FIRST DIVISION
APOLONIA LL.
OCAMPO,
NOW SUBSTITUTED BY MARIANO O. QUIEN,AMELITA Q. TAN,
MILOVAN O. QUIEN, LUISA OCAMPO-LLORIN,MELITA F. OCAMPO,
FELIX OCAMPO JR., RAMON OCAMPO,MIGUEL OCAMPO, JUANA
OCAMPO, ANDRES OCAMPO SR.,VIOLETA OCAMPO,
MERCEDITA OCAMPO, ANTONIA OCAMPO,ELISA OCAMPO,
BEATRIZ
OCAMPO, JUAN JOHNNY OCAMPO,JONAS OCAMPO, MARIA
DOLORES OCAMPO, REBECCA OCAMPO,FIDELA OCAMPO, LUIS
OCAMPO JR. AND ERNESTO O. FORTUNO,
Petitioners,
|
G.R.
No.
150707
April 14, 2004
-versus-
FIDELA LL.
OCAMPO,
FELICIDAD LL. OCAMPO, BELEN OCAMPO-BARRITO,VICENTE BARRITO,
NEMESIO LL. OCAMPO, IMELDA OCAMPO AND JOSE OCAMPO,
Respondents.
|
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Basic is the rule that
the party making an allegation in a civil case has the burden of
proving
it by a preponderance of evidence. In an action involving property,
petitioners
should rely on the strength of their own title and not on the alleged
weakness
of respondents’ claim. The Case
Before this court is
a petition for review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 31, 2001
decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 56941. The decretal
portion
of the Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, with the
sole modification that the awards for damages and attorney’s fees are
hereby
deleted, the judgment appealed from is, in all other respects,
AFFIRMED.
Without costs."[3]
The CA affirmed the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision,[4]
rendered on October 30, 1996, which decreed thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court finds, holds and declares that defendant Belen
Ocampo-Barrito,
married to Vicente Barrito, are the true and lawful exclusive owners of
the following properties, namely:chanrobles virtual law library
(a) A parcel of residential/commercial
land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the
NE by Carmen Ocampo and Alberto Espiritu, on the SE by the Burgos
Street,
on the SW by a street, and on the NW by Julian Ocampo and Carmen
Ocampo,
containing an area of 1,119 square meters, more or less, presently
covered
by TCT No. 13654 in the name of Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to
Vicente
Barrito and previously covered by TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of
Fidela
Ocampo, declared under TD No. 18856 and assessed at P17,240.00.cralaw:red
(b) A parcel of residential
land situated at San Luis, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North
and
East by a barrio road, on the South by a creek, and on the West by Lot
237, with an area of about 300 square meters, declared under TD No.
19639
with an assessed value of P6,240.00.cralaw:red
(c) A parcel of land
situated at Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North by
Lot 10323, on the East by Lot 9543, on the South by Lot 10325, and on
the
West by Lot 10322, with an area of about 4884 square meters, declared
under
TD No. 35122 and assessed at P6780.00
as described and referred
to in paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the original
complaint
and it is hereby ordered that:
1. The complaint and
supplemental complaint are dismissed for failure of the plaintiffs to
prove
their cause/causes of action by preponderance of evidence and on the
added
ground of prescription;
2. The plaintiffs are
ordered to pay as their joint and several obligation, to defendants
Fidela
Ll. Ocampo, Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito, the total sum of
P15,000.00 for attorney’s fees and other expenses of litigation and
P50,000.00
for moral damages;chanrobles virtual law library
3. The plaintiffs jointly
and severally pay the cost of this suit.cralaw:red
4. Upon the finality
of this decision, the notice of lis pendens annotated at plaintiffs’
behest
in the Certificates of Title covering the properties in question, of
defendants
be cancelled; and the plaintiffs, their agents and representatives as
well
as successors-in-interest are ordered to respect the right of ownership
of said defendants thereto, and to vacate and restore the lawful
possession
of all portions of said properties to herein defendants, their agents,
representatives and successors-in-interest."[5]
The Facts
The CA adopted the RTC’s
summation of facts as follows:
"Notwithstanding its
somewhat deficient grammar and syntax, the following summation of the
relevant
and material antecedents of the case by the court a quo, is
substantially
correct --
‘This is a civil suit
for partition and damages filed by plaintiffs against the defendants.cralaw:red
‘The complaint alleges
that during the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana
Llander-Ocampo,
they begot ten (10) children, namely: Fidela, Felix, Andres, Nemesio,
Jose,
Apolonia, Felicidad, Luisa, Rosario, and Luis. Of the aforementioned
children,
the following are already dead, namely: Felix, who is survived by his
widow,
Melita F. Ocampo and children Felix, Jr., Ramon and Miguel; Andres, who
is survived by Juana Ocampo and children Jose, Andres, Imelda, Violeta
and Mercedita; Jose, who is survived by his children Antonia, Elias and
Juan (Johnny); Rosario, who is survived by Ernesto O. Fortuno; Luis,
who
is survived by his children Rose, Ricardo, Jonas, Maria Dolores,
Rebecca,
Fidela and Luis, Jr.; and Luisa, who is survived by Carlos Llorin and
children
Mecita, Manuel, Carlos, Jr., Carmelita and Marilou L. Arellano.chanrobles virtual law library
‘The complaint further
alleges that during the lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Luisa
Llander-Ocampo,
they acquired several parcels of land and, upon their death, left the
following
properties, namely:
(a) A parcel of residential/
commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur,
bounded
on the NE by Carmen Ocampo and Alberto Espiritu, on the SE by the
Burgos
Street, on the SW by a Street, and on the NW by Julian Ocampo and
Carmen
Ocampo, containing an area of 1,119 square meters, more or less,
presently
covered by TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of Fidela Ocampo, declared
under TD No. 18856 and assessed at P17,240.00;
(b) A parcel of residential
land situated at San Luis, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North
and
East by a barrio road, on the South by a creek, and on the West by Lot
237, with an area of about 300 square meters, declared under TD No.
19639
with an assessed value of P6,240.00; and
(c) A parcel of land
situated at Sto. Domingo, Nabua, Camarines Sur, bounded on the North by
Lot 10323, on the East by Lot 9543, on the South by Lot 10325, and on
the
West by Lot 10322, with an area of about 4,884 square meters, declared
under TD No. 35122 and assessed at P6,780.00.cralaw:red
‘that all the above
named parcels of land are actually owned in common by the children of
the
late spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander Ocampo although the land
denominated
as parcel (a) of the complaint is ostensibly registered in the name of
Fidela Ocampo alone but acknowledged by her as a property owned in
common
by all of them, brothers and sisters; that plaintiffs desire to
partition
said properties but defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad unlawfully
and
unreasonably refuse to do so and moved by a common purpose, both of
them
mortgaged to the PNB the land denominated as parcel (a) of the
complaint
to secure the payment of a P110,000.00 loan, the proceeds of which were
x x x exclusively to the benefit of said defendants only; that the same
defendants Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo have been receiving the
fruits
of the properties to the exclusion of their co-heirs amounting to not
less
than P2,000.00 a year; and, that because of their relationship, they
undertook
earnest efforts to amicably settle this controversy but because of
defendants
Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo[‘s] utterly unreasonable and
unjustified
actuations, the same failed.chanrobles virtual law library
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
x x x
‘In their complaint,
plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered ordering the partition of the
properties described in paragraph 9 of the complaint; ordering
defendants
Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo, to release or otherwise cancel any
and all encumbrances on TCT No. RT-4389(983) which they had caused to
be
annotated thereon, particularly, the mortgage in favor of the PNB;
requiring
Fidela Ocampo and Felicidad Ocampo to refrain from further encumbering
said properties or otherwise subjecting the same to any lien and for
that
purpose, a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued against them to
enjoin the commission of such acts; ordering defendants Fidela Ocampo
and
Felicidad Ocampo to submit an accounting of the fruits and other
produce
they had received from said properties; further ordering Fidela Ocampo
and Felicidad Ocampo to indemnify plaintiffs the sum of not less than
P15,000.00
by way of attorney’s fees and related expenses of litigation, plus the
costs of the suit; and, further granting plaintiffs such other remedies
as may be just and equitable in the premises.chanrobles virtual law library
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
x x x
‘On 17 December 1987,
counsel for plaintiffs filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint
dated
2 December 1987 which was granted by the Court as there was no
opposition
to it.cralaw:red
‘The Supplemental Complaint
alleges that defendants Helen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito are
spouses;
that on 30 September 1987, TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of
defendant
Fidela Ocampo and covering the lot described as parcel (a) in paragraph
9 of the original complaint was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No.
1364 was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to defendant
Vicente Barrito, on the strength of an allege[d] Deed of Donation Inter
Vivos ostensibly executed by defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo in their favor
on 13 January 1984; that at the time the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
was
presented for registration and when TCT No. 1364, Registry of Camarines
Sur, was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, both the donor and
donees
were notoriously aware that said parcel of land was among the lots
subject
of this Civil Case No. IR-1867 of which the donor Fidela Ll. Ocampo and
the mother of the donees, Felicidad Ll. Ocampo, are defendants, that
said
properties were owned by the Ocampo brothers and sisters, and that the
donor Fidela Ll. Ocampo was not the exclusive owner thereof; that the
transfer
of defendants Fidela Ll. Ocampo and Belen Ocampo-Barrito of the
ownership
over said property now subject of this partition is tainted with fraud,
actual and deliberate, to deprive plaintiffs of their legitimate share
therein, knowing as they do that the same are a co-ownership of the
original
parties plaintiffs and defendants herein; that defendants Fidela Ll.
Ocampo
and the spouses Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito have not acted
in good faith, deliberately causing damage and injury to the plaintiffs
by their avaricious desire to obtain sole ownership of said properties
through dubious and illegal means that the defendant spouses Belen
Ocampo-Barrito
and Vicente Barrito, through dubious means and undue influence over
Fidela
Ll. Ocampo, a very old spinster whom they have lately taken into their
custody, succeeded in having the latter execute this supposed deed of
donation
inter vivos; that defendants have not acted with justice, honesty and
good
faith, causing injury to plaintiffs’ rights in a manner inconsistent
with
morals and good customs, hence, are liable for moral damages of not
less
than P50,000.00; and that to set an example for the public good and to
deter others similarly minded from doing so, defendants should be
assessed
exemplary damages of not less than P50,000.00.cralaw:red
‘Plaintiffs pray that
judgment be rendered (a) declaring the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
allegedly
executed by Fidela Ll. Ocampo in favor of Belen Ocampo-Barrito and
Vicente
Barrito be declare[d] null and void, (b) ordering defendants Belen
Ocampo-Barrito
and Vicente Barrito to reconvey so much of the property subject thereof
as pertain to the plaintiffs, (c) directing defendants, jointly and
severally,
to indemnify plaintiffs such amounts as this Honorable Court may
consider
fair and reasonable by way of actual, moral and exemplary damages,
inclusive
of attorney’s fees and related expenses of litigation, and (d) granting
plaintiffs such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the
premises.chanrobles virtual law library
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
‘As Special Defenses,
defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito allege that the original defendant
Fidela
Ll. Ocampo, her predecessor-in-interest, since 1949 has been the
absolute
owner in fee simple of the property by virtue of the issuance of the
certificate
of title in her name; that her predecessor-in-interest held the same
certificate
of title to the same parcel of land (TCT No. RT-4389(983) free of all
encumbrances
and adverse claims and was in notorious, public, and actual possession
of the property in concept of absolute owner from 1949 until 13 January
1984, when said predecessor-in-interest validly conveyed the property
by
donation inter vivos which she accepted in the same public instrument;
that TCT No. 1364 was issued to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito on the
strength
of the donation inter vivos executed in her favor by her
predecessor-in-interest
and has since 30 September 1987, been the absolute owner thereof; that
since 1949 none of the plaintiffs ever questioned the absolute
ownership
and title of defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito’s predecessor-in-interest
over
the property making the decree of registration incontrovertible; that
it
is fatal for plaintiffs’ cause of action to allege that defendants
exerted
‘undue influence over Fidela Ll. Ocampo’ for the latter to ‘execute the
deed of donation’ while clearly admitting in both the original and
supplemental
complaints that defendants are residents of Mindoro Occidental a far
away
place from Nabua, Camarines Sur, the place where the same
predecessor-in-interest
admittedly resides; and, that Belen Ocampo-Barrito’s title cannot be
collaterally
attacked in these supposed partition proceedings.cralaw:red
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
‘Defendants pray that
the case be dismissed for utter lack of merit and plaintiffs be ordered
to pay defendants the sum of P200,000.00 for moral damages, P50,000.00
for exemplary damages, P100,000.00 as compensatory damages, to pay
attorney’s
fees in the amount of P15,000.00, and for other just and equitable
remedies.cralaw:red
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
‘As the Special and/or
Affirmative Defenses, defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo alleges that she is
the
true and absolute owner of the real properties described in paragraph 9
of the original complaint having acquired the same by lucrative title
and
has, since becoming owner thereof, been in actual possession thereof
excepting
the portion of the lot described in paragraph 9 (a) of the complaint
and
covered by ‘Torrens’ title which was and is still being unlawfully
occupied
by plaintiffs Quiens; that the properties have been declared for
assessment
in defendant’s name as exclusive owner thereof and since her
acquisition
of said properties, has paid the taxes thereon; that defendant had
exercised
continuously all the legal incidents of ownership on said lands to the
exclusion of and adversely to the public, plaintiffs herein included;
that
the [D]eed of Donation Inter Vivos and the subsequent transfer of the
property
mentioned in paragraph 9 of the complaint to other defendants Belen
Ocamp[o]-Barrito
is valid conveyance which binds the said property; and, that assuming
that
plaintiffs have a cause of action, the same is barred by laches.cralaw:red
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
xchanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
‘Defendant Fidela Ll.
