Badilla is within the titled property of Bragat.16 It also found Bragat's title as valid for what it saw as the result of a purchase in good faith and. for value.17 In contrast, the trial court observed a lack of evidence of the Spouses Badilla. The latter allegedly presented handwritten and typewritten receipts which were purportedly signed by Ledesma, dated March 5, 1989, March 1, 1991 and March 23, 1991 acknowledging Ledesma's receipt of certain amounts, but the court claimed that it found no evidence of (Ledesma's) absolute ownership on these dates. The court noted that Ledesma had sold previously to the Spouses Bragat via a Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential Land dated April 18, 1978. Hence, in the trial court's view, on March 5, 1989, March 1, 1991 and March 23, 1991, Ledesma no longer owned the land and transferred nothing to the Badillas.18 The dispositive portion of the RTC decision states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of Spouses Fe Bragat and Florito Bragat and against Spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla and dismissing Civil Case No. 92-287 for failure of Spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla to substantiate their complaint and for lack of merit and ordering defendants Cleofe Badilla and Magdalino Badilla in Civil Case No. 92-273:LawlibraryofCRAlawUpon appeal to the CA, the appellate court affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the same on a finding that Ledesma sold only 991 sq. of the property to Bragat in 1978; hence, it held that the remaining 24 sq. of the 1,015-sq.-m. property was validly sold to the Badillas in 1991 and, therefore, must be reconveyed to the latter.20 It also removed the award of damages. The dispositive portion of the CA's decision is as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlawSO ORDERED.19
a) to vacate immediately the 152-square-meter property they are occupying as shown in Exh. N-2-A, P; b) to pay Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) by way of moral damages; c) to pay a reasonable rental of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) a month from March 1, 1991 at 6% legal interest until they vacate the premises; d) to reimburse Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) attorney's fees and Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as expenses for litigation as part of consequential damages; and e) pay the costs.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The January 14, 2001 Judgment (of the RTC) is MODIFIED in that:LawlibraryofCRAlawHence, this petition.This case is REMANDED to the court of origin for the purpose of determining the 24-square-meter lot to be reconveyed to appellants.
a) appellants are ordered to VACATE 128 square meters of the disputed lot and appellee is ordered to RECONVEY 24 square meters of the disputed lot to appellants, and b) the reimbursement of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation and the payment of costs are DELETED.
SO ORDERED.21
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 65; Exhibit "12," records, vol. 1, pp. 98-99.
2Id. at 76; id.
3Id. at 74-76; Exhibit "8," id. at 59.
4Id. at 6-7; Exhibit "2," id. at 16.
5Id. at 75; Exhibit "9," id. at 63.
6Id. at 75-76; Exhibit "A-1," id., vol. 2, p. 174.
7Id. at 76; Exhibit "A-2," id. at 175.
8Id.; Exhibit "C," id. at 179-180.
9Id.; Exhibit "D," id. at 181.
10Id.; Exhibit "E," id. at 182.
11Id. at 76-77; Exhibit "F," id. at 183.
12Id. at 77; Exhibit "G," id. at 184.
13Id.
14Id. at 9, 54-58.
15Id. at 10, 64-67.
16Id. at 78 (page 5 of the RTC's Decision, referring to Exhibits "N," and "N-2," the Commissioner's cation Survey Report, records, vol. 2, pp. 66-68).
17Id.
18Id. at 79.
19Id. at 80; the Decision was penned by Judge Noli T. Catli.
20Id. at 49; the CA noted that March 1, 1991 was the date of the last payment of the installment; to Ledesma by the Badillas.
21Id. at 51; the Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camelo and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
22Id. at 19, 30-33.
23Id. at 7.
24Id. at 8.
25Id. at 18, 26-30.
26Id. at 199.
27Id. at 200.
28Spouses Alcazar v. Arante, G.R. No. 177042, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 507, 515-516.
29Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. John Bordman Ltd. of lloilo Inc., 509 Phil. 728, 740 (2005).
30Local Superior of the Servants of Charity Inc. v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., 509 Phil. 426:, 432 (2005); Santos v. Spouses Reyes, 420 Phil. 313, 332 (2001); Director of Lands Management Bureau v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 761 (2000).
31Rollo, pp. 74-76.
32Id. at 10; Direct examination of Ellen Ledesma (wife of Eustaquio Ledesma), TSN, December 19, 1994, pp. 4-5.
33 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1478.
34Rollo, p. 8.
35 CIVIL CODE, Arts. 1477, 1496.
36 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1497.
37Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 338 Phil. 795, 822 (1997), citing Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. v. Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc., 182 Phil. 16, 22 (1979), and Pingol v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102909, September 6, 1993, 226 SCRA 118, 128.
38Ainza v. Spouses Padua, 501 Phil. 295, 300 (2005).
39Cordial v. Miranda, 401 Phil. 307, 321 (2000), citing Hernandez v. Andal, 78 Phil. 196, 204, (1947); Pascual v. Realty Investment, Inc., 91 Phil. 257, 260 (1952); and Diwa v. Donato, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 608, 615-615, National Bank v. Philippine Vegetable Oil Co., 49 Phil. 857, 867 (1927).
40Rollo, p. 78 (page 5 of the trial court's decision); the trial court found this portion consisting of 152 sq. m. as included in the area covered by Fe Bragat's title.
41Id. at 12, 44; Exhibit "T," records, vol. 2, p. 183. This deed of sale was between Azur Pastrano as Seller and Fe Bragat as Buyer.
42Id. at 74-76; Exhibit "8," id., vol. 1, p. 59.
43Id. at 11,43,75.; Exhibit "9," id., at 63.
44Tangalin v. Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 358, 365 (2001), citing Gonzales v. Heirs of Thomas and Paula Cruz, 373 Phil. 368, 381-382 (1999); citing Segura v. Segura, 247-A Phil. 449, 458 (1988).
45 Records, vol. 2, pp. 66-67.
46Id. at 68.
47 Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (1473)
48Rollo, pp. 18, 26-30; Exhibit "5," records, vol. 1, p. 93.
49 Direct examination of Fe Bragat, TSN, October 11, 1993, pp. 6-7; Direct examination of Cleofe Badilla, TSN, January 26, 1995, pp. 5-6.
50 Article 1544, supra; also see De Leon v. Ong, 625 Phil. 221, 231 (2010).
51 Records, vol. 2, pp. 66-67.
52Id. at 68.