DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION CULTURE and SPORTS,
Petitioner,
-versus-
G.R.
No. 146586
January
26, 2005
JULIA DEL ROSARIO, MARIA DEL ROSARIO, PACENCIA DEL ROSARIO,
and HEIRS OF SANTOS DEL ROSARIO,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The
Case
This
is a petition for review[1] to set aside the Decision[2] dated 25
September 2000 and the Resolution dated 29 December 2000 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43929. The Court of Appeals reversed
the Decision[3] dated 7 July 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of
Bulacan, Branch 8, Malolos (“trial court”) in Civil Case No. 70-M-92.
The
Facts
On 14
February 1992, respondents Julia Del Rosario, Maria Del Rosario,
Pacencia Del Rosario and the Heirs of Santos Del Rosario
(“respondents”) filed before the trial court a complaint for Recovery
of Possession against petitioner Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (“DECS”). Respondents alleged that they own a parcel of
land with an area of 1,181 square meters (“Property”) situated in
Kaypombo,[4] Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The Property was registered in
1976 in the name of respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-222432 of the Bulacan Register of Deeds. Respondents alleged
that the Kaypombo Primary School Annex (“KPPS”) under DECS was
occupying a portion of the Property through respondents’ tolerance and
that of their predecessors-in-interest. Respondents further
alleged that KPPS refused to vacate the premises despite their valid
demands to do so.
In its
Answer, DECS countered that KPPS’s occupation of a portion of the
Property was with the express consent and approval of respondents’
father, the late Isaias Del Rosario (“Isaias”). DECS claimed that
some time in 1959 Isaias donated a portion (“Donated Site”) of the
Property to the Municipality of Sta. Maria (“Municipality”) for school
site purposes. Atty. Ely Natividad, now a regional trial court
judge (“Judge Natividad”), prepared the deed of donation and the
acceptance. KPPS started occupying the Donated Site in
1962. At present, KPPS caters to the primary educational needs of
approximately 60 children between the ages of 6 and 8. Because of
the donation, DECS now claims ownership of the 650 square meter Donated
Site. In fact, DECS renamed the school the Isaias Del Rosario
Primary School.
During
the pre-trial conference held on 3 September 1992, DECS admitted the
existence and execution of TCT No. T-222432 (Exhibit “A”), Tax
Declaration No. 6310 (Exhibit “B”), and the tax receipts in
respondents’ names for the years 1991 and 1992 (Exhibits “B-1” and
“B-2”). On the other hand, respondents admitted the existence of
Judge Natividad’s affidavit that he prepared the deed of donation
(Exhibit “1”) and the tax declaration for 1985 in the
Municipality’s name (Exhibit “2”). Since there was no dispute
that the Property was registered in respondents’ names, the parties
agreed to a reverse trial with DECS presenting its evidence first to
prove that there was a valid donation to the Municipality.
DECS
presented three witnesses: Ricardo Nicolas, Vidal De Jesus and
Judge Natividad, all residents of Kaypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
The trial court summarized the witnesses’ testimonies, thus:
Defendant,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, proceeded to
present as its first witness, Ricardo Nicolas, 78 years old, widower,
housekeeper and residing at [K]aypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, since 1953
up to the present. He testified that during the duration of
his residency in [K]aypombo, he came across a public
elementary school (KPPS); that as far as he knows, the land occupied by
the primary school was formerly owned by Isaias del Rosario who
donated said land to the people of Sta. Maria, Bulacan in 1959;
that the act of donating said land was made during a political
meeting in his residence by Isaias del Rosario and in the presence of
the then incumbent mayor; he actually saw Isaias del Rosario and Mayor
Ramos sign a document which is a deed of donation in favor of the
Municipality of Sta. Maria; that the signing was made in the
presence of Judge Natividad who was then a municipal councilor;
that Isaias del Rosario is now dead but his death occurred long
after the construction of the KPPS and that Isaias del Rosario
even witnessed the construction of the primary school.
