THIRD DIVISION
MARILLA
MAYANG
CAVILE,
DON C. DELA CRUZ, JOSE C. DELA CRUZ, JR.,
SOLON
C. DELA CRUZ,
JAMELA CAVILE BACOLINAO, HENRIETTA GELLEGANI CAVILE,
BERNARDO
CAVILE,
LAWRENCE CAVILE, FRANCIS CAVILE REEVES, ROY CAVILE,
PRIMITIVO
CAVILE,
JR., NATIVIDAD CAVILE MINGOY, AGUSTIN CAVILE,
DIANA
ROSE CAVILE
DELA ROSA, THOMAS GEORGE CAVILE, SR.,
HENRY
CAVILE, MANUEL
AARON CAVILE, ALEXANDER CAVILE,
WILFREDO
CAVILE,
FE CAVILE DAGUIO, AND HOPE CAVILE ARCHER,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
148635
April 1, 2003
-versus-
HEIRS
OF CLARITA
CAVILE, ULPIANO CAVILE, PLACIDA CAVILE,
GREGORIO
CAVILE,
FORTUNATA CAVILE, AMILITA CAVILE, APAD CAVILE,
AQUILINA
CAVILE,
CRESENCIO CAVILE, ALMA CAVILE, JESUS CAVILE,
ROMAN
BANTILAN,
GREGORIO BANTILAN, FELOMINA PAREJA, ESPERANZA PAREJA,
DIONESA
PAREJA,
TEODULO TACANG, RAMONA TACANG, FABIAN TACANG,
COSME
TACANG,
CRESENCIO
TACANG, CONSOLACION TACANG, TERESITA TACANG,
PRIMITIVO
TACANG,
LEODEGARIO TACANG, BRENDA MAPUTI, LORNA MAPUTI,
ADELINA
MAPUTI,
SUSAN MAPUTI, LOURDES MAPUTI, FRANKLIN MAPUTI,
SALLY MAPUTI, JESUS
MAPUTI, FRANCISCO MAPUTI, VICTORIO SUNLIT,
BARTOLOME
SUNLIT,
TEOFILO SUNLIT, TIBURCIO SUNLIT, TITO SUNLIT,
ASUNCION
SUNLIT,
CATALINA SUNLIT, RAYMONDA SUNLIT, ISIDRO SUNLIT,
ROSAL
GALAN,
FRANCISCO
GALAN, ROMUALDO QUIANZO, JUSTO QUIANZO,
LEONIDAD
QUIANZO,
JULITA QUIANZO, SOCORRO QUIANZO, MARGARITO QUIANZO,
CASTOR
QUIANZO,
JUSTINA LITANIA, GENOVEVA LITANIA, FELICIDAD LITANIA,
BIENVENIDO
CAVILE,
REPELITO GALON, FELOMENA NAVARRA, IRENE NAVARRA,
RAYMUNDO
NAVARRA,
PEDRO NAVARRA, ESTELA NAVARRA, CLEMENCIA NAVARRA,
FORTUNATA
NAVARRA,
LOURDES NAVARRA, VICTORIANO NAVARRA, EUSTAQUIO LUYAS
AND
FORTUNATA LUYAS,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is a petition for
review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 21, 2000
in CA-G.R. CV. No. 36617 entitled "Heirs of Clarita Cavili,* et al. vs.
Heirs of Perfecta Cavili, et al." reversing the Decision of the
Regional
Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 36 in Civil Case No. 6880 for
Partition,
Accounting and Damages, and its Resolution dated June 28, 2001 denying
the motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This case has its roots
in the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners for
partition
of the properties left by their common ascendant, Bernardo Cavili.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that
Bernardo
Cavili contracted three marriages. The first marriage was with
Ines
Dumat-ol with whom he had one child, Simplicia. The second was
with
Orfia Colalho with whom he had two children: Fortunato and
Vevencia.
And the third was with Tranquilina Galon with whom he had three
children:
Castor, Susana and Benedicta. Throughout his lifetime, Bernardo
Cavili
acquired six parcels of land which became the subject of the instant
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In October 1977, the
descendants of Bernardo’s first and second marriage (herein
respondents)
filed a complaint for partition against the descendants of his third
marriage
(herein petitioners). The complaint alleged, among others, that
respondents
and petitioners were co-owners of the properties in question, having
inherited
the same from Bernardo Cavili. Upon the death of Bernardo, his
son
by his third marriage, Castor Cavili, took possession of the properties
as administrator for and in behalf of his co-owners. However,
when
Castor died, his children took possession of the parcels of land but no
longer as administrators. They claimed the properties as well as
their fruits as their own and repeatedly refused respondents’ demand
for
partition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As petitioners failed
to file an Answer within the reglementary period, they were declared in
default and respondents were allowed to present evidence ex
parte.
The trial court rendered a decision on October 5, 1979 ordering the
partition
of the six parcels of land.[1]
However, upon motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili who were
not
properly served with summons, the trial court held a new trial and
allowed
said parties to present evidence. Among the evidence they
proferred
was a Deed of Partition which appeared to have been executed by the
heirs
of Bernardo Cavili on April 5, 1937.[2]
Giving weight to the documentary evidence presented by Primitivo Cavili
and Quirino Cavili, the trial court rendered another decision on May 7,
1991 dismissing the complaint for partition.[3]
The court reasoned:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"xxx
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The court observes
that there is only one important issue in this case, that is, was there
already division or partition made by the co-owners of the properties
left
by the deceased Bernardo Cavili. All other issues are
subsidiary.
Partition is the division of the property or properties by those
entitled
to them with the desire to put an end to co-ownership. In 1937, a
document of partition, marked as Exhibit "1" for the defendants, was
executed,
it is known as Doc. No. 41; Book No. II; Page No. 100; Series of 1937;
and ratified by Notary Public Iluminado Golez; which reveals Simplicia
Cavili, the only child of Bernardo Cavili of his first marriage,
participated
and concurred in the same partition; likewise, the children of the
second
marriage, were also represented and also the spouse Tranquilina Galon
of
the third marriage gave her concurrence as well as her legitimate
children
had with the deceased Bernardo Cavili. In the said document, all
the parcels of land acquired during the third marriage were partitioned
into two (2) parts: one part pertained to Bernardo Cavili which
in
turn divided by his children, namely: Simplicia Cavili, the only
child of the first marriage, Lucio Cavili in representation of
Fortunato
Cavili eldest son in the second marriage; Vicenta Navarra in
representation
of Vevencia Cavili second child of the second marriage; and Susana
Cavili,
Castor Cavili and Benedicta Cavili, the third marriage; and the second
part, or the other half, was equally divided by the three children of
the
third marriage, namely: Susana, Castor and Benedicta all surnamed
Cavili.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the court observed
further, that in the same document of deed of partition the share of
Bernardo
Cavili which was up to the extent of one-half (1/2) share of the
conjugal
properties with Tranquilina Galon was sold to Castor Cavili for the sum
of P166.00 by his legal heirs, likewise, the other one-half (1/2) share
of Tranquilina Galon was sold for the same amount by her rightful heirs
in favor also of Castor Cavili, who in turn took immediate possession,
exercised acts of ownership and made subsequent transfers.
