G.R. No.
76792 March 12, 1990 Agustin and Josefa Manrique; [b] another document dated February
RESURRECCION BARTOLOME, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (now Court of
Appeals) and HEIRS OF SPOUSES BERNABE BARTOLOME
and URSULA CID, respondents.
Synopsis:
Lot 11165 is a vast tract of land owned by different
individuals. Records show that 725 square meter portion of it was
owned by Epitsacio Batara and his wife, Maria Gonzales. Before he
left to settle in Isabela, Epitacio entrusted the lot to his cousin Doroteo
Bartolome. When spouses Epitacio and Maria died, their grandchildren
constructed a bamboo fence over the land own by the spouses.
On 1933, the Director of Lands instituted a cadastral
proceeding, respondent Cid filed an answer claiming ownership over
Lot No. 11165 with an area of 1660 square meters. The land was
allegedly acquired by Ursula Cid through inheritance from Doroteo
Bartolome, the father of Ursula's deceased husband, Bernabe. Her
sister-in-law, Maria Bartolome filed a motion to intervene alleging that
she is a co-owner of the property and she was excluded in Cids
petition. Thereafter, Cid filed a motion to amend petition, alleging that
the lands were acquire not through inheritance, but by purchase.
Exhibit 4 was presented which is a document of sale between Maria
Gonzales (petitioners grandmother) and Ursula Cid of the portion of
land in dispute. RTC ruled that petitioner Resureccion et. al were the
owners of the 772 square meter portion, the remaining are owned by
the heirs of Doroteo Bartolome. But the CA ruled that the entire Lot
No. 11165 was owned by the respondent relying on the Exhibit 4
because it is an ancient document.
Issue: WON Exhibit 4 is an ancient document, thus no other
evidence of its execution and authenticity need to be given.
The Supreme Court ruled in negative because the third
requirement of no alteration was not present. Based on the
testimony of Dominador, son of Ursula, it was originally a 4 pages
document But because of the Japanese occupation, the 4th pages was
lost. Supposedly, that page contains the signature of Maria Gonzales.
According to the Court, the missing page had affected the documents
authenticity, it contains vital proof of the voluntary transmission of
rights over the subject of the sale. Without that signature, the
document is incomplete. Verily, an incomplete document is akin to if
not worse than a document with altered contents.
Facts:
The record shows that a 725-square meter portion of said
Lot No. 11165 first declared as his property by Epitacio Batara under
tax declaration No. 5708 dated May 23, 1906.
Epitacio Batara and his wife, Maria Gonzales, had two
children: Catalina and Pedro. The latter died a bachelor and without
issue. Catalina, who married someone surnamed Bartolome, bore five
children named Isabela, Tarcila, Calixto, Resurreccion and Ruperta. In
1912, before he left Laoag to settle in Culalabo, Gamo (Burgos),
Isabela, Epitacio entrusted the lot to his cousin, Doroteo Bartolome,
who owned the lot bounding Epitacio's property on the south.
On October 23, 1933, Ursula Cid, the widow of the son of
Doroteo Bartolome, Bernabe, who died in 1928, filed an answer in
Cadastral Case No. 53, claiming ownership over Lot No. 11165 with
an area of 1660 square meters. The land was allegedly acquired by
Ursula Cid through inheritance from Doroteo Bartolome, the father of
Ursula's deceased husband, Bernabe.
In 1969, Maria J. Bartolome filed in Cadastral Case No. 53
a "motion to admit answer in intervention," alleging that she is one of
the children of Doroteo Bartolome and that she and her co-heirs had
been excluded in Ursula Cid's answer to the petition.
No hearing was conducted in the case until 1974. To
buttress her claim that she and her husband purchased Lot No. 11165,
Ursula Cid presented at the trial three deeds of sale: [a] one dated
March 1, 1917 showing that Bernabe Bartolome and Ursula Cid bought
a 374-square meter lot for fifteen pesos from the spouses Domingo
18, 1913 executed by Ignacia Manrique in favor of Bernabe Bartolome
evidencing the sale of another lot also for fifteen pesos; 24 and [c] still
another deed executed by Maria Gonzales y Paguyo on February 9,
1917 in favor of Bernabe Bartolome and Ursula Cid ceding to the latter
772 square meters of land for P103.75. The last-mentioned piece of
land is the one being claimed by Resurreccion Bartolome.
The Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte rendered a decision
adjudicating the eastern portion to the heirs of the late Epitacio Batara
(Resurreccion) and the remaining portion to the heirs of Doroteo
Bartolome (Ursula).
On Appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court rendered a
decision "adjudicating the whole Lot No. 11165 in favor of" Bernabe
Bartolome and Ursula Cid, thereby reversing the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte, Branch XII at Laoag City. The
decision was based on the findings of the court that the document
(Exhibit 4) presented by the respondent is an ancient document.
Issue:
WON the deed of sale presented (Exhibit 4) is an ancient
document, thus no other evidence of its execution and authenticity
need to be given.
Held:
No. The Exhibit 4 was not an ancient document. Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 22. Evidence of execution not necessary. Where a
private writing is more than thirty years old, is produced from
a custody in which it would naturally be found if genuine, and
is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of
suspicion, no other evidence of its execution and authenticity
need be given.
The Supreme Court ruled that the first two elements are
present. But the Court of Appeals failed to consider and discuss the
third requirement; that no alterations or circumstances of suspicion
are present.
According to Dominador Bartolome, he first saw Exhibit 4 in
the possession of his mother, Ursula Cid, when he was just eleven
years old. He noticed that the document had a fourth page containing
the signature of Maria Gonzales and that all four pages were sewn
together. He stated that his mother told him that the fourth page was
lost during the Japanese occupation while they were evacuating from
Davao City.
We hold, however, that the missing page has nonetheless
affected its authenticity. Indeed, its importance cannot be
overemphasized. It allegedly bears the signature of the vendor of the
portion of Lot No. 11165 in question and therefore, it contains vital
proof of the voluntary transmission of rights over the subject of the
sale. Without that signature, the document is incomplete. Verily, an
incomplete document is akin to if not worse than a document with
altered contents.
Moreover, Ursula only claimed purchase as a mode of
acquisition of Lot No. 11165 after her sister-in-law, Maria J. Bartolome
and the other descendants of Doroteo Bartolome sought intervention
in the case and demanded their rightful shares over the property. All
these negate the appellate court's conclusion that Exhibit 4 is an
ancient document.