Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46573)
Facts:
Rev. Fr. Pablo B. Lola and Maxima B. Lola v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Dolores Santillan Zabala, G.R. No. L-46573, November 13, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Rev. Fr. Pablo B. Lola and his sister Maxima B. Lola sought review of a Court of Appeals resolution that reversed an earlier appellate disposition and held that respondent Dolores Santillan Zabala was the absolute owner of Lot No. 5517 (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10782) and ordered petitioners to vacate and demolish improvements thereon.
Respondent Zabala had filed, in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, a complaint for recovery of real property and damages alleging that she was the registered owner of Lot No. 5517 (164 sq. m.) abutting Sto. Nino Street, Tacloban City, and that by an “Escritura de Venta Absoluta” dated June 29, 1936 she sold to petitioners Lot No. 5516 (474 sq. m.) only; petitioners nevertheless occupied Lot No. 5517 and constructed a balcony and part of their house thereon, refused to vacate, and caused respondent to sign a transferor’s affidavit which allegedly misstates dates of occupation.
Petitioners answered that the written offer and accompanying sketch sent by respondent to Fr. Lola clearly described the parcel offered as including the street lot (what became Lots 5516 and 5517), that petitioners accepted and paid for the lot, and that they possessed the whole parcel peacefully, openly, adversely and in the concept of owner for over thirty years, invoking laches or estoppel to bar respondent’s claim.
After trial, the Court of First Instance of Leyte dismissed respondent’s complaint, finding that the letters and sketch sent by respondent to Fr. Lola, the transferor’s affidavit, and the parties’ conduct established that the sale included the street lot (Lot 5517), and that petitioners had long possession and paid taxes.
On appeal the Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court’s decision but modified it by ordering respondent to execute the necessary deed of conveyance covering Lot No. 5517 in favor of petitioners. Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration the Court of Appeals reversed that position and held respondent to be the absolute owner of Lot No. 5517, ordering petitioners to vacate and remove improvements. The appellate court’s reversal rested on a strict application of the parol evidence rule, treating the Escritura de Venta Absoluta as the sole repository of the agreement, and doubting petitioners’ account and some affidavits.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, which was denied, and then filed a p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the sale to petitioners include Lot No. 5517, such that parol evidence (letters, sketch, transferor’s affidavit, and subsequent conduct) is admissible to show the true intention of the parties despite the deed's written description?
- If petitioners occupied Lot No. 5517 for over thirty years and paid taxes, does the equitable defense of laches bar respondent from recovering the l...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)