ao (38> & Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Cebu City ‘TWENTIETH DIvIsION HEIRS. OF BRAULIO CA-G.R. CV NO. 08600 MANILA anp MAXIMINA MANILA BALLENA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Members: - versus - Corpin, Ji, Chairperson, Dadole-Ygnacio & ISEDRO| MANILA and __Gengos-Ignalaga, JU. MATILDE MANILA, Defendants-Appellants. promulgated: 29 FEB 20. DECISION GENGOS-IGNALAGA, J.: This is an appeal from the Decision’ dated April 15, 2022, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, in Civil Case No. AV-1303 entitled Heirs of Braulio Manila and Maximina Manila Ballena vs. Isedro Manila and Matilde Manila. 1 Rollo, pp. 58-70.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 2 of 17 Decision The Antecedents The case stemmed from the complaint? for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, Declaration of Nullity, Production of TP- 10033, and Damages, filed by appellees Heirs of Braulio Manila and Maximina Manila Ballena (Heirs of Braulio and Maximina, for brevity), docketed as Civil Case No. AV-1303. The complaint alleged that Spouses Laureano and Marciana Manila (Spouses Manila, for brevity) owned a parcel of land with an area of not less than 2,260 square meters. When Spouses Manila died, their four children, namely Saturnino, Simeon, Juana, and Petra, extrajudicially adjudicated the land among themselves. The land was declared in Juana's name for tax purposes, as shown in Tax Declaration No. 039528.° Subsequently, Simeon, Juana, and Petra sold their shares to Saturnino. He became the sole owner and regularly paid the real property taxes, although the tax declaration was in Juana'’s name. When Saturnino died, his two children, Braulio and Maximina, inherited the property. Sometime in the 1980s, Simeon's child, Andres, borrowed Tax Declaration No. 039528 from Maximina but failed to return it, claiming that it had been destroyed. In the meantime, Braulio and Maximina continued paying the real property taxes. In 1988, Braulio and Maximina agreed to Andres’ proposal to cultivate a portion of the subject property and divide the proceeds among themselves. However, unknown to Braulio and Maximina, Andres canceled Tax Declaration No. 2 Records, pp. 2-15. 3 Records, p. 16.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 3 of 17 Decision 039528, and Tax Declaration No. 71585‘ was issued under his name. Andres also convinced Braulio and Maximina to agree to partition the land. They executed the Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of Rights’ dated August 4, 1992, and the land was partitioned equally among Andres, Braulio, Juana’s daughter named Gregoria, and a certain Andrea Manila. Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. 366095° was issued in the name of Braulio for his share of 649 square meters. On November 9, 1995, Braulio and Maximina discovered the subject property had been registered in the name of the Juana's daughters, Gregoria and Teresita (Heirs of Juana, for brevity), as shown in Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OP: 28105,’ dated August 16, 1985. Upon further inquiry, they discovered a new title, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. TP-10033,° dated September 27, 1995, was issued in the name of Andres’ son, Isedro Manila (Isedro, for brevity), canceling OCT No. OP-28105. A Tax Declaration No. 39010 was also issued in the name of Isedro. Braulio and Maximina filed a case against Isedro to recover the subject property. After that, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement? dated April 26, 1996, stating, among others, that Isedro would return the 649 square meters portion of the property to Braulio. After that, Braulio demanded the delivery of TCT No. TP-10033 to register his share, but Isedro refused. The Heirs of Braulio and Maximina then decided to file the present case, assailing the Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of Rights dated August 4, 1992, since Maximina was excluded. They also questioned the validity of 4 Records, p. 17. 5 Records, p. 18. 6 Records, p. 19. 7 Records, pp. 20-21. 8 Records, p. 22. 9 Records, pp. 26-27.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 4 of 17 Decision the sale of the subject property to Isedro. In his Answer,” Isedro countered that Juana was the property's original owner, as evidenced by the first tax declaration issued in her name. When Juana and her children moved to Mindanao, the administration and titling of the subject property were entrusted to Andres. After going through the process, OCT No. OP-28105 was finally issued in the name of the Heirs of Juana. In 1994, Isedro learned about the property administered by his father, Andres. In his desire to have land of his own, Isedro purchased the property from the Heirs of Juana under the Extra-Judicial Partition with Sale of Deceased Persons'' dated April 25, 1995. However, he discovered that the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina illegally occupied a portion of the subject land. Isedro claimed exclusive ownership over the land as a purchaser in good faith and for value. ‘A Motion for Judgment Based on the Pleadings!” dated February 3, 2005, was filed by the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina, but the same was denied in the Order’ dated May 25, 2005. The Preliminary Conference’ was conducted on June 6, 2005, while the Pre-Trial Order! was issued on September 12, 2005. Thereafter, a trial ensued. 10 Records, pp. 58-61. 11 Records, p. 94. 12 Records, pp. 71-73. 13 Records, p. 102. 14 Records, pp. 155-159. 15 Records, p. 169.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 5 of 17 Decision The appellees presented Tranquilina Ballena Tafiola’® (Tranquilina, for brevity), daughter of Maximina, and reiterated the allegations in the complaint. She proved the filiation of the siblings Saturnino, Simeon, Juana, and Petra based on the baptismal certificates.’ She witnessed Andres borrow Tax Declaration No. 039528 from her mother, Maximina, and she was present when Andres convinced Braulio and Maximina to partition the property by the execution of the Affidavit of Co- Heirs and Waiver of Rights. She claimed that it was Isedro who initiated the Compromise Agreement, and she signed it as one of the witnesses.'* In the meantime, the case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for settlement proceedings. Still, the parties did not settle, as shown in the Orders dated July 10, 2009," and July 29, 2010.7° On cross-examination,”’ Tranquilina referred to Tax Declaration No. 039528 in the name of Juana as proof of Spouses Manila's ownership of the subject property. Rustico Manila Ballena (Rustico, for brevity),” son of Maximina, was presented and corroborated the testimony of Tranquilina. He explained the four (4) tax declarations issued to the parties due to the Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of 16 TSN of Tranquitina Ballena Tanola, direct examination, December 5, 2005. 17 Records, pp. 143-147. 18 TSN of Tranquilina Ballena Tafola, continuation of the direct examination, December 27, 2008. 19 Records, p. 197. 20 Records, p. 213. 21 TSN of Tranquilina Ballena Tanola, cross examination, August 5, 2010. 22 TSN of Rustico Manila, direct examination, February 24, 2011. 23 TSN of Rustico Manila, continuation of the direct examination, March 17, 2011. >CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 6 of 17 Decision Rights. He recounted” that several proceedings before the barangay took place between him and Isedro on the issue of the latter's illegal occupation of the property. Due to the failure to amicably settle the matter, he filed several cases against Isedro. On cross-examination,”’ Rustico presented a sketch plan and Tax Declaration No. 039528 to prove Spouses Manila’s ownership of the subject property. Marivic Manila” was presented and showed photographs of the houses owned by the appellees on the subject land. But, on cross-examination, she could not produce any document proving ownership of their predecessors.” Atty. Herculene Raymund H. Rizon® (Atty. Rizon, for brevity) testified and identified her Judicial Affidavit.?? She stated that Isedro initiated a compromise to avoid further litigation of the case that the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina filed. She was the one who prepared and drafted the Compromise Agreement dated April 26, 1996 but was not present during the notarization.° The final witness, Atty. Alexandra Kintanar®! (Atty. 24 TSN of Rustico Manila, continuation of the direct examination, July 21, 2011. 25 TSN of Rustico Manila, cross examination, February 2, 2012. 26 TSN of Marivic Manila, direct examination, March 20, 2014. 27 TSN of Marivic Manila, cross examination, August 28, 2014. 28 TSN of Atty. Herculene Raymund H. Rizon, direct examination, March 10, 2016. 29 Records, pp. 243-248. 30 TSN of Atty. Herculene Raymund H. Rizon, cross examination, September 15, 2016. - 31 TSN of Atty. Alexandra Kintanar, direct ion, February16, 2017.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 7 of 17 Decision Kintanar, for brevity), identified the judicial affidavit” she executed in relation to the case. She affirmed that both parties were present during the notarization of the Compromise Agreement before her. To refute the appellees’ allegations, Isedro and his Matilde Manila (Matilde, for brevity) were presented. Isedro affirmed the contents of his Judicial Affidavit.° He alleged that Saturnino is not among the siblings of Simeon, Juana, and Petra, whose parents are Spouses Manila. Isedro presented Saturnino's baptismal certificate bearing the names of his parents, Gorgonio Manila and Leandra Camposo. Thus, he is not related by blood to Braulio and Maximina. He reiterated that Juana originally owned the subject property, as evidenced by OCT No. OP-28105. The heirs of Juana sold the property to Isedro based on the Extra-Judicial Partition with Sale of Deceased Persons dated April 25, 1995. OCT No. OP- 28105 was thereafter canceled, and the property is now registered and declared in the name of Isedro under TCT No. TP-10033 dated September 27, 1995, and Tax Declaration No. 39010. Isedro stated that two of the four cases that the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina filed against him had been dismissed but not on account of the Compromise Agreement.*> On cross-examination,® Isedro admitted having signed a Compromise Agreement dated April 26, 1996 and confirmed that he agreed to return 649 square meters to the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina, He initiated the agreement but felt deceived when Tranquilina handed him a Deed of Absolute Sale, and he refused to sign. 32 Records, pp. 257-263. 33 Records, pp. 302-309. 34 Records, p. 310. 35 TSN of Isedro Manila, direct examination, September 23, 20. 36 TSN of Isedro Manila, cross examination, January 22, 2021.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 8 of 17 Decision In her Judicial Affidavit,?’ Matilde alleged that the Compromise Agreement signed by her husband should be declared null and void since she did not consent to it. The subject property is considered a conjugal property. She corroborated that the dismissal of the previous cases filed against Isedro® was not based on the compromise agreement. On rebuttal evidence, Tranquilina was recalled to the witness stand. She identified her Judicial Affidavit (Rebuttal) dated June 15, 2021. She presented the official receipts” to prove payments of the real property taxes. She was allowed to show the Affidavit of Adjudication of Ownership*' dated February 21, 1981, as newly discovered evidence. The affidavit stated that Andres is the only surviving heir of Juana, which was utilized to issue a tax declaration in his name. He also signed the Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of Rights dated August 4, 1992. Thus, it would appear that Tax Declaration No. 71585 was fraudulently obtained. She also pointed out that the partition of the property in 1992 came before the issuance of the subject title under the name of Isedro.* The RTC Ruling In the Decision dated April 15, 2022, the RTC ruled in favor of the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: “WHEREFORE, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court hereby orders the following: 37 Records, pp. 403-406. 38 TSN of Matilde Manila, direct examination, January 29, 2021. 39 Records, pp. 425-432. 40 Records, pp. 434-437. 3 41 Records, p. 438. 42 TSN of Tranquilina Ballena Tafola, June 1CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 9 of 17 Decision 1. Upholding the Compromise Agreement executed on April 31, 1996, between and among defendants Isedro Manila and plaintiffs Braulio and Maximina Manila; 2. The partition of Lot 1054 into four lots in accordance with the division under the Affidavit of Heirs and Waiver of Rights; 3. The segregation of 649 square meters from the 2,598 square meters of Lot No. 1054 located in Looc, Poblacion, Argao, Cebu, covered by Transfer Certificate of ‘Title No. TP 10033 registered in the name of Defendant Isidro/Isedro Manila; 4. Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. TP100033 and the issuance of four transfer certificates of title. In this particular case, the issuance of a new certificate of title for the 649 square meters in the name of Braulio Manila and Maximina Manila Ballena; 5. Cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 3910 and the issuance of tax declaration for the four subdivided Lot 1054; 6. _ The expenses for the registration of titles and tax declaration shall be shared equally by the parties. SO ORDERED.” The RTC upheld the Affidavit of Heirs and Waiver of Rights and the Compromise Agreement and ruled that the terms were not contrary to law, morals, and public policy. Hence, it is binding upon the parties, and Isedro freely and voluntarily agrees. Moreso, he testified in court that he signed the agreement to return the 649 square meters to Braulio and Maximina. Hence, this appeal.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 10 of 17 Decision In the appellant’s brief, Isedro argued that the compromise agreement was null and void since he did not voluntarily enter it. Moreover, his motivation was only to buy peace from all the cases filed against him. He was not assisted by counsel when he signed the document and did not fully understand the consequences of his action. The property in question is conjugal, and there was no consent from the wife, Matilde. The compromise agreement was also not submitted in court for approval. The Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of Rights cannot be given effect. The parties therein, who referred to Juana as their mother, are not children of Juana. Appellants pointed out that for an action for quieting of title to prosper, the plaintiff should have legal or equitable title or interest on the property. In this case, the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina failed to substantiate Saturnino's ownership over the property. The evidence on record showed that Juana is the owner, and thus, her heirs have the right to sell the property to Isedro. The title of the land issued in the Isedro name cannot be collaterally attacked. On the other hand, the Appellee's Brief‘ alleges that the objective of the action filed by Heirs of Braulio and Maximina is to nullify the title issued in the name of Isedro, a direct attack on the title. Moreover, the elements have been satisfied for the compromise agreement to be valid. Isedro is also precluded from raising as a defense that the property is conjugal since he had previously represented himself as single when he purchased it. The issues presented before the Court are the following: 43 Rollo, pp. 78-95.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 11 of 17 Decision I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE. Il. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS- APPELLANTS ARE THE TRUE OWNER AND POSSESSOR OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE COURT'S RULING ‘The Court denies the appeal. ‘The resolution of the question of the validity of the compromise agreement takes precedence over the other issues presented in this case. Article 2208 of the New Civil Code defines a compromise agreement as a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. In a compromise, contracting parties may establish stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they deem convenient, provided that these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. To be binding, the compromise must be shown to have been voluntarily, freely, and intelligently executed by the parties, who had full knowledge of the judgment. As provided by the law on contracts, a valid compromise must have the following elements: (1) the consent of the parties to the compromise, (2) an object certain that is the subject matter of the compromise, 44 SM Systems Corporation vs. Camerino et al., G.R. No. 178591, March 29, 2017.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 12 of 17 Decision and (3) the cause of the obligation that is established.** The rules and principles of a contract do not exempt the extrajudicial compromise entered into by the parties. An extrajudicial settlement is a consensual contract, perfected by mere consent, manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance of the thing and the cause which constitute the contract. It may be either perfectly valid or defective if it suffers from any impediment that could render it void, unenforceable, voidable, or rescissible, depending on the nature of its flaw.“ A perusal of the records persuades the Court that the Compromise Agreement dated April 26, 1996, is valid and binding. Contrary to the appellants’ allegation, the element of consent has sufficiently been satisfied. Isedro did not deny that the Compromise Agreement was executed at his instance. He initiated the compromise to buy peace and reiterated in his testimony that he agreed to return the 649 square meters to Braulio, to wit: *Q: Do you recall having answered in your compromise agreement that you are amenable to amicably settle the matter, as they were only asking, meaning the plaintiffs their share of 649 square meters? Have you recalled having stated in your judicial affidavit? cs) Yes, sir, I could still remember. Q: But in your judicial affidavit, you never stated that you are contesting signing the compromise agreement, which, in effect, return the share to the plaintiffs. Do you agree with me? 45 Magbanua et al. vs. Uy, G.R. No. 161003, May 6, 2005. 46 Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126745 July 26, 1999. *CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 13 of 17 Decision Ay-> Yes) sir. It would appear that he was not under duress when he signed the compromise agreement. Despite his belated claim that the adverse party deceived him, he understood the terms of the agreement. Besides, if it were true that deceit was employed, he had all the opportunity to impugn the validity of the compromise from the time it was executed in 1996 until the instant case was filed on October 21, 2004. But he failed to do so. Further, while Matilde argued that she co-owns the property as Isedro’s wife, no evidence was presented, such as the marriage certificate or any similar document showing that the sale occurred after their marriage. Mere allegation without proof is not evidence. It can likewise be deduced from her testimony that she knew of the existence of the Compromise Agreement but did not do anything to challenge it. In this case, the action for quieting of title is proper under the circumstances. Chapter III of the New Civil Code governs the action for quieting of title. Articles 476 and 477 state, to wit: “Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 14 of 17 Decision Article 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property, which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.” An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity, the purpose of which is to secure an adjudication that a claim of title to or an interest in the property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of hostile claim. xxx"” The appellants’ contention that the Heirs of Braulio and Maximina possess no legal or equitable right or interest in the subject property is misplaced. A scrutiny of the records shows that their right or interest traces back to Spouses Manila, who originally owned the 649 square meters. The Compromise Agreement dated April 26, 1996, explicitly stated that Isedro recognizes the 649 square meters as the legitimate share of Heirs of Braulio and Maximina from the estate of Spouses Manila, to wit: “That the FIRST PARTY hereby waives and assigns and returns to the SECOND PARTY a portion of Lot No. 1054 with Transfer Certificate of Title No. TP No. (sic) 10033 registered in the name of the FIRST PARTY, such portion is their legitimate share from the Estate of the late Laureano Manila, where the said lot was a part but was formerly and erroneously declared and registered in the name of HEIRS OF JUANA MANILA represented by Andres Manila. The said portion returned to the SECOND PARTY is described as follows: 47 Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126745 July 26, 1999. _CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 15 of 17 Decision AN AREA CONTAINING 649 SQ. METERS (sic) MORE OR LESS POSITIONED ON THE SOUTHEASTERN SIDE OF SAID ORIGINAL LOT, WITH FOLLOWING CONTEMPLATED BOUNDARIES, NORTH AND WEST: ISEDRO MANILA; SOUTH: NATIONAL HIGHWAY; EAST: POLICARPIO SANCHES” The basis of the 649 square meters is the partition of the Affidavit of Co-Heirs and Waiver of Rights dated August 4, 1992. The appellants claimed that the partition had no force and effect since the parties acknowledged that Juana owned the subject property. The Court is not persuaded. Based on the Compromise Agreement, Isedro admitted that the 649 square meters belonging to Braulio and Maximina have been erroneously declared and registered in the name of the Heirs of Juana Manila. He implied and revealed that he did not own the 649 square meters of the property since the Heirs of Juana have no right to sell it. With this admission, Isedro is thus estopped from reneging on his obligation to return the 649 square meters. Under the New Civil Code, it is provided that an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.‘ Finally, the Court holds that the instant action complied with Section 48 of P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree® on how a certificate of title is attacked. 48 Article 1431, The New Civil Code. 49 Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance . with law.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 16 of 17 Decision An action is an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title and thus challenge the judgment or proceeding under which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such judgment or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.°° The present action is for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, Declaration of Nullity, Production of TP-10033, and the ultimate objective is the nullity of OCT No. TP-10033, which is undoubtedly a direct attack on the title. WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 15, 2022, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, in Civil Case No. AV-1303 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. MA. CONSEJO M. NGOS - IGNALAGA igfé Justice 50 Heirs of Cascayan represented by La Paz Martinez vs. Spouses Gumallaoi, G.R. No. 211947, July 3, 2017.CA-G.R. CV No. 08600 Page 17 of 17 Decision WE CONCUR: KP BAUTISTAG,JCORPIN, JR. Assottate 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. y BAUTIS’ CORPIN, JR. AssoCiate Justice Chairperson, Twentieth Division