SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 128862. September 30, 1999]
ESTRELLA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and heirs of GONZALO TAN namely, CAROLINA TAN, MERLY TAN, MELISSA TAN and MARITESS TAN, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari
seeks to annul the 27 November 1996 Decision of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 122, Kalookan City, in
its Civil Case No. 15438 declaring the heirs of Gonzalo Tan as true owners of
the two-story building standing on Lot No. 285, A. Mabini St., Kalookan City,
owned by Estrella Real Estate Corporation (ESTRELLA).
Gonzalo Tan was the absolute owner
of a parcel of land located along A. Mabini St., Kaloocan City, with
an area of
2,020.18 square meters, more or less, as evidenced by TCT
No. 22003. In 1952 Gonzalo
allowed his brother Cenon Tan to construct a house on a portion thereof facing
A. Mabini St. and referred to as House No. 193, now House No. 285, A. Mabini
St., Kalookan City. Cenon had House No.
285 declared under Tax Declaration No. 6373 in his name and described the
property as a one-story house made of strong materials with an aluminum roofing
and a floor area of 37.44 square meters, and built on the land of Gonzalo
Tan. Cenon gradually made improvements
on the property over the years by extending the floor area of the house and
putting up a second floor.
On 15 October 1958 Gonzalo Tan
sold the entire lot to Gaw Bros. & Co., Inc., with their Deed of Absolute
Sale specifying that the property subject thereof was "a parcel of land
together with the improvements thereon (except those belonging to other
persons) situated in Caloocan, Rizal, and more fully described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 22003."
Thereafter, TCT No. 22003 was cancelled and TCT No. 62712 was issued in
the name of Gaw Bros. & Co.,. Inc.
Sometime in 1960 Cenon Tan sold
House No. 285 in A. Mabini St. to his brother Gonzalo Tan by way of a verbal
sale. The latter, together with his
family, took possession of the property and made improvements thereon.
On 7 February 1977 Gaw Bros. &
Co., Inc., sold the land to its sister company, petitioner Estrella Real Estate
Corporation (ESTRELLA), and TCT No. C-4255 was issued in the vendee's name.
On 1 December 1980 Gonzalo Tan
through his son Guillermo leased the ground floor of House No. 285 to Amalia
Abata and Josephine Catalan. After
Abata left in 1983 Catalan continued with the lease, setting up a furniture
store on the ground floor under the name "Jade Furniture."
Meanwhile, on the same parcel of
land now owned by ESTRELLA stood another house owned by Francisco Tan with
address at No. 1911-Int. 5, Kalookan City.
In 1982 Francisco demolished the house for a consideration from
ESTRELLA. Thereafter, the lot, which
was located at the back of House No. 285 although separated by a vacant lot
between them, was left idle.
In December 1983 Josephine
Catalan, lessee of the ground floor of House No. 285, entered into a lease
contract with ESTRELLA over Lot No. 1911 which was renewed on an annual basis
until 1991.
On 14 June 1991 ESTRELLA filed an
ejectment suit for non-payment of rentals against Josephine Catalan before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Kalookan City, docketed as Civil Case No.
19962. In its complaint, ESTRELLA
represented itself as the owner of a commercial apartment located at and known
as No. 1911-Int. 5, A. Mabini St., Kaloocan City, the frontage of which is
House No. 285 also at A. Mabini St., Kaloocan City. The lower court ruled in favor of ESTRELLA and ordered the
ejectment of Catalan. Catalan
interposed successive appeals to the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals but to no avail. ESTRELLA
then moved for execution pending appeal which was granted by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 52.
Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued and Deputy Sheriff Leonardo
Calalang enforced the writ not only against Catalan but also against herein
private respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan, namely, Manuel, Jaime, Corazon,
Dominador Jr., Carolina, Merly, Marissa, Melissa and Maritess, all surnamed
Tan, who continued possession of the second floor of House No. 285 after
Gonzalo Tan died in 1991.
Fearing that they would be thrown
out of House No. 285, respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan, except Manuel Tan, filed
a complaint for Quieting of Title before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan
City, Br. 122, docketed as Civil Case No.
C-15438. Manuel Tan, together
with his wife, filed a separate Petition for Prohibition with the Regional
Trial Court of Kalookan City, Br. 127,
docketed as Civil Case No. C-296.
In both cases, the two branches issued a temporary restraining order
(TRO) enjoining petitioner ESTRELLA from evicting private respondents from
House No. 285.
In the case for Quieting of Title,
respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan subsequently amended their complaint to implead
MTC Judge Delina H. Santiago and Deputy Sheriff Calalang as defendants after
the latter served them with a Notice to Vacate pursuant to an alias writ of
execution, notwithstanding the effectivity of the TRO. The court a quo then caused a copy of
the TRO to be served on defendants Judge Santiago and Deputy Sheriff Calalang.
During the preliminary hearing on
private respondents' application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction, petitioner corporation, through its President, Enrique Castillo,
claimed that it was the registered owner not only of Lot. No. 1911 but of House
No. 285 as well. Petitioner alleged
that Gonzalo Tan was a tenant of the corporation and paid rentals for the use
of the house and lot. Castillo also
testified that in 1984 Gonzalo Tan allegedly told him that he was already
getting too old to carry on with the lease of the house and could no longer
afford the same. Gonzalo allegedly
proposed that his sublessee, Josephine Catalan, take over the lease. Castillo agreed and granted Catalan’s
subsequent request that Lot No. 1911 be also included in the lease. Hence, petitioner contended that private respondents
should also be evicted since they derived their right of possession from
Catalan.
After conducting preliminary
hearings, both Regional Trial Courts issued a writ of preliminary injunction
enjoining petitioner ESTRELLA and all persons acting under it from evicting
private respondents. Dissatisfied,
ESTRELLA filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 19885, which the appellate court however denied.
After trial on the merits,
including an ocular inspection on the premises, RTC-Br. 122 rendered a decision
in favor of private respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan in Civil Case No. C-15438
declaring them as the true and absolute owners of House No. 285; ordering
petitioner ESTRELLA to pay P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees; declaring
permanent the preliminary injunction issued against petitioner; and, dismissing
the counterclaim of private respondents against petitioner.
Both parties appealed. On 27 November 1996 the Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modifications that (a)
petitioner should pay private respondents P50,000.00 for moral damages, P20,000.00
for exemplary damages and another P20,000.00 for attorney’s fees; (b)
the Kalookan City Assessor’s Office to
issue a tax declaration in the name of private respondents over House No. 285;
and, (c) the Register of Deeds of Kalookan City to annotate the fact of
ownership of private respondents over House No. 285 on petitioner's TCT No.
C-4255 covering the land. The appellate
court did not give credit to petitioner’s contention that Gonzalo Tan leased
House No. 285 from ESTRELLA since it failed to present any lease contract
between them. Neither could it show any
receipt evidencing payment of rentals by Tan over House No. 285. The only evidence of the alleged lease was
the bare assertion of its President Enrique Castillo that there existed a
verbal lease between ESTRELLA and Tan, which the appellate court did not
sustain.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals
found that the lease contracts from 1984 to 1990 between petitioner and
Josephine Catalan indicated the subject of the lease as a "certain parcel
of land, situated at No. 1911 Interior 5, A. Mabini Street, Kalookan City"
and did not include House No. 285. It
was only when the contract was renewed on 10 January 1990 that the subject of
the lease was described as an apartment building. Most telling was the Deed of Sale between Gonzalo Tan and Gaw
Bros. & Co. which identified that "the parcel of land together with
the improvements thereon (except those belonging to other persons)" was
the property sold. Notwithstanding the
fact that House No. 285 was not
included in the sale, ESTRELLA's TCT gave the impression that it was the owner
of the parcel of land and the improvements thereon. Hence, the appellate court concluded that ESTRELLA knew that
House No. 285 was not included in the sale between Gonzalo Tan to Gaw Bros.
& Co., Inc., but which fact was not annotated on its TCT.
Hence the instant petition
alleging that the Decision of respondent appellate court has no legal and
factual basis in holding that House No. 285 was built by Cenon Tan as one of
the improvements excluded in the 1958 contract of absolute sale; in ordering
the issuance of a tax declaration over House No. 285 in the name of private
respondents and the annotation of the ownership of the latter in petitioner's
TCT No. C-4255; and, in holding petitioner liable for damages, attorney's fees
and costs of suit.
It is evident from the first and
second assigned errors that the petition is anchored on the plea to review the
factual conclusions reached by respondent appellate court. Such task is foreclosed by the rule that in
petitions for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal, such as the
instant case, only questions of law distinctly set forth may be raised. These questions have been defined as those
that do not call for any examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties.[1] In the absence of any showing that the findings
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings
must stand.
The evidence on record indubitably
supports the findings of the Court of Appeals that when the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 22003 in the name of Gonzalo Tan was sold by the latter to
Gaw Bros. & Co., Inc., the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner, House No.
285 belonging to Cenon Tan was among the improvements excluded from the sale as
expressly provided in the deed of sale; that petitioner had never been in
actual possession of House No. 285; on the contrary, it was Gonzalo Tan and his
children who occupied House No. 285 in the concept of owner since 1960; and,
that what was leased to Josephine Catalan was a vacant lot with address at
1911-Int. 5, and not House No. 285 which is owned by private respondents as
heirs of Gonzalo Tan. Respondent
appellate court also considered against petitioner the following admission of
the latter’s counsel in the pre-trial brief submitted before the court a quo,
to wit:
Defendants (petitioner) admit that Gonzalo Tan originally owned the
land on which the subject building stands but he sold the land and all the
buildings thereon (except the house owned by Cenon Tan) in 1958 to Gaw Bros.
and Co. Inc. and that the latter sold the same property to defendant Estrella
in 1977.[2]
As correctly found by the Court of
Appeals, private respondents have the right to have their ownership of House
No. 285 annotated in the certificate of title of petitioner over the land after
the same is judicially settled. Section
78 of PD 1529 provides that whenever in any action to recover possession or
ownership of real estate or any interest therein affecting registered land
judgment is entered for the plaintiff, such judgment shall be entitled to
registration on presentation of certificate of the entry thereof from the Clerk
of the Court where the action is pending to the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies, who shall enter a memorandum upon the certificate
of title of the land to which such judgment relates. If the judgment does not apply to all the land described in the
certificate of title, the certificate of the clerk of the court where the
action is pending and the memorandum entered by the Register of Deeds shall
contain a description of the land affected by the judgment.
Whether private respondents should
be issued by the Kalookan City Assessor a tax declaration in their name over
House No. 285 should be answered in the affirmative. This is pursuant to Sec. 204 of the Local Government Code which
provides that when any person, natural or juridical, by whom real property is
required to be declared under Sec. 202 of the same Code, refuses or fails for
any reason to make such declaration within the time prescribed, the provincial,
city or municipal assessor shall himself declare the property in the name of
the defaulting owner, if known or against an unknown owner as the case may be,
and shall assess the property for taxation.
The finding of the Court of Appeals that private respondents had never
declared House No. 285 in their name for taxation purposes after the death of
their father on 19 September 1991, being conclusive and binding on this Court,
warrants the application of Sec. 204 of the Local Government Code.
As to the propriety of the award
by the Court of Appeals of moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, we
find the same to be without basis. The
only evidence presented by private respondents in support of their claim for
damages was the testimony of one of the private respondents, Manuel Tan, who
said that his father, Gonzalo Tan, was hospitalized because of the filing of
the ejectment case by petitioner.[3] Records would show however that petitioner filed the
ejectment case against Josephine Catalan and not against Gonzalo Tan although
the judgment which ordered the eviction of Catalan was later sought to be
enforced by the court sheriff against private respondents who after the death
of their father became the new owners of House No. 285.
Nothing in the records would show
that this case falls within any of the cases enumerated in Arts. 2219 and 2220
in compliance with the requisites for the award of moral damages.[4] The same is true with respect to exemplary damages
where justification for the same has not been shown.
Notwithstanding the deletion of the award of moral and exemplary
damages, this Court affirms the award of attorney’s fees. This may be allowed if the claimant is
compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his
interest by reason of the unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it
is sought.[5] In the
instant case, petitioner was not justified in allowing the writ of execution in
the ejectment case to be enforced against private respondents not only because
the latter were not impleaded as parties in the ejectment suit but also because
the property involved therein was separate and different from the property belonging
to private respondents.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27
November 1996 is AFFIRMED subject to the modification that the award of
moral and exemplary damages is deleted.
Consequently, the respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan are declared the
owners of the house at No. 285 A. Mabini St., Kalookan City.
The Kalookan City Assessor is
ordered to issue a declaration over the subject house in the name of private
respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan and to assess the property accordingly for taxation
purposes pursuant to Sec. 204 of the Local Government Code.
Upon the issuance by the Clerk of
Court of the entry of judgment, private respondents shall have the right to
register this judgment with the Register of Deeds of Kalookan City, who is
directed to enter a memorandum of the ownership of private respondents over the
subject house on TCT No. C-4255 in the name of petitioner Estrella Real Estate
Corporation.
Petitioner is further directed to
pay private respondent-heirs of Gonzalo Tan attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.