GAUDENCIO C. FERRER, JOINED BY HIS WIFE, LUCIA V. FERRER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MERCY LITAO JAMIR, MUNICIPALITY OF HERMOSA REPRESENTED BY MAYOR EFREN J. CRUZ, VICENTE V. SAM…
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
The antecedents as culled from the records:
On June 7, 2005, petitioner-appellant Gaudencio C. Ferrer (hereinafter appellant) filed a petition (Records, pp. 2-7) against respondents-appellees for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-219657 and T-218820.
He alleged that on April 19, 2000, respondent-appellee Mercy Jamir (hereinafter appellee Jamir) sold in his favor a parcel of land situated in Culis, Hermosa, Bataan. Said parcel of land which was covered by TCT No. T-182374 measures 240 square meters, more or less. On even date, appellee Jamir executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property in appellant’s favor. He further alleged that appellee Jamir gave to him the original copy of TCT No. T-182374.
Further, he averred that sometime in 2002, he learned that the aforesaid property was transferred by appellee Jamir to respondent-appellee Municipality of Hermosa (hereinafter appellee Municipality of Hermosa) and a portion thereof was transferred by the Municipality of Hermosa to respondent-appellee Generosa M. Dayo. Having learned of such information, he registered his adverse claim thru a letter dated February 5, 2002 which was annotated as Entry No. 425239 in TCT Nos. T-218820 and T-219657.
Appellant further alleged that TCT No. T-182374 was cancelled by respondent-appellee Registry of Deeds pursuant to a decision in CAD Case No. V-262-01 which pertained to the issuance of owner’s duplicate copy. In lieu thereof, TCT No. 191101 was issued. Also, he alleged that appellee Jamir executed an affidavit of loss in CAD Case No. V-262-01 stating that she lost the original copy of TCT No. T-182374, when in truth and in fact, she gave it to appellant when the latter purchased the property from her.
Finally, he alleged that the property he purchased from appellee Jamir was donated to appellee Municipality of Hermosa for which TCT No. 218819 was issued, thereby cancelling TCT No. T-191101. TCT No. 218819 registered under the name of the Municipality of Hermosa was later cancelled by the subject titles TCT No. T-218820 in the name of appellee Dayo and TCT No. T-219657 in the name of appellee Municipality of Hermosa.
On June 27, 2005, appellee Jamir filed via registered mail a motion to dismiss (Records, pp. 36-37) on the grounds of lack of barangay conciliation and lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the suit. Appellant filed his comment (Records, pp. 41-43) on the motion to dismiss arguing that it should be denied for lack of merit both in fact and in law.
On the other hand, Jamir’s co-appellees filed an Answer (Records, pp. 45-48) on July 29, 2005. They specifically denied the allegation that appellee Jamir sold the subject property to appellant as what took place was a donation of said property to appellee Municipality of Hermosa which was at the time represented by appellant as he was then the incumbent municipal mayor. By way of special and affirmative defense, appellees averred that appellant’s petition to cancel TCT Nos. T-219657 and T-218820 is not proper as it did not include the title from which these two titles emanated from, i. e., TCT No. T-191101. Further, they invoked as a special and affirmative defense that if indeed there was a sale, it is rather inconsistent with ordinary human experience that appellant did not exert any effort to process the transfer of title to his name. They furthermore averred that when Efren Cruz assumed as mayor of the Municipality of Hermosa, he came to know of appellee Jamir’s donation of the property to the municipality but no documents could be found as no official turnover was made by appellant, his predecessor. Hence, appellee Vicente Samaniego (hereinafter appellee Samaniego) was tasked to trace the documents and he first inquired from appellee Jamir from whom he learned that the corresponding deed of donation and the owner’s copy of the title were given to appellant, in his capacity as then municipal mayor. However, when appellee Samaniego inquired from appellant, appellant denied the donation and that no title was in his possession. Faced with this dilemma and so as not to delay the construction of the municipal building, appellee Jamir was convinced to execute an affidavit of loss concerning the loss of TCT No. T-182374 and thereafter filed a petition in court for the issuance of a new owner’s copy of title.
On August 2, 2005, appellee Jamir’s motion to dismiss was denied for lack of merit. (Records, p. 50) Eventually, appellee Jamir filed on August 19, 2005 via registered mail her Answer with Counterclaim. (Records, pp. 59-61) She denied the material allegations of the petition and essentially averred as an affirmative defense that she donated the property in question to the municipality of Hermosa which was then represented by appellant in his capacity as the then municipal mayor.
On October 30, 2008, the RTC rendered the appealed decision (Rollo, pp. 32-39). It held that appellant miserably failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the fact of fraud. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 39)
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the decision dismissing his petition was subsequently denied in an Order (Records, p. 270) dated February 25, 2013.
On April 11, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal (Records, pp. 271-273) which the RTC approved per its Order (Records, p. 278) dated April 24, 2013.
Appellant now comes before Us, raising the following assignment of errors –
“I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN TAKING FOR GRANTED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT TO PROVE HIS CLAIM IN THIS CASE;
II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ROD HAD REGULARLY PERFORMED ITS DUTIES IN THE ISSUANCE OF SUBJECT TITLES; [AND]
III. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.” (Rollo, p. 26)
Simply put, the issue to be resolved is whether the RTC erred in dismissing appellant’s petition, for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
Appellant points out that the RTC utterly disregarded the Deed of Sale he presented as evidence to prove that appellee Jamir indeed sold the 240-square meter property to him. Since he legally acquired the subject property from appellee Jamir and did not in any way transfer the same to any person or entity, appellant maintains that the issuance of TCT Nos. T-219657 and T-218820 under the names of the Municipality of Hermosa and Generosa Dayo, respectively, was attended by fraud.
The appeal must be denied.
In Magdiwang Realty Corp. v. Manila Banking Corp., the Supreme Court stressed that the quantum of evidence required in civil cases — preponderance of evidence — “is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability to truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.” (680 SCRA 251, 265 [2012]) In civil cases, the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff, with respect to his complaint (Villanueva vs. Balaguer, 590 SCRA 661, 670 [2009]). In this case, it is the appellant which has the burden of proof, with respect to his petition for cancellation of title.
Fraud as a ground for annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. (Sampaco vs. Hadji Serad Mingca Lantud, 654 SCRA 36, 49-50 [2011]) Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved. (Spouses Galang vs. Spouses Reyes, 678 SCRA 523, 537 [2012]) In the instant case, appellant failed to prove his allegation of fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Records reveal that such allegation was merely supported by appellant’s testimony. Worse, his very own testimony on cross-examination even rendered his allegation of fraud unfounded. Witness the following:
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to prove that TCT Nos. T-219657 and T-218820 were secured through fraud, the disputable presumption provided under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court that official duty has been regularly performed, must prevail.
Accordingly, TCT No. T-219657 registered under the name of the Municipality of Hermosa and TCT No. T-218820 are valid evidence of their ownership of the land covered thereby. On this score, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Tolentino v. Laurel (666 SCRA 561, 574 [2012]) is highly instructive, thus:
“Respondents’ title over the subject property is evidence of their ownership thereof. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. Thus, the Court held that the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.”
All told, We hold that the RTC did not err in dismissing appellant’s petition for cancellation of TCT Nos. T-219657 and T-218820.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 23, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 of Dinalupihan, Bataan in Civil Case No. DH-1060-05 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lopez, and Inting, JJ., concur.