*
G.R. No. 149516. September 11, 2006.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
377
378
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
1
Before this Court is a petition for review of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59254 dated June 8,
2001 which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court 2(RTC)
Branch 8 of Aparri, Cagayan, as well as the CAs Resolution dated
August 22, 2001 which denied petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.
The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the CA, are as
follows:
_______________
379
The RTC upheld the stand of petitioners Juanita and Ninoy and
concluded that5 respondents title is void having been obtained
through fraud.
Respondent appealed to the CA claiming that the trial court
erred: in declaring that Maria and Enrique are no longer owners of
the land in question and that the land in Civil Case No. 557-A is the
same land subject matter of this case; in declaring that the deeds of
sale executed by Maria and Enrique are forgeries; in assuming that
TCT No. T-85450 is null and void for being fraudulently issued; and
6
in awarding damages which had no basis.
_______________
380
was allegedly sold to her; she did not take steps to secure the land
despite knowledge of respondents attempt to place a monument
therein in 1991; petitioners did not move for the annulment of TCT
No. T-85450 issued on February 3, 1992 through in rem
proceedings; while petitioners alleged forgery, no evidence was
adduced to substantiate such claim; petitioners also cannot contest
the sale between respondent and his predecessors-in-interest since
they are not parties thereto; petitioners cannot impugn the validity of
a Torrens title with mere self-serving allegations as it is generally a
conclusive evidence on the ownership of the land referred therein;
the disputed land is different from the one referred to in Civil Case
No. 557-A because apart from the decision in the latter case and the
_______________
7 Id., at p. 33.
381
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
_______________
382
_______________
10 Id., at p. 17.
383
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
384
(a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain
or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as
errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just
decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of
justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specically
assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of
record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed
to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors
on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not
assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
17
properly assigned, is dependent.
_______________
385
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
_______________
18 Id., at p. 707.
19 Vda. de Gualberto v. Go, G.R. No. 139843, July 21, 2005, 463 SCRA 671, 677;
Foster-Gallego v. Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 275, 290;
Seville v. National Development Company, 403 Phil. 843, 858; 351 SCRA 112, 124-
125 (2001).
20 Seville v. National Development Company, supra at p. 859; p. 125; De Pedro v.
Romasan Development Corp., G.R. No. 158002, February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 564,
575.
21 Seville v. National Development Company, supra at p. 859; p. 125.
386
26. The alleged registration made by plaintiff is fraudulent and illegal, even
as no notice was given to answering defendant (Juanita) or her tenant, and,
hence, the same is ineffective.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
23. The alleged registration caused by plaintiff over the property is null,
void and ineffective, the same having been effected through fraud and
without notice to the actual occupants of the property, even as the same was
23
based on a null, void, ineffective, forged, fake and spurious documents.
_______________
22 Records, p. 44.
23 Id., at p. 62.
24 Caraan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA
543, 549-550; S.J. Vda. de Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 721, 732; 351
SCRA 12, 21 (2001); Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 18, 27; 311 SCRA 18, 26
(1999).
387
25
buyer in good faith, petitioners in this case, however, failed to
show that they have a better right over the subject property. As
respondent has presented TCT No. T-85450 in his name, the burden
of proof has shifted to petitioners who must establish by
preponderance of evidence their 26
allegation that they have a better
right over the subject property. This petitioners failed to do.
In claiming their right over the property, petitioner Juanita
invokes the judgment of the CFI in Civil Case No. 557-A which
purportedly awarded to her predecessors-in-interest the property in
question. A scrutiny of said judgment however reveals the weakness
of her claim.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
When this case was called for hearing, the parties submitted the following
stipulation of facts:
Come now the parties in the above-entitled case and to this Honorable
Court respectfully state:
1. That the plaintiff Caridad Ugale hereby sells to the defendants any
and all rights and interests she has in the homestead covered by
Original Certicate of Title No. 80, particularly the land in question herein
which contains an area of 1.6785 hectares;
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment in accordance with
the terms and conditions of said stipulation and orders the parties to strictly
follow and observe the terms and conditions thereof. Without costs.
27
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
25 Occea v. Esponilla, G.R. No. 156973, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 116, 124-125;
Lu v. Spouses Manipon, 431 Phil. 569, 583; 381 SCRA 788, 798-799 (2002); David v.
Malay, 376 Phil. 825, 839; 318 SCRA 711, 724 (1999).
26 Caraan v. Court of Appeals, supra note 24, at p. 548.
27 Records, pp. 186-187.
388
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
2/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 501
show that the case involved with the same land. The purported Original
Certicate of Title in the name of Pablo Carino is not much of help either
considering that it is but a photocopy of the original and was not even
certied by the Register of Deeds. It is but a mere scrap of paper and has no
evidentiary value whatsoever. Further still, a perusal of the title number
would seem to indicate that the number 80 was just superimposed before
it was photocopied in order to make it appear that it is the same land
referred to in Civil Case No. 577-A. This seems to underscore appellees
vain attempt to cloak with legal color their design to retain the parcel of land
31
at the expense of the rightful owner.
_______________
389
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
390
o0o
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015a0e89cdf710e999a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13