G.R. No.

L-18788

January 31, 1964

ROMULO LOPEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. LUI GONZAGA, ET AL., defendants, LUI GONZAGA an! A UN"ION GONZAGA, defendants-appellants. Lakandola G. Lopez and Romulo Lopez for plaintiffs-appellants. Amalia K. del Rosario for defendants-appellants. RE#E , J.$.L., J.: Joint and direct appeal by both parties-plaintiffs an parties-defendants from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (in its Civil Case No. !"" to this #upreme Court, because the properties involved a valued at more than $%!!,!!!.!!. &he appealed decision dismissed the petition of plaintiffs (appellants' for partition and cancellation of titles of registered lands and ordered them to pay defendants (appellees' $(,!!!.!! by )ay of attorney*s fees, but refused to a)ard moral damages in favor of the defendants. &he original petition )as filed )ith the court a quo on + October (, -, alleging, among other things, that on #oledad .on/aga 0da. de Ferrer died intestate on (( 1pril (," )ithout any issue and leaving real and personal properties )orth $2!!,!!!.!!3 that she )as survived by the plaintiffs, )ho are her nearest of 4in, being her brother sisters, nephe)s, and nieces3 that during the lifetime the deceased, she e5pressed the )ish that as long as her brother, 6uis .on/aga, the principal defendant, )as engaged in his coconut oil e5perimentation he could use products and rentals of her properties in furtherance his e5periments3 that the said scientific venture by said defendant )as discontinued )hen he became totally blind in October, (, in vie) of )hich the plaintiffs no) as4 a partition of the estate and the cancellation of titles of lands allegedly fraudulently transferred by, and in the name of, the defendant. &he defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and noninclusion of indispensable parties. &he plainttiffs amended their petition to include the omitted parties. 1fter hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court denied the said motion. &hereupon, the defendant filed their ans)er, pleading a denial as to intestacy of deceased, and alleging, among others, that a )ill of #oledad .on/aga 0da. de Ferrer instituted 6uis .on/aga as the sole heir estate, and that the )ill )as duly allo)ed and probated. 1fter trial, the court a quo rendered 7udgment, a both parties appealed, as aforesaid. &he genuineness of the follo)ing documents, and the 7urisdiction of the court )ith respect to them, are not disputed8

9:$;<6IC OF &=: $=I6I$$IN:# CO;9& OF FI9#& IN#&1NC: OF I6OI6O ((th Judicial >istrict >ecember ((, (, -. &O ?=O@ I& @1A CONC:9N8 &his is to certify that according to the records of this office, there is no :5pediente No. %(+" entitled :state of >oBa #oledad .on/aga 0da. de Ferrer, as all pre)ar records )ere burned, lost or destroyed during the ?orld ?ar II. (#gd.' CI$9I1NO C1<16;N1 Cler4 of Court. ;NI&:> #&1&:# OF 1@:9IC1 CO@@ON?:16&= OF &=: $=I6I$$IN:# CO;9& OF FI9#& IN#&1NC: OF OCCI>:N&16 N:.9O# (-th Judicial >istrict ..6.9.O. C1>. 9:CO9> NO. %(2 6O&# NO#. 2(2 and 2%2 C1>. #;90:A OF @1N1$61 5---------------------5 $:&I&ION 6uis .on/aga y Jesena through the undersigned attorney, to the =onorable Court respectfully follo)s8 &hat #oledad .on/aga 0da. de Ferrer is the registered o)ner of 6ots Nos. 2(2 and 2%2, Cadastral #urvey of @anapla, )hich parcel of land are described in &ransfer Certificate of &itle Nos. ((2+! and ("- , respectively. &hat #oledad .on/aga 0da. de Ferrer died on 1pril ((, (," , and she left all her properties in favor of 6uis .on/aga y Jesena in her )ill, )hich )ill )as probated on @ay (C, (," , in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (:5p. No. %(+", Iloilo'. &hat the pro7ect of partition dated February ", (,"+, (:5p. No. %(+", Iloilo' a copy of )hich is hereto attached, in )hich the petitioner 6uis .on/aga y Jesena is the only heir, )as approved by the =onorable Court of Iloilo in its order dated February -, (,"+, a copy of the said

order is hereto attached. 1wph 1.!"t ?=:9:FO9:, in vie) of the foregoing, the petitioner respectfully prays the =onorable Court to order the cancellation of &ransfer Certificate of &itle Nos. ((2+! and ("- , Office of the 9egister of >eeds of Occidental Negros, )herein 6ots Nos. 2(2 and 2%2 are described, and in lieu thereof to issue &ransfer Certificate of &itles for 6ots 2(2 and 2%2, Cadastral #urvey of @anapla, Occidental Negros, in favor of 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, single of legal age, Filipino and a resident of @anila, $. I. Iloilo, Iloilo, for <acolod, Occ. Neg., $.I. @arch ((, (,"+. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO #. =O9&I661# 1ttorney for the petitioner % .eneral 6una, Iloilo Iloilo I, Francisco #. =ortillas, of legal age, after having been duly s)orn, depose and say8 &hat I am the attorney for the petitioner in the above case, and that all the allegations contained in the foregoing petition are true to the best of my information tion and belief. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO =O9&I661# #ubscribed and #)orn to before me this ((th day of @arch, (,"+. =e e5hibited to me his cedula No. :-(% !(%!, issued at Jaro, Iloilo, $.I., on January (+, (,"+. (#gd.' I66:.I<6: NO&19A $;<6IC ;ntil >ec. "(, (,"C >oc. No. 2, $age No. +! <oo4 No. ( #eries of (,"+ &he 9egister of >eeds <acolod City, Occ. Negros #ir8 $lease ta4e notice that on #aturday, @arch %(, (,"+, at -8!! a.m. or soon thereafter as the undersigned may be heard, he )ill submit the

foregoing petition to this =onorable Court for approval. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO #. =O9&I661# I hereby certify that I have sent a copy of the foregoing petition to the 9egister of >eeds of Occidental Negros evidenced by the registry receipt hereto attached. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO #. =O9&I661# ;NI&:> #&1&:# OF 1@:9IC1 CO@@ON?:16&= OF &=: $=I6I$$IN:# CO;9& OF FI9#& IN#&1NC: OF I6OI6O (Cth Judicial >istrict &:#&1&: $9OC::>IN.# OF &=: >:C:1#:> #O6:>1> .OND1.1 0>1. >: F:99:9, 6;I# .OND1.1 A J:#:N1, $etitioner. 5-------------------------5 CI0I6 C1#: NO. %(+" $:&I&ION FO9 1>J;>IC1&ION &he undersigned administrator to the =onorable Court respectfully states8 &hat the undersigned administrator, 6uis .on/aga y Jesena is the only heir mentioned in the probated )ill of the late #ra. #oledad .. 0da. de Ferrer. &O?N @anapla @anapla @anapla Jaro Jaro &I&6: NO. &rans. Cert. -2"" &rans. Cert. ((2+! &rans. Cert. ("&rans. Cert. ("! ( &rans. Cert. ("! 2 $9O0INC: Occ. Neg. Occ. Neg. Occ. Neg. Iloilo Iloilo 016;: $% ,%"!.!! ,%(!.!! C,"(!.!! (!.!! !!.!!

1CCO;N&# CO66:C&I<6: 1N> C1#=

9oman #opena ........................................................... Juan #ornito ............................................................... Euintin @e7orada and others .................................. @aria 6edesma and others ...................................... and Cash .....................................................................

$(,(!!.!! ""!.!! %,-!!.!! +!!.!! (,!(-. 2

&hat there is a pending civil complaint against the administrator by Consolacion .. de 6ope/, et al., Civil Case No. (!"%(, Court, of First Instance of Iloilo, demanding payment of the sum of $-"".2!. &he undersigned administrator is )illing to file a cash bond for the sum ob7ect of the complaint in case this e5pediente )ill be closed before the trial of the Civil Case No. (!"%(, Iloilo. Iloilo, $.I., February ",(,"+. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO #. =O9&I661# 1ttorney for the 1dministrator % .eneral 6una, Iloilo. &he Cler4 of Court Iloilo, Iloilo #ir8 $lease include the foregoing petition for ad7udication in the calendar for #aturday, February -, (,"+. (#gd.' F91NCI#CO #. =O9&I661# 1 &9;: CO$A8 (#gd.' &:6:#FO9O .:>1N. >eputy Cler4 of Court (Cth Judicial >istrict Iloilo, $.I. :#&1>O# ;NI>O# >: 1@:9IC1 CO@@ON?:16&= >: FI6I$IN1# J;D.1>O >: $9I@:91 IN#&1NCI1 >: I6OI6O

(C.! >I#&9I&O J;>ICI16 &:#&1@:N&19I1 .OND1.1 :5pediente No. %(+" 1;&O $revia prestacion por 6uis .on/aga y Jesena de una fian/a por valor de $(,!!!.!! Fue tendra por ob7ecto responder al resultado de la causa civil No. (!"%( de este Ju/gado, titulada GConsolacion .. de 6ope/, et al., demandantes, contra 6uis .on/agaG, se aprueba la cuenta final de fecha enero %,, (,"+, asi como el proyecto de particion de fecha " del actual. Eueda cancelada la fian/a prestada por el administrador en este e5pediente, y archivado el mismo por terminado. 1si se ordena. Iloilo, Iloilo, febrero -, (,"+. @. <;A#ON 61@$1 Jue/ 1 &9;: CO$A8 (#gd.' &:6:#FO9O .:>1N. >eputy Cler4 of Court (Cth Judicial >istrict Iloilo, $. I. :#&1>O# ;NI>O# >: 1@:9IC1 @1NCO@;NI>1> >: FI6I$IN1# J;D.1>O >: $9I@:91 IN#&1NCI1 >: N:.9O# OCCI>:N&16 (-.o >istrito Judicial :5pediente Cadastral No. %+ :6 .O<I:9NO >: 61# I#61# FI6I$IN1# #olicitante. 5--------------------5 ..6.9.O. Cad 9ec. No. %(2 6otes Nos. 2(2 y2%2 C1&1#&9O >: @1N1$61

1;&O 0ista la peticion del solicitante #r. 6ui/ .on/aga y Jesena, de fecha ((

de mar/o de (,"+, el Ju/gado, hallando de misma bien fundada3 $or el presente, ordena la cancelacion de los certificados de transferencia de titulo Nos. ((2+! y ("- , sobre los lotes Nos. 2(2 y 2%2, respectivamente, del Catastro de @anapla, Negros Occidental, y la e5pedicion de otros a favor de 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, filipino, mayor de edad, soltero y vecino de la ciuda de @anila, I.F., haciendos constar en los certificados Fue se han de e5pedir todos los gravamenes Fue e5isten el los certificados de transferencia Nos. ((2+! y ("- . 1si se ordena. <acolod, Occ. Negros, %( de mar/o, (,"+. (F>O.' <91;6IO <1J1#1 Jue/ :#&1>O# ;NI>O# >: 1@:9IC1 @1NCO@;NI>1> >: FI6I$IN1# J;D.1>O >: $9I@:91 IN#&1NCI1 >: N:.9O# OCCI>:N&16 (-.o >istrito Judicial :6 .O<I:9NO >: 61# I#61# FI6I$IN1#, #olicitante, 6;I# .OND1.1 A J:#:N1, @ocionante. 5----------------5 :5p. de 9eg. No. C% ..6.9.O. 9ec. No. (!-%% 6ote No. "(" @1N1$61

1;&O 0ista y considerada la motion del solicitante 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, de Fecha (( de mar/o de (,"+, el Ju/gado, hallando la misma bien fundada3 $or el presents, ordena la cancelacion del certificado de transferencia de titulo No. -2%% sobre el 6ote No. "(" del catastro de @anapla, Negros Occidental, y la e5pedicion de otro a favor de 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, filipino, mayor de edad3 soltero y vecino de la ciudad de @anila. I.F., haciendose constar en al certificado Fue se ha de e5pedir todos los gravamente Fue e5isten en al certificado de transferencia cancelado, se tuviere alguno. 1si se ordena.

<acolod, Occidental Negros, %( de @ar/o, (,"+. (#gd.' <91;6IO <:J1#1 Jue/ <<Hspm. 9eceived the foregoing document at ,8!! 1.@. on @ay C, (,"+,and registered under 1ct 2,+ as follo)s8 >ay <oo4, 0ol. +, :ntry No. 2,+-2 Inscribed on pages (!( of <oo4 0ol. -C of &ransfer Certificate of &itle as Certificate of %(( (. <acolod, Occ. Negros, @ay C, (,"+ (#gd.' @19I1NO CO9:O01 9egister of >eeds :#&1>O# ;NI>O# >: 1@:9IC1 @1NCO@;NI>1> >: FI6I$IN1# J;D.1>O >: $9I@:91 IN#&1NCI1 >: I6OI6O (C.o >istrito Judicial ..6.9.O. 9:CO9> NO. ,, , 6O&:# NO#. ((%,-< y ((%,-C #I&;1>O :N :6 @;NICI$IO >: J19O 5----------------5 1;&O 0ista la peticion de 6uis .on/aga y Jesena cancelacion de los Certificados de &ransferencia de titulo numeros (!! ( y ("! 2 por las ra/ones e5puestas en la misma, y encontrando el Ju/gado la misma bien fundada, por la presente ordena el 9egistrado de &itulos de la $rovincial del Iloilo cancela los Certificados de &ransferencia de &itulos numeros (!! ( y ("! 2 y e5piden otros en su lugar a nombre de 6uis .on/aga y Jesen soltero, mayor de edad, filipino y vecino de @anila, $.I. 1si se ordena. Iloilo, Iloilo, @ar/o % , (,"+ @. <;A#ON 61@$ Jue/

1s a )itness, the defendant*s counsel, 1tty. 1melia del 9osario, testified that the aforeFuoted records of the probate court of Iloilo )ere discovered by her among the records of the cadastral court in Negros Occidental. >ue to the destruction of the court and property record of Iloilo as a result of the last )ar, as attested by the Cler4 of Court, no )ill or probate order )as produce and neither )ere attested copies registered )ith the Office of the 9egister of >eeds of Negros Occidental leave little room for doubt that >oBa #oledad .on/aga died leaving a )ill instituting her nephe) the appellee 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, as her sole testamentary heir, in default forced heirs3 that said )ill )as duly probated in (," or (,"+ by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in its #pecial $roceedings No. %(+"3 that the net residue of the estate )as ad7udicated by the court of said appellee, sub7ect to a claim of Consolacion .. de 6ope/ for $(,!!!.!! (:5h. %'3 and that, thereafter, upon s)orn petition of appellee, through his counsel, Francisco #. =ortillas, the Court First Instance of Iloilo (:5hibit %%' and Occidental Negros (:5hibit "' ordered the respective $rovincial 9egisters of >eeds to cancel the Certificates of &itle standing then in the name of the deceased #oledad .on/aga and lieu thereof to issue ne) certificates in the name of apellee 6uis .on/aga y Jesena, as admittedly )as done. In the course of the years prior to the institution of this case in (, -, appellee held the properties and dealt )ith them as sole o)ner, leasing, encumbering, and selling some them. ?e can not fail to be impressed by the statement of attorney Francisco =ortillas, averring under )ith in clear and unmista4able terms, not only once, but t)ice before the Courts of First Instance of Iloilo and Negros (:5hibits ( and ,', that the deceased >oBa #oledad, in her probated )ill, made 6uis .on/aga y Jesena the sole heir to her properties. &hese manifestations are nigh conclusive, for the reason that attorney =ortillas )as himself married to @onserrat .on/aga, a sister of #oledad, )ho )ould have been one of the latter*s heirs intestate had it not been for the testament in favor of the appellee. It ta5es credulity beyond all reason to imply (as appellants do' that attorney =ortillas, violating family ties and affection, conspired )ith appellee to deprive his o)n )ife and children (no) some of the present appellants' of the la)ful share by intestacy in the properties left by >oBa #oledad if it )ere untrue that the latter had duly and properly beFueathed all her estate to appellee 6uis .on/aga. &he authenticity of the s)orn petitions of the late attorney =ortillas (:5hibits a and (' are not impugned, and they )ere actually acted upon and granted by the t)o courts of first instance to )hich he addressed his petitions. Coupled )ith his undoubted possession as o)ner and )ith his o)n dominical acts e5ercised over the former properties of >oBa #oledad .on/aga for t)entyt)o years ((,"+-(, -', the e5hibits aforementioned constitute practically conclusive proof of the truth of appellee*s defenses, as found by the court belo), despite the destruction of the original )ill and decree of probate.

$laintiffs-appellants, ho)ever, assail the trial court is admission of the said court records on the ground that defendant-appellee failed to lay proper basis, or predicate, for their admission. .ranting that the original )ill )as destroyed )ith the court records in the last )ar, it is averred that appellee )as duty-bound to produce the copy that, according to appellee*s deposition, )as in the custody of :ncarnacion .on/aga, as )ell as that left )ith attorney =ortillas. &he argument is misleading. &here is no proof that copies of the )ill ever e5isted other than the one burned )hile in appellee*s possession (>ep. p. %"'. $age %2 of the appellee*s deposition is to the effect that I @y sister :ncarnacion had the custody of the )ill because she )as the one )ho )as at the beside of my sister (referring to the testatri5 >oBa #oledad'3 but by Gthe )illG )as obviously meant the one signed by the testatri5 and the )itnesses, not a copy. #imilarly, the )itness )as as4ed, ?hen you filed this petition through your la)yer for the probate of the )ill, am I correct that you also presented a copy of the )illJ3 to )hich Fuestion the )itness ans)ered, &he original )as the one submitted. From this ans)er, it certainly can not be inferred that 1ttorney =ortillas 4ept a copy of the original submitted to the court. Neither do )e see that appellee )as bound to call, or, account, for the )itnesses to the testament. =e )as not trying to sho) that the )ill complied )ith the statutory reFuirements, but that the )ill had been admitted to probate and of course, the probate decree conclusively established the due e5ecution. 1ppellants contend that if it )ere true that the )ill constituted 6uis .on/aga as sole heir, he had no need to as4 the court for an order of ad7udication. &here is no merit to this contention. &he order of ad7udication is the 7udicial recognition that in appointing 6uis as her only heir the testatri5 did not contravene the la), and that the heir )as in no )ay disFualified to inherit3 7ust as a final order admitting a )ill to probate concludes all and sundry from thereafter contending that statutory formal reFuirements have not been observed in e5ecuting the testament. Instead of contradicting the testamentary institution of heir, the order of ad7udication confirms it in this case. It may )ell be noted, in passing, that the order of February -, (,"+ (:5hibit ( or <' spea4s of approval of a Gpro7ect of partitionG, )hile the petition of January %,, (,"+ referred to therein spo4e of an order of ad7udication to a single heir. #ince the order made evident reference to the petition of January %,, )e agree )ith the court belo) that the difference in

terminology )as an inadvertent mista4e. 1ny)ay, appellants do not claim under the )ill or the partition3 their theory is that >oBa #oledad .on/aga died intestate. &he failure of the defendant, 6uis .on/aga, to file )ith the 9egister of >eeds a certified copy of his letters of administration and the )ill, as provided in #ection ,! of 1ct 2,+, and to record the attested copies of the )ill and of the allo)ance thereof by the court under #ection +%2 of 1ct (,!, does not negate the validity of the 7udgment or decree of probate nor the rights of the devisee under the )ill. #ection ,! of 1ct 2,+ refers to the dealings )ith registered lands by an e5ecutor or administrator3 and )hile 6uis .on/aga )as an administrator, this is beside the point, because his dealings )ith the lands, if any, during his tenure as an administrator are not here in Fuestion. &hat the defendant sought 7udicial orders to effect the transfers to his name of the certificates of title after the )ill )as probated, and succeeded in having them so transferred, are not GdealingsG )ith the property as administrator under section ,! of the 9egistration 1ct. &he defendant sought and obtained the change in title in his o)n behalf and capacity. 1lthough the step ta4en is not e5actly )hat #ection +%2 of 1ct (,! directs, the same purpose )as achieved I that of notice to all strangers of the cause and nature of the transfers3 and it does not appear that anyone )as pre7udiced by the defect in registration complained of. 1t any rate, the recording of the 7udicial orders sufficed as notice to interested parties, and )as substantial compliance )ith the reFuired recording of the )ill itself. No one faced by the recorded documents could ignore the reference therein to the probated testament3 and the rule is that 4no)ledge of )hat might have been revealed by proper inFuiry is imputable to the inFuirer (cf. :mas vs. >e Du/uarregui, " $hil. (,C, %!2'. 1s to the fact that 6uis .on/aga paid the inheritance ta5es, since by la), no delivery of properties can be made importance. It is usual for an 1dministrator to pay these ta5es, since by la), no delivery of properties can be made to the heirs until and unless the inheritance ta5es are paid KInternal 9evenue Code, section , (c'L. &he contention that defendant-appellee, having been appointed 1dministrator, must be deemed a trustee up to the present is infantile. In the first place, no administration could continue to e5ist after the order of February -, (,"+ had approved the final account, ad7udicate the property to the only heir, cancelled the bond of the administrator, and ordered the case Garchi#ado el mismo por terminadoG. No proof e5ists that the proceedings )ere reopened. #econdly, the transfer of the certificates title to 6uis .on/aga*s o)n name in (,"+ )ould constitute an open and clear repudiation of any trust, and the lapse of more than t)enty years* open and adverse possession as o)ner )ould certainly suffice to vest title by prescription in the appellee, since appellants, )ho 4ne) of the death of >oBa #oledad in (," , never made any move to reFuire 6uis to reconvey the property, or any part thereof. &he e5planation that >oBa #oledad .on/aga had

e5press the )ish that all the income should go to 6uis )hile conducted e5perimental studies on coconut products )holly unconvincing as an e5cuse for the laches3 his right to the income could not have bloc4ed a partition of capital assets among appellants, if they had been at entitled to them. &hat some of the plaintiffs )ere denied their day in court is incredible, since all the plaintiffs )ere represented by counsel 0icente >elfin, )ho claimed, and is presumed, to have been authori/ed to appear in their behalf, and did appear for them from the inception of the case after the lo)er court*s decision )as rendered. &he authority of said counsel )as never Fuestioned until the verse decision )as rendered by the court belo)3 and complainant*s failure to appear by themselves, or by counsel, prior to the 7udgment is mute but eloFuent proof that their allegation that >elfin )as not their attorney but a last minute attempt to escape the adverse effect the appealed decision, a maneuver that deserves no consideration. Coming to the defendants* appeal8 It is grounded the disallo)ance of attorney*s fees, e5pense, and moral damages. &he lo)er court granted only $(,!!!.!! for attorney*s fees, but the defendants urge that the amount should be $2(,!!!.!!, based on an agreement of $(,!!!.!! $lus (!M of the value of the properties if the case is decided in their favor. &he other e5penses refer to transportation, board and lodging, stenographic notes, photostatic copies of e5hibits, securing documents, and ta4ing of deposition in the sum of $(,%! .!!. @oral damages as4ed is $(!!,!!!.!!. &he a)ard of attorney*s fees against the adverse party is essentially discretionary )ith the trial court (Francisco vs. .#I#, 6-(-%-C, "! @arch (,+"', and, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, the same should not be disturbed. &he other e5penses, unless recoverable as 7udicial costs, cannot be allo)ed because the complaint, although unmeritorious, is not clearly unfounded3 moral damages, li4e)ise, are not allo)able because the suit is not a malicious prosecution under No. - of 1rticle %%(, of the Civil Code. &he issue is one primarily addressed to the discretion of the court belo), )hich )e are not inclined to disturb. FO9 &=: FO9:.OIN. 9:1#ON#, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, )ith costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. $en%zon& '.(.& )adilla& $autista An%elo& La*rador& 'oncepcion& $arrera& )aredes& +izon& Re%ala and ,akalintal& ((.& concur.