Epitacio Batara owned a parcel of land.
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. In
1916, Epitacio Batara died in
Isabela. In 1926, Doroteo Bartolome, to whom Epitacio had entrusted his land, migrated to Davao City. Doroteo died there two years later.
Isabela. In 1926, Doroteo Bartolome, to whom Epitacio had entrusted his land, migrated to Davao City. Doroteo died there two years later.
Thereafter, the Director of Lands
instituted cadastral proceedings over the said land involved herein
(Cadastral Case No. 53). 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. More than three
months later or on January 30, 1934, Resurreccion Bartolome, the
grandchild of Epitacio Batara, also filed an answer in the same
cadastral case claiming ownership over a portion of Lot No. 11165
with an area of 864 square meters alleging that he acquired it by
inheritance from his grandfather and grandmother . . . Epitacio
Batara and Maria Gonzales.
From then on, no further proceedings
were held in the cadastral case. In June 1968 (after 34 years), the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte sent out notices for the
"continuation of the hearing" on June 13, 1968 in Cadastral
Case No. 53. It should be remembered, however, that from the time
Ursula Cid and Resurreccion Bartolome filed their answers to the
petition in the cadastral case, there had been no progress in the
proceedings. A year later or 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. She therefore prayed that the answer of Ursula Cid be
amended so as to include the rightful heirs of Doroteo Bartolome
alleging that they were co-owners of the said Lot No. 11165 which
they inherited from Doroteso Bartolome..
Three months later, Ursula Cid filed a
motion to amend her answer to reflect the complete ground or basis of
acquisition of Lot No. 11165. In her amended answer, Ursula Cid
stated that she was the absolute owner of Lot No. 11165; that she had
been the possessor of Lot No. 11165 for over fifty years; she claimed
that her husband, Bernabe Bartolome, who together with her, purchased
the said lot which used to be three adjoining lots from their
respective owners; and that Lot No. 11165 had been declared for tax
purposes in the name of her late husband Bernabe Bartolome.
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 Agustin and Josefa Manrique (Exhibit 2); [b] another document
dated February 18, 1913 executed by Ignacia Manrique in favor of
Bernabe Bartolome evidencing the sale of another lot also for fifteen
pesos (Exhibit 3); and [c] still another deed executed by Maria
Gonzales (wife of Epitacio Bitara) on February 9, 1917 in favor of
Bernabe Bartolome and Ursula Cid ceding to the latter 772 square
meters of land for P103.75 (Exhibit 4). The last-mentioned piece of
land is the one being claimed by Resurreccion Bartolome.
On May 10, 1984, the Regional Trial
Court of Ilocos Norte rendered a decision which held that the deed of
sale executed by Maria Gonzales (Exhibit 4) has no probative value as
the same is incomplete and unsigned. The court also held that Ursula
Cid's possession of the land after the claimants had filed their
respective answer(s) or after the declaration of a general default,
did not confer ownership on her because said possession was
interrupted and merely tolerated by all the parties during the
pendency of the case.
Ursula Cid appealed to the then
Intermediate Appellate Court. In its decision reversing the lower
court, the appellate court held that the deeds of sale presented by
Ursula Cid are ancient documents under Section 22 (now Section 21),
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It also ruled that Ursula Cid's
continuous possession of the lot from its acquisition and her
exercise of rights of ownership over it vested her with the legal
presumption that she possessed it under a just title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not deed of sale executed by
Maria Gonzales (Exhibit 4) is an ancient document under Section 22
(now Section 21) of Rule 132 which would be admissible in evidence
even without proof of its execution?
HELD:
No, the deed of sale (Exhibit 4) is not
an ancient document.
The SC agreed with the IAC that the
first two requirements ordained by Section 22 (now Section 21) are
met by Exhibit 4. It appearing that it was executed in 1917, Exhibit
4 was more than thirty years old when it was offered in evidence in
1983. It was presented in court by the proper custodian thereof who
is an heir of the person who would naturally keep it.
However, the third requirement, that no
alterations or circumstances of suspicion are present was not
conformed with.
According to Dominador Bartolome (son
of Ursula Cid), he first saw Exhibit 4 in the possession of his
mother 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. However, when the
document was entrusted to him by his mother in 1947 as he was then
representing the family in litigation concerning the land, the
document's fourth page was already missing. He stated that his
mother told him that the fourth page was lost during the Japanese
occupation while they were evacuating from Davao City.
On its face, the deed of sale (Exhibit
4) appears unmarred by alteration. However, the missing page has
nonetheless affected its authenticity. It is important because 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.
Necessarily, since Exhibit 4 is not an
ancient document, proofs of its due execution and authenticity are
vital. Under Section 21 (now Section 20) of Rule 132, the due
execution and authenticity of a private writing must be proved either
by anyone who saw the writing executed, by evidence of the
genuineness of the handwriting of the maker, or by a subscribing
witness. The testimony of Ursula Cid's and her son Dominador on the
authenticity of Exhibit 4 do not fall within the purview of Section
21 (now Section 20). The signature of Maria Gonzales on the missing
fourth page of Exhibit 4 would have helped authenticate the document
if it is proven to be genuine. But as there can be no such proof
arising from the signature of Maria Gonzales in the deed of sale
since the said fourth page was missing, the same must be excluded.
By: Glenn Quintos Albano