FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 138042. February 28, 2001]
JOSEFINA AND MAMERTO R. PALON, petitioners, vs. GIL AND FLOCERFIDA S. NINO BRILLANTE and LORNA CALAMIGAN, ALFREDO IGNACIO CERVANTES and LEONILA CERVANTES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO,
J.:
The Case
The case before the Court
is an appeal via certiorari[1] assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals[2] affirming that of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 85, Quezon City[3]dismissing petitioner’s appeal.
The Facts
Josefina Palon (hereafter
Josefina) was the owner of a parcel of land situated in Talipapa, Quezon City
with an area of two hundred (200 sq. m.) square meters, identified as Lot
105-B-2-A-1-B-2, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 386243 of the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City (hereafter “the lot”).[4]
On December 4, 1989,
Josefina sold undivided portions of the lot to spouses Gil and Flocerida Nino
(hereafter “the Ninos”) and spouses Alfredo and Leonila Cervantes (hereafter
“the Cervantes spouses”). Josefina
executed two (2) separate agreements with the Ninos[5] and the Cervantes spouses.[6] Both agreements were titled “Buod ng
Kasunduan”. Josefina sold separate
portions of the lot to both spouses, each with an area of fifty (50 sq. m.)
square meters, for the price of forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00).
On March 5, 1990,
Josefina executed a third “Buod ng Kasunduan” with spouses Lorna and
Brillante Calamigan (hereafter “the Calamigans”). Josefina sold an undivided portion of the lot to the Calamigans,
with an area of fifty (50 sq. m.) square meters for the amount of thirty seven
thousand and five hundred pesos (P37,500.00).[7]
Essentially, the three
separate agreements (“Buod ng Kasunduan”) contained the following
provisos: First,
all costs connected with the titling, registration and survey of the respective
undivided portions sold, real property taxes for the year 1990 and all
documents and papers necessary for such purposes shall be shouldered by the respective vendees.[8] Second, the balance of the price of
the undivided portions shall be paid in stated installments. The terms for installment differed among the
three vendees thus:
For the Ninos: [9]
P10,000.00 on January 30, 1990.
P20,000.00 on February 28, 1990.
For the Cervantes Spouses: [10]
P10,000.00 on December 24, 1989.
P20,000.00 during the months of January to February 1990.
For the Calamigan Spouses: [11]
P30,000.00 on March 8, 1990.
P7,500.00 on May 15, 1990
Third, all the vendees were prohibited from
constructing houses and fences on their respective undivided portions unless
and until they have fully paid the stated prices pursuant to their individual
agreements.[12]
When the agreements were
executed, Josefina exhibited her owner’s copy of the original certificate of
title over the lot, informing respondents that the original of the title was
burned in a fire that razed the Quezon City Hall, where the office of the
Registry of Deeds was located. However,
she promised all respondents that she would secure the reconstitution of the title
to the lot and then execute deeds of sale covering the undivided portions, so
that separate transfer certificates of title could be issued in the names of
respondents.[13]
On different dates, all
respondents fully settled the corresponding purchase prices of the portions of
the lot they bought from Josefina.
Thus, on March 30, 1990, Josefina executed in favor of the Ninos and the
Cervantes spouses corresponding deeds, titled “Sale of Segregated Portion of
Land.”[14]
On April 26, 1990,
Josefina executed a similar deed in favor of the Calamigan spouses.[15] Respondents were promised that they would be
given separate titles to the portions of the lot they purchased after one
month.[16]
In the meantime, Josefina
filed with the Land Registration Authority an application for the
administrative reconstitution of the original of the title covering the lot.[17]
In May 1990, Josefina
engaged the services of Geodetic Engineer Dominador Cesar for the purpose of
conducting a subdivision survey of the
lot and prepare a subdivision plan to indicate the
portions sold to private respondents.[18]
On July 09, 1990, Engr.
Cesar conducted a subdivision survey of the lot and prepared a corresponding
subdivision plan, which Josefina signed.
