THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 202284, March 17, 2021
CRISTINA* R. SEMING, Petitioner, v. EMELITA P. ALAMAG, VIOLETA L. PAMAT, ROLANDO L. PAMAT AND FERNANDO L. PAMAT, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Cristina R. Seming seeks to reverse and set aside the July 22, 2011 Decision2 and May 21, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94393 that reversed and set aside the November 4, 2009 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Ligao City, in Civil Case No. 2432. The May 21, 2012 Resolution of the CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.5
Factual Antecedents:
The facts as culled from the records and appellate court's Decision are as follows:
In 2006, petitioner and her spouse, Eutiquio Seming (collectively, spouses Seming), filed before the RTC an action for specific performance and damages against the spouses Angel Pamat and Natividad Pamat (Natividad; collectively spouses Pamat). The case involved the one-half portion (subject property) of a parcel of land known as Lot 512-C located at Barangay Bay, Ligao City. Lot 512-C has an area of 1,542 square-meters, and covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. T-1347816 of the Registry of Deeds of Albay issued under the names of Jesusa Seming Vda. De Lopez (Jesusa), and the spouses Pamat.7
In their complaint,8 the spouses Seming alleged that sometime in 1977, they purchased Jesusa's share in Lot 512-C, which consisted of 771 square meters or one-half portion of the property. They then took possession of the said portion by constructing their conjugal dwelling thereon. Jesusa subsequently executed a Deed of Sale in their favor. Petitioner further alleged that, in the same year, she and her husband entered into a verbal agreement with the spouses Pamat concerning the purchase of the other half portion of Lot 512-C also measuring 771 square meters. The spouses Seming admitted that, at that time, the parties did not execute any written agreement reflecting the sale of the subject property in their favor.9
Meanwhile, a complaint for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 744) respecting Lot 512-C was filed by a certain Maria Aguilar Avecilla against Jesusa and the spouses Pamat. Petitioner averred that, with the consent of Jesusa and the Pamats, she agreed to shoulder all expenses of the litigation. The amount of litigation expenses spent by petitioner shall then be treated as part of petitioner's payment for the purchase price of the subject property. Additionally, the spouses Seming paid a portion of the said purchase price of the subject property both in cash and in kind.10
Sometime in 1990, petitioner and Natividad agreed that the payments made by petitioner and her husband, both in cash and in kind, shall serve as partial payment for a 200 square meter portion of the subject property.11 Petitioner supposedly executed a receipt whereby Natividad acknowledged receipt from petitioner of the amount of P6,000.00, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Said receipt was purportedly signed by Natividad and witnessed by Jesusa.
10-22-90 [RECEIVED] THE AMOUNT OF SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) FROM MRS. CHRISTINA SEMING, AS PARTIAL PAYMENT THE SAID LAND LOT NO. 512-C CONTAINING AREA 1542 TAX DECLARATION NO. 39. THIS AMOUNT IS PAYMENT ONLY FOR TWO LOTS.12
Said receipt was again signed by Natividad with Jesusa as witness.
Jan. 23 1991 Received the amount of six thousand pesos from Mrs. Christina Seming, as partial payment of the said land Lot no. 512-C containing area 1542 Tax Declaration no. 39. This amount is payment only for two lots.13
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises duly considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, ordering the substituted defendants to execute the necessary deed of sale on the 600 sq. m. portion of Lot No. 512-C appertaining to defendant Natividad Pamat consisting of seven hundred seventy one (771) square meters, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134781 in favor of the plaintiffs, within fifteen (15) days from the finality of this decision.The RTC held that there was a perfected contract of sale between petitioner and Natividad. It noted that all the elements in a Contract of Sale, which are: "(a) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the [price]; (b) determinate subject matter; and (c) [price] certain in money or its equivalent,"23 are present.
Further, the substituted defendants are hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P40,000 as nominal damages, and another sum of P60,000.00 for attorney's fees.
Costs against the defendants.
SO ORDERED.22
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Ligao City, Albay, Branch 13, Civil Action No. 2432 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint against appellants is DISMISSED.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe CA held that there was no meeting of the minds between petitioner and the spouses Pamat as to the transfer and sale of the subject property in her favor. The CA noted petitioner's own admission that she rejected the offer of sale of Natividad when she undertook to pay the litigation expenses in Civil Case No. 744. The CA further held that petitioner failed to prove that Natividad agreed to transfer her ownership over the subject property in exchange for a consideration to be paid in cash and in kind.31 The CA explained, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.30
x x x x the insistence of appellee Christina Seming that the financial aid she extended to Natividad Pamat formed part of her payment of the purchase price of the subject portion does not sit well with this Court. There was no evidence that Natividad Pamat agreed to the arrangement that the financial aid extended to her would be treated as consideration therefor.32The appellate court also found that while petitioner was in possession of a specific portion of Lot 512-C, said portion specifically pertained to the portion formerly owned by Jesusa, and not on the subject portion owned by Natividad. It pointed out that the Compromise Agreement between the parties even expressly stated that the portion over which petitioner had possession of, and where she constructed a conjugal dwelling thereon, pertained to the share of Jesusa in Lot 512-C.
The receipts presented by appellees are not sufficient proof that there was a contract of sale. There are two reasons why this Court is not prepared to give weight to the receipts presented by the appellees: First. the receipts do not specifically state what payment of Php6,000.00 was for. The term "partial payment" is vague as it may pertain to any kind of transaction, like sale, lease, etc. Second, even if it were to be assumed that the amounts paid were for the sale of a parcel of land, the exact portion of the lot sold to appellees was not specified. The phrase, "[t]his amount is payment only for two lots," is ambiguous and does not define the lots which are supposedly the subject of the sale. It is settled that the object of a contract must be determinate - it must be particularly designated or physically segregated from all the others of the same class. All said, the receipts do not in any way bolster appellees' claim that there was a perfected contract of sale.35The CA also deleted the awards of nominal damages and attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal basis.36
Petitioner insists that the CA committed error when it ruled that no perfected contract of sale existed between the parties. Anent the element of consent, petitioner points out that the CA overlooked the sworn statement39 of Jesusa wherein she averred the following: (1) that she and Natividad already sold to petitioner their respective shares in Lot 512-C; and (2) petitioner and her family have been occupying the entire area of Lot 512-C, and have planted trees thereon since 1977. Petitioner also emphasizes that respondents themselves have admitted during pre-trial that petitioner and her husband introduced a concrete pavement on the subject property. Taking all of these circumstances together, petitioner concludes that a binding obligation has been undertaken by respondents - to convey and transfer to petitioner their share in Lot 512-C.I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT OF SALE OVER LOT 512-C.II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE RECEIPTS MARKED AS EXHIBITS 'B' AND 'B-1' WERE NOT PROPERLY PROVED AND WERE THUS INADMISSIBLE.38
x x x x the 'two lots' being referred to in the exhibits, were adequately explained by Cristina Seming when she testified. One lot, as testified and clarified, refer to a 100 square meter portion of Lot 512-C, half of which was owned by Natividad Pamat. Thus, two lots refer to a 200 square meter portion of Lot 512-C to be taken from the share of Natividad Pamat.40Petitioner also asserts that the contract was supported by a price certain in money or its equivalent, as clearly indicated in the October 22, 1990 and January 23, 1991 receipts.41
The signatures of Natividad on the October 22, 1990 and January 23, 1991 receipts are forgeries. |
Section 20. Proof of private documents. - Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:Accordingly, "before a private document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had previously confessed execution thereof."45
(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
ATTY. BALMACEDAThe foregoing testimony showed that petitioner herself executed the subject receipts and were supposedly signed by Natividad in her presence with Jesusa as witness. Interestingly, the assertion that the petitioner herself executed these receipts was never questioned nor denied by the parties in this case. On this point, as the receipts were identified and authenticated by petitioner, being the maker thereof, it would appear that the requirements under the aforecited rule has been satisfied.
Q- x x x Madam Witness, do you have any proof as to that agreement that you have made with Natividad Pamat in 1990?
WITNESS
A- Yes, I have.
Q- And what is that proof, Madam Witness?
A- In 1990 I made a receipt for the two (2) lots amounting to P6,000.00 for the two (2) lots. And then in 1991, I again made another receipt which I just copied from that first receipt that I made or my child made and there stated is the amount of another P6,000.00.
Q- Do you have these receipts Madam Witness?
A- Yes, Sir.
Q- Can you show it to us?
INTERPRETER:
Witness is getting from her possession a bunch of document [sic] still inside a plastic transparent cover.
ATTY. BALMACEDA
Q- Okay, when you said receipt, Madam Witness, are you referring to this yellow pad?
A- Yes, that is what I am referring to.
x x x
ATTY. REGALA
The photocopies have already been marked as Exhibits "B" and "B-1."
x x x
Q- Now, Madam Witness, let us go first to Exhibit "B". There is a signature on the lower rightmost portion, can you tell us whose signature appears on the said document?
A- That is the signature or the handwriting of Natividad Pamat.
Q- How do you know that this is the signature of Natividad Pamat?
A- It is because during that time when we made the computation, she was there present and I told her to sign that one.
x x x
Q- There is also a signature here on the lower leftmost portion of Exhibit "B", do you know whose signature appears on this document?
A- That is the signature of Josefina Seming as witness because during that time, she was also present because she wanted to borrow money from me. So, I asked her to be a witness.
x x x x46
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.Natividad herself, including her daughter, Emelita, denied the genuineness of the former's signatures in one of the receipts. In particular, Emelita testified:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
DIRECT EXAMINATIONEvidently, the foregoing testimonial evidence adduced by respondents served to debunk the genuineness of a handwriting as set forth by Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, petitioner made no comparison at all of Natividad's signatures before the RTC. She also did not present any witness, other than herself, to testify on the same. Notably, no other evidence was presented to validate the genuineness of Natividad's signatures on the receipts.
ATTY. REGALA
Madam Witness, you are the daughter of Natividad Pamat?
WIINESS
A- Yes sir.
Q- Now, being the daughter of Natividad Pamat[,] are you familiar of her handwriting and signature?
A- Yes sir.
x x x
Q- According to you, you are the daughter of Natividad Pamat and you are familiar with Natividad Pamat's handwriting and signature. I am going to show to you purportedly the handwriting and signature of Natividad Pamat, will you tell us that this signature is in fact the handwriting and signature of Natividad Pamat?
x x x
ATTY. REGALA
Witness is examining Exhibit B found on page ten of the record.
WITNESS
A- The first signature as read "Natividad Pamat I am definitely sure that this is not the signature of my mother especially the signature below which is read as N.Pamat because my mother will never sign N.Pamat.
Q- Your basis in saying that the signature in Exhibit B because she never signed that signature. How about the purported signature of Natividad Pamat on the upper portion, what is your basis that the full signature Natividad Pamat is not your mother's signature?
A- I could say that the signature appearing on the first receipt which reads Natividad Pamat is not the signature of my mother because I am very familiar of my mother's signature x x x x49
DIRECT EXAMINATIONAs correctly observed by the CA, while it would appear that Violeta had identified the signatures appearing on the receipt as her mother's, she nonetheless likewise admitted that she had never seen her mother affix her signature before. Thus, her testimony did not satisfy the requirements under Section 22, Rule 132 as cited above.
Q- Madame Witness, if you will be shown a document containing a signature, will you be able to distinguish if that signature belongs to your mother?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- I am showing to you a document which was already marked as Exhibit "B", and found on page 10 of the record. On the lower portion is Exhibit "B-1". I am showing to you a signature on Exhibit "B", will you examine this signature based on your familiarity with the signature of your mother and tell us if this is the signature of your mother Natividad Pamat?
INTERPRETER
Witness is carefully examining the signature pointed to by Atty. Regala.
A- This one is the signature of my mother.
INTERPRETER
Witness pointed to the signature which reads Natividad Pamat.
ATTY. REGALA
Q- How did you know that this is the signature of your mother Natividad Pamat?
WITNESS
A- Because my mother will not or do not sign her name with the use of initial. She writes her full name.
Q- Have you seen your mother writes [sic) her signature?
A- No, sir.
Q- How about this handwriting, will you tell us if this is the handwriting of your mother?
A- That is not my mother's handwriting.
x x x
Q- Madam Witness, so, the only reason, Madame Witness, that you were able to conclude that this is the signature of your mother it's because your mother does not write the initial?
WITNESS
A- Yes, sir.
Q- No other reason?
A- No other reason.
x x x x50
As such, the Court disagrees with the allegation of the spouses that the trial court should have examined their signatures in the pleadings as against the alleged forged signatures in the documents. No accurate analysis may be given considering the long period between the time each of them were accomplished. To reiterate, the closeness or proximity of the time in which the standards used to that of the inspected signature is essential to arrive at an accurate analysis and conclusion. Moreover, the passing of time and the increase in age may have a decisive influence in the writing characteristics of Asuncion and Reynaldo.52Moreover, in Pando v. Vda. de Vidal,53 we held that "the passing of time and the increase in age may have a decisive influence in the writing characteristics of a person. It is for these reasons that the authorities are of the opinion that in order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature."54
Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term 'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the credible evidence.' Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.55For bearing forged signatures of Natividad, the October 22, 1990 and January 23, 1991 receipts are null and void, and thus, should not be given evidentiary weight and credence.
There is no contract of sale between petitioner and Natividad. |
"A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself/herself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. Article 1458 of the Civil Code, in turn, defines a sale as a contract whereby one of the contracting parties, i.e., the seller, obligates himself/herself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party, i.e., the buyer, obligates himself/herself to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent."56"The elements of a contract of sale are: a] consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; b] determinate subject matter; and c] price certain in money or its equivalent."57 "A contract of sale is a consensual contract. Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price."58
ATTY. BALMACEDAHowever, upon further questioning by counsel, Jesusa admitted that while the parties intended to execute a document for the sale of Lot 512-C after the resolution of Civil Case No. 744, said document of sale was only signed and executed by and between Jesusa and petitioner. Jesusa then expressly admitted that Natividad did not sign the document of sale insofar as her portion of Lot 512-C is concerned, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
Q- And, Madam Witness do you know, since already, since you already sold your portion in Lot 512-C to Christina Seming, do you know what happened to the other portion which you were not the owner of said portion (sic)?
A- Yes, Sir.
Q- What happened with that portion of the lot owned by Natividad Pamat?
A- Since both of us did not have money for the case filed against us, she also sold that property.
Q- To whom did she sell a portion of Lot 512-C?
A- Also to Christina because it was she who shouldered the expenses during that time when there was a pending case against us.
Q- And how do you know this fact that Natividad Pamat also sold her portion of Lot 512-C to Christina Seming?
A- It was because we had a conversation, the three of us, Natividad, myself and Christina and we were talking about how we could settle the problem of the case if we did not have money that time for the litigation expenses and so, that agreement came about because it was Christina who shouldered the litigation expenses.
Q- And can you tell us Madam Witness when was the agreement or when did this conversations regarding the sale of the lot to Christina Seming?
A- In the year 1977.59
ATTY. BALMACEDAThe foregoing testimony of petitioner also reveals that Jesusa and Natividad offered for sale to petitioner only half of Lot 512-C, which petitioner even initially rejected, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
Q- Now Madam Witness you earlier stated that you had already sold your portion of the Lot 512-C to the plaintiff Christina Seming, do you have any document to prove that indeed that your property was already sold?
A- The documents are in possession of Christina.
x x x
Q- Now, can you tell us what this document is about regarding the sale of your portion in favor of Christina Seming?
A- It was agreed by us that after the litigation, that is the only time that we will execute a document but what happened was that, after the litigation, when we executed that document, only I who signed in that document. Natividad Pamat did not sign the document.60
ATTY. BALMACEDAMoreover, in a Compromise Agreement62 dated January 10, 2006 entered into by Jesusa, Natividad and petitioner, it was expressly stated that petitioner and her husband were only in possession of the one-half portion of the lot belonging to Jesusa, viz.:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
Q- Can you tell us how you came to reside in that Lot 512-C in 1977?
A- In 1977, Natividad Pamat and Jesusa Seming approached me and sought my help because during that time they had a case with Maria Aguilar.
Q- And what was your response to their request?
A- When they approached me and sought my help they were offering half of the property to me in exchange of whatever help I might give them. However, I told them that I do not want half of the share of the property. I told them that I will give them all the assistance and help but that in return if ever they would want that property sold, that it be sold to me.
Q- And did that arrangement push through, Madam Witness?
A- Yes, Sir. In the year 1977 I started residing in that place, in that lot and it was also during that year that I started spending for the case that had with Maria Aguilar and also I was also giving them the amount needed for their daily needs or daily expenses.61
That based on the Sketch/Special Plan (Annex "A") of Engr. Lorenzana, dated January 3, 2006, at the instance of plaintiff Natividad Pamat and Jesusa Seming Lopez, the said lot 512-C has already been subdivided conformably with the aforesaid division and partition, and the respective shares of Natividad Pamat and Jesusa Seming Lopez is now delineated with a concrete fence, indicating that the one-half portion thereof which is presently in the possession of defendants Spouses Eutiquio Seming and Christina Seming shall be share of defendant Jesusa Seming Lopez as spelled out in par. 2 hereof, and the other half thereof shall go to plaintiff Natividad Lopez, hence, the parties agree that said concrete fence shall be the boundary of the plaintiffs' share and that of defendant Jesusa Seming Lopez's share; x x x x63The foregoing testimonies of Jesusa and petitioner may serve to indicate that while there may have been initial talks as to the sale of Lot 512-C, no actual transfer or conveyance of Natividad's portion of Lot 512-C ever took place. In fact, petitioner only occupied and built her conjugal dwelling on Jesusa's portion of Lot 512-C. Moreover, as mentioned by Jesusa in her testimony, a document of sale exists only insofar as the latter's portion of the lot is concerned. It also bears emphasizing that the above Compromise Agreement was executed in 2006, or almost three decades after the supposed sale of Lot 512-C was entered into by Jesusa, the spouses Pamat, and petitioner. Interestingly, petitioner, despite being a party to the Compromise Agreement, failed to mention therein the supposed sale of Lot 512-C to her, or, at the very least, the alleged fact that she was likewise in possession of Natividad's half-portion of Lot 512-C.
Determinate Subject Matter and Price Certain in Money. |
Endnotes:
* Spelled as Christina in some parts of the records.
** Designated as additional Member per raffle dated September 11, 2019 vice J. Inting who recused himself; his sister, J. Socorro B. Inting, concurred in the assailed CA Decision.
1Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2 Id. at 24-45; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Socorro B. Inting.
3 Id. at 22-23.
4 Id. at 46-63.
5 Id. at 102-117.
6 Records, p. 9.
7Rollo, pp. 24-25.
8 Records, pp. 2-8.
9 Id. at 2-3.
10Rollo, p. 25.
11 Id.
12 Records, p. 10.
13 Id.
14Rollo, pp. 25-26.
15 Id. at 26.
16 Records, pp. 11-12.
17Rollo, p. 26.
18 Records, pp. 21-27.
19 Id. at 40-41.
20 Id. at 228.
21Rollo, pp. 46-63.
22 Id. at 63.
23 Id. at 59.
24 Id. at 59-60.
25 Id. at 60.
26 Id. at 61.
27 Id. at 62.
28 Id. at 62-63.
29 Id. at 24-45.
30 Id. at 44-45.
31 Id. at 32.
32 Id. at 33.
33 Id. at 33-38.
34 Id. at 38-42.
35 Id. at 43-44.
36 Id. at 44.
37 Id. at 22-23.
38 Id. at 7.
39Records, pp. 174-175.
40Rollo, p. 11.
41 Id. at 12.
42 Id. at 12-14.
43 Id. at 151-157.
44Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265-267 (2017).
45Catapang v. Lipa Bank, G.R. No. 240645, January 27, 2020. Emphasis supplied.
46 TSN, February 1, 2007, pp. 20-24. Emphasis supplied.
47Spouses Coronel v. Quesada, G.R. No. 237465, October 7, 2019.
48Heirs of Bucton v. Spouses Go, 721 Phil. 851, 860 (2013).
49 TSN, July 21, 2008, pp 4-6. Emphasis supplied.
50 TSN, August 4, 2008, 9-12. Emphasis supplied.
51 Supra note 47.
52 Id.
53 91 Phil. 126 (1952).
54 Id. at 131.
55Tan, Jr. v. Hosana, 780 Phil. 258, 266 (2016).
56Uy v. Heirs of Uy-Renales, G.R. No. 227460, December 5, 2019.
57Riosa v. Tabaco La Suerte Corporation, 720 Phil. 586, 596 (2013).
58Uy v. Heirs of Uy-Renales, supra.
59 TSN, September 27, 2006, pp. 14-16.
60 Id. at 19-20. Emphasis supplied.
61 TSN, February 1, 2007, pp. 12-13. Emphasis supplied.
62 Records, pp. 11-12.
63 Id. at 11.
64 TSN, September 27, 2006, p. 24.
65 TSN, May 15, 2008, pp. 21-22.
66 TSN, June 26, 2008, pp. 9-13.
67Records, pp. 157-159.
68 Id. at 173.
69 Art. 1349 of the Civil Code, which states:
The object of every contract must be determinate, as to its kind. The fact that the quantity is not determinate shall not be an obstacle to the existence of the contract, provided it is possible to determine the same, without the need of a new contract between the parties.
70 Article 1460 of the Civil Code, which states:
Art. 1460. A thing is determinate when it is particularly designated or physically segregated from all others of the same class.
The requisite that a thing be determinate is satisfied if at the time the contract is entered into, the thing is capable of being made determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties.cralawredlibrary