Likewise,
other heirs of Bernardo Cavili did the same act of subsequent transfers
of what they had inherited just as the heirs of Tranquilina Galon also
made subsequent transfer of what they succeeded as inheritance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx"
Respondents appealed
the case to the Court of Appeals raising the following errors:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. The court a quo erred
in concluding that the properties in question were partitioned in 1937;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. The court a quo
erred in admitting the Deed of Partition (Exhibit "1"); andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The court a quo
erred in dismissing the complaint.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellate court
reversed the decision of the trial court. It ruled that the trial
court erred in admitting the Deed of Partition as evidence without
proof
of its authenticity and due execution. It held that said Deed
cannot
be considered as an ancient document whose authenticity and due
execution
need not be proved as the respondents have presented evidence that cast
doubt on its authenticity and due execution. The respondents
presented
the testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja who testified that
Simplicia Cavili, one of the signatories in the Deed, resided in
Mindanao
from 1934 until 1947. It further observed that the supposed
thumbprint
of Simplicia Cavili imprinted on the document appeared more like an
inkblot
than a thumbmark. The Court of Appeals thus directed the trial
court
"to immediately appoint and constitute the necessary number of
commissioners
who shall expeditiously effect the partition and accounting of the
subject
properties in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this
petition.
Petitioners pose the following issues for resolution by the Court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Whether or not the
Honorable Court of Appeals acted in accordance with law in ruling that
the notarized Deed of Partition (Exhibit "1"), a public document, could
not be validly admitted in evidence because its genuineness and due
execution
was not proved by the petitioners?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Whether or not the
Honorable Court of Appeals acted in accordance with law and prevailing
jurisprudence in not ruling that prescription had set in since the
petitioners
have been in open and adverse occupation of the subject properties for
more than forty-five (45) years without recognizing the alleged
co-ownership
with the respondents?[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners essentially
argue that the Deed of Partition is a public document duly acknowledged
before a Notary Public. Hence, its genuineness and due execution
need not be proved. Its character as an ancient document under
the
Revised Rules on Evidence is immaterial in this case since said rule
applies
only to private documents. They further contend that the Court of
Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Ramona Tacang
and
Filomena Pareja which were mere general denials.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents, on the
other hand, pray for the denial of the petition on two grounds:
first,
it violates the rule on the certification against forum shopping
required
to be attached to petitions for review filed with this Court; and
second,
the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in its assailed
decision.
Respondents harp on the fact that only one of the twenty-two (22)
petitioners,
Thomas George Cavili, Sr., executed and signed the certification
against
forum shopping when the Rules require that said certification must be
signed
by all the petitioners. Furthermore, respondents argue that the
Deed
of Partition presented by the petitioners may not be admitted in
evidence
as said document has not been identified and its due execution has not
been fully established. Respondents allege that said document is
tainted with forgery because it was shown that Simplicia Cavili was in
Mindanao before, during and after its execution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before going into the
substantive issue raised in the petition, we shall first resolve the
procedural
issue raised by the respondents, that is, that the certification
against
forum shopping attached to the petition was signed by only one of the
petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rule is that the
certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners
or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is
insufficient.
However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping,
which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly
administration
of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as
to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective.[7]
The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to
the
contents of the certification. This is because the requirement of
strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of
non-forum
shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the
certification
cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded.
It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its
provisions
under justifiable circumstances.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find that the
execution
by Thomas George Cavile, Sr. in behalf of all the other petitioners of
the certificate of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial
compliance
with the Rules. All the petitioners, being relatives and
co-owners
of the properties in dispute, share a common interest thereon.
They
also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed by the
respondents. Thus, when they filed the instant petition, they
filed
it as a collective, raising only one argument to defend their rights
over
the properties in question. There is sufficient basis, therefore,
for Thomas George Cavili, Sr. to speak for and in behalf of his
co-petitioners
that they have not filed any action or claim involving the same issues
in another court or tribunal, nor is there other pending action or
claim
in another court or tribunal involving the same issues. Moreover,
it has been held that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case
may be deemed as "special circumstance" for the Court to take
cognizance
of a petition for review although the certification against forum
shopping
was executed and signed by only one of the petitioners.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a thorough study
of the records of this case, we find the petition to be meritorious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We hold that the trial
court was correct in dismissing the complaint for partition, it
appearing
that the lawful heirs of Bernardo Cavili have already divided the
properties
among themselves, as evidenced by the Deed of Partition dated April 5,
1937. The terms of the Deed read:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"DEED OF PARTITIONchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE
PRESENTS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THAT Susana Cavile,
Castor Cavile, Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, Lucio Cavile and
Vicenta
Navarra both (sic) of legal age and residents in the Municipality of
Tolong,
Province of Oriental Negros, Philippine Islands, after being duly sworn
to in legal form, WITNESSETH:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That Susana Cavile,
Castor Cavile and Benedicta Cavile are the only children of Bernardo
Cavile
with his wife Tranquilina Galon, and that Simplicia Cavile and
Fortunato
Cavile and Vevencia Cavile are the children of Bernardo Cavile outside
from the conjugal home of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That Fortunato Cavile
and Vevencia Cavile having already been dead are survived by their
corresponding
children and represented in this document by their oldest child, Lucio
Cavile and Vicenta Navarra, respectively.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That during the union
of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon several properties have been
acquired
by them and declared under the name of Bernardo Cavile all situated in
the Municipality of Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, which
properties
are described as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx
That by this document
it is hereby agreed by the legal heirs of Bernardo Cavile and
Tranquilina
Galon to divide and by these presents it is hereby divided the above
mentioned
properties in the following manner:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1 - That the conjugal
properties of said Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon which are
already
described are hereby divided into two parts ONE (1) part which
corresponds
to the share of Bernardo Cavile is also divided into SIX (6) equal
parts,
that is among Susana Cavile, Castor Cavile, Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia
Cavile, Fortunato Cavile represented by his oldest son, Lucio Cavile,
and
Vevencia Cavile represented by her oldest child Vicenta Navarra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2 - That the other ONE
(1) part which corresponds to the share of Tranquilina Galon is also
hereby
equally divided into THREE (3) parts, that is among Susana Cavile,
Castor
Cavile and Benedicta Cavile.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SHARE OF BERNARDO CAVILEchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the share of
Bernardo
Cavile in parcels Tax Declaration Nos. 7421, 7143 and 7956 are sold by
the legal heirs to Castor Cavile in consideration of the sum of ONE
HUNDRED
SIXTY(-) SIX PESOS (P166.00), Philippine currency, which amount has
been
received and divided equally among them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That parcel under Tax
Declaration No. 5729 is hereby sold to Ulpiano Cavile by the legal
heirs
of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon, in consideration of the sum
of
FIFTY PESOS (P50.00), Philippine currency, which amount has been
received
and divided equally among them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SHARE OF TRANQUILINA
GALONchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the share of
Tranquilina
Galon in parcels Tax Declaration Nos. 7421, 7143 and 7956 are hereby
sold
by the heirs of said Tranquilina Galon to Castor Cavile in
consideration
of the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY(-)SIX PESOS (P166.00), Philippine
currency(,)
which sum has been received and divided equally among them.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That the said heirs
of Bernardo Cavile and Tranquilina Galon above mentioned hereby agree
and
accept as it is hereby agreed and accepted all the items and conditions
in this DEED OF PARTITION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN WITNESS HEREOF we
have this 5th day of April, 1937, A.D., sign our names below in the
Municipality
of Tolong, Province of Oriental Negros, Philippine Islands.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Sgd.)CASTOR
CAVILE
(Sgd.)SUSANA CAVILE
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Sgd.)BENEDICTA CAVILE
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Sgd.)SIMPLICIA
CAVILE
(Sgd.)LUCIO CAVILE
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Sgd.)VICENTA NAVARRA
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Signed in the presence
of:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(Sgd.) F.B.
