Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990 SPS.

SEGUNDO DA !ON AND EP!FAN!A SA"ESA#E$DA !ON, petitioners, vs. T%E %ONORA" E COURT OF APPEA S AND RUPERTO SA"ESA#E, #R., respondents. Francisco A. Puray, Sr. for petitioners. Gabriel N. Duazo for private respondent.

MED!A DEA, J.: This is a petition to annul and set aside the decision of the ourt of !ppeals rendered on Ma" #$, %&'(, upholdin) the validit" of the sale of a parcel of land b" petitioner Se)undo Dalion *hereafter, +Dalion+, in favor of private respondent Ruperto Sabesa-e, .r. *hereafter, +Sabesa-e+,, described thus/ ! parcel of land located at Pan"a0an, So)od, Southern 1e"te, declared in the na2e of Se)undo Dalion, under Ta3 Declaration No. %%%4', 0ith an area of '&4( hectares, assessed at P %'5.55, and bounded on the North, b" Ser)io Destri6a and Titon Veloso, 7ast, b" Feliciano Destri6a, b" 8arbara 8onesa *sic,9 and :est, b" atalino 7spina. *pp. ;$<;(, Rollo, The decision affir2s in toto the rulin) of the trial court 1 issued on .anuar" %(, %&'4, the dispositive portion of 0hich provides as follo0s/ :=7R7FOR7, IN VI7: OF T=7 FOR7>OIN>, the ourt hereb" renders -ud)2ent.

*a, Orderin) the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff the parcel of land sub-ect of this case, declared in the na2e of Se)undo Dalion previousl" under Ta3 Declaration No. %%%4' and latel" under Ta3 Declaration No. ##&( *%&(4, and to e3ecute the correspondin) for2al deed of conve"ance in a public docu2ent in favor of the plaintiff of the said propert" sub-ect of this case, other0ise, should defendants for an" reason fail to do so, the deed shall be e3ecuted in their behalf b" the Provincial Sheriff or his Deput"9 *b, Orderin) the defendants to pa" plaintiff the a2ount of P#,555.55 as attorne"?s fees and P @55.55 as liti)ation e3penses, and to pa" the costs9 and *c, Dis2issin) the counter<clai2. *p. ;', Rollo, The facts of the case are as follo0s/

On Ma" #', %&(;, Sabesa-e sued to recover o0nership of a parcel of land, based on a private docu2ent of absolute sale, dated .ul" %, %&$@ *73hibit +!+,, alle)edl" e3ecuted b" Dalion, 0ho, ho0ever denied the fact of sale, contendin) that the docu2ent sued upon is fictitious, his si)nature thereon, a for)er", and that sub-ect land is con-u)al propert", 0hich he and his 0ife acAuired in %&$5 fro2 Saturnina Sabesa-e as evidenced b" the +7scritura de Venta !bsoluta+ *73hibit +8+,. The spouses denied clai2s of Sabesa-e that after e3ecutin) a deed of sale over the parcel of land, the" had pleaded 0ith Sabesa-e, their relative, to be allo0ed to ad2inister the land because Dalion did not have an" 2eans of livelihood. The" ad2itted, ho0ever, ad2inisterin) since %&@', five *@, parcels of land in So)od, Southern 1e"te, 0hich belon)ed to 1eonardo Sabesa-e, )randfather of Sabesa-e, 0ho died in %&@$. The" never received their a)reed %5B and %@B co22ission on the sales of copra and abaca, respectivel". Sabesa-e?s suit, the" countered, 0as intended 2erel" to harass, pree2pt and forestall Dalion?s threat to sue for these unpaid co22issions. Fro2 the adverse decision of the trial court, Dalion appealed, assi)nin) errors so2e of 0hich, ho0ever, 0ere disre)arded b" the appellate court, not havin) been raised in the court belo0. :hile the ourt of !ppeals dul" reco)ni6es Our authorit" to revie0 2atters even if not assi)ned as errors in the appeal, :e are not inclined to do so since a revie0 of the case at bar reveals that the lo0er court has -udiciall" decided the case on its 2erits. !s to the controvers" re)ardin) the identit" of the land, :e have no reason to dispute the !ppeals? findin)s as follo0s/ ourt of

To be sure, the parcel of land described in 73hibit +!+ is the sa2e propert" deeded out in 73hibit +8+. The boundaries delineatin) it fro2 ad-acent lots are identical. 8oth docu2ents detail out the follo0in) boundaries, to 0it/ On the North<propert" of Ser)io Destri6a and Titon Veloso9 On the 7ast<propert" of Feliciano Destri6a9 On the South<propert" of 8arbara 8oni6a and On the :est< atalino 7spina. *pp. 4%<4#, Rollo, The issues in this case 2a" thus be li2ited to/ a, the validit" of the contract of sale of a parcel of land and b, the necessit" of a public docu2ent for transfer of o0nership thereto. The appellate court upheld the validit" of the sale on the basis of Secs. #% and #; of Rule %;# of the Revised Rules of ourt. S7 . #%. Private writing, its execution and aut enticity, ow proved. <8efore an" private 0ritin) 2a" be received in evidence, its due e3ecution and authenticit" 2ust be proved either/ *a, 8" an"one 0ho sa0 the 0ritin) e3ecuted9 *b, 8" evidence of the )enuineness of the hand0ritin) of the 2aCer9 or *c, 8" a subscribin) 0itness

333 333 333 S7 . #;. !andwriting, ow proved. " The hand0ritin) of a person 2a" be proved b" an" 0itness 0ho believes it to be the hand0ritin) of such person, and has seen the person 0rite, or has seen 0ritin) purportin) to be his upon 0hich the 0itness has acted or been char)ed, and has thus acAuired Cno0led)e of the hand0ritin) of such person. 7vidence respectin) the hand0ritin) 2a" also be )iven b" a co2parison, 2ade b" the 0itness or the court, 0ith 0ritin)s ad2itted or treated as )enuine b" the part" a)ainst 0ho2 the evidence is offered, or proved to be )enuine to the satisfaction of the -ud)e. *Rule %;#, Revised Rules of ourt, !nd on the basis of the findin)s of fact of the trial court as follo0s/ =ere, people 0ho 0itnessed the e3ecution of sub-ect deed positivel" testified on the authenticit" thereof. The" cate)oricall" stated that it had been e3ecuted and si)ned b" the si)natories thereto. In fact, one of such 0itnesses, >erardo M. O)soc, declared on the 0itness stand that he 0as the one 0ho prepared said deed of sale and had copied parts thereof fro2 the +7scritura De Venta !bsoluta+ *73hibit 8, b" 0hich one Saturnina Sabesa-e sold the sa2e parcel of land to appellant Se)undo Dalion. O)soc copied the bounderies thereof and the na2e of appellant Se)undo Dalion?s 0ife, erroneousl" 0ritten as +7s2enia+ in 73hibit +!+ and +7s2enia+ in 73hibit +8+. *p. 4%, Rollo, 333 333 333 !)ainst defendant?s 2ere denial that he si)ned the docu2ent, the positive testi2onies of the instru2ental :itnesses O)soc and 7spina, aside fro2 the testi2on" of the plaintiff, 2ust prevail. Defendant has affir2ativel" alle)ed for)er", but he never presented an" 0itness or evidence to prove his clai2 of for)er". 7ach part" 2ust prove his o0n affir2ative alle)ations *Section %, Rule %;%, Rules of ourt,. Further2ore, it is presu2ed that a person is innocent of a cri2e or 0ron) *Section @ *a,,#de$,, and defense should have co2e for0ard 0ith clear and convincin) evidence to sho0 that plaintiff co22itted for)er" or caused said for)er" to be co22itted, to overco2e the presu2ption of innocence. Mere denial of havin) si)ned, does not suffice to sho0 for)er". In addition, a co2parison of the Auestioned si)natories or speci2ens *73hs. !<# and !<;, 0ith the ad2itted si)natures or speci2ens *73hs. D and E or ;< , convinces the court that 73hs. !<# or F and !<; 0ere 0ritten b" defendant Se)undo Dalion 0ho ad2itted that 73hs. D and E or ;< are his si)natures. The Auestioned si)natures and the speci2ens are ver" si2ilar to each other and appear to be 0ritten b" one person. Further co2parison of the Auestioned si)natures and the speci2ens 0ith the si)natures Se)undo D. Dalion appeared at the bacC of the su22ons *p. &, Record,9 on the return card *p. #@, #bid.,9 bacC of the ourt Orders dated Dece2ber %(, %&(; and .ul" ;5, %&(4 and for October (, %&(4 *p. @4 G p. @$, respectivel", #bid.,, and on the open court notice of !pril %;, %&'; *p. #;@, #bid., readil" reveal that the Auestioned si)natures are the si)natures of defendant Se)undo Dalion. It 2a" be noted that t0o si)natures of Se)undo D. Dalion appear on the face of the Auestioned docu2ent *73h. !,, one at the ri)ht corner botto2 of the docu2ent *73h.

