SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 242127, September 15, 2021
EVANGELINE ENGAO ASIS, HEIRS OF FELICITATION ENGAO-BAUTISTA, NAMELY: FERNANDO B. BAUTISTA, AGUEDA FE B. BARREDO, FERNANDO E. BAUSTISTA, JR., AND AMADO REX E. BAUTISTA, HEIRS OF ERMA ENGAO TROCINO, NAMELY: FELIPE E. TROCINO AND PAMELA T. DELA CRUZ, AND CESAR A. ENGAO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ROSELLO CALIGNAWAN, NAMELY: ERLINDA A. CALIGNAWAN, VINCENT A. CALIGNAWAN, LINDRO A. CALIGNAWAN, SHERMAN A. CALIGNAWAN, MARVI A. CALIGNAWAN, IAN LOYD A. CALIGNAWAN, GARY MARTIN A. CALIGNAWAN, AND MARY ROSE A. CALIGNAWAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Petitioners Evangeline Engao Asis (Evangeline), Heirs of Felicitation Engao-Bautista (Felicitation heirs), namely Fernando B. Bautista, Agueda Fe B. Bautista, Fernando E. Bautista, Jr., and Amado Rex E. Bautista, Heirs of Erma Engao Trocino (Erma heirs) namely Felipe E. Trocino and Pamela T. Dela Cruz, and Cesar A. Engao (Cesar), (collectively, petitioners) filed the instant Petition for Review1 against respondents Heirs of Rosello Calignawan (respondents), namely Erlinda, Vincent, Lindro, Sherman, Marvi, Ian Loyd, Gary Martin and Maiy Rose, all surnamed Calignawan, assailing the January 18, 2018 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which granted the appeal of the Rosello heirs, and consequently reversed and set aside the December 16, 2009 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 89-01-005, a case for declaration of nullity of documents, partition and damages with preliminary injunction.
The Antecedents:
The spouses Cesario (Cesar! o) and Roman a Engao (R om an a; collectively, Spouses Engao) begot two children, namely Felipe Engao (Felipe) and Angeles Engao-Calignawan (Angeles). Felipe had four children, herein petitioner Evangeline, Erma Engao-Trocino (Erma), Felicitation Engao-Bautista (Felicitation), and petitioner Cesar (collectively, Felipe heirs). Meanwhile Rosello Calignawan (Rosello),4 father of herein respondents, grew up with the spouses Vicente (Vicente) and Angeles in Tacloban City.
Lot No. 581 and Lot No. 2064 (subject properties) located in M.H. del Pilar Street, Tacloban City were registered under the names of Romana and Angeles and were originally covered by TCT No. T-1084 (TCT T-1084)5 and TCT No. T-1051 (TCT T-1051),6 respectively.
The controversy stemmed from Rosello's Complaint7 for declaration of nullity of documents, partition and damages against Evangeline, Felicitation, Erma, Cesar and Felipe. He alleged that when Romana died in 1975, Angeles became the owner of the three-fourths portion of the subject properties with one-half as her own share and one-fourth was as inheritance from Romana. The remaining one-fourth belonged to Felipe. Rosello also averred that Angeles executed a Deed of Donation in his favor on May 25, 1984, hence, he is entitled to a share in the subject properties.8
While Rosello was updating the tax declarations of the subject properties in 1988, he discovered that the certificates of title (TCT T-1084 and TCT T-1051) and the tax declarations corresponding to the subject properties had already been cancelled. To his surprise, new transfer certificates of title over the subject properties were issued, particularly TCT T-26416,9 TCT T- 26418,10 TCT T-26419,11 and TCT T-2641512 in the name of Felicitation, Erma, Evangeline, and his own name, respectively, whereas TCT T-2641713 was registered in favor of Felicitation, Erma, Evangeline, Cesar and Rosello, collectively.
