G.R. No. L-22006 - Perez vs. Mendoza

The case is an action to quiet title over a piece of land filed on March 20, 1959, by petitioners Basilio Perez and Petra Montalbo against respondents Nicolas Mendoza, Margarita Macalalad, and, by implication, the Court of Appeals.
The land in dispute is located in barrio Dagatan, municipality of Taysan, Batangas, covering approximately 4,765 square meters and bounded by a school site to the north, Calixto Flores’ property to the east, a creek to the south, and a creek and Gregorio Mendoza’s land to the west.

Originating as part of a larger tract owned by Estanislao Montalbo, the property passed to his children—Petra, Felisa, and Pedro—after his death in 1918.
With Pedro having died single, the surviving heirs, Petra and Felisa, divided their father’s properties, with the parcel in question eventually being assigned to Felisa.
In 1922, Felisa exchanged the parcel with her aunt, Andrea Montalbo, to facilitate a land donation for a school site preferred by the municipality.
Upon acquiring the parcel from Felisa, Andrea Montalbo donated its northern portion (forming part of a larger tract) to the municipality and later, in 1927, donated the remainder of the land propter nuptias to her daughter Margarita Macalalad, by virtue of her marriage to Nicolas Mendoza.
An alleged deed of exchange (Exhibit 5) dated January 14, 1922, was later introduced to substantiate the transaction but was also the subject of a criminal complaint for falsification when it was discovered that the municipal secretary Rafael Manahan’s signature was forged.

The trial court of Batangas rendered judgment on February 19, 1962, dismissing the petition and ruling in favor of the respondents based on evidence showing the defendants’ better right over the property.
Petitioners subsequently elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s findings by emphasizing that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the land originally belonged to Felisa Montalbo and that it was effectively exchanged and donated through the actions of Andrea Montalbo.
Despite the discovery of the forged signature regarding Exhibit 5, both courts held that there was sufficient and independent evidence showing that the land had indeed been exchanged in 1922 and that the donation in 1927 was valid.

Respondents’ evidence clearly indicates that Nicolas Mendoza and Margarita Macalalad have been in continuous and actual possession of the land since 1927, having constructed a house on the property in 1928 where they resided.
Testimonies and documentary evidence, including dealings with the provincial authorities during the widening of a provincial road in 1937-38, support the respondents’ claim; only the Mendozas were approached regarding the adjacent road project, demonstrating their status as the actual possessors.
Petitioners also introduced evidence, including a deed of partition dated May 27, 1934 (Exhibit D), purportedly showing the division of the properties of Estanislao Montalbo between Petra and the heirs of Felisa. However, this document was not conclusive regarding the contested property, and its probative value was further diminished by ambiguities surrounding the supposed witness signature of Andrea Montalbo.

Petitioners contended that the respondent court improperly considered the criminal case (for falsification of a document) as res judicata in determining the ownership issue in the civil case, noting that the criminal case did not directly resolve the question of title.
They argued that the weight given to Exhibit 5, despite its finding of a forged signature, was improper as it was used to establish the deed of exchange.
Petitioners also maintained that the appellate court erred in discounting the deed of partition (Exhibit D), which they alleged supported their claim to the land.
Finally, they claimed that these errors warranted a decision in their favor contrary to the existing findings of fact and evidence.

Whether the judgment in the criminal case for falsification of a document, which did not directly address the issue of ownership, could be invoked as res judicata in the civil action for quieting title.
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in giving weight to Exhibit 5 despite its forged signature, particularly when other evidence independently established the exchange and donation of the land.
Whether the deed of partition (Exhibit D) should have been accepted as conclusive evidence of joint ownership or possession by the petitioners, given the ambiguities surrounding the participation and signature of Andrea Montalbo.
Whether the cumulative findings of fact—especially the continuous, open, and adverse possession of the land by the respondents since 1927—justify maintaining the rulings of the trial and appellate courts against the petitioners’ claims.