GATMAYTAN v. DOLOR

Mercedes S. Gatmaytan Vs. Francisco Dolor

G.R. No. 198120

February 20, 2017

Facts:

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the assailed March 24, 2011 decision and August 9, 2011 resolution be reversed and set-aside.

In a Complaint for Reconveyance of Property and Damages filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, the Dolor spouses alleged that on February 17, 1984, they, as buyers, and Manuel Camayo, as seller, executed a Deed of Sale over a 300 square meter parcel of land. This parcel of land is to be segregated from a larger landholding.

The Deed of Sale stated that, of the total consideration of P30, 000.00, half would be paid upon the execution of the deed and the balance would be paid upon the release of Transfer Certificate Title (TCT). Dolor were able to pay the whole P30, 000 even before it is released.

On May 18, 1984, a second deed was executed, setting aside the first deed. The second deed no longer referenced the condition for payment. But merely state that the lot was sold at P30, 000.

In March 1989, the Dolor spouses authorized Cecilio Manzanilla and his family to occupy the lot they bought.

In October 1999, the Dolor spouses were surprise when petitioner Gatmaytan filed and ejectment suit against Manzanilla. Petitioner Gatmaytan anchored her suit on the ground that the lot where Manzanilla and his family are staying is not registered to him. Gatmaytan claimed that the Deed of Sale between the Dolor spouses and Camayo is not registered.

Camayo answered that he acknowledges executing a Deed of Sale in favor of the Dolor spouses. He added that he entered into an agreement with Gatmaytan for the latter to defray the expenses for the payment of real estate taxes, and the segregation of the title covering the portion sold to the Dolor spouses from the larger, 5, 001 square meters. Per this agreement, Gatmaytan was to have the larger parcel titled in her name with the condition that Gatmaytan would deliver to the Dolor Spouses the segregated portion and TCT covering it.

Issue:

Whether or not Deed of Sale executed by Camayo and Dolor spouses is legitimate.

Ruling:

RTC rendered a decision ordering Gatmaytan to convey the lot to Dolor spouses.

Gatmaytan appealed in CA, however, appeal is dismissed.

Petitioner’s own, voluntary reference to a receipt attached at the back of the Rehional Trial Court’s March 27, 2006 decision suggests that she herself had an access to this receipt and could have presented a copy of it to this Court. The fact that she did not present it implies negligence, or worse, calls into operation the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Regardless, it remains that she failed to prove what she claimed.

Instead of producing the RTC’s Resolution, petitioner adduced a copy of a Motion for Reconsideration. Even then, what she annexed was a not a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration she filed with the Regional Trial Court but a copy of the Motion for Reconsideration dated April 12, 2011, which she filed with the Court of Appeals. This was a Motion for Reconsideration she filed in response to the presently assailed March 24, 2011 CA Decision, not to the RTC’s March 27, 2006 decision.

Motion for Reconsideration filed with the RTC, only to present something entirely different, could indicate an attempt to mislead this Court into blindly accepting her allegations.

As with the missing receipt however, regardless of whether petitioner failed to attach it deliberately or out of mere inadvertence, what remains is that petitioner failed to prove what she claimed.

The Petition on Review of Certiorari is denied.