Title
Lazaro vs. Agustin
Case
G.R. No. 152364
Decision Date
Apr 15, 2010
Descendants of Simeon C. Santos dispute ownership of Lot No. 10676; petitioners claim co-ownership, but SC denies petition, affirming CA's ruling due to insufficient evidence and inadmissible affidavit.
notarized sworn statement
declaration against interest
sufficient evidence
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152364)

Factual Background

Petitioners alleged that they and respondents were descendants of the late Simeon C. Santos and that a parcel of land in Barrio Natividad, Municipality of Laoag, originally belonged to Simeon and was to be held in co-ownership by his children. Petitioners averred that the eldest sibling, Basilisa Santos, had Title No. 20742 issued in her name but that this titling did not reflect exclusive ownership and that Basilisa had executed an affidavit recognizing that each sibling, including petitioners, would have a one-fourth share. Petitioners alleged that the title was later transferred without their knowledge to respondents, who are descendants of Basilisa, and that respondents refused to submit to barangay partition proceedings. Petitioners further alleged that petitioner Alejandra S. Lazaro spent PHP 68,308.60 in constructing the residential house on the lot and that Basilisa and her children contributed PHP 3,495.00.

Respondents’ Allegations and Defenses

Respondents denied petitioner ownership and asserted that the subject lot was exclusively owned by the heirs of Basilisa Santos, who was the registered owner by OCT No. 20742. Respondents pleaded that some plaintiffs had permissive occupation, that petitioners stayed in the house by virtue of Basilisa’s benevolence, and that petitioners agreed to renovate the house in lieu of paying rent. Respondents further alleged that prior to 1962 the property had been mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB), foreclosed, acquired by PNB, and thereafter repurchased by Basilisa, and that transfers to her descendants were reflected in the chain of title culminating in TCT No. T-20695.

Procedural History

Petitioners commenced an action for partition in the MTCC of Laoag City on November 4, 1998, and sought partition of the lot and house, damages, and attorney’s fees. Respondents filed an Answer with Counterclaim and denied the allegations. The MTCC, after trial, dismissed the complaint and rejected the affidavit of Basilisa as hearsay for lack of the affiant’s testimony, finding credible testimony that Basilisa was bedridden at the time the affidavit was purportedly executed and that the notary public stated the affidavit was thumbmarked and presented by a person he did not personally know. Petitioners appealed to the RTC, which on February 6, 2001 affirmed the MTCC decision but modified it by awarding indemnity of PHP 68,308.60 to appellants as proved, and corrected the lot number to Lot No. 10676. Petitioners then appealed to the CA. On February 21, 2002 the CA affirmed the RTC decision with the modification that the indemnity of PHP 68,308.60 be paid solely to appellant Alejandra Santos-Lazaro. Petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Presented

Petitioners framed three assignments of error: (1) whether Basilisa’s sworn statement constituted a declaration against interest that established co-ownership among the heirs; (2) whether co-ownership terminated by reason of acts by Basilisa, including mortgage, foreclosure and subsequent transfers; and (3) whether Alejandra S. Lazaro was a co-owner of the residential house and therefore entitled to partition rather than merely indemnity as a builder in good faith.

Parties’ Contentions on the Primary Issue

Petitioners contended that the sworn statement of Basilisa was a declaration against interest and thus admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, that its notarization entitled it to full faith and credence without further proof, and that testimony challenging its execution could not overcome the presumption of regularity. Petitioners argued further that any mortgage, foreclosure or acquisition by PNB affected only Basilisa’s share and did not extinguish the co-ownership of the other heirs, and that Alejandra, as co-owner, was entitled to partition of the house. Respondents maintained that the property passed legitimately through PNB foreclosure and repurchase and through transfers to Basilisa’s descendants, and that petitioners failed to prove co-ownership.

Trial and Appellate Findings

The MTCC found the affidavit of Basilisa to be hearsay and accorded it no evidentiary weight because Basilisa was not presented as a witness and because credible witnesses testified that she was an invalid and bedridden when the affidavit was purportedly signed. The notary public testified that the affidavit had been thumbmarked and presented by an unknown person. The RTC agreed that petitioners failed to establish co-ownership but found that petitioners, in good faith, built and renovated the house and were entitled to indemnity of PHP 68,308.60. The CA affirmed the RTC but limited the indemnity award to petitioner Alejandra S. Lazaro alone.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision dated February 21, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 63321. The Court held that the questioned sworn statement was not a declaration against interest but was properly characterized as an admission against interest, since Basilisa was in privity with respondents as predecessor-in-interest. The Court further held that, although notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity, that presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence and is not absolute. Given the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts concerning the suspicious circumstances of execution and the credible testimony undermining the affidavit’s due execution, the Court found no ground to disturb those findings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained the distinction between admissions against interest and declarations against interest, citing Unchuan v. Lozada, and observed that an admission by a predecessor-in-interest is admissible against successors. The Court reiterated the rule that notarized documents carry the presumption of regularity and may be given evidentiary weight with respect to due execution, citing De Jesus v. Court of Appeals and related authorities. The Court emphasized, however, that this presumption is rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence, citing Potenciano v. Reynoso and Cequena v. Bolante, and that not all notarized documents are automatically exempt from authentication requirements, citing Cequena v. Bolante and Dela Rama v. Papa. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence because the challenge to the affidavit’s regularity presented primarily factual questions of credibility and due

...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