BAUTISTA v. BAUTISTA

MANUEL L. BAUTISTA, SPOUSES ANGEL SAHAGUN and CARMELITA BAUTISTA, and ANIANO L. BAUTISTA, Petitioners VS. MARGARITO L. BAUTISTA, Respondent

G.R. No. 202088

March 08, 2017

Facts:

The Bautista siblings - Margarito, Manuel L. Bautista, Carmelita Bautista Sahagun, Aniano L. Bautista ,Florencia Bautista de Villa, and Ester Bautista Cabrera - established a lending business through a common fund from the proceeds of the sale of a parcel of coconut land they inherited from their mother Consorcia Lantin Bautista. Margarito, Florencia, and Ester managed the business with Reginald Sahagun, Carmelita's son, as credit investigator. Through the said lending business, the siblings acquired several real properties in San Pablo City. On March 2, 1998, Amelia V. Mendoza obtained a loan in the amount of P690,000.00 from Florencia, and secured the same with a real estate mortgage over a 25,518 square-meter parcel of land she owned situated at Barangay Sta. Monica, San Pablo City, denominated as Lot 2, Plan Psu-45117 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- 2371 (Sta. Monica property). They later extended the mortgage through a Kasulatan ng Pagdaragdag ng Sanla, for an additional loan of P 15,000.00 on April 6, 1998.

On May 13, 1998, Amelia and Florencia renewed the mortgage for P l, 085,000.0010 and cancelled the previous loan of P690, 000.00 through a "Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage."

Subsequently, on April 12, 1999, Amelia and Florencia execute another Kasulatan ng Pagdaragdag ng Sanla in the amount of P57, 500.00. Florencia, thereafter, received the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-23 71, which she, in turn, entrusted to Carmelita when she went overseas. On November 28, 2002, Amelia allegedly sold the subject property to Margarito through a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan 13 for P500, 000.00 and, likewise, cancelled the Pl, 085,000.00 loan through another "Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage." On the same date, Florencia filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Owner's Duplicate of TCT No. T-2371 before the RTC of San Pablo City, Branch 29. 15 She alleged that she was the mortgagee of the subject property, and that she could not locate, despite diligent search, the owner's duplicate title in her possession, which she misplaced sometime in September 2002. Petitioners tried to oppose the issuance, 18 but on January 30, 2003, the RTC granted the petition and TCT No. T-59882 was later issued in the name of Margarito. 19 On January 12, 2004, petitioners registered an Adverse Claim over the Sta. Monica property, which was annotated on TCT No. T- 59882. Failing to settle their differences, petitioners subsequently instituted a Complaint for Partition and Accounting with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. SP-6064(04) before the RTC of San Pablo City, Branch 32, over several properties against herein respondent Margarito, the Spouses Marconi de Villa and Florencia Bautista, and the Spouses Senen Cabrera and Ester Bautista.

Since no settlement was reached as regards the Sta. Monica property, petitioners presented copies of their bank transactions with Far East Bank to support their claim of co-ownership over the same. They also presented an undated, unnotarized, and without the name of the vendee Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan (blank Kasulatan), which Amelia purportedly executed and signed disposing the subject property in favor of the Bautista siblings. Petitioner Carmelita also alleged that the duplicate copy of TCT No. T-2371 in the name of Amelia was in her possession and was never lost. For his part, Margarito asseverated that he exclusively owns the property in controversy since he used his personal funds in purchasing the land. Margarito presented TCT No. T-59882 covering the Sta. Monica property, and the Tax Declaration and Receipts thereof. On February 16, 2009, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared, among other things, that the Sta. Monica property was commonly owned by the siblings.

On March 3, 2009, Margarito filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in an Order32 dated April 2, 2009. Aggrieved, Margarito elevated the case before the CA. In a Decision dated March 6, 2012, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution dated May 25, 2012.

Issues:

Whether or not the CA erred in exercising abuse of discretion when it entertained an appealed decision of the court a quo that is already final and executory. Whether or not Margarito is exclusively owns the Sta. Monica Property by using his personal funds in purchasing the land.

Held:

The petition is impressed with merit. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We note that the arguments raised here would necessarily require a re-evaluation of the parties' submissions and the CA's factual findings. At the outset, petitioners maintain that the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since the Decision dated February 16, 2009 of the RTC was already final and executory. They claim that the motion for reconsideration filed by Margarito before the R TC was not in accordance with the Rules because a copy of the said motion was served or received by them through a private courier service and that there was a defect in the verification or affidavit of service. The R TC gave petitioners 15 days from notice to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent. Petitioners filed its Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration on March 12, 2009. In their opposition, petitioners pointed the defect in the service of the motion when the same was delivered through LBC, a private courier. From the foregoing, the RTC gave petitioners the opportunity to be heard, and sufficient time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose the same. It was not even alleged nor proven that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Considering the circumstances, the purpose of the service of the motion was substantially complied with. The Rules should be liberally construed as long as their purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place.

Consequently, the first stage of an action for judicial partition and/or accounting is concerned with the determination of whether or not a coownership in fact exists and a partition is proper. In the case at bar, petitioners aver that although the Sta. Monica property was registered solely in Margarito's name, they are co-owners of the property because it was acquired through the siblings' lending business, as such, they are entitled to partition and the conveyance to them of their respective shares.

To support their allegations, petitioners presented several mortgage contracts evidencing the transactions between Amelia and Florencia, computer printouts of their bank transactions, and the blank Kasulatan. In Carmelita's direct testimony, she illustrated how they acquired properties through their lending business and how ownership of the properties was transferred under their names. She also testified that the money used in the purchase of the Sta. Monica property came from their common fund.

From the foregoing, petitioners established the manner in which they acquired several properties through their business and have them registered under their names. Even the compromise agreement they entered into, which was approved by the RTC, reflected their claim and admission that they co-owned the properties although titled to only one of their siblings. It was, thus, logical for the RTC to conclude that it was through this practice that they also acquired the Sta. Monica property.

The CA held that Margarito presented pieces of evidence, including a deed of sale between Amelia and Margarito. However, as found by the RTC and based on the List of Exhibits, aside from his bare allegations and testimony, Margarito neither identified nor presented the deed of sale during trial nor formally offered the same as his evidence. It is elementary that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. It appears that Margarito's evidence of exclusive ownership are the certificate of title, the tax declarations pertaining thereto, his bank deposits, and other mortgage contracts involving different mortgagors. Despite all these, Margarito failed to prove that Amelia conveyed the Sta. Monica property exclusively in his name. It is also quite intriguing why he did not even bother to present the testimony of Amelia or of Florencia, who could have enlightened the court about their transactions.

A trust, which derives its strength from the confidence one reposes on another especially between families, does not lose that character simply because of what appears in a legal document. From the foregoing, this Court finds that an implied resulting trust existed among the parties. The pieces of evidence presented demonstrate their intention to acquire the Sta.

Monica property in the course of their business, just like the other properties that were also the subjects of the partition case and the compromise agreement they entered into. Although the Sta. Monica property was titled under the name of Margarito, the surrounding circumstances as to its acquisition speak of the intent that the equitable or beneficial ownership of the property should belong to the Bautista siblings.

Inevitably, the RTC's Order of partition of the Sta. Monica property was erroneously set aside by the CA and this Court is convinced that petitioners satisfactorily established that they are co-owners of the property and are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated March 6, 2012 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93562 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the Decision dated February 16, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32, in Civil Case No. SP-6064(04) is REINSTATED.