Ocampo prays that judgment be rendered dismissing the complaint and
ordering
plaintiffs to indemnify such sum as will be proved as well as [s]uch
amount
as this Court may assess by way of moral and exemplary damages and
costs,
including necessary expenses for litigation, and for just and equitable
reliefs.’"[6]chanrobles virtual law library
Ruling of the
Court
of Appeals
According to the appellate
court, other than the Acknowledgment of Co-ownership[7]
executed by Respondent Fidela Ocampo, no documentary evidence was
offered
to establish petitioners’ claim of co-ownership. The CA held that this
piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the array of
testimonial
and documentary evidence that had been adduced by respondents to prove
their defenses. Communal ownership of the property in question was
supposedly
not proven, either, by the ancient photograph showing Spouses Chino
Jose
and Juana Llander Ocampo with their ten children in front of the
disputed
property; or by another picture showing the name "Oniang Ocampo --
1-15-61"
engraved on the said house or building.cralaw:red
The court a quo rejected
the argument of petitioners that the title to the subject property had
been placed in the name of Fidela, because their parents followed the
Chinese
custom of placing properties in the name of the eldest son or daughter
who was single. Petitioners explained that upon the death of the eldest
sibling, the properties would revert to the younger brothers and
sisters.
According to the CA, however, not a shred of evidence was adduced to
prove
that such a Chinese custom existed or was observed in that place.cralaw:red
The CA also dismissed
petitioners’ contention that common ownership was indicated by the fact
that some of the children of Spouses Ocampo stayed and lived on the
subject
property. It ruled that fraternal affection could have been the motive
that impelled respondents to allow their relatives to use it.cralaw:red
In contrast to the arguments
of petitioners, the CA said that respondents were able to give clear
proof
of their ownership of the property: the Transfer Certificate of Title
and
the corresponding Tax Declaration in the name of Fidela, and later of
Belen
Ocampo-Barrito.chanrobles virtual law library
Nevertheless, the CA
eliminated the awards for damages and attorney’s fees, because the
trial
court had failed to cite the factual, the legal and the equitable bases
therefor.chanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this Petition.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
The Issues
Petitioners raise the
following issues for our consideration:
"1. Where
the
evidence presented, oral and documentary, on the question of
co-ownership,
is overwhelming as it is unopposed, unrebutted and unimpeached, has
co-ownership
been proved?
"2. Where
co-ownership
is confirmed by long, public possession by co-owners, did the courts
commit
grave abuse of discretion in holding that there is no co-ownership?
"3. Where the
evidence
of respondents is weak, puerile and inconsistent, did the courts commit
a grave misapprehension of facts when they gave credence to it?
"4. Where a deed
of
donation intervivos entered in bad faith deprives the heirs of their
hereditary
shares, is said deed valid?
"5. Where a
declaration
against interest has not been opposed, assailed, rebutted or impeached,
did the courts commit grave abuse of discretion in holding there is no
such declaration?"[9]chanrobles virtual law library
At bottom, the question
to be resolved in this case is who owns the disputed property? The Court's Ruling
The Petition has no
merit.cralaw:red
Main Issue:
Ownership of the Subject Property
At the outset, we clarify
that although there were three (3) properties originally involved in
the
litigation brought before the RTC, petitioners’ appeal dealt only with
the first one, referred to in the Statement of Facts above -- a parcel
of residential/commercial land situated in the poblacion of Nabua,
Camarines
Sur. In their CA appeal, petitioners declared that "the focus of this
case
is on the first [property] which is located at downtown Poblacion of
Nabua
and therefore a valuable piece of property, 1,119 square meters in all."[10]
Because petitioners had not questioned the RTC Decision with regard to
the other properties, then the adjudication of these matters became
final.
