THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 203815, December 07, 2020
EFRAIM D. DANIEL, Petitioner, v. NANCY O. MAGKAISA, CECILIA O. MAGKAISA, IMELDA O. MAGKAISA, AND MARISSA ODA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the April 19, 2012 Decision2 and September 27, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 90185 which affirmed the January 9, 2006 Decision4 and July 5, 2006 Order5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Branch 20, Cavite, in Civil Case No. 1604-97 ordering the reconveyance of the subject properties in favor of herein respondents.
The Facts:
Respondents Nancy, Cecilia and Imelda, all surnamed Magkaisa, (Magkaisas), and Marissa Oda (Oda; collectively, respondents), are the grandchildren of Consuelo Jimenez Oda (Consuelo). The mother of the Magkaisas, Mercedita Oda Magkaisa, and the deceased father of Oda, Hermogenes Oda, are Consuela's children. Consuelo had three sisters, namely, Nelidia J. Daniel (Nelidia), Esperanza Jimenez, and Josefina Jimenez (Josefina). Only Josefina is alive, however.6 Petitioner Efraim D. Daniel (Efraim) is Nelidia's husband, and the couple had no children.7
During her lifetime, Consuelo owned three parcels of land covered by Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. P-23608 and P-2361,9 located at Manggahan, Kawit, Cavite (Manggahan lots), and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-3220,10 located at Medicion, Imus, Cavite (Medicion lot). Consuelo supposedly sold these properties to her sister, Nelidia, as reflected in a Deed of Sale.11 Apparently, Consuelo instructed Nelidia that upon her (Nelidia's) death, the properties should be transferred to Consuela's grandchildren, specifically herein respondents.12
To comply with Consuela's instruction, Nelidia executed a Declaration of Trust13 dated September 6, 1993 with the conformity of Efraim, who likewise signed therein. In the said document, Nelidia acknowledged that she held in trust the three parcels of land in favor of the respondents.14 Eventually, Nelidia caused the issuance of new TCTs in her name, as evidenced by TCT Nos. T-408005,15 T-408004,16 and T-408003.17
When Nelidia died on November 1, 1996, it was only then that the respondents discovered the existence of the Declaration of Trust. Since then, Efraim purportedly had possession over the properties and refused to surrender the titles to the respondents.18 Hence, respondents filed a Complaint19 for Reconveyance Plus Damages, with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction dated October 8, 1997 against Efraim. They alleged that they received reliable information that Efraim has transferred the subject properties in his name or is about to do so, with the intention of disposing the same, to their damage and prejudice.20
Efraim admitted in his Answer with Counterclaims21 the existence of the trust. However, he alleged that it has already been revoked through a document entitled Revocation of Declaration of Trust.22 The said document of revocation was not signed by Nelidia, the respondents, and the notary public. Efraim presented other documents, specifically another Declaration of Trust,23 Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Late Esperanza Jimenez,24 and Deed of Donation,25 which were all unsigned due to Nelidia's death.
Efraim also argued that there is no showing that the respondents accepted the trust and that it was not registered with the Registry of Deeds as to bind third parties.26 Nonetheless, Efraim contended that notwithstanding the respondents' entitlement to the properties, he could not reconvey the same to them since he is not the registered owner. He also argued that the case was not referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa before it was filed in court and that no earnest efforts were exerted in order to arrive at a compromise between the parties.27 He added that only Nancy Magkaisa (Nancy) verified the Complaint and certified the portion on non-forum shopping.28
The RTC, in an Order29 dated January 20, 1998, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Efraim from transferring the properties to his name and disposing or selling the same, upon the respondents' filing of a bond.
During her testimony, Nancy admitted that her family is in actual possession of the Manggahan lots.30 She averred, though, that Efraim exercised possession over the Medicion lot by building a rest house therein.31 Efraim held the titles to all the properties which he refused to surrender to the respondents.32 Nancy asserted that Consuela paid for the taxes during her lifetime and that after her death, Nelidia took over the payments, followed by Efraim after Nelidia's death.33 Nancy acknowledged that Nelidia and Efraim incurred expenses in the ejectment of the squatters in the properties.34 Nancy contended that they discovered the existence of the trust only after Nelidia's death.35
Atty. Lourdes Florentino (Atty. Florentino) testified that she was the one who drafted the Declaration of Trust upon Nelidia's request. She recalled that Nelidia admitted to her that she did not own the properties as these were actually Consuelo's and that eventually, ownership to said properties should be transferred to the respondents. Atty. Florentino informed Nelidia of the consequences of giving the properties to respondents as there are other heirs which would be left out. Nelidia insisted on the drafting of the trust declaration despite Atty. Florentino's advice.36 She confirmed that none of the respondents knew ofthe execution of the trust.37
Atty. Florentino asserted that the documents showing the revocation of the trust were not signed due to objections within the family.38 She averred that as far as she knew, Nelidia had custody of the titles to the properties.39 She stated that Nelidia wanted Efraim to properly manage the lots, and that Efraim himself admitted that he did not own the properties.40
Efraim, for his part, denied that he kept the titles to the properties41 or that he intended to transfer possession or ownership to others.42 He asserted that Nelidia held the titles at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Trust but that he had no idea if she still kept the said titles up to the time of her death.43 Even so, he stated that Josefina had the titles since Nelidia entrusted it to her.44 Furthermore, Efraim averred that after Nelidia's death, he paid the taxes for the properties.45 Nelidia did not inform the respondents that the properties were being held in trust for them.46
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: |
[Efraim] also belatedly assails the validity of the Declaration of Trust by raising the alleged failure of the [respondents] to accept the trust which is a mandatory requirement of the law. This argument is misleading because under Article 1446 of the New Civil Code, acceptance is dispensed with if the trust imposes no onerous condition upon the beneficiaries, and in such case acceptance is presumed. There being no onerous condition imposed upon the [respondents] under the Declaration of Trust, acceptance is no longer necessary as it is implied.The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Not having been effectively revoked, the Declaration of Trust is still valid and existing and, therefore, governs the rights of the parties over the parcels of land involved. Thus, upon the death of the trustee, ownership, both naked and beneficial, over these properties reverted back by operation of law to the beneficiaries of the trust, who are the [respondents] herein. [Corollarily], [Efraim] has no right to possess the subject properties not being the owner thereof nor his possession in tandem with any color of title over the said properties.50
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring NANCY O. MAGKAISA, CECILIA O. MAGKAISA, IMELDA O. MAGKAISA and MARISSA ODA the true and lawful owners of the properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-408005, T-408004 and T-408003 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite. Considering that these [TCTs] are in the name of Nelidia J. Daniel who is merely a Trustee of the said properties under the Declaration of Trust she executed on 6 September 1993 in favor of the plaintiffs, the Register of Deeds of Cavite is ORDERED to cancel the aforesaid [TCTs] and issue another one in the names of the [respondents] as pro indiviso co-owners.Aggrieved, Efraim filed a Motion for Reconsideration52 but it was denied in an Order53 dated July 5, 2006. He then appealed54 to the CA.
Defendant [Efraim] is ordered to surrender the possession over the said properties to the [respondents herein] and pay the latter the sum of PhP40,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
SO ORDERED.51
The main issue is whether or not the respondents are entitled to the reconveyance of the subject properties in their favor.Issues: I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN REQUIRING PETITIONER TO DELIVER POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO RESPONDENTS BEING CONTRARY [TO] RESPONDENT NANCY MAGKAISA'S ADMISSION THAT THE SUBJECT MANGGAHAN AND MEDICION PROPERTIES WERE IN THEIR POSSESSION AND THE SAID FINDINGS ARE BASED ON CONFLICTING AND MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS.II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN REQUIRING PETITIONER TO DELIVER THE TITLES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO RESPONDENTS WHEN THE SAID TITLES WERE IN [THE] POSSESSION [OF] JOSEFINA JIMENEZ, THE GRANDMOTHER OF RESPONDENTS AND NOT WITH PETITIONER. THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN AND ABSURD.III
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERRORS IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER HAS TO PAY RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY'S FEES BY THE FORMER'S REFUSAL TO SURRENDER THE TITLES AND POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. THE SAID FINDINGS ARE BASED ON CONJECTURE [AND HAVE] NO LEGAL BASIS.65
2. Trustee [Nelidia] desires to acknowledge and declare that she is not the true owner of the three (3) lots described in the First Whereas but she is holding them in trust for the Beneficiaries [respondents].81There is no contest that since the trust is now considered as terminated82 after the trustee's (Nelidia) death, the properties should be transferred to the names of the respondents as the beneficiaries of the said trust. Both the RTC and the CA uniformly arrived at this conclusion, and consequently ordered the transfer of possession of the lots to the respondents. This finding, however, should not prejudice an action, if any, which would involve the settlement of the estate of Consuelo and Nelidia, given that Efraim claimed (and which Atty. Florentino mentioned) that disinheritance or preterition may occur. Such matter should be resolved in a separate probate or intestate proceeding, whichever is applicable, and not in the case at bench.83 Since this is a Complaint for reconveyance, it is "an action which admits the registration of title of another party but claims that such registration was erroneous or wrongful. It seeks the transfer of the title to the rightful and legal owner, or to the party who has a superior right over it, without prejudice to innocent purchasers in good faith."84 Pursuant to the Declaration of Trust, the respondents have a superior right to reconveyance of the subject properties in their favor.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 27-60.
2 Id. at 7-20; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba.
3 Id. at 22-23.
4 Id. at 184-186; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando L. Felicen.
5 Id. at 240.
6 There is no notice if she is still alive or if she already passed away while the case is pending.
7Rollo, pp. 7-8.
8 Id. at 90-91.
9 Id. at 92-93.
10 Id. at 94-96.
11 Id. at 163-166.
12 Id. at 8.
13 Id. at 86-89.
14 Id. at 184.
15 Id. at 97.
16 Id. at 98.
17 Id. at 99; records, pp. 21-22.
18 Id. at 163-166.
19 Id. at 79-85.
20 Id. at 83.
21 Id. at 100-117.
22 Id. at 132-135.
23 Id. at 136-141.
24 Id. at 142-144.
25 Id. at 145-148.
26 Id. at 104.
27 Id. at 9, 184.
28 Id. at 113.
29 Records, p. 73.
30 TSN, May 22, 2000, pp. 13, 14, 17; July 14, 2000, p. 6.
31 TSN, July 14, 2000, p. 12.
32 TSN, May 22, 2000, p. 14; July 14, 2000, pp. 12-13.
33 TSN, May 22, 2000, pp. 17-18.
34 Id. at 18.
35 Id. at 19.
36 TSN, March 23, 2001, pp. 8-9, 14.
37 Id. at 15-16.
38 Id. at 26-27.
39 Id. at 29.
40 Id. at 32-33.
41 TSN, May 27, 2003, p. 9.
42 TSN, August 30, 2002, p. 33.
43 TSN, May 27, 2003, p. 6.
44 TSN, August 30, 2002, p. 34; May 27, 2003, pp. 10-11.
45 TSN, August 30, 2002, p. 38.
46 TSN, May 27, 2003, p. 17.
47Rollo, pp. 184-186.
48 Id. at 185.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id. at 186.
52 Id. at 187-202.
53 Id. at 240.
54 Id. at 241-242; CA rollo, p. 14.
55Rollo, pp. 7-20.
56 Id. at 19.
57 Id. at 15.
58 Id. at 15-16.
59 Id. at 17.
60 Id. at 18-19.
61 Id. at 19.
62 Id. at 329-338.
63 Id. at 22-23.
64 Id. at 27-56.
65 Id. at 38.
66 Id. at 40-42.
67 Id. at 42-43.
68 Id. at 118-131.
69 Id. at 43-44.
70 Id. at45-47.
71 Id. at 50-51.
72 Id. at 47-50.
73 Id. at 50.
74 Id. at 51-53.
75 Id. at 53.
76 Id. at 54-55.
77 Id. at 461.
78 Id. at 461-462.
79Cañezo v. Rojas, 563 Phil. 551, 563-564 (2007) citing Tigno v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 486, 497 (1997).
80 TSN, May 22, 2000, p. 12.
81Rollo, p. 88.
82See Estate of Cabacungan v. Laigo, 671 Phil. 132-163 (2011) citing Cañezo v. Rojas, 563 Phil. 551 (2007).
83See Spouses Salitico v. Heirs of Felix, G.R. No. 240199, April 10, 2019.
84Magalang v. Spouses Heretape, G.R. No. 199558, August 14, 2019 citing Toledo v. Court of Appeals, 765 Phil. 649, 659 (2015).
85Pascual v. Pangyarihan Ang, G.R. No. 235711, March 11, 2020 citing Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855 (2015).
86 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, § 1.cralawredlibrary