G.R. No. 984 - Bermejo vs. Dorado

Case Summary (G.R. No. 984)

Nature of the Action and Limits of Appellate Review

The appellate court emphasized that the case “relates to the possession of the land described in the complaint” and “does not involve the question of title.” It also stated that there was no motion for a new trial in the court below. Consequently, the appellate court held that it could not review the evidence. The only question it would decide was whether the facts stated in the decision and those admitted by the pleadings sustained the judgment in favor of Isidora Bermejo.

Factual Findings Sustaining Plaintiff’s Right to Possess

The trial judge found that on September 1, 1887, Narciso Bermejo sold and conveyed the land in question by public document to the plaintiff Isidora Bermejo and her husband Palmo Davidas (by the time of trial, he was deceased). The court found that after the conveyance, the grantees took possession of the land. During their possession, the plaintiff and her husband allegedly made a verbal agreement with Magdaleno Dorado and Alejandra Bermejo (also deceased), under which the plaintiff and her husband transferred to the defendant and his wife the land and certain carabaos. The arrangement was described as requiring that the transferees use them to support themselves from their products, and that they should return the land and carabaos to the plaintiff and her husband whenever the latter should need them. The court further found that the defendant and his wife entered into possession of the property under this arrangement.

The appellate court held that, in an action relating solely to possession, these facts were sufficient to support a judgment for the plaintiff. It added that no other facts in the decision conflicted with those findings.

Defendant’s Reliance on Contradictory Private and Public Documents

The appellant argued in the court below that his right to possess was supported by documents executed after the 1887 deed. First, he relied upon a private document executed by Victoriano Bermejo and his brothers to the defendant’s wife approximately two years after the deed by Narciso Bermejo to the plaintiff and her husband. In that private writing, the grantors undertook to convey the land to defendant’s wife, stating that they had inherited it from their mother, Clotilde Base. The trial court, however, found that neither Victoriano Bermejo, nor his brothers, nor Clotilde Base had ever been in possession of the property, and that the evidence showed that none of them had any interest in it.

Second, the appellant relied upon a public document executed in 1898 by Rafaela Posadas, the mother of the defendant’s wife, by which the grantor undertook to convey to the defendant a certain tract of land. In that deed, the grantor stated that her title derived from her daughter, the defendant’s wife. The appellate court noted that, under the trial court’s findings, the defendant’s wife’s only right in the property—based on the evidence—was the right she acquired by virtue of the arrangement between herself and her husband and the plaintiff and her husband. Given that premise, the appellate court concluded that the 1898 deed could “convey no interest whatever” to the defendant as found by the trial court. The right of defendant’s wife was characterized as a “mere right to possess the property until the plaintiff desired to use it,” and the appellate court stated that such right necessarily terminated at least when the plaintiff commenced the suit.

As to the 1898 deed’s execution, the appellate decision recorded that Rafaela appeared as a witness and testified that she never executed the document. The trial court, the appellate court stated, made no definite findings on whether the document was genuine or not, but it also held that such a finding was not necessary in light of the court’s disposition on the other aspects of the case.

Third-Person Argument Under the Mortgage Law

The appellant further claimed that the 1887 public deed executed by Narciso Bermejo to the plaintiff and her husband should not have been received in evidence against him because he was a third person within the meaning of various provisions of the Mortgage Law. The appellate court declined to decide whether the cited Mortgage Law articles applied, reasoning that even without deciding applicability, the trial court made a factual finding that the 1887 document had been duly recorded. The appellate court stated that the proofs supporting that finding were not before it, and reiterated that it had no right to review evidence where no motion for a new trial had been filed. Accordingly, the appellate court instructed that it had to assume the recordation was proper.

Allegation That the 1898 Deed Covered Different Land

Finally, the appellant asserted that the land described in the 1898 deed was not the same land described in the 1887 deed. The appellate court noted that the judgment did not describe any land in detail. Instead, it referred to the “land in question” and declared that the documents presented by the defendant related to the same land. The appellate decision further obs

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 984)

The controversy concerned possession of the land described in the complaint, and it did not involve the question of title.

Procedural Posture and Review Limits

No motion for a new trial had been filed in the court below.
The Court therefore held that it could not review the evidence on appeal.
The Court limited the review to whether the facts stated in the decision and the facts admitted by the pleadings sustained the judgment for the plaintiff.
The only question on appeal was whether those admitted and stated facts supported the judgment, given the evidentiary posture imposed by the absence of a motion for new trial.

Key Factual Findings

The trial judge found that on September 1, 1887, Narciso Bermejo sold and conveyed the land in question by a public document to Isidora Bermejo and her husband Palmo Davidas (since deceased).
The Court noted that the grantees took possession of the property after the 1887 conveyance.
The trial judge further found that during the grantees’ possession, they made a verbal agreement with Magdaleno Dorado and his wife Alejandra Bermejo (since deceased).
Under that verbal arrangement, Isidora Bermejo and Palmo Davidas transferred to Magdaleno Dorado and his wife the land and certain carabaos.
The arrangement required the defendant and his wife to use the land and carabaos to support themselves from their products.
The arrangement also required the defendant to return the land and carabaos to the plaintiff and her husband whenever the latter should need them.
The trial court found that Magdaleno Dorado and his wife entered and remained in possession pursuant to that arrangement.

Governing Approach: Possession, Not Title

The Court reiterated that in an action relating to possession, the found facts were sufficient to support judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The Court stated that it found no additional facts in the decision that conflicted with the trial court’s possession-based findings.

Defendant’s Reliance on Private Document

The defendant in the court below relied on a private document executed by Victoriano Bermejo and his brothers to the defendant’s wife two years after the execution of Narciso Bermejo’s deed to the plaintiff.
The private document stated that the grantors had inherited the property from their mother, Clotilde Base.
The trial court, however, found that Victoriano Bermejo, his brothers, and Clotilde Base had never been in possession of the property.
The trial court also found that there was no evidence showing that any of those persons ever had any interest in the property.
The Court treated the tr