SERAFIA MACUA, FLORENTINO MACUA, AND MARIA APUS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (FIRST CIVIL CASES DIVISION), INOCENTES MACUA AND ZARCILA TACASAN, R…

This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking the
reversal of the decision* of the Intermediate Appellate Court
(now Court of Appeals) dated March 29,
1985, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is
hereby REVERSED, and another one is hereby entered:

“1.  Declaring
the plaintiffs-appellants as the absolute and lawful owners of the land in
question;

“2.  Ordering
the Municipal Assessor of Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental to cancel the tax declaration in the name of Maria Apus
over the land in question, the latest of which is Tax Declaration No. 01115;

“3.  Declaring
the other documents, such as Exhs. 1
& 2 which led to the issuance of said tax declaration in the name of Maria Apus, including the Deed of Absolute Sale of two (2)
parcels of unregistered
agricultural land, Exh. 6, as null and void.

“Without any pronouncement as to damages and
costs.

“SO ORDERED.”

(Rollo, p. 38)

Plaintiffs (private respondents herein) and defendants (petitioners
herein) are closely related. 
Co-plaintiffs Inocentes Macua
and Zarcila Tacasan are
husband and wife, while defendants, Florentino and Serafia Macua, are the brother
and sister of Inocentes Macua,
respectively, while Maria Apus is the wife of Florentino and sister-in-law of Inocentes Macua. 
(Hearing, June, 15, 1982, TSN pp. 4-5).

The factual background of
this case as found by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals is as
follows:

“Plaintiffs asserted that they are the absolute owners of the
following parcel of land:

‘A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 12367-C-14, Laguindingan Cadastre, bounded on the North by the property
of Ines Llanita; on the South by the property of Feleciano Lomongo; on the East by
the property of Severino Cagampang;
and on the West by the properties of S. Cagampang and
A. Roxas; containing an area of (4110) sq.m., more or less; under Tax Declaration No. 12091, and
assessed at P160.00.’

which
they acquired by a public document of sale on July 27, 1948 (Exh.
“E”).

“Sometime in the year 1950, the defendants allegedly requested
the plaintiffs that they be allowed to work and live
on the land under litigation with the condition that said defendants will pay
taxes on the land.  The defendants are to
enjoy the products of their labor, and from their seasonal crops such as, corn and tobacco but with respect to the coconut trees that were
planted by the plaintiffs, the same shall be enjoyed by said plaintiffs.

“Twenty years later or in 1970, the defendants were requested
by plaintiffs to vacate their land as they intended to occupy the same by
themselves.  Upon the defendants’
refusal, plaintiffs sought the intervention of a policeman.  Eventually, Claudio
Macua, brother of Inocentes
Macua and one of the occupants of the land in
litigation returned the portion he was occupying to the plaintiffs.  Claudio Macua
signed an affidavit (Exh.’C‘), subscribed and sworn
to before Municipal Judge Juan W. Mercado
on October 31, 1972.  Because Claudio Macua voluntarily relinquished possession of the land to
the plaintiffs and he was excluded as one of the defendants.  The plaintiffs denied that they ever signed
any document of transfer in favor of the defendants.

“Continous refusal on the part of
the defendants resulted to (in) many sleepless nights and untold worries on the
part of the plaintiffs and they are asking moral and exemplary damages plus P3,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

“. . . The defendants claimed that they are the real owners of
the land under litigation.  They alleged
that the land in question was originally bought from a certain Faustina Agbalug (Faustina Llanita).  The money utilized to buy the same was given
by her mother to plaintiff Inocentes Macua.  Her mother
sold her own land at Tikog, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental (p. 56) and the proceeds of that sale was
used to buy the parcel of land in question. 
Plaintiff Inocentes Macua
being the eldest of the family was the one directed to buy the land from Faustina Agbalug, without their
mother’s (Cayetana Ragmac)
knowledge and consent.  Inocentes Macua caused the
document (Exh. ‘A’) to be recorded
in the name of his wife Zarcila Tacasan
as vendee instead of their mother.

xxx                     xxx                   xxx

“Defendant Florentino Macua declared that he acquired the land owned by his sister
Serapia and his mother Cayetana
Ragmac which was executed on March 27, 1965 (Exh. ‘6′).  From the time Fiorentino
Macua and Cayetana Ragmac on the 27th day
of March 1965, they took possession of the same up to the
present continuously and without any interruption.  They declared the land under their own name (Exhs. ‘3’, ‘4‘, ‘5’, ‘7′, ‘8‘, ‘9′, ’10’, ’11’, and ’12’) and paid taxes thereto
up to the year 1982 (Exh. ’13’).

“The defendants denied the allegations of Inocentes
Macua and Zarcila Tacasan that they were occupying the property under
litigation by mere tolerance and upon permission given to them by the
plaintiffs.  They asserted that since
1950, possession of the land had been by Serapia Macua and Cayetana Ragmac.  Affidavit of
Transfer of Real Property was presented by the defendant in order to establish
the ownership of Cayetana Ragmac
and Serapia Macua (Exhs. ‘1’ and ‘2’.”) (Decision, Civil Case No. 5244,
Rollo, pp. 19-23; Decision AC-G.R. CV No.
03417-R, Rollo, pp.
30-32).

Petitioners (defendants) Florentino Macua and Maria Apus alleged that
from the execution of the Deed of Conveyance (Exh.
“6”), they were in the peaceful, open, public and uninterrupted
possession and in the concept of absolute owners of the aforesaid parcels of
land until December 6, 1976, when
Inocentes Macua and Zarcilla Tacasan instituted Civil
Case No. 5244 for Quieting of
title & Recovery of Possession of a Portion of Land with Damages
(Petitioners’ Brief, Rollo, p. 106; Complaint, Rollo, p. 12).

After trial on the merits, the lower court finding for the
defendants-petitioners upheld the Affidavits of Transfer of Real Property,
Exhibits “1” and “2”, which were claimed by the
plaintiffs-private respondents as forgeries, and applied the principles of
equitable laches and prescription (Decision, Civil
Case No. 5244; Rollo, pp. 19-29).

The dispositive portion of said
decision is as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered against the plaintiffs
and in favor of the defendants.  The
Complaint is hereby dismissed and the
plaintiffs are ordered to pay the following:

“a)  litigation expenses in the amount of
P1,000.00;

b)  attorney’s fees in the amount of  P2,000.00 and

c)  to pay the costs of
this suit.

“SO ORDERED.” (Ibid).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed aforesaid decision as aforestated.  Hence, this petition.

In compliance with the resolution of the Second Division of this
Court dated July 29, 1985 (Rollo, p. 87), private respondents
filed their comment on September 6,
1985 (Rollo, pp. 90-94).  In the resolution of October 14, 1985, the Court Resolved to give due
course to the petition (Rollo, p. 99).  As required by the Court in the same
resolution, notice to file petitioner’s brief was sent to counsel for petitioners
(Rollo, p. 100). 
In compliance therewith, petitioners filed their brief on November 26, 1985 (Rollo, 102-115).  In
the resolution of May 5, 1986
(Rollo, p. 113), this case was transferred to the
First Division which required private respondents to file a reply brief in the
resolution of June 18, 1986
(Rollo, p. 114).  This case was again transferred to the Second
Division (Rollo, p. 129) and in the resolution of October 29, 1986, counsel for private
respondents was required to show cause why disciplinary
action should not be taken against him for failure to file a reply brief within the required
period (Rollo, p. 115).  On December
10, 1986, said counsel filed the brief for private respondents (Rollo, pp. 116-124) together with his explanation and the
affidavit of private respondent Zarcila Tacasan stating the reasons for the delay in complying with
the resolution of this Court (Rollo, pp. 126-128).

In their brief, petitioners
raised the following assignment of errors:

1.    THAT THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE THEORY OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS THAT THE
LAND IN LITIGATION WAS ONLY BORROWED BY HEREIN PETITIONERS:

2.    THAT THE
HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT LIKEWISE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING
THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS INOCENTES MACUA AND ZARCILA TACASAN ARE
GUILTY OF LACHES:

3.    THAT THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT ALSO GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT
SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT
PETITIONERS-SPOUSES FLORENTINO MACUA AND MARIA APUS HAVE ACQUIRED THE PARCELS
OF LAND IN LITIGATION BY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1134 OF
THE NEW CIVIL CODE.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Petitioners maintain that Serafica Macua and her mother Cayetana Ragmac were in peaceful, open, public and continuous
possession and in the concept of
owner of the aforesaid parcels of land since August, 1953 when they acquired
the same by virtue of affidavits of
transfer of real property (Exhs. “1”
and “2”) until March 27, 1965 when both sold their respective
lots to Maria Apus, wife of Florentino
Apus.

On the other hand, private respondents assailing the validity of
said affidavits, countered that petitioners were
occupying the land in question by mere tolerance and upon permission given to
the latter by the former.

The lower court gave full faith and credit to the affidavits in
question but on appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the position of private
respondents to the effect that said affidavits were fabricated and falsified.

The pivotal issue therefore of this case is the validity or invalidity of the
affidavits of transfer.

Respondent Appellate Court laid stress on the fact that Inocentes Macua and Zarcila Macua in particular, are
illiterates but in the Affidavits of Transfer of Real Property, Exhibits “1” and
“2” both dated August 15, 1953 and  
in the affidavit of transfer in favor of Claudio Macua,
Annex “A” to the complaint; Zarcila Macua appears to have affixed her signature while in the
joint affidavit executed before Municipal Judge Mercado dated October 31, 1972
and in the Deed of Sale dated July 27, 1948 evidencing the conveyance of the
land in question from the original owner Faustina Llanita to Zarcila Tacasan, Exh. “A”;
Zarcila affixed her thumbmark.  Otherwise stated, the Court of Appeals
pointed out that in documents, the genuineness of which is assailed, Zarcila Tacasan was made to
appear as having signed her name, while in documents which were admittedly
executed by her, she appeared to have affixed her thumbmark,
thereby showing her true nature as an illiterate.

Still further, the Court of Appeals observed as difficult to
believe, the fact that Zarcila Tacasan
who appears to have learned to write her name in 1953 as Exhs. “1” and “2” would seem to convey,
should again revert to affixing her thumbmark in
1972 when she signed the joint affidavit before Judge Mercado.  On the basis of the foregoing, the Court of
Appeals found reasonable grounds to conclude that the questioned affidavits are
plain forgeries and were fabricated for the purpose of
transferring the tax declarations over the land in dispute from Zarcila Tacasan to Cayetano Ragmac and Serafia Macua so that the latter
can execute a deed of transfer to petitioners Florentino
Macua and Maria Apus.

At the hearing of this case in the lower court, Serafia Macua categorically
stated while being grilled on cross-examination, that while Zarcila
Tacasan sometimes signs her name with a thumbmark, she can also write her name.

Serafia Macua
testified as follows:

Cross Examination by Atty. Manolo Tagarda:

“Q   And
you knew it for a fact that Inocentes Macua cannot sign his signature?

A   Yes, he cannot sign.

Q   You also have no knowledge of the educational
attainment of the wife of Inocentes Macua, one of the defendants in this case, Tarcela Tacasan?

A   I
don’t know her grade but she can sign.

Q   Are
you familiar with her signature?

A   Yes, sir.

Q   Are you aware, Mrs. Serafia
Macua,
that Tarcela Tacasan
used to sign her name with a thumbmark?

A   She can sign the signature of her name
because the affidavit of transfer was signed by her.

Q   And she could sign her name very well like a
high school student?

A   Not so well but we can read her name.”
(Hearing, April 11, 1983, TSN pp.
63-64)

In like manner Florentino Macua testified categorically and without hesitation that Zarcila Tacasan can write her
name.  In fact she is a registered voter
as evidenced by a certification
from the Election Registrar of Laguindingan, Misamis Oriental (Exhibit “14”).

Florentino Macua
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY ATTY. SANTOS
TUBELLEJA

“Q   Zarcela Tacasan likewise
testified in this Court that she does not know how to read and write, what can
you say as to that?

A   She can
write.

“COURT:  (To witness)

Q    Can
she read?

A     She
cannot read but she can write her name.

COURT:

Proceed.

ATTY. TUBELLEJA:

Q    Do
you know if Zarcela Tacasan
was ever a registered voter in the municipality
of Laguindingan?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Do
you have proof to show that she really is a registered voter of Laguindingan?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Where
is that proof?

A     In the possession of Atty. Tubelleja?

Q    I
am showing to you a certification already marked as Exhibit 14 coming from the election
Registrar of Laguindingan, Misamis
Oriental, what can you say as to this?

A     This is the one.

Q    Who
obtained this copy from the Office of Atty. Jose F. Bascon
in the Office of the Election Registrar?

A     Me and my counsel, Atty. Tubelleja.” (Hearing, July 11, 1983, TSN pp. 78-79)

It is undisputed that petitioners possessed the land publicly,
peacefully, uninterruptedly and in concept of owners from the transfer of real
property to the filing of the complaint on December 6, 1976, or a period of more than twenty three
(23) years.  Petitioners were the
declared owners in the records of the Municipal Assessor of the Municipality
of Alubijid,
to the exclusion of all others including private respondents themselves and
they continuously and religiously paid their real estate taxes thereon.

Furthermore, Florentino Macua and Maria Apus acquired by
purchase the property owned by Serafia Macua and Cayetana Ragmac thru a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties
on March 27, 1965 and notarized by the Honorable Juan W. Mercado, Municipal
Judge and Ex-Officio Notary Public (Exh.
“6”).

The possession of Florentino Macua and Maria Apus has been in
good faith and with just title.  This has
resulted in loss of ownership of the property under litigation by private respondents
thru ordinary prescription under Article 1134 of the Civil Code (Rollo, pp. 70-72).

On the other hand, the records also show that for the same period
of time until the filing of the complaint, private respondents made no move to
assert their ownership, so that the trial court did not err when it ruled that
they are now barred by laches from asserting
ownership over said land (Rollo, pp. 70-73).

Finally, the legal doctrine which has been enunciated in a long
line of decisions issued by this Court is that the conclusions and findings of
facts by the trial court are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed
on appeal unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a
better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying on the
case (Legaspi v. CA, et al., L-45510, May 27, 1986;
People v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-68805, July 9, 1986; People v. Vergara, et al., G.R. Nos. 66572-73, April 25, 1985).

There is no showing that this case falls under the exceptions
which will justify overturning the findings of fact by the trial court.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby REVERSED, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch XXII, is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Cruz, and Gancayco,
JJ., concur.

* PENNED by Justice Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa
(ponente) and concurred in by Justices Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr., Eduardo P. Caguioa
and Leonor Ines-Luciano.

The judge of the
trial court was Judge Benjamin A. Gorospe.