VIRGINIA VIÑAS, JAIME VIÑAS, RUBEN VIÑAS, BEATA VIÑAS-JEREMIAS, MARCIANO VIÑAS, GREGORIA VIÑAS III, ASUNCION VIÑAS-LAVANDERO, HEIRS OF BEATRIZ VIÑAS, REPRESENTED BY JUANITO VIÑA…
ELBINIAS, J.:
dated April 12, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of Naga
City (“lower court” for brevity) in Special Civil Case No. RTC-2000-0076
for “Partition with Prayer for Accounting of Profits”[3]
filed by plaintiffs-appellants Virginia Viñas, Jaime Viñas, Ruben
Viñas, Beata Viñas-Jeremias, Marciano Viñas, Gregoria Viñas III,
Asuncion Viñas-Lavandero, Heirs of Beatriz Viñas, represented by Juanito
Viñas Mujar, Heirs of Felimon Viñas, Jr., represented by Alex Viñas,
and Heirs of Felipe Viñas, represented by Ramon Viñas
(“plaintiffs-appellants” for brevity) against defendants-appellees Nilda
Caceres, Marisol Caceres, Felvin Caceres, Marivic Caceres, Maru
Caceres, Ma. Magdalena Caceres, Maria Vinelda Caceres, Ma. Luisa
Caceres, and Mafe Caceres (“defendants-appellees” for brevity).
The Appeal also assails the lower court’s Order[4] dated May 21, 2010, which denied plaintiffs-appellants’ eventual Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The antecedent facts are those as stated in the trial court’s assailed Decision[6] dated April 12, 2010, as follows:
“Plaintiffs (plaintiffs-appellants here) are
the grandchildren of the late Esteban Viñas who died intestate on
November 2, 1914 at Minalabac, Camarines Sur. During his lifetime, he
was the absolute owner of twenty-two (22) parcels of land (subject properties here) xxxxxx
At the time of his death, Esteban Viñas was survived by his
three (3) children namely: Felimon Viñas, Sr., Maria Viñas, and Marciana
Viñas Caceres.Felimon Viñas Sr, died at Naga City on March 29, 1983. He had
nine children namely: Virginia Viñas, Jaime Viñas, Ruben Viñas, Beata
Viñas – Jeremias, Marciano Viñas, Gregoria Viñas, Beatriz Viñas,
Felimon Viñas, Jr. and Felipe Viñas.Beatriz, Felimon, Jr. and Felipe Viñas predeceased their father
Felimon Viñas, Sr. and are represented in this case by herein
plaintiffs, Juanito Viñas Mujar, Alex Viñas, and Ramon Viñas,
respectively.Maria Viñas Lavandero is survived by her daughter, Asuncion Viñas-Lavandero.
Marciana Viñas-Caceres had only one child, Sustines[*]
Caceres. He is already dead and is survived by his wife, Nilda Caceres,
and children, Marisol Caceres, Felvin Caceres, Marivic Caceres, Maru
Caceres, Ma. Magdalena Caceres, Maria Venilda Caceres, Ma. Luisa
Caceres, and Mafe Caceres. Nilda Caceres and her children are the
defendants in this case (defendants-appellees here).The properties xxx are in the actual possession,
cultivation, management and supervision of the defendants who
expropriated for themselves the produce therefrom despite the fact that
the same are supposed to be owned in common by all the parties in this
case[,] they being the legitimate heirs of the late Esteban Viñas and
thus entitled to the estate left by him. Plaintiffs were unjustly
deprived of their right to use, possess, enjoy or otherwise dispose of
what is due each of them as co-owners. When plaintiffs demanded from the
defendants their respective shares in the estate left by Esteban Viñas,
the said defendants refused without justifiable reasons. Efforts to
amicably settle the controversy failed, hence, the filing of this case.To prove that they are the co-owners of the properties
above-described, plaintiffs presented the following witnesses: Virgina
Viñas, Jaime L. Viñas, Raul Nocos, Manuel Rojano, Neil Romero, Alfredo
Alegre, Aurelio Rubio, Jerry De la Cruz, and Maximino Borja.
xxx
Defendants, upon the other hand deny, for lack of
sufficient knowledge, that the properties referred to in paragraph 6 of
the amended complaint belong to the estate of the late Esteban Viñas,
the administration of which was given to Sustines Caceres by Felimon
Viñas, Sr. in the year 1980. They maintain that all the properties
declared in the name of the late Sustines Caceres were legitimately
acquired either by onerous or gratuitous title. They are not familiar or
acquainted with the maternal relatives of the late Sustines Caceres.To prove that Sustines Caceres is the owner of the
properties declared in his name, defendants presented the following
witnesses, namely: Charlene Casilao, Pedro De la Cruz, Jr., Angelita
Casasola, Marcelo Laynesa, Jr., and Nilda Caceres.”[7] (Emphasis supplied)
On April 12, 2010, the lower court rendered the Decision[8] appealed from, dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition for “Partition with Prayer for Accounting of Profits.”[9] The dispositive portion of the Decision stated:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered: dismissing the instant action for partition in view of the
failure of the plaintiffs to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that
they are co-owners of the parcels of land enumerated in their complaint;SO ORDERED.”[10] (Emphasis was made in the original)
After plaintiffs-appellants’ Motion for Reconsideration[11] was denied by the lower court in its Order[12] dated May 21, 2010, plaintiffs-appellants filed the Appeal[13] at bench praying that:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that
after consideration of this appeal on the merits, a decision be rendered
vacating the decision of the court a quo and in its place a decision be
rendered holding and declaring that appellants herein are co-owners of
the properties in question and are entitled to take part in the
partition of the same and that appellees be required to render an
accounting from the period they have, in representation of Sustenes
Caceres, enjoyed the fruits from the properties in question and
excluded appellants in their participation or just share to said fruits.Appellants further pray, in sum, that the decision of the court a quo be reversed and set aside.”[14] (Emphasis was made in the original)
The Appeal[15] raised this sole assignment of error:
“The Honorable Court a quo committed a reversible error in
holding that appellants herein failed to present preponderance of
evidence to show that they are co-owners of the parcels of land in
question. In holding such, the court a quo erroneously disregarded the
evidence both testimonial and documentary presented by appellants
resulting to their prejudice.”[16]
Contrary to plaintiffs-appellants’ arguments in their sole assignment of error, the lower court properly ruled that plaintiffs-appellants were not co-owners of the subject properties.
Plaintiffs-appellants had argued that:
“The court a quo erred in holding that appellants were unable to
present evidence to prove that the late Esteban Viñas during his
lifetime owned 22 parcels of land because there was no documentary
evidence that was presented by appellants to establish that fact. This
resolution by the court a quo is erroneous because in fact appellants
presented testimonial evidence proving that fact and presented Exhibits
C-1 to C-21 to show that parcels of land actually existed. Appellants
explained that the said parcels of land, specifically the documents
appertaining thereto, were delivered for administration to
defendants-appellees’ husband and father, respectively by Felimon Viñas,
Sr. This explains why Sustenes Caceres in his capacity as
administrator of the estate of Esteban Viñas was able to procure tax
declarations in his name. Said tax declarations are not proof of
ownership but merely of possession. Linking said tax
declarations with the combined testimonies of appellants and their
witnesses would show that indeed the said parcels of land originally
came from Esteban Viñas, inherited by the latter’s children and
inherited by the appellants and appellees by operation of law.The court a quo did not consciously take into
consideration the testimony of Jaime Viñas as he testified in open court
and [was] subjected to the rigors of cross-examination instead the
court a quo banked on its supposition and conjecture by saying that
Felimon Viñas, Sr., could have relinquished the administration of the
parcels of land to his son, Jaime Viñas and not to Sustenes Caceres. The
court a quo has not based its conclusion or observation on the facts
existing on record. The reasons why Felimon Viñas, Sr. entrusted the
administration of parcels of land to Sustenes Caceres was because the
latter was an educated man and he was then employed at the Municipal
Assessors Office of Minalabac, Camarines Sur. xxxThe court a quo erred in holding that appellants are not even
certain of the identity of the properties they claim to be co-owned.
This is erroneous because from their testimonies and those of their
witnesses appellants identified the lands in question and even presented
the tax declarations, Exhibits C-1 to C-21 in the name of Sustenes
Caceres. The said exhibits identify (sic) the lands and the properties claimed by plaintiffs as being co-owned by them.The Court a quo ignored the testimonial and documentary
exhibits of appellants. In their testimony proceeding from their
personal knowledge appellants were able to establish and which appellees
did never controvert that Sustenes Caceres was appointed by the
children of Esteban Viñas to act as administrator of the estate of the
latter considering that Felimon Viñas is already old. The documents
appertaining to the properties of Esteban Viñas were delivered to
Sustenes Caceres and the latter declared said properties in his name in
various tax declarations marked as Exhibits C-1 to C-21. These matters
are never speculative but factual. In fact, even the representative from
the Minalabac Assessors Office testified that the tax declarations in
the name of Sustenes Caceres did not have any origin or it was unknown
from whence they came from. This points to show that originally said tax
declarations or the properties represented thereat came from the estate
of Esteban Viñas. In the records of the Municipal Assessors there is no
showing that the said tax declarations in the name of Sustenes Caceres
were purchased by him from other persons. But the fact is, they were
indeed the properties of Esteban Viñas which Sustenes Caceres out of the
trust reposed upon him by Felimon Viñas, Sr., abused and succeeded in
declaring the properties in his name.The witnesses for the appellees did not even testify
with concrete exactitude that Sustenes Caceres is the owner of the lands
they were tilling as tenants. They just declared that it is Sustenes
Caceres to whom they deliver the land owner[‘s] share. This testimony of
the witnesses for appellees clearly shows that there is also no
certainty that indeed Sustenes Caceres is the owner of [the] real
properties to the exclusion of appellants herein. Finally, it should
also be argued that even Nilda Caceres, the wife of Sustenes Caceres
testified that he is not even sure where the properties declared in the
name of Sustenes Caceres came from. She likewise declared that she does
not even know the maternal relatives of Sustenes Caceres[‘] mother.”[17] (Emphasis supplied)
Trumping plaintiffs-appellants’ arguments however, is that, as the
records revealed, plaintiffs-appellants failed to sufficiently show
that plaintiffs-appellants, together with defendants-appellants, were
co-owners of the subject properties.
To begin with,
plaintiffs-appellants failed to establish that Esteban Viñas (“Esteban”
for brevity), plaintiffs-appellants’ grandfather, and Felimon Viñas,
Sr. (“Felimon, Sr.” for brevity), plaintiffs-appellants’ father, from
whom plaintiffs-appellants allegedly inherited the subject properties,
were the owners of such properties. This is because, other than the
testimonies of plaintiffs-appellants’ witnesses, plaintiffs-appellants
failed to present sufficient documentary evidence that would have shown
Esteban or Felimon, Sr.’s ownership of the properties. All of these
matters were as also found by the lower court, to wit:
“First, plaintiff[s] [were] unable to present evidence
to prove that the late Esteban Viñas, during his lifetime, owned the 22
parcels of land above-described. Other than the bare testimony of Jaime
Viñas, no documentary evidence was presented to establish that fact.
