Case Digest (G.R. No. 249754)
Facts:
The Heirs of Teodoro Ribac (G.R. No. 249754, October 19, 2022), Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are the heirs of Teodoro Ribac (Augustina, Mariano, Victor, Reynante, Dayla, and Rosalie Ribac). The respondents are Narcisa Ribac‑Putolan and Antonina Ribac‑Blanco, sisters of the deceased Teodoro.Teodoro was the registered owner of a 9.405‑hectare agricultural parcel (OCT No. P‑10565) in Poblacion, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. After Teodoro’s death in 1977, his sisters Narcisa and Antonina alleged that the property had been apportioned among the siblings by their parents and that Teodoro merely held the lot in trust for the family. In October 1994 the heirs of Teodoro occupied part of the land, procured cancellation of OCT No. P‑10565, and had another title issued in their names. On November 24, 1994 Narcisa and Antonina sued in Branch 21, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bansalan, for partition, reconveyance (implied trust), cancellation of title, issuance of new title, damages, and preliminary mandatory injunction.
At trial Narcisa and Antonina testified and offered two witnesses; the heirs of Teodoro presented a single witness (Mariano). The heirs alleged that the property belonged to their father (Teodoro), who cultivated it and allowed his sisters to work it in exchange for shares; they later reclaimed possession. Counsel for the heirs, Atty. Suario, twice failed to comply with the RTC’s orders to formally offer exhibits and later died; the RTC declared waiver of formal offers and, on July 30, 2013, rendered judgment ordering cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T‑37200, directing a survey and issuance of new titles to Narcisa and Antonina (one‑half each), and ordering the heirs of Teodoro to vacate and surrender possession.
The heirs moved for new trial; the RTC denied the motion (December 27, 2013), finding no gross negligence by their prior counsel and that they had been afforded opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeals (Special Twenty‑Second Division, Cagayan de Oro City; Arellano‑Morales, J., penned) denied the heirs’ appeal in a March 29, 2019 Decision (CA‑G.R. CV No. 03548‑MIN), affirming the finding of an implied trust and that the claim was not barred by prescription; the CA also denied reconsideration (Resolution, September 13, 2019).
The heirs filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. By Minute Resolution dated November 27, 2019 the Supreme Court initially denied the petition for failure to show reversible error. The heirs then filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court, reiterating claims of (1) entitlement to a new trial due to gross negligence of former counsel, (2) that respondents failed to prove an implied trust, (3) prescription, (4) that Teodoro had acquired the property by homes...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a new trial be granted on the ground of gross inexcusable negligence of petitioners’ former counsel?
- May the Dead Person’s Statute be applied at this stage to disqualify the testimonies of Narcisa and Antonina regarding events before Teodoro’s death?
- May this Court take cognizance of issues raised for the first time on appeal (specifically, the nature of Teodoro’s acquisition by homestead patent)?
- Does the fact that Teodoro acquired the subject property through a homestead patent bar Narci...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)