7/29/2016

TaedovsCA:104482:January22,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision

[Synopsis/Syllabi]

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.104482.January22,1996]

BELINDATAREDO,forherselfandinrepresentationofherbrothersandsisters,
and TEOFILA CORPUZ TANEDO, representing her minor daughter VERNA
TANEDO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO
M.TAREDOANDTERESITABARERATAREDO,respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

Is a sale of future inheritance valid? In multiple sales of the same real property, who has
preference in ownership? What is the probative value of the lower courts finding of good faith in
registration of such sales in the registry of property? These are the main questions raised in this
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside and reverse the
Decision1oftheCourtofAppeals2inCAG.R.CVNO.24987promulgatedonSeptember26,1991
affirmingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch63,ThirdJudicialRegion,Tarlac,Tarlacin
Civil Case No. 6328, and its Resolution denying reconsideration thereof, promulgated on May 27,
1992.
By the Courts Resolution on October 25, 1995, this case (along with several others) was
transferredfromtheFirsttotheThirdDivisionandafterduedeliberation,theCourtassignedittothe
undersignedponenleforthewritingofthisDecision.
TheFacts
OnOctober20,1962,LazardoTaedoexecutedanotarizeddeedofabsolutesaleinfavorofhis
eldest brother, Ricardo Taedo, and the latters wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents herein,
whereby he conveyed to the latter in consideration of P1,500.00, one hectare of whatever share I
shallhaveoverLotNo.191ofthecadastralsurveyofGerona,ProvinceofTarlacandcoveredbyTitle
Tl3829 of the Register of Deeds of Tarlac, the said property being his future inheritance from his
parents (Exh. 1). Upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro executed an Affidavit of Conformity
datedFebruary28,1980(Exh.3)toreaffirm,respect.acknowledgeandvalidatethesaleImadein
1962. On January 13, 1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of private
respondents covering his undivided ONETWELVE (1/12) of a parcel of land known as Lot 191 x x
(Exh.4).HeacknowledgedthereinhisreceiptofP10,000.00asconsiderationtherefor.InFebruary
1981,RicardolearnedthatLazarosoldthesamepropertytohischildren,petitionersherein,througha
deedofsaledatedDecember29,1980(Exh.E).OnJune7,1982,privaterespondentsrecordedthe
DeedofSale(Exh.4)intheirfavorintheRegistryofDeedsandthecorrespondingentrywasmadein
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.166451(Exh.5).
PetitionersonJuly16,1982filedacomplaintforrescission(plusdamages)ofthedeedsofsale
executedbyLazaroinfavorofprivaterespondentscoveringthepropertyinheritedbyLazarofromhis
father.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/104482.htm

1/5

7/29/2016

TaedovsCA:104482:January22,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision

Petitionersclaimedthattheirfather,Lazaro,executedanAbsoluteDeedofSaledatedDecember
29, 1980 (Exit. E), conveying to his ten children his allotted portion under the extrajudicial partition
executedbytheheirsofMatias,whichdeedincludedthelandinlitigation(Lot191).
Petitioners also presented in evidence: (1) a private writing purportedly prepared and signed by
Matias dated December 28, 1978, stating that it was his desire that whatever inheritance Lazaro
wouldreceivefromhimshouldbegiventohis(Lazaros)children(Exh.A)(2)atypewrittendocument
datedMarch10,1979signedbyLazarointhepresenceoftwowitnesses,whereinheconfirmedthat
hewouldvoluntarilyabidebythewishesofhisfather,Matias,togivetohis(Lazaros)childrenallthe
propertyhewouldinheritfromthelatter(Exh.B)and(3)aletterdatedJanuary1,1980ofLazaroto
hisdaughter,Carmela,statingthathisshareintheextrajudicialsettlementoftheestateofhisfather
wasintendedforhischildren,petitionersherein(Exh.C).
Private respondents, however presented in evidence a Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale
datedMarch12,1981(Exh.6),whereinLazarorevokedthesaleinfavorofpetitionersforthereason
thatitwassimulatedorfictitiouswithoutanyconsiderationwhatsoever.
Shortlyafterthecaseaquowasfiled,Lazaroexecutedaswornstatement(Exh.G)whichvirtually
repudiatedthecontentsoftheDeedofRevocationofaDeedofSale(Exh.6)andtheDeedofSale
(Exh. 4) in favor of private respondents. However, Lazaro testified that he sold the property to
Ricardo,andthatitwasalawyerwhoinducedhimtoexecuteadeedofsaleinfavorofhischildren
aftergivinghimfivepesos(P5.00)tobuyadrink(TSNSeptember18,1985,pp.204205).
Thetrialcourtdecidedinfavorofprivaterespondents,holdingthatpetitionersfailedtoadducea
preponderance of evidence to support (their) claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decisionofthetrialcourt,rulingthattheDeedofSaledatedJanuary13,1981(Exh.9)wasvalidand
thatitsregistrationingoodfaithvestedtitleinsaidrespondents.
TheIssues
PetitionersraisedthefollowingerrorsintherespondentCourt,whichtheyalsonowallegeinthe
instantPetition:
I.ThetrialcourterredinconcludingthattheContractofSaleofOctober20,1962(Exhibit7,Answer)ismerely
voidableorannulableandnotvoidabinitiopursuanttoparagraph2ofArticle1347oftheNewCivilCode
involvingasitdoesafutureinheritance.
II.Thetrialcourterredinholdingthatdefendantsappelleesactedingoodfaithinregisteringthedeedofsaleof
January13,1981(Exhibit9)withtheRegisterofDeedsofTarlacandthereforeownershipofthelandin
questionpassedontodefendantsappellees.
III.Thetrialcourterredinignoringandfailingtoconsiderthetestimonialanddocumentaryevidenceof
plaintiffsappellantswhichclearlyestablishedbypreponderanceofevidencethattheyareindeedthelegitimate
andlawfulownersofthepropertyinquestion.
IV.Thedecisioniscontrarytolawandthefactsofthecaseandtheconclusionsdrawnfromtheestablishedfacts
areillogicalandofftangent.
Fromtheforegoing,theissuesmayberestatedasfollows:
1.Isthesaleofafutureinheritancevalid?
2.WasthesubsequentexecutiononJanuary13,1981(andregistrationwiththeRegistryofProperty)of
adeedofsalecoveringthesamepropertytothesamebuyersvalid?
3.MaythisCourtreviewthefindingsoftherespondentCourt(a)holdingthatthebuyersactedingood
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/104482.htm

2/5

7/29/2016

TaedovsCA:104482:January22,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision

faithinregisteringthesaidsubsequentdeedofsaleand(b)infailingtoconsiderpetitionersevidence?
AretheconclusionsoftherespondentCourtillogicalandofftangent?

TheCourtsRuling
Attheoutset,letitbeclearthattheerrorswhicharereviewablebythisCourtinthispetitionfor
reviewoncertiorariareonlythoseallegedlycommittedbytherespondentCourtofAppealsandnot
directly those of the trial court, which is not a party here. The assignment of errors in the petition
quoted above are therefore totally misplaced, and for that reason, the petition should be dismissed.
Butinordertogivethepartiessubstantialjusticewehavedecidedtodelveintotheissuesasabove
restated.Theerrorsattributedbypetitionerstothelatter(trial)courtwillbediscussedonlyinsofaras
theyarerelevanttotheappellatecourtsassailedDecisionandResolution.
The sale made in 1962 involving future inheritance is not really at issue here. In context, the
assailed Decision conceded it may be legally correct that a contract of sale of anticipated future
inheritanceisnullandvoid.3
But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil
Code, (n)o contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly
authorizedbylaw.
Consequently,saidcontractmadein1962isnotvalidandcannotbethesourceofanyrightnor
thecreatorofanyobligationbetweentheparties.
Hence,theaffidavitofconformitydatedFebruary28,1980,insofarasitsoughttovalidateorratify
the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of the respondent Court, suffers from the same
infirmity.Evenprivaterespondentsintheirmemorandum4concedethis.
However,thedocumentsthatarecriticaltotheresolutionofthiscaseare:(a)thedeedofsaleof
January 13, 1981 in favor of private respondents covering Lazaros undivided inheritance of one
twelfth(1/12)shareinLotNo.191,whichwassubsequentlyregisteredonJune7,1982and(b)the
deedofsaledatedDecember29,1980infavorofpetitionerscoveringthesameproperty.Thesetwo
documentswereexecutedafterthedeathofMatias(andhisspouse)andafteradeedofextrajudicial
settlementofhis(Matias)estatewasexecuted,thusvestinginLazaroactualtitleoversaidproperty.
Inotherwords,thesedispositions,thoughconflicting,werenolongerinfectedwiththeinfirmitiesofthe
1962sale.
PetitionerscontendthatwhatwassoldonJanuary13,1981wasonlyonehalfhectareoutofLot
No.191,citingasauthoritythetrialcourtsdecision.Asearlierpointedout,whatisonreviewinthese
proceedings by this Court is the Court of Appeals decision which correctly identified the subject
matteroftheJanuary13,1981saletobetheentireundivided1/12shareofLazaroinLotNo.191and
whichisthesamepropertydisposedofonDecember29,1980infavorofpetitioners.
Criticalindeterminingwhichofthesetwodeedsshouldbegiveneffectistheregistrationofthe
saleinfavorofprivaterespondentswiththeregisterofdeedsonJune7,1982.
Article1544oftheCivilCodegovernsthepreferentialrightsofvendeesincasesofmultiplesales,
asfollows:
Art.1544.Ifthesamethingshouldhavebeensoldtodifferentvendees,theownershipshallbetransferredtothe
personwhomayhavefirsttakenpossessionthereofingoodfaith,ifitshouldbemovableproperty.
Shoulditbeimmovableproperty,theownershipshallbelongtothepersonacquiringitwhoingoodfaithfirst
recordeditintheRegistryofProperty.
Shouldtherebenoinscription,theownershipshallpertaintothepersonwhoingoodfaithwasfirstinthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/104482.htm