Exhibits C to C-21, consisting of the tax declarations covering those
properties were offered not only to prove that the properties described
therein belong to the late Felimon Viñas, Sr.. The testimony of
witnesses, Alfredo Alegre, Aurelio Rubio, Jerry De La Cruz, and
Maximino Borja also established the fact that Felimon Viñas, Sr. owned
properties in Barangays Bagongbong, Taban and Del Carmen, M[a]nalabac,
Camarines Sur. The said witnesses never said anything about the
ownership by Esteban Viñas of those properties. Neither did Neil Romero
of the Municipal Assessors Office of Minalabac mention anything about
the prior ownership by Esteban Viñas or even by Felimon Viñas, Sr., of
the twelve parcels of land declared in the name of Sustines Caceres
enumerated in the Commissioner’s Report, Exhibit E for the plaintiff;”[18] (Emphasis supplied)
Plaintiffs-appellants could not also properly claim that Felimon,
Sr. had relinquished the administration of the properties in favor of
Sustines Caceres (“Sustines” for brevity), who was defendant-appellee
Nilda Ceceres’ husband and the father of the other defendants-appellees.
This is because plaintiffs-appellants merely rendered such
allegations, but failed to present evidence showing any act of
relinquishment by Felimon Sr. of his administration.
On the other hand, defendants-appellees were able to
sufficiently prove that they owned the subject properties to the
exclusion of others. Defendants-appellees’ ownership of the subject
properties, including defendants-appellees’ actual possession and
occupation of the subject properties, were shown by the Tax Declarations[19] issued under the name of Sustines. Their ownership was also shown by the “Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheets”[20] and the “Certificate of Tax Payment,”[21]
both of which stated Sustines as being the owner of the subject
properties, and by the testimonies of defendants-appellees’ witnesses,
which testimonies affirmed that Sustines had administered and owned the
properties.[22]
That Tax Declarations, coupled with actual possession and
occupation, would be a valid source of ownership of a property was as
reiterated by the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 186961, February 20, 2012, as follows:
“In Cequeña v. Bolante, this Court ruled that it is
only when these tax declarations are coupled with proof of actual
possession of the property that they may become the basis of a claim of
ownership. In the absence of actual public and adverse possession, the
declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership.” (Emphasis supplied)
Neither could plaintiffs-appellants rely on their argument that the Tax Declarations[23]
issued in favor of Sustines were fraudulently obtained by Sustines.
This, considering that plaintiffs-appellants failed to sufficiently
prove such allegation of fraud. All of these were as similarly found by
the lower court, to wit:
“Fourth, the allegation that Sustines Caceres
fraudulently transferred the tax declarations covering the
above-described properties to deprive his co-heirs thereof he being once
a casual employee at the Minalabac Assessor’s Office is purely
speculative and must not be given credence; and”[24] (Emphasis supplied)
A party, such as plaintiffs-appellants, alleging the commission of
fraud by another in obtaining a public document, such as the Tax
Declarations here, has the burden to prove such fraudulent act. This is
pursuant to the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Bellate, et al., G.R. No. 175685, August 7, 2013:
“The burden of proof rests on the party who, as
determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the
affirmative of an issue. In other words, the Republic has the burden to prove that Angeles committed fraud in his application for free patent.In Libudan v. Gil, we held:
[T]he fraud must consist in an intentional omission of
facts required by law to be stated in the application or a willful
statement of a claim against the truth. It must show some specific acts
intended to deceive and deprive another of his right. The fraud must be
actual and extrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic; the evidence
thereof must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant,
because the proceedings which are assailed as having been fraudulent are
judicial proceedings which by law, are presumed to have been fair and
regular.” (Emphasis supplied)
No cogent reason was therefore shown to justify deviation from the
following findings of the lower court, which findings were based on the
facts and the law:
“After a careful review of the evidence adduced by the parties, this
court has come to the conclusion that plaintiffs were not able to
establish by preponderance of evidence, the fact that they are co-owners
of the parcels of land identified and described in paragraph 6 of their
amended complaint.xxx
Second, the testimony of Jaime Viñas that in the year
1980, his father decided to relinquish the administration of the said
properties and turned over the documents pertaining thereto to Sustines
Caceres because of his old age, deserves scant consideration.
Why would Felimon Viñas, Sr. relinquish the administration of those
properties to Sustines Caceres when he had several children, all grown
ups, who could have taken his place and taken charge of the cultivation
and management of said properties. Jaime Viñas even claims to have
helped his father in the cultivation of those properties since he was
twelve. Jaime Viñas tried to explain this by saying that the
administration of the said properties were transferred to Sustines
Caceres because he was an educated man and was at that time, a casual
employee at the Assessor’s Office of Minalabac, Camarines Sur. However,
this explanation is fails (sic) to inspire belief. Plaintiff tried to
establish the fact that Sustines Caceres worked as a casual employee at
the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Minalabac from 1968 to 1972. If this
were true, then Sustines Caceres was no longer connected with the
Assessor’s Office in the year 1980 when the administration of the said
properties and the documents pertaining thereto were allegedly turned
over to him by Felimon Viñas, Sr.;
xxx
Third, plaintiffs are not even certain about the identity of the properties they claim to co-own with herein defendants. In
their complaint, they identified 22 parcels of land which allegedly
belong to Esteban Viñas during his lifetime. It turned out however, that
some of the tax declarations relied upon by plaintiffs refer to
identical properties. Neil Romero of the Municipal Assessor’s Office of
Minalabac, identified only twelve (12) parcels of land declared in the
name of Sustines Caceres one of which is already declared in the name of
Ma. Magdalena Caceres. xxx
xxx
Owing to the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their
status as co-owners of the subject properties, the issue as to the
manner of partition and whether or not the action is already barred by
prescription or laches, has been rendered moot and academic.”[25] (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, the findings of the trial court are entitled to great
weight and respect on appeal, and are in fact accorded finality when
supported by sufficient evidence on the record,[26] as in this case.
After careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and
issues appearing on the records as well as of the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and, in accordance with what is best determined to be
proper under the circumstances, the following disposition is therefore
made on these matters.
IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, the Appeal is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairman) and Dimagiba[*], JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Junior Member vice J. Paredes per Office Order No. 34-14-RSF dated January 30, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 62-79.
[2] Rollo, pp. 81-99.
[3] Records, pp. 1-7; Amended Complaint, pp. 46-52.
[4] Records, pp. 683-684.
[5] Records, pp. 672-678.
[6] Rollo, pp. 81-99.
[*] Alternatively spelled as Sustenes and Sustines.
[7] Rollo, pp. 81-89.
[8] Rollo, pp. 81-99.
[9] Records, pp. 1-7.
[10] Rollo, p. 99.
[11] Records, pp. 672-678.
[12] Records, pp. 683-684.
[13] Rollo, pp. 62-79.
[14] Rollo, p. 79.
[15] Rollo, pp. 62-80.
[16] Rollo, p. 65.
[17] Rollo, pp. 73-75.
[18] Rollo, pp. 93-94.
[19] Records, pp. 304-307; 316-319.326-328; 335-338; 345-348; 353-354; 359-360; 366-367;372-374; 380- 382; 388-388B.
[20] Records, pp. 576, 578, 581, 583, 585, 587.
[21] Records, pp. 577, 579-580, 582, 584, 586, 588.
[22] TSN September 25,
2008, pp. 1-9; TSN October 29, 2008, pp. 1-9; January 27, 2009, pp.
1-10; TSN April 28, 2009, pp. 1-10; TSN June 24, 2009, pp. 1-1-7; TSN
August 3, 2009, pp. 1-15.
[23] Records, pp. 304-307; 316-319.326-328; 335-338; 345-348; 353-354; 359-360; 366-367;372-374; 380- 382; 388-388B.
[24] Rollo, p. 97.
[25] Rollo, pp. 93-98.
[26] Spouses Patricio and Myrna Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, et al., G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010.