Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58164)
Facts:
Jose Guerrero, Maria Guerrero, Magdalena Guerrero Espiritu, assisted by her husband Candido Espiritu, Gregorio Guerrero, Clara Guerrero, et al. v. St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd., Guillermo T. Guerrero, Cecilia Guerrero, assisted by Angelo Cardeno, Perlinda Guerrero, et al., G.R. No. L-58164, September 02, 1983, Supreme Court First Division, Vasquez, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners (the Guerrero heirs) sued in the Court of First Instance of Rizal to annul a series of instruments (a purported 1948 Deed of Sale to Manuel Guerrero, subsequent Deeds of Absolute Sale to the Guerreros and to St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd., and the resulting Original Certificate of Title No. 4591 and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 339629 and 340842), to quiet title and reconvey the property, to declare null a Joint Venture Agreement affecting the lot, and to recover actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The disputed parcel in San Dionisio, Parañaque (about 42,299 sq. m.) allegedly belonged to spouses Isidoro Guerrero and Panay Ramos and, by verbal disposition and possession, to their son Andres Guerrero, who cultivated it and later entrusted it to his sister Cristina Guerrero.
The complaint alleged that Cristina never owned but only held or mortgaged the land; that the 1948 Deed to Manuel was fraudulent and only presented for registration decades later; and that subsequent transfers and a joint-venture development were made in fraud of petitioners’ rights. Defendants (the Guerreros, St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd., and United Housing Corporation) answered asserting Cristina’s ownership and raising prescription and laches; United Housing denied privity with petitioners.
At trial petitioners presented witnesses (including Dominador Ramirez, Roman Mataverde of the Bureau of Lands, and members of the Cervantes family) who testified that Andres possessed, paid taxes on, and cultivated the land; that the Bureau’s 1957 cadastral survey listed Andres as sole claimant; and that Cristina was ill and dependent on Manuel Guerrero, who later presented a deed and successfully secured title. Defendants conducted rigorous cross-examination.
During trial counsel for defendants objected to testimony by Laura and Jose Cervantes under the so‑called dead man’s rule — Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court — and on November 16, 1973 the trial court disqualified these witnesses. On June 14, 1974 the trial court, because petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at a scheduled hearing (while petitioners had filed a special civil action in the Court of Appeals seeking the disqualification of the trial judge), ordered that petitioners were “deemed to have waived their right to further present or formally offer their evidence” and authorized the clerk to receive defendants’ evidence. Petitioners filed CA petition (docketed CA-G.R. No. SF-03120) to disqualify the trial judge; the Court of Appeals denied it on June 27, 1974.
Despite the pendency of proceedings, on July 17, 1974 the trial court rendered judgment dismissing petitioners’ complaint and, as modified by the Court of Appeals, condemned petitioners to pay massive sums in actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees (totaling over P2,183,500.00). Plaintiffs’ motions for reconsidera...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were Laura Cervantes and Jose Cervantes properly disqualified from testifying under Section 20(a), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?
- Was it proper for the trial court to deem the plaintiffs to have waived the right to present further evidence and to preclude them from completing their case because of their non‑appearance while a petition to disqualify the judge was pending?
- Given the procedural rulings, should the Court address (or sustain) the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ awards of prescription...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)