Bartolome v IAC G.R. No. 76792; March 12, 1990

Bartolome v IAC

G.R. No. 76792 March 12, 1990

Facts:

1.     Epitacio Batara, first declared as his property the 725 sqm portion  of  said  Lot  No.  11165 in Laoag under tax declaration No. 5708

2.     Tax declaration No.  5708  was  superseded  by  tax  declaration  No.  37576  labelled  as  a  "revision  of  declaration  of  real  property  (urban)".   The  residential  lot  described  in  the  latter  tax  declaration  contained  an  area  of  772  square  meters  with  a  "casa"  and  a  "granero" as improvements thereon.

3.     Epitacio and his wife, Maria Gonzales, had two children: Catalina and  Pedro.  The  latter  died without  issue.  Catalina,  who  married  someone  surnamed  Bartolome,  bore  five  children  named  Isabela,  Tarcila,  Calixto,  Resurreccion  and  Ruperta.

4.     Epitacio  entrusted  the  lot  to  his  cousin,  Doroteo Bartolome, who owned the lot bounding Epitacio's property on the  south when he left for Isabela.

5.     Maria later  followed  Epitacio  to  Isabela,  and allowed Doroteo to  continue  taking charge of the property.

6.     Epitacio died in Isabela. 5 years later Maria and her grandchildren, Calixto and  Resurreccion,  returned to Laoag.

a.     they found that the house on their lot was destroyed  by  fire,  they  boarded  in  someone  else's  house. 

b.     Calixto  constructed  a  bamboo  fence  around  his  grandfather's  lot  and  he  and  Resurreccion,  who  was  studying  in  Laoag,  cleaned  it. 

7.     Resurreccion went back to  Isabela  after  Maria’s  death  in  1926.It  was  also  in  that year when Doroteo migrated  to  Davao  City. Doroteo died there two years later.

8.     Thereafter, the Director of Lands  instituted  cadastral  proceedings  over  the  land (Cadastral  Case  No.  53).

9.     Ursula  Cid,  the  widow  of Bernabe (Doroteo’s son),  who  died  in  1928,  filed  an  answer

a.     claiming  ownership  over  Lot No. 11165 with an area of 1660 square meters and  with  a  house  as  improvement  thereon. 

b.     The  land  was  allegedly  acquired  by  Ursula  Cid  through  inheritance  from,  the  father  of  Ursula's deceased husband, Bernabe.

10.   More than  3  months later, Resurreccion  also  filed  an  answer  in  the  same  cadastral  case

a.     claiming  ownership  over  a  portion  of  Lot  No.  11165  with  an  area  of  864  square  meters.

b.     No improvements on the lot were indicated in the answer which  also  stated  that  said  portion  of  Lot  No.  11165  was  acquired  by  claimant Resurreccion "by  inheritance from  my  grandfather  and grandmother . . . Epitacio Batara and Maria Gonzales."

11.   From  then  on,  no  further  proceedings  were  held  in  the  cadastral  case. 

12.   Meanwhile, Resurreccion verbally entrusted the portion  she  had  claimed  to  Maria  Bartolome,  whom  she  later  described  as  the  daughter of Doroteo Bartolome.

13.   Ursula  Cid  and  her  children  also  migrated  to  Davao  City  leaving  their  house  on  Lot  No.  11165  to  a  lessee,  Severino  Ramos.  Ursula  and  her  son,  Dominador,  instructed  Maria  Bartolome,  the  sister  of  Bernabe, to receive the rentals for the house from Severino Ramos.

14.   Maria  Bartolome also paid the taxes on the property until 1948, when Dominador  took  over  the  task.  But Maria  Bartolome,  as  "administrator of the parcel of land situated at Bo. 11, Laoag, Ilocos Norte,"  leased Lot No. 11165 to the Philippine United Trading Co., Inc.

a.     The rentals  for  the  property  were  paid  by  the  lessee  to  Dominador until  the  edifice  housing  the  company  was  burned  down.

b.     Resurreccion, who had been residing in Isabela, was given by Maria Bartolome a  small  amount,  which  could  have  been  about  P50,  in  consideration  of  the  lease contract.

15.   the CFI sent out notices for the "continuation of the hearing" in Cadastral Case No. 53. 

a.     It should be remembered,  however,  that  from  the  time  Ursula  Cid  and Resurreccion  filed  their  answers  to  the  petition  in  the  cadastral  case, there had been no progress in the proceedings.

16.   A  year  later,  Maria  J.  Bartolome  filed  in  Cadastral  Case  No.  53  a  "motion  to  admit  answer  in  intervention,"

a.      alleging  that  she  is  one  of  the  children  of  Doroteo  Bartolome  and  that  she  and  her  co-heirs  had  been  excluded  in  Ursula  Cid's  answer  to  the  petition.

b.     She prayed  that  the  answer of  Ursula  Cid  be  amended  so  as  to  include  the  rightful  heirs  of  Doroteo  Bartolome. 

c.      At  the  same  time,  she  filed  an  answer  claiming  co-ownership  over  Lot  No.  11165  with  Clemente,  Julia  and  Rosario  Bartolome  and Ursula Cid, the widow of Bernabe.

d.     She likewise alleged therein that she  and  her  siblings  inherited  the  1660 square  meter  lot  from  Doroteo  Bartolome.

17.   3 months  later,  Ursula  Cid  filed  a  motion  to  amend  her  answer  to  reflect the complete "ground or basis of acquisition" of Lot No. 11165.

a.     Ursula Cid stated that she was the absolute owner of  Lot  No.  11165;

b.      that  she  had  been  the  possessor  of  Lot  No.  11165  for  over  50 years;

c.      that she "acquired by inheritance from Bernabe Bartolome, who  together  with  her,  purchased  the  .  .  .  lot  which  used  to  be  three  adjoining  lots  from  their  respective  owners;" 

d.     and  that  Lot  No.  11165  had  been  declared  for  tax  purposes  in  the  name  of  her  late  husband  Bernabe  Bartolome.

18.   No hearing was conducted in the case until 1974. To buttress her claim that  she and her husband purchased Lot No. 11165, Ursula Cid presented at the  trial three deeds of sale:

a.     one dated March 1, 1917 showing that Bernabe Bartolome and  Ursula  Cid  bought  a  374 sqm lot  for  P15  from  the  sps.  Domingo  Agustin  and  Josefa  Manrique; 

b.     document  dated  February  18,  1913  executed  by  Ignacia  Manrique  in  favor  of  Bernabe  Bartolome  evidencing  the  sale  of  another  lot  also  for  fifteen  pesos;

c.      deed executed by Maria Gonzales on  February 9, 1917 in favor of Bernabe Bartolome and Ursula Cid ceding to the  latter 772 square meters of land for P103.75. The lastmentioned piece of  land is the one being claimed by Resurreccion(exhibit 4)

19.   the  RTC entertained  only  the  answers  of  Ursula  Cid  and  Resurreccion  Bartolome. 

a.     It  found  that  the  lots  described  in  Exhibits  2  and  3  presented  by  Ursula  Cid "are  not  within  Lot  11165" 

b.     and  that  said  exhibits  "are  defective  as  the  vendors  are  not  the  real  owner(s)"  of  the  lots  described  therein. 

c.      As  to  Exhibit  4,  the  court  ruled  that  it  has  "no  probative  value  as  the  same  is  incomplete  and  unsigned." 

d.     The  court  also  held  that  Ursula  Cid's  possession  of the land "after the claimants had filed their respective answer(s) or after  the  declaration  of  a  general  default,"  did  not  confer  ownership  on  her  because  said  possession  was  interrupted  and  merely  tolerated  by  all  the  parties during the pendency of the case.

20.   Ursula Cid appealed to the then IAC.: REVERSED

a.     held  that  the  deeds  of  sale  presented  by  Ursula  Cid  are  ancient  documents  under  Section  22,  Rule  132  of the Rules of Court.

b.     It also ruled that Ursula Cid's continuous possession of  the  lot  from  its  acquisition  and  her  exercise  of  rights  of  ownership  over  it  vested  her  with  the  legal  presumption  that  she  possessed  it  under  a  just  title.

Issue/s:

[a]  whether  the  provisions  of  Rule  132  on  ancient documents are applicable with respect to Exhibit 4- NO

[b] whether  acquisitive prescription runs during the pendency of a cadastral case- NO

Held:

Exhibit  4  consists  of  three  pieces  of  paper. 

-        first page;  blank  sheet; cover  page. 

-        The  two  other  pages  contain  the  handwritten  document  in  Ilocano  stating  that  in  consideration  of  the  amount  of  P103.75,  Maria  Gonzales sold  to  the  spouses  Bernabe  Bartolome and Ursula Cid 772 square meters of land bounded xxx

-        The third sheet or page 2 thereof contains a  warranty  against  eviction  and  other  disturbances  with  the  last  three  lines  indicating the date of the execution of the instrument.