Vidal
de Jesus, the second witness for the defense, 65 years old,
married, a barangay councilman of Kaypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, and
presently residing at No. 437 Kaypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, testified
that as barangay councilman, he was aware of the land problem of KPPS;
that in 1991, the barangay council and the children of Isaias del
Rosario had a meeting in the presence of Judge Natividad, during
which, the latter told the children of Isaias del Rosario that
the land had been donated by their father. The children agreed
but requested that the school be renamed after their father’s name;
that the barangay council tried to secure a copy of the deed of
donation from the Municipality of Sta. Maria, but according to the
people at the municipal hall, when they transferred to the new
municipal building, the deed got lost, only they were able to get a
copy of the tax declaration in the name of the municipality of Sta.
Maria, Bulacan (Exh. “2”), a certification to that effect was issued by
the municipal mayor (Exh. “3”). They went to the DECS office in
Malolos, but could not likewise find a copy of the deed.
The
last witness for the defense was Judge Eli Natividad, 63 years old,
widower, resident of Kaypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. He testified
that KPPS is very near his house; that the land occupied by said
school is formerly owned by Isaias del Rosario, a close relative; that
as far as he knows, the municipality of Sta. Maria is now the
owner of the land; that when he was still one of the incumbent
municipal councilors of Sta. Maria in 1961, his relative Isaias del
Rosario went to his house and told him that he wanted to have a primary
school in their place as he saw the plight of small pupils in
their place; that the elementary school then existing was very far from
their place and Isaias del Rosario wanted to have a primary school to
help these pupils; that Isaias del Rosario was willing to donate
a portion of the questioned lot for school site, so that said matter
was relayed to the municipal council; he also testified that he
prepared the deed of donation which was signed by Isaias del Rosario in
his residence which was accepted by the municipality of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan through a resolution signed in the office of the secretary and
the municipal mayor; that a copy of said resolution could not be found
due to the transfer of the municipal hall from the old to the new
building.[5]
Respondents
presented two witnesses: Eugenia R. Ignacio and Maria Del
Rosario-Esteban, daughters of the late Isaias. The trial court
summarized their testimonies, as follows:
For the
plaintiffs, Eugenia R. Ignacio, 59, residing at Kaypombo, Sta. Maria,
Bulacan testified that she knows the plaintiffs as they are her
brothers/sisters; that their father Isaias del Rosario died on April
18, 1966 long after the construction of the school and that she does
not know everything about the donation because her father never
informed them of his dealings and she did not inquire from him about
the occupancy of the lot by the school.
Maria
del Rosario-Esteban, 66, residing at Pulang-lupa, Pandi, one of the
plaintiffs herein, testified that she knows the property in question
and that they own it by virtue of succession and that she cannot recall
how the school was constructed on the land; that her parents never
donated any property because that is their only property. Also,
she stated that their father told them that he just lent the property
temporarily to the municipality and she never found any document
conveying the lot in question to the municipality of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan.[6]
On 7
July 1993, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing respondents’
complaint for recovery of possession as follows:
WHEREFORE, based
on the foregoing premises, and for a much greater cause, the instituted
complaint, for recovery of possession of 1,181 square meters of land in
Kaypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, covered by TCT No. T-222432 against the
defendant is hereby DISMISSED without costs.[7]
The
trial court explained its decision in this wise:
After a careful
consideration of the facts at hand, taking into account the credibility
and reasonableness of the testimonies of the witnesses, the court is of
the opinion that the defense was able to prove the due execution of the
deed of donation and its acceptance, as well as the loss of the same,
in accordance with Rule 130[,] Sec. 4. It is recalled that Judge
Eli Natividad, then a municipal councilor of Sta. Maria, testified that
he was the person who prepared the deed of donation and later notarized
the same, and that said deed was duly executed and signed before him
and in his presence. Likewise, he affirmed that the municipal
board of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, passed a resolution accepting the deed of
donation in favor of the said municipality. Noteworthy is the
rule that a recantation/recollection of witness is a form of secondary
evidence to prove the existence/content of a document. Since the
loss of the deed subject matter of this case was likewise duly proved
by the defense, exerting the best possible efforts to locate or secure
a copy of the same and without bad faith on its part, this Court is
bent to give a greater weight to the secondary evidence adduced by the
defense vis-à-vis the title in the name of the plaintiff[s],
most particularly in this case, where the plaintiffs failed to make it
appear that other and more secondary evidence is known to the defendant
and can be produced by them.
Further
judging on the consistency, credibility and personality of the
witnesses of the defense, notably Judge Eli Natividad who was then a
municipal councilor of Sta. Maria at the time of the execution of
the deed of donation and who is thus in a best position to testify on
the matter, not to mention the fact that their testimonies were all
under oath, the Court cannot avoid but give weight to their statements
and declarations. The defense witnesses were not induced by ill
motive to testify in favor of the DECS, considering that they will not
derive any personal benefit, material or otherwise, from such an
act. On the contrary, such act may be considered heroic, as it is
a manifestation of a moral compulsion to help shed light to the truth.
On the
part of the plaintiffs, it was testified to by Eugenia Ignacio that
their father (donor) died on April 18, 1966, long after the school was
constructed on the subject land with the occupation of the land by the
school which continued up to the present, and even after the land was
allegedly transferred by succession to the plaintiffs in 1976, it was
only now that it comes to the mind of the plaintiffs to seek recovery
of the possession of the same. This, among other things, may be
taken to favor the stand of the defense that the land occupied by the
school was in truth, donated to the municipality of Sta. Maria.[8]
Respondents
appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 25 September 2000, the Court
of Appeals rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appealed decision is REVERSED and another one
entered ordering the defendant to vacate the subject premises.[9]
The
appellate court denied DECS’ motion for reconsideration in the
Resolution dated 29 December 2000. Hence, this petition.
The
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The
Court of Appeals held that DECS failed to prove the existence and due
execution of the deed of donation as well as the Resolution of the
municipal council accepting the donation. The Court of Appeals
was not fully satisfied that DECS or the Municipality had made a
diligent search of the alleged “lost” deed of donation. Pertinent
portions of the Court of Appeals’ Decision read:
It is unfortunate
that the Deed of Donation and the Resolution were not produced during
the trial. The defendant alleged that these were lost when the
Municipality transferred to a new building. The defendant
resorted to proving the documents’ existence through Sec. 5 of Rule 130
(B) of the Revised Rules on Evidence by relying on the testimony of the
witnesses who were present during the execution of the lost
documents. xxx.
x
x x
The
Court disagrees with the ruling of the lower court to the effect that
the defendant was able to satisfy the foregoing requisites. The
defense was not able to prove the due execution or existence of the
deed of donation and the resolution, as well as the loss of these
documents as the cause of their unavailability.
The
Rule requires that the defendant must “prove its contents by a copy, or
by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of the witnesses in the order stated”. However, the
defendant proceeded with the last resort-testimony of the witnesses,
without even showing any diligent effort to secure a copy of the deed
of donation and the resolution. Note that Atty. Eli Natividad,
then a municipal councilor of Sta. Maria, testified that he was the
person who prepared the deed of donation and later notarized the
same. He also affirmed that the municipal board of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan passed a Resolution as he was a municipal councilor at that
time such resolution was passed. He testified that he furnished
the municipal government, the Division Office of Education in Bulacan,
the court of Sta. Maria a copy of the deed. However, the
defendant only submitted an affidavit showing that the deed can no
longer be located in the municipal government. There was no
evidence to show that the defendant looked for a copy from the Clerk of
Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan. If it is true that Atty. Natividad
notarized the deed, he should have a copy of it. In fact, such
act of notarizing the deed should have been in his notarial
register. This notarial register was supposed to be forwarded to
the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of the province and
later, to the Chief of the National Library.
“Before secondary
evidence of a writing may be introduced on the ground that the
instrument has been lost there must be proof that a diligent search has
been made in the place where it is most likely to be found and that the
search has not been successful.”
In the
case at bar, this Court is not fully satisfied that a search was made
or that there was diligence in the search. The lower court erred
in hastily concluding that the loss of the document was sufficiently
established when in fact, the defendant did not look for it in the
office of the Clerk of Court and the National Library. Since
there was no diligent search, this Court finds it hard to believe the
defendant’s theory that such documents existed because, for sure, if
there really was a notarized deed or a resolution, there must be a copy.
“Secondary
evidence of the contents of writings is admitted upon the theory that
the original cannot be produced by the party by whom the evidence is
offered within a reasonable time by the exercise of reasonable
diligence. Until, however, the non-production of the primary
evidence has been sufficiently accounted for, secondary evidence is not
ordinarily admissible.”
