Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39972)
Facts:
Victoria Lechugas v. Hon. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. Nos. L-39972 & L-40300, August 06, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division; Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Victoria Lechugas filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages against several private respondents alleging that they had, by force and intimidation, entered and appropriated portions of Lot No. 5456 (Lots A and B) which she claimed to own and from which she collected tenancy shares and paid taxes. That complaint was dismissed and petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo as Civil Case No. 5055.
While the appeal in Civil Case No. 5055 was pending, petitioner instituted another action in the same CFI for recovery and possession of the same property; that suit was docketed as Civil Case No. 5303. The two cases were tried jointly before the CFI. After trial the CFI rendered judgment dismissing both complaints, declaring the defendants (except two) owners and lawful possessors of the land, awarding limited damages and costs against petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which sustained the dismissal.
Central factual controversy concerned the identity of the parcel sold to petitioner under a public Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Leoncia Lasangue in December 1950 (Exhibit A). Petitioner relied on Exhibit A and a survey she had caused to be made, asserting she bought six hectares constituting Lot No. 5456; respondents countered that the deed actually covered a different parcel (Lot No. 5522) and that the portion in dispute had been sold in 1941 by Emeterio Lasangue to Hugo Loza (predecessor-in-interest of respondents). During trial Leoncia Lasangue — the vendor — testified for respondents that she sold to petitioner a southern parcel (Lot No. 5522), that she was illiterate and only thumb‑marked the prepared document, and that she never intended to convey the land that had earlier been sold by her father. The CFI found for respondents; the Court of Appeals, relying in part on Leoncia’s testimony, affirmed except that it held Exhibit A valid insofar as it conveyed Lot No. 5522 to petitioner.
Petitioner brought this petition for review to the Supreme Court raising three assignments of error: (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in admitting parol evidence to vary Exhibit A; (2) that respondents changed their theory for the first time on appeal; and (3) that the courts improperly “reformed” the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in admitting parol evidence to vary the written Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit A)?
- Did respondents improperly change their theory for the first time on appeal?
- Could the trial court and appellate court properly correct the deed’s subject matter (effectively reform Exhibit A) without a formal reformation action a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)