Moreover, Rosello unearthed a Deed of Adjudication of the Estate of the Deceased Persons14 (Deed of Adjudication) and a Deed of Consolidation and Subdivision of Real Properties15 (Deed of Consolidation), both dated December 2, 1982, which facilitated the transfer of the subject properties and resulted in the cancellation of the original certificates of title and the eventual issuance of the new ones. Evident on the face of the documents were the names and signatures of Rosello, Evangeline, Erma, Felicitation and Cesar, However, Rosello claimed that his signature appearing thereon was a forgery. He further contended that Angeles and Felipe were very much alive when said documents were executed, hence, Evangeline, Erma, Felicitation and Cesar had no right to inherit or adjudicate the subject properties among themselves during that time.
These revelations prompted Rosello to file a Complaint16 for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Partition and Damages with Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Palo, Leyte, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 89-01-005.
Felipe, in his Answer,17 argued in this wise: (a) when Romana died, she was survived by Felipe and Angeles; (b) Angeles died without issue, and her nearest kin was Felipe; (c) Rosello was neither a natural nor adoptive child of the spouses Vicente and Angeles, but was merely taken in by the latter to their household out of pity; (d) the Deed of Donation executed by Angeles in favor of Rosello was spurious; and (e) on January 30, 1989, the estate of the Spouses Engao was settled in Special Proceeding No. 1425.
The Felipe heirs manifested in their separate Answer18 that they agreed to partition the subject properties among themselves and Rosello. The Deed of Adjudication In 1982 was cancelled and superseded by an Extrajudicial Settlement19 in 1985 where they, together with Rosello, affixed their signatures in order to transfer and partition the subject properties among themselves. They insisted that either the Deed of Donation was a forgery or that the signature of Angeles was obtained through undue influence. They also claimed that there was impossibility of having the document notarized before a notary public in Tanauan, Leyte which was considerably remote from the location of Angeles who was frail and already too weak to travel such distance.
The Pre-Trial Order20 limited the issues to the following:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The trial court noted that this suit had been shuffled and passed from one RTC branch to another until it was submitted for decision. Judge Rogelio C. Sescon of the RTC. Branch 9 of Tacioban City remarked that he had no opportunity to personally see the demeanor or hear the testimonies of the witnesses. Nonetheless, Judge Sescon assured that he would judiciously examine the transcript of stenographic notes, die pleadings and exhibits, and test the credibility based on common experience and observation of mankind.22 Notably, in arriving at its decision, the trial court iterated that it was guided by the issues as contained in the Pre-Trial Order,23 the road map of the trial.24
1. Issues common to all parties: a)Whether or not the properties in question [were] owned by Spouses Cesario Engao and his wife Romana Engao or by Romana Engao and Anagles Engao Calignawan; b) Whether or not plaintiff is the only son and heir of Angeles Engao Calignawan; c) Whether or not the Deed of Donation executed by Angeles Calignawan in favor of plaintiff is valid;2. Issues as between plaintiff and defendant Felipe Engao; a) Whether or not the ORDER of this Court declaring Felipe Engao the only heir of Cesario and Romana Engao and Angeles Engao and the adjudication of the properties including the properties in question to said Felipe Engao is already final and irrevocable thereby plaintiff is excluded of his right to claim interest and or ownership over the land in question. b) Whether or not plaintiff is liable to account in favor of defendant Felipe Engao the income and or fruits of the properties in the possession of plaintiff;3. Issues as between plaintiff and defendants aside from Felipe Engao; a) Whether or not the documents subject in this case to be nullified are valid and with force and effect.21
The firm and sure strokes become shaky and tentative. In these two documents, there Is no showing of an appreciable change in Angeles Calignawan's signature from 1954 when she signed the Designation of Beneficiary to 1984 or more than thirty years later when she allegedly signed the Deed of Donation. There is likewise no indication that the person who affixed the signature has just been operated on and was suffering from sickness.To the trial court, these factors overcame the legal presumption of due execution in favor of a document acknowledged before a notary public. Hence, it concluded that the Deed of Donation was not executed by Angeles, and was thus null and void.32
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Aggrieved, Rosello filed a Notice of Appeal and eventually the Appellant's Brief45 which challenged the trial court's decision. Rosello primarily contended that the trial court erred in declaring the Deed of Donation as null and void.
(1) The Deed of Donation (Exh. A) is hereby declared null and void and of no legal effect;
(2) Plaintiff Rosello or Roselio Calignawan is hereby declared not a son, either natural or adoptive, of the Spouses Vicente and Angeles Calignawan;
(3) Plaintiff is hereby ordered to vacate the portions of the subject properties he is occupying by virtue of the Deed of Donation and/or his claim as heir of Angeles Engao-Calignawan and he is further ordered to surrender the same to the defendants:
(4) The Deed of Adjudication of the Estate of Deceased Persons (Exh. S: Exh. 3), Deed of Consolidation and Subdivision of Real Properties (Exh. T; Exh. 4) and Extrajudicial Settlement (Exh. W; Exh. 5 or Annex 1 of Answer) are declared null and void and of no legal effect and the Application for Approval of A Simple Subdivision Project (Exh. U; Exh. 27), Vicinity Map (Exh. V; Exh. 28) and Sketch Plan (Exh. V-l; Exh. 28-a) are annulled and of no legal effect;
(5) The following certificates of title and tax declarations are annulled and rendered of no legal effect; TCT No. T-26415 (Exh. N; Exh. 22), TCT No. T- 26416 (Exh. O; Exh. 23), TCT No. T-24617 (Exh. P; Exh, 24), TCT No. T- 26418 (Exh. Q, Exh. 25), TCT No. T-26419 (Exh. R; Exh. 26), Tax Declaration No. 29419 (Exh I; Exh. 17), Tax Delcaration No. 29420 (Exh. J; Exh. 18), Tax Delcaration No. 29421 (Exh. K; Exh. 19), Tax Declaration No. 29422 (Exh. L; Exh. 20) and Tax Declaration No. 29423 (Exh. M; Exh. 21);
(6) The following certificates of title and tax declarations in the names of Romana Engao and Angeles Calignawan are reinstated: TCT No. T-1051 (Exh. B; Exh. 11), TCT No. 1084 (Exh. C; Exh. 12), Tax Declaration No. 26286 (Exh. E; Exh. 14) and Tax Declaration No. 26285 (Exh. F; Exh. 15);
(7) Defendants are directed to submit a project of partition of the subject properties, taking into consideration and respecting the de-facto partition, unless any of them is prejudiced thereby, failing which the provisions of Rule 69 of the Rules of Court would apply;
(8) The other claims of the parties are hereby dismissed for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.44
There is identity of parties in both cases. All the parties in the instant case were also the parties in Civil Case No. B-461. Although the defendant in Civil Case No. B-461 was Felipe, upon his death, he was substituted by his heixs. Hence, there is here identity of parties.The similarity as to parties and issues in the case of Heirs of Felipe Engao with the instant case led the appellate court to hold that the decree of this Court as to the validity of the Deed of Donation is already binding and conclusive in this present case.
There is also identity of issues in both cases.
The genuineness of the subject Deed of Donation was put in issue in Civil Case No. B-461. This was a case filed by Rosello against the heirs of Felipe for ownership, possession and accounting of seven (7) of the properties enumerated in the Deed of Donation. Rosello banked on the Deed of Donation to support his claim over the said properties. The instant case, on the other hand, involves the three (3) other properties also listed therein. Although what are questioned herein are the validity of the Deed of Adjudication and the Deed of Consolidation, he raised that he has a right also to the properties by virtue of the Deed of Donation. Hence, the adjudication of validity of the said deed in Civil Case No. B-461 constitutes res judicata in this case, x x x.55
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 16 December 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9 , Tacloban City in Civil Case No. 89-01-005, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court RESOLVES to:This turn of events propelled the petitioners to file the instant Petition for Review.57
(8) DECLARE:
(8) the Deed of Donation as valid;
(8) Rosello Calignawan and the heirs of Felipe as co-owners of Lot Nos. 581, 2064, and 5604-A-6. Rosello Calignawan is the owner of the three-fourth (Va) portion, while the remaining one-fourth (!4) portion shall pertain to the heirs of Felipe;
