Case Digest (G.R. No. 169336)
Facts:
Spouses Melchor and Saturnina Alde v. Ronald B. Bernal, Olympia B. Bernal, Juanito B. Bernal, and Myrna D. Bernal, G.R. No. 169336, March 18, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Melchor and Saturnina Alde bought and took possession of a parcel of land in San Antonio West, Don Carlos, Bukidnon after a series of transactions involving Adriano Bernal, the father of respondents Ronald, Olympia, Juanito and Myrna Bernal. Adriano occupied and cultivated the land since about 1957; a 1992 survey designated the land as Cadastral Lot No. 1123 (8.5043 hectares). In January and June 1994 Adriano obtained loans from petitioners and physically turned over or pledged portions (1.5 hectares each) for security; petitioners thereafter cultivated part of the land.
In September 1994 Adriano purportedly sold the entire parcel to petitioners, evidenced by a local-language "Kasabotan sa Palit sa Yuta" dated 22 September 1994, signed by Adriano (with his wife Leona) and witnessed by respondent Ronald; petitioners took possession. On 18 October 1994 Original Certificate of Title No. AO-7236 (OCT No. AO-7236) was issued reflecting ownership pursuant to CLOA No. 00073938, showing Adriano (3 ha), Ronald (3 ha) and Juanito (2.5043 ha).
In April 2002 respondents first informed petitioners of OCT No. AO-7236 and demanded an additional P50,000; petitioners refused and requested turnover of the OCT. Respondents then filed a complaint on 13 June 2002 in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Don Carlos‑Kitaotao‑Dangcagan (MCTC) for recovery of ownership and possession, alleging Adriano erroneously included their shares in the 1994 sale and claiming earlier verbal donations to Ronald (1987) and Juanito (1978).
The MCTC, in a 19 November 2003 Decision, dismissed respondents’ complaint, finding Adriano the sole owner and valid seller to petitioners. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malaybalay City, Branch 9, modified the MCTC decision in a 9 August 2004 Decision: it declared the 1994 sale valid only as to Adriano’s portion, adjudged Ronald and Juanito as owners of their respective portions (3 ha and 2.5043 ha), ordered delivery of possession to respondents, and directed separate titles to be issued; the RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on 25 October 2004.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a 6 May 2005 Resolution the CA dismissed the petition on technical grounds for (a) failure to furnish the RTC a copy of the petition (Rule 42, Sec. 1), (b) defective verification (Rule 7, Sec. 4), and (c) mischarac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioners’ petition for review on the cited technical grounds (failure of service to RTC, defective verification, and improper mode of review)?
- On the merits, were petitioners entitled to ownership and reconveyance of the property, or did respondents prove ownership of portions of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)