Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cagayan de Oro City

VIRGILIO VILLALONGHA, CA-G.R. CV NO. 01027-MIN

DIOGRACIAS VILLALONGHA,
ALEJANDRO VILLALONGHA,
LUZVIMINDA VILLALONGHA-
OMBING, and VIRGINCITA
VILLALONGHA-BATUTO,
Plaintiffs-
Appellants, FOR: ANNULMENT OF
SALE AND TRANSFERS
- versus - CERTIFICATES OF TITLE,
DAMAGES AND
FELIPA VDA. DE ATTORNEY’S FEES, with
VILLALONGHA, AURORA Application for WRIT OF
VILLALONGHA- PRELIMINARY
CABARRUBIAS, RAMONITO PROHIBITORY
VILLALONGHA, JOSEFINA INJUCNTION AND
VILLALONGHA-DALEON, TEMPORARY
BOLTON BRIDGE RESTRAINING ORDER
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.C and THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR
THE CITY OF DAVAO,
Defendants-Appellees.

COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW the Defendants-Appellees, through counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully state:

That Plaintiffs-Appellants are moving to reconsider the Order of the

Honorable Court dated 03 July 2012 on the following grounds:

a.) After the death of Mauricio Villalongha, ownership and other real
rights over the subject lots were acquired by the heirs through
intestate succession;
 b.) That there was an oral partition made over the subject two (2)
parcels of land, lot 66 and lot 75) in 1983 between the heirs which
was made effective by the Consolidated Subdivision Plan and
Extrajudicial Settlement with Donation;

c.) That even though lot 66 and 75 was already registered in the name
of Felipa Vda. De Villalongha, the mere issuance of certificates of
title does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be
under co-ownership with persons no named in the certificate;

d.) That Felipa was not misled by her daughter Luzviminda Ombing
into signing the Deed of Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with
Donation as she had the opportunity to examine the contents of the
same ;

e.) That the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate is valid as it

enjoys the presumption of regularity;

f.) That BBHAI was not a purchaser in good faith and for value.

We submit otherwise.

REFUTATION

Lots 66 and 75 are paraphernal/exclusive

properties of Felipa Villalongha

The Plaintiffs-Appellants claim that they have acquired ownership and

other real rights over lots 66 and 75 by virtue of intestate succession upon
the death of Mauricio Villalongha (Mauricio) on 1 November 1978.

Contrary to their claims, Plaintiff-Appellants failed to prove their rights

or interest over the subject lots. The Supreme Court held in the case of Balus
vs. Balus that:
The rights to a person's succession are transmitted from the moment of
his death. In addition, the inheritance of a person consists of the property and
transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, as well
as those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the succession.1

Lots 66 and 75 did not form part of the hereditary estate of Mauricio.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to prove that the subject lots are conjugal or
exclusive property of Mauricio. Other than the self-serving testimonies of
Luzviminda Villalongha, no decisive evidence was presented to establish the
right of Mauricio over the properties. On the other hand, it was already ruled
by the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by this Honorable Court, that lots
66 and 75 were acquired and titled in the name of Felipa Villalongha
(Felipa) 10 years after the death of her husband, Mauricio.   Evidence shows
1
G.R. No. 168970, January 15, 2010

2
that the subject lots were bought by Felipa from the Board of Liquidators in
October 1988 and the titles thereto were issued in her name exclusively in
her name 22 February 1989.

Considering that it did not form part of Mauricio’s estate at the time of
his death, the disputed lots could not be transmitted to the Plaintiffs-
Appellants by intestate succession. Therefore, no co-ownership over lots 66
and 75 existed at any given point in time.

3
There can be no Oral
Partition in the absence of
Co-ownership

Under Article 1078 of the Civil Code, the whole estate of the decedent
is, before its partition, owned in common by the heirs. Article 781 said law
is clear as to what constitutes the hereditary estate of the decedent. It
provides that:

Article 781. The inheritance of a person includes not only the

property and the transmissible rights and obligations existing at the time of
his death, but also those which have accrued thereto since the opening of
the succession.

The Plaintiff-Appellants claim that an oral partition was executed

between the heirs of Mauricio over lots 66 and 75 and the same was ratified
by the Subdivision Plan and Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate.

The Plaintiff-Appellants are arguing on the wrong premise that the

subject lots formed part of the estate of their deceased father that at the time
the alleged oral partition was made. As already proven and ruled by this
Honorable Court, the subject property is the exclusive property of Felipa
which she bought using her own funds and titled in her name exclusively ten
(10) years and three (3) months after Mauricio’s death.

Furthermore, the certificate of title is considered as the best proof of

onwership. (Citation), Compared to the self-serving testimony of
Luzviminda, the Transfer Certificate of Title T-141832 covering lot 66 and
Transfer Certificate of Title covering lot 75 which were issued solely in the
name of Felipa Vda. de Villalongha should be given superior weight.

Although the certificate of title does not foreclose the possibility of

co-ownership, the Plaintiff-Appellants failed to prove that they subject lots
are co-owned. Hence, any claim of partition holds no value.

No Valid Donation

The Plaintiffs-Appellants claim that Felipa donated her share in lots

66 and 75 to her children by virtue of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
with Donation. Contrary to their assertion, Felipa never intended to make a
donation inter vivos of the property.

The essential elements of donation are as follows: (a) the essential

reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony
of the donee; and (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.
When applied to a donation of an immovable property, the law further
requires that the donation be made in a public document and that the
acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public

4
instrument; in cases where the acceptance is made in a separate instrument,
it is mandated that the donor be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be
noted in both instruments.2

The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Donation is void because

it lacks the essential elements for a valid donation. Felipa never intended to
donate the subject lots to her children as she needed the same for her
livelihood and support. This is further bolstered by the fact of sale executed
by Felipa in favor of BBHAI. Felipa’s signature in the Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Donation was obtained through Luzviminda’s
fraudulent misrepresentation that the document was only meant to embody
her intention pre-apportion her estate to prevent conflict among her
children upon her death. Hence, her intention was for the pre-apportion to
take effect after her death. This is different from a donation which is an
inter vivos disposition.

Plaintiff-Appellants allege that had every available opportunity to

become aware of the contents of the said deed before signing the same.

Considering the parent-child relationship of Felipa and Luzviminda,

the fact that Felipa is already 81 years old, and the literacy of Felipa having
only fourth (4th) Grade in elementary, it is fairly easy for Luzviminda to
convince her mother to sign the document and deceive her as to its
contents. Luzviminda was not even given a copy for her to examine the
same.

Furthermore, the signatures of Aurora Villalongha, Josefina

Villalongha, Deogracias Villalongha and Virgilio in the Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Donation were forged by the children of
Luzviminda, namely Jesamin Ombing, Maria Doreen Ombing, Angelo
Ombing and Araceli Villalongha respectively as testified by Aurora,
Josefina and Felipa.

Moreover, the said document lacks the acceptance of the other

children of Felipa who are supposed donees of the alleged donation. Under
Article 749 of the Civil Code:
In order that the donation of an immovable property may be valid, it must be made in
a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy.

The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof
in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.

The other donees never expressed their acceptance in the

Extrajudicial Settlement with Donation or in a separate public document

2
Heirs of Florencio vs. Heirs de Leon, G.R. No. 149570, March 12, 2004

5
during the lifetime of Felipa. In the absence of such acceptance, the
donation was never perfected in the first place.

a. Irregularly notarized
b. No inventory of the real property

6
 Hence, the Honorable Court was correct when it dismissed the instant
Petition and refused Petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that an Order be issued DENYING the Petitioners’
Motion for Reconsideration for utter lack of merit.

Praying for such other relief as may be just and equitable under the
premises.

Davao City, Philippines. 08 August 2012.

TOLENTINO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondents ABNER and EVELYN DEMONI
Suite 1, 2nd Floor Babao Bldg., San Pedro St.,
Davao City
Tel. Nos. (082) 227-2455; 222-4372
Telefax No. (082) 224-6711

By:

RAUL O. TOLENTINO
PTR No. 0096103/01-04-2012/Davao City
IBP No. 870840/01-06-2012/Davao City
Roll of Attorney No. 16154 / 01-28-61
MCLE Compliance No. II-0011409 / 08-22-08
MCLE COMPLIANCE CERT. NO. III-0003120/ April 24, 2009
Mobile No. 0917-548-2381

Copy Furnished: by personal service

ATTY. SUZETTE B.
BALUCANAG
Counsel for Petitioners
Door No. 4, Babao Bldg.,
San Pedro Street, Davao City
Received by: __________________
Received on: __________________