Cenido V Apacionado

3/31/2016
CenidovsApacionado:132474:November19,1999:J.Puno:FirstDivision
FIRSTDIVISION
[G.R.No.132474.November19,1999]
RENATO CENIDO (deceased), represented byVICTORIA CENIDOSA, petitioner,

vs. SPOUSES AMADEO APACIONADO and HERMINIA STA. ANA,
respondents.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:
Inthispetitionforreview,petitionerRenatoCenidoseekstoreverseandsetasidethedecisionofthe
CourtofAppeals[1]inCAG.R.CVNo.41011whichdeclaredtheprivaterespondentsastheownersofa
houseandlotinBinangonan,Rizal.[2]
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
On May 22, 1989, respondent spousesAmadeoApacionado and Herminia Sta.Ana filed with the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch70,RizalacomplaintagainstpetitionerRenatoCenidoforDeclarationof
Ownership, Nullity, with Damages.[3]The spouses alleged that:(1) they are the owners of a parcel of
unregistered land, 123 square meters in area and located at Rizal Street, Barrio Layunan, Binangonan,
Rizal,moreparticularlydescribedasfollows:
xxxthatcertainparceloflandlocatedatRizal,St.,Layunan,Binangonan,Rizal,withanareaof123
squaremeters,moreorless,boundedontheNorthbyGavinoAparatoontheEastbyRizalSt.,onthe
SouthbyTranquilinoManuzonandontheWestbySimplicioAparato,andtheresidentialhouse
standingthereon.[4]
(2)thishouseandlotwerepurchasedbythespousesfromitspreviousowner,BonifacioAparato,now
deceased,wholivedunderthespouses'careandprotectionforsometwentyyearspriortohisdeath(3)
while he was alive, Bonifacio Aparato mortgaged the said property twice, one to the Rural Bank of
BinangonanandtheothertoLindaC.Ynares,assecurityforloansobtainedbyhim(4)theloanswere
paidoffbythespousestherebysecuringthereleaseandcancellationofsaidmortgages(5)thespouses
alsopaidandcontinuetopaytherealestatetaxesontheproperty(6)fromthetimeofsale,theyhave
beeninopen,public,continuousanduninterruptedpossessionofthepropertyintheconceptofowners
(7)thatonJanuary7,1987,petitionerRenatoCenido,claimingtobetheownerofthesubjecthouseand
lot,filedacomplaintforejectmentagainstthemwiththeMunicipalTrialCourt,Branch2,Binangonan,
Rizal(8)throughfraudulentandunauthorizedmeans,Cenidowasabletocausetheissuanceinhisname
ofTaxDeclarationNo.020368overthesubjectproperty,whichfactthespouseslearnedonlyuponthe
filingoftheejectmentcase(9)althoughtheejectmentcasewasdismissedbytheMunicipalTrialCourt
(MTC), Branch 2, the tax declaration in Cenido's name was not cancelled and still subsisted (10) the
spouses have referred the matter to the barangay for conciliation but Cenido unjustifiably refused to
appearthereat.Thespousesthusprayedthat:
WHEREFORE,itisrespectfullyprayedoftheHonorableCourtthatjudgmentissueinthecase:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/132474.htm
1/12
3/31/2016
1.Declaringthem(plaintiffs)thetrueandabsoluteownersofthehouseandlotnowcoveredbyTax
DeclarationNo.020368
2.DeclaringTaxDeclarationNo.020368inthenameofdefendantRenatoCenidoasnullandvoidand
directingtheProvincialAssessorofRizalandtheMunicipalAssessorofBinangonan,Rizaltoregister
andtodeclarethehouseandlotcoveredbythesameintheirnames(plaintiffs)forpurposesoftaxation
3.OrderingdefendanttopaythemintheleastamountofP50,000.00asandformoraldamagessuffered
4.OrderingdefendanttopaythemtheamountofP10,000.00asandforattorney'sfees
5.OrderingpaymentbydefendantofexemplarydamagesinsuchamountwhichtheHonorableCourt
maydeemjustandequitableinthepremises
6.Orderingdefendanttopaythecostsofsuitand
PlaintiffsprayforsuchotherandfurtherreliefwhichtheHonorableCourtmaydeemjustandequitable
consideringtheforegoingpremises.[5]
Petitioner Cenido answered claiming that: (1) he is the illegitimate son of BonifacioAparato, the
deceasedownerofthesubjectproperty(2)asAparato'ssolesurvivingheir,hebecametheownerofthe
propertyasevidencedbythecancellationofTaxDeclarationNo.020274inBonifacio'snameandthe
issuanceofTaxDeclarationNo.020368inhisname(3)hisownershipoverthehouseandlotwasalso
confirmed in 1985 by the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan in Case No. 2264 which
adjudicatedvariousclaimsinvolvingthesamesubjectpropertywhereinplaintiffswereprivytothesaid
case (4) that in said case, the Apacionado spouses participated in the execution of the compromise
agreement partitioning the deceased's estate among his heirs, which agreement was adopted by the
Municipal Trial Court as its judgment (5) that the Apacionado spouses were allowed to stay in his
father'shousetemporarily(6)themortgagesonthepropertywereobtainedbyhisfatheruponrequestof
theApacionadoswhousedtheproceedsoftheloansexclusivelyforthemselves(7)therealestatetaxes
onthepropertywerepaidforbyhisfather,theprincipal,andthespousesweremerelyhisagents(8)the
instrumentattestingtotheallegedsaleofthehouseandlotbyBonifacioAparatotothespousesisnota
public document (8) petitioner Cenido was never summoned to appear before the barangay for
conciliationproceedings.[6]
Respondentspousesrepliedthat:(1)CenidoisnottheillegitimatesonofBonifacio,Cenido'sclaim
ofpaternitybeingspurious(2)theownershipofthepropertywasnotthepropersubjectinCivilCase
No.2264beforetheMTC,BranchI,norwerethespousespartiesinsaidcase.[7]
The parties went to trial. Respondent spouses presented four (4) witnesses, namely, respondent
Herminia Sta.AnaApacionado Rolando Nieves, the barangay captain NorbertoAparato, the son of
GavinoAparato,Bonifacio'sbrotherandCarlosInabayan,oneofthetwowitnessestothedeedofsale
betweenBonifacioAparatoandthespousesovertheproperty.PetitionerCenidopresentedonlyhimself
aswitness.
