Ulep v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The controversy concerns ownership shares over Lot 840 at Asingan, Pangasinan. The vendors (members of the Ulep family) executed multiple conveyances over portions of Lot 840. A deed of sale dated December 21, 1954, was executed in favor of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) over 620 square meters. A subsequent conveyance occurred on June 18, 1971, in favor of spouses Samuel Ulep and Susana Repogia-Ulep over 817.5 square meters. Several Transfer Certificates of Title were issued covering subdivided portions, and an affidavit of subdivision was executed on July 9, 1975. INC built a chapel in June 1977 and allegedly encroached upon areas claimed by petitioners, prompting an inquiry and the discovery of competing titles. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance and Declaration of Nullity of Titles and Subdivision Plan with Damages (Civil Case No. U-3929) on March 29, 1983. The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on June 17, 1991, largely in favor of petitioners, annulling the Deed of December 21, 1954, and certain titles, and ordering the issuance of new titles consistent with the trial court's allocation. Respondent INC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 39333). The Court of Appeals issued a Decision dated August 15, 1995, modifying the trial court by declaring the December 21, 1954 deed valid and awarding INC 620 square meters. The CA denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated April 25, The Petition: Petitioners brought the present petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to this Court, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 15, 1995, and its Resolution dated April 25, 1996. Petitioners fault the appellate court for not affirming the trial court's decision and, in the alternative, for not awarding them the area of 817.5 square meters and for not reducing the share of respondents Spouses Warlito Paringit and Encarnacion Gante from 507.5 square meters to 197 square meters. The core of their argument is that the deed of sale conveying 620 square meters to INC was void due to forged signatures, and that their sale of 817.5 square meters should prevail. They also argue that the appellate court erred in not considering that the issue of the Paringit spouses' entitlement to 507.5 square meters was never raised before the trial or appellate courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the decision dated June 17, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court. Whether respondent Iglesia ni Cristo is entitled to 620 square meters of Lot 840 or only 100 square meters. Whether the deed of sale dated December 21, 1954 is void for forgery. Whether petitioners Samuel Ulep and Susana Repogia-Ulep are entitled to 817.5 square meters and whether the share of spouses Warlito Paringit and Encarnacion Gante should be reduced. Whether issues not raised in the lower courts, specifically the entitlement of spouses Warlito Paringit and Encarnacion Gante, may be raised for the first time before this Court.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 15, 1995 and the Resolution dated April 25, 1996 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court: The Court examined the conflicting factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and found that a factual reassessment was warranted due to the inconsistency between the two lower courts. The appellate court's conclusion that INC's deed of sale was valid rested on evidentiary findings, including the notarized nature of the 1954 deed and the record of registration, which carry the presumption of regularity. The Supreme Court emphasized that in matters of title, registration coupled with good faith is decisive under Article 1544 of the Civil Code and that the first registrant in good faith has the superior right. Given the evidentiary showing that INC registered its deed first and that petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of regularity, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' modification. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's modification of the trial court's disposition. On Whether INC is entitled to 620 sq. m. or only 100 sq. m.: The Court treated the situation as a classic double sale and applied Article 1544 which resolves priority among competing vendees of immovable property according to registration and good faith. The record shows INC's deed dated December 21, 1954 and its registration precede the subsequent conveyance to petitioners, and INC was issued a title covering the subject portion. The Court found that petitioners had actual or constructive knowledge of the prior arrangement involving INC and therefore failed to establish their own good faith antecedent to registration. Because registration without good faith is insufficient to displace a prior registrant, petitioners could not prevail. The evidence presented by petitioners to rebut INC's claim was limited to self-serving testimony and lacked the clear, positive and convincing proof required to invalidate a notarized public instrument; accordingly INC's claim to 620 sq. m. was sustained. On Whether the December 21, 1954 deed is void for forgery: The Court reiterated the rule that forgery is not presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. It noted that proof of forgery ordinarily requires expert comparison of the questioned signatures with known genuine specimens and that petitioners did not present handwriting experts or other demonstrative proof. The notarized deed benefits from the presumption of regularity and due execution, which petitioners failed to overcome. The Court thus concluded that petitioners did not meet the heavy burden necessary to invalidate the instrument on grounds of forgery. Consequently, the deed was deemed valid in the absence of overwhelming contrary evidence. On Petitioners' claim to 817.5 sq. m. and reduction of Warlito/Encarnacion share: The Court found that petitioners' alternative claim to a larger share conflicted with the chronology of registration and possession and rested on a later conveyance that was subordinate under Article 1544. Moreover, petitioners never questioned the 507.5 sq. m. claim of the spouses Warlito Paringit and Encarnacion Gante at the trial or on appeal; the issue was raised only before this Court. The Supreme Court refused to entertain a new theory first advanced at this stage, observing that points of law and factual theories not presented to the lower courts ordinarily will not be considered on review unless exceptional circumstances exist. Because no exception applied, the Court declined to disturb the allocation affecting respondents Warlito and Encarnacion. On Procedural Bar to Raising Issues for the First Time: The Court applied the rule against raising new issues on appeal, explaining that fairness to the opposing party and the integrity of the adjudicative process require that issues be presented in the trial court. The Court noted recognized exceptions (e.g., jurisdiction, plain error, public policy or intervening jurisprudence) but found none applicable here. As such, the petitioners' belated challenge to the spouses Warlito and Encarnacion's share was procedurally barred and not considered substantively.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, in cases of double sale of immovable property the ownership belongs to the first registrant in good faith; if no inscription, to the first possessor in good faith; otherwise to the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith.