Heirs of Lacsa v. CA 197 SCRA 234 (1991)

Heirs of Lacsa v CA

197 SCRA 234 (1991)

Facts:

• 1.     This  petition involves  2  cases,  namely:
  a.     Civil Case No. G81190: is an  action  for  recovery  of  possession  with  damages  and preliminary injunction filed by petitioners, the heirs of Demetria  Lacsa,  against  Aurelio  Songco  and  John  Doe  based  on  the allegations  that
                                                 i.      petitioners  are  heirs  of  deceased  Demetria  Lacsa  who,  during  her  lifetime,was  the  owner  of  a  certain  parcel  of  land  consisting  partly  of  a  fishpond  and  partly  of  uncultivated  open  space,  located  in Pampanga,  evidenced  by  OCT  No.  RO81038  (11725); 
                                                ii.     that the respondent and his predecessor-in- interest who, thru  stealth, fraud  and  other forms of  machination,succeeded in occupying or possessing the  fishpond  of  said  parcel  of  land    and  refused  to  vacate despite demands
  
  
  b.     Civil Case No. G81332:  is  an  action  also  by  herein  petitioners  against  private  respondents  before  the  same  lower  court  for  cancellation  of  title,  ownership  with  damages  and  preliminary  injunction,  based  on  the  same allegations and also
                                                 i.     That respondents, later  abandoned  the  same  but  only  after  the  case  was  filed  and  after  all  the  fish  were  transferred  to  the  adjoining  fishpond  owned  by  the  private  respondents; 
                                                ii.     that by  presenting  to  the  Register  of  Deeds  of  Pampanga  certain  forged  and  absolutely  simulated  documents,  namely:  "TRADUCCION  AL  CASTELLANO  DE  LA  ESCRITURA DE  PARTICION  EXTRAJUDICIAL"  and  "ESCRITURA  DE  VENTA  ABSOLUTA",  respectively,  and  by  means  of  false  pretenses  and  misrepresentation, Inocencio  Songco,  the  private  respondents'  predecessor-in-interest,  succeeded  in  transferring  the  title  to  said  property  in  his  name,  to  the  damage  and  prejudice  of  the  petitioners
  
  
  2.     Private respondents denied the material allegations of both complaints and  alleged  as  special  and  affirmative  defenses,  petitioners'  lack  of  cause  of  action for  the  reason
  a.     that  OCT  No.  RO81038  (11725)  was  merely  a  reconstituted  copy upon  petitioners'  expedient  claim  that  the  owner's  duplicate  copy  thereof  had  been  missing  when  the  truth  of  the  matter  was  that  OCT  in  the  name  of  Demetria  Lacsa,  had  long  been  cancelled  and  superseded  by  TCT  No.  794  in  the  name  of  Alberta  Guevarra  and  Juan  Limpin  by  virtue  of  the  document  entitled  "TRADUCCION  AL  CASTELLANO  DE  LA  ESCRITURA  DE  PARTICION  EXTRAJUDICIAL"  entered  into  by  the  heirs  of  Demetria  Lacsa;
  b.     that  the  latter  TCT  was superseded  by  TCT  No.  929  issued  in  the  name  of  Inocencio  Songco  (father  of  private  respondents)  by  virtue  of  a  document entitled "ESCRITURA DE VENTA ABSOLUTA" executed by spouses  Juan Limpin and Alberta Guevarra in favor of said Inocencio Songo.
  
  
  3.     Private  respondents answer:  pleaded  a  counterclaim  against  petitioners based on allegations
  a.     Petitioners, headed by Carlito Magpayo,  by  force  and  intimidation,  took  possession  of  a  portion  of  the  fishpond  in  the  land  and  occupied  a  hut  therein,
  b.     that  at  that  time,  private  respondents  had  3,000  bangus  fingerlings  left  in  the  fishpond  which  upon  petitioners' harvest  thereof  left  private  respondents  deprived  and  damaged  in  the  amount  of  P50,000.00
  c.      that  such  illegal  occupancy  caused  private  respondents  to  suffer  unrealized  income  and  profits,  sleepless  nights, xxx
  
