Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

TENTH (10th) DIVISION

EUFEMIA DISPO DE LEON, CA-G.R. CV No. 116538

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
- versus -
CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,
ANTONIO ESTEVES, substituted ACOSTA, L.P., and
by his heirs namely, MONINA CARINGAL, J.F.A., JJ.
ESTEVES, NATHALIE ESTEVES
and ANTONETTE ORPILLA,* Promulgated:
Defendants-Appellants.
31 AUG 2022
____________________
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE

This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

which seeks to reverse and set aside the November 20, 2020
Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch
47, Urdaneta City, in Civil Case No. U-8723, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiff, as follows:

(1) Declaring null and void the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale
allegedly executed by Eufemia Dispo De Leon in favor of
Antonio Esteves on March 30, 2000 for being inexistent
and without any legal force and effect, as well as the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 15, 2004 for being
fictitious;

(2) Ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title

Nos. 246602, 282511, 282512, 282513, 282514, and
282515 in the name of Antonio Esteves; and Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 026-2013005071, 026-
2013005072, and 026-2013005073 in the name of Ann
Nathaline L. Esteves for being null and void;
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 2 of 18
DECISION

(3) Declaring the plaintiff, Eufemia Dispo De Leon, as the

rightful owner of the property described in paragraph 3 of
the complaint, and ordering the heirs of Antonio M.
Esteves to reconvey and/or return the same to the
plaintiff;

(4) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Lingayen to cancel

Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 246602, 282511,
282512, 282513, 282514, and 282515 in the name of
Antonio Esteves; and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
026-2013005071, 026-2013005072, and 026-
2013005073 in the name of Ann Nathaline L. Esteves;
and to reinstate Original Certificate of Title No. 29823 in
the name of Eufemia D. De Leon; and

(5) Ordering Monina L. Esteves to pay the plaintiff the

amount of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P10,000.00
as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.2

THE ANTECEDENTS

On February 14, 2017, Eufemia Dispo De Leon (Eufemia), as

plaintiff, filed an a Complaint 3 for Annulment of Documents,
Reconveyance and Damages against Antonio Esteves (Antonio) at
the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City (RTC). Docketed as Civil
Case No U-8723, the complaint was initially raffled to Branch 46 of
the said RTC.

Eufemia alleged that she is the registered owner of a parcel of

land measuring 28,263 square meters, situated in Barangay
Pinmilapil, Sison, Pangasinan and covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 29823 of the Registry of the Deeds for the Province
of Pangansinan.4

At a time when Eufemia “was in dire need of cash for her

hospitalization and medicines[,]” she approached Ricky Aglobin
(Ricky), a townmate and family friend, for help in mortgaging her land
to the Landbank-Urdaneta City Branch (Landbank-Urdaneta). Ricky
accompanied Antonio to Eufemia’s house and introduced Antonio as
a lawyer who allegedly knows personally the manager of Landbank-
Urdaneta. Antonio agreed to help Eufemia mortgage the land. He
took out two blank sheets of bond paper from the folder he had
brought with him and “through the use of insidious words and
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 3 of 18
DECISION

machinations,” he induced Eufemia to sign the blank sheets of paper.

Eufemia believed Antonio when he said that he would eventually type
on the blank sheets of paper a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
authorizing him to mortgage the property on her behalf. 5

Antonio asked for Eufemia’s copy of OCT No. 29823 so that he

could use the same as security to obtain a bank loan. He also asked
for a twenty percent commission from the loan proceeds. 6

Eufemia subsequently learned that Antonio is not a lawyer. She

likewise found out that instead of typing a SPA on the blank sheets of
paper which she signed, he typed a Deed of Sale with which she
supposedly sold the land covered by OCT No. 29823 to him. Eufemia
maintained that such Deed of Sale did not have her consent and was
not accompanied by any consideration from Antonio, the supposed
buyer. Hence, the Deed of Sale is null and void. 7

Notwithstanding the nullity of the Deed of Sale, Antonio caused

the cancellation of Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823 and secured Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 246602 of the Registry of the Deeds for
the Province of Pangansinan in his name. 8 Thereafter, Antonio
subdivided the lot and had TCT No. 246602 cancelled. In its stead,
five new titles were issued in the name of Antonio, 9 to wit:

Transfer Certificate of Title Area

TCT No. 28251110
TCT No. 28251211
TCT No. 28251312
TCT No. 28251413
TCT No. 28251514
7,138 square meters
423 square meters
10,350 square meters
7,000 square meters
3,352 square meters

Eufemia pointed out that the five titles enumerated above are
null and void because they emanated from the “malicious and
unlawful execution of the Deed of Sale.” 15

Hence, Eufemia prayed that judgment be rendered in her favor

as follows: (1) declaring the Deed of Sale she purportedly executed in
favor of Antonio null and void, (2) declaring TCT Nos. 282511 to
282515 in the name of Antonio null and void, (3) reinstating OCT No.
29823 in the name of Eufemia, and (4) ordering Antonio to pay moral
damages and attorney’s fees.16
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 4 of 18
DECISION

Summons could not be personally served upon Antonio at his

last known address in Sison, Pangasinan. The plaintiff, then, filed a
Motion [for] Leave of Court that Service of Summon be Effected upon
Defendant by Publication in [a] Newspaper of General Circulation. 17
The RTC granted the motion and directed that the “service of
summons be effected through publication.”18

However, in an Order19 dated February 4, 2008, the RTC noted

that despite granting the motion to effect service of summons by
publication, “[the] plaintiff did not take action to cause such
publication.”20 The RTC, therefore, ordered the dismissal of the
case.21

Eufemia filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 22 which the RTC

granted in an Order23 dated May 29, 2008. The case was reinstated
and the plaintiff was ordered to cause the publication of summons
immediately.24

Thereafter, Eufemia filed a Motion to Declare Defendant in

Default25 pointing out that despite the publication of the summons in
Sunday Punch, a newspaper of general circulation for the provinces
of Pangasinan, La Union and the rest of Northern Luzon, the
defendant did not file an answer. 26

The RTC, in an Order 27 dated March 18, 2009, denied the

plaintiff’s Motion to Declare Defendant in Default after noting that
“there is no proof that the summons was published.” 28 In the same
Order, the RTC resolved to archive the case. 29

Plaintiff Eufemia moved for the RTC to reconsider the order

archiving the case.30 She attached to her motion “the affidavit of
publication, together with the copy of the newspaper.” 31 However, the
RTC noted that “no copy of the summons and order for publication
were sent by registered mail to the defendant at his last known
address as required under Section 19, Rule 14, of the [R]ules of
Court.”32 Hence, the RTC denied the plaintiff’s motion and maintained
its order archiving the case.33

In a Manifestation of Compliance xxx, 34 the plaintiff reported

that she has already cured the deficiencies previously noted by the
RTC by sending a copy of the summons and order of publication
through registered mail at the last known address of the defendant. 35
The plaintiff followed this up with a Motion to Reopen Case xxx, 36
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 5 of 18
DECISION

which the RTC granted in an Order 37 dated July 20, 2010. The plaintiff
then reiterated her motion to declare the defendant in default.

In an Order dated July 28, 2011, the RTC declared the

defendant in default.38 Upon motion39 of the plaintiff, the RTC allowed
the former to present evidence ex parte before the Branch Clerk of
Court.40

On June 21, 2013, the heirs of Antonio Esteves (“Heirs of

Antonio” for brevity) filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default. 41 In their
motion, the Heirs of Antonio informed the trial court of his passing on
January 10, 2013.42 The Heirs of Antonio added that he was not
served summons because the plaintiff kept using an address which
she knew was incorrect.43

After due hearing on the Motion to Lift Order of Default, the

RTC, in an Order44 dated July 25, 2014, granted the same “in the
interest of substantial justice.” 45 The RTC likewise ruled that “[t]he
heirs of the deceased defendant are allowed to substitute the latter
and are given fifteen (15) days from receipt of this order to file their
responsive pleading.”46

The Heirs of Antonio filed their Answer with Counterclaim. 47

They maintained that the property previously embraced in OCT No.
29823 was sold to the late Antonio, as evidenced by a Deed of
Absolute Sale executed in his favor. After the sale, OCT No. 29823
was cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of Antonio.
Subsequently, the lot which Antonio bought was subdivided into five
smaller lots. The owner’s copy of the title to each of the five lots are in
the possession of the defendants. 48

The defendants insisted on the validity of the titles they have

been holding because, according to them, these were all derived from
an actual sale between the plaintiff and Antonio. They characterized
Eufemia’s suit as a malicious complaint because of which they were
constrained to engage the services of a lawyer. As such, they prayed
for the dismissal of the complaint and for an order directing Eufemia
to pay ₱50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and ₱30,000.00 as litigation
expenses, among others.49

The parties were referred to mediation 50 and judicial dispute

resolution,51 but both alternative modes of settling the controversy
were unsuccessful.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 6 of 18
DECISION

The case was then re-raffled to Branch 47 of the same RTC,

which proceeded to conduct the Pre-Trial Conference for the case. 52
Thereafter, trial ensued.

Eufemia53 testified in court to substantiate the allegations in her

complaint. She insisted that “she has not executed any deed of sale
or document transferring her property covered by OCT No. 29823 to
the late Antonio xxx.”54

The plaintiff likewise presented, as a witness, Jerome E. Ruiz

(Jerome),55 an employee at the Registry of Deeds of Lingayen,
Pangasinan, who testified that there were discrepancies between the
annotations on OCT No. 29823 and the entries in the Primary Entry
Book of the Registry of Deeds.56

On the other hand, Monina L. Esteves (Monina)57 testified on

behalf of the defendants. She is the widow of Antonio. She claimed
that Eufemia’s complaint “is without any legal basis as the subject
property was legally sold to [her] late husband xxx and the allegations
of the plaintiff were just mere afterthoughts.” 58

After examining the diametrically-opposed stands of the parties

and their respective evidence, the RTC, on November 20, 2020,
issued the Decision59 ruling in favor of Eufemia.

The RTC, addressing the defendants’ claim that the subject

property was sold to Antonio, pointed out that:

xxx, the plaintiff was able to prove that the Deed of Absolute
Sale allegedly executed by her on March 30, 2000 was not on file
with the Registry of Deeds, xxx.

Monina and her children did not present a copy of the said
Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed in 2000 to support their
claim that the plaintiff already sold the subject property to Antonio.
Instead, they offered in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
March 15, 2004 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in Antonio’s
favor. However, the series of events prior to the execution of the
deed in 2004 created a cloud of doubt as to its due execution. For
one, how could Antonio xxx secure TCT No. 246602 issued on May
24, 2000, which cancelled OCT No. 29823 on December 2, 2002,
when the Deed of Absolute was only executed on March 15, 2004?
Therefore, the Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed in 2004
is fictitious because TCT No. 246602 was already issued four years
earlier. The said deed could not be the basis for the issuance of
TCT No. 246602.60 (Underlining in the original)
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 7 of 18
DECISION

The RTC concluded that “there was no clear showing

whatsoever how [Antonio] acquired the subject property.” 61 Then, the
RTC outlined the consequences of the defendants’ failure to establish
the sale of the property to Antonio, viz.:

xxx the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly ratified on March 30,

2000 is inexistent, and therefore null and void, it follows that all the
TCTs which were issued by virtue of the said spurious document
are also null and void. Since TCT No. 246602 is null and void,
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 246602, 282511, 282512,
282513, 282514, and 282515 in the name of Antonio Esteves; and
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 026-2013005071, 026-
2013005072 and 026-2013005073 in the name of Ann Nathaline L.
Esteves issued on the basis thereof are also null and void and
should be cancelled.62

Aggrieved by the judgment of the RTC, the Heirs of Antonio

filed a Notice of Appeal,63 which was given due course by the RTC in
an Order64 dated January 4, 2021.

THE ASSIGNED ERRORS

The Heirs of Antonio ascribe the following errors to the RTC:

I
xxx THE [RTC] ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE PRESUMPTION
OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN WHEN IT
ISSUED THE TITLES IN FAVOR OF ANTONIO ESTEVES.

II
xxx THE [RTC] ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
DAMAGES TO THE PLAINTIFF DESPITE GOOD FAITH ON THE
PART OF THE DEFENDANT MONINA ESTEVES IN
TRANSFERRING THE DERIVATIVE TITLES IN THE NAME OF
HER CHILDREN.65

The defendants-appellants assert that the RTC should have

respected the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
official functions of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan
particularly when the Register of Deeds cancelled OCT No. 29823
and issued a new title in the name of Antonio by virtue of a
consummated sale.66 The Heirs of Antonio believe that the Register of
Deeds could not have transferred the registration of the property in
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 8 of 18
DECISION

the name of Antonio if there was no Deed of Sale to support the

same.67 The defendants-appellants add that the testimony of Jerome,
the employee from the Registry of Deeds, was not enough to overturn
the presumption of regularity.68

The Heirs of Antonio likewise fault the RTC for awarding

damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff-appellee. They submit
that the awards are baseless because “[a]ssuming without admitting
that there was fraud in the issuance of the titles, [they] ha[d] nothing
to do with it.”69 They had always been in good faith from the time the
titles were registered in the name of their predecessor-in-interest to
that point when these were transferred in their names. 70

OUR RULING

We dismiss the appeal.

The provenance of the titles sought to be cancelled by the

plaintiff-appellee is clear. OCT No. 29823 was issued in the name of
Eufemia. OCT No. 29823 was subsequently cancelled and, in its
place, TCT No. 246602 was issued in the name of Antonio. As a
result of the subdivision of the lot previously covered by OCT No.
29823 and, later, by TCT No. 246602, TCT No. 246602 was
subsequently cancelled, too, and five new titles were issued in its
place, namely, TCT Nos. 282511 to 282515. These five new titles are
all in Antonio’s name.

The RTC ruled that the issuance of TCT No. 246602, and,
eventually, of TCT Nos. 282511 to 282515 to Antonio was null and
void as the sale which was used as basis for the transfer of
registration was spurious. We sustain the ruling of the trial court.

The Heirs of Antonio do not deny that the derivative titles in

their possession all emanated from Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823. They,
however, maintain that Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823 was validly
cancelled after she sold her property to Antonio. It was by virtue of
such sale that new certificates of title—first, TCT No. 246602 and
then, TCT Nos. 282511 to 282515—were issued in the name of
Antonio. The Heirs of Antonio capitalize on the Deed of Absolute
Sale71 purportedly executed by Eufemia and Antonio on March 15,
2004. However, this document does not help the defendants-
appellants’ cause. Instead, it confirms Eufemia’s theory that
irregularities attended the cancellation of her OCT No. 29823 and the
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 9 of 18
DECISION

issuance, in its place, of Antonio’s TCT No. 246602.

TCT No. 24660272 categorically states that:

This certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title

No. 29823 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above
described land is concerned.

Entered at Lingayen, Pangasinan, Philippines on the 24 th

day of May in the year two thousand xxx.73

Otherwise stated, as early as May 24, 2000, TCT No. 246602

was issued in the name of Antonio. Like the RTC, We are in a
quandary as to how Antonio could have secured TCT No. 246602 at
that point when the Deed of Absolute Sale supposedly conveying the
property to him was only executed almost four years later or on
March 15, 2004. The Heirs of Antonio are unrelenting in claiming that
Eufemia sold the property to their predecessor-in-interest which
enabled Antonio to have the certificate of title transferred in his name.
However, as correctly held by the RTC, “the Deed of Absolute Sale
purportedly executed in 2004 is fictitious because TCT No. 246602
was already issued four years earlier.” 74 We agree with the RTC that
“[t]he said deed could not be the basis for the issuance of TCT No.
246602.”75

Unconvinced by the trial court’s ratiocination, the defendants-

appellants argue that the evidence on record does not support the
findings of the RTC.76 The Heirs of Antonio underscore that:

xxx, [the] plaintiff admitted that she gave the owner’s copy of
OCT No. 29823 to the representatives of Antonio Esteves. This is
the reason why the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
transferred the property in the name of Antonio Esteves which is
supported by a Deed of Sale. It could be surmised that the Deed of
Sale executed on March 15, 2004 is a ratification of the earlier
Deed of Sale which stated that the vendee is Antonio Esteves,
xxx.77

First, the fact that Eufemia turned over the owner’s duplicate
copy of her OCT No. 29823 to Antonio does not necessarily mean
that she sold her property to him. Second, the deeds of sale on which
the Heirs of Antonio anchor their claims are ineffectual. We have
already passed upon the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed
on March 15, 2004 (“2004 Deed of Sale” for brevity). By the
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 10 of 18
DECISION

defendants-appellants’ version of the story, the “2004 Deed of Sale”

was a mere ratification of an earlier Deed of Sale (“2000 Deed of
Sale” for brevity) which Antonio presented to the Register of Deeds
along with the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 29823. It was,
then, that the Register of Deeds cancelled OCT No. 29823 and
issued TCT No. 246602 in favor of Antonio. Contrary to the
defendants-appellants’ position, it is actually their narration, not the
findings of the RTC, which does not have any basis in the evidence.

The theory of an ‘earlier Deed of Sale,’ which, it bears

stressing, was never presented by the Heirs of Antonio, was met
head-on by the RTC, viz.:

xxx, the Deed of Sale purportedly ratified on March 30, 2000

and annotated as Entry No. 954560 on OCT No. 29823 is also
spurious and in fact, does not exist. The Records Officer of the
Registry of Deeds was not able to locate or produce the same
because it was nowhere to be found in their office file and the entry
number actually refers to another document. In view of all the
foregoing, it could be concluded that fraud was committed in the
issuance of TCT No. 246602[.]78

Viewed from the foregoing factual backdrop, the 2000 Deed of

Sale, like the 2004 Deed of Sale which came after it, is of a highly
doubtful origin.

In a word, the claims of the defendants-appellants simply do not

add up. So confusing were the allegations of the Heirs of Antonio that
the RTC had to emphasize that:

xxx. What conspicuously appears is that OCT No. 29823

was cancelled in favor of Antonio xxx on December 2, 2002, but
TCT No. 246602 was already issued in his favor on May 24, 2000
base on a spurious deed of sale. This fact was not successfully
rebutted by Monina Esteves, who, in fact, made matters more
complicated when she proffered that the subject property was sold
to Antonio xxx based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 15,
2004.79

Notwithstanding the questions hounding the deeds of sale, the

Heirs of Antonio invoke the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty. More specifically, the defendants-
appellants submit that this presumption applies to the actions of the
Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan especially when s/he
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 11 of 18
DECISION

facilitated the cancellation of Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823 and the

issuance of new titles in the name of Antonio. The Heirs of Antonio
contend that:

xxx. The Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan could

not have transferred the property in the name of Antonio xxx if there
is no Deed of Sale to support the transfer. xxx.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx the necessary requirements for the transfer of the title in

the name of Antonio xxx have been submitted to the Register of
Deeds xxx who [i]s presumed to have regularly performed his
duties in the issuance of titles by his office xxx.

This presumption is not overturned by the mere testimony of

an employee of said office in relation to the entries made with said
office.80

Rule 131, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides:

Rule 131
BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

xxx xxx xxx

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following

presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

xxxx

(m) That official duty has been regularly performed[.]

The significance of the presumption is explained in the case of

Yap v. Lagtapon,81 to wit:

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official

duties is an aid to the effective and unhampered administration of
government functions. Without such benefit, every official action
could be negated with minimal effort from litigants, irrespective of
merit or sufficiency of evidence to support such challenge. 82

While there is indeed a presumption that official duty had been

regularly performed, it is a disputable presumption, and “our body of
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 12 of 18
DECISION

jurisprudence has been consistent in requiring nothing short of clear

and convincing evidence to the contrary to overthrow such
presumption.”83

After a careful review of the evidence presented by both

parties, We find that the defendants-appellants’ reliance on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is
misplaced. The plaintiff-appellee successfully presented affirmative
proof of irregularity in the records. Hence, the presumption was
overturned.

Here, the Heirs of Antonio have been pointing out that the
cancellation of Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823 and the issuance of new
titles to Antonio, done as part of the official functions of the Register
of Deeds, enjoy the presumption of regularity. The Heirs of Antonio
believe that the presumption applies despite the non-presentation of
the deed/s of conveyance on which the Register of Deeds based the
transfer. To reiterate their position, “the necessary requirements for
the transfer of the title in the name of Antonio” such as the Deed of
Sale between him and Eufemia have surely been submitted to the
Register of Deeds. Otherwise, the Register of Deeds would not have
cancelled Eufemia’s OCT No. 29823 and issued new titles to
Antonio.84

The defendants-appellants’ stand finds support in the case of

Heirs of Datu Dalandag Kuli v. Pia, et al. 85 where the petitioners
insisted “that the failure of the Register of Deeds to produce a copy of
the Deed of Conveyance used as basis to cancel Datu Kuli's OCT
proves that the property was never sold to respondent Pia.” 86 It was
held therein that:

The argument of petitioners holds no water. While the law

requires the Register of Deeds to obtain a copy of the Deed of
Conveyance before cancelling the seller's title, its subsequent
failure to produce the copy, after a new title had already been
issued is not a sufficient evidence to hold that the claimed sale
never actually happened.

We agree with the RTC and rule that even though copies of
the Deed of Sale and the OCT of Datu Kuli can no longer be
produced now, the evidence presented sufficiently shows that the
deed conveying the property to respondent Pia was presented to
the Register of Deeds on 21 December 1940, and that this deed
was the basis for the cancellation of Datu Kuli's original title.

The failure on the part of the Register of Deeds to present a

CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 13 of 18
DECISION

copy of the Deed of Sale when required by the trial court was duly
explained by them. It appears that the records containing the Deed
of Sale are no longer readable, because they are “very much
mutilated.” Nevertheless, the Register of Deeds was able to certify
that the following entry or notation was found in the first volume of
its Primary Entry Book:

Entry No. 7512

Date of Registration: Dec. 21, 1940 at 7:58am

Nature of Document: Deed of Sale
Date of Document: (Dilapidated Portion)
Executed by: Datu Dalandag Kuli
In favor of: Daniel R. Pia
Amount: P390.00

Although the Deed of Sale itself can no longer be located,

we agree with the RTC's conclusion that the above notation proves
that “there was at one time in the past such document recorded in
the Register of Deeds but that with the passage of time, the same
became tattered, unreadable, badly dilapidated, and mutilated and
could not be found or recognized to boot.” 87

In Heirs of Datu Dalandag Kuli, the non-presentation of the

Deed of Sale which became the basis of the Register of Deeds in
cancelling the seller’s title was duly explained. Additionally, the
Primary Entry Book on file with the Register of Deeds indicates that
the Deed of Sale was indeed presented to the Register of Deeds and
recorded in the corresponding registry.

The facts of the present controversy, however, are in stark

contrast to what are found in Heirs of Datu Dalandag Kuli. In the case
before Us, no plausible explanation was offered as to why the Deed
of Sale which was used as basis in cancelling Eufemia’s OCT No.
29823 could not be presented. Worse, when the RTC turned to the
Primary Entry Book, the entries therein, pertaining to the cancellation
of OCT No. 29823, caused more confusion instead of providing
clarity.

As succinctly observed by the RTC:

xxx. In fact, Entry No. 954560, referring to the annotation of

the said deed in OCT No. 29823, actually refers to another
document denominated as “Special Power of Attorney executed by
Gloria Nozaki in favor of Joseph Pangan on December 1, 1996” as
per the Primary Entry Book, pages 304-305. Furthermore, this
document was actually entered on May 5, 2000 in the Primary
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 14 of 18
DECISION

Entry Book, not May 24, 2000, the date when OCT No. 29823 was
cancelled and TCT No. 246602 was issued. xxx. 88

The inconsistencies highlighted by the RTC constitute enough

reason to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. The
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot
stand in the face of these glaring discrepancies.

To recapitulate, because the existence of the Deed of Sale,

which became the basis for the cancellation of Eufemia’s OCT No.
29823 and the issuance of new titles to Antonio, could not even be
properly established, any act emanating from such deed is
considered null and void. Or, to quote the RTC:

Since the Deed of Absolute Sale xxx is inexistent, and

therefore null and void, it follows that all the TCTs which were
issued by virtue of the said spurious document are also null and
void. Since TCT No. 246602 is null and void, Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. 246602, 282511, 282512, 282513, 282514, and
282515 in the name of Antonio Esteves; and Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 026-2013005071, 026-2013005072, and 026-
2013005073 in the name of Ann Nathaline L. Esteves issued on the
basis thereof are also null and void and should be cancelled. xxx. 89

When a deed of sale is null and void, it follows that all the TCTs
which were issued by virtue of the said spurious and forged
document are also null and void. 90 Needless to state, all subsequent
certificates of title in this case, i.e., those in the name of the
defendants-appellants, are void because of the legal truism that the
spring cannot rise higher than its source. 91 Hence, the RTC correctly
ordered the concerned Register of Deeds to cancel the TCTs in the
name of Antonio and those in the name of Ann Nathaline L. Esteves
(Ann Nathaline), one of Antonio’s heirs.

Now, a word on the award of attorney's fees and exemplary

damages, which the Heirs of Antonio are likewise challenging. For the
defendants-appellants, attorney’s fees and exemplary damages are
unwarranted because Monina, the widow of Antonio, acted in good
faith in obtaining derivative titles for their child, Ann Nathaline.
Monina’s claim of good faith is easily belied by the facts, to wit:

xxx the heirs of Antonio xxx filed their Motion to Lift Order of
Default on June 21, 2013, thus already having knowledge that the
xxx property is still a subject of litigation. In fact, a Notice of Lis
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 15 of 18
DECISION

Pendens still appears on TCT Nos. 282511, 282512, 282513,

282514, and 282515. xxx.

In this case, Monina and her children closed their eyes to the
possibility of an existence of a defect in the titles that will not make
them registrants in good faith, if it would be later ruled that the titles
are, in fact, defective. Having such notice of the defect, Monina still
swiftly caused the transfer of TCT Nos. 282511, 282512, and
282515 in the name of her daughter, Ann Nathaline xxx, on July 15,
2013, or almost a month after they filed their Motion to Lift the
Order of Default xxx. Evidently, there was bad faith on her part. 92

The RTC’s findings of fact, especially its illustration of the

defendants-appellants’ bad faith, support the award of attorney’s fees.
That Eufemia was compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur
expenses to protect her rights compounded by the defendants-
appellants’ actions done in bad faith entitles her to attorney's fees. 93 It
was these same actions marked by bad faith which also prompted the
RTC to award exemplary damages. The law allows the grant of
exemplary damages in cases such as this to serve as a warning to
the public and as a deterrent against the repetition of underhanded
actions94 such as the one committed by Monina “who caused the
registration of the subject property in her daughter’s name xxx,
despite knowing that the subject property is still under litigation.” 95

In sum, a review of the evidence on record vis-à-vis the

respective contentions of the parties in this appeal discloses that the
RTC did not commit any reversible error.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is

DISMISSED, and the Decision dated November 20, 2020 of the
Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 47, Urdaneta City,
in Civil Case No. U-8723 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 16 of 18
DECISION

WE CONCUR:

Original Signed Original Signed

LOUIS P. ACOSTA JAIME FORTUNATO A. CARINGAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Tenth Division

*
See Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants[‘] Brief with Compliance, in which the
heirs of Antonio Esteves manifested that he “is already deceased,” Rollo, p. 43. See also Our
Resolution dated October 13, 2021, Rollo, p. 45; Motion to Lift Order of Default, in which the heirs
of Antonio Esteves manifested before the Regional Trial Court that he died on January 10, 2012
as evidenced by his Certificate of Death, Records, pp. 311-317; RTC Order dated July 25, 2014
allowing the heirs of Antonio Esteves to substitute him as party-defendant, Records, pp. 337-338.
1
Penned by Presiding Judge Elizabeth L. Berdal, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, pp.
64-75.
2
Ibid. at p. 75.
3
Records, pp. 2-7.
4
Ibid. at pp. 2-3; OCT No. 29823, Annex “B” in the Complaint, Records, pp. 10-11.
5
Complaint, Records, p. 3.
6
Id., p. 4.
7
Id., p. 4.
8
Id., p. 4; TCT No. 246602, Annex “D” in the Complaint, Records, p. 18.
9
Complaint, Records, p. 5.
10
Annex “E” in the Complaint, Records, p. 19.
11
Annex “F” in the Complaint, Records, p. 20.
12
Annex “G” in the Complaint, Records, p. 21.
13
Annex “H” in the Complaint, Records, p. 22.
14
Annex “I” in the Complaint, Records, p. 23.
15
Complaint, Records, p. 5.
16
Id., p. 6.
17
Records, p. 52.
18
RTC Order dated June 7, 2007, Records, p. 55.
19
Records, p. 57.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
Records, pp. 64-65.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 17 of 18
DECISION

23
Records, p. 76.
24
Id.
25
Records, p. 90.
26
Id.
27
Records, p. 96.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Records, pp. 100-101.
31
RTC Order dated November 11, 2009, Records, p. 121.
32
Id.
33
Id.
34
Records, pp. 127-128.
35
Ibid. at p. 127.
36
Records, pp. 145-146.
37
Records, p. 152.
38
Records, p. 158.
39
Records, p. 162.
40
RTC Order dated August 11, 2011, Records, p. 163.
41
Records, pp. 311-314.
42
Ibid. at p. 311.
43
Ibid. at p. 312.
44
Records, pp. 337-338.
45
Ibid. at p. 338.
46
Ibid. at p. 338.
47
Records, pp. 345-349.
48
Ibid. at pp. 345-346.
49
Ibid. at pp. 345-346.
50
Mediator’s Report, Records, p. 363.
51
RTC Order dated September 14, 2015, Records, p. 388.
52
See Amended Pre-Trial Order, Records, pp. 450-452.
53
Eufemia’s Judicial Affidavit dated December 10, 2015 and October 3, 2018, Records, pp.
453-457 and 499-500.
54
Eufemia’s Judicial Affidavit dated October 3, 2018, Records, p. 499.
55
Jerome’s Judicial Affidavit dated January 26, 2019, Records, pp. 513-517.
56
Ibid. at p. 516.
57
Judicial Affidavit [of] Monina L. Esteves, Records, pp. 396-398.
58
Ibid. at p. 397.
59
Supra note 1.
60
Supra note 1 at pp. 69-70.
61
Supra note 1 at p. 71.
62
Supra note 1 at p. 72.
63
Records, p. 587.
64
Records, p. 589.
65
Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 60.
66
Id.
67
Id., pp. 60-61.
68
Id., p. 61.
69
Id., p. 62.
70
Id., p. 61.
71
Annex “1” in Answer with Counterclaim, Records, pp. 350-351.
72
Exhibit “B,” Records, pp. 201-204.
73
Ibid. at p. 201.
74
RTC Decision dated November 20, 2020, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 70.
75
Id.
76
Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 61.
77
Id.
78
RTC Decision dated November 20, 2020, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 70.
79
Id., p. 72.
80
Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 61.
81
G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017, 803 Phil. 652.
82
Id.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116538 Page 18 of 18
DECISION

83
Id.
84
Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 61.
85
G.R. No. 199777, June 17, 2015, 760 Phil. 883.
86
Id.
87
Id.
88
RTC Decision dated November 20, 2020, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 69.
89
Id., p. 72.
90
Heirs of Tomas Arao v. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse, G.R. No. 211425, November 19, 2018,
Gambito v. Bacena, G.R. No. 225929 (Resolution), January 24, 2018.
91
Heirs of Tomas Arao v. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse, G.R. No. 211425, November 19, 2018, citing
Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 301 Phil. 91, 108 (1994).
92
RTC Decision dated November 20, 2020, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 74.
93
Civil Code, Article 2208 (2); cf. Spouses Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., et al., G.R.
No. 201436, July 11, 2016, 789 Phil. 453.
94
Yamauchi v. Suñiga, G.R. No. 199513, April 18, 2018.
95
RTC Decision dated November 20, 2020, Annex “A” in the Appellants’ Brief, Rollo, p. 74.