G.R. No. 204056, June 01, 2016
GIL MACALINO, JR., TERESITA MACALINO, ELPIDIO MACALINO, PILAR MACALINO, GILBERTO MACALINO, HERMILINA MACALINO, EMMANUEL MACALINO, EDELINA MACALINO, EDUARDO MACALINO, LEONARDO MACALINO, EDLLANE** MACALINO, APOLLO MACALINO, MA. FE MACALINO, AND GILDA MACALINO, Petitioners, v. ARTEMIO PIS-AN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the September 20, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 02893 which granted respondent Artemio Pis-an's (Artemio) appeal and set aside the December 12, 2008 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, Branch 40 in Civil Case No. 13725.
Under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No, 2393-A, Emeterio Jumento (Emeterio) was the owner of the half portion, and his children Hospicio Jumento (Hospicio) and Severina Jumento (Severina) of the other half in equal shares, of Lot 3154 consisting of 469 square meters and located in Junob, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental. When Hospicio and Severina died single and without issue, Emeterio as their sole heir inherited the portions pertaining to them and thus became the owner of the whole lot. Subsequently, Emeterio also passed away.
Apparently, the City of Dumaguete built in the 1950's a barangay road which cut across said lot. As a result, Lot 3154 was divided into three portions, to wit: the portion which was converted into a barangay road and the portions on both sides of said barangay road. Sometime in the 1970's, Artemio, a grandson-in-law of Emeterio,3 commissioned Geodetic Engineer Rodolfo B. Ridad (Engr. Ridad) to survey Lot 3154 so that taxes would be assessed only on the portions of the subject property which remained as private property.4 Accordingly, Engr. Ridad came up with a sketch plan5 (sketch plan) where the three portions of Lot 3154 were denominated as Lot 3154-A (the portion on the left side of the road), Lot 3154-B (the portion which was converted into a barangay road), and Lot 3154-C (the portion on the right side of the road). The sketch plan also revealed that the portion occupied by Artemio, i.e., Lot 3154-A as enclosed by points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6,6 together with a section of a dried creek, contained an area of 207 square meters.7
On May 3, 1995, Artemio and the other heirs of Emeterio executed an Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale8 (Absolute Sale) adjudicating among themselves Lot 3154 and selling a 207-square meter portion of the same to the spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero (spouses Sillero). The document, did not, however, identify the portion being sold as Lot No. 3154-A but simply stated as follows:
That for and in consideration of the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) Philippine currency to them in hand paid by spouses WILFREDO SILLERO and JUDITH SILLERO, both of legal age, Filipino, with residence at Taclobo, Dumaguete City, the aforementioned heirs hereby SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally, unto the said WILFREDO SILLERO and JUDITH SILLEROW their heirs and assigns a portion of the above-described parcel of land [Lot 3154] which is TWO HUNDRED SEVEN (207) square meters and which shall have access to and [to which] belong the existing road right of way, together with the building and improvements thereon.9
The Vendors are the absolute owners of TWO HUNDRED SEVEN (207) square [meter-part] of [L]ot 3154 x x x known as Sub[-]lot 3154-A x x x [T]he whole [L]ot 3154 is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2393-A situated at Junob, Dumaguete City and more particularly described as follows:ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 2393-A
A parcel of land (Lot No. 3154 of the Cadastral Survey of Dumaguete) with the improvements thereon, situated in the Municipality of Dumaguete. Bounded on the NE., and N., by Lot No. 3153; on the SE., by a road; and on the SW., by a sapa. Containing an area of FOUR HUNDRED and SIXTY NINE (469) SQUARE METERS, more or less, including [a] house under Tax Dec. No. 93-022-1587
having been acquired by purchase in a document known as Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale x x x.
For and in consideration of the sum of TWO HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND PESOS ONLY, Philippine currency paid by the Vendee to the Vendors, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by the VENDORS to their complete and entire satisfaction, [Vendors] hereby SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER, and CONVEY unto the Vendee, his heirs, successors, and assigns the TWO HUNDRED SEVEN (207)[-]square meter [portion] of the above-described [L]ot 3154 which x x x portion is now known as SUBLOT 3154-A, absolutely and unconditionally, and free from any lien or encumbrance;11
The Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale dated May 3, 1995 and the Deed of Sale dated December 27,1996 are common exhibits of the parties and admitted as such conveyances by them. On the basis of these documents, x x x Gil Macalino asserts that he is in fact the owner of a 207 square meter portion of Lot 3154, particularly Lots 3154-A (140 square meters) and 3154-C (67 square meters) of the approved subdivision plan. This is disputed by [Artemio] who argues that the Deed of Sale dated December 27, 1996, from Wilfredo and Judith Sillero to Gil Macalino, particularly states that they were selling a 207 square meter portion 'known as sublot 3154-A'. Due to this phrase, [Artemio] argues that the sale was for a lump sum, presuming that Gil Macalino only intended to buy Lot 3154-A and cannot claim the difference from Lot 3154-C. [Artemio] further asserts that there is no privity of contract between Gil Macalino and [Artemio] because the contract is between Gil Macalino and Wilfredo and Judith Sillero.
In the Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale dated May 3, 1995, [Artemio], as one of the signatories categorically avowed that he was selling 207 square meters of Lot 3154 to Wilfredo and Judith Sillero. This conveyance did not identify the portion sold as Lot 3154-A.
As a consequence, [Artemio] divested himself of any interest in a 207[-] square meter portion of Lot 3154 as early as May 3, 1995 when he signed the Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate [and Absolute Sale]. In signing such deed, he is now estopped from disavowing that he conveyed a lesser area to x x x Wilfredo and Judith Sillero.
The identification of the portion sold as Lot 3154-A is found only in the subsequent Deed of Sale dated December 27, 1996, which is the conveyance of the 207 square meter portion by Wilfredo and Judith Sillero to Gil Macalino. Under the principle of privity of contracts, only the Silleros can claim that they sold Lot 3154-A consisting of 140 square meters only and not 207 square meters. In truth however, the Deed of Sale by the Silleros provides that they were selling 207 square meters of Lot 3154. The deed did not state that the Silleros were selling Lot 3154-A. This then lends to the conclusion that this was not a sale by lump sum but by square meters, x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is rendered in favor of x x x Gil Macalino against [Artemio], declaring x x x Gil Macalino x x x the rightful owner of Lot 3154-A and Lot 3154-C of the approved subdivision plan PSD-07-048844.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 12, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Dumaguete City in Civil Case No. 13725, is hereby SET ASIDE. Defendant-appellant Artemio Pis-an is declared as the true and legal owner of the Sixty Seven (67) square meter lot known as Lot 1354-C situated at Northern Junob, Dumaguete City.
That sometime on October 25, 1996, I purchased a portion of a piece of land with an area of about 207 square meters, more or less, from the entire [l]ot covered by TCT No. 27658 (Lot No. 3154) owned by Artemio Pis-an with an entire area of about 469 square meters which Artemio Pis-an [i]nherited from Emeterio Jumento x x x;
That after Artemio Pis-an inherited the afore-mentioned Lot No. 3154 (TCT No. 27658), Artemio Pis-an sold about 207 square meters to spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero, of legal age, Filipino and residing at Taclobo, Dumaguete City;
That later, Gil Macalino purchased the said portion of about 207 square meters, as aforesaid, on October 25, 1996 together with all the improvements, which included a house which was under construction and made of mixed materials x x x
That in view of the desire of complainant Gil Macalino to register his purchased portion from the entire [L]ot, he [caused] it to be surveyed by Geodetic Engineer Rilthe P. Dorado of the City Engineer's Office, Dumaguete City, sometime in April 1998 x x x
That after 1 week when Geodetic Engineer Dorado surveyed my [l]ot purchased from spouses Sillero, Engineer Dorado stop[p]ed the survey because according to him my purchased [l]ot from spouses Sillero of about 207 square meters, overlapped on the already titled Lot of LUBRUS INC. x x x
That in other words, what was really sold to me by the spouses Wilfredo and Judith Sillero is only with an area of about 140 square meters as shown by the subdivision survey plan of Geodetic Engineer Dorado x x x
