Montesclaros Son v. Son
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents are the heirs of the late spouses Pedro Son and Marcelina Tudtud. Petitioners are the heirs of Anastacio Son, brother of Pedro Son. Pedro Son inherited a parcel of land. In 1972, private respondents discovered that petitioners occupied a portion of this land (6,324 sq. meters) and demanded its return. Petitioners claimed ownership based on a Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Pedro Son on November 5, 1957. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale and recovery of real property. During pre-trial, the parties agreed to limit the issue to the validity of the November 5, 1957 deed. The trial court initially declared the deed null and void. However, upon petitioners' motion for reconsideration, asserting ownership based on an earlier Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase dated December 17, 1951, the trial court reversed its decision and dismissed the complaint. Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's second decision, reinstating the initial ruling that the November 5, 1957 deed was null and void, and upholding the trial court's ruling that the deed was simulated and forged. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the issue of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase had been waived by petitioners due to the pre-trial order. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising issues regarding the admission of the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase despite the pre-trial order, the appellate court's alleged misapprehension of facts concerning the identity of the property, and the conclusion that the 1957 deed was null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, though not initially an issue during pre-trial, could be admitted in evidence given the parties' conduct. Whether the appellate court gravely misapprehended facts or engaged in conjecture when it reversed the trial court's finding on the identity of the land covered by the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale and the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase. Whether the appellate court's conclusion that the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale is null and void was based on speculation and disregarded undisputed facts.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and the judgment of the trial court is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of admitting the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase: The Court held that while a pre-trial order limiting issues controls the subsequent course of action, rules are not applied with rigidity to prevent manifest injustice. Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court allows amendments to conform to or authorize the presentation of evidence when issues not raised are tried by express or implied consent. In this case, petitioners had pleaded the 1951 deed in their answer. Furthermore, private respondents failed to object when petitioners presented the 1951 deed in evidence and even cross-examined extensively on it. This lack of objection constituted implied consent, conferring jurisdiction on the court to try the issue, thereby waiving the limitation imposed by the pre-trial order. The Court found it illogical for private respondents to disregard an issue determinative of the defense, especially when they actively participated in its presentation. On the identity of the property: The Court found that the land subject to the 1951 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase was the same property subject to the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale. Both deeds referred to Pedro Son's share in the property inherited from their parents, Juan Son and Susana Perilla. The 1951 deed specifically mentioned "lot number four representing my (Pedro Son's) share according to the extra-judicial partition made on September 17, 1942," which concerned the division of the inherited property. The 1957 deed referred to "a part of my (Pedro Son's) share... inherited from our deceased parents Juan Son and Susana Perilla." The Court found no dispute as to the identity of the property. The differences in area and consideration were explained by close family ties and Pedro Son's request to reduce the area, with the additional payment considered as covering food expenses. On the validity of the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court agreed with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the 1957 deed was simulated and forged, thus null and void. The Court noted that it was logical for the trial court and the Court of Appeals to consider the disparities and contradictions in the testimonies of petitioners' witnesses, particularly Anastacio Son and the notary public, as these inconsistencies bore directly on the validity of the deed. The Court found no misapprehension of essential facts by the appellate court that would warrant a departure from its findings. The principle that a plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own evidence was deemed misplaced as the issue involved the credibility of witnesses and the validity of the deed itself.
Main Doctrine
A pre-trial order limiting the issues for trial controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified to prevent manifest injustice. However, if parties expressly or impliedly consent to the trial of issues not raised in the pleadings or pre-trial order, such issues shall be treated as if they were raised, and the court may allow amendments to conform to the evidence presented.