Thus, only one property is left for resolution in the present
proceedings.[11]
Since the original Complaint
was an action for partition, this Court cannot order a division of the
property, unless it first makes a determination as to the existence of
a co-ownership.[12]
The settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in an
action
for partition.[13]
This action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in
the
subject property. Parties filing the action are in fact required by the
Rules of Court[14]
to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their
title
to the property. It would be premature to effect a partition thereof
until
and unless the question of ownership is first definitely resolved.[15]
Basic is the rule that
the party making an allegation in a civil case has the burden of
proving
it by a preponderance of evidence.[16]
Petitioners’ chief evidence of co-ownership of the property in question
is simply the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership executed by Fidela. As
mentioned
earlier, both the trial and the appellate courts were correct in
finding
that this piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the
array
of testimonial and documentary evidence that were adduced by
respondents,
as will be expounded below.cralaw:red
Petitioners failed to
trace the successive transfers of ownership of the questioned property
that eventually led to them. Allegedly, it was originally owned by
their
parents -- Spouses Ocampo -- whose deaths passed it on to the children.
Petitioners, however, presented absolutely no proof of ownership of
their
predecessors-in-interest. In insisting that it was so transferred and
thus
co-owned, the former rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership
executed
by Fidela, their eldest sibling.chanrobles virtual law library
On the other hand, Belen
clearly traced the basis of her alleged sole ownership of the property
and presented preponderant proof of her claim.cralaw:red
First, she presented
a Deed of Absolute Sale of Residential Land,[17]
referring to the subject property, executed between Adolfo Ocampo as
seller
and Felix Ocampo as buyer. The document dated July 6, 1948, was signed
in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged before Juan B.
Ballecer,
a notary public.cralaw:red
The theory of petitioners
is completely demolished by this document, which they never contested.
According to them, the land in question was the conjugal property of
their
parents; and that upon the latter’s deaths, the former inherited it in
common. If indeed the land was the conjugal property of Spouses Ocampo,
then petitioners should have presented evidence to prove such ownership
by their alleged predecessors-in-interest. Since the former failed to
do
so, how then can they prove the transfer to them of ownership that has
not been established in the first place? It is axiomatic that no one
can
transfer to another a right greater than that which one has;[18]
thus, the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its
source.[19]
Likewise, in this Deed
of Absolute Sale, Adolfo Ocampo declared his "exclusive ownership" of
the
property, "having been acquired by purchase[;] and [having] been in
[his]
continuous, public, peaceful, adverse and material possession for more
than 50 years together with [his] predecessors in rights and interest,
in [the] concept of owner without any claim of other persons."[20]
Second, Respondent Belen
proved that on February 10, 1953, this property had been sold to Fidela
by Felix Ocampo for a valuable consideration; and that Fidela had
entered
the property, actually occupied it, and exercised all powers of
dominion
over it to the exclusion of petitioners.cralaw:red
As proofs of ownership
of the property by Fidela, Belen presented Transfer Certificate of
Title
No. RT-4389 (983),[21]
which named the former as owner in fee simple; and a Declaration of
Real
Property,[22]
evidencing payment of real property taxes, also by Fidela as owner.cralaw:red
To prove further that
Fidela had exercised dominion over the property, Belen also presented a
Real Estate Mortgage[23]
executed by the former as absolute owner. Fidela had executed it in
favor
of her sister Apolonia Ocampo, one of the original petitioners in this
case, who is now represented by her heirs. Belen correctly argues that
in agreeing to be a mortgagee, Apolonia admitted and recognized Fidela
as the true owner of the land in question.cralaw:red
The Civil Code provides
that an essential requisite of a contract of mortgage is that the
mortgagor
be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.[24]
Co-ownership cannot be presumed even if only a portion of the property
was mortgaged to Apolonia, because a co-owner may dispose only of one’s
interest in the ideal or abstract part of the undivided thing co-owned
with others.[25]
The effect of a mortgage by a co-owner shall be limited to the portion
that may be allotted to that person upon the termination of the
co-ownership.[26]
In this case, Fidela mortgaged a definite portion of the property and
thus
negated any acknowledgement of co-ownership.cralaw:red
Third, Belen then presented
a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos[27]
executed on January 13, 1984, between herself as donee and Fidela as
donor.
This act shows the immediate source of the former’s claim of sole
ownership
of the property.chanrobles virtual law library
A donation as a mode
of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title to the
property from the donor to the donee.[28]
Petitioners stubbornly rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership
allegedly
executed by Fidela in favor of her siblings. What they overlook is the
fact that at the time of the execution of the Acknowledgement --
assuming
that its authenticity and due execution were proven -- the property had
already been donated to Belen. The Deed of Donation, which is the prior
document, is clearly inconsistent with the document relied upon by
petitioners.
We agree with the RTC’s ratiocination:
"On the claim of plaintiffs
that defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo herself made a written acknowledgement
for her co-ownership over all the properties disputed with plaintiffs
in
this case, the same cannot be considered as a declaration against
Fidela’s
interest since the alleged acknowledgement was written and executed on
24 December 1985 when she was no longer the owner of the property as
the
year previous, on 13 January 1984, she had already donated all her
properties
to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, so that, in effect, she had no more
properties with which she can have an interest to declare against."[29]
Petitioners argue that
the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership may be considered as a declaration
against interest. A statement may be admissible as such a declaration
if
it complies with the following requisites: 1) the declarant is dead or
unable to testify; 2) it relates to a fact against the interest of the
declarant; 3) at the time of the declaration, the declarant was aware
that
it was contrary to his or her interest; and 4) the declarant had no
motive
to falsify and believed the declaration to be true.[30]
As correctly found by
the trial court, however, the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership could not
be a fact against the interest of the declarant, since her right over
the
property had already been extinguished by the prior act of donation.
Thus,
at the time of the declaration, Fidela could not have acknowledged
co-ownership,
as she had no more property against which she had an interest to
declare.chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, Belen presented
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13654[31]
as proof of her ownership of the property. To be sure, the best proof
of
ownership of the land is the Certificate of Title (TCT). Hence, more
than
a bare allegation is required to defeat the face value of respondent’s
TCT, which enjoys a legal presumption of regularity of issuance.[32]
It is quite surprising that despite the process of transfers and
titling
of the subject property -- commencing in 1948 and eventually leading to
the sole ownership of Belen in 1984[33]
-- it was only after 1984 that petitioners started asserting their
claim
of co-ownership thereof.cralaw:red
We are not unmindful
of our ruling that the mere issuance of a certificate of title does not
foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under
co-ownership
with persons not named therein.[34]
But given the circumstances of this case, the claim of co-ownership by
petitioners has no leg to stand on. Again, we stress, Belen clearly
traced
the source of her sole ownership of the property in question and
thereby
foreclosed the unproven and unsubstantiated allegation of co-ownership
thereof.chanrobles virtual law library
In addition to the TCT
presented, Belen offered as evidence the Tax Declaration[35]
indicating that she, as owner, had been paying real estate taxes on the
property, all to the exclusion of petitioners.cralaw:red
On the other hand, petitioners
could not show any title, tax receipt or document to prove their
ownership.
Having filed an action involving property, they should have relied on
the
strength of their own title and not on the alleged weakness of
respondents’
claim.[36]
Petitioners assert that
their claim of co-ownership of the property was sufficiently proved by
their witnesses -- Luisa Ocampo-Llorin and Melita Ocampo. We disagree.
Their testimonies cannot prevail over the array of documents presented
by Belen. A claim of ownership cannot be based simply on the
testimonies
of witnesses; much less on those of interested parties, self-serving as
they are.chanrobles virtual law library
As to the photographs
presented by petitioners to bolster their claim of co-ownership, we
affirm
the CA’s disposition showing the flimsiness of their claim as follows:
"The other piece of
documentary evidence presented by appellants really proved nothing. The
ancient photograph showing the spouses Chino Jose and Juana Llander
Ocampo
together with their ten children, simply proved that there was such a
picture
taking of the spouses with their children. But the photograph does not
prove communal ownership by appellants over the disputed parcels of
land;
neither does it prove that the said properties were indeed owned by the
spouses Chino Jose and Juana Ocampo, and then later on transferred to
and
commonly owned by their children. By the same token, the picture
exhibited
by appellant showing the name ‘Oniang Ocampo -- 1-15-61’ (or Apolonia
Ocampo,
one of the children of the spouses Chino Jose and Juana) engraved in
the
house or building, does not prove communal ownership of the properties
in question. At best, it is susceptible of various meanings, like: that
of Oniang Ocampo was born on 1-15-61, or that she got married on that
date,
or that she was celebrating a special event on the date mentioned, or
that
she even died on the date mentioned. And even assuming ex gratia
argumenti,
that the said engraving proved ownership over the disputed building,
some
such fact can only work to the prejudice of herein appellants. Why?
Because
it would mean that only Oniang (or Apolonia) was the owner of the
building
and that the building is not, therefore, a communal property of the
children
of the late spouses Chino Jose and Juana. Adverting to this piece of
evidence,
the Trial Court postulated --
‘The engravings on the
house ‘ONIANG OCAMPO BLDG. -- 1-15-61 cannot serve as evidence that the
property is of common ownership. At most, this can only establish the
fact
that said building was constructed for a certain ‘Oniang’ on 15 January
1961. If, indeed, the property is of common ownership, there could not
have been any difficulty to engrave thereon ‘HEIRS OF JOSE OCAMPO and
JUANA
LLANDER-OCAMPO -- 1-15-61’ instead of ‘ONIANG OCAMPO BLDG. -- 1-15-61.’"[37]
Neither can we accept
petitioners’ contention that co-ownership is shown by the fact that
some
of the children of Spouses Ocampo stayed, lived, and even put up
businesses
on the property. The appellate court correctly found that since the
litigants
in this case were blood relatives, fraternal affection could have been
a good motive that impelled either Belen or Fidela to allow petitioners
to use the property. Without any proof, however, co-ownership among the
parties cannot be presumed.chanrobles virtual law library
Neither are we persuaded
by the contention that Spouses Ocampo placed the subject property in
the
name of only one person in accordance with a Chinese custom. As
mentioned
earlier, that custom consisted of placing properties of parents in the
name of the eldest unmarried son or daughter, with the implicit
understanding
that ownership thereof would later revert to the siblings.cralaw:red
In contrast to the failure
of petitioners to prove that such custom existed and was practiced in
that
place,[38]
Belen presented evidence that clearly negated any claim of ownership by
the former’s predecessors-in-interest. Having shown that the property
in
question was originally owned by one Adolfo Ocampo -- not by Spouses
Ocampo,
from whom petitioners derive their right -- the claim of custom becomes
immaterial.cralaw:red
The fact that Fidela
was not presented in court will not necessarily favor petitioners and
prove
that the property in question is indeed co-owned. If they felt that her
testimony would prove their cause, then they could have easily called
her
as an adverse or a hostile witness.[39]
But since respondents were confident in the documents they presented in
court, they did not see any need to call her as a witness.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioners also question
the motives of Fidela for donating her properties, when she is still
alive
and needs money in her old age. They clearly overlook the nature of a
donation.cralaw:red
Donation is an act of
liberality whereby a person gratuitously disposes of a thing or a right
in favor of another who accepts it.[40]
Once perfected, a donation is final; its revocation or rescission
cannot
be effected, absent any legal ground therefor.[41]
A donation may in fact comprehend the entire property of the donor.[42]
At any rate, the law provides that donors should reserve, in full
ownership
or in usufruct, sufficient means for their own support and that of all
their relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of the donation, are
by law entitled to be supported by them.[43]
In questioning the motives
of Fidela for donating the subject property, petitioners are
contradicting
even themselves. On the one hand, they assert that she would not have
disposed
of her property, since she would need it in her old age; on the other,
they argue that it was not hers alone anyway. It should be clear that
the
law protects donors by providing that, without any reservation of
sufficient
means for themselves, the donation shall be reduced upon the petition
of
any person affected.[44]chanrobles virtual law library
To be sure, petitioners’
arguments all pertain to circumstances extraneous to the Deed of
Donation
itself. The law is clear that when its terms have been reduced to
writing,
an agreement must be presumed to contain all the terms agreed upon; and
there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no
evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[45]
Petitioners did not
question the consent of Fidela to the donation. Never was there any
intimation
that she had either been coerced or defrauded into entering into it. As
all the essential elements of a donation -- consent, subject matter and
cause[46]
-- have been satisfied, we see no reason to entertain any doubt about
the
Deed pertaining thereto.cralaw:red
The question of why
the land was registered several years after the donation is purely
speculative.
What is important is that there was a duly proven Deed of Donation,
which
formed the basis of Belen’s claim and led to the registration of the
property
in her name.cralaw:red
Petitioners also question
Fidela’s filing of an unlawful detainer suit after the date of the Deed
of Donation. Again, we remind petitioners that because this action
involves
property, they should rely on the strength of their own title, not on
the
alleged weakness of the claim of respondents. At any rate, the burden
of
proof of the claim of co-ownership rests on the former.chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, the final
resolution of this case entails the review of factual findings of the
courts
below. It is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and
conclusive
are the factual findings of the trial court, if supported by clear and
convincing evidence on record. Usually, the Supreme Court does not
review
those findings -- especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as
in this case.[47]
From the records of the present case, no cogent evidence appears that
would
impel us to apply the above doctrine differently. The courts below have
not overlooked essential facts that, if considered, may produce a
different
outcome. The trial court correctly explained thus:
"This Court from the
outset had the opportunity to see and hear the tell-tale [signs] of
truthfulness
or perjury – like the flush of face, or the tone of voice, or the dart
of eyes, or the fearful pause [--] and finds that credibility is with
the
defendants [herein respondents]. Moreover, the preponderance of
evidence
is with defendants whose testimonial evidences are buttressed by their
documentary evidences."[48]
Finally, we agree with
the CA in eliminating the awards for damages and attorney’s fees for
respondents’
failure to show any factual, legal or equitable bases therefor.[49]
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is hereby DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-45.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Id., pp. 46-62. Penned by Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by
Justices Ruben T. Reyes (Division chair) and Mariano C. del Castillo
(member).