That after I learned about my purchased lot that lacked the area of about 67 square meters and especially that the house where I am now residing is built on the area having overlapped with an area of 67 square meters which was sold to me by spouses Sillero, I approached respondent x x x Wilfredo Sillero about the portion which is owned by the aforesaid [c]ompany, GLUBUS INC., but spouses respondents Wilfredo and Judith Sillero answered me sarcastically, that "Wala koy labot ana kay ang gibaligya nako nimo 207 square meters" which means in English (I have nothing to do with that because what [we] sold to you was 207 square meters) xxx43ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q After you purchased a portion of Lot 3154 which you said has been identified as [lot] 3154-A enclosed end point 1 to 6, what did you do to the land? A We developed the land, Sir. We applied [for] fencing permit at the City and we also applied [for] a building permit, Sir. Q Now what improvements, if any, did you introduce x x x? A Only the fence and also the house, Sir. Q Now after having built the fence and the house, what happened] to the property and the improvements which you introduce[d]? Did you sell it to anyone? A After several months, we needed the money [so] we [sold] the property, Sir. Q Now in what manner did you advertise the intention to sell? A Thru the daughter[-]in[-]law of Mr. Macalino, Sir. We had advertised that we are going to sell the house and lot, Sir, and this daughter[-]in[-]law of Mr. Macalino [came to us] since Mr. Macalino [was] looking for a house and lot which he can occupy after his retirement. Q Now eventually did you and your husband meet Gil Macalino [who] is one of the plaintiffs in this case? A The first negotitation, Sir, was [with] his daughter[-]in[-]law since Mr. Macalino [was] still in Larena working at that time and when we negotiated the property, it was Mr. Macalino himself. Q When you negotiated for the sale of the property with Mr. Gil Macalino himself, did he examine the perimeter, the area which you sought to sell? A Yes. It [was] Mr. Macalino and his family who look[ed] at the property, Sir. Q Will you please describe how Gil Macalino and his family examine[d] the property? A He looked at the house [to find out how many rooms it has], the septic tank and also around the house, Sir, and it was quick. Q How about the perimeter of the fence[,] did Gil Macalino and his family went around to see the perimeter of the fence with the boundaries? A Yes, Sir, when they were inside. Q Eventually, was the sale consummated between you and your husband and Gil Macalino? A After he looked at the property, Sir, we went to see Arty. Lumjod. Q What happen[ed] at the office of Atty. Lumjod? A We agreed to the amount of the house and lot and the [payment]. Q Now, was a Deed of Sale eventually made and signed by you and Gil Macalino? A We have documents, Sir, and it is with Atty. Lumjod. xxxx Q Now in the Deed of Sale the description of the property is the whole Lot 3154 which is 469 square meters. Now in the lower portion what you sold was only [lot] 3154-A. Now, what [was] the basis of your [identification of] the portion you sold as [lot] 3154-[?] Did you show the Sketch Plan to Gil Macalino? A Yes. I [showed] x x x him the Sketch Plan Q That Sketch Plan was the one marked as Exhibit "6"? A The Sketch Plan which was prepared by Engr. Ridad, Sir. Yes, this is the Sketch Plan [referred to as] Exhibit "6." Q Now when you agreed with Gil Macalino [regarding] the sale of [lot] 3154-A, was your agreement in lump sum amount or did you sell it in per square meter? A The whole house and lot, Sir. Q Now as shown in this Sketch Plan x x x across the road there are x x x words [written] "portion of lot 3154-C["]. Was this included in the sale between the Pis-an family and you and your husband? A That is not included, Sir. Q Was this portion [lot] 3154-C included in the sale between you and Gil Macalino? xxxx A That is not included. Q Did you take possession of Lot No. 3154-C? A No, Sir. Q Did you turn over possession of [Lot No.] 3154-C to Gil Macalino? A No, Sir. Q When you bought [Lot No.] 3154-A, were there improvements on [L]ot 3154-C across the road? A Yes, there was, Sir. There are trees, gemilina trees and acacia trees. Q To your knowledge, who introduce[d] those improvements? A Pis-an, Sir. That is across the road Sir. That is part of the whole lot but it is not included when I boughtthe property and if we have money, we might buy that property.48
Q Now, Engr. Antonio, x x x, [L]ot No. 3154 appears to be registered in the name of Artemio Pis-an, Eulogio Jumento, Miraflor Pis-an, Jocelyn Pis-an, Lando Pis-an, Leon Pis~an, Llamato Pis-an and Joena Pis-an. My question is, in this subdivision plan submitted, is there any document showing that any of the registered owners of Lot No. 3154 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27658 appeared to have initiated this survey? A Mr. Gil Macalino signed the application form. And this was prepared by Engr. Dorado. Q Now, when this was prepared by Engr. Dorado x x x can you tell us if at [that] time [in] 1999[J Engr. Rilthe Dorado was under you x x [in] The City Development Office? A No. He was I think with the City Engineer's Office. Q Does your records show whether or not Engr. Rilthe Dorado did this as part of his duties in the City Engineer's Office or in his private capacity? A I think in his private capacity.50