Under the plan, a perpetual right of way to the road was located on Lot
105-B-2-A-1-B-2-B (the portion sold to spouses Cervantes) and Lot
105-B-2-A-1-B-2-A.[19]
On December 22 and 26,
1990, Josefina paid Engr. Cesar the total amount of one thousand eight hundred
pesos (P1,800.00).[20] However, the Bureau of Lands denied the
plan.[21]
In the early part of
December 1990, the Land Registration Authority issued an order granting
Josefina’s application for administrative reconstitution of the original title
covering the lot. On the basis of the order, the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City issued Transfer
Certificate of Title RT-19189 over the lot on March 1991.[22]
When respondents
discovered that Josefina was issued a reconstituted title, they demanded that
Josefina surrender the title to the Register of Deeds for its cancellation and
the issuance of separate titles to cover the portions bought by them.[23]
Josefina, however,
informed them that the Bureau of Lands disapproved the subdivision plan
prepared by Engr. Cesar. As such, she
authorized them to engage another Geodetic Engineer to conduct a second survey
of the lot and prepare another subdivision plan. Respondents were informed at the Bureau of Lands that the first
subdivision plan prepared by Engr. Cesar was not approved because there was no
proper right of way.[24]
Respondents then secured
and paid for the services of Geodetic Engineer Reynaldo Lozano.[25] Josefina executed a deed authorizing Engr.
Lozano to conduct the survey.[26]
Engr. Lozano conducted a
second survey and prepared a consolidated subdivision survey plan covering
subdivision Lot No. 105-A, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 384242,
and Lot No. 105-B-2-A-1-B-2, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 286243. However, under the plan prepared by Engr. Lozano, the permanent
right of way which was previously constituted under Engr. Cesar’s plan on the
portion of the lot owned by the Ninos, was now between Lot 105-A and Josefina’s
lot.[27]
Respondents and Josefina
agreed to proceed to the Bureau of Lands on June 4, 1991, for approval of the
plan.[28] However, on June 3, 1991, respondents
received a letter from Josefina stating that she would not be able to accompany
respondents to the Bureau of Lands as she had to appear before the Court in
connection with a hearing. The letter
also stated that she misplaced her files in connection with her title to the
lot.[29] Apparently, Josefina was not happy with the
fact that a permanent right of way was provided for in the second subdivision
plan which encroached on her portion of the lot.[30]
Disgruntled, respondents
proceeded to Josefina’s office which happened to be the Administrative Services
Division, Supreme Court, to complain to the Chief of the Division and to seek
help for the issuance to them of separate titles over their portions of the
lot. During the confrontation, Josefina
insisted that her failure to deliver the titles was due to respondents’ breach
of their agreements (“Buod ng Kasunduan”).[31]
Respondents proceeded to
the office of the Public Attorney and sought legal assistance to compel
Josefina to issue the titles covering the portions of the lot sold to them.[32] Respondents executed their respective
“Affidavits of Adverse Claims” over Josefina’s lot, annotating the claims on
the dorsal of Josefina’s reconstituted title.[33]
On June 04, 1991, Atty.
Joy Agpaoa of the Public Attorney’s Office sent an invitation to Josefina for
them to meet in conference with respondents on June 18, 1991, at 2:00 in
the afternoon.
Josefina did not attend
the conference.[34]
On June 27, 1991, the
Ninos filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City a complaint against
Josefina.[35] The complaint was designated as one for
“Specific Performance and Damages”, praying that Josefina produce her Owner’s
Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate No. 382643 RT-19189 and surrender the
same to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
The complaint also prayed for an award of moral and nominal damages.[36]
On June 27, 1991, the
Calamigan spouses likewise filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City[37] a similar complaint[38] against Josefina.
On July 16, 1991, before
Josefina could be served with summons and the complaint, she signed a letter addressed
to Engr. Lozano withdrawing her
previous authorization allowing him to survey the lot.[39]
On August 26, 1991, upon
motion, the trial court ordered the consolidation of the two cases.[40]
On November 29, 1991, the
Cervantes spouses filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City[41] a similar complaint for specific performance
and damages[42] against Josfina.
On January 27, 1992, the
trial court ordered the three cases consolidated.[43]
The Decision of the Trial Court
Ruling on the issues of
whether private respondents complied with the conditions in the “Buod ng
Kasunduan” and whether respondents could compel Josefina to deliver the
reconstituted title to them, on February 28, 1995, the trial court held: First, there was no breach of the
three deeds entitled “Buod ng Kasunduan”. While respondents paid installments on the purchase price earlier
than the dates indicated therein, the agreement contains no sanction for
non-compliance with the schedule of payment.
In fact, Josefina accepted such payments without question as evidenced
by the corresponding deeds of sale subsequently issued by her. Further, while the deeds required
respondents to pay real estate taxes for the year 1990, respondents paid for
the years 1991 and 1992 as well.
Likewise, Josefina’s contention that the agreements were breached as
respondents failed to pay the corresponding capital gains tax on the sales is
untenable since the agreements do not contain a provision requiring them to do
so. Second, Josefina’s failure
to surrender her certificate of title over the lot on the pretext that such was
missing is unbelievable and was in
bad faith. Hence, a grant of
moral damages was justified.[44] The “fallo” reads as follows:[45]
“Wherefore, premises considered, by preponderance of evidence, the Court finds in favor of the plaintiffs and hereby orders the defendants as follows:
“I. In Civil Case No. Q-91-9313:
“a) Defendants are ordered to produce their Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate Title No. 382643 RT-19189, issued in the name of Josefina Palon, married to Mamerto Palon and surrender the same to the Register of Deeds of Quezon as basis for the issuance of a title in the name of Spouses Gil D. Nino and Flocerfida S. Nino.
“b) Defendants to pay, jointly and severally to the plaintiffs the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages.
“c) Costs of suit.
“II. In Civil Case No. Q-91-9319:
“a) Defendants are ordered to produce their owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate Title No. 382643 RT-19189 issued in the name of Josefina Palon, married to Mamerto Palon and surrender the same to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as basis for the issuance of a title in the name of Spouses Brillante Calamigan and Lorna Calamigan.
“b) Defendants to pay, jointly and severally to the plaintiffs the amount of P20,000.00 as moral damages.
“c) Costs of suit.
“III. In Civil Case No. Q-91-10794:
“a)Defendants are ordered to produce their owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate Title No. 382643 RT-19189 issued in the name of Josefina Palon married to Memerto Palon and surrender the same to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as basis for the issuance of a title in the name of Spouses Alfredo Ignacio Cervantes and Leonila I. Cervantes.
“b)Costs of suit.
“SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, on April 05,
1995, Josefina appealed to the Court of Appeals.[46]
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals
confined itself to two issues. First,
whether petitioners acted in bad faith in not causing the issuance of separate
titles over the portions of the lot sold to respondents. Second, whether petitioners are
liable for moral damages to respondents.
Finding against Josefina,
on July 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision ruling that
Josefina was obliged under Articles 1495 and 1497 of the Civil Code not only to
deliver physical possession of the portions of the lot sold, but also to cause
the issuance of separate titles in respondents’ favor. Her failure to do so was done in bad
faith. Worse, Josefina accused
respondents of reneging on their agreement for “hastily” paying their
obligations to her prematurely, when in fact, respondents were merely helping
Josefina out during her time of need.
Bad faith is more evident as Josefina remained adamant despite
respondents’ recourse to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, Supreme
Court and the Public Attorney’s Office, even ignoring the latter’s letter of
invitation.[47]
We quote its dispositive
portion:[48]
“IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. The Appellant’s appeal is DISMISSED. With costs against the Appellants.
“SO ORDERED.”
On September 15, 1998,
petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the
afore-quoted decision.[49]
On January 14, 1999, the
Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.[50]
Hence, this petition.[51]
The Issue
The sole issue before the
Court is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed
petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The Court’s Ruling
We resolve to dismiss the
petition.
At the heart of the
present controversy are issues of fact.[52] Twice, the questions of fact were passed and
decided upon. First by the trial court
and then by the Court of Appeals. Both
courts arrived at the same conclusion, finding against Josefina.
These factual rulings are
binding on us.[53]
Petitioners’ only
recourse in this appeal is to prove that the Court of Appeals exercised
its power “in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility so patent and gross
as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.”[54] This they failed to do.[55]
In this appeal,
petitioners merely raised issues of fact.
In an appeal via certiorari,
only questions of law may be reviewed.[56] A question of law arises when there is doubt
or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. For the issues to be pure questions of law,
there must be no doubt as to the truth or falsehood of the facts alleged.[57]
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 49716, in toto.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Puno, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., no part, having concurred
in the assailed CA decision.
[1] Under
Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2] In
CA-G. R. CV No. 49716, promulgated on July 31, 1998, Callejo, Sr., J., ponente, Ynares-Santiago (now Associate
Justice, Supreme Court) and Umali, JJ., concurring.
[3] In
Civil Case Nos. Q-91-9316, Q-91-9319; Q-91-10794 dated February 28, 1995, Judge
Elpidio M. Catungal, Sr., presiding.
[4] Court
of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-30.
[5] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “5”.
[6] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “A-2”.
[7] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “3”.
[8] “2. Ang Nagbili at Bumili ay sumasang-ayon ng
ang Bumili ang babalikat ng lahat ng gastusin para sa Manunukat ng lupa,
pagbabayad ng kaukulang buwis ng naturang lupa sa taong 1990, pagpapatitulo ng
naturang lupa, kasama na ang anumang paghahanda ng mga kinaukulang mga papeles
o mga dokumento;”
[9] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, supra, Note 5.
[10] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, supra, Note 6.
[11] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, supra, Note 7.
[12] “5. Na ang
Bumili (in this case, the Ninos and the Cervantes spouses) ay hindi
pahihintulutan ng Nagbili na magtayo ng bakod o bahay sa naturang lupa hanggang
hindi nababayaran ang kabuuang Apatnapung Libong Piso (P40,000.00) (and in the
case of the Calamigans, thirty seven thousand and five hundred pesos
(P37,500.00).”
[13] TSN,
November 12, 1992, pp. 11-14; TSN, January 22, 1993, p. 4; Court of Appeals
Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-30, at p. 23.
[14] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “A”.
[15] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “7”.
[16] TSN,
November 6, 1992, p. 4.
[17] Court
of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-23, at p. 23.
[18] TSN,
June 11, 1993, pp. 14.
[19] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “4”.
[20] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibits “4-a” and “4-b”, respectively.
[21] TSN,
June 11, 1993, pp. 15-19.
[22] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, “Exhibit 1”.
[23] TSN,
December 10, 1992, pp. 6-8.
[24] TSN,
November 6, 1992, pp. 5-6; TSN, December 10, 1992, p. 8.
[25] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, “Exhibit I”, TSN, November 6, 1992, p. 12.
[26] Court
of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-30, at p. 24.
[27] Ibid.
[28] TSN,
December 10, 1992, p. 10.
[29] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “F”.
[30] Josefina
raised the issue that the agreements, “Buod
ng Kasunduan” never required
her to provide private respondent with a right of way. This was an issue belatedly raised to the
Court of Appeals which nevertheless passed upon it, stating that private
respondents never demanded that Josefina grant a right of way in
their favor. Their only demand was for Josefina to cause
the approval of a subdivision plan and cause issuance of separate certificates
of title in their favor (Court of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-30, at
pp. 27-28).
[31] TSN,
November 6, 1992, pp. 7-8; TSN, December 10, 1992, p. 11.
[32] TSN,
December 10, 1992, pp. 12-13.
[33] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “D”.
[34] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “G”.
[35] Docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-91-9316.
[36] RTC
Record in Civil Case No. Q-91-9316, pp. 3-5.
[37] Docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-91-9319.
[38] RTC
Record in Civil Case No. Q-91-10794, pp. 2-3.
[39] RTC
Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit “C-1”.
[40] RTC
Record in Civil Case No. Q-91-10794, p. 16.
[41] RTC
Record in Civil Case No. Q-91-10794, p. 2.
[42] Docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-91-10794.
[43] RTC
Record in Civil Case No. Q-91-10794, p. 16.
[44] Regional
Trial Court Decision, Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[45] Ibid,
pp. 61-62.
[46] Joint
Notice of Appeal, RTC Record, p. 121.
Docketed as CA-G. R. CV No. 49716.
[47] Court
of Appeals Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-30, at pp. 28-29.
[48] Ibid,
at p. 30.
[49] Court
of Appeals Rollo, pp. 79-83.
[50] Rollo,
p. 32.
[51] Filed on April 20, 1999 (Petition, Rollo,
pp. 4-20).
[52] Whether
one acted in good faith or bad faith is a question of fact (Bermudez v.
Gonzales, G. R. No. 132810, December 11, 2000).
[53] Santiago
v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 109111, June 28, 2000.
[54] Garcia-Rueda
v. Pascasio, 344 Phil. 323, 330 (1997); Workers of Antique Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission , G. R. No.
120062, June 8, 2000; De Vera v.
Pelayo, G. R. No. 137354, July 6, 2000.
[55] Simon
v. Civil Service Commission, 215 SCRA 410 (1992).
[56] Rule
45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[57] Commissioner
of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 83 (1998).