Cardenas-Tumlos v. Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Remedios Cardenas-Tumlos, heir of the registered owners Pastora and Eustaquio Cardenas, represented by her attorney-in-fact Janet Tumlos-Quizon, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Use of Real Property and Damages against The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc. (CAMACOP), Reo Repollo, and Leocadio Duque, Jr. Janet alleged that CAMACOP unlawfully occupied the subject property (Lot 90, Psd-37322, TCT No. T-6097) since 1962 for church activities, despite repeated demands. Procedural History: The respondents admitted that the Sps. Cardenas are the registered owners but claimed they lawfully purchased the property from Pastora, who surrendered the owner's duplicate copy. They asserted that their occupation for 47 years barred the claim by prescription and laches. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding sufficient evidence of a sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the heir failed to prove her claim by a preponderance of evidence. The RTC and CA both found that a sale transaction occurred between Pastora and CAMACOP. The Petition: The Heir of Sps. Cardenas filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent church (CAMACOP) presented sufficient secondary evidence to prove the existence and contents of the alleged lost Deed of Sale. Whether the doctrine of prescription or laches bars the heir's claim for recovery of possession. Whether the heir has a better right to possess the subject property.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA's decision, and set aside the RTC's decision. It ordered CAMACOP to turn over possession of the subject property to the Heir of Sps. Cardenas, but allowed CAMACOP to retain possession of the 110 square meter portion of the subject property adjacent to its owned lot, based on the heir's express admission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of secondary evidence for the alleged Deed of Sale: The Court held that CAMACOP failed to present sufficient secondary evidence to establish the existence and contents of the purported 1962 Deed of Sale. The Court found it unbelievable that no copy was retained by CAMACOP or its counsel, and that CAMACOP did not attempt to subpoena documents from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Furthermore, the presented secondary evidence, including letters from Atty. Calud and an affidavit from Rev. Madrigal, were deemed self-serving, hearsay, and insufficient. The Court noted a glaring discrepancy in the title number mentioned in Madrigal's affidavit (OCT No. 1759) versus the actual title (OCT No. 1674). Additionally, the documentary evidence presented were mere photocopies without proper authentication, as the witness Repollo did not personally witness their execution or have knowledge of their genuineness. The testimony of Eudecia M. Repollo, the sole witness claiming personal knowledge, was contradicted by her own admission that the sale pertained to only 110 square meters, not the 410 square meters of the subject property. On the applicability of prescription and laches: The Court ruled that prescription cannot be acquired over registered land in derogation of the registered owner's title, pursuant to Section 47 of P.D. 1529. The right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible for the registered owner and their hereditary successors. Regarding laches, the Court disagreed with the CA, finding that the heir's delay was not considerable. The heir testified that she only discovered CAMACOP's construction in 2000, engaged in negotiations with CAMACOP regarding a supposed Deed of Sale, and only filed the case in 2009 when it became apparent that CAMACOP could not produce the document. This testimony was unrebutted, thus laches could not be invoked. On the better right to possess the subject property: The Court found that the Heir of Sps. Cardenas sufficiently established her positive right of possession, as the property remained registered in the names of Sps. Cardenas and was declared for tax purposes in their name, with real property taxes paid under Pastora's name. The burden shifted to CAMACOP to prove a valid transfer of ownership, which it failed to do. However, the Court acknowledged the heir's express admission in the petition that CAMACOP rightfully owned the 110 square meter portion of the property. Based on this admission, the Court allowed CAMACOP to retain possession of this specific portion, while ordering the turnover of the remaining area to the heir.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the respondent church failed to present sufficient secondary evidence to prove the existence and contents of a lost Deed of Sale, thus the registered owner's heir has a better right to possession of the property, except for a portion explicitly admitted to have been sold.