SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 129507. September 29, 2000]
CHAN SUI BI, JOHNNY C. ONG, BOBBY C. ONG, PHILLIP C. ONG,
HOMER C. ONG, DAVID C. ONG, HELEN C. ONG-MAYPA, AND GLENN C. ONG, as
substituted widow and children of the late Jose C. Ong in his personal
capacity, ROBSON ONG, and DAVID C. ONG, as Special Administrator of the
Intestate Estates of Uy Hian and Ong Chuan, RTC-Iloilo Sp. Procs. Nos. 2647 and
2370*, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SOFIA
DALIPE, ROLANDO D. ONG, SPOUSES LORENZO D. ONG AND VILMA TAN-ONG, SPOUSES EDDIE
D. ONG AND LIZA TE-ONG, HENRY D. ONG, YELSON D. ONG, WILSON D. ONG, ASUNCION
ONG-JARDIOLIN, MA. LOURDES ONG, LAS TRES ESTRELLAS TEXTILES CO., GOLDEN GATE
REALTY CORPORATION, AND GOLDEN PORTALS INDUSTRIES, INC., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review is the Decision
promulgated on December 19, 1996 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
32242, affirming with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in
Iloilo City, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 17530.
The facts as narrated by the Court
of Appeals,[1] are supported by the records as follows:
Petitioner Chan Sui Bi is the widow
of the late Jose C. Ong, one of two sons of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian whose
settlement of estate is being contested. The others Johnny, Bobby, Phillip,
Homer, David, Helen Ong-Maypa and Glenn are the children of Chan Sui Bi and
Jose Ong. David Ong is the appointed
Special Administrator of the intestate estate of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian.
Co-petitioner Robson Uy is the other son of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian.
Private respondent Sofia Dalipe is
Ong Chuan's common-law wife. The other respondents, Rolando, Lorenzo, Eddie,
Henry, Yelson, Wilson, and Asuncion are their children. Las Tres Estrellas
Company, Golden Gate Realty Corporation (GGRC), and Golden Portals Industries,
Inc. (GPII) are among the corporations established by private respondents,
which petitioners claim are part of the estate of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian.
Ong Chuan, also known as Ong See
Lim, was a Chinese national who had settled in Iloilo City. He left his wife Uy Hian and his two sons,
Jose and Robson, in Hongkong. He commuted between Hongkong and the Philippines.
In Hongkong, Ong Chuan bought the Golden Gate Building and the land on which it
was located at No. 18 Kimberly Street.
Uy Hian resided in a portion of the building. Robson administered the building, and remitted Ong Chuan's share
in the income from the building to the latter's account with the Hongkong and
Shanghai Bank in Hongkong.
While in the Philippines, Ong
Chuan lived with his common-law wife, Sofia. They had eight (8) children,
namely: Rolando, Lorenzo, Henry, Yelson, Wilson, Asuncion, Sonia and Maria, all
surnamed Ong.
In Iloilo, Ong Chuan put up Las
Tres Estrellas (Ong Chuan & Co.), a textile merchandising business in
partnership with his son Jose (Sy Dee), who had become a Filipino citizen. On
February 6, 1964, Jose, sold all his shares in the partnership to his father
and put up his own business.
Ong Chuan continued Las Tres
Estrellas, which prospered. In 1977,
when he retired at age 76, he filed gross receipts amounting to P1,609,345.93
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. He and his partner Juan Tong also decided
to sell their holdings in Hongkong. Ong Chuan executed a General Power of
Attorney in favor of Rolando, one of his sons by Sofia, while Juan Tong
similarly named as attorney-in-fact his son, Jose Tong. The sons were given instructions to sell the
Hongkong properties owned by the fathers.
On April 30, 1979, Rolando and Jose sold the land and the Golden Gate
Building to Denkin Limited, for HK$11,500,000.00. Rolando and Juan received the
check issued in the names of Ong Chuan and Juan Tong. They left the check with
Solicitor Jerry Chung in Hongkong. Ong
Chuan told his son that as soon as the former recovered from his heart ailment,
he and Juan Tong would go to Hongkong to encash the check, settle obligations,
and pay the commission of the solicitor. Ong Chuan and Juan Tong left Manila
about a week after Rolando arrived in Hongkong. As of January 19, 1979, Ong
Chuan had a bank balance of HK$351,426.00 reflected in his bank statement.
Meantime, Sofia and her children
also engaged in various businesses in Iloilo: farming, real estate, retail
merchandising, and textile manufacturing. Sometime in 1960, about 21 years
before the death of Ong Chuan, Sofia started farming a 10-hectare farmland in
Alimodian, Iloilo, from which she derived an annual income of P5,000.00 to
P10,000.00. Rolando worked for his father with a monthly salary. In April 1968,
Sofia, with P30,000.00 of her own money and a P120,000.00 loan from the Pacific
Banking Corporation purchased a parcel of land with a two-storey four-door
commercial building located in Aldeguer St., Iloilo City, using the lot and building as collateral. On April
26, 1968, on the basis of a Deed of Absolute Sale between Jose Marquez and
Sofia, TCT No. 23149 of the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo City was issued in the
name of Sofia, who was referred to in said title as 'single'. Sofia leased
portions of the building, and put up two registered businesses in the premises,
the Perma Press Enterprises and the Sofillems Fabrics and Knitwear. Subsequently,
Sofia and her children acquired real estates in Manduriao, Alimodian and Iloilo
City. Rolando with his brother Eddie set up Octagon Gift Shop also in Iloilo
City; and together with his sister Asuncion, the Casa Rey and Linea Italiana
Dress Shop. They inherited seven parcels of land from Sonia, one of the
siblings who died intestate. Rolando and Sofia also put up Las Tres Estrellas
Textiles Co. (also known as Rolando D. Ong & Co.).
On December 2, 1978, Uy Hian died
in Hongkong. Her sons, Jose and Robson, claiming to be the legitimate children
of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian, filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo City for the settlement of the intestate estate of Uy Hian, docketed as Special
Proceedings No. 2647. Jose and
Robson alleged that they are the legitimate heirs of the couple and that Uy
Hian had an interest of 50% in the following real and personal properties: a
parcel of land valued at P376,000.00 located
in Aldeguer St., Iloilo City; a building worth
P167,172.84 on said lot; a parcel of land
valued at P215,672.00 in Las Tres Estrellana, JM Basa St., Iloilo City;
assets of Golden Gate Realty Corp. (GGRC) Iloilo City valued at P1,000,000.00;
a savings deposit of HK$524,000.00 (P752,464.00) with Shanghai Banking Corp.
Kowloon Branch; and HK$5,750,000.00 (P8,275,000.00) cash c/o Ong Chuan, in
Iloilo City.
On November 19, 1979, Ong Chuan
filed an Opposition to the petition alleging that Jose and Robson were not the
legitimate sons of Uy Hian and that the two had no interest whatsoever in the
estate of Uy Hian.
About four months earlier, on June
29, 1979, when S.P. NO. 2647 was still pending, Rolando, Eddie and Jose Juan
Tong, Luisa Tan, Feliza Cheng and Lucio Juantong as incorporators, established
the GOLDEN GATE REALTY CORPORATION (GGRC). Rolando was Treasurer while Jose
Juan Tong was President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. On July 17,
1979, GGRC bought the parcels of land described in TCT Nos. 53007, 53008 and
53011 from Frolu Locsin and Dennis Locsin.
On December 13, 1979, Jose Juan
Tong, Lucio Juan Tong, Lily Juan Tong, Victoria Siady, with Sofia Dalipe,
Rolando Ong, Eddie Ong and Henry Ong incorporated GOLDEN GATE PORTALS,
INDUSTRIES, INC. (GGPII). Rolando was
Chairman of the Board of Directors. GGPII secured loans from Allied Banking
Corporation and used said loans for the purchase of four parcels of land, in
Iloilo City.
Per records of the Assessor's
Office, GGRC also owned 5 parcels of land, all in Iloilo City. Lorenzo owned 3
pieces of property also in Iloilo City. Rolando, Eddie and Sofia had lands in
Alimodian.
On June 24, 1981, during the
pendency of the case for the settlement of the estate of Uy Hian, Ong Chuan
died. Rolando and his siblings were substituted as oppositors in S.P.
No. 2647.
On October 13, 1981, Jose and
Robson filed a petition in the RTC for the settlement of the intestate estate
of Ong Chuan docketed as S.P. No.
2370. Rolando and his siblings filed their opposition thereto. The two (2)
estate proceedings, S.P. No 2647 and S.P. No. 2370 were heard jointly.
On November 22, 1985, the Court promulgated its Decision appointing Jose Ong
administrator of the estate of Uy Hian and Ong Chuan and requiring said Jose
Ong to file an administrator's bond of P10,000.00.[2] The intestate court found that Jose and Robson were
children of the deceased Uy Hian and Ong Chuan, and that the oppositors were
the children of Ong Chuan and his common-law wife, Sofia Dalipe.[3]
The decision was appealed and
docketed as CA-G.R. Nos. 10526 and 10527-CV. During the pendency of said
appeal, GGRI sold over a hectare of land covered by TCT No. 71948 to the Iloilo
Central Commercial High School Alumni Association, Inc. (ICCHSAAI). A new
title, TCT No. 72352 was issued in lieu of TCT No. 71948.[4] On April 20, 1987, petitioners filed Civil Case
No. 17530, for the declaration of nullity of the aforementioned sale and
the reconveyance of the land and all the fruits thereof to the estates of Uy
Hian and Ong Chuan. Petitioners also asked for moral damages, attorney's fees
and costs of litigation.
On August 19, 1987, the trial
court issued an order dismissing the Civil Case No. 17530 as against ICCHSAAI
and the latter's counterclaims. Rolando filed a motion for a preliminary
hearing and for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 17530 on the ground of litis
pendentia. The motion was denied.
Private respondent Rolando filed a
Petition for Certiorari before this court which was also dismissed.
On October 5, 1988, Jose died. The
court ordered substitution by his wife, Chan Sui Bi Ong, and their children.
On February 19, 1991, the court
dismissed the Civil Case 17530 and ordered herein petitioners to pay
respondents P100,000.00 for attorney's fees and P50,000.00 as actual expenses.
Said decision was appealed. The Court
of Appeals rendered its decision, disposing:
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of P50,000.00 by way of actual expenses is deleted. With costs against Appellants.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The appellate court declared that:
(1) The trial court did not err in not resolving the issue of filiation of Jose
and Robson as legitimate children of Uy Hian and Ong Chuan,[6] conformably with Sec. 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of
Court;[7] (2) Appellants had the burden of proving, with the
requisite quantum of evidence, that Rolando withdrew the money of Ong Chuan
from Hongkong Shanghai Bank in accordance with Section 1, Rule 131, of the
Revised Rules on Evidence;[8] (3) Petitioners did not show that Ong Chuan's health deteriorated from December 7, 1978 to April
30, 1979 making him unable him to travel to Hongkong to encash the check from
the sale of the Hongkong properties and wrap up his business; (4) The numerous properties and businesses of private
respondents were not acquired with Ong
Chuan's money, thus these properties are not part of the estate of Ong Chuan; and (5) Contrary to
petitioners assertion, Sofia and her
children were not dummies of Ong Chuan so the latter could circumvent Republic
Act No. 1180, (Otherwise known as the Retail Trade Law) and Commonwealth Act No. 108 (Otherwise known as
the Anti-Dummy Law), which disallowed
Ong Chuan, as an alien to engage in the
retail business and buy land in the Philippines.
Hence, this instant petition, claiming
that the Court of Appeals erred:
I . . . IN HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN NOT RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF THE FILIATION OF THE DECEASED JOSE ONG AND PETITIONER ROBSON ONG AS LEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES UY HIAN AND ONG CHUAN.
II . . . IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT ROLANDO ONG DID NOT GET THE BANK DEPOSIT OF ONG CHUAN AND HIS SHARE OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN HONGKONG, CONTRARY TO LOGIC AND REASON/THE FINDING OF THE ESTATES COURT.
III . . . IN NOT APPLYING THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION IN THE ANTI-DUMMY LAW TO THE REAL PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY ONG CHUAN IN THE PHILIPPINES AND TO HIS RETAIL BUSINESSES PLACED IN THE NAMES OF THE RESPONDENTS.
IV . . . IN DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR JUST SHARES IN THE FUNDS OF THE TWO ESTATES WHICH WERE FUNNELED INTO CORPORATIONS AND ENTITIES ORGANIZED BY THE RESPONDENTS;
V . . . IN NOT GIVING
JUSTICE TO THE PETITIONERS.[9]
At the outset, we note that the
issues raised before this Court are the very same issues raised before the Court
of Appeals. The issue of whether or not Ong Chuan withdrew his deposit from the
Hongkong and Shanghai Bank and Hongkong, and the issue of whether or not Sofia
and her children used the money of the
deceased for their own business acquisitions are factual matters. Factual
matters cannot be inquired into by this Court in an appeal by certiorari.
The Court can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the
parties and analyze, assess, and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and
appellate court were correct in according them superior credit in this or that
piece of evidence of one party or the other.[10]
Nevertheless the Court notes that
the majority of the pieces of real estate and other acquisitions of Sofia and her
children were made even before the death of Uy Hian and Ong Chuan. As early as
the 1960's Sofia had started her farm and purchased real estate through bank
loans and on installment basis. These facts bear strongly against the
allegation that Sofia and her children used the estate of Ong Chuan and Uy Hian
to further their own businesses. The appellate court observed that the
financing of the business acquisitions of Sofia were from her own funds and from bank loans which
benefited her and her children, not her Chinese common-law husband. If the
evidence on record shows that a Filipino
citizen purchased or acquired real estate with the use of his or her own
money or funds or that he or she did so not for the benefit of an alien but for
his or her own benefit, then the Filipino is not a dummy in fact and in law.
But even if Ong Chuan gave Sofia
money, we agree with the Court of
Appeals when it cited People vs. Aurelia Altea et. al.,[11] that if an alien gave or donated his money to a citizen of the Philippines so that the
latter could invest it in the purchase of private agricultural lands, or
purchased private agricultural lands for a citizen of the Philippines, such
acts, provided they are done in good faith, do not violate our laws.[12] What was prohibited by the anti-dummy law and
the retail trade law then prevailing were
the acquisition by an alien for himself of private lands in the Philippines,
and the conduct of retail trade by the alien, respectively.
Thus, the remaining issue for our
consideration is whether the trial court erred in refusing to resolve the
question of filiation of Jose and Robson as legitimate children of Uy Hian and Ong Chuan. We recall that the
issue of filiation was already passed upon in Special Proceeding Nos. 2647 and
2370,[13] involving the settlement of the estates of Uy Hian
and Ong Chuan. The issue of filiation
is now mooted by the decision in the aforementioned cases. Since the intestate
court had ascertained in the settlement proceedings who the lawful heirs are,
there is no need for a separate, independent action to resolve claims of
legitimate children of the deceased. The court first taking cognizance of such
proceeding acquires exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all questions concerning
the settlement of the estate to the exclusion of all other courts or branches
of the same court.[14] As early as 1905, we said that while the
estate is being settled in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in a special
proceeding, no ordinary action can be maintained in that court, or in any other
court, by persons claiming to be heirs, for the purpose of having the rights of
the plaintiffs in the estate determined.[15]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 19, 1996, affirming the
decision with modification of the Regional Trial Court, in Iloilo City, Branch
28, in Civil Case No. 17530 and the Resolution dated May 14, 1997 are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 55-89.
[2] Records,
p. 17.
[3] Id.
at 18-19.
[4] Id.
at 46-48.
[5] Rollo,
p. 88.
[6] Rollo,
pp. 68-69.
[7] Section 1. When order for distribution of
residue made.- When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of
administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any,
chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on
the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in
the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the
estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is
entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from
the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his
possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful
heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled
under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the
obligations above mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the
distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court,
conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court
directs.
[8] Sec.
1. Burden of proof.- Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by
the amount of evidence required by law.
[9] Rollo,
pp. 28, 29, 35, 39 and 48.
[10] Alicbusan
vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 336, 341 (1997).
[11] 53
O. G. No. 5, p. 1464.
[12] Id. at 1472-1473.
[13] Rollo,
p. 64.
[14] Regalado,
Florenz, D. Justice, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II. 1995. p. 9.
Citing Macias vs. Uy Kim, 45 SCRA 251, 260 (1972); Intestate
Estate of Rosina Marguerite Wolfson, 45 SCRA 381, 388 (1972); Sandoval vs.
Santiago, 83 Phil 784, 786 (1949).
[15] Pimentel
vs. Palanca, 5 Phil 436, 440 (1905).