On March 30, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment. The court upheld petitioner Cenido's
ownership over the property by virtue of the recognition made by Bonifacio's then surviving brother,
Gavino,inthecompromisejudgmentoftheMTC.Concomitantly,thecourtalsodidnotsustainthedeed
ofsalebetweenBonifacioandthespousesbecauseitwasneithernotarizednorsignedbyBonifacioand
wasintrinsicallydefective.Thecourtorderedthus:
WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoingconsiderations,theCourtbelievesthatpreponderanceof
2/12
3/31/2016
evidenceisonthesideofdefendantandsothecomplaintcouldnotbegivenduecourse.Accordingly,the
caseis,asitshouldbe,dismissed.Noattorney'sfeesordamagesisbeingawardedasnoevidencetothis
effecthadbeengivenbydefendant.Withcostsagainstplaintiffs.
SOORDERED.[8]
RespondentspousesappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.InadecisiondatedSeptember30,1997,the
appellatecourtfoundtheappealmeritoriousandreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Itheldthatthe
recognitionofCenido'sfiliationbyGavino,Bonifacio'sbrother,didnotcomplywiththerequirementsof
theCivilCodeandtheFamilyCodethatthedeedbetweenBonifacioandrespondentspouseswasavalid
contractofsaleoverthepropertyandCenido'sfailuretoobjecttothepresentationofthedeedbeforethe
trial court was a waiver of the defense of the Statute of Frauds. The Court ofAppeals disposed of as
follows:
WHEREFORE,theappealedDecisionisherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.PlaintiffsAppellants
SpousesAmadeoApacionadoandHerminiaSta.Anaaredeclaredownersofthesubjecthouseandlot
nowcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNo.026368.[9]
Hence,thisrecourse.PetitionerCenidoallegesthat:
1.Theunsigned,unnotarizedandhighlydoubtfulprivatedocumentdesignatedasPagpapatunaywhichis
solelyrelieduponbytherespondentsinsupportoftheircaseisnotsufficienttovestownershipofand
transferthetitle,rightsandinterestoverthesubjectpropertytotherespondents.
xxx.
2.TheCourtofAppealsdepartedfromtheacceptedandusualcourseofjudicialproceedingsinthatit
ruledagainstthepetitionerinviewoftheallegedweaknessofhisdefenseratherthanevaluatethecase
basedonthestrengthoftherespondentsevidence,therebynecessitatingthisHonorableCourt'sexercise
ofitspowerofsupervision.[10]
Victoria Cenidosa, in representation of petitioner Cenido, has manifested, through counsel, that
petitionerdiedinSeptember1993thatonDecember18,1985,eightyearsbeforehisdeath,Cenidosold
thesubjecthouseandlottoMariaD.OjedaforthesumofP70,000.00thatMariaD.Ojedaisnowold
andsickly,andisthusbeingrepresentedintheinstantcasebyherdaughter,VictoriaO.Cenidosa.[11]
In the same vein, respondent Herminia Sta. Ana Apacionado also manifested that her husband,
AmadeoApacionado, died onAugust 11, 1989. Amadeo is now being represented by his compulsory
heirs.[12]
Beforerulingonpetitioner'sarguments,itisnecessarytoestablishcertainfactsessentialforaproper
adjudicationofthecase.
The records reveal that the late BonifacioAparato had two siblings a sister named Ursula and a
brother named Gavino.[13] Ursula died on March 1, 1979,[14] Bonifacio on January 3, 1982[15] and
Gavino,sometimeafterBonifacio'sdeath.BothUrsulaandBonifacionevermarriedanddiedleavingno
legitimateoffspring.Gavino'sson,Norberto,however,testifiedthattherewasafourthsibling,asister,
whomarriedbutalsodiedastowhenshediedorwhethersheleftanyheirs,Norbertodidnotknow.[16]
WhatisclearandundisputedisthatBonifaciowassurvivedbyGavinowhoalsoleftlegitimateheirs.
Both Bonifacio and Ursula lived in the subject property under the care and protection of the
Apacionados. Herminia Sta. Ana Apacionado started living with them in 1976. She took care of
3/12
3/31/2016
BonifacioandUrsula,whodiedthreeyearslater.HerminiamarriedAmadoApacionado,whosepaternal
grandmotherwasasisterofBonifacio.[17]AmadeomovedintoBonifacio'shouseandassistedHerminia
intakingcareoftheoldmanuntilhisdemise.
Shortly after Bonifacio's death, Civil Case No. 2264 was instituted by petitioner Cenido against
GavinoAparatobeforetheMunicipalTrialCourt,Branch1,Binangonan.Therecordsdonotrevealthe
nature of this action.[18] Nevertheless, three years after filing of the case, the parties entered into a
compromise agreement. The parties listed the properties of Bonifacio comprising two parcels of land:
one parcel was the residential house and lot in question and the other was registered agricultural land
withanareaof38,641squaremetersGavinoAparatoexpresslyrecognizedRenatoCenidoasthesole
illegitimate son of his brother, likewise, Cenido recognized Gavino as the brother of Bonifacio as
Bonifacio's heirs, they partitioned his estate among themselves, with the subject property and three
portions of the agricultural land as Cenido's share, and the remaining 15,309 square meters of the
agricultural land as Gavino's both parties agreed to share in the documentation, registration and other
expensesforthetransferoftheirshares.Thiscompromiseagreementwasadoptedasthedecisionofthe
MTConJanuary31,1985.[19]
In the same year, petitioner Cenido obtained in his name Tax Declaration No. 026368 over the
subjectproperty.Twoyearslater,inJanuary1987,hefiledanejectmentcaseagainstrespondentspouses
whocontinuedoccupyingthepropertyinquestion.Thiscasewasdismissed.
Respondent spouses claim of ownership over the subject property is anchored on a onepage
typewrittendocumententitledPagpapatunay,executedbyBonifacioAparato.ThePagpapatunayreadsas
follows:
PAGPAPATUNAY
DAPATMALAMANNGLAHAT:
AkongsiBONIFACIOAPARATO,binata,Pilipino,hustosagulang,atkasalukuyangnaninirahansa
Layunan,Binangonan,Rizal,aynagpapatunaynitongmgasumusunod:
Una:Na,akoangsiyangnagmamayaringisanglagaynalupangSOLARatBahayTirahanna
nakatiriksanabanggitnasolarnamakikitasalugarngRizalSt.,Layunan,Binangonan,Rizal
Ikalawa:Na,sapagkatangnagalagasaakinhanggangsaako'ytuluyangkuninngDakilangMaykapal
aywalangibakungdiangmagasawangAMADEOAPACIONADOatHERMINIASTA.ANA
APACIONADO
Ikatlo:Na,pinatutunayankosamgamaykapangyarihanatkanginumangtaonaangnabanggitna
SOLARatbahaytirahanayipinagbilikosanabanggitnamagasawasahalagangSAMPUNGLIBONG
(P10,000.00)PISO,bilangpakunsuwelosakanilangpagmamalasakitsaakingpagkataoatkalalagayan
Na,patunaynaitoayakingnilagdaanngmaliwanagangakingisipatnalalamankoanglahatng
nilalamannito.
SAKATUNAYANNGLAHAT,lumagdaakongakingpangalanatapelyidongayongika10ng
Disyembre1981,ditosaLayunan,Binangonan,Rizal.
(Thumbmarked)
BONIFACIOAPARATO
Nagpatunay
4/12
3/31/2016
NILAGDAANSAHARAPNINA:
(SGD.)(SGD.)
VirgilioO.CenidoCarlosInabayan
SaksiSaksi[20]
Onitsface,thedocumentPagpapatunayatteststothefactthatBonifacioAparatowastheownerof
thehouseandlotinLayunan,RizalthatbecausetheApacionadospousestookcareofhimuntilthetime
of his death, Bonifacio sold said property to them for the sum of P10,000.00 that he was signing the
samedocumentwithaclearmindandwithfullknowledgeofitscontentsandasproofthereof,hewas
affixing his signature on said document on the tenth day of December 1981 in Layunan, Binangonan,
Rizal.BonifacioaffixedhisthumbmarkonthespaceabovehisnameandthiswaswitnessedbyVirgilio
O.CenidoandCarlosInabayan.
PetitionerCenidodisputestheauthenticityandvalidityofthePagpapatunay.Heclaimsthatitisnot
a valid contract of sale and its genuineness is highly doubtful because:(1) it was not notarized and is
merely a private instrument (2) it was not signed by the vendor, Bonifacio (3) it was improbable for
Bonifacio to have executed the document and dictated the words lumagda ako ng aking pangalan at
apelyidobecausehewasparalyzedandcouldnolongersignhisnameatthattimeand(4)thephraseang
nagalagasaakinhanggangsaako'ytuluyangkuninngDakilangMaykapalspeaksofanalreadydeparted
Bonifacioandcouldhavebeenmadeonlybypersonsotherthanthedeadmanhimself.[21]
To determine whether the Pagpapatunay is a valid contract of sale, it must contain the essential
requisitesofcontracts,viz:(1)consentofthecontractingparties(2)objectcertainwhichisthesubject
matterofthecontractand(3)causeoftheobligationwhichisestablished.[22]
TheobjectofthePagpapatunayisthehouseandlot.TheconsiderationisP10,000.00fortheservices
rendered to Aparato by respondent spouses. According to respondent Herminia Apacionado, this
P10,000.00wasnotactuallypaidtoBonifaciobecausetheamountmerelyquantifiedtheservicesthey
renderedtotheoldman.Itwasthecarethespousesvoluntarilygavethatwasthecauseofthesale.[23]
Thecausethereforewastheserviceremunerated.[24]
Petitioner alleges that Bonifacio did not give his consent to the deed because he did not affix his
signature,butmerelyhisthumbmark,onthedocument.Bonifaciowasaliteratepersonwhocouldlegibly
sign his full name, and his signature is evident in several documents such as his identification card as
memberoftheAndersonFilAmericanGuerillas [25]theKasulatanngPalasanglaandatedJuly25,1974
where he and his two other siblings mortgaged the subject property for P2,000.00 to one Linda Y.
Cenido[26] Padagdag sa Sanglaan dated June 16, 1976[27] and another Padagdag sa Sanglaan dated
March2,1979.[28]
RespondentHerminiaSta.AnaApacionadotestifiedthatBonifacioAparatoaffixedhisthumbmark
becausehecouldnolongerwriteatthetimeofexecutionofthedocument.Theoldmanwasalready61
yearsofageandcouldnotproperlyseewithhiseyes.Hewasstrickenbyillnessamonthbeforeandwas
paralyzedfromthewaistdown.Hecouldstillspeak,albeitinagarbledmanner,andbeunderstood.The
contentsofthePagpapatunaywereactuallydictatedbyhimtooneLeticiaBandolawhotypedthesame
onatypewritershebroughttohishouse.[29]
ThatBonifaciowasaliveatthetimeofexecutionofthecontractandvoluntarilygavehisconsentto
theinstrumentissupportedbythetestimonyofCarlosInabayan,thelesseeofBonifacio'sbilliardhallat
the ground floor of the subject property. Inabayan testified that on December 10, 1981, he was
summoned to go up to Bonifacio's house. There, he saw Bonifacio, respondent Apacionados, and a
womanandherhusband.Hewasgivenasheetofpapertoread.Hereadthepaperandunderstoodthatit
5/12
3/31/2016
wasadeedofsaleofthehouseandlotexecutedbyBonifacioinfavoroftheApacionados.Thereafter,
Bonifaciorequestedhimtosignthedocumentaswitness.ReexaminingthePagpapatunay,Inabayansaw
thatBonifacioaffixedhisthumbmarkonthespaceabovehisname.Inabayanthussignedthedocument
andreturnedtothebilliardhall.[30]
Inabayan's testimony has not been rebutted by petitioner. Petitioner, through counsel, waived his
righttodoso,findingnoneedtocrossexaminethewitness.[31]Thiswaiverwasgrantedbythecourtin
theorderofSeptember23,1992.[32]
Onewhoallegesanydefectorthelackofavalidconsenttoacontractmustestablishthesameby
full,clearandconvincingevidence,notmerelybypreponderancethereof.[33]Petitionerhasnotalleged
that the old man, by his physical or mental state, was incapacitated to give his consent at the time of
execution of the Pagpapatunay. Petitioner has not shown that Bonifacio was insane or demented or a
deafmutewhodidnotknowhowtowrite.[34]Neitherhaspetitionerclaimed,attheveryleast,thatthe
consentofBonifaciotothecontractwasvitiatedbymistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluenceor
fraud.[35]IfbyassailingtheintrinsicdefectsinthewordageofthePagpapatunaypetitionerCenidoseeks
tospecificallyallegetheexerciseofextrinsicfraudandundueinfluenceontheoldman,thesedefectsare
notsubstantialastorendertheentirecontractvoid.Theremustbeclearandconvincingevidenceofwhat
specificactsofundueinfluence[36]orfraud[37]wereemployedbyrespondentspousesthatgaveriseto
saiddefects.Absentsuchproof,Bonifacio'spresumedconsenttothePagpapatunayremains.
The Pagpapatunay, therefore, contains all the essential requisites of a contract.Its authenticity and
due execution have not been disproved either. The finding of the trial court that the document was
prepared by another person and the thumbmark of the dead Bonifacio was merely affixed to it is pure
conjecture.Onthecontrary,thetestimoniesofrespondentHerminiaSta.AnaandCarlosInabayanprove
thatthedocumentisauthenticandwasdulyexecutedbyBonifaciohimself.
The Pagpapatunay is undisputably a private document. And this fact does not detract from its
validity.TheCivilCode,inArticle1356provides:
Art.1356.Contractsshallbeobligatory,inwhateverformtheymayhavebeenenteredinto,
providedalltheessentialrequisitesfortheirvalidityarepresent.However,whenthelawrequires
thatacontractbeinsomeforminorderthatitmaybevalidorenforceable,orthatacontractbe
provedinacertainway,thatrequirementisabsoluteandindispensable.Insuchcases,therightof
thepartiesstatedinthefollowingarticlecannotbeexercised.
Generally, contracts are obligatory, in whatever form such contracts may have been entered into,
providedalltheessentialrequisitesfortheirvalidityarepresent.When,however,thelawrequiresthata
contractbeinsomeformforittobevalidorenforceable,thatrequirementmustbecompliedwith.
A certain form may be prescribed by law for any of the following purposes: for validity,
enforceability, or greater efficacy of the contract.[38] When the form required is for validity, its non
observancerendersthecontractvoidandofnoeffect.[39]Whentherequiredformisforenforceability,
noncompliancetherewithwillnotpermit,upontheobjectionofaparty,thecontract,althoughotherwise
valid,tobeprovedorenforcedbyaction.[40]Formalitiesintendedforgreaterefficacyorconvenienceor
tobindthirdpersons,ifnotdone,wouldnotadverselyaffectthevalidityorenforceabilityofthecontract
betweenthecontractingpartiesthemselves.[41]
Article1358oftheCivilCoderequiresthat:
Art.1358.Thefollowingmustappearinapublicdocument:
6/12
3/31/2016
(1)Actsandcontractswhichhavefortheirobjectthecreation,transmission,modificationor
extinguishmentofrealrightsoverimmovablepropertysalesofrealpropertyorofaninterest
thereinaregovernedbyArticles1403,No.2and1405
(2)Thecession,repudiationorrenunciationofhereditaryrightsorofthoseoftheconjugalpartnershipof
gains
(3)Thepowertoadministerproperty,oranyotherpowerwhichhasforitsobjectanactappearingor
whichshouldappearinapublicdocument,orshouldprejudiceathirdperson
(4)Thecessionofactionsorrightsproceedingfromanactappearinginapublicdocument.
Allothercontractswheretheamountinvolvedexceedsfivehundredpesosmustappearinwriting,evena
privateone.Butsalesofgoods,chattelsorthingsinactionaregovernedbyArticles1403,No.2and
1405.
Acts and contracts which create, transmit, modify or extinguish real rights over immovable property
shouldbeembodiedinapublicdocument.SalesofrealpropertyaregovernedbytheStatuteofFrauds
whichreads:
Art.1403.Thefollowingcontractsareunenforceable,unlesstheyareratified:
(1)xxx
(2)ThosethatdonotcomplywiththeStatuteofFraudsassetforthinthisnumber.Inthefollowing
casesanagreementhereaftermadeshallbeunenforceablebyaction,unlessthesame,orsomenote
ormemorandumthereof,beinwriting,andsubscribedandbythepartycharged,orbyhisagent
evidence,therefore,oftheagreementcannotbereceivedwithoutthewriting,orasecondaryevidenceof
itscontents:
(a)Anagreementthatbyitstermsisnottobeperformedwithinayearfromthemakingthereof
xxx
(e)Anagreementfortheleasingforalongerperiodthanoneyear,orforthesaleofrealpropertyorof
aninteresttherein
(3)xxx.
The sale of real property should be in writing and subscribed by the party charged for it to be
enforceable.ThePagpapatunayisinwritingandsubscribedbyBonifacioAparato,thevendorhence,it
is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Not having been subscribed and sworn to before a notary
public,however,thePagpapatunayisnotapublicdocument,andthereforedoesnotcomplywithArticle
1358,paragraph1oftheCivilCode.
TherequirementofapublicdocumentinArticle1358isnotforthevalidityoftheinstrumentbutfor
itsefficacy.[42]Althoughaconveyanceoflandisnotmadeinapublicdocument,itdoesnotaffectthe
validity of such conveyance.[43] Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or
contractsinapublicinstrumentinordertovalidatetheactorcontractbutonlytoinsureitsefficacy,[44]
so that after the existence of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to
executetheproperdocument.[45]ThisisclearfromArticle1357,viz:
7/12
3/31/2016
Art.1357.Ifthelawrequiresadocumentorotherspecialform,asintheactsandcontracts
enumeratedinthefollowingarticle[Article1358],thecontractingpartiesmaycompeleachother
toobservethatform,oncethecontracthasbeenperfected.Thisrightmaybeexercised
simultaneouslywiththeactionuponthecontract.
The private conveyance of the house and lot is therefore valid between Bonifacio Aparato and
respondentspouses.ThequestionofwhetherthePagpapatunayissufficienttotransferandconveytitle
to the land for purposes of original registration[46] or the issuance of a real estate tax declaration in
respondentspouses'names,asprayedforbyrespondentspouses,[47]isanothermatteraltogether.[48]For
greaterefficacyofthecontract,convenienceofthepartiesandtobindthirdpersons,respondentspouses
havetherighttocompelthevendororhisheirstoexecutethenecessarydocumenttoproperlyconvey
theproperty.[49]
Anentpetitioner'ssecondassignederror,thefactthattheCourtofAppealssustainedthevalidityof
thePagpapatunaywasnotaconclusionthatnecessarilyresultedfromtheweaknessofpetitioner'sclaim
offiliationtoBonifacioAparato.Ofandbyitself,thePagpapatunayisavalidcontractofsalebetween
thepartiesandtheCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinupholdingitsvalidity.
The issue of petitioner's paternity, however, is essential to determine whetherTax Declaration No.
026368 in the name of petitioner Cenido should be nullified, as prayed for by respondent spouses in
theircomplaint.
TaxDeclarationNo.026368[50]inpetitionerCenido'snamewasissuedpursuanttothecompromise
judgment of the MTC where Gavino Aparato, Bonifacio's brother, expressly recognized petitioner
CenidoasBonifacio'ssoleillegitimateson.Thecompromisejudgmentwasrenderedin1985,threeyears
afterBonifacio'sdemise.
UndertheCivilCode,[51]naturalchildrenandillegitimatechildrenotherthannaturalareentitledto
supportandsuccessionalrightsonlywhenrecognizedoracknowledgedbytheputativeparent.[52]Unless
recognized,theyhavenorightswhatsoeveragainsttheirallegedparentorhisestate.[53]
The filiation of illegitimate children may be proved by any of the forms of recognition of natural
children.[54]Thisrecognitionmaybemadeinthreeways:[55](1)voluntarily,whichmustbeexpresssuch
asthatinarecordofbirth,awill,astatementbeforeacourtofrecord,orinanyauthenticwriting[56](2)
legally,i.e.,whenanaturalchildisrecognized,suchrecognitionextendstohisorherbrothersandsisters
ofthefullblood[57]and(3)judiciallyorcompulsorily,whichmaybedemandedbytheillegitimatechild
ofhisparents.[58]Theactionforcompulsoryrecognitionoftheillegitimatechildmustbebroughtduring
thelifetimeofthepresumedparents.ThisisexplicitlyprovidedinArticle285oftheCivilCode,viz:
Art.285.Theactionfortherecognitionofnaturalchildrenmaybebroughtonlyduringthelifetimeofthe
presumedparents,exceptinthefollowingcases:
(1)Ifthefatherormotherdiedduringtheminorityofthechild,inwhichcasethelattermayfilethe
actionbeforetheexpirationoffouryearsfromtheattainmentofhismajority
(2)Ifafterthedeathofthefatherorofthemotheradocumentshouldappearofwhichnothinghadbeen
heardandinwhicheitherorbothparentsrecognizethechild.
Inthiscase,theactionmustbecommencedwithinfouryearsfromthefindingofthedocument.
Theillegitimatechildcanfileanactionforcompulsoryrecognitiononlyduringthelifetimeofthe
8/12
3/31/2016
presumedparent.After the parent's death, the child cannot bring such action, except, however, in only
two instances: one is when the supposed parent died during the minority of the child, and the other is
whenafterthedeathoftheparent,adocumentshouldbediscoveredinwhichtheparentrecognizedthe
childashis.The action must be brought within four years from the attainment of majority in the first
case,andfromthediscoveryofthedocumentinthesecondcase.Therequirementthattheactionbefiled
duringtheparent'slifetimeistopreventillegitimatechildren,onaccountofstrongtemptationstolarge
estates left by dead persons, to claim part of this estate without giving the alleged parent personal
opportunitytobeheard.[59]Itisvitalthattheparentbeheardforonlytheparentisinapositiontoreveal
thetruefactssurroundingtheclaimant'sconception.[60]
Inthecaseatbar,petitionerCenidodidnotpresentanyrecordofbirth,willoranyauthenticwriting
toshowhewasvoluntarilyrecognizedbyBonifacioashisillegitimateson.Infact,petitioneradmittedon
thewitnessstandthathehadnodocumenttoproveBonifacio'srecognition,muchlesshisfiliation.[61]
Thevoluntaryrecognitionofpetitioner'sfiliationbyBonifacio'sbrotherbeforetheMTCdoesnotqualify
asastatementinacourtofrecord.Underthelaw,thisstatementmustbemadepersonallybytheparent
himselforherself,notbyanybrother,sisterorrelativeafterall,theconceptofrecognitionspeaksofa
voluntary declaration by the parent, or if the parent refuses, by judicial authority, to establish the
paternityormaternityofchildrenbornoutsidewedlock.[62]
ThecompromisejudgmentoftheMTCdoesnotqualifyasacompulsoryrecognitionofpetitioner.In
thefirstplace,whenhefiledthiscaseagainstGavinoAparato,petitionerwasnolongeraminor.Hewas
already pushing fifty years old.[63] Secondly, there is no allegation that after Bonifacio's death, a
document was discovered where Bonifacio recognized petitioner Cenido as his son. Thirdly, there is
nothinginthecompromisejudgmentthatindicatesthattheactionbeforetheMTCwasasettlementof
Bonifacio'sestatewithagrossvaluenotexceedingP20,000.00.[64]Definitely,theactioncouldnothave
beenforcompulsoryrecognitionbecausetheMTChadnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.[65]
TheRealPropertyTaxCodeprovidesthatrealpropertytaxbeassessedinthenameoftheperson
owning or administering the property on which the tax is levied.[66] Since petitioner Cenido has not
proven any successional or administrative rights to Bonifacio's estate,Tax Declaration No. 026368 in
Cenido'snamemustbedeclarednullandvoid.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
AppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.41011areaffirmed.TaxDeclarationNo.026368inthenameofpetitioner
RenatoCenidoisdeclarednullandvoid.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Kapunan,Pardo,andYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.
[1] PennedbyJusticeB.A.AdefuindelaCruzandconcurredinbyJusticeFidelP.Purisima,nowamemberofthisCourt,
andJusticeRicardoP.Galvez,nowSolicitorGeneral.
[2]ItreversedthedecisionofJudgeHerculanoTechinCivilCaseNo.409B.
[3]EntitledSpousesAmadeoApacionadoandHerminiaSta.Ana,plaintiffsv.RenatoCenido,defendant.
[4]Complaint,p.1Records,p.1.
[5]Complaint,p.4Records,p.4.
9/12
3/31/2016
[6]AnswerwithCounterclaim,pp.15,Records,pp.1014.
[7]Reply,pp.12,Records,pp.1819.
[8]Decisionofthetrialcourt,p.5,Rollo,p.64.
[9]DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,p.9,Rollo,p.141.
[10]Petition,pp.12,17Rollo,pp.20,25.
[11]Reply,pp.13,Rollo,pp.193195.
[12]Orderofthetrialcourtapprovingsubstitutionofparty,Records,p.34.
[13]ExhibitGtheKasulatanngPalasanglaandatedJuly25,1974wherethepropertywasmortgagedbythe3siblingsto
LindaYCenidoassecurityforaloanofP2,000.00ExhibitHthePadagdagsaSanglaandatedJune16,1976wherethe3
siblingsborrowedanadditionalP1,000.00fromLindaCenidoRecords,pp.6668.
[14]TSNofApril4,1990,pp.2930.
[15]PleaseseeExhibit1,Records,p.38seealsoannexEtothePetition,Rollo,pp.4143.
[16]TSNofFebruary26,1992,pp.1920.
[17]TestimonyofNorbertoAparato,TSNofFebruary26,1992,pp.1213.
[18]Exhibit1,thecompromisejudgmentoftheMTCdoesnotindicatewhattheactionwas.Testimonyregardingthenature
oftheactionwasnotsuccessfullyelicitedbyrespondentscounselduetocontinuousandvigorousobjectionbypetitioners
counselCrossexaminationofRenatoCenido,TSNofDecember13,1989,pp.2435.
[19]Exhibit1,Records,pp.3840seealsoAnnexEtothePetition,Rollo,pp.4143.
[20]AnnexQtothePetition,Rollo,p.164ExhibitC,Records,p.63.
[21]Petition,pp.1517,Rollo,pp.2325.
[22]Article1318,CivilCode.
[23]TSNofApril4,1990,p.57.
Art.1350.Inonerouscontractsthecauseisunderstoodtobe,foreachcontractingparty,theprestationorpromiseofathing
or service by the other in remuneratory ones, the service or benefit which is remunerated and in contracts of pure
beneficence,themereliberalityofthebenefactor.
[25]ExhibitL,Records,p.72.
[26]ExhibitG,Records,pp.6667.
[27]ExhibitH,Records,p.68.
[28]ExhibitI,Records,p.69.
[29]TSNofApril4,1990,pp.39,5658,101102.
[30]TSNofAugust19,1992,pp.36.
[31]ManifestationandMotion,Records,pp.115116.
10/12
3/31/2016
[32]Records,p.119.
[33]Centenerav.Palicio,29Phil.470,485486,[1915]alsocitedinTolentino,CivilCode,vol.4,p.475seealsoPalmares
v.CourtofAppeals,288SCRA422,434[1998]Samsonv.CourtofAppeals,238SCRA397,408[1994]Cuv.Courtof
Appeals,195SCRA647,657[1991]onfraud.
[34]Article1327,CivilCode
Art.1327.Thefollowingcannotgiveconsenttoacontract:
(1)Unemancipatedminors
(2)Insaneordementedpersons,anddeafmuteswhodonotknowhowtowrite.
Art.1330.Acontractwhereconsentisgiventhroughmistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluence,orfraudisvoidable.
Art.1337.Thereisundueinfluencewhenapersontakesimproperadvantageofhispoweroverthewillofanother,depriving
the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential, family,
spiritual and other relations between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was
sufferingfrommentalweakness,orwasignorant,orinfinancialdistress.
Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is
inducedtoenterintoacontractwhich,withoutthem,hewouldnothaveagreed.
[38]Vitug,CompendiumofCivillawandJurisprudence,p.550[1993].
[39]E.g.,Art.748donationsofpersonalpropertyworthmorethanP5,000.00mustbeinwritingArt.749donationsof
realpropertymustbeinapublicinstrument.
[40]E.g.,Art.1403,No.2contractscoveredbytheStatuteofFrauds.
[41]DaudenHernaezv.delosAngeles,27SCRA1276,12801283[1969]seealsoVitug,supra,at550552.
[42]HawaiianPhil.Co.v.Hernaez,45Phil.746,749750[1924].
[43]Craigv.Leuterio,11Phil.44,4546[1907].
[44]ManotokRealty,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,149SCRA174,178[1987]Alano v.Babasa,10Phil.511,515[1908]see
alsoTolentino,CivilCode,vol.4,pp.546547[1991].
[45] HawaiianPhil.Co.v.Hernaez,supra,at749Dievosv.Acuna Co Chongco, 16 Phil. 447, 449 [1910] Doliendo v.
Depino,12Phil.758,764[1909]seealsoPadilla,CivilLaw,CivilCode,vol.4A,p.296[1988].
[46]Thesubjectpropertyisunregistered.
[47]PleaseseePrayerinComplaint,par.(b).
[48]InGallardov.IntermediateAppellateCourt,155SCRA248,258[1987],thiscourtcitedSec.127,Act496,theLand
RegistrationAct,(nowSecs.112and113,P.D.1529,thePropertyRegistrationDecree)whichrequiresapublicinstrument
for a valid conveyance of both registered and unregistered lands see also Pornellosa & Angeles v. Land Tenure
Administration&Guzman,110Phil.986,992[1961].
[49]InGallardov.IntermediateAppellateCourt,supra,at258,thiscourtruledthattheonlyrightthevendeeofrealproperty
inaprivateinstrumenthasistocompel,throughcourtprocesses,thevendortoexecuteadeedofconveyancesufficientin
11/12
3/31/2016
lawforpurposesofregistrationHeirsofAmparodelRosariov.Santos,108SCRA43,56[1981]seealsoVitug, supra,at
550.TheactioncanbebroughtagainstalltheheirsofthedeceasedvendorAranetav.Montelibano,14Phil.117,124126
[1909],alsocitedinAquino,CivilCode,vol.2,p.433[1990].
[50]InExhibit2,theDeclarationofrealProperty,thenumberofthetaxdeclarationisnotclearlyindicated(SeeRecords,p.
41).RespondentspousesrefertothisasTaxDeclarationNo.020368.PetitionerandtheCourtofAppealsrefertoitasNo.
026368(TSNofDecember13,1989,pp.4445).
[51]ThefactsofthecaseoccurredduringtheeffectivityoftheCivilCode.
[52]Articles282and287,CivilCode.
[53]Reyesv.CourtofAppeals,135SCRA439,449[1985]Bercilesv.GSIS,128SCRA53,7981[1984]Alabat v.Alabat,
21SCRA1479,1481[1967]Paulinov.Paulino,113Phil.697,702[1961]Buenaventurav.Urbano,5Phil.1,10[1905].
[54] Reyesv.CourtofAppeals, supraClemenav.clemena,133Phil.702,704705[1968]Paulinov.Paulino,supra see
alsoAquino,CivilCode,vol.1,p.289[1990].
[55]Tolentino,CivilCode,vol.1,p.577[1987]Vitug,CompendiumofCivilLawandJurisprudence,p.88[1993].
[57]Article271,supra.
[58]Articles283and284,supra.
[59]Serranov.Aragon,22Phil.10,18[1912]Villalonv.Villalon,71Phil.98,100[1940].
[60]Barlesv.PonceEnrile,109SCRA523,526[1960].
[61]TSNofDecember13,1989,p.21.
[62]Tolentino,CivilCode,vol.1,p.577[1987]citingBrugi.
[63]Whenpetitionertestifiedin1989,hewas55yearsofageTSNofDecember13,1989,p.3.
[64]Section33,B.P.129.
[65]Section19,B.P.129Rule105,Section1.
[66]Umali,ReviewerinTaxation,pp.662663[1985]citing51AmJur639640Sections6and22,P.D.464nowSec.202,
TitleII,BookII,LocalGovernmentCodeof1991(R.A.7160).
12/12

Cenido V Apacionado

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cenido V Apacionado

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3/31/2016

RENATO CENIDO (deceased), represented byVICTORIA CENIDOSA, petitioner,

Potrebbero piacerti anche