Batch 5 - Case No.

Llemos v. Llemos
516 SCRA 128/ G. R. No. 150162
January 26, 2007

FACTS:

The case originated from a Complaint filed by the respondents, the compulsory heirs of
the late Saturnina Salvatin (Saturnina). The Complaint sought to declare the nullity of the
transfer certificate of title of the petitioners on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest, the
late Felipe Llemos (Felipe), acquired the property described therein through a forged deed of
sale.

The respondents and petitioners are the heirs of the late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos, being
their grandmother. The late Saturnina Salvatin Llemos acquired a parcel of land in which all the
parties presently occupy.

The Register of Deeds of Dagupan, Pangasinan, cancelled Original Certificate of Title and issued
a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Felipe Llemos, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
thumb marked by Saturnina Salvatin Llemos.

Respondents filed the instant action for Declaration of Nullity of said Transfer Certificate Title,
it was amended to include additional plaintiffs who are likewise heirs of Saturnina Salvatin
Llemos.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the preponderance of evidence in the execution of the fraudulent Deed of
Sale was established.

RULING:

No. The respondents failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that the executed
Deed of Absolute Sale was fraudulent.

Respondents rely principally on the Certificate of Death issued by Rev. Fr. Camilo V.

Natividad attesting that "Salvatin Salvatin", widow of Andres Llemos died on the 12th day of
March 1938.

It is well-settled that Church registries of births, marriages, and deaths made subsequent
to the promulgation of General Orders No. 68 13 and the passage of Act No. 190 are no longer
public writings. They are private writings and their authenticity must therefore be proved as are
all other private writings in accordance with the rules of evidence.

SEC. 20. Proof of private document. – Before any private document offered as authentic
is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:

a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.

Respondents failed to present an authentic document that recites the contents of the
Register of Dead. The Certificate of Death is a private document and not a public document; and
respondents failed to prove its authenticity by their failure to present any witness to testify on the
due execution and genuineness of the signature of Fr. Natividad, pursuant to Section 20, Rule
132.

Moreover, the Court notes the absence of evidence showing that "Salvatin Salvatin"
mentioned in the Certificate of Death is the same "Saturnina Salvatin" referred to by them as
their predecessor-in-interest; and that Father Natividad has personal knowledge of the date of
death of "Salvatin Salvatin".

Batch 5 – Case No. 6

ENRIQUE P. SYQUIA v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-61932
June 30, 1987

FACTS:
 The instant action arose from an ejectment case against petitioner by Edward Litton
(private respondent) based on the expiration of the Contract of Lease over the Dutch Inn
Building originally owned by the Heirs of Doña Rosa Litton who leased it to Litton Finance and
Investment Corporation.

Litton co-ownership was dissolved by partition and the ownership of the Dutch Inn
Building and the lots on which it is built was adjudicated to Edward Litton.

Edward Litton, private respondent, gave notice as the new owner of said properties,
rentals of the same should be remitted to him. Syquia, petitioner, signified his conformity to this
notice. Petitioner informed the respondent his willingness to renew the contract of lease upon its
expiration under the terms as may be agreeable to both of them.

A series of communications ensued between the petitioner and the private respondent
thru counsel, consistently invoking the clear and unequivocal terms of the contract of lease
especially the duration thereof which allegedly does not provide for renewal or extension.

Private respondent asked petitioner to vacate the premises on or before the expiration of
the lease contract. Petitioner objected invoking the alleged verbal assurance by plaintiff-apellee's
predecessor-in-interest of petitioner's priority to renew the lease of the premises in question.
Upon petitioner's refusal to vacate the premises, private respondent filed the case for ejectment
based on the expiration of the Contract of Lease. The City Court rendered a decision in favor
Edward Litton (herein private respondent). On appeal to the RTC, the judgment was slightly
modified in that the monthly rental and that defendant's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of
merit.

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review in which affirmed
the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant is entitled to a renewal of the contract of lease.

RULING:

No, the defendant is not entitled to a renewal of the contract of lease.

Applying the Parol Evidence Rule to the instant case, it is clear that there being a written
agreement between the parties, the same should be controlling between them. The exceptions
provided for in (A) and (B) cannot apply in the instant case in view of the fact that the contract of
lease, is clear, thus precluding any mistake or imperfection or failure to express the true intent
and agreement of the parties. The Court cannot see any ambiguity in the contract.

The provision for the alleged extension or renewal or assurance or priority to lease after
the contract shall have expired are not found in from the express terms of the contract of lease. It
is significant to note that defendant failed to point out the mistake or failure to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties or any ambiguity of in the contract of lease.