According to Dominador Bartolome, he first saw Exhibit 4 in the possession  of  his  mother,  Ursula  Cid,  when  he  was  just  eleven  years  old.  He  noticed  that  the  document  had  a  fourth  page  containing  the  signature  of  Maria  Gonzales and that all four pages were sewn together.

However, when the  document  was  entrusted  to  him  by  his  mother  in  1947  as  he  was  then  representing  the  family  in  litigation  concerning  the  land,  the  document's fourth page was already missing. He stated that his mother told him that  the  4^th page  was  lost  during  the  Japanese  occupation  while  they  were  evacuating from Davao City.

Dominador Bartolome also presented in court a sworn statement in Ilocano  executed by Ursula Cid on February 19, 1937.  

-        declared  that  the  sale  of  the  lot  to  her  and  her  husband  by  Maria  Gonzales  was  evidenced  by  a  written  instrument; 

-        that  the  land  had  been  transferred  in  the  name  of  her  husband;

-        that  she  had  been  paying  taxes  therefor,  and  that  they  had  been  in  continuous  possession  of  the  land  for  more  than  twenty years.

Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec.  22.  Evidence  of  execution  not  necessary.  —  Where  a  private  writing  is  more  than  thirty  years  old,  is  produced  from  a  custody  in  which  it  would  naturally  be  found  if  genuine,  and  is  unblemished  by  any  alterations  or  circumstances  of  suspicion,  no  other  evidence  of  its  execution  and  authenticity need be given.

We agree with the appellate court that the first two requirements ordained  by  Section  22  are  met  by  Exhibit  4. 

-        It  appearing  that  it  was  executed  in  1917,  Exhibit  4  was  more  than  thirty  years  old  when  it  was  offered  in  evidence  in  1983.

-        It  was  presented  in  court  by  the  proper  custodian  thereof  who  is  an  heir  of  the  person  who  would  naturally  keep  it. 

However, that the CA failed to consider and discuss the 3^rd requirement; that no alterations or  circumstances  of  suspicion  are  present.

Admittedly,  on  its  face,  the  deed  of  sale  appears  unmarred  by  alteration.  We  hold,  however,  that  the  missing  page  has  nonetheless  affected  its  authenticity.  Indeed,  its  importance  cannot  be  overemphasized.  It  allegedly  bears  the  signature  of  the  vendor  of  the  portion  of  Lot  No.  11165  in  question and therefore, it contains vital proof of the voluntary transmission  of rights over the subject of the sale. Without that signature, the document  is incomplete. Verily, an incomplete document is akin to if not worse than a  document with altered contents.

Moreover,  there  is  a  circumstance  which  bothers  the  Court  and  makes  the genuineness  of  the  document  suspect.  If  it  is  really  true  that  the  document  was executed in 1917, Ursula Cid would have had it in her possession when  she filed her answer in Cadastral Case No. 53 in 1933.

Accordingly, she could  have  stated  therein  that  she  acquired  the  portion  in  question  by  purchase  from  Maria  Gonzales.  But  as  it  turned  out,  she  only  claimed  purchase  as  a  mode  of  acquisition  of  Lot  No.  11165  after  her  sister-in-law,  Maria  J.  Bartolome  and  the  other  descendants  of  Doroteo  Bartolome  sought  intervention  in  the  case  and  demanded  their  rightful  shares  over  the  property.  All these negate the appellate court's conclusion that Exhibit 4 is an ancient document.  Necessarily,  proofs  of  its  due  execution  and  authenticity  are

vital.

Under Section 21 of Rule 132, the due execution and authenticity of a private  writing  must  be  proved  either  by  anyone  who  saw  the  writing executed,  by  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  handwriting  of  the  maker, or  by  a  subscribing  witness. 

The  testimony  of  Dominador  Bartolome  on

Exhibit  4  and  Ursula  Cid's  sworn  statement  in  1937 do  not  fall  within  the purview  of  Section  21.  The  signature  of  Maria  Gonzales  on  the  missing fourth page of Exhibit 4 would have helped authenticate the document if it is proven to be genuine. But as there can be no such proof arising from the signature of Maria Gonzales in the deed of sale, the same must be excluded.

Even if Exhibit 4 were complete and authentic, still, it would substantially be  infirm. 

Under  Article  834  of  the  old  Civil  Code,  Maria  Gonzales,  as  a  surviving  spouse,  "shall  be  entitled  to  a  portion  in  usufruct  equal  to  that  corresponding  by  way  of  legitime  to  each  of  the  legitimate  children  or  descendants  who  has  not  received  any  betterment."  And,  until  it  had  been  ascertained  by  means  of  the  liquidation  of  the  deceased  spouse's  estate  that  a  portion  of  the  conjugal  property  remained  after  all  the  partnership  obligations and debts had been paid, the surviving spouse or her heirs could  not  assert  any  claim  of  right  or  title  in  or  to  the  community  property  which  was  placed  in  the  exclusive  possession  and  control  of  the  husband  as  administrator  thereof. 

Hence,  in  the  absence  of  proof  that  the  estate  of  Epitacio  Batara  had  been  duly  settled,  Maria  Gonzales  had  no  right  to  sell  not even a portion of the property subject of Exhibit 4.

On  the  issue  of  whether  acquisitive  prescription  runs  during  the  pendency  of  a  cadastral  case,  we  hold,

as  this  Court  held  in  Cano  v.  De  Camacho,  that  the  institution  of  cadastral  proceedings,  or  at  least  the  publication  of the  notice  therein  issued,  has  the  effect  of  suspending  the  running  of  the  prescriptive period.

Hence, the appellate court erred in ascribing acquisitive  prescription in favor of Ursula Cid "up to the present."

Neither can Ursula Cid successfully assert that prior to the institution of the  cadastral  proceedings,  she  and  her  husband  had  gained  acquisitive  prescription over the property. Until Doroteo migrated to Davao  City  in  1926,  he  was  in  possession  of  the  whole  lot  including  the  portion  entrusted  to  him  by  Epitacio.  Granting  that  the  1520 sqm  lot  Bernabe had  declared  as  his  own  in  1925 is  within  Lot  No.  11165,  still,  the  period  from  1925  until  the  filing  of  the  cadastral  case  in  1933  failed  to  give  him  an  advantage.  It  is  short  of  the  10 year  actual,  adverse and uninterrupted period of possession mandated by Section 41 of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  in  order  that  a  full  and  complete  title  could  be  vested on the person claiming to be the owner of a piece of land.

Furthermore,  the  fact  that  said  declarations  and  payments  were  made  during  the  pendency  of  the  cadastral case, a tax declaration in the name of the alleged property owner  or  of  his  predecessor- in-interest,  does  not  prove  ownership.  It  is  merely  an  indicium  of  a  claim  of  ownership. In  the  same  manner,  neither  does  the  payment of taxes conclusively prove ownership of the land paid for.

The  foregoing  discussion  notwithstanding,  the  Court  is  unprepared  to  decree  824  square  meters  of  Lot  No.  11165  in  favor  of  Resurreccion  Bartolome  and  her  co-heirs  to  the  estate  of  Epitacio  Batara.  The  revised  declaration  of  real  property  in  the  name  of  Epitacio,  which  petitioners  presented  as  Exhibit  B,  reveals  that  Epitacio  Batara  owned  only  772  square  meters of the lot involved. Certainly, petitioner and her co-heirs may not be  entitled to an area greater than what their grandfather claimed as his own.

Similarly,  what  remains  of  Lot  No.  11165  after  the  portion  herein  adjudicated  to  Resurreccion  Bartolome  and  her  co-heirs  has  been  determined,  may  not  be  granted  to  the  heirs  of  Bernabe  Bartolome  and  Ursula  Cid  exclusively.  The  two  other  deeds  of  sale  presented  as  Exhibits  2  and 3 having been found worthless by the trial court as they involve parcels  of land not within Lot No. 11165 and the vendors of which were not the real

owners  of  the  property,  which  findings  of  facts  are  binding  on  this  Court,  the  law  mandates  that  the  property,  having  been  inherited  from  Doroteo  Bartolome, must be shared in equal portions by his children or their heirs.

WHEREFORE,  the  appealed  decision  of  the  then  Intermediate  Appellate  Court is hereby reversed and set aside.

The  eastern  portion  of  Lot  No.  11165  with  an  area  of  772  square  meters  is  hereby  adjudicated  in  favor  of  the  heirs  of  Epitacio  Batara  who  are  herein  represented by Resurreccion Bartolome while the remaining area of Lot No.  11165 is hereby adjudicated in favor of the heirs of Doroteo Bartolome.