Malanog
(Sgd.) Iluminado Golez
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WITH MY CONSENT:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(thumbmarked)
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TRANQUILINA GALON
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
-------------------------------------------------
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ESTADOS UNIDOS DE
AMERICA
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COMMONWEALTH DE
FILIPINAS
PROVINCIA DE NEGROS
ORIENTAL
S.S.cralaw:red
MUNICIPIO DE TOLONG.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
En el dia de hoy 6 de
Abril de 1937, A.D., ante mi comparecieron personalmente Castor Cavile,
Lucio Cavile, Susana Cavile, Benedicta Cavile, Simplicia Cavile, y
Vicenta
Cavile y Tranquilina Galon de quienes doy fe que los conozco por ser
las
personas que otorgaron el documento preinserto y ratificaron ser este
un
acto de sus libres voluntades y otorgamiento. Castor Cavile me
exhibe
su cedula personal No. F1138758 expedida el dia 1 de Febrero de 1937, y
Lucio Cavile me exhibe con el No. F11393521 expedida el dia 2 de Abril
de 1937, y las comparecientes no me exhiben por razon de sus sexos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
El documento se refiere
a un convenio de particion entre los comparecientes arriba mencionados
sobre ciertas porciones de terreno radicadas todas en el municipio de
Tolong,
Negros Oriental consistente en cuatro (4) paginas utiles inclusive la
de
ratificacion, cada una de las cuales estan firmadas pos los otorgantes
y pos los testigos instrumentales al pie y al margen izquierdo que
lleva
mi sello notarial y ratifican que el documento preinserto se otorgo
bajo
sus libres y expontanea voluntad.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A N T
E
M
I
(Sgd.)
ILUMINADO GOLEZ
Notario Publico
Mi comision expira el Diciembre 31,1937
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Reg. Not. No41
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pag. 100
Lib. II
Serie de 1937"chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The document speaks
for itself. The foregoing document was acknowledged before Notary
Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book as "Reg. Not.
No. 41; Pag. 100; Lib. II, Serie de 1937." Documents acknowledged
before
notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence
without
necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due
execution.
They enjoy the presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie
evidence
of the facts stated therein. To overcome the presumption, there
must
be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant.
Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to the findings
of the Court of Appeals, we find that respondents in this case failed
to
overcome the presumption of regularity. The appellate court based
its conclusion on the testimonies of Ramona Tacang and Filomena Pareja
who both testified that Simplicia Cavili resided in Mindanao from 1934
until 1947.[11]
Granting such fact to be true, it does not preclude the possibility
that
Simplicia Cavile could have traveled from her residence in Mindanao to
Tolong, Negros Oriental to participate in the execution of the Deed of
Partition. Filomena Pareja, a granddaughter of Simplicia Cavili,
in fact stated during cross examination that the latter was in perfect
health and was completely mobile at that time. She also admitted
that there was available transportation from Mindanao to Negros
Oriental.[12]
Their testimonies, therefore, are insufficient to overturn the
presumption
that the questioned Deed of Partition has been duly executed.
Furthermore,
a close examination of the questioned Deed of Partition shows that what
respondents claim to be mere inkblot is actually a thumbmark. We
note the visible grooves or lines on the imprint that indicate that
they
are not mere drops of ink but an actual thumbprint. Hence, we
uphold
the ruling of the trial court finding that the properties left by
Bernardo
Cavili have already been partitioned among his heirs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the foregoing
discussion, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the issue on prescription
raised by petitioners.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the
petition is GRANTED. The questioned Decision of the Court of
Appeals
is SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete
City is hereby REINSTATED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
* Sometimes spelled
in the records as "Cavile."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Original Records, vol. 1, pp. 47-51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Exhibit 1, Original Records, vol. 5, pp. 1047-1050.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., vol. 5, pp. 1112-1116.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
CA Rollo, p. 70.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 33-50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
See Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658 (2001); Dar vs. Alonzo-Legasto,
339
SCRA 306 (2000).
[8]
MC Engineering, Inc. vs. NLRC, 360 SCRA 183 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Uy vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 336 SCRA 419 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ruiz, Sr. vs. CA, 362 SCRA 40 (2001); Llana vs. CA, 361 SCRA 27 (2001);
Abapo vs. CA, 327 SCRA 180 (2000); Cleofas vs. St. Peter Memorial Park,
Inc., 324 SCRA 223 (2000).
[11]
TSN, June 14, 1990, pp. 10-12; TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 6-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, July 13, 1990, pp. 9-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |