Title
Heirs of Bajenting vs. Banez
Case
G.R. No. 166190
Decision Date
Sep 20, 2006
Heirs sought to repurchase land sold to defendants under Section 119 of CA 141, but SC denied, citing profit-driven motive, affirming CA with modification.
heirs
bajenting
banez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166190)

Factual Background

Venancio Bajenting applied for a free patent over the subject land, docketed as Free Patent Application No. IV-45340. During the pendency of the application, he planted fruit trees—mango, lanzones, coconut, and santol—and he and his wife, Felisa, lived in a house on the property. On February 18, 1974, Venancio died intestate. His application was later approved, and on December 18, 1975, Free Patent No. 577244 was issued in his favor. Subsequently, on February 6, 1976, the Register of Deeds issued OCT No. P-5677 in the name of “Venancio Bajenting, married to Felisa Sultan.”

After Venancio’s death, Selecio Bajenting continued cultivating the land. While the property was held within the family, the Sangguniang Panglunsod approved City Ordinance No. 263, Series of 1982, and Resolution No. 10254, declaring properties in Langub as part of a low density residential zone. On May 31, 1993, Felisa and the other heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot 23. The deed was intended to partition Venancio’s property among the heirs and included a sale of a portion of the land: 50,000 square meters to the spouses Sonia Luz Alfafara, and 54,140 square meters to Engr. Romeo F. Banez, with Felisa’s share included in the portion sold to Banez. However, the deed was not notarized, and the sale was not shown to have been approved by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources.

The parties’ Agreement/Receipt stated a purchase price of P500,000.00, with P350,000.00 paid and the remaining P150,000.00 payable on or before December 31, 1993 at the vendors’ residence. The owner’s duplicate of title was delivered to the vendees, but the deed was not filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds. The heirs attempted to repurchase the property under Section 119, Commonwealth Act No. 141, but the vendees allegedly prevented them from exercising that right.

Barangay Conciliation and Trial Court Filings

On May 31, 1995, the heirs, through Venencio Bajenting, filed a complaint for recovery of title against Banez and the Alfafaras before the Barangay Captain. When no amicable settlement was reached, the heirs filed in the Regional Trial Court a complaint for Quieting of Title, Repurchase of Property, Recovery of Title plus Damages, alleging that they had tried to repurchase and that the defendants had ignored summons for barangay conciliation.

The heirs sought, among others, an order to quiet and remove clouds on OCT No. P-5677 and Free Patent No. 577244, to require the defendants to return the owner’s duplicate title and vacate the premises, and, in the alternative, to require defendants to resell the property back to the heirs in accordance with Section 119, C.A. No. 141. They also prayed for moral damages, exemplary damages, actual damages, and attorney’s fees.

On October 29, 1996, the heirs filed an Amended Complaint. They alleged that the property had been sold to the defendants in May 1993 for P500,000.00, and that defendants paid only P350,000.00. They emphasized that since the property was covered by a free patent, it could be repurchased within five years from conveyance under Section 119. The heirs stated that they had tendered P350,000.00 as repurchase money and supported the tender with an official receipt. They reiterated their alternative prayer for a resale consistent with Section 119, along with damages and attorney’s fees.

The heirs deposited P350,000.00 with the Clerk of Court and obtained an official receipt. In their Amended Answer, respondents argued that the heirs who did not sign the deed were not entitled to repurchase; that Venencio Bajenting had acted in behalf of a “speculator”; and that the heirs had not tendered the amount necessary to perfect repurchase. Respondents also prayed that plaintiffs deliver documents sufficient to evidence the transfer of title and sought damages as a compulsory counterclaim.

During pre-trial, the trial court explored possible settlement, including appointment of a receiver, subsequent sale to a third party, and division of proceeds. On February 6, 1998, the heirs filed a Manifestation indicating willingness to receive P5,000,000.00 as additional purchase price within two months, or else they would no longer agree to payment of that amount, and expressing willingness to look for buyers to sell the property at not less than P5,000,000.00, with a division of proceeds.

Evidence Presented and RTC Decision

The heirs presented Vicente Ravino, husband of Benedicta Bajenting, who testified to Felisa’s death. He stated that for about two years he demanded payment of the remaining P150,000.00 but it was not paid. The heirs authorized Venencio Bajenting to represent them for repurchase.

Respondents presented evidence that Langub properties had been classified as low-density residential zones by Ordinance No. 4042, Series of 1996, intended primarily for housing development. They also cited plans under P.D. No. 957, and mentioned recommendations for development projects in the vicinity, including an astrodome, a government center, and a circumferential road, with no money appropriated at the time.

Respondents also relied on testimony of a real estate agent, Anne Reyes, who stated that in March 1993 she was asked to help sell the property for P350,000.00 and that she had received documents enabling her to offer the property. She testified that she failed to sell it. She further testified that in December 1995 Margarita asked her to return the documents because the price sought had increased to P10,000,000.00, and she was asked to accompany prospective buyers willing to pay that amount to Venencio Bajenting, who had a special power of attorney to sell. On cross-examination, Reyes admitted she had no written authority to sell.

Reyes testified that in December 1995 she inquired whether Banez would be willing to resell to the heirs, and that in February 1996 Banez asked whether the heirs intended to repurchase. She replied affirmatively and offered to testify. Ermelinda Oyco testified that during barangay proceedings Margarita informed her and her sister that the heirs would repurchase the property and resell it, offering a plan to sell for P10,000,000.00, with a commission to Venencio if a sale succeeded. On cross-examination, Oyco admitted she was invited by Banez and agreed out of pity. In rebuttal, Venencio testified that he did not meet Oyco and her mother and that they had no interest to sell the property. Margarita Reusora died on August 24, 1997, before she could testify.

On March 1, 2002, the Regional Trial Court ruled for the heirs. The dispositive portion ordered respondents to vacate and deliver the certificate of title, and it directed the Clerk of Court to release the deposited P350,000.00 to respondents as repurchase money. It dismissed respondents’ compulsory counterclaim. The RTC reasoned that there was evidence of development plans in the vicinity but found that respondents failed to prove that plaintiffs were repurchasing for a financier.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Respondents moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. It explained that the ruling in Santana v. Marinas was not applicable and that Hernaez v. Mamalio controlled.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held that the evidence and pleadings showed that the heirs sought to repurchase for profit, not to preserve the property for their family use. The CA applied the Santana ruling. It later denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, the heirs argued that the CA wrongly disregarded the RTC’s evidentiary findings and misapplied Santana. They also contended that respondents had not paid the remaining purchase price of P150,000.00, making the CA’s reversal inequitable. They asserted that respondents failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the repurchase motive was speculative. They further attacked the admissibility and weight of the testimonies of Reyes and Oyco, invoking the “dead man’s statute” theory and asserting issues about hearsay and self-serving statements. They also maintained that the CA ignored the alleged non-payment of the balance.

Respondents countered that only Venencio Bajenting signed the verification and certification against forum shopping, and that the heirs failed to attach a special power of attorney authorizing him to sign for the rest. Respondents maintained that the CA’s findings on credibility were binding, and argued that the dead man’s statute did not apply because Reyes and Oyco were mere witnesses, not parties. They also argued that the CA need not order payment of the balance because it was not within respondents’ prayer, and that any mention in petitioners’ pleadings was only contextual.

The Supreme Court framed the issues as: (a) whether petitioners complied with verification and certification against forum shopping; (b) whether petitioners were entitled to repurchase; and (c) whether petitioners were obliged to execute a notarized deed of absolute sale.

Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

On the first issue, the Court observed that out of twenty-three petitioners, only Venancio Bajenting signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. The petitioners did not attach a special power of attorney authorizing him to sign for the others. The Court acknowledged the general rule that the certification must be signed by all petitioners and that signing by only one is insufficient. It nevertheless applied substantial compliance, relying on Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile, where the Court held that the rules on forum shopping were not meant to be interpreted with absolute literalness to defeat their ultimate objective.

The Court found substantial compliance because the petitioners were relatives and co-owners sharing a common interest and a common defense. It noted that the representative acte

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms