FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 224572, August 27, 2020
SPOUSES ROMEO ANASTACIO, SR. AND NORMA T. ANASTACIO, PETITIONERS, V. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES JUAN F. COLOMA AND JULIANA PARAZO, RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is the Petition for Review1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioners Spouses Romeo Anastacio, Sr. and Norma T. Anastacio (petitioners) assailing the Decision2 dated April 21, 2015 (Decision) and Resolution3 dated May 10, 2016 of the Court of Appeals4 in CA-G.R. CV No. 99619. The CA Decision granted the appeal of the Heirs of the Late Spouses Juan F. Coloma (Juan) and Juliana Parazo (Juliana) as well as reversed and set aside the Decision5 dated September 11, 2012 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 08-09, which dismissed the Complaint for Annulment of Document, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land [(subject property)] consisting of [19,247] square meters situated in San Jose, Tarlac. Title to the subject property, particularly Transfer Certificate of Title [(TCT)] No. 56899 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac, shows [Juan] as the registered owner thereof since [January 14, 1965], with the certificate of title likewise carried the inscription of his marriage to [Juliana]. Both Juan and Juliana are now deceased, leaving x x x Rudy P. Coloma and Marcela C. Reyes [(respondents)] as their legitimate heirs.Respondents appealed to the CA.
According to [respondents], the subject property is under the possession of [petitioners] by mere tolerance of their parents. Thus, upon the demise of their parents, [respondents] demanded the surrender of its possession. However, [petitioners] refused, which led to the filing of a case for Recovery of Possession and Title against them before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court [(MCTC)] of Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, docketed as Civil Case No. 645-SJ (07).
In their Answer before the MCTC, [petitioners] claimed right of ownership over the subject property by virtue of an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated [October 7, 20046 ] executed by Juan during his lifetime. On account of such claim of ownership, the MCTC dismissed the said case, without prejudice to the filing of the subject complaint with the proper court.
Later on, [respondents] filed the Complaint before the [RTC], this time for Annulment of Document, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary injunction, claiming that the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by their father in favor of [petitioners] is void on two x x x grounds. First, that the signature of their father, Juan, as appearing thereon is a forgery; and second, that there is no conformity or consent given by their mother, Juliana, to the alleged sale.
Answering, [petitioners] maintained the same theory as in the earlier MCTC case against them: that they are owners of the [subject] property by virtue of the subject Deed of Absolute Sale dated [October 7, 2004] executed by Juan. Further, they maintained that x x x they have paid Juan [P100,000.00] as first payment in 2003 and [P260,000.00] upon execution of the said Deed of Absolute Sale, apart from the [P100,000.00] they spent as expenses for the wake and burial of Juan. [Petitioners] also claimed that the consent of Juliana was not necessary to effect a valid sale since the subject property was the sole property of Juan, having inherited the same from his paternal ancestors and the spouses had long been separated from bed [and board].
A Pre-Trial Order dated [March 6, 2009] was issued by the [RTC] summarizing the stipulations made by the contending parties, to wit:Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
- That [Juan] died on August 26, 2006;
- That [Juliana] died on August 17, 2006;
- That the subject property was registered by [Juan] married to [Juliana] in 1965;
- That the subject property was registered during the lifetime of the spouses [Juan and Juliana].
x x x x
In support of their claims, [respondents] presented, among others, a handwriting expert, PO3 Leslie Ramales, who testified that the questioned signature of Juan as appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the latter's standard signatures, were not written by one and the same person.
On the other hand, [petitioners] harped on the alleged separation from bed and board of Juan and Juliana and presented Juan's alleged paramour since 1978, Carmelita Palma [(Palma)]. Said witness testified that during the lifetime of Juan, [he] mortgaged, and subsequently sold the subject property to [petitioners] via [a] Deed of Absolu[t]e Sale. [Petitioner] Romeo Anastacio also took the stand and confirmed the testimony of Palma, that the subject property was mortgaged to him by Juan in 2003 for [P100,000.00)] and thereafter, sold the same property to him in 2004 for [P260.000.00].
The [RTC] on [September 11, 2012] issued [its] Decision x x x, ruling in favor of [petitioners], stating that the evidence on record failed to establish the alleged falsification of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The [RTC] likewise ruled that the subject property was the exclusive property of Juan, thus, did not require the consent of h[is] wife, Juliana. [The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision states: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWHEREFORE, premises considered, the above-entitled case is hereby Dismissed.
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is GRANTED and the assailed Decision issued by the court a quo is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution18 dated May 10, 2016.
Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:SO ORDERED.17
- Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated [October 7, 2004] null and void;
- Ordering [petitioners] to surrender TCT No. 56899 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac to [respondents];
- Ordering [petitioners], their successors-in-interest, heirs or assignees, to vacate and restore possession of the subject property covered by TCT No. 56899 of the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac to [respondents];
- Ordering [petitioners] to pay the costs of the suit.
- Whether the CA erred when it declared Juan's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 7, 2004 (DAS) a forgery.
- Whether the CA erred in declaring that the DAS does not carry the presumption of regularity in its notarization and execution.
- Whether the CA erred in declaring that the subject property is the conjugal property of the late spouses Juan and Juliana.
- Whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioners were not in good faith in acquiring the subject property from Juan.21
ART. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved.(160a)A rebuttable presumption is established in Article 116 and the party who invokes that presumption must first establish that the property was acquired during the marriage because the proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.25 It is not necessary to prove that the property was acquired with conjugal funds and the presumption still applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.26 Once the condition sine qua non is established, then the presumption that all properties acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one spouse or both spouses, are conjugal, remains until the contrary is proved.
ART. 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:Clearly, the first three instances do not apply in this case. Regarding the fourth instance, petitioners could not have established that the subject property was purchased with the exclusive money of Juan through the testimony of his paramour Carmelita Palma because she testified that she became his live-in partner only beginning 1978 (until his death in 2006),28 which was after the acquisition of the subject property by Juan.
(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;
(2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;
(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and
(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband. (148a)
ART. 124. x x xUnder Article 1323 of the Civil Code, an offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed. When Juan died on August 26, 2006, the continuing offer contemplated under Article 124 of the Family Code became ineffective and could not have materialized into a binding contract. It must be remembered that Juliana even died earlier on August 17, 2006 and there is no evidence that she consented to the sale of the subject property by Juan in favor of petitioners.
x x x These powers [of administration] do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerers. (165a) (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-33, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 35-47. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
3 Id. at 48-49.
4 Thirteenth Division and Former Thirteenth Division.
5Rollo, pp. 68-76. Penned by Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo.
6 Mistakenly indicated as 2014 in the CA Decision.
7Rollo, pp. 36-39, 76.
8 Id. at 40.
9 Translated Agreement Pertaining to a Mortgage.
10Rollo, pp. 42-43.
11 Id. at 44.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 45.
14 Id. at 46.
15 G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA 702.
16Rollo, p. 46.
17 Id. at 46-47.
18 Id. at 48-49.
19 Id. at 106-114.
20 Id. at 121-127.
21 Id. at 15.
22 See id. at 29.
23 Id. at 30.
24 Id. at 31.
25 Arturo M. Tolentino, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VOLUME I WITH THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1990 Edition, pp. 430-431. Citations omitted.
26 Id. at 430.
27Rollo, p. 29.
28 Id. at 12.
29 Arturo M. Tolentino, supra note 25, at 432. Citations omitted.
30 See Wong v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70082, August 19, 1991, 200 SCRA 792.
31Rollo, p. 15.
32 Id. at 55-57.
33 Id. at 56.
34 Id. at 59.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary