G.R. No. 12949. June 30, 1960
GABINA DARACAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LEOVIGILDO DARACAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
PADILLA, J.:
judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals reviewed on questions of law,
and after hearing to have it set aside and the complaint filed by the
respondents, plaintiffs and appellees in the Courts below, dismissed,
with costs against them. In the sixth paragraph of the petition the
petitioners, defendants and appellants in the Courts below, raise two
questions: (1) That the award of P2,850.00 (should be P2,050.00) by the
respondent Court to the other respondents which had not been awarded by
the trial court constitutes a grave abuse of discretion, because the
respondents did not appeal from the judgment of the trial court which
for that reason became final in so far as the respondents, plaintiffs
and appellees in the Courts below, are concerned; and (2) That the fact
that the respondents, plaintiffs and appellees in the Courts below,
tire surnamed or bear the family name of Daracan is not a conclusive
proof that they are the descendants of the late Reginaldo Daracan and
entitled as such to share in his estate. The respondent Court found and
held that—
* * * * * * *
Liborio, Fruto and Reginaldo, all surnamed Daracan,
were the legitimate children of Tomas Daracan who died intestate in
1929. Reginaldo died intestate in 1910; Fruto died intestate in 1921
and Liborio died intestate in 1944. Defendants Gabina, Victorio,
Lorenzo, Domingo, Jovito, Mercedes, Bonifacia and Pacita, all surnamed
Daracan, are the legitimate children of Liborio Daracan. Fruto was
survived by only one legitimate child, called Fruto Daracan 2° who died
intestate and single in 1938 or 1939. Reginaldo Daracan was legally
married to Maria Malabug and out of their wedlock, they had only one
issue, named Domingo Daracan. Domingo Daracan married Concepcion Lago
on December 27, 1926 (Exhibit “D”), and they had 5 children named:
Leovigildo, Romulo, Deogracias, Margarita and Alberta, all surnamed
Daracan, who are the plaintiffs herein. After the death of Reginaldo
Daracan, (when Domingo Daracan was only about two years old), Maria
Malabug married Salvador de la Fuente from whom she begot 5 children, 3
of whom are already dead. Upon the death of Tomas Daracan in 1929, he
left a homestead covered by O.C.T. No. I-1130, issued in his
name. During the pendency of the present case, however, defendant
Victorio Daracan, succeeded in obtaining the cancellation of the said
title by registering, with the Register of Deeds of Isabela, a deed of
extra-judicial partition executed by the defendants on February 1,
1951, adjudicating to themselves the property described therein. The
defendants deeded to their co-defendant and co-heir Victorio Daracan,
for valuable consideration, their respective shares in the property,
notwithstanding the notice of lis pendens filed with the
Register of Deeds on July 12, 1951, by the plaintiffs. T.C.T. No. 3168
was therefore, issued on November 7, 1951, in favor of defendant
Victorio Daracan. During the lifetime of Domingo Daracan, he and his
son, Leovigildo Daracan, worked on a portion of 3 hectares,
planting the same to tobacco and corn, but after the filing of the
present action, defendant Victorio Daracan prevented Leovigildo and his
brothers from working on the homestead. The residential lot,
designated as parcel No. 3 in the complaint, was also originally owned
by Tomas Daracan, who erected a big house therein but was destroyed.
Domingo Daracan-constructed a house on said lot, where he and his
family had lived for a long time. Before his death in 1941, Domingo
Daracan, as co-heir, also worked the tobacco-corn land, containing an
area of more than 1 hectare, and designated as parcel No. 2 in the
complaint. Since the death of Domingo Daracan (predecessor-in-interest
of the plaintiffs), the defendants had been in possession of the estate
of the deceased Tomas Daracan, and harvested the fruits of the same,
with the exception of the said 1 hectare portion known as parcel No. 2.
The plaintiffs, thru, their mother Concepcion Lago, had been demanding
since 1947, upon the defendants to divide the properties in question
and to account for the products thereof, but the defendants turned a
deaf ear. The action, therefore, seeks for a judgment: (1) ordering the
partition of all the real properties described in paragraph 12 and
awarding the plaintiffs one-half (½) thereof; ordering the defendants
to render an accounting of the products of the properties in question
from, the year 1941, up to the termination of the suit and to pay the
costs.Upon the other hand, defendant’s evidence tends to
show the following: That Reginaldo Daracan died of typhoid fever at the
age of 13 years and he had never married Maria Malabug. “The person
known as Domingo Daracan, is surnamed de la Fuente and is one of the 6
children of Salvador de la Fuente and Maria Malabug who married in 1914
on Holy Saturday (Sabado de Gloria). Domingo de la Fuente was legally
married to Concepcidn Lago, with whom he had five children, the
plaintiffs herein. The homestead was owned by Tomas Daracan who
possessed it for nine years and after the latter’s death, the land
passed into the hands of Victorio Daracan who is now its owner by
virtue of the extra-judicial partition had between him and his brothers
and sisters who sold to him their respective shares in the inheritance,
as heirs of Liborio Daracan. The title of the homestead was delivered
by Tomas Daracan to Liborio Daracan before the former died. The taxes
for the homestead have been paid by Victorio Daracan (Exhibit 4) and
T.C.T. No. 8168 was issued in his name. The land designated as parcel
No. 2 in the complaint, had been, possessed by Victorio since 1921, his
father (Liborio) having advised him to work on it. Victorio cleaned and
cultivated it and reaped the products thereof; declared it for taxation
purposes in his name and paid the land taxes therefor (Exhibits 6, 7 to
7-b). The residential lot designated as parcel No. 3 in the
complaint, is possessed in common by the defendants, having inherited
same from their father, Liborio, who had possessed the same from the
time he married, up to his death, having declared the same for taxation
purposes (Exhibits 8, 9, 9-a to 9-b).After due hearing, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which is hereunder reproduced:
WHEREFORE,
the Court hereby enters judgment ordering the partition of the land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3168 and the residential
lot, covered by Tax Declaration No. 1489 in the following manner, to
wit: One-half of the said properties is awarded to the plaintiffs who
are hereby declared the owners thereof, and the other half to accrue to
the defendants. Victorio Daracan is hereby ordered to execute a deed of
reconveyance of one-half of the lots covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 3168 in favor of the plaintiffs Leovigildo, Romulo,
Deogracias, Margarita, and Alberta, all surnamed Daracan, immediately
after the decision has become final, and the Register of Deeds of
Isabela, is hereby ordered to cancel the deed of extra-judicial
partition, Exh. “2”, which resulted in the issuance of said transfer
certificate of title. Without pronouncement as to costs.
* * * * * * *
The pivotal issues, however which need proper
determination are: (1) whether Reginaldo Daracan was married to Maria
Malabug; and (2) whether the plaintiffs are really the legitimate
grand-children of the late Reginaldo Daracan, one of the forced heirs
of Tomas Daracan. The plaintiffs contend, and the trial court sided
with them, that Reginaldo Daracan was married to Maria Malabug and that
Domingo Daracan, father of the plaintiffs-appellees was their
legitimate son.The evidence for the appellees fully shows
that Reginaldo Daracan, who died intestate in 1910, was legally married
to Maria Malabug, and that out of this wedlock Domingo Daracan was
born; that Domingo Daracan was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church of
Echague, Isabela, with Policarpio Labuguen (one of the appellees
witnesses) acting as Godfather; that Domingo Daracan married Concepcion
Lago on December 27, 1926 (Exhibit “D”), and had 6 children namely,
Leovigildo, Romulo, Deogracias, Margarita and Alberta, all surnamed
Daracan, the appellees herein. Appellee Leovigildo Daracan was baptized
in the Roman Catholic Church of Angadanan, Isabela, on January 11,
1931, and in his baptismal certificate Exhibit “A”, he appears to be
the son of Domingo Daracan and Concepcion Lago, with Reginaldo Daracan
and Maria Malabug as his paternal grand parents and Matias and
Reginaldo Malabug as his maternal grand parents; that after the death
of Reginaldo Daracan, when Domingo Daracan was only about 2 years old,
Maria Malabug remarried Salvador de la Fuente and out of Maria’s second
marriage, she begot 5 children, 3 of whom are already dead.
* * * * * * *
* * * Counsel for appellees made a
counter-assignment of errors, alleging that the lower court erred: (1)
In not ordering the partition of parcel No. 2 in the complaint, under
Tax Declaration No. 1535 and in not adjudicating to the appellees the
one-half portion thereof; and (2) In not ordering the appellants to
render an account of the products of parcel No. 1 covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-3168, starting from the institution of the
suit at bar on June 28, 1951. It is of record that the appellees did
not appeal from the judgment, and the making of counter-assignment of
errors would seem improper, because same would amount to attacking a
judgment from which no appeal was taken. However, in a case, it was
held that although the appellee may not have to file an assignment of
errors, it remains incumbent upon him to point out in his brief any
errors against himself into which the court may be supposed to have
fallen (Relativo vs. Castro et al., 76 Phil., 563; 43 Off. Gaz. No. 1, 108, 111, see also Lucero vs.
De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852). With respect to the supposed, errors pointed
out by the appellee, we find that the first assignment is not well
taken. We find no reason to disagree with the observation of the trial
judge, that there is no conclusive evidence tending to show that parcel
No. 2, really formed part of the estate left by Tomas Daracan. The fact
that defendant Victorio Daracan had been possessing the parcel in
question, reaping the produce thereof and declaring the same for
taxation purposes, since 1921, shows that he possessed the property to
the exclusion of others, in the concept of owner. Anent the second
assignment, we share the view of counsel for the appellees, that the
trial court erred in not ordering the appellants to render an
accounting of the products of parcel No. 1. Inasmuch as in the
decision, the same parcel was found to be the common property of the
plaintiffs and the defendants, it follows that they are entitled to the
products of their corresponding share. The defendants must therefore
account to the plaintiffs, the products of parcel No. 1.
* * * * * * *
In view hereof, we declare that the
plaintiffs-appellees herein, are the legitimate children of the late
Domingo Daracan; that the latter, was the only child of the spouses
Reginaldo Daracan and Maria Malabug and are, therefore, entitled to
inherit one-half (½) of the estate of the late Tomas Daracan,
consisting of parcels 1 and 3 described in the complaint and that the
remaining half, belongs to the defendants-appellants. . * * * The
“defendants-appellants are ordered to pay, within the same period above
cited, to the plaintiffs-appellees, the sum of P2,050.00 as their
rightful share in the produce of parcel No. 1, per year, starting from
1951 until the said property shall have been partitioned and the
possession of the ½ portion thereof, delivered to the
plaintiffs-appellees.* * * * * * *
The second point raised by the petitioners is of fact. The respondent Court decided it against the petitioners.
Not having appealed from the judgment of the trial court which did
not grant them their prayer for accounting of the products of the land
and the value of such products to which they as co-owners are entitled,
that part of the judgment, after the lapse of the period provided for
the perfection of an appeal, became final in so far as the petitioners
plaintiffs and appellees in the Courts below, are concerned. The case
cited by the respondent Court[1] does not support its opinion on the point, because in that case, this Court held—
* * * * * * *
From that judgment only the plaintiff has appealed.
The defendants, however, without having presented a notice of appeal
and a record on appeal, have also filed a brief as appellants for the
sole purpose of assailing the findings of fact made by the trial court.
However, in the concluding part of their brief as appellants they not
only ask that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed but also pray
that the plaintiff be ordered to pay to them the sum of P108
representing the unpaid rents.* * * * * * *
2.
It was not necessary for the defendants to assume the role and file a
brief as appellants for the purpose of assailing the findings of fact
of the trial court whose judgment was in their favor. It is not
incumbent on appellee, who occupies a purely defensive position, and is
seeking no affirmative relief, to make assignments of error. When the
trial judge decides a case in favor of a party on certain ground, the
appellate court may base its decision upon some other point, ignored or
erroneously decided in favor of appellant by the trial court. (Garcia
Valdez vs. Soteraña Tuason, 40 Phil., 943.) An appellee does
not have to file an assignment of errors but it is incumbent upon him
to point out in his brief any errors against himself into which the
court may be supposed to have fallen. (Lucero vs. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852.)3.
We cannot grant that portion of the relief prayed for by the
defendants-appellees consisting of the payment to them of the unpaid
rents of P108, for two insurmountable reasons: (1) they did not allege
it in the lower court by way of counterclaim and (2) they did not
appeal from the judgment of the trial court and therefore are not now
in a position to seek any affirmative relief in this court;
* * * * * * *
That part of the judgment of the respondent Court under review that
orders the petitioners, defendants and appellants in the Courts below,
to pay to the respondents, plaintiffs and appellees in the Courts
below, “the sum of P2,050.00 as their rightful share in the produce of
parcel No. 1, per year, starting from 1951 until the said property
shall have been partitioned and the possession of the ½ portion
thereof, delivered to the plaintiffs-appellees,” should be as is hereby
stricken from such judgment, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
[1] Relativo vs. Castro, 76 Phil., 563.