(8) the Deed of Adjudication of the Estate of the deceased Persons, Deed of Consolidation and Subdivision of Real Properties, the Extra-judicial Settlement, TCT No. T-26415, TCT No. T-26416, TCT No. T-24617, TCT No. T-26418, TCT No. T-26419, Tax Declaration No. 29419, Tax Declaration No. 29420, Tax Declaration No. 29421, Tax Declaration No. 29422, and Tax Declaration No. 29423, as null and void;
(8) ORDER:
(8) CANCELLATION of TCT No. T-26415, TCT No. T-26416, TCT No. T-24617, TCT No. T-26418, TCT No. T-26419, Tax Declaration No. 29419, Tax Declaration No. 29420, Tax Declaration No. 29421, Tax Declaration No. 29422, and Tax Declaration No. 29423;
(8) REINSTATEMENT of TCT No. T-1051, TCT No. 1084, Tax Declaration No. 26286, and Tax Declaration No. 26285 in the name of Angeles E. Calignawan and Romana V. Engao;
(8) REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Tacloban
City;
(8) EXECUTION by the parties of the proper project of partition, within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt hereof, and SUBMIT the same to the court a quo for approval. In case the parties cannot come up with the required project of partition within the priod above-stated, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Tacloban City is DIRECTED to immediately CONSTITUTE and
APPOINT the commissioners as provided under Section 3, Rules 69 of the Rules of Court, to effect the partition in accordance with Our ruling.
SO ORDERED.56
A.
ROSELLO CALIGNAWAN, RESPONDENTS' PRECEDESSOR, SPLIT I IIS CAUSE OF ACTION BY FILING TWO SEPARATE COMPLAINTS BEFORE TWO DIFFERENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, THUS:
1. x x x;
2. x x x.
PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSOR COMMITTED WILFUL (sic) FORUM-SHOPPING AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR IN RULING OTHERWISE.B
CIVIL CASE NO. 89-01-005 WAS FILED BY ROSELLO CALIGNAWAN ON JANUARY 10. 1989 BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRLAL COURT, BRANCH 9, TACLOBAN CITY, AND DECIDED ON DECEMBER 16, 2009. CIVIL CASE NO. B-92-10-461 WAS FILED BY ROSELLO CALIGNAWAN ON OCTOBER 28,1992 BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 15, BURAUEN, LEYTE, AND DECIDED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1998. PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT EACH COURT WAS SUPREME IN ITS OWN JURISDICTION, NO DECISION TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER THE OTHER, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR IN SUBSUMING THE DECISION OF THE RTC TACLOBAN TO THAT OF THE RTC BURAUEN.C.
PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, TACLOBAN CITY, AFTER THEIR PREDECESSOR FILED TWO SEPARATE COMPLAINTS BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE AND THEY CANNOT INVOKE THEIR PRECEDESSOR'S VIOLATION OF THE RULES FOR THEIR. BENEFIT.D.
PETITIONERS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR IN EXERCISING UNWARRANTED LIBERALITY AND BENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHEN IT ADM[I]TTED RESPONDENTS' APPELLANTS' BRIEF DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME TO FILE BRIEF WITHOUT RESPONDENTS FILING THEIR BRIEF OR AT LEAST A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME.
SECTION 12. Extension of Time for Filing Briefs. — Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is Sled before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.In Levi Strauss & Co v. Blancaflor (Blancaflor),69 this Court enunciated that motions for extension of time are not granted as a matter of right but are left to the sound discretion of the court. For one, there must be a good and sufficient cause as required by said provision, or a compelling reason as case laws explain, In order that a request for time may be granted. Following Blancaflor, the determination of whether or not the reason forwarded by the movant is compelling enough should be left to the sound discretion of the court.
Parties invoking the application of res judicata must establish the following elements:These four elements are present in this case. First, the decision of the RTC of Burauen had already attained finality by virtue of the Resolution of this Court denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration with finality. Second, said RTC of Burauen acquired jurisdiction over the lots which were outside Tacloban City as well as jurisdiction over the parties when Rosello filed his Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and when petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves to the court's authority by filing their answer and actively participating in the proceedings thereon. Third, the disposition of the RTC of Burauen as to the validity of the Deed of Donation was based on the merits as it comprehensively considered the evidence and testimonies which pointed to the document's validity. It settled the issue of the alleged forgery and the ownership of Angeles in said Decision.80 Lastly, both the Complaints for Declaration of Nullity and Recovery of Ownership involved the petitioners and respondents or their predecessors at the outset and-had similar causes of action as previously mentioned during the discussion of the issue of forum-shopping. Monterona v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc,81 relevantly holds that:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
there must be as between the first and second action identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.78
Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.82 (Emphasis supplied)In this case. We recognize the immutability of the RTC of Burauen's Decision especially when it adjudicated a matter on the merits, which is also an issue in this case. By the operation of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, We hold that the Deed of Donation is valid.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 11-61.
2 Id. at 64-80; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Louis P. Acosta.
3 Id. at 112-133; penned by Judge Rogelio C. Sescon.
4 Referred to as Roselio in other parts of the records.
5 Records, p. 11.
6 Id. at 12".
7Rollo, pp. 94-103. See also Amended Complaint, records, p. 208.
8 Id. at 65.
9 Records, p. 23.
10 Id. at 25.
11 Id. at 26.
12 Id. at 22.
13 Id. at 24.
14 Id. at 258-259.
15 Id. at 260-261.
16 Supra note 7.
17 Records, pp. 42-46.
18 Id. at 56-63.
19 Id. at 89.
20 Id. at 167-169.
21 Id. at 168-169.
22Rollo, pp. 127.
23 Supra note 20.
24Rollo, p. 128.
25 Supra note 3.
26Rollo, pp. 128-129.
27 Id. at 129.
28 Id. at 129-130.
29 Id. at 130.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33Rollo, pp. 130-131.
34 Supra note 14.
35 Supra note 15.
36 Supra note 19.
37Rollo, p. 131.
38 Id. at 132.
39 Citing CIVIL CODE, Article 980.
40 Citing CIVIL CODE, Articles 1003 and 1004.
41 Citing CIVIL CODE, Articles 979 and 980,
42 Supra note 38.
43Rollo, pp. 131-132.
44 Id. at 132-133.
45 CA rollo, pp. 203-214.
46Rollo, pp. 64-80.
47 Records, pp. 258-259.
48 Id. at 260-261.
49 Id. at 89.
50 Id. at 33-35.
51 CA rollo, pp. 203-214.
52 Id. at 279-283.
53 ARTICLE 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the object of a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts. No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.
x x x x.
54 CA rollo, p. 271.
55Rollo, p. 75.
56 Id. at 78-80.
57 Id. at 11-61.
58 Id. at 36-37.
59 Id. at 94-103.
60 Id. at 134-140
61 Id. at 38-41.
62 Id. at 187-190.
63 Id. at 217-222.
64 See, e.g. Dela Rosa Liner, Inc. v. Borela, 765 Phil 258 (2015).
65Aguilar v. O'Pallick, 715 Phil. 443,453 (2013), citing Munsalud vs. National Housing Authority, 595 Phil 750 (2005).
66Rollo, pp. 50-53.
67 Id. at 195-196.
68 Id. at 226-227.
69 785 Phil. 560 (2016). citing Cosmo Entertainment Management, Inc. v. La Ville Commercial Corporation, 480 Phil. 575 (2004).
70 CA rollo, pp. 279-283.
71 Id. at 188-191.
72Rollo, pp. 44-4S.
73 CA rollo, pp. 255-270. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, (now a Member of this Court).
74 Supra note 54.
75Rollo, pp. 191-194.
76 Id. at 224-226.
77 820 Phil. 49 (2017), citing Tan v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 675, 681-682 (2001).
78Taar v. Lawan, 820 Phil. 49 (2017), citing Club Filipino, Inc. v. Bautista, 750 Phil. 599, 618 (2015).
79 Supra note 54.
80Rollo, pp. 141-150; penned by Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr.
81 G.R. No, 209116, January 14, 2019.
82 Id., citing Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation, 441 Phil 551, 564 (2002).cralawredlibrary