!<#, and the other at the left hand 2ar)in thereof *73h. !<;,. The second si)nature is alread" a surplusa)e. ! for)er 0ould not atte2pt to for)e another si)nature, an unnecessar" one, for fear he 2a" co22it a revealin) error or an erroneous stroCe. *Decision, p. %5, *pp. 4#<4;, Rollo, :e see no reason for deviatin) fro2 the appellate court?s rulin) *p. 44, Rollo, as 0e reiterate that !ppellate courts have consistentl" subscribed to the principle that conclusions and findin)s of fact b" the trial courts are entitled to )reat 0ei)ht on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for stron) and co)ent reasons, since it is undeniable that the trial court is in a 2ore advanta)eous position to e3a2ine real evidence, as 0ell as to observe the de2eanor of the 0itnesses 0hile testif"in) in the case * hase v. 8uenca2ino, Sr., >.R. No. 1<#5;&@, Ma" %;, %&'@, %;$ S R! ;$@9 Prin) v. ourt of !ppeals, >.R. No. 1<4%$5@, !u)ust %&, %&'@, %;' S R! %'@, !ssu2in) authenticit" of his si)nature and the )enuineness of the docu2ent, Dalion nonetheless still i2pu)ns the validit" of the sale on the )round that the sa2e is e2bodied in a private docu2ent, and did not thus conve" title or ri)ht to the lot in Auestion since +acts and contracts 0hich have for their ob-ect the creation, trans2ission, 2odification or e3tinction of real ri)hts over i22ovable propert" 2ust appear in a public instru2ent+ *!rt. %;@', par %, N ,. This ar)u2ent is 2isplaced. The provision of !rt. %;@' on the necessit" of a public docu2ent is onl" for convenience, not for validit" or enforceabilit". It is not a reAuire2ent for the validit" of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be e2bodied in a public instru2ent. ! contract of sale is a consensual contract, 0hich 2eans that the sale is perfected b" 2ere consent. No particular for2 is reAuired for its validit". Hpon perfection of the contract, the parties 2a" reciprocall" de2and perfor2ance *!rt. %4(@, N ,, i.e., the vendee 2a" co2pel transfer of o0nership of the ob-ect of the sale, and the vendor 2a" reAuire the vendee to pa" the thin) sold *!rt. %4@', N ,. The trial court thus ri)htl" and le)all" ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesa-e the parcel of land and to e3ecute correspondin) for2al deed of conve"ance in a public docu2ent. Hnder !rt. %4&', N , 0hen the sale is 2ade throu)h a public instru2ent, the e3ecution thereof is eAuivalent to the deliver" of the thin). Deliver" 2a" either be actual *real, or constructive. Thus deliver" of a parcel of land 2a" be done b" placin) the vendee in control and possession of the land *real, or b" e2bod"in) the sale in a public instru2ent *constructive,. !s re)ards petitioners? contention that the proper action should have been one for specific perfor2ance, :e believe that the suit for recover" of o0nership is proper. !s earlier stated, !rt. %4(@ of the ivil ode )ives the parties to a perfected contract of sale the ri)ht to reciprocall" de2and perfor2ance, and to observe a particular for2, if 0arranted, *!rt. %;@(,. The trial court, aptl" observed that Sabesa-e?s co2plaint sufficientl" alle)ed a cause of action to co2pel Dalion to e3ecute a for2al deed of sale, and the suit for recover" of o0nership, 0hich is pre2ised on the bindin) effect and validit" inter partes of the contract of sale, 2erel" seeCs consu$$ation of said contract. ... . ! sale of a real propert" 2a" be in a private instru2ent but that contract is valid and bindin) bet0een the parties upon its perfection. !nd a part" 2a" co2pel the other part" to e3ecute a public instru2ent e2bod"in) their contract affectin) real ri)hts once the contract appearin) in a private instru2ent ha) been perfected *See !rt. %;@(,.

... . *p. %#, Decision, p. #(#, Records, ! ORDIN>1E, the petition is D7NI7D and the decision of the rulin) of the trial court is hereb" !FFIRM7D. No costs. SO ORD7R7D. Narvasa, %ruz, Gancayco and Grino&A'uino, ((., concur. ourt of !ppeals upholdin) the

DALLION V. CA (February 28, 2009)

FACTS& Petitioner Se)undo Dalion alle)edl" sold his propert" in Southern 1e"te to respondent Ruperto Sabesa-e throu)h a private deed of sale. Dalion denies the sale and clai2s that his si)nature in the docu2ent 0as for)ed. !SSUE& :ON there has been a contract of sale bet0een the parties. %E D& The authenticit" of the si)nature of Dallion 0as proven b" the testi2on" of several 0itness includin) the person 0ho 2ade the deed of sale. Dalion never presented an" evidence or 0itness to prove his clai2 of for)er". DallionIs clai2 that the sale is invalid because it 0as not 2ade in a public docu2ent is of no 2erit. This ar)u2ent is 2isplaced. The provision of !rt. %;@' on the necessit" of a public docu2ent is onl" for convenience, not for validit" or enforceabilit". It is not a reAuire2ent for the validit" of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be e2bodied in a public instru2ent. Sale is perfected upon 2eetin) of the 2inds of both parties.

S7 OND DIVISION

'G.R. No. 133(38. A)r*+ 1,, 200,-

PERPETUA .DA. DE APE, petitioner, vs. T%E %ONORA" E COURT OF APPEA S a/0 GENOROSA CA1!T .DA. DE UMA2NO, respondents.

DEC!S!ON
C%!CO$NA3AR!O, J.&

8efore Hs is a petition for revie0 on certiorari of the DecisionJ%K of the ourt of !ppeals in !<>.R. V No. 4@''$ entitled, L>enerosa a0it de 1u2a"no, acco2panied b" her husband 8raulio 1u2a"no v. Fortunato !pe, includin) his 0ife Perpetua de !pe.M The pertinent facts are as follo0s/ leopas !pe 0as the re)istered o0ner of a parcel of land particularl" Cno0n as 1ot No. #;%& of the 7scalante adastre of Ne)ros Occidental and covered b" Ori)inal ertificate of Title *O T, No. RP %;(& *RP<%@4 J;55K,. J#K Hpon leopas !peIs death so2eti2e in %&@5, the propert" passed on to his 0ife, Maria Ondo", and their eleven *%%, children, na2el"/ Fortunato, ornelio, 8ernalda, 8ienvenido, 7ncarnacion, 1oreta, 1ourdes, Felicidad, !dela, Do2inador, and !n)elina, all surna2ed !pe. On %@ March %&(;, >enerosa a0it de 1u2a"no *private respondent herein,, -oined b" her husband, 8raulio, J;K instituted a case for LSpecific Perfor2ance of a Deed of Sale 0ith Da2a)esM a)ainst Fortunato and his 0ife Perpetua *petitioner herein, before the then ourt of First Instance of Ne)ros Occidental. It 0as alle)ed in the co2plaint that on %% !pril %&(%, private respondent and Fortunato entered into a contract of sale of land under 0hich for a consideration of P@,555.55, Fortunato a)reed to sell his share in 1ot No. #;%& to private respondent. The a)ree2ent 0as contained in a receipt prepared b" private respondentIs son<in<la0, !ndres Flores, at her behest. Said receipt 0as attached to the co2plaint as !nne3 L!M thereof and later 2arCed as 73hibit L>M for private respondent. The receipt states/

April 11, 1971

TO :=OM IT M!E ON 7RN/

This date received from Mrs. Generosa Cawit de Lumayno the sum of T !"T# $%&'& '(L# as Advance $ayment of my share in Land $urchased, for )!*% T '+&A(, $%&'& - L'T ./019. 1&i2ned3 )'"T+(AT' A$%
P;5.55 :ITN7SS/

1!lle2i4le3 J4K
!s private respondent 0anted to re)ister the clai2ed sale transaction, she supposedl" de2anded that Fortunato e3ecute the correspondin) deed of sale and to receive the balance of the consideration. =o0ever, Fortunato un-ustifiabl" refused to heed her de2ands. Private respondent, therefore, pra"ed that Fortunato be ordered to

e3ecute and deliver to her La sufficient and re)istrable deed of sale involvin) his one< eleventh *%N%%, share or participation in 1ot No. #;%& of the 7scalante adastre9 to pa" P@,555.55 in da2a)es9 P@55.55 rei2burse2ent for liti)ation e3penses as 0ell as additional P@55.55 for ever" appeal 2ade9 P#,555.55 for attorne"Is fees9 and to pa" the costs.J@K Fortunato and petitioner denied the 2aterial alle)ations of the co2plaint and clai2ed that Fortunato never sold his share in 1ot No. #;%& to private respondent and that his si)nature appearin) on the purported receipt 0as for)ed. 8" 0a" of counterclai2, the defendants belo0 2aintained havin) entered into a contract of lease 0ith respondent involvin) FortunatoIs portion of 1ot No. #;%&. This purported lease contract co22enced in %&$5 and 0as supposed to last until %&$@ 0ith an option for another five *@, "ears. The annual lease rental 0as P%55.55 0hich private respondent and her husband alle)edl" paid on install2ent basis. Fortunato and petitioner also assailed private respondent and her husbandIs continued possession of the rest of 1ot No. #;%& alle)in) that in the event the" had acAuired the shares of FortunatoIs co< o0ners b" 0a" of sale, he 0as invoCin) his ri)ht to redee2 the sa2e. Finall", Fortunato and petitioner pra"ed that the lease contract bet0een the2 and respondent be ordered annulled9 and that respondent be ordered to pa" the2 attorne"Is fees9 2oral da2a)es9 and e3e2plar" da2a)es.J$K In their repl",J(K the private respondent and her husband alle)ed that the" had purchased fro2 FortunatoIs co<o0ners, as evidenced b" various 0ritten instru2ents, J'K their respective portions of 1ot No. #;%&. 8" virtue of these sales, the" insisted that Fortunato 0as no lon)er a co<o0ner of 1ot No. #;%& thus, his ri)ht of rede2ption no lon)er e3isted. Prior to the resolution of this case at the trial court level, Fortunato died and 0as substituted in this action b" his children na2ed Salodada, larita, Narciso, Ro2eo, Rodri)o, Marieta, Fortunato, .r., and Salvador, all surna2ed !pe. J&K Durin) the trial, private respondent testified that she and her husband acAuired the various portions of 1ot No. #;%& belon)in) to FortunatoIs co<o0ners. Thereafter, her husband caused the annotation of an adverse clai2 on the certificate of title of 1ot No. #;%&.J%5K The annotation states/

%ntry (o. 1/0509 - Adverse claim filed 4y 6raulio Lumayno. - (otice of adverse claim filed 4y 6raulio Lumayno affectin2 the lot descri4ed in this title to the e7tent of 77511.90 s8uare meters, more or less, the a22re2ate area of shares sold to him on the 4asis of 1alle2ed3 sales in his possession. ,oc. (o. 157, $a2e (o. 00, 6oo9 (o. :!, &eries of 19;7 of Ale7ander Cawit of %scalante, (e2. 'cc. ,ate of instrument. - <une //, 19;7 at =>0? a.m. 1&G,3 )%,%(C!'""A@, Act2. "e2ister of ,eeds. J%%K
In addition, private respondent clai2ed that after the acAuisition of those shares, she and her husband had the 0hole 1ot No. #;%& surve"ed b" a certain Oscar Mascada 0ho ca2e up 0ith a technical description of said piece of land. J%#K Si)nificantl", private respondent alle)ed that Fortunato 0as present 0hen the surve" 0as conducted. J%;K

!lso presented as evidence for private respondent 0ere pictures taCen of so2e parts of 1ot No. #;%& purportedl" sho0in) the land belon)in) to Fortunato bein) bounded b" a ro0 of banana plants thereb" separatin) it fro2 the rest of 1ot No. #;%&.
J%4K

!s re)ards the circu2stances surroundin) the sale of FortunatoIs portion of the land, private respondent testified that Fortunato 0ent to her store at the ti2e 0hen their lease contract 0as about to e3pire. =e alle)edl" de2anded the rental pa"2ent for his land but as she 0as no lon)er interested in rene0in) their lease a)ree2ent, the" a)reed instead to enter into a contract of sale 0hich Fortunato acceded to provided private respondent bou)ht his portion of 1ot No. #;%& for P@,555.55. Thereafter, she asCed her son<in<la0 Flores to prepare the afore2entioned receipt. Flores read the docu2ent to Fortunato and asCed the latter 0hether he had an" ob-ection thereto. Fortunato then 0ent on to affi3 his si)nature on the receipt. For her part, petitioner insisted that the entire 1ot No. #;%& had not "et been for2all" subdivided9J%@K that on %% !pril %&(% she and her husband 0ent to private respondentIs house to collect past rentals for their land then leased b" the for2er, ho0ever, the" 2ana)ed to collect onl" thirt" pesos9 J%$K that private respondent 2ade her *petitionerIs, husband si)n a receipt acCno0led)in) the receipt of said a2ount of 2one"9J%(Kand that the contents of said receipt 0ere never e3plained to the2. J%'K She also stated in her testi2on" that her husband 0as an illiterate and onl" learned ho0 to 0rite his na2e in order to be e2plo"ed in a su)ar central. J%&K !s for private respondentIs purchase of the shares o0ned b" FortunatoIs co<o0ners, petitioner 2aintained that neither she nor her husband received an" notice re)ardin) those sales transactions. J#5K The testi2on" of petitioner 0as later on corroborated b" her dau)hter<in<la0, Marietta !pe Dino.J#%K !fter due trial, the court a Auo rendered a decision J##K dis2issin) both the co2plaint and the counterclai2. The trial court liCe0ise ordered that deeds or docu2ents representin) the sales of the shares previousl" o0ned b" FortunatoIs co<o0ners be re)istered and annotated on the e3istin) certificate of title of 1ot No. #;%&. !ccordin) to the trial court, private respondent failed to prove that she had actuall" paid the purchase price of P@,555.55 to Fortunato and petitioner. !ppl"in), therefore, the provision of !rticle %;@5 of the ivil ode, J#;K the trial court concluded that private respondent did not have the ri)ht to de2and the deliver" to her of the re)istrable deed of sale over FortunatoIs portion of the 1ot No. #;%&. The trial court also re-ected Fortunato and petitionerIs clai2 that the" had the ri)ht of rede2ption over the shares previousl" sold to private respondent and the latterIs husband, reasonin) as follo0s/

,efendants in their counterclaim invo9e their ri2ht of le2al redemption under Article 1;/0 of the (ew Civil Code in view of the alle2ed sale of the undivided portions of the lot in 8uestion 4y their coAheirs and coAowners as claimed 4y the plaintiffs in their complaint. They have 4een informed 4y the plaintiff a4out said sales upon the filin2 of the complaint in the instant case as far 4ac9 as March 1B, 1970. ,efendant themselves presented as their very own e7hi4its copies of the respective deeds of sale

or conveyance 4y their said coAheirs and coAowners in favor of the plaintiffs or their predecessorsAinAinterest way 4ac9 on <anuary /, 199/ when they formally offered their e7hi4its in the instant caseC meanin2, they themselves ac8uired possession of said documentary e7hi4its even 4efore they formally offered them in evidence. +nder Art. 1;/0 of the (ew Civil Code, defendants have only T !"T# 10?3 ,A#& counted from their actual 9nowled2e of the e7act terms and conditions of the deeds of sale or conveyance of their coAheirsD and coAownersD share within which to e7ercise their ri2ht of le2al redemption.J#4K
:ithin the re)le2entar" period, both parties filed their respective notices of appeal before the trial court 0ith petitioner and her children taCin) e3ception to the findin) of the trial court that the period 0ithin 0hich the" could invoCe their ri)ht of rede2ption had alread" lapsed.J#@K For her part, private respondent raised as errors the trial courtIs rulin) that there 0as no contract of sale bet0een herself and Fortunato and the dis2issal of their co2plaint for specific perfor2ance.J#$K The ourt of !ppeals, in the decision no0 assailed before us, reversed and set aside the trial courtIs dis2issal of the private respondentIs co2plaint but upheld the portion of the court a 'uo)s decision orderin) the dis2issal of petitioner and her childrenIs counterclai2. The dispositive portion of the appellate courtIs decision reads/

E %"%)'"%, the decision dated March 11, 199B, is here4y "%*%"&%, and &%T A&!,% insofar as the dismissal of plaintiffsAappellantsD complaint is concerned, and another one is entered orderin2 the defendantAappellant )ortunato Ape andFor his wife $erpetua de Ape and successorsAinAinterest to e7ecute in favor of plaintiffAappellant Generosa Cawit de Lumayno a ,eed of A4solute &ale involvin2 the oneAeleventh 11F113 share or participation of )ortunato Ape in Lot (o. /019, %scalante Cadastre, containin2 an area of 1/,5/7.19 s8uare meters, more or less, within 10?3 days from finality of this decision, and in case of nonAcompliance with this 'rder, that the Cler9 of Court of said court is ordered to e7ecute the deed on 4ehalf of the vendor. The decision is A))!"M%, insofar as the dismissal of defendantsAappellantsD counterclaim is concerned. Eithout pronouncement as to costs.J#(K
The ourt of !ppeals upheld private respondentIs position that 73hibit L>M had all the ear2arCs of a valid contract of sale, thus/

%7hi4it G is the 4est proof that the $5,???.?? representin2 the purchase price of the 1F11th share of )ortunato Ape was not paid 4y the vendee on April 11, 1971, andFor up to the present, 4ut that does not affect the 4indin2 force and effect of the document. The vendee havin2 paid the vendor an advance payment of the a2reed purchase price of the property, what the vendor can e7act from the vendee is full payment upon his e7ecution of the final deed of sale. As is shown, the vendee precisely instituted this

action to compel the vendor )ortunato Ape to e7ecute the final document, after she was informed that he would e7ecute the same upon arrival of his dau2hter G6alaH from Mindanao, 4ut afterwards failed to live up to his contractual o4li2ation 1T&(, pp. 11A10, <une 1?, 199/3. !t is not ri2ht for the trial court to e7pect plaintiffAappellant to pay the 4alance of the purchase price 4efore the final deed is e7ecuted, or for her to deposit the e8uivalent amount in court in the form of consi2nation. Consi2nation comes into fore in the case of a creditor to whom tender of payment has 4een made and refuses without Iust cause to accept it 1Arts. 1/5; and 1/5/, (.C.C.C Juerino vs. $elarca, /9 &C"A 13. As vendee, plaintiffAappellant Generosa Cawit de Lumayno does not fall within the purview of a de4tor. Ee, therefore, find and so hold that the trial court should have found that e7hi4it G 4ears all the earmar9s of a private deed of sale which is valid, 4indin2 and enforcea4le 4etween the parties, and that as a conse8uence of the failure and refusal on the part of the vendor )ortunato Ape to live up to his contractual o4li2ation, he andFor his heirs and successorsAinAinterest can 4e compelled to e7ecute in favor of, and to deliver to the vendee, plaintiffAappellant Generosa Cawit de Lumayno a re2istera4le deed of a4solute sale involvin2 his oneAeleventh 11F11 th3 share or participation in Lot (o. /019, %scalante Cadastre, containin2 an area of 1/,5/7.19 s8uare meters, more or less, within 0? days from finality of this decision, and, in case of nonAcompliance within said period, this Court appoints the Cler9 of Court of the trial court to e7ecute on 4ehalf of the vendor the said document.J#'K
The ourt of !ppeals, ho0ever, affir2ed the trial courtIs rulin) on the issue of petitioner and her childrenIs ri)ht of rede2ption. It ruled that FortunatoIs receipt of the Second O0nerIs Duplicate of O T *RP, %;(& *RP<%@4 *J;55K,, containin) the adverse clai2 of private respondent and her husband, constituted a sufficient co2pliance 0ith the 0ritten notice reAuire2ent of !rticle %$#; of the ivil ode and the period of rede2ption under this provision had lon) lapsed. !))rieved b" the decision of the appellate court, petitioner is no0 before us raisin), essentiall", the follo0in) issues/ 0hether Fortunato 0as furnished 0ith a 0ritten notice of sale of the shares of his co<o0ners as reAuired b" !rticle %$#; of the ivil ode9 and 0hether the receipt si)ned b" Fortunato proves the e3istence of a contract of sale bet0een hi2 and private respondent. In her 2e2orandu2, petitioner clai2ed that the ourt of !ppeals erred in sustainin) the court a AuoIs pronounce2ent that she could no lon)er redee2 the portion of 1ot No. #;%& alread" acAuired b" private respondent for no 0ritten notice of said sales 0as furnished the2. !ccordin) to her, the ourt of !ppeals undul" e3panded the scope of the la0 b" eAuatin) FortunatoIs receipt of Second O0nerIs Duplicate of O T *RP, %;(& *RP<%@4 *J;55K, 0ith the 0ritten notice reAuire2ent of !rticle %$#;. In addition, she ar)ued that 73hibit L>M could not possibl" be a contract of sale of FortunatoIs share in

1ot No. #;%& as said docu2ent does not contain L*a, definite a)ree2ent on the 2anner of pa"2ent of the price.M J#&K 7ven assu2in) that 73hibit L>M is, indeed, a contract of sale bet0een private respondent and Fortunato, the latter did not have the obli)ation to deliver to private respondent a re)istrable deed of sale in vie0 of private respondentIs o0n failure to pa" the full purchase price of FortunatoIs portion of 1ot No. #;%&. Petitioner is also of the vie0 that, at 2ost, 73hibit L>M 2erel" contained a unilateral pro2ise to sell 0hich private respondent could not enforce in the absence of a consideration distinct fro2 the purchase price of the land. Further, petitioner reiterated her clai2 that due to the illiterac" of her husband, it 0as incu2bent upon private respondent to sho0 that the contents of 73hibit L>M 0ere full" e3plained to hi2. Finall", petitioner pointed out that the ourt of !ppeals erred 0hen it tooC into consideration the sa2e e3hibit despite the fact that onl" its photocop" 0as presented before the court. On the other hand, private respondent ar)ued that the annotation on the second o0nerIs certificate over 1ot No. #;%& constituted constructive notice to the 0hole 0orld of private respondentIs clai2 over the 2a-orit" of said parcel of land. Rel"in) on our decision in the case of %abrera v. *illanueva,J;5K private respondent insisted that 0hen Fortunato received a cop" of the second o0nerIs certificate, he beca2e full" a0are of the contracts of sale entered into bet0een his co<o0ners on one hand and private respondent and her deceased husband on the other. Private respondent also averred that Lalthou)h *1ot No. #;%&, 0as not actuall" partitioned in a surve" after the death of leopas !pe, the land 0as partitioned in a O antal& antalI 2anner b" the heirs. 7ach tooC and possessed specific portion or pre2ises as hisNher share in land, far2ed their respective portion or pre2ises, and i2proved the2, each heir li2itin) hisNher i2prove2ent 0ithin the portion or pre2ises 0hich 0ere hisNher respective share.M J;%K Thus, 0hen private respondent and her husband purchased the other parts of 1ot No. #;%&, it 0as no lon)er undivided as petitioner clai2s. The petition is partl" 2eritorious. !rticle %$#; of the ivil ode provides/

The ri2ht of le2al preAemption or redemption shall not 4e e7ercised e7cept within thirty days from the notice in writin2 4y the prospective vendor, or 4y the vendor, as the case may 4e. The deed of sale shall not 4e recorded in the "e2istry of $roperty, unless accompanied 4y an affidavit of the vendor that he has 2iven written notice thereof to all possi4le redemptioners.
Despite the plain lan)ua)e of the la0, this ourt has, over the "ears, been tasCed to interpret the L0ritten notice reAuire2entM of the above<Auoted provision. In the case +utte v. ,anuel -y . Sons, #nc.,J;#K 0e declared that P

!n considerin2 whether or not the offer to redeem was timely, we thin9 that the notice 2iven 4y the vendee 14uyer3 should not 4e ta9en into account. The te7t of Article 1;/0 clearly and e7pressly prescri4es that the thirty days for ma9in2 the redemption

are to 4e counted from notice in writin2 4y the vendor. +nder the old law 1Civ. Code of 1==9, Art. 15/B3, it was immaterial who 2ave the noticeC so lon2 as the redeemin2 coAowner learned of the alienation in favor of the stran2er, the redemption period 4e2an to run. !t is thus apparent that the $hilippine le2islature in Article 1;/0 deli4erately selected a particular method of 2ivin2 notice, and that method must 4e deemed e7clusive. 109 Am. <ur., /07C $ayne vs. &tate, 1/ &.E. /1d3 5/=3. As ruled in Eampler vs. Lecompte, 15? Atl. B5= 1affd. in 75 Law %d. K+.&.L /753 why these provisions were inserted in the statute we are not informed, 4ut we may assume until the contrary is shown, that a state of facts in respect thereto e7isted, which warranted the le2islature in so le2islatin2. The reasons for re8uirin2 that the notice should 4e 2iven 4y the seller, and not 4y the 4uyer, are easily divined. The seller of an undivided interest is in the 4est position to 9now who are his coAowners that under the law must 4e notified of the sale. Also, the notice 4y the seller removes all dou4ts as to fact of the sale, its perfectionC and its validity, the notice 4ein2 a reaffirmation thereof, so that the party notified need not entertain dou4t that the seller may still contest the alienation. This assurance would not e7ist if the notice should 4e 2iven 4y the 4uyer. J;;K
The interpretation 0as so2eho0 2odified in the case of De %one/ero, et al. v. %ourt of Appeals, et al.J;4K 0herein it 0as pointed out that !rticle %$#; Ldoes not prescribe a particular for2 of notice, nor an" distinctive 2ethod for notif"in) the rede2ptionerM thus, as lon) as the rede2ptioner 0as notified in 0ritin) of the sale and the particulars thereof, the rede2ption period starts to run. This vie0 0as reiterated in0tcuban v. 1 e !onorable %ourt of Appeals, et al. ,J;@K %abrera v. *illanueva,J;$K Garcia, et al. v. %alali$an, et al., J;(K Distrito, et al. v. 1 e !onorable %ourt of Appeals, et al., J;'K and ,ariano, et al. v. !on. %ourt of Appeals, et al. J;&K =o0ever, in the case of Salatandol v. 2etes,J45K 0herein the plaintiffs 0ere not furnished an" 0ritten notice of sale or a cop" thereof b" the vendor, this ourt a)ain referred to the principle enunciated in the case of 8utte. !s observed b" .ustice Vicente Mendo6a, such reversion is onl" sound, thus/

M Art. 1;/0 of the Civil Code is clear in re8uirin2 that the written notification should come from the vendor or prospective vendor, not from any other person. There is, therefore, no room for construction. !ndeed, the principal difference 4etween Art. 15/B of the former Civil Code and Art. 1;/0 of the present one is that the former did not specify who must 2ive the notice, whereas the present one e7pressly says the notice must 4e 2iven 4y the vendor. %ffect must 4e 2iven to this chan2e in statutory lan2ua2e. J4%K
In this case, the records are bereft of an" indication that Fortunato 0as )iven an" 0ritten notice of prospective or consu22ated sale of the portions of 1ot No. #;%& b" the

vendors or 0ould<be vendors. The thirt" *;5,<da" rede2ption period under the la0, therefore, has not co22enced to run. Despite this, ho0ever, 0e still rule that petitioner could no lon)er invoCe her ri)ht to redee2 fro2 private respondent for the e3ercise of this ri)ht Lpresupposes the e3istence of a co<o0nership at the ti2e the conve"ance is 2ade b" a co<o0ner and 0hen it is de2anded b" the other co<o0ner or co<o0ners.M J4#K The re)i2e of co< o0nership e3ists 0hen o0nership of an undivided thin) or ri)ht belon)s to different persons.J4;K 8" the nature of a co<o0nership, a co<o0ner cannot point to specific portion of the propert" o0ned in co22on as his o0n because his share therein re2ains intan)ible.J44K !s le)al rede2ption is intended to 2ini2i6e co<o0nership, J4@K once the propert" is subdivided and distributed a2on) the co<o0ners, the co22unit" ceases to e3ist and there is no 2ore reason to sustain an" ri)ht of le)al rede2ption. J4$K In this case, records reveal that althou)h 1ot No. #;%& has not "et been for2all" subdivided, still, the particular portions belon)in) to the heirs of leopas !pe had alread" been ascertained and the" in fact tooC possession of their respective parts. This can be deduced fro2 the testi2on" of petitioner herself, thus/

J A J

Ehen the plaintiffs leased the share of your hus4and, were there any metes and 4oundsN !t was not formally su4divided. Ee have only a definite portion. 1hantal-hantal3 This hantal-hantal of your hus4and, was it also separate and distinct from the hantal-hantal or the share of the 4rothers and sisters of your hus4andN

Eell, this property in 8uestion is a common property. J To the north, whose share was that which is adIacent to your hus4andDs assumed partitionN

! do not 9now what KdoesL this GnorthH KmeanL.

C'+"T 1To Eitness3 J A J To the place from where the sun rises, whose share was thatN The shares of Cornelia, Loreta, %ncarnacion and Adela. ow could you determine their own sharesN

A J

They were residin2 in their respective assumed portions. ow a4out determinin2 their respective 4oundariesN A !t could 4e determined 4y sta9es and partly a row of 4anana plantations planted 4y my sonAinAlaw.

J A

Eho is this sonAinAlaw you mentionedN (arciso Ape.

ATT#. CAE!T 1Continuin23 J ATT#. TA( Admitted, #our onor. M ATT#. CAE!T J A Mrs. Ape, in 19;?, Cleopas Ape was already dead, is that correctN Certainly, since he died in 195?. J 6y the manifestation of your counsel that the entire land 110 hectares3 of your fatherAinAlaw, Cleopas Ape, was leased to Generosa Lumayno, is this correctN (o, it is only the assumed portion of my hus4and KwhichL was leased to Generosa Lumayno. )or clarification, it was only the share of your hus4and KwhichL was leased to Generosa Cawit LumaynoN #ou said that there were sta9es to determine the hantalAhantal of your hus4and and the hantalAhantal of the other heirs, did ! 2et you ri2htN

A J A

#es.J4(K

ATT#. CAE!T

My 8uestion> is that portion which you said was leased 4y your hus4and to the LumaynoKsL and which was included to the lease 4y your motherA inAlaw to the LumaynoKsL, when the LumaynoKsL returned your hus4andKDsL share, was that the same premises that your hus4and leased to the LumaynoKsLN

The same. J !n reApossessin2 this portion of the land correspondin2 to the share of your hus4and, did your hus4and demand that they should reApossess the land from the LumaynoKsL or did the LumaynoKsL return them to your hus4and voluntarilyN

They Iust returned to us without payin2 the rentals.

C'+"T J A Eas the return the result of your hus4andDs re8uest or Iust voluntarily they returned it to your hus4andN (o, sir, it was Iust returned voluntarily, and they a4andoned the area 4ut my hus4and continued farmin2.J4'K

Si2ilarl" tellin) of the partition is the stipulation of the parties durin) the pre<trial 0herein it 0as ad2itted that 1ot No. #;%& had not been subdivided nevertheless, LFortunato !pe had possessed a specific portion of the land ostensibl" correspondin) to his share.MJ4&K Fro2 the fore)oin), it is evident that the partition of 1ot No. #;%& had alread" been effected b" the heirs of leopas !pe. !lthou)h the partition 2i)ht have been infor2al is of no 2o2ent for even an oral a)ree2ent of partition is valid and bindin) upon the parties.J@5K 1iCe0ise, the fact that the respective shares of leopas !peIs heirs are still e2braced in one and the sa2e certificate of title and have not been technicall" apportioned does not 2aCe said portions less deter2inable and identifiable fro2 one another nor does it, in an" 0a", di2inish the do2inion of their respective o0ners. J@%K Turnin) no0 to the second issue of the e3istence of a contract of sale, 0e rule that the records of this case betra" the stance of private respondent that Fortunato !pe entered into such an a)ree2ent 0ith her. ! contract of sale is a consensual contract, thus, it is perfected b" 2ere consent of the parties. It is born fro2 the 2o2ent there is a 2eetin) of 2inds upon the thin) 0hich is the ob-ect of the sale and upon the price. J@#K Hpon its perfection, the parties 2a" reciprocall" de2and perfor2ance, that is, the vendee 2a" co2pel the transfer of the o0nership and to deliver the ob-ect of the sale 0hile the vendor 2a" de2and the vendee to pa" the thin) sold. J@;K For there to be a perfected contract of sale, ho0ever,

the follo0in) ele2ents 2ust be present/ consent, ob-ect, and price in 2one" or its eAuivalent. In the case of 3eonardo v. %ourt of Appeals, et al.,J@4K 0e e3plained the ele2ent of consent, to 0it/

The essence of consent is the a2reement of the parties on the terms of the contract, the acceptance 4y one of the offer made 4y the other. !t is the concurrence of the minds of the parties on the o4Iect and the cause which constitutes the contract. The area of a2reement must e7tend to all points that the parties deem material or there is no consent at all. To 4e valid, consent must meet the followin2 re8uisites> 1a3 it should 4e intelli2ent, or with an e7act notion of the matter to which it refersC 143 it should 4e free and 1c3 it should 4e spontaneous. !ntelli2ence in consent is vitiated 4y errorC freedom 4y violence, intimidation or undue influenceC spontaneity 4y fraud. J@@K
In this -urisdiction, the )eneral rule is that he 0ho alle)es fraud or 2istaCe in a transaction 2ust substantiate his alle)ation as the presu2ption is that a person taCes ordinar" care for his concerns and that private dealin)s have been entered into fairl" and re)ularl".J@$K The e3ception to this rule is provided for under !rticle %;;# of the ivil ode 0hich provides that LJ0Khen one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a lan)ua)e not understood b" hi2, and 2istaCe or fraud is alle)ed, the person enforcin) the contract 2ust sho0 that the ter2s thereof have been full" e3plained to the for2er.M In this case, as private respondent is the one seeCin) to enforce the clai2ed contract of sale, she bears the burden of provin) that the ter2s of the a)ree2ent 0ere full" e3plained to Fortunato !pe 0ho 0as an illiterate. This she failed to do. :hile she clai2ed in her testi2on" that the contents of the receipt 0ere 2ade clear to Fortunato, such alle)ation 0as debunCed b" !ndres Flores hi2self 0hen the latter tooC the 0itness stand. !ccordin) to Flores/

ATT#. TA( J A Mr. Eitness, that receipt is in %n2lish, is it notN #es, sir. J A Ehen you prepared that receipt, were you aware that )ortunato Ape doesnDt 9now how to read and write %n2lishN

#es, sir, ! 9now. J Mr. Eitness, you said you were present at the time of the si2nin2 of that alle2ed receipt of $0?.??, correctN

A J A

#es, sir. Ehere, in what place was this receipt si2nedN At the store. J At the time of the si2nin2 of this receipt, were there other personKsL present aside from you, your motherAinAlaw and )ortunato ApeN

!n the store, yes, sir. J Ehen you si2ned that document of course you acted as witness upon re8uest of your motherAinAlawN

(o, this portion, ! was the one who prepared that document. J Eithout as9in2 of 1sic3 your motherAinAlaw, you prepared that document or it was your motherAinAlaw who re8uested you to prepare that document and acted as witnessN &he re8uested me to prepare 4ut does not instructed 1sic3 me to act as witness. !t was our opinion that whenever ! prepared the document, ! si2ned it as a witness. ,id it not occur to you to as9 other witness to act on the side of )ortunato Ape who did not 9now how to read and write %n2lishN

J A

!t occurred to me. J 6ut you did not 4other to re8uest a person who is not related to your motherAinAlaw, considerin2 that )ortunato Ape did not 9now how to read and write %n2lishN The one who represented )ortunato Ape doesnDt 9now also how to read and write %n2lish. 'ne a maid. #ou mentioned that there Kwas anotherL person inside the store, under your previous statement, when the document was si2ned, there Kwas anotherL person in the store aside from you, your motherAinAlaw and )ortunato Ape, is not trueN A That is true, there is one person, 4ut that person doesnDt 9now how to read also.

A J

M J 'f course, Mr. Eitness, since it occurred to you that there was need for other witness to si2n that document for )ortunato Ape, is it not a fact that the Municipal 6uildin2 is very near your houseN

Juite 1near3. J A J 6ut you could readily proceed to the Municipal 6uildin2 and re8uest one who is 9nowled2ea4le in %n2lish to act as witnessN ! thin9 there is no need for that small receipt. &o ! donDt 4other myself to 2o. #ou did not consider that receipt very important 4ecause you said that small receiptN

#es, ! 9now.J@(K

!s can be )leaned fro2 FloresIs testi2on", 0hile he 0as ver" 2uch a0are of FortunatoIs inabilit" to read and 0rite in the 7n)lish lan)ua)e, he did not bother to full" e3plain to the latter the substance of the receipt *73hibit L>M,. =e even dis2issed the idea of asCin) so2ebod" else to assist Fortunato considerin) that a 2easl" su2 of thirt" pesos 0as involved. 7videntl", it did not occur to Flores that the docu2ent he hi2self prepared pertains to the transfer alto)ether of FortunatoIs propert" to his 2other<in<la0. It is precisel" in situations such as this 0hen the 0isdo2 of !rticle %;;# of the ivil ode readil" beco2es apparent 0hich is Lto protect a part" to a contract disadvanta)ed b" illiterac", i)norance, 2ental 0eaCness or so2e other handicap.M J@'K In su2, 0e hold that petitioner is no lon)er entitled to the ri)ht of rede2ption under !rticle %$;# of the ivil ode as 1ot No. #;%& had lon) been partitioned a2on) its co< o0ners. This ourt liCe0ise annuls the contract of sale bet0een Fortunato and private respondent on the )round of vitiated consent. 1%EREFORE, pre2ises considered, the decision dated #@ March %&&' of the ourt of !ppeals is hereb" R7V7RS7D and S7T !SID7 and the decision dated %% March %&&4 of the Re)ional Trial ourt, 8ranch @', San arlos it", Ne)ros Occidental, dis2issin) both the co2plaint and the counterclai2, is hereb" R7INST!T7D. No costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, 4% air$an5, Austria&,artinez, %alle/o, Sr., and 1inga, ((., concur.
!pril %@, #55@, 4@$ S R! %&; 0le$ents of a %ontract of Sale 6 %onsent *itiated

leopas !pe died in %&@5 and left a parcel of land *1ot #;%&, to his %% children. The children never for2all" divided the propert" a2on)st the2selves e3cept throu)h antal& antal 0hereb" each -ust occupied a certain portion and developed each. On the other hand, the spouses 1u2a"no 0ere interested in the land so the" started bu"in) the portion of land that each of the heirs occupied. On %% !pr %&(;, one of the children, Fortunato, entered into a contract of sale 0ith 1u2a"no. In e3chan)e of his lot, 1u2a"no a)reed to pa" P@,555.55. She paid in advance P;5.55. Fortunato 0as )iven a receipt prepared b" 1u2a"noIs son in la0 *!ndres Flores,. Flores also acted as 0itness. 1u2a"no also e3ecuted sales transactions 0ith FortunatoIs siblin)s separatel". In %&(;, 1u2a"no co2pelled Fortunato to 2aCe the the deliver" to her of the re)istrable deed of sale over FortunatoIs portion of the 1ot No. #;%&. Fortunato assailed the validit" of the contract of sale. =e also invoCed his ri)ht to redee2 *as a co<o0ner, the portions of land sold b" his siblin)s to 1u2a"no. Fortunato died durin) the pendenc" of the case. !SSUE& :hether or not there 0as a valid contract of saleQ %E D& No. Fortunato 0as a Lno read no 0riteM person. It 0as incu2bent for the the other part" to prove that details of the contract 0as full" e3plained to Fortunato before Fortunato si)ned the receipt. ! contract of sale is a consensual contract, thus, it is perfected b" 2ere consent of the parties. It is born fro2 the 2o2ent there is a 2eetin) of 2inds upon the thin) 0hich is the ob-ect of the sale and upon the price. Hpon its perfection, the parties 2a" reciprocall" de2and perfor2ance, that is, the vendee 2a" co2pel the transfer of the o0nership and to deliver the ob-ect of the sale 0hile the vendor 2a" de2and the vendee to pa" the thin) sold. For there to be a perfected contract of sale, ho0ever, the follo0in) ele2ents 2ust be present/ 4o/5e/6, ob7e46, a/0 )r*4e */ 8o/ey or *65 e9u*:a+e/6. For consent to be valid, it 2ust 2eet the follo0in) reAuisites/ *a, it should be intelli)ent, or 0ith an e3act notion of the 2atter to 0hich it refers9 *b, it should be free and *c, it should be spontaneous. Intelli)ence in consent is vitiated b" error9 freedo2 b" violence, inti2idation or undue influence9 spontaneit" b" fraud. 1u2a"no clai2ed that she e3plained full" the receipt to Fortunato, but FloresI testi2on" belies it. Flores said there 0as another 0itness but the other 0as a 2aid 0ho 0as also lacCed education. Further, Flores hi2self 0as not a0are that the receipt 0as Lto transfer the o0nership of FortunatoIs land to her 2o2<in< la0M. It onl" occurred to hi2 to e3plain the details of the receipt but he never did.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PILIPINAS PETROLEUM CORPORATION, r,

SHELL Petitione

!$R$ No$ &'()'* Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTI RR !, "ORONA, A!"UNA, #n$ GAR"IA, JJ. Pro%ul&#te$:

- ver u -

CARLOS AN! !O"ONSEN!, #R$, Re pon%e nt$

'ul( )*, )++,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION !ARCIA, J$+

In this petition for re.ie/ un$er Rule 01 of the Rules of "ourt, petitioner Pilipin#s Shell Petroleu% "orpor#tion 2Pilipin#s Shell, here#fter3 see4s the re.ers#l #n$ settin& #si$e of the Decision5*6 $#te$ October *+, )++7 of the "ourt of Appe#ls 2"A3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 63777, #s reiter#te$ in its Resolution5)6 of April

*7, )++0, re.ersin& #n e#rlier $ecision of the Re&ion#l Tri#l "ourt 2RT"3 of Ne&ros Orient#l, Du%#&uete "it(, 8r#nch 0+, in # suit for collection of rent#ls /ith $#%#&es there#t co%%ence$ b( the herein respon$ent "#rlos An& Gobonsen& #&#inst, #%on& others, the herein petitioner9 The rent#ls sou&ht to be collecte$ pert#in to # &#soline st#tion #t Lot No9 :17-A, loc#te$ #t corner Re#l ; Ur$#net# streets, Du%#&uete "it(9 The f#ctu#l b#c4$rop: So%eti%e on '#nu#r( 1, *<:), one 'ulio T#n P#stor, ori&in#l o/ner of Lot No9 :17-A, sol$ it to the respon$ent for P*97 %illion, #lbeit in the co.erin& Dee$ of Absolute S#le e-ecute$ b( the p#rties, the #%ount in$ic#te$ /#s onl(P*7,+++9++, e.i$entl( to #.oi$ p#(%ent of the correct le&#l fees in the re&istr#tion #n$ tr#nsfer of title to the .en$ee9 On the s#%e $#te, ho/e.er, the p#rties, in or$er to reflect their re#l intentions, e-ecute$ # =e%or#n$u% of A&ree%ent thereun$er spellin& out the true ter%s #n$ con$itions of their tr#ns#ction, to /it:
G1. /. $urchase price is $1,0??,???.?? 1$1.0 million3C $5??,???.?? shall 4e paid upon the e7ecution of the ,eed of &ale. 'ut of this amount part shall 4e paid to whatever mort2a2e o4li2ation there is with the $hilippines (ational 6an9 andFor any other 4an9 involvin2 lot no. =50AAC and its improvementsC 6alance of $=??,???.?? will 4e paid in five 153 years at a yearly payment of $1;?,???.?? the first payment to 4e paid one year from date hereof and succeedin2 four installments every year thereafterC All o4li2ations or lia4ilities on or involvin2 lot no. =50AA or its improvements such as electric 4ills, water 4ills, telephone 4ills, etc., shall 4e for the account of the *%(,'" which if not paid will 4e automatically deducti4le from the first payment of the remainin2 4alanceC

0.

B.

5.

"eal property ta7es full for 19=1 over lot no. =50AA and its improvements, capital 2ains ta7, documentary stamp ta7, sales ta7 shall 4e shouldered 4y the *%(,'"C "e2istration e7penses shall 4e shouldered 4y the *%(,%%C +pon the e7ecution of the ,eed of &ale, ownership and possession shall automatically pass to the *%(,%%C The *%(,'" a2rees to pay a penalty of $5??.?? for every day of delay in vacatin2 the propertyCH

;.

Respon$ent, #r%e$ /ith the in#ccur#te Dee$ of Absolute S#le e#rlier e-ecute$ b( 'ulio T#n P#stor, #n$ not/ithst#n$in& the =e%or#n$u% of A&ree%ent #fore%entione$, succee$e$ in re&isterin& the con.e(in& instru%ent /ith the Re&istr( of Dee$s #n$ /#s then issue$ Tr#nsfer "ertific#te of Title 2T"T3 No9 *7,+> o.er Lot No9 :17-A in his o/n n#%e9 In the %e#nti%e, .en$or T#n P#stor presente$ for enc#sh%ent the post$#te$ chec4s issue$ to hi% b( respon$ent #s p#(%ent for the sub?ect lot9 Unfortun#tel(, the $r#/ee b#n4 $ishonore$ those chec4s for # .#riet( of re#sons, n#%el(, $r#/n #&#inst insufficient fun$s, stop p#(%ent or$er or close$ #ccount9 This pro%pte$ .en$or T#n P#stor to file #&#inst respon$ent # cri%in#l #ction for .iol#tion of 8#t#s P#%b#ns# 28P3 )), other/ise 4no/n #s the 8ouncin& "hec4s L#/, $oc4ete$ #s "ri%in#l "#se No9 >+>*, entitle$ People of the Philippines v. Carlos AngGobonseng, Jr., of the xxx. It #ppe#rs th#t prior to the s#le of Lot No9 :17-A to respon$ent, T#n P#stor h#$ been oper#tin& thereon # &#soline st#tion, first /ith l!ing A, subse@uentl( /ith Gett! "il, #n$ l#ter /ith 8#sic L#n$ Oil #n$ ner&( "orpor#tion 2 #$%C"R&9

In *<:), Pilipin#s Shell #c@uire$ #$%C"R, inclu$in& #ll the l#tterAs #ssets, li#bilities #n$ contr#cts9 There#fter, T#n P#stor re%#ine$ #s the $istributor of Pilipin#s Shell pro$ucts #n$ continue$ to oper#te the &#s st#tion on Lot No9 :17-A until *<<*9 So%eti%e in *<<*, respon$ent sent $e%#n$ letters to Pilipin#s Shell for p#(%ent b( the l#tter of rent#ls for its occup#nc( #n$ use of his propert(9 Respon$in& to s#i$ letters, Pilipin#s Shell $iso/ne$ li#bilit( for the rent#ls, e-pl#inin& th#t the &#s st#tion on Lot No9 :17-A /#s # $e#ler-o/ne$ fillin& st#tion, hence the $e%#n$s for rent#l p#(%ent %ust be $irecte$ to T#n P#stor9 In #n( e.ent, Pilipin#s Shell, hopin& for #n #%ic#ble settle%ent of the contro.ers( bet/een respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor rel#ti.e to Lot No9 :17-A, f#cilit#te$ # %eetin& bet/een the t/o9 True enou&h, on '#nu#r( 7+, *<<), thru the efforts of Pilipin#s Shell, T#n P#stor #n$ respon$ent e-ecute$ #n A&ree%ent576 e%bo$(in& the follo/in& ter%s #n$ con$itions >
GThe parties herein have a2reed, as follows> 1. )or humanitarian, peace, and other considerations, Carlos A. Go4onsen2, <r., the 'E(%", here4y allows <ulio Tan $astor the use of Lot (o. =50AA at Corner "ealA+rdaneta &treets, ,uma2uete City, covered 4y TCT (o. 10;?7, as a 2asF fuelF 2asolineF oilF fillin2, sellin2 and servicin2, station, and for such other use appropriate, or related, to the same, without any rental for a period of T "%% 103 #%A"& from <anuary 1st 199/, or up to ,ecem4er 01st 199B, ('(A%:T%(,!6L%C Consistent with the fore2oin2, <ulio Tan $astor is authoriOed to enter into any 4usiness contract with a third person for the use of said property for a period of T "%% 103 #%A"& from <A(+A"# 1st 199/ or up to ,%C%M6%" 01st 199B, the ,%A,L!(%C

/.

0.

(o construction, renovation or repair, shall 4e done 4y <ulio Tan $astor, without the $"!'" written consent of the owner, Carlos A. Go4onsen2, <r.C All improvements, includin2 old and new constructions, repairs, replacements, and other remova4le items, shall automatically 4elon2 in ownership to the owner, Carlos A. Go4onsen2, <r., upon and at the time of completion of construction of wor9, installation or repair or replacement, e7cludin2 those owned or constructed 4y &hell $etroleum Corp., or )rancisco G6aludoyH &alva, which shall automatically 4elon2 to Carlos An2 Go4onsen2, <r. upon the e7piration of the lease contract which the latter e7ecuted in favor of )rancisco C. &alvaC &u4Iect to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract of lease 4etween Carlos An2 Go4onsen2, <r. and )rancisco C. &alva, <ulio Tan $astor and children or heirs, or Lessee, or third person, o4li2ate and underta9e to *ACAT% Lot (o. =50AA ('T later than ,ecem4er 01, 199B. 'n ,ecem4er 01, 199B, $%AC%)+L $'&&%&&!'( of the property and premises shall 4e T+"(%, '*%" to the owner, Carlos A. Go4onsen2, <r., otherwise, a penalty of $5,???.?? for every day of delay in vacatin2 the premises is imposedC All the parties herein have no more further claimes a2ainst each other, and waived, a4andoned, relin8uished, any such claim or claimsC

B.

5.

;.

There#fter, T#n P#stor e-ecute$ #n$ file$ in "ri%in#l "#se No9 >+>* #n Affi$#.it of Desist#nce thereun$er %#4in& 4no/n his l#c4 of interest in further pursuin& the c#se, /hich /#s e.entu#ll( $is%isse$9 The contro.ers( coul$ h#.e en$e$ there /ere it not for the f#ct th#t on No.e%ber *7, *<<), in the RT" of Ne&ros Orient#l, respon$ent file$ # ci.il suit for collection of rent#ls #n$ $#%#&es #&#inst T#n P#stor #n$ Pilipin#s Shell9 In his co%pl#int, $oc4ete$ #s "i.il "#se No9 *+7:<, respon$ent, #s pl#intiff, #lle&e$ o/nership of Lot No9 :17-A on the b#sis of T"T No9 *7,+>9 Be further #.erre$ th#t since *<:), he h#$ been p#(in& the re#lt( t#-es $ue thereon #n$ th#t T#n P#stor #n$ Pilipin#s Shell

continue$ occup(in& s#i$ lot #n$ usin& the s#%e #s # &#soline #n$ ser.ice st#tion /ithout p#(in& rent#ls therefor9 Be thus pr#(e$ th#t ?u$&%ent be ren$ere$ or$erin& T#n P#stor #n$ petitioner to p#( hi% rent#ls #n$ $#%#&es for their use #n$ occup#tion of his lot fro% *<:) to *<<*9 In its Ans/er, Pilipin#s Shell countere$ th#t pl#intiffAs cl#i% for unp#i$ rent#ls h#$ no b#sis bec#use the &#soline st#tion on his propert( is # $e#ler-o/ne$ fillin& st#tion, #s e.i$ence$ b( # certific#tion506 issue$ b( the presi$ent of the Shell De#lers Associ#tion of the Philippines9 Pilipin#s Shell li4e/ise e%ph#siCe$ th#t Lot No9 :17-A /#s initi#ll( the sub?ect of contro.ers( bet/een respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor until *<<) /hen, thru its efforts, the /#rrin& p#rties e-ecute$ #n A&ree%ent /hereun$er both 2T#n P#stor #n$ respon$ent3 %#$e it e-pressl( cle#r th#t the( Dh#.e no %ore further cl#i%s #&#inst e#ch other, #n$ /#i.e$, #b#n$one$, relin@uishe$, #n( such cl#i% or cl#i%s9E On this pre%ise, Pilipin#s Shell #r&ue$ th#t respon$entAs $e%#n$ for rent#ls is $e.oi$ of #n( le&#l or f#ctu#l b#sis9 In the %e#nti%e, T#n P#stor $ie$, le#.in& his heirs /ho /ere #ccor$in&l( substitute$ #s Pilipin#s ShellAs co-$efen$#nt in the c#se9 On =#rch *1, *<<<, the tri#l court c#%e out /ith its $ecision516 ren$erin& ?u$&%ent for Pilipin#s Shell #n$ its co$efen$#nts, to /it>
E %"%)'"%, premises considered, plaintiffDs complaint for collection of rental and dama2es a2ainst $ilipinas &hell and the heirs of <ulio Tan $astor is here4y dismissed for lac9 of cause of action a2ainst them.

)urther, plaintiff 1Go4onsen23 is here4y ordered to pay defendant $ilipinas &hell the amount of $15?,???.?? for the other defendants, the heirs of <ulio Tan $astor. The crossAclaim filed 4y defendant $ilipinas &hell $etroleum Corporation a2ainst its coAdefendants, the heirs of <ulio Tan $astor is here4y denied for lac9 of le2al 4asis. &' '",%"%,.

Therefro%, respon$ent /ent to the "A9 As st#te$ #t the threshol$ hereof, the "A, in its Decision5,6 of October *+, )++7, re.erse$ th#t of the tri#l court, thus:
GE %"%)'"%, in view of the fore2oin2 considerations, the decision appealed from is here4y "%*%"&%, and &%T A&!,% and a new one is entered, orderin2 appellee $ilipinas &hell $etroleum Corporation to pay unto appellant> $=,??? per month as reasona4le compensation for the use and occupation of Lot (o. =50AA as a &hell refillin2 station startin2 from 19=/ until 1991 plus interest at 1/P per annum until fully paid and attorneyDs fees of /?P of the total amount due the appellant, without preIudice to its crossAclaim a2ainst its coAdefendants, which is here4y reinstated and prompt resolution of which 4y the court a quo is here4y directed. &' '",%"%,.H

Fith its %otion for reconsi$er#tion h#.in& been $enie$ b( the "A in its e@u#ll( ch#llen&e$ Resolution 5>6 of April *7, )++0, Pilipin#s Shell is no/ /ith this "ourt r#isin& the follo/in& issues:
13 Ehether or not the decision of the onora4le Court of Appeals in upholdin2 the ownership 4y "espondent of Lot =50AA is in accordance with the provision of Article 1B9; of the Civil Code of the $hilippines considerin2 that there was no delivery yet to the "espondent of the property which was the su4Iect of a contract of sale 4etween him and <ulio Tan $astorC

/3

Ehether or not the decision of the onora4le Court of Appeals ma9in2 the $etitioner lia4le for the payment of rentals for the use of Lot =50AA 4y <ulio Tan $astor as an operator of a dealerAowned fillin2 station is consistent with Article 1157 of the Civil Code of the $hilippines which provides for the le2al sources of o4li2ationC Ehether or not the decision of the onora4le Court of Appeals in reversin2 the findin2s of facts of the trial court on the 2round that the Iud2e who penned the decision is not the one who heard the testimonies of all the witnesses, is in accordance with the 2eneral rule that the trial courtDs decision is to 4e 2iven credence and accorded due preference 4y the appellate court.

03

Then, #s no/, respon$ent insists th#t he h#$ sufficientl( est#blishe$ his o/nership of Lot No9 :17-A thru the Dee$ of Absolute S#le, the =e%or#n$u% of A&ree%ent bet/een hi% #n$ T#n P#stor, T"T No9 *7,+> #n$ his f#ithful #n$ reli&ious p#(%ents of the re#l est#te t#-es $ue on the propert(9 To hi%, the e-istence of # &#soline st#tion in his propert( since *<:) entitles hi% to the p#(%ent of rent#ls b( Pilipin#s Shell9 Pilipin#s Shell, on the other h#n$, conten$s th#t respon$ent is /ithout c#use of #ction #&#inst it9 It #sserts non-li#bilit( for rent#ls bec#use the &#soline st#tion on Lot :17-A /#s oper#te$ b( T#n P#stor #s # %ealer-o,ne% tation9 -poun$in& on this concept, Pilipin#s Shell e-pl#ine$ th#t in # $e#ler-o/ne$ fillin& st#tion, the o/ner of the lot is #t the s#%e ti%e the oper#tor of the st#tion, /ith Pilipin#s Shell %erel( pro.i$in& the $e#ler-o/ner /ith cert#in e@uip%ent #n$ f#cilities for the oper#tion of his &#s st#tion9 Pilipin#s Shell further #lle&e$ th#t it /#s %#$e #/#re of the ch#n&e in the o/nership of Lot No9 :17-A onl( in the l#tter p#rt of *<<* /hen it recei.e$ # letter fro% respon$ent $e%#n$in& p#(%ent of rent#ls therefor9 App#rentl(, T#n P#stor $i$ not see the nee$ to infor% Pilipin#s Shell of the ch#n&e in o/nership of the sub?ect lot pri%#ril( bec#use #ccor$in& to hi%, o/nership of the lot

re%#ine$ /ith hi% until full p#(%ent of the #&ree$ price sh#ll h#.e been effecte$9 As it #ppe#rs, Pilipin#s Shell tot#ll( belie.e$ T#n P#storAs represent#tion since there /#s in$ee$ # pen$in& cri%in#l c#se for .iol#tion of 8P )) #&#inst respon$ent, couple$ b( the f#ct th#t T#n P#stor continue$ to be in possession #n$ use of Lot No9 :17-A #s # fillin& #n$ ser.ice st#tion for Pilipin#s ShellAs petroleu% pro$ucts until *<<)9 Fe &r#nt the petition9 Anent the issue of o/nership of Lot No9 :17-A, /e hol$ th#t this p#rticul#r @uestion h#s #lre#$( been ren$ere$ %oot b( subse@uent e.ents #n$ #cts of respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor9 Si&nific#ntl(, respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor both #$%it #n$ #&ree th#t s#i$ lot /#s the sub?ect of the Dee$ of Absolute S#le bet/een the%9 Despite contr#stin& #lle&#tions on the p#(%ent of the contr#ct price, both #&ree$ on the ob?ect #n$ consi$er#tion of the s#le9 It %ust be stresse$ th#t # contr#ct of s#le is not # re#l, but # consensu#l contr#ct9 In #'enavent'ra v. Co'rt of Appeals, 5:6 this "ourt %#$e it cle#r th#t # contr#ct of s#le, bein& consensu#l in n#ture, beco%es .#li$ #n$ bin$in& upon the %eetin& of the %in$s of the p#rties #s to the ob?ect #n$ the price9 If there is # %eetin& of the %in$s, the contr#ct is .#li$ $espite the %#nner of p#(%ent, or e.en if the %#nner of p#(%ent /#s bre#che$9 In fine, it is not the #ct of p#(%ent of the contr#ct price th#t $eter%ines the .#li$it( of # contr#ct of s#le9 The %#nner of p#(%ent #n$ the p#(%ent itself of the #&ree$ price h#.e nothin& to $o /ith the perfection of the contr#ct9 P#(%ent of the price &oes into the perfor%#nce of the contr#ct9 G#ilure of # p#rt( to effect p#(%ent of the contr#ct price results in # ri&ht to $e%#n$ the fulfill%ent or c#ncell#tion of the obli&#tion un$er #n e-istin& .#li$ contr#ct95<6

Bere, the contro.ers( bet/een T#n P#stor #n$ respon$ent /ith respect to the %#nner of p#(%ent or the bre#ch thereof $oes not .iti#te the .#li$it( #n$ bin$in& effect of their contr#ct of s#le9 In this li&ht, respon$ent c#nnot thus be f#ulte$ for re&isterin& the $ocu%ent of s#le #n$ successfull( securin& T"T No9 *7,+> co.erin& Lot No9 :17-A in his n#%e9 Bo/e.er, co%in& to the %ore b#sic issue herein of /hether or not respon$ent is entitle$ to the p#(%ent of rent#ls b( Pilipin#s Shell for the use #n$ occup#nc( of Lot No9 :17-A, the "ourt fin$s #n$ so hol$s th#t respon$entAs cl#i% h#s no b#sis in f#ct #n$ in l#/9 To the %in$ of the "ourt, respon$entAs entitle%ent to rent#ls turns on the n#ture of the &#soline st#tion bein& oper#te$ b( T#n P#stor on the sub?ect lot9 To resol.e this, /e %ust necess#ril( .enture into $eter%inin& /hether the &#soline st#tion there#t /#s %ealer-o,ne% or -ompan.-o,ne%9 Un$oubte$l(, this e-ercise in.ol.es #n e-#%in#tion of f#cts /hich is nor%#ll( be(on$ the #%bit of this "ourt9 Gor, /ell-settle$ is the rule th#t this "ourt, not bein& # trier of f#cts, $oes not nor%#ll( e%b#r4 in the e.#lu#tion of e.i$ence #$$uce$ $urin& tri#l9 The rule, ho/e.er, #$%its of e-ceptions9 So it is th#t in (a)pa!an v. Co'rt of Appeals,[10] the "ourt hel$:
GKiLt is a settled rule that in the e7ercise of the &upreme CourtQs power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally underta9e the reA e7amination of the evidence presented 4y the contendin2 partiesQ durin2 the trial of the case considerin2 that the findin2s of facts of the CA are conclusive and 4indin2 on the Court. owever, the Court had reco2niOed several e7ceptions to this rule, to wit> 113 when the findin2s are 2rounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conIecturesC 1/3 when the inference made is manifestly mista9en, a4surd or impossi4leC 103 when there is 2rave a4use of discretionC 1B3 when the Iud2ment is 4ased on a misapprehension of factsC 153 when the findin2s of facts are conflictin2C 1;3 when in ma9in2 its findin2s the Court of Appeals went 4eyond the issues of the case, or its findin2s are contrary to the admissions of 4oth the appellant and the appelleeC 173 when the findin2s are contrary to the trial courtC 1=3 when the findin2s are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which

they are 4asedC 193 when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitionerQs main and reply 4riefs are not disputed 4y the respondentC 11?3 when the findin2s of fact are premised on the supposed a4sence of evidence and contradicted 4y the evidence on recordC and 1113 when the Court of Appeals manifestly overloo9ed certain relevant facts not disputed 4y the parties, which, if properly considered, would Iustify a different conclusion.H

To the "ourt, e-ceptions 213, 2>3 #n$ 2**3, #bo.e, fin$ #pplic#tion in the inst#nt c#se9 An$ #fter # c#reful e.#lu#tion of the e.i$ence, the "ourt fin$s for the petitioner9 To be&in /ith, the tri#l courtAs conclusion th#t T#n P#stor oper#te$ the &#soline st#tion in his c#p#cit( #s %ealer-o,ner is /ell-supporte$ b( the e.i$ence on recor$9 Pilipin#s Shell h#s sho/n cle#r #n$ con.incin& proof th#t the outlet #t Lot No9 :17-A /#s %ealer-o,ne% &#s st#tion #s per the "ertific#tion of the presi$ent of the Shell De#lers Associ#tion of the Philippines9 It %#( be th#t such # certific#tion, co%in& #s it $oes fro% the presi$ent of petitionerAs $e#lers #ssoci#tion, $oes not /#rr#nt the prob#ti.e .#lue it other/ise $eser.es9 It be#rs e%ph#sis, ho/e.er, th#t respon$ent hi%self $oes not $ispute the f#ct th#t he ne.er $e%#n$e$ rent#l p#(%ents fro% T#n P#stor fro% *<:) to *<<*9 It /#s onl( #fter the cri%in#l c#se for bouncin& chec4s /#s $is%isse$ th#t he cl#i%e$ entitle%ent to rent#ls9 Prior thereto, he ne.er $e%#n$e$ for #n( rent#l p#(%ent, %uch less institute$ #n( #ction to enforce the s#%e9 8esi$es, #n$ #s correctl( obser.e$ b( the tri#l court, there /#s #n #$%ission b( the respon$ent hi%self th#t, since *<:) up to *<<*, he h#$ been in the possession of Lot No9 :17-A #n$ nobo$( else9 "o%in& #s it $oes fro% the respon$ent no less, th#t st#te%ent co%%#n$s &re#t /ei&ht #n$ respect9 The lo/er court succinctl( su%%#riCes:

GThere was no le2al 4asis for plaintiff Carlos Go4onsen2, <r. to demand payment from $ilipinas &hell as he himself admitted that he was in possession of the property from 19=/ to 1991. As his testimony is a2ainst his interest, it 4ecame more 4elieva4le the lac9 of le2al anchora2e to 4ase his demand for rental payment from 19=/ to 199/. (o less than the Court who as9ed him the 8uestions and hereunder is his answer> GCourt> J AA A AA J AA Eho was in possession of the property since 19=/ up to 1991N ! am the actual possessor from 19=/ to 1991. !s it not a fact that it was <ulio Tan $astorDs who was in possession of that property since 19=/ and up to 1991N (o, it is not, #our onor. 777 J AA 777

A AA

#ou mean to tell the Court that prior to 199/ <ulio Tan $astor was not in possession of the property in 8uestionN (ot in possession, #our onor. As an operator, #our onor, sellin2 the shell products, #our onor. Eho was in possession of that propertyN Me, myself, #our onor.H 1T&(, p. 5, 5A/9A9;3

A AA

J AA A AA

Fh#t is %ore, respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor h#$ #lre#$( e-ecute$ #n A&ree%ent5**6 /hereun$er the( $ecl#re$ th#t the( h#$ Dno %ore further cl#i%s #&#inst e#ch other, #n$ /#i.e$, #b#n$one$, relin@uishe$, #n( such cl#i% or cl#i%s9E If #n(thin& else, such $ecl#r#tion e.i$ence$ respon$entAs st#nce in not collectin& rent#ls for the use of the sub?ect propert( #s he e.en in f#ct #llo/e$ T#n P#stor the Duse of Lot No9 :17-A #t "orner Re#l-

Ur$#net# Streets, Du%#&uete "it(, co.ere$ b( T"T No9 *7,+>, #s # &#sH fuelH &#solineH oilH fillin&, sellin& #n$ ser.icin&, st#tion, #n$ for such other use #ppropri#te, or rel#te$, to the s#%e, ,it/out an. rental 0or a perio% o0 THREE 1(2 3EARS 0rom #anuar. & t &44*, or up to De-em5er (& t &446, NON-E7TENDI"LE$E 2 %ph#sis supplie$93 Thus, respon$ent is no/ estoppe$ fro% $e%#n$in& p#(%ent of rent#ls fro% T#n P#stor or Pilipin#s Shell9 In#an* of the Philippine +slan,s v. Casa -ontessori +nternational, [12] /e rule$:
G%stoppel precludes individuals from denyin2 or assertin2, 4y their own deed or representation, anythin2 contrary to that esta4lished as the truth, in le2al contemplation. 'ur rules on evidence even ma9e a juris et de jure presumption that whenever one has, 4y oneDs own act or omission, intentionally and deli4erately led another to 4elieve a particular thin2 to 4e true and to act upon that 4elief, one cannot - in any liti2ation arisin2 from such act or omission - 4e permitted to falsify that supposed truth.H

L#stl(, respon$ent insists th#t Pilipin#s Shell h#$ reco&niCe$ his o/nership of Lot No9 :17-A #n$ his ri&ht to collect rent#ls /hen the l#tter, throu&h # letter, 5*76 sou&ht his per%ission to refurbish the &#soline st#tion loc#te$ there#t9 Fe #re not persu#$e$9 A c#reful scrutin( of the letter referre$ to /oul$ re.e#l th#t it /#s %#$e #n$ sent to respon$ent on Gebru#r( >, *<<), # fe/ $#(s #fter T#n P#stor #n$ respon$ent h#$ %#$e #%en$s #n$ e-ecute$ #n A&ree%ent to /#i.e #n( #n$ #ll further cl#i%s #&#inst e#ch other9 "le#rl(, Pilipin#s Shell /#s %#$e #/#re of this $e.elop%ent #n$ the ch#n&e in the o/nership of Lot No9 :17A9 To reiter#te, Pilipin#s Shell /#s e.en instru%ent#l in this #%ic#ble settle%ent of the contro.ers( bet/een respon$ent #n$ T#n P#stor9 Bence, it is but proper for Pilipin#s Shell to #$$ress

respon$ent in see4in& per%ission to %#4e #n( i%pro.e%ents on the lot9 Fe note th#t in the $ecision un$er re.ie/, the "A %#$e # fin$in& th#t there is not enou&h e.i$ence for it to co%petentl( p#ss upon #n$ %#4e # rulin& on the n#ture of the &#soline st#tion situ#te$ on Lot No9 :17-A9 Fe rule #n$ so hol$ th#t such # fin$in& #ll the %ore stren&thens the tri#l courtAs $ecision #s %ore in #ccor$ /ith the e.i$ence #$$uce$ in the course of the procee$in&s there#t9 As it is, the tri#l courtAs $ecision reflects #n$ sho/s its $istinct #$.#nt#&e of h#.in& he#r$ the /itnesses the%sel.es, obser.e$ their $eport%ent #n$ their %#nner of testif(in& #n$ beh#.ior $urin& tri#l9 Gin#ll(, respon$ent sub%its th#t the "A correctl( set #si$e the tri#l courtAs $ecision on the &roun$ th#t the ?u$&e /ho he#r$ %ost of the /itnesses /#s other th#n the ?u$&e /ho ulti%#tel( penne$ the $ecision in the c#se9 On this score, respon$ent #r&ues th#t the fin$in&s of f#ct of the tri#l court c#nnot be &i.en cre$ence #n$ #ccor$e$ $ue $eference9 The "ourt $oes not #&ree9 The circu%st#nce th#t the ?u$&e /ho /rote the $ecision h#$ not he#r$ the testi%onies of the /itnesses $oes not #uto%#tic#ll( t#int his $ecision9 Bere, the $ecision of the tri#l court %#$e reference to se.er#l tr#nscripts of steno&r#phic notes t#4en in the course of tri#l9 Li4e/ise, se.er#l e-hibits /ere referre$ to #n$ use$ #s e.i$ence to subst#nti#te the tri#l courtAs conclusions9 The .#li$it( of # $ecision is not necess#ril( i%p#ire$ b( the f#ct th#t its ponente onl( too4 o.er fro% # colle#&ue /ho h#$ e#rlier presi$e$ #t the tri#l9 This circu%st#nce #lone c#nnot be the b#sis for the re.ers#l of the tri#l courtAs $ecision unless there is # cle#r sho/in& of &r#.e #buse of $iscretion in the #ppreci#tion or # %is#pprehension of the f#cts,5*06 of /hich /e fin$ none9

8HERE9ORE, the inst#nt petition is !RANTED #n$ the #ss#ile$ Decision #n$ Resolution of the "A #reREVERSED #n$ SET ASIDE9 The $ecision $#te$ =#rch *1, *<<< of the RT" in "i.il "#se No9 *+7:< isREINSTATED$ No pronounce%ent #s to costs9 SO ORDERED$

CANCIO C$ !ARCIA Associ#te 'ustice

F "ON"UR:

RE3NATO S$ PUNO Associ#te 'ustice "h#irperson

AN!ELINA SANDOVAL!UTIERRE: Associ#te 'ustice

RENATO C$ CORONA Associ#te 'ustice

ADOL9O S$ A:CUNA Associ#te 'ustice

ATTESTATION
I #ttest th#t the conclusions in the #bo.e $ecision /ere re#che$ in consult#tion before the c#se /#s #ssi&ne$ to the /riter of the opinion of the "ourtAs Di.ision9

RE3NATO S$ PUNO Associ#te 'ustice "h#irperson, Secon$ Di.ision

CERTI9ICATION
Pursu#nt to Article VIII, Section *7 of the "onstitution, #n$ the Di.ision "h#irpersonIs Attest#tion, it is hereb( certifie$ th#t the conclusions in the #bo.e $ecision /ere re#che$ in consult#tion before the c#se /#s #ssi&ne$ to the /riter of the opinion of the "ourt9 ARTEMIO V$ PAN!ANI"AN "hief 'ustice