Veran v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed an action to recover possession of a parcel of land registered in the name of Aleja Glodoveza, mother and grandmother of the plaintiffs. They alleged that they merely allowed the defendant (Primitiva Villareal, respondent herein) to erect her house on a portion of the land, which they inherited from Aleja, and that the defendant refused to vacate despite repeated demands. The defendant claimed co-ownership by inheritance from a common ancestor, asserting that the land was orally partitioned among the children of Cornelio Glodoveza and Filomena Padilla, with the portion occupied by her being adjudicated to her predecessor, and other portions to plaintiffs and other co-heirs. She also alleged that the registration of the land in the name of Aleja Glodoveza was secured through fraud. Procedural History: The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them owners pro indiviso of the lot and ordering the defendant to vacate and pay damages. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the decision was set aside to allow the defendant to present her evidence. The trial court denied the admission of the deposition of Apolonia Glodoveza. Subsequently, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, dismissing the complaint and ordering the appellees (plaintiffs) to reconvey the disputed portion of Lot No. 1744 to the appellant (defendant). The appellate court's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners (heirs of Silverio Veran) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, assigning several errors, primarily concerning the admission of Apolonia Glodoveza's deposition, the interpretation of a letter regarding tax contributions, the significance of a subdivision survey plan, and the conclusion regarding administrative proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the deposition of Apolonia Glodoveza. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the letter dated February 25, 1921, gave rise to a presumption of private respondent's possession since 1921. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in attaching significance to the subdivision survey plan (Exhibit "4") despite its preparation after the title was issued. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that no evidentiary worth could be attached to the administrative proceedings before the Bureau of Lands. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the deposition of Apolonia Glodoveza: The Court held that the deposition was admissible. Under the old Rules of Court, leave of court was not required for taking a deposition after an answer had been served. While the use of a deposition requires court approval based on specific grounds (e.g., witness's inability to attend due to age, sickness, or infirmity), the trial court's rejection was based on a denial of cross-examination, which the Court of Appeals found to be unfounded. The appellate court noted that the counsel for the plaintiffs was notified and his opposition was not acted upon before the deposition-taking, meaning any failure to appear was at his own risk. Furthermore, evidence of the deponent's advanced age (around ninety years old) was presented, justifying the use of her deposition. The admission of the deposition established that the assignment of the lot was to three sisters, not solely to Aleja, and that the apportionment occurred in 1905. On the interpretation of the letter (Exhibit 2) and presumption of possession: The Court deferred to the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the interpretation of the letter dated February 25, 1921. The appellate court found that the letter, wherein Francisco Veran (husband of petitioners' predecessor-in-interest) requested a P1.00 yearly contribution for taxes from the private respondent, indicated that the private respondent was already in possession of the disputed portion of Lot No. 1744 as early as 1921. This lent credence to the testimony that the appellant had occupied the lot since 1910, contradicting the appellees' claim of possession only since 1950. On the significance of the subdivision survey plan (Exhibit 4): The Court found no error in the Court of Appeals' appreciation of the subdivision survey plan. The fact that it was prepared after the Original Certificate of Title was issued did not render its reliance misplaced. The plan, which divided the disputed lot into three portions assigned to Leocadia, Aleja, and Ladislawa, served to corroborate the testimony regarding the lot's apportionment among the three sisters, supporting the claim of co-ownership and partition. On the evidentiary worth of administrative proceedings: The Court agreed with the respondent court that no evidentiary worth could be attached to the administrative proceedings before the Bureau of Lands. This was because the decision rendered by the Bureau was still pending appeal before the Department of Agriculture at the time of the trial court's decision. Moreover, the decision of the Bureau of Lands was never formally offered in evidence, and the Rules of Court clearly state that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. On reversing the trial court's decision: Based on the foregoing points, the Court concluded that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error when it reversed the decision of the lower court, finding that the evidence supported the claim of co-ownership and partition among the sisters, and that the action for reconveyance was timely filed.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not err in admitting the deposition of Apolonia Glodoveza, finding that the assignment of the lot in question was to three sisters, not to Aleja alone, and that the segregation or apportionment was made by their eldest sister, Ruperta Glodoveza, in 1905. Furthermore, the action for reconveyance was filed within the ten-year prescriptive period.