For
this Court to affirm the ruling of the lower court based on testimonies
alone will work injustice to the plaintiffs.[10]
The
Issue
In its
memorandum, DECS raises the sole issue of –
WHETHER THE COURT
OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THE
DUE EXECUTION OR EXISTENCE OF THE DEED OF DONATION AND THE RESOLUTION
OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ACCEPTING THE DONATION, AS WELL AS THE LOSS OF
THE DOCUMENTS AS THE CAUSE OF THEIR UNAVAILABILITY.[11]
The
Solicitor General contends that DECS had satisfactorily proven by
secondary evidence the fact of donation, the existence and due
execution of the deed of donation as well as the municipal council
Resolution accepting the donation. DECS had also adequately
proven the loss of these documents. According to the Solicitor
General, based on the evidence presented in the trial court, DECS
established that Isaias donated a parcel of land to the Municipality as
the site of a school. Isaias executed a deed of donation, which
then Atty. Eli Natividad notarized. There was a municipal council
Resolution accepting the donation and expressing gratitude to
Isaias. There was notice of this acceptance as DECS constructed
the school on the Donated Site during the lifetime of the donor,
without objection on his part. Since all the essential
formalities had been followed, the donation made by Isaias long after
the death of his wife Nieves Gumatay is valid and proven by secondary
evidence.
The
Court’s Ruling
The
petition lacks merit.
Formal
Requisites of Donations of Real Property
The
donation of real property, which is a solemn contract, is void without
the formalities stated in Article 749 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines (“Civil Code”). Article 749 of the Civil Code reads:
Art. 749.
In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be
made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and
the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The
acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate
public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during
the lifetime of the donor.
If the
acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be
notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in
both instruments.
Article
749 of the Civil Code requires that the donation of real property must
be made in a public instrument. Otherwise, the donation is void.
A deed of donation acknowledged before a notary public is a public
document.[12] The notary public shall certify that he knows the person
acknowledging the instrument and that such person is the same person
who executed the instrument, acknowledging that the instrument is his
free act and deed. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of
donation or in a separate instrument. An acceptance made in a
separate instrument must also be in a public document. If the
acceptance is in a separate public instrument, the donor shall be
notified in writing of such fact. Both instruments must state the fact
of such notification.[13]
Best
and Secondary Evidence
The
best or primary evidence of a donation of real property is an authentic
copy of the deed of donation with all the formalities required by
Article 749 of the Civil Code. The duty to produce the original
document arises when the subject of the inquiry are the contents of the
writing in which case there can be no evidence of the contents of the
writing other than the writing itself. Simply put, when a party
wants to prove the contents of the document, the best evidence is the
original writing itself.
A
party may prove the donation by other competent or secondary evidence
under the exceptions in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence. Section 3 reads:
SEC. 3.
Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible
other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a)
When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b)
xxx;
(c)
xxx;
(d)
xxx.
In
relation to this, Section 5 of Rule 130 reads:
SEC. 5. When
original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability
without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by
a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
Secondary
evidence of the contents of a document refers to evidence other than
the original document itself.[14] A party may introduce secondary
evidence of the contents of a written instrument not only when the
original is lost or destroyed, but also when it cannot be produced in
court, provided there is no bad faith on the part of the offeror.
However, a party must first satisfactorily explain the loss of the best
or primary evidence before he can resort to secondary evidence. A
party must first present to the court proof of loss or other
satisfactory explanation for non-production of the original instrument.
The correct order of proof is as follows: existence, execution, loss,
contents, although the court in its discretion may change this order if
necessary.[15]
The
testimony of Ricardo Nicolas may have established to some extent the
existence of the deed of donation since he testified that he was
present when Isaias and the mayor talked about the donation and that he
witnessed the signing of the document. However, Ricardo Nicolas
admitted during cross-examination that he did not read and did not have
personal knowledge of the contents of the document that Isaias and the
mayor supposedly signed.[16]
In the
same vein, Vidal De Jesus’ testimony does not help to establish the
deed of donation’s existence, execution and contents. He testified that
he never saw the deed of donation. On cross-examination, Vidal De
Jesus admitted that the information that Isaias donated the lot to the
Municipality was only relayed to him by Judge Natividad
himself.[17] If at all, DECS offered Vidal De Jesus’ testimony to
establish the loss of the deed of donation. Vidal de Jesus
testified that the barangay council tried to get a copy of the deed but
the Municipality informed the barangay council that the deed was lost
when the municipal office was transferred to a new building. DECS also
made a search in the DECS office in Malolos but this proved futile too.
This
leaves us with Judge Natividad’s testimony. Judge Natividad
testified that he prepared and notarized the deed of donation. He
further testified that there was a municipal council Resolution, signed
in the Office of the Secretary and of the Mayor, accepting the donation
and expressing gratitude to the donor. He furnished the municipal
government, the DECS Division Office of Bulacan and the clerk of court
of Sta. Maria a copy of the deed of donation.
DECS
did not introduce in evidence the municipal council Resolution
accepting the donation. There is also no proof that the donee
communicated in writing its acceptance to the donor aside from the
circumstance that DECS constructed the school during Isaias’ lifetime
without objection on his part. There is absolutely no showing
that these steps were noted in both instruments.
Sufficiency
of Proof of Loss
What
mainly militates against DECS’ claim is, as the Court of Appeals found,
inadequate proof that DECS or the Municipality made a diligent search
in the places where the deed of donation may likely be found and that
the search was unsuccessful. Prior to the introduction of secondary
evidence, a party must establish the existence and due execution of the
instrument. After a party establishes the existence and due
execution of the document, he must prove that the document was lost or
destroyed.[18] The destruction of the instrument —
may be
proved by any person knowing the fact. The loss may be shown by
any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by any one who had made,
on the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place
[or] places where the document or papers of similar character are
usually kept by the person in whose custody the document lost was, and
has been unable to find it; or who has made any other investigation
which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed
lost.[19]
Here,
DECS allegedly made a search in the municipal building and in the DECS
Division Office in Bulacan. The copies of the deed of donation
furnished these offices were purportedly “lost” when these offices
transferred to new locations. However, as the Court of Appeals
correctly pointed out, Judge Natividad who claimed to have notarized
the deed of donation failed to account for other copies of the deed,
which the law strictly enjoins him to record, and furnish to other
designated government offices.
The
Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of a notary
public. The law requires him to keep a notarial register where he
shall record all his official acts as notary public. The law
specifies the information that the notary public must enter in the
notarial register. Failure to perform this duty results in the
revocation of his commission as notary public. We quote the provisions
of the Notarial Law pertinent to the case:
SECTION
245. Notarial register. - Every notary public shall keep a
register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be
made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a
certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person
applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor.
Such
register shall be kept in books to be furnished by the Attorney-General
(Solicitor-General) to any notary public upon request and upon payment
of the actual cost thereof, but officers exercising the functions of
notaries public ex officio shall be supplied with the register at
government expense. The register shall be duly paged, and on the
first page, the Attorney-General (Solicitor-General) shall certify the
number of pages of which the book consist[s].
SECTION
246. Matters to be entered therein. - The notary public shall
enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each
instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person
executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses,
if any, to the signature, the date of the execution, oath, or
acknowledgment or the instrument, the fees collected by him for his
services as notary in connection therewith, and; when the instrument is
contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records,
and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the
substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a consecutive number,
beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall
give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him
a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state
on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same
is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
x x x
At the
end of each week the notary shall certify in his register the number of
instruments executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him;
or if none, such certificate shall show this fact.
A
certified copy of each month’s entries as described in this section and
a certified copy of any instrument acknowledged before them shall
within the first ten days of the month next following be forwarded by
the notaries public to the clerk of the Court of First Instance
of the province and shall be filed under the responsibility of such
officer; Provided, that if there is no entry to certify for the month,
the notary shall forward a statement to this effect in lieu of the
certified copies herein required. (As amended by C.A. 72, Sec. 1.)
SECTION
247. Disposition of notarial register. - Immediately upon his
notarial register being filled, and also within fifteen days after the
expiration of his commission, unless reappointed, the notary public
shall forward his notarial register to the clerk of the Court of First
Instance of the province or of the City of Manila, as the case may be,
wherein he exercises his office, who shall examine the same and report
thereon to the judge of the Court of First Instance. If the judge
finds that no irregularity has been committed in the keeping of the
register, he shall forward the same to the chief of the division of
archives, patents, copyrights, and trade-marks. In case the judge
finds that irregularities have been committed in the keeping of the
register, he shall refer the matter to the fiscal of the province - and
in the City of Manila, to the fiscal of the city - for action and the
sending of the register to the chief of the division of archives,
patents, copyrights, and trade-marks shall be deferred until the
termination of the case against the notary public. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The
Notarial Law mandates a notary public to record in his notarial
register the necessary information regarding the instrument
acknowledged before him. The Notarial Law also mandates the notary
public to retain a copy of the instrument acknowledged before him when
it is a contract.[20] The notarial register is a record of the notary
public’s official acts. Acknowledged instruments recorded in the
notarial register are public documents.[21] If the instrument is not
recorded in the notarial register and there is no copy in the notarial
records, the presumption arises that the document was not notarized and
is not a public document.[22]
DECS
should have produced at the trial the notarial register where Judge
Natividad as the notary public should have recorded the deed of
donation. Alternatively, DECS should have explained the
unavailability of the notarial register. Judge Natividad could have
also explained why he did not retain a copy of the deed of donation as
required by law. As the Court of Appeals correctly
observed, there was no evidence showing that DECS looked for a copy
from the Clerk of Court concerned or from the National Archives.
All told, these circumstances preclude a finding that DECS or the
Municipality made a diligent search to obtain a copy of the deed of
donation.
In
civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence. “Preponderance of evidence” means
that the evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to that of
the other. In other words, preponderance of evidence means the
greater weight of the evidence - or evidence that outweighs the
evidence of the adverse party. This Court is not satisfied that
the evidence on the side of the party carrying the burden of proof is
of preponderating weight.
Finally,
DECS raises for the first time before this Court the issue on whether
respondents’ claim is barred by the equitable defense of laches.
DECS did not raise this matter in the complaint or during the trial in
the court below. DECS did not also raise this matter in its
appeal to the Court of Appeals. This Court cannot entertain this
issue at this late stage, for to do so would plainly violate the basic
rule of fair play, justice and due process.[23]
Much
as we sympathize with the plight of the schoolchildren, we do not find
reversible error in the Decision of the Court of Appeals. We
cannot grant the relief DECS is seeking and disregard existing laws and
jurisprudence. DECS, however, is not without remedy. The
government can expropriate at any time the Donated Site, paying just
compensation to respondents.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the Petition. The Decision
dated 25 September 2000 and the Resolution dated 29 December 2000 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 43929 are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner, with Associate Justices
Cancio C. Garcia (now Associate Justice of this Court) and Andres B.
Reyes, Jr., concurring.
[3]
Penned by Judge Valentin R. Cruz.
[4]
Also spelled CayPombo or Kay Pombo.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[6]
Ibid., pp. 65-66.
[7]
Ibid., p. 67.
[8]
Ibid., pp. 66-67.
[9]
Ibid., p. 46.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[11]
Ibid., p. 193.
[12]
See R. J. FRANCISCO, BASIC EVIDENCE 272-273 (1991).
[13]
Quilala vs. Alcantara, 422 Phil. 648 (2001).
[14]
Supra, see note 12, p. 283.
[15]
Lazatin vs. Campos, No. L-43955-56, 30 July 1979, 92 SCRA 250.
[16]
TSN, 19 November 1992, pp. 7-9.
[17]
Ibid., p. 10.
[18]
O. M. HERRERA, REMEDIAL LAW, 186 VOLUME V (1999).
[19]
Ibid.
[20]
See also Section 2(d) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
[21]
Manongsong vs. Estimo, G.R. No. 136773, 25 June 2003, 404 SCRA 683;
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides in part:
Sec. 19.
Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their presentation in
evidence, documents are either public or private.
Public
documents are:
(a)
x x x
(b)
Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
[22]
Bernardo vs. Atty. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002).
[23]
Sanchez vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 155 (1997).
|