Title
Descallar vs. Heirs of Guevara
Case
G.R. No. 243874
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2021
Cristeta’s heirs sued Joel for reconveyance, claiming a simulated sale. RTC ruled in their favor; SC upheld, citing implied trust and default.
lower courts
rightful owners
disputed property
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 243874)

Facts:

  • Procedural History and Initiation of the Case
    • In March 2004, Belen A. Feria Guevara and Augustus Caesar A. Feria filed a Complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria and/or Reconveyance and Damages with urgent prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City.
    • The complaint pertained to a 285-square-meter lot located at 587 Cordillera Street, Mandaluyong City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10854.
    • The adverse parties were Joel F. Descallar and his wife, Evangeline Cabigao Descallar, whose failure to file timely answers led the RTC to declare them in default.
  • Movements and Orders in the RTC Proceedings
    • Spouses Descallar filed a motion to dismiss on October 13, 2004, which was denied on July 1, 2005.
    • The RTC repeatedly directed the Spouses to file an answer; instead, they submitted multiple motions for reconsideration and extensions.
    • Despite being granted extensions (including a “Final & In-extendible Motion for Extension of Time” until July 4, 2006), the Spouses failed to answer the complaint, prompting a motion by Belen and Augustus on August 30, 2006 to declare them in default.
    • On November 20, 2006, after the Spouses filed a belated Motion to Admit Answer accompanied by an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Opposition to the Preliminary Attachment, the RTC declared them in default.
    • Subsequent motions by the Spouses, including a plea to lift the order of default (filed on or before January 30, 2008) were denied by the RTC.
  • Development of the Case and Presentation of Evidence
    • Belen and Augustus, along with other indigent heirs of the late Cristeta A. Feria (the original owner and sister of Belen and Augustus), pursued an ex-parte reception of evidence.
    • During the evidence presentation at the RTC:
      • Belen testified in open court and reaffirmed previous statements in her judicial affidavit, recounting the transactions concerning the disputed property.
      • Evidence was introduced showing that Cristeta had executed a deed of absolute sale on December 14, 1995 in favor of Joel—but the sale was simulated, evidenced by the fact that no actual compensation was rendered.
      • Testimonies from former tenants, Nepomuceno Tayag and Liberty Dalumpines, corroborated that despite the deed of sale, Cristeta remained the beneficial owner since she continued paying expenses and receiving rents.
      • Documentary evidence included letters from Cristeta to her tenants, a notarized letter dated October 20, 1998 addressed to the Register of Deeds (requesting a lis pendens annotation), summoning documents issued by the barangay captain, and affidavits of adverse claim by Belen and Augustus executed on August 15, 2003.
    • The RTC eventually resolved the case on October 27, 2011 by declaring the heirs of Cristeta as the legal and rightful owners of the subject property, and ordering the Register of Deeds to effect the transfer of title accordingly, along with a monetary award for attorney’s fees.
    • Spouses Descallar filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on May 14, 2012, leading to their appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) under CA-G.R. CV No. 98938.
  • The Court of Appeals Proceedings
    • The CA, in its decision dated February 27, 2017, partially granted the appeal by modifying the RTC’s decision—specifically deleting the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs-appellees.
    • The CA affirmed that the RTC rightly declared the Spouses in default, noting that their answer filed earlier did not become part of the record because it was belated and did not comply with court orders.
    • Further, the CA affirmed that Belen et al. had sufficiently proven their cause of action by preponderance of evidence, while also addressing issues regarding the timing of the cause of action within the ten-year prescriptive period.
  • Petition for Review on Certiorari
    • Petitioners, now represented by Evangeline and her children Patricia Marie and Alessandra Monica Descallar (substituting for the late Joel F. Descallar), raised several issues before the Supreme Court.
    • Their claims include allegations that:
      • The RTC lacked jurisdiction for failure to allege the assessed value of the property and for erroneous payment of docket fees.
      • The cause of action was time-barred as it had prescribed.
      • The Spouses were not in default since they had filed an answer to the original complaint.
      • The unilateral deed of sale executed by Cristeta Feria was valid and supported by sufficient consideration.
      • Certain pieces of evidence, including Belen’s testimony (deemed hearsay) and other exhibits, were either inadmissible or should nullify the respondents’ substantive evidence.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction of the RTC
    • Whether the RTC had proper jurisdiction to hear the case considering allegations regarding the alleged failure to include the assessed value and payment of correct docket fees.
    • The timing and manner in which the issue of jurisdiction was raised, particularly given the doctrine of waiver or estoppel through delay.
  • Default of the Petitioners
    • Whether the petitioners (Spouses Descallar) were correctly declared in default due to their failure to timely respond to successive orders to file an answer.
    • Whether their earlier answer (filed to the original complaint) could stand as the answer to the Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of Court.
  • Prescription of the Cause of Action
    • Whether the action for reconveyance, based on the implied trust arising from the simulated deed of sale by Cristeta, had prescripted given that the title was issued in the petitioners’ name in 1996 and the complaint was filed in 2004.
  • Validity of the Unilateral Deed of Sale
    • Whether the deed of absolute sale executed by Cristeta, which is alleged to be simulated and lacking actual compensation, should be upheld as a valid transfer instrument.
  • Admissibility and Weight of Evidence
    • Whether the CA erred in giving weight to certain pieces of evidence (e.g., Belen’s testimony which was characterized as hearsay) along with other documentary evidence in proving the existence of an implied trust and the true ownership of the property.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms