G.R. No. L-33762. December 29, 1977
POTENCIANA DUQUE, AMADEO DUQUE AND ARSENIO DUQUE, PETITIONERS, VS. PAZ DOMINGO, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARCOSA DUQUE-VALENZUELA, INTESTATE ESTATE OF JULIA DUQUE, …
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 43557-R entitled “JULIA DUQUE, for
herself and as natural guardian of her daughter of unsound mind, PAZ DOMINGO,
versus POTENCIANA DUQUE, AMADEO DUQUE and ARSENIO DUQUE”, the dispositive part of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and
another one entered instead, declaring Julia Duque
the absolute owner of lot 1083 currently covered by TCT No. T-25195 in the name of defendants; declaring said TCT
No. T-25195 null and void; and ordering that a new certificate of title be
issued in the name of Julia Duque. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.”[1]
On September 5, 1966, Julia Duque, for
herself and as natural guardian of her daughter of unsound mind, Paz Domingo,
instituted against Potenciana Duque,
Amadeo Duque and Arsenio Duque Civil Case No.
266-V in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for reconveyance of Lot 1083 of Malinta Estate located in Polo, Bulacan and in the alternative, to declare Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 25195 in the name of the defendants void and to
declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of said Lot 1083.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff, Julia Duque,
is a niece of Juana Duque who died in 1928; that the
defendants are the children of Mariano Duque, a
deceased nephew of Juana Duque and natural brother of
the plaintiff, Julia Duque; that sometime in 1908, Juana
Duque, through her other nephew, Faustino Duque, whom she had employed as her agent, purchased from
the government Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate at
Polo, Bulacan assessed under Tax Declaration No. 8724
at P1,600.00, more particularly described in Original Certificate of Title No.
374; that Lot 1083 was then a part of the Friar Estate of the government disposable
by the Director of Lands on installment pursuant to the Friar Land Act; that
Faustino Duque, the agent, caused the document of
purchase, Sale Certificate No. 1138, to be issued by the government in his name
with the consent of his
principal, Juana Duque; that under the terms of Sale
Certificate No. 1138, the price of Lot 1083 was P503.00 payable in 20 annual
installments of P25.00 each; that the original of the sale certificate was lost
in the files of the Bureau of Lands during the war and plaintiffs could not
secure a copy for attachment to the complaint; that on June 22, 1915, Faustino Duque transferred his Sale Certificate No. 1138 with the
permission of Juana Duque to his brother, Mariano Duque, who later received in 1931 Transfer Certificate No.
7501 for Lot 1083 from the government; that since the issuance of the sale
certificate in 1909, Juana Duque had been in the
exclusive possession of Lot 1083 as owner paying the installments stipulated in
the contract to the government through Faustino Duque
and Mariano Duque or reimbursing their advances therefor; that in 1927, Juana Duque
verbally donated and delivered Lot 1083 to plaintiff Julia Duque,
her niece; that from then on up to the present, the plaintiff Julia Duque has been in the exclusive possession of Lot 1083 as
beneficial owner thereof; that Mariano Duque, the
title holder, died and in 1957, his children, Emilio Duque,
Potenciana Duque, Amadeo Duque and Arsenio Duque registered Lot 1083
in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19924 of the Registry
of Deeds of Bulacan; that subsequently Emilio Duque died without issue and the defendants had Lot
1083 recorded in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25195 in
1959; that plaintiff, Julia Duque, requested the defendants
to reconvey to her the title of Lot 1083 but they
refused and still refuse to comply with her request; that Juana Duque, the original owner of Lot 1083 died single, without
issue and intestate in 1928 survived by her nephews, as legal heirs, Mariano Duque, Domingo Duque, Faustino Duque and Apolonio Duque; that the foregoing legal heirs recognized the
donation of Lot 1083 made by Juana Duque to
plaintiff, Julia Duque, in or about 1927 and
repudiated and abandoned all rights to contest it, as in fact they caused Lot
1083 to be declared for tax purposes in the name of Paz Domingo, the only child
of Julia Duque, in or about 1933; and that the defendants
had recognized plaintiffs’ beneficial ownership of Lot 1083 after the death of
their father, Mariano Duque.[2]
In their answer filed on October 5, 1966, the defendants averred
as affirmative and special defenses that Lot 1083 of the Malinta
Estate is owned in fee simple by defendants, Potenciana,
Amadeo and Arsenio, all
surnamed Duque, as evidenced by T.C.T. No. T-25195 of
the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan; that said property
was originally purchased in 1915
by defendants’ father and predecessor-in-interest, Mariano Duque,
from the government of the Philippine Islands; that the purchase price of the
land being payable in installment, it was only in 1931, after full payment of
said price, when Mariano Duque acquired ownership in
fee simple over Lot 1083 by the issuance in his favor of T.C.T. No. 7501 of the
Registry of Deeds of Bulacan by the government of the
Philippine Islands; that from 1915 up to the present, over a period of 51
years, Mariano Duque, his heirs and successors in
interest which include defendants herein have continuously treated, held and
possessed Lot 1083 as their sole and exclusive property and that no one among
them has recognized that the beneficial ownership thereof was vested in Julia Duque, Juana Duque, Paz Domingo
or any third person; that the validity of the grant in 1931 by the Government
of the Philippine Islands of T.C.T. No. T-7501 in favor of Mariano Duque was never questioned by the plaintiffs in spite of
their knowledge about it; that in fact the plaintiffs were aware that from the
issuance of said title in 1931 and in exercise of the rights of ownership over
the land, at least three conveyances involving Lot 1083 had been recorded in
the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan which
resulted in the grant of new certificates of title in the name of the proper
parties; that notwithstanding their knowledge about these conveyances, the
plaintiffs kept silent and never raised any objections thereto; that although
the plaintiffs and defendants belong to the same family, no allegation that
earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made by the former is contained
in the complaint; that under the circumstances, plaintiffs have no cause of
action against the defendants; that even assuming that they have a cause of
action, the same has been barred by the statute of limitations and/or by laches or it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds;
and that in any event, the plaintiffs are in estoppel
from claiming any rights of
interest over Lot 1083.[3]
The parties filed on June 22, 1968 the following:
“PARTIAL STIPULATION OF FACTS
The parties hereto hereby submit the following partial stipulation
of facts, in compliance with the verbal permission of the Court at the hearing
on June 25, 1968:
1.
Plaintiff Julia Duque is the natural sister of the late Mariano Duque, who died on June 20, 1947;
2.
Defendants Potenciana,
Arsenio and Amadeo, all surnamed,
Duque, are the legitimate children of said Mariano Duque;
3.
The property in question, which
was formerly a part of the Friar Land Estate of the Government (Lot 1083 of the
Malinta Estate), was disposed of by the Government of
the Philippine Islands on January 1, 1909 by virtue of Sales Certificate No.
1138 for a consideration of P503.00 payable in 20 annual installments of P25.00
per year, effective January 1, 1909;
4.
As per Sales Certificate No. 1138, the grantee thereof was one
Faustino Duque;
5.
On September 15, 1931. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7501,
covering said parcel of land, was issued in favor of the late Mariano Duque;
6.
As of this date, the property in
question is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25195 of the Registry
of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan issued in the
names of defendants Potenciana, Arsenio and Amadeo, all surnamed, Duque;
7.
The present value of said property is more than P300,000.00.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing partial
Stipulation of Facts be approved and made a part of the records of this case.
AVIADO & ARANDA
By:
(Sgd.) ILLEGIBLE
Counsel for the defendants
214 Bank of P.I. Bldg.
Plaza Moraga,
Manila
(Sgd.) ARTURO AGUSTINES
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Polo, Bulacan“[4]
The trial court rendered the decision dated February 1969
dismissing the complaint without cost.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff Julia Duque
died on January 31, 1969. She was ordered substituted by her daughter
and co-plaintiff, Paz Domingo for whom Marcosa Duque-Valenzuela was appointed as guardian ad litem
in an order of the trial court dated March
31, 1969.[5]
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals where the appeal
was docketed as CA-G. R. No. 43557-R.
The Court of Appeals declared Julia Duque
the absolute owner of Lot 1083 because “Although the plaintiff’s theory is
that the property in question was acquired by Julia Duque
through an oral donation made by her aunt Juana Duque
in her favor, the case should be considered from the point of view of a verbal partition among heirs made by the decedent and consented
to by them.” The Court of Appeals said that “In 1927 one year before
her death Juana Duque gathered her nephews and nieces
in her house and made a verbal partition of her properties: to each of them she gave something and to
Julia she gave the property in question, all of the heirs including Mariano Duque, consented to each other’s largesse.”[6]
The petitioners assign the following errors:
“I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS TO ENFORCE AN IMPLIED TRUST OVER REAL PROPERTY HAD PRESCRIBED OR
HAD BEEN BARRED BY LACHES.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ORAL DONATION MADE IN
1927 OF LOT 1083, ASSUMING THE TRUTH THEREOF, WAS NULL
AND VOID.
III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN PRESUMING, EVEN WITHOUT ANY SHRED OF
EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE SALES
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS CORRESPONDING ASSIGNMENT, THAT
FAUSTINO DUQUE AND MARIANO DUQUE ACTED AS AGENTS OF JUANA DUQUE.
IV
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT AN IMPLIED TRUST OVER A
REAL PROPERTY COVERED BY TORRENS TITLE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY A MERE TAX DECLARATION.
V
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN PROMULGATING THE DECISION, WHICH IS
PREMISED ON FACTS AND INVOLVING ISSUES NOT COVERED BY THE EVIDENCE AND RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS.”[7]
The partial stipulation of facts and the evidence established that
the land in question, Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate
was formerly a part of the Friar Land Estate of the Government; that on January
1, 1909 the Government of the Philippine Islands sold to Faustino Duque Lot 1083 by virtue of Sale Certificate No. 1138 for a
consideration of P503.00 payable in 20 annual installments of P25.00 per year,
effective on January 1, 1909;
that in 1915 Faustino Duque assigned his right on Lot
1083 in favor of Mariano Duque, the legitimate father
of the petitioners Potenciana Duque,
Amadeo Duque and Arsenio Duque; that on September
15, 1931, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7501 was issued in the name of
Mariano Duque; that upon the death of Mariano Duque, his widow, Dorotea Vda. de Duque and children, Potenciana, Amadeo, Arsenio and Emilio, all surnamed Duque,
as heirs, instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila a proceeding for
the settlement of the estate of said Mariano Duque;
that in the estate proceeding Lot 1083 was adjudicated pro-indiviso
to the widow and children of Mariano Duque; that
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 19924
was issued to the said heirs; that when Dorotea Vda. de Duque and Emilio Duque died in 1954 and 1956, respectively, their shares in
Lot 1083 were inherited by the petitioners to whom Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 25195 was issued; that in 1933 the land in question was declared for
taxation in the name of the respondent, Paz Domingo; that beginning with the
year 1949 the tax declaration embracing the land in question was in the name of
Mariano Duque; and that Tax Declaration No. 15214 is
in the names of the petitioners.[8]
The private respondents adduced oral evidence that sometime in
1908 Juana Duque, through her nephew whom she had
employed as her agent, purchased from the Government Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate in Polo, now Valenzuela, Bulacan;
that Faustino Duque, the agent, caused the document
of purchase, Sale Certificate No. 1138, to be issued by the government in his
name with the consent of his principal, Juana Duque;
and that in or about 1927 Juana Duque verbally
donated and delivered Lot 1083 to her niece, Julia Duque.[9]
The theory of the private respondents that the land in question
was purchased by Juana Duque through her agent
Faustino Duque and that in 1927 she verbally donated said
land to Julia Duque is supported only by testimonial
evidence which cannot prevail over the petitioners’ documentary evidence
consisting of Sale Certificate No. 1138 issued in 1909 whereby the Director of
Lands sold Lot 1083 to Faustino Duque on a 20-year
installment of P25.00 per year for a total price of P503.00 and the transfer
certificates of title in the name of Mariano Duque
and his heirs. If Juana Duque was the real purchaser, it is odd that Faustino Duque appeared as the purchaser of Lot
1083 in Sale Certificate No. 1138. From
1909 until her death in 1928 Juana Duque had never
taken any step to have the land in question transferred in her name despite the
fact that in 1915 Faustino Duque transferred his
right to the land under Sale Certificate No. 1138 to Mariano Duque. There is no
sufficient evidence to show that Juana Duque consented
to the transfer by Faustino Duque of his right to the
land in question in favor of Mariano Duque. Moreover, if Juana Duque
was the real owner of Lot 1083 she would not have
consented to the aforementioned transfer by Faustino Duque
to Mariano Duque.
The complaint[10]
admitted that in 1931 Mariano Duque received Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 7501 for Lot 1083 from the
government; that Mariano Duque, the holder, died and
in 1957 his children registered Lot 1083 in their names
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19924; and that upon the death of
Emilio Duque without issue, the defendants,
petitioners herein, had said Lot 1083 recorded in their
names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25195 in 1959.
From 1931 the title to the land in question, Lot 1083, had always
been in the name of Mariano Duque and after his
death, in those of his children, the herein petitioners. The complaint was filed by Julia Duque only in September 1966 after the lapse of thirty-five
(35) years from the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7501 to
Mariano Duque.
The alleged possession by
the private respondents of the land in question did not divest the
petitioners, as registered owners, of their rights to Lot
1083. Adverse possession under claim of
ownership for the period fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens
title.[11]
The alleged oral donation by Juana Duque
in favor of Julia Duque did not transfer any right
over Lot 1083 to the donee. Both under the Spanish Civil Code and the
Civil Code of the Philippines,
a donation of an immovable, to be valid must be made in a public document,
specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.[12]
The Court of Appeals must have realized the fatal infirmity of
the alleged verbal donation because it considered the case “from the point of view of a verbal partition
among heirs made by the decedent and consented to by them.”[13]
There is no adequate showing that Mariano Duque
consented in 1927 to a verbal partition made by Juana Duque
wherein she gave the property in question, Lot 1083, to
Julia Duque.
On the contrary, in 1931, after full payment of the purchase price,
Mariano Duque obtained in his name Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 7501 for Lot 1083 from the
government.[14]
The improbability of the alleged oral partition becomes more
evident when it is considered that Lot 1083 is
registered land and any transaction affecting registered land should be
evidenced by a registerable deed.[15]
No implied trust between
Juana Duque and either Faustino Duque
or Mariano Duque has been established by sufficient
evidence.
At any rate, granting, arguendo,
that such an implied or constructive trust existed, the right of action upon
the same has prescribed. From 1931 when
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7501 covering the land in question was
issued to Mariano Duque until 1966 when the present
case was commenced a period of 35 years had passed. The registration of an instrument in the
Office of the Register of Deeds
constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and, therefore, discovery
of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration.[16] Such registration is deemed to be a constructive notice that the alleged fiduciary or trust relationship
has been repudiated. It is now settled
that an action on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years
from the date the right of action accrued.[17] The issuance of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 7501 in 1931 to Mariano Duque commenced the
effective assertion of adverse title for the purpose of the statute of
limitations.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed
from is hereby set aside and Civil Case No. 266-V of the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan is dismissed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Muñoz
Palma, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, (Chairman), J., in the result.
Martin, J., no part.
[1]
Rollo, p. 44.
The decision was written by Justice Lourdes P. San Diego and concurred
in by Justice Ruperto G. Martin and Justice Eulogio S. Serrano.
Justice Edilberto Soriano
dissented in a separate opinion concurred in by Presiding Justice Salvador V. Esguerra.
[2]
Record on Appeal, pp. 5-11, Rollo, p. 69.
[3]
Ibid., pp. 15-20, Rollo,
p. 69.
[4]
Ibid., pp. 49-51, Rollo,
p. 69.
[5]
Ibid., p. 75, Rollo,
p. 69.
[6]
Rollo, p. 33.
[7]
Brief for Petitioners, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 125.
[8]
Record on Appeal, pp. 49-51, Rollo, p. 68; and Brief for Petitioners, pp. 3-6, Rollo, p. 125.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 48-54.
[10]
Record on Appeal, pp. 8-9, Rollo, p. 69.
[11]
Valiente vs. Court of First Instance of Tarlac, et al., 80 Phil. 415; Bolaños
vs. J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. 37 SCRA 223,
228.
[12]
Art. 633, Spanish Civil Code; Art. 749
Civil Code of the Philippines.
[13]
Rollo, p. 35.
[14]
Paragraph 8, Complaint, Record on
Appeal, p. 8, Rollo, p. 69.
[15]
Salao vs. Salao,
70 SCRA 65, 83.
[16] Carantes vs. Court of Appeals, 76 SCRA 514, 523.
[17] De la Cerna vs. De
la Cerna, 72 SCRA 514, 518.