MARIA L. PARAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANGELINA VDA. DE LINGAT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Paras versus Vda. de Lingat

The Case

This is the case of Paras versus Vda. de Lingat, an appeal brought to the Supreme Court from a judgment of a Regional Trial Court in an action for specific performance with damages. Maria L. Paras, the buyer, sued Angelina Vda. de Lingat, the widow of the seller, to compel the delivery of the certificate of title and the execution of the transfer documents over a portion of land that the buyer had purchased years earlier. The case matters because it gathers in one decision several working rules a practitioner must know: when an ocular inspection may be refused, when the exclusion of evidence does not offend due process, how an action for specific performance lies to compel the segregation and titling of a purchased portion, who bears the fees and expenses of subdivision and transfer, and why attorney's fees and litigation expenses cannot stand when the decision states no basis for them.

Procedural History

Maria L. Paras filed a complaint for specific performance with damages before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, against Angelina Vda. de Lingat. The widow answered with a counterclaim. After pre-trial, where no settlement was reached, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the buyer. It ordered the widow to deliver the certificate of title, to execute an updated deed of sale and pay the corresponding capital gains tax and other lawful taxes and fees required of an owner prior to registration, to pay fifty thousand pesos as attorney's fees and twenty five thousand pesos as litigation expenses, and to pay the costs. The widow's counterclaims were dismissed, without prejudice to an action to recover possession of the excess lot against Rizal Paras.

Dissatisfied, the widow filed her notice of appeal. The appeal came to the Supreme Court under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assigning three errors: that the trial court erred in denying her motion for ocular inspection, that it erred in denying the admission of two exhibits as immaterial and irrelevant, and that the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses was excessive.

Facts

The late Pedro Lingat owned two parcels of land in Telabastagan, San Fernando, Pampanga, covered by two transfer certificates of title. On February 9, 1983, he executed a deed of sale over an undivided portion of eight hundred thirty square meters in favor of Maria L. Paras. The buyer immediately took actual and constructive possession, occupied the land, and built a house on it. A provision in that deed promised that the purchased portion would be titled in her name.

Pedro Lingat died on October 31, 1987. His properties were consolidated and subdivided in accordance with a project of partition among the heirs, and a portion of eight hundred thirty square meters was allotted to his widow, Angelina, and titled in her name under a new transfer certificate of title. The buyer's portion, however, was never segregated and titled in her name, despite her repeated demands. She referred the matter to the barangay for conciliation, but that proved futile.

In the year 2001, the widow was asked to deliver the certificate of title. She claimed she did not recall signing a deed of absolute sale, suggested that any sale was dealt with by her late husband, and said she found no records of it. The buyer then sued. At trial, the widow sought an ocular inspection to show that the buyer occupied one thousand forty square meters, an excess of two hundred ten square meters over what was bought, and offered two exhibits to prove that the excess belonged to her daughter. The trial court denied both and ruled for the buyer.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for ocular inspection.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the admission of the defendant's exhibits for being immaterial and irrelevant.
• Whether or not the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses was proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies settled procedural and evidentiary principles. The governing rule on evidence, as the Court states it, is that due process is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence:

Due process of law is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or testimony of an incompetent witness.

This principle bears on the second issue, because the widow claimed that the rejection of her exhibits deprived her of due process.

On the award of attorney's fees, the Court adopts the rule that the reasons or grounds for the award must be set forth in the decision itself:

It is now settled that the reasons or grounds for an award must set forth in the decision of the court.

This governs the third issue, since the trial court's decision stated no justification for the awards.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no error. Ocular inspection should be granted only where it is reasonably certain to be of substantial aid in reaching a correct verdict, and whether to make the inspection rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. The testimonial and documentary evidence already adequately established the allegations of both parties, and none of the recognized exceptions obtained. More importantly, even if the inspection had been granted, it would not have altered the widow's obligation to transfer the title of the portion covered by the sale.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found no error. The exhibits tended to prove that the buyer was encroaching on land titled in the name of the widow's daughter, but the issue before the trial court was whether the widow had caused the segregation of the buyer's property and the issuance of the corresponding title in her name, as agreed in the deed of sale. The documents were therefore immaterial and irrelevant, and their exclusion did not offend due process. The Court added that even if the exhibits were considered, they would not improve the widow's position, because she herself admitted the sale of eight hundred thirty square meters. The buyer's only concern was that portion; how the heirs adjusted the partition among themselves was a problem exclusively for them to settle.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the widow. The trial court failed to state in its decision the basis for awarding attorney's fees, and the award appeared only in the dispositive portion. Following the settled rule, the Court deleted the award of attorney's fees, and deleted the litigation expenses as well.

Doctrine

First, an ocular inspection is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and should be granted only where it is reasonably certain to be of substantial aid in reaching a correct verdict; it may be refused where the testimonial and documentary evidence already adequately present the situation.

Second, due process is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, and it is not error to refuse evidence that, though admissible for some purposes, is not admissible for the purpose stated as the ground for offering it.

Third, a buyer under a deed of sale over an undivided portion of land may bring an action for specific performance to compel the segregation of that portion and the transfer of title in the buyer's name, and in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, all fees and expenses incident to the re-survey, the preparation of the subdivision plan, registration, and transfer of title are borne by the seller.

Fourth, the reasons or grounds for an award of attorney's fees must be set forth in the decision itself; an award appearing only in the dispositive portion, without stated basis, must be deleted, and the same holds for litigation expenses.

Disposition

The widow lost on the principal reliefs and won only on costs: the Court modified the appealed decision, ordering her to cause the resurvey and segregation of the eight hundred thirty square meters occupied by the buyer, to present the subdivision plan and the certificate of title to the Register of Deeds for cancellation and the issuance of separate titles, and to bear all fees and expenses of the resurvey, registration, and transfer, while deleting the awards of attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the grounds for an award of attorney's fees must appear in the decision itself, not merely in the dispositive portion, or the award will be deleted. Examiners like to use this case on the discretionary nature of ocular inspection, on the exclusion of immaterial evidence as no denial of due process, and on specific performance to compel the segregation and titling of a purchased portion of land.