JOSE BANIQUED AND BIBIANA SORIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MACARIA BANIQUED, AGRIPINA BANIQUED, ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, CONSOLACION DE LA CRUZ, LOURDES DE LA CRUZ, M…

Petition for certiorari with prayer that the decision of then Court of
Appeals in C.A. G.R. No. 49713-R, entitled “Macaria Baniqued, et al. vs.
Jose Baniqued and Bibiana Soriano”, dated October 11, 1977, and its
resolution, dated December 2, 1977, be set aside and another one be
issued in favor of herein petitioners.

Private respondents’ evidence (plaintiffs in the lower court) shows that
Julio Baniqued was the registered owner of Lot 19355, under OCT 20468,
which was later reconstituted as Transfer Certificate of Title No. R.T.
No. 224 (16849), with an area of 53,464 square meters. On October 23,
1923, Julio Baniqued donated 1,489 square meters and 1,962 square meters
pro-indiviso of the same lot in favor of Benedicta Gallardo and Rosa
Gallardo, daughters by his second wife. On June 8, 1933, Julio Baniqued
executed donations inter vivos in pro-indiviso shares of the same lot
in favor of his children as follows:

(1) Macaria Baniqued	–	2,820 sq. m.
(2) Agripina Baniqued	–	2,820 sq. m.
		2,108 sq. m.
(3) Santiago Baniqued	–	4,460 sq. m.
		5,106 sq. m.
(4) Catalina Baniqued	–	2,820 sq. m.
(5) Candida Baniqued	–	820 sq. m.
(6) Jose Baniqued	–	6,234 sq. m.

Petitioner Jose Baniqued was an instrumental witness in the above donations.

After the execution of the donations inter vivos, the donees took
possession of their respective portions and paid taxes thereon. By
common agreement, they allowed Jose Baniqued to work the land as tenant.

Beginning 1970, however, Jose Baniqued refused to deliver the shares of
each donee in the land and, instead, claimed the entire Lot 19355 as his
exclusive property. Upon investigation, private respondents found that
on September 9, 1958 Jose Baniqued had filed a petition with the then
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the issuance of another
owner’s copy of TCT No. 16849 which covered Lot 19355 and which he
alleged to have been lost. The lower court issued an order directing
the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title, pursuant to which TCT No.
27617 was issued in the name of Jose Baniqued alone.

On July 22, 1967, petitioners mortgaged the property to the Kaluyagan
Rural Bank of San Carlos City to secure a loan of P3,000.00. Upon
failure of the petitioners to pay the debt despite several demands, the
bank foreclosed the mortgage and Lot 19355 was sold at public auction to
the bank as the highest bidder.

On April 4, 1968, private respondents filed a complaint against
petitioners for annulment of TCT No. 27617, reinstatement of TCT No.
R.T. No. 224 (16849), partition and damages.

On the other hand, petitioners-spouses Jose Baniqued and Bibiana Soriano
(defendants in the trial court) claimed that they are the absolute
owners of the disputed lot to the exclusion of all persons including
herein private respondents because of the donations inter vivos and
propter nuptias and TCT No. 27617, and that they have received the
rights of absolute owners thereof since 1930 or a period of 38 years.

The trial court, on April 7, 1971, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads –

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows: (a) declaring Lot No. 19355 covered by TCT No. R.T. 224
(16849) owned in common pro-indiviso by plaintiffs and defendant Jose
Baniqued, with age and other personal circumstances described in the
complaint, in the following proportion: Macaria Baniqued, 5,640 square
meters; Agripina Baniqued, 2,820 square meters; plaintiffs heirs all
surnamed Perez of Catalina Baniqued, 2,820 square meters; Benedicta and
Rosa GalIardo, 3,451 square meters; and Jose Baniqued, 6,234 square
meters, and the remaining area of 20,825 square meters to be divided
equally among the heirs under the rule of intestate succession; (b)
ordering the annulment and cancellation of TCT No. 27617 and the
reinstatement of TCT No. R.T. 224 (16849), which shall be cancelled upon
the issuance of another transfer certificate of title to the persons
named in the dispositive part of the decision and in proportions herein
stated; (c) declaring the Kaluyagan Rural Bank as a mortgagee in good
faith; (d) ordering defendant Jose Baniqued to redeem in the name of all
the co-owners Lot No. 19355 by paying the remaining unpaid mortgage
debt plus interest up to the date of redemption within thirty (30) days
from the time the judgment in this case becomes final, but should he
fail or refuse to pay, plaintiffs are authorized to redeem and the Bank
is ordered to allow the redemption; and, defendant Jose Baniqued is
directed to pay to the plaintiffs the amount they shall pay the Bank to
effect the redemption; (e) defendant Jose Baniqued is sentenced to pay
plaintiffs P1,000.00 as compensatory damages, P1,000.00 by way of moral
damages, P500.00 as exemplary damages, plus P1,000.00 as attorney’s
fees; (f) counterclaim of Intervenor and defendant Bank are both ordered
dismissed for lack of merit; and, (g) defendant Jose Baniqued to pay
the costs.” (pp. 171-172, Record on Appeal)

On September 9, 1971, the foregoing judgment was amended as follows:

“To amend the dispositive part of the Decision insofar as
plaintiff Agripina Baniqued is concerned, by adjudicating unto her 2,108
square meters, in addition to 2,820 square meters of Lot No. 19355,
adjudicated under the original Decision, thereby increasing her share to
4,928 square meters in said lot, it appearing that the part referred to
had in fact been donated to her by her father Julio Baniqued as shown
in Document No. 63 (Exhibit ‘J-2’) of Exhibit ‘J’ x x x” (p. 234, Record
on Appeal)

Respondent appellate court sustained the findings of the trial court
that the Escritura De Donacion Intervivos, dated June 8, 1933 (Doc. No.
72, Page No. 17, Libro 5, Serio de 1933 in the Notarial Register of
Notary Public Domingo P. Reyes) shows that only 6,234 square meters of
land in Lot No. 19355 was donated by Julio Baniqued to his son, herein
petitioner Jose Baniqued. Respondent Court of Appeals said –

“In his Petition for the Issuance of a New Certificate of Title
dated September 9, 1958 and filed with the CFI of Pangasinan, Jose
Baniqued made it appear in Paragraph 2 that the real property designated
as Lot No. 19355 under TCT 16849 in favor of Julio Baniqued had been
ceded, transferred, and conveyed to him by an “Escritura de Donacion
Intervivos duly identified as Doc. No. 72, Page No. 17, Libro No. 5,
Serio (Sic) de 1933 in the Notarial Register of Domingo P. Reyes of San
Carlos, Pangasinan, P.I.

“While the petition for a new certificate of title in lieu of the
allegedly lost one misrepresented the donation to Jose Baniqued as
covering the entire Lot No. 19355, the order of Judge Jesus P. Morfe
dated September 10, 1958 did not direct the issuance of a new title in
the name of Jose Baniqued. It simply ordered the issuance of a new
Owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-16849 of the
Land Records of the province and the cancellation of the first Owner’s
duplicate of said title which the Court accepted as lost during World
War II.

“Instead of simply issuing a new Owner’s duplicate which would
have continued to be in the name of Julio Baniqued, the Register of
Deeds issued TCT No. 27617 covering the entire Lot No. 19355 in favor of
Jose Baniqued, defendant-appellant.

“On the basis of this Torrens Title secured through fraud on the
part of the petitioner and negligence if not connivance on the part of
registration authorities, the appellant now sets up prescription in his
favor and prescription against the plaintiffs. The assignments of
errors must, of course, be rejected.

“The inscription in the registry and the issuance of the new title
in the name of Jose Baniqued were characterized by fraud and bad faith and
consequently these acts cannot grant him the rights that he asserts or
give him the protection of the law which he seeks in this appeal. The
Torrens system of land registration with its rules on prescription,
notice to the whole world, and characteristics of finality and
conclusiveness cannot be used as the very vehicle to perpetuate or
legalize fraud, error, and injustice in land transactions.” (pp. 38-39,
Rollo)

Further, evidence shows that the ten (10) other small parcels of land
donated to the five (5) other children of Julio Baniqued totals 40,218
square meters, while the six (6) parcels donated to Jose Baniqued alone
totals 25,929 square meters. As early as 1930 when Julio Baniqued
started giving his properties to his children, Jose Baniqued received
much bigger share than his brothers and sisters. Thus, the trial court
did not err in denying his counterclaim for more. Indeed, he has no
reason to complaint.

This Court cannot set aside the express finding of the Court of Appeals.
Time and again We have ruled that “it is not the function of the
Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its
jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have
been committed by the lower court (Tiongco vs. dela Merced, 58 SCRA
89).”

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. No Costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., no part.