  
  4.     The parties filed in  Civil Case No. G81332 a joint stipulation of facts, alleging:
  a.     the  plaintiffs,  being  heirs  of  Demetria  Lacsa,  filed  Civil Case No. 1190;
  b.     That  after  the  defendants  filed  their  Answer  in  the  said  Civil  Case  No.  G8 1190, said  plaintiffs  filed  a  Motion  for  Leave  to  Admit  Amended  and/or  Supplemental Complaint.
  c.      That  the  said  motion  was  denied  by  the  Honorable  Court,  hence,  said  plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. G81332, with the same  cause  of  action  as  that  of  the  proposed  Amended  and/or  Supplemental  Complaint;
  d.     That  the  evidences  of  both  parties  in  both cases are practically and literally the same;
  e.     That in order to avoid duplicity of action by  repeatedly presenting the same act of evidences and same set of witnesses,  the parties mutually agreed as they hereby agree and stipulate that any and  all  evidences  presented  under  Civil  Case  No.  1190  shall  be  adopted  as  evidences  for  both  parties  in  the  above entitled  case, 
  f.      and  upon  submission  for resolution of Civil Case No. G81190, the above entitled case shall likewise  be deemed submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence presented  in the same Civil Case No. G81190.
  
  
  5.     LC: fishpond belongs  to  the respondents,  having  been  inherited  by  them  from  their  deceased  father Inocencio Songco; Ordered dismissal of both cases; ordered cancellation of OCT.
  a.      the fishpond originally owned by Demetria Lacsa under  OCT  No.  11725. 
  b.     After  Demetria  Lacsa  died  her  two daughters  Alberta and  Ambrocia  Guevarra  with  their  respective  husbands  Juan  Limpin  and  Damaso  Cabais  entered  into  an  extrajudicial  partition  of  the  properties  left  by  Demetria  Lacsa  under  the  document  "Traduccion  Al  Castellano  de  la  Escritura  de  Partition  Extrajudicial" (Exhibits "3","38A" and "38B")
  c.       fishpond was adjudicated to Alberta and which deed was duly registered in  the  Office  of  the  Registry  of  Deeds  of  Pampanga  as  evidenced  by  the  certification of the Deputy Register of Deeds marked as Exhibit "38C".
  d.     Another  deed  of  partition  in  the  Pampango  dialect  marked  as  Exhibit  "38D"  "wherein  the  fishpond  in  question  was  adjudicated  to  Alberta  Guevarra.  As  a  consequence,  OCT  No.  794  (Exhibit  "4")  was  issued  to  spouses  Alberta and  Juan. 
  e.     the spouses Juan Limpin and Alberta Guevarra sold the fishpond to  Inocencio  Songco  under  the  deed  entitled  "Escritura  de  Venta  Absoluta" (Exhibits "7" and "78A") which was duly registered in the Office of  the  Registry  of  Deeds  of  Pampanga  as  evidenced  by  the  certification  of  the  Deputy  Register  of  Deeds  marked  Exhibit  "78B". 
  f.      As  a  result  of  the  sale TCT  No. 794 (Exhibit "4") in the name of the spouses  Alberta and  Juan was  cancelled  by  the  Office  of  the  Registry of Deeds of Pampanga and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 929 was  issued to Inocencio Songco."
  
  
  6.     Petitioners appealed to CA and assigned the following errors:
  a.     In failing to appreciate preponderance of evidence that the 2 docs (exhs 3 &7) were forged, simulated. Hence null and void
  b.     In holding that no evidence of forgery as to the signature of Juan and thumbmark of Alberta appearing on the EXCRITUA DE VENTA ASOLUTA (exhs7,78A)
  c.      In appreciating in favor of the resp. the docs presented by witness Jesus Cruz when sources could not be accounted for and authenticity is in question
  d.     That Inocencio Sogco was an innocent purchaser for
  e.     In holding that TCT 929 was issued to Inocencio by the RD
  f.      In holding that OCT was issued by the court in excess of Jurisdiction.
  g.     In failing to appreciate that the voluntary abandonment of the fishpond by the appellees was a recognition of appellant’s title to it.
  7.     CA: AFFIRMED LC; MR Denied
  
  
  Issue/s:
  WON the CA correctly applied the “ancient document rule on the questioned documents "ESCRITURA  DE  PARTICION  EXTRAJUDICIAL"  AND  "ESCRITURA  DE  VENTA  ABSOLUTA;  AND  MARKED  DURING  THE  TRIAL  AS  EXHIBITS "3" AND "7"
  
  
  Held: NO
  
  
  Petitioners  contend  that  the  Court  of  Appeals  wrongfully  applied  the  "ancient document rule" provided in Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. 
  
  
  The rule states that:
  Sec.  22.  Evidence  of  execution  not  necessary.—  Were  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.
  
  
  It  is  submitted  by  petitioners  that  under  this  rule,  for  a  document  to  be  classified  as  an  "ancient  document",  it  must  not  only  be  at  least  thirty  (30)  years  old  but  it  must  also  be  found  in  the  proper  custody  and  is  unblemished  by  alterations  and  is  otherwise  free  from  suspicion. 
  
  
  Thus,  according  to  petitioners,  exhibits  "3"  and  "7",  entitled  "Traduccion  Al  Castellano de la Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial" and "Escritura de Venta  Absoluta",  respectively,  can  not  qualify  under  the  foregoing  rule,  for  the  reason  that  since  the  "first  pages"  of  said  documents  do  not  bear  the  signatures  of  the  alleged  parties  thereto,  this  constitutes  an  indelible  blemish that can beget unlimited alterations.
  
  
  We  are  not  persuaded  by  the  contention.  Under  the  "ancient  document  rule,"  for  a  private  ancient  document  to  be  exempt  from  proof  of  due  execution and authenticity, it is not enough that it be more than thirty (30)  years  old;  it  is  also  necessary  that  the  following  requirements  are  fulfilled;  (1) that it is produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if  genuine; and (2) that it is unblemished by any alteration or circumstances of  suspicion.
  
  
  The  first  document,  Exhibit  "3",  entitled  'Traduccion  Al  Castellano  de  la  Escritura  de  Particion  Extrajudicial"  was  executed  on  7  April  1923  whereas  the  second  document,  exhibit  "7",  entitled  "Escritura  de  Venta  Absoluta"  was  executed  on  20  January  1924.  These  documents  are,  therefore,  more than  thirty  (30)  years  old.  Both  copies  of  the  aforementioned  documents  were  certified  as  exact  copies  of  the  original  on  file  with  the  Office  of  the  Register of Deeds of Pampanga, by the Deputy Register of Deeds. There is a  further  certification  with  regard  to  the  Pampango  translation  of  the  document  of  extrajudicial  partition  which  was  issued  by  the  Archives  division,  Bureau  of  Records  Management  of  the  Department  of  General  Services.
  
  
  Documents  which  affect  real  property,  in  order  that  they  may  bind  third  parties,  must  be  recorded  with  the  appropriate  Register  of  Deeds.  The  documents in question, being certified as copies of originals on file with the  Register  of  Deeds  of  Pampanga,  can  be  said  to  be  found  in  the  proper  custody.  Clearly,  therefore,  the  first  two  (2)  requirements  of  the  "ancient  document rule" were met.
  
  
  As to the last requirement that the document must on its face appear to be  genuine,  petitioners  did  not  present  any  conclusive  evidence  to  support  their  allegation  of  falsification  of  the  said  documents.  They  merely  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  lack  of  signatures  on  the  first  two  (2)  pages  could  have  easily  led  to  their  substitution.  We  cannot  uphold  this  surmise  absent  any  proof  whatsoever.  As  held  in  one  case,  a  contract  apparently  honest  and  lawful  on  its  face  must  be  treated  as  such  and  one  who  assails  the  genuineness  of  such  contract  must  present  conclusive  evidence  of  falsification.
  
  
  Moreover,  the  last  requirement  of  the  "ancient  document  rule"  that  a  document  must  be  unblemished  by  any  alteration  or  circumstances  of  suspicion  refers  to  the  extrinsic  quality  of  the  document  itself.  The  lack  of  signatures  on  the  first  pages,  therefore,  absent  any  alterations  or  circumstances of suspicion cannot be held to detract from the fact that the  documents  in  question,  which  were  certified  as  copied  of  the  originals  on  file with the Register of Deeds of Pampanga, are genuine and free from any  blemish or circumstances of suspicion.
  
  
  The  documents  in  question  are  "ancient  documents"  as  envisioned  in  Sec.  22  of  Rule  132  of  the  Rules  of  Court. Further  proof  of  their  due  execution  and  authenticity  is  no  longer  required.  Having  held  that  the  documents  in  question  are  private  writings  which  are  more  than  thirty  (30)  years  old,  come  from  the  proper  repository  thereof,  and  are  unblemished  by any alteration or circumstances of suspicion, there is no further need for these  documents  to  fulfill  the  requirements  of  the  1903  Notarial  Law. 
  
  
  Hence, the other contentions of the  petitioners  that  the  documents  do  not  fulfill  the  mandatory  requirements  of  the  Notarial  Law  and  that  the  proper  person  or  public  official  was  not  presented  to  testify  on  his  certification  of  the  documents  in  question, need  not  be  resolved  as  they  would no longer serve any purpose.
  
  
  WHEREFORE,  the  Petition  is  DENIED.  The  appealed  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals is AFFIRMED.