** Also spelled as Eillanne ana Eiilen in some parts of the records.
1 CA rollo, pp. 112-131; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2 Records, pp. 202-206; penned by Presiding Judge Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr.
3 TSN dated July 19, 2007, p. 4.
4 Id. at 8.
5 Records, p. 153.
7 TSN dated April 25,2007, p. 4.
8 Records, pp. 14-15.
9 Id. at 14; emphasis supplied.
10 Id. at 12-13.
11 Id. at 12; emphases supplied.
12 Id. at 16-17.
13 Id. at dorsal side of 16.
14 See Gil's Affidavit[-]Complaint against the spouses Sillero, id. at 157-158.
16 Id. at 156-159.
17 Id. at 36.
18 Id. at 3-6.
19 Id. at 3-5.
20 Id. at 28-30.
21 Id. at 202-206.
22 Id. at 204-205.
23 Id. at 207.
24 Id. at 211.cralawred
25 CIVIL CODE, Article 1542.
Article 1542 - In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or lesser areas or number than that stated in the contract.
The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables are sold for a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number should be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has been stipulated.
26 See Artemio's Appellant's Brief, CA rollo, pp. 59-80.cralawred
27 See petitioners' Brief for Appellees, id. at 83-92.
28 Id. at 112-131.
29 Id. at 130-131.
30 See petitioners' Memorandum, rollo, pp. 94-104.
31Marquez v. Espejo, 643 Phil. 341, 345 (2010).
32 Section 9, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which governs the Parol Evidence Rule provides in part:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements. — When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.33 As held in Marquez v. Espejo, supra note 31 at 361, the "[P]arol [E]vidence [R]ule is exclusive only as 'between the parties and their successor-in-interest' The [P]arol [Evidence [R]ule may not be invoked where at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or a privy of a party to the written document in question, and does not base his claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument." Here, petitioners were not party in the Extra Judicial Settlement and Absolute Sale executed by Artemio and his co-heirs. Likewise, Artemio was not a party to the Deed of Sale entered into by and between Gil and the spouses Sillero. Hence, the inapplicability of the Parole Evidence Rule.
34 Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 767 (2013).
35 Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 785 (2013).
36Virtucio v. Alegarbes, 693 Phil. 567, 573-574 (2012).
37 TSN dated October 10,2006, pp. 5-6.
38 TSN dated November 27,2006, p. 6.
39 Id. at 8.cralawred
41Heirs of Gregorio Lopez v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193351, November 19,2014.
42 Records, pp. 157-158.
44 Exhibits "10-A" and "10-B"; see Defendant's Formal Offer of Exhibits, id. at 149-152.
45 See Comments (to Defendant's Formal Offer of Exhibits), id. at 147-148.
46 TSN dated April 26, 2006, pp. 8-10.
47 See page 13 of CA Decision, CA rollo, p. 124.
48 TSN dated October 10, 2006, pp. 6-11.
49 TSN dated April 3,2006; pp. 14-15; TSN dated April 26, 2006, pp. 4-8.
50 TSN dated July 17,2006, pp. 6-7.
51Vda de Aviles v. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil, 513, 520 (1996).
52Mananquil v. Moico, 699 Phil 120, 122 (2012).