Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15645)
Facts:
Hospicia Encabo alias Simplicia Encabo, et al. v. Cebu Portland Cement Company, G.R. No. L-17571, December 17, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court. The appeal was taken by Hospicia Encabo (alias Simplicia Encabo) and her daughters (the Encisos), plaintiffs-appellants in the trial court, from the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu in Civil Case No. R-334 dismissing their complaint against Cebu Portland Cement Company (Cepoc) and ordering them to pay P500 damages and costs.On December 2, 1953 the Encisos sued Cepoc in the CFI of Cebu to recover ownership and possession of a parcel in Barrio Tina-an, Naga, Cebu (allegedly ~17,341 sq. m., comprising Lots C and D on Plan Psu-36327) and to collect back rentals since 1943, expenses, damages and attorney’s fees. They alleged that Romualdo Enciso (deceased) had in 1937 sold a different portion (Lot B, ~15,000 sq. m.) to Cepoc, that Cepoc had been allowed to occupy Lots C and D on the promise of later payment of fair rentals and employment for family members, and that Cepoc had built permanent improvements and refused to pay rent despite demands.
Cepoc’s original answer admitted purchase of a parcel identified as Lot 8 (about 15,000 sq. m.) but also asserted ownership over parts of the disputed area under various theories (including the Law of Waters and a foreshore lease). While the plaintiffs were presenting evidence Cepoc filed an amended answer alleging ownership in fee simple of Lots B, C and D, pleaded prior judgment and prescription defenses, and counterclaimed for damages. Later, after presenting evidence, Cepoc obtained leave to file a second amended answer to conform pleadings to its evidence; this pleaded and offered as evidence a deed of sale (Exhibit 6) dated September 1, 1936 showing a sale by the Encisos to Cepoc of a parcel described with an area of 30,714.90 sq. m., and the registration proceedings (Land Registration Case No. 418, G.L.R.O. Record No. 51665) that culminated in a decree entered in favor of Cepoc in 1937.
At trial the Encisos contended the deed (Exhibit 6) was forged and relied on an adverse handwriting opinion from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Cepoc produced testimony (notably by Notary Public Prospero Panares) and documentary evidence showing the deed’s presence in the Division of Archives and the subsequent unopposed registration proceedings based on Plan Psu-102184 (reconstructed as Exhibit 4), culminating in a decree ordering adjudication and registration in Cepoc’s name (decision of June 8, 1937 a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it error for the trial court to admit Cepoc’s second amended answer that asserted ownership on a different factual basis?
- Was the deed of sale offered as Exhibit 6 a forgery or otherwise not authentic?
- Did Cepoc acquire ownership of the disputed lots by the 1936 sale and subsequent registration, thereby defeating the Encisos’ claim...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)