Lazaro v. Agustin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a complaint for partition against respondents, claiming they are descendants of the late Simeon C. Santos and Trinidad Duldulao, who died intestate leaving a parcel of land. They alleged that Simeon's children, Basilisa, Alberto, Leoncio, and Alejandra, agreed that the land would be titled in Basilisa's name, but it was understood that she was not the sole owner. Petitioners claimed Alejandra contributed significantly to the construction and renovation of the residential house on the lot. They further alleged that the title was transferred to Basilisa's children (respondents) without their knowledge and consent, despite Basilisa's alleged execution of an affidavit acknowledging her siblings' shares. Petitioners initiated partition proceedings in the barangay court, which were refused by the respondents who claimed sole ownership. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dismissed the complaint, finding the alleged affidavit of Basilisa to be hearsay and not credible due to testimonies that she was incapacitated at the time of its supposed execution. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision with modification, finding that the house was built and renovated by petitioners in good faith and ordering respondents to indemnify petitioners for the costs of construction and renovation amounting to ₱68,308.60. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, ordering the indemnity solely to Alejandra Santos-Lazaro. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing that Basilisa's sworn statement was a declaration against interest establishing co-ownership, that their co-ownership did not terminate despite the transfer of title, and that Alejandra was a co-owner entitled to partition of the house, not merely a builder in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether Basilisa's sworn statement constitutes a declaration against interest establishing co-ownership. Whether the co-ownership of the subject property persisted despite the transfer of title. Whether petitioner Alejandra Santos-Lazaro is a co-owner entitled to partition of the residential house, or merely a builder in good faith.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Basilisa's sworn statement: The Court ruled that the sworn statement was an admission against interest, not a declaration against interest, as Basilisa was a predecessor-in-interest to the respondents. However, the Court found that the statement could not be given full faith and credence because the sworn statement referred to Lot No. 10678, while the disputed property is Lot No. 10676, creating uncertainty about its applicability. Also, the testimonies of witnesses regarding Basilisa's physical condition and the questionable circumstances of the affidavit's execution, including the notary public's admission that the thumbmark was affixed by someone claiming to be Basilisa and that he did not personally know her, sufficiently rebutted the presumption of regularity of the notarized document. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses were given great weight. On the issue of co-ownership persistence: Since the Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that petitioners failed to prove their claim of co-ownership based on the unreliability of Basilisa's sworn statement, this issue became moot. The premise of their argument, that they were co-owners, was not established by sufficient evidence. Therefore, the subsequent arguments regarding the termination of co-ownership due to the transfer of title and mortgage were rendered unnecessary to resolve. On the issue of Alejandra's status and entitlement to partition: Similar to the issue of co-ownership, this issue was predicated on the assumption that Alejandra was a co-owner. As the claim of co-ownership was not substantiated, the argument that Alejandra was a co-owner and not merely a builder in good faith could not be sustained. Consequently, the entitlement to partition of the house based on co-ownership was also denied. The RTC's modified ruling, which granted indemnity to Alejandra for the costs of construction and renovation as a builder in good faith, was affirmed by the CA and implicitly upheld by the Supreme Court's denial of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A notarized document, while enjoying a presumption of regularity, is not absolute and can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the execution of a sworn statement can be overthrown by evidence of questionable circumstances surrounding its execution and the testimonies of witnesses regarding the physical condition of the signatory.