3/5

7/29/2016

TaedovsCA:104482:January22,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision

possessionand,intheabsencethereof,tothepersonwhopresentstheoldesttitle,providedthereisgoodfaith.
The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the abovequoted law, ownership
shallbelongtothebuyerwhoingoodfaithregistersitfirstintheregistryofproperty.Thus,although
the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners,
ownershipwouldvestintheformerbecauseoftheundisputedfactofregistration.Ontheotherhand,
petitionershavenotregisteredthesaletothematall.
Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that private respondents
never took possession thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his
favorhasapreferredrightovertheotherwhohasnotregisteredhistitle,evenifthelatterisinactual
possessionoftheimmovableproperty.5
Astothirdissue,whilepetitionersconcededthefactofregistration,theyneverthelesscontended
thatitwasdoneinbadfaith.Onthisissue,therespondentCourtruled:
Underthesecondassignmentoferror,plaintiffsappellantscontendthatdefendantsappelleesactedinbadfaith
whentheyregisteredtheDeedofSaleintheirfavorasappelleeRicardoalreadyknewoftheexecutionofthe
deedofsaleinfavoroftheplaintiffsappellantscitethetestimonyofplaintiffBelindaTafledototheeffectthat
defendantRicardoTaedocalledheruponJanuary4or5,1981totellherthathewasalreadytheownerofthe
landinquestionbutthecontractofsalebetweenourfatheranduswere(sic)alreadyconsumated(pp.910,tsn,
January6,1984).Thistestimonyisobviouslyselfserving,andbecauseitwasatelephoneconversation,the
deedofsaledatedDecember29,1980wasnotshownBelindamerelytoldherunclethattherewasalreadya
documentshowingthatplaintiffsaretheowners(p.80).RicardoTaedocontrovertedthisandtestifiedthathe
learnedforthefirsttimeofthedeedofsaleexecutedbyLazaroinfavorofhischildrenaboutamonthor
sometimeinFebruary1981(p.111,tsn,Nov.28,1984).xxx6
TherespondentCourt,reviewingthetrialcourtsfindings,refusedtooverturnthelattersassessmentof
thetestimonialevidence,asfollows:
WearenotpreparedtosetasidethefindingofthelowercourtupholdingRicardoTanedostestimony,asit
involvesamatterofcredibilityofwitnesseswhichthetrialjudge,whopresidedatthehearing,wasinabetter
positiontoresolve.(CourtofAppealsDecision,p.6.)
In this connection, we note the tenacious allegations made by petitioners, both in their basic
petitionandintheirmemorandum,asfollows:
1.TherespondentCourtallegedlyignoredtheclaimedfactthatrespondentRicardobyfraudanddeceit
and with foreknowledge that the property in question had already been sold to petitioners, made
LazaroexecutethedeedofJanuary13,1981
2.Thereisallegedlyadequateevidencetoshowthatonly1/2ofthepurchasepriceofP10,000.00was
paid at the time of the execution of the deed of sale, contrary to the written acknowledgment, thus
showingbadfaith
3. There is allegedly sufficient evidence showing that the deed of revocation of the sale in favor of
petitionerswastaintedwithfraudordeceit.
4.Thereisallegedlyenoughevidencetoshowthatprivaterespondentstookundueadvantageoverthe
weakness and unschooled and pitiful situation of Lazaro Tafledo . . . and that respondent Ricardo
Taedo exercised moral ascendancy over his younger brother he being the eldest brother and who
reached fourth year college of law and at one time a former ViceGovernor of Tarlac, while his
youngerbrotheronlyattainedfirstyearhighschoolxxx
5.TherespondentCourterredinnotgivingcredencetopetitionersevidence,especiallyLazaroTaedos
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 27, 1982 stating that Ricardo Taedo deceived the former in
executingthedeedofsaleinfavorofprivaterespondents.

Tobesure,thereareindeedmanyconflictingdocumentsandtestimoniesaswellasarguments
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/104482.htm

4/5

7/29/2016

TaedovsCA:104482:January22,1996:JPanganiban:ThirdDivision

overtheirprobativevalueandsignificance.Sufficeittosay,however,thatalltheabovecontentions
involvequestionsoffact,appreciationofevidenceandcredibilityofwitnesses,whicharenotproperin
thisreview.ItiswellsettledthattheSupremeCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Inpetitionsforreviewunder
Rule45oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,onlyquestionsoflawmayberaisedandpassedupon.Absent
anywhimsicalorcapriciousexerciseofjudgment,andunlessthelackofanybasisfortheconclusions
madebythelowercourtsbeamplydemonstrated,theSupremeCourtwillnotdisturbtheirfindings.At
most,itappearsthatpetitionershaveshownthattheirevidencewasnotbelievedbyboththetrialand
theappellatecourts,andthatthesaidcourtstendedtogivemorecredencetotheevidencepresented
byprivaterespondents.Butthisinitselfisnotareasonforsettingasidesuchfindings.Wearefarfrom
convincedthatbothcourtsgravelyabusedtheirrespectiveauthoritiesandjudicialprerogatives.
AsheldintherecentcaseofChuaTiongTayvs.CourtofAppealsandGoidrockConstructionand
DevelopmentCorp.:7
TheCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt,aswellastheCourtofAppeals,are
finalandconclusiveandmaynotbereviewedonappeal.Amongtheexceptionalcircumstanceswherea
reassessmentoffactsfoundbythelowercourtsisallowedarewhentheconclusionisafindinggrounded
entirelyonspeculation,surmisesorconjectureswhentheinferencemadeismanifestlyabsurd,mistakenor
Impossiblewhenthereisgraveabuseofdiscretionintheappreciationoffactswhenthejudgmentispremised
onamisapprehensionoffactswhenthefindingswentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesamearecontrary
totheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee.Afteracarefulstudyofthecaseatbench,wefindnoneofthe
abovegroundspresenttojustifythereevaluationofthefindingsoffactmadebythecourtsbelow.
Inthesamevein,therulingintherecentcaseofSouthSeaSuretyandInsuranceCompany,Inc.
[8]
vs.Hon.CourtofAppeals,etal. isequallyapplicabletothepresentcase:
Weseenovalidreasontodiscardthefactualconclusionsoftheappellatecourt.xxx(I)tisnotthefunctionof
thisCourttoassessandevaluatealloveragaintheevidence,testimonialanddocumentary,adducedbythe
parties,particularlywhere,suchashere,thefindingsofboththetrialcourtandtheappellatecourtonthematter
coincide.(italicssupplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.NoCosts.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.(Chairman),Davide,Jr.,Melo,andFrancisco,JJ.,concur.
1RoIlo,pp.5864.
2ThirteenthDivision,composedofi.MinervaP.GonzagaReyes,ponenle,andJJ.,ArturoB.Buena,ChairmanandQuirino
D.AbadSantos,Jr.,member.
3CADecision,p.5rollo,p.62.
4Atpp.1112rollo,pp.145146.
5Nuguidvs.CourtofAppeols,171SCRA213(March13,1989).
6CourtofAppealsDecision,p.6rollo,p.63.
7GR.No.112130,March31,1995J.FleridaRuthP.Romero,ponente.
[8]
G.R.No.102253,June2,1995J.JoseC.Vitug,ponente.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/104482.htm

5/5