[3]
CA Decision, p. 16; rollo, p. 61.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Rollo, pp. 63-81. Penned by Judge Jose S. Peñas Jr.
[5]
RTC Decision, pp. 17-19; rollo, pp. 79-81.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
CA Decision, pp. 3-10; id., pp. 48-55. Citations omitted.
[7]
Exhibit "A"; records, p. 103.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
The case was deemed submitted for decision on October 17, 2002, upon
this
Court’s receipt of respondents’ Memorandum signed by Atty. Esteban R.
Abonal.
[Petitioners’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. German A. Gineta, was
received
by the Court on October 7, 2002.
[9]
Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 10; rollo, p. 187. Original in upper case.
[10]
Annex "C" of the Petition; Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants, p. 3;
rollo,
p. 84.
[11]
See Petition, p. 4; rollo, p. 11. See also Memorandum for Petitioners,
p. 3; rollo, p. 180.
[12]
Heirs of Velasquez v. CA, 382 Phil. 438, February 15, 2000; Catapusan
v.
CA, 332 Phil. 586, November 21, 1996.
[13]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
§1 of Rule 69 provides: "A person having the right to compel the
partition
of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his
complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate
description
of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as
defendants
all other persons interested in the property."chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Viloria v. CA, 368 Phil. 851, June 30, 1999; Catapusan v. CA, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Catapusan v. CA, supra; See also §1 of Rule 133 of the Revised
Rules
on Evidence.
[17]
Exhibit "10"; records, p. 191.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Spouses Mathay v. CA, 356 Phil. 870, September 17, 1998.
[19]
Victorio v. CA, 355 SCRA 520, March 28, 2001.
[20]
Exhibit "10"; records, p. 191.
[21]
Exhibit "4"; records, p. 145.
[22]
Records, pp. 68-69.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Exhibit "11"; records, p. 193.
[24]
Article 2085(2) of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II (1992 ed.), pp.
200-201.
[26]
Article 493 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Exhibit "3"; records, pp. 143-144.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
Article 712 of the Civil Code, provides: "Ownership and other real
rights
over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by
testate
and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by
tradition."
(Italics supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
RTC Decision, p. 14; rollo, p. 76. Citations omitted.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II (9th revised ed., 2001), pp.
644-645.
[31]
Exhibit "2"; records, p. 142.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Heirs of Velasquez v. CA, supra; Halili v. CIR, 326 Phil. 982, May 30,
1996.
[33]
The property was donated to Belen Ocampo-Barrito on January 13, 1984.
[34]
Lee Tek Sheng v. CA, 354 Phil. 556, July 15, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
Records, p. 71.chanrobles virtual law library
[36]
Catapusan v. CA, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
CA Decision, pp. 13-14; rollo, pp. 58-59.chanrobles virtual law library
[38]
Article 12 of the Civil Code provides: "A custom must be proved as a
fact,
according to the rules of evidence."
[39]
§12 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
Article 725 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[41]
Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence (1993 revised ed.), p.
353.
[42]
Article 750 of the Civil Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[43]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[44]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[45]
§9 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.chanrobles virtual law library
[46]
Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, supra, p. 531.chanrobles virtual law library
[47]
PNB v. CA, 381 Phil. 720, February 4, 2000; Atillo III v. CA, 334 Phil.
546, January 23, 1997; Catapusan v. CA, supra.
[48]
RTC Decision, p. 17; rollo, p. 79. Citation omitted.chanrobles virtual law library
[49]
National Power Corp. v. Philipp Brothers Oceanic, Inc., 421 Phil. 532,
November 20, 2001; Spouses Yu Eng Cho v. Pan American World Airways,
Inc.,
385 Phil. 453, March 27, 2000. |