GR 202889; (March, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202889 , March 02, 2020
Rodolfo Caranto, Petitioner, vs. Anita Agra Caranto, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rodolfo Caranto filed a Complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance against respondent Anita Agra Caranto, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Mandaluyong City. Rodolfo claimed to be the brother of Anita’s deceased husband, Juan Caranto. He alleged that the subject property was part of the estate of their mother, Guillerma Lopez-Caranto, and was adjudicated to Juan in an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate executed by the siblings on September 18, 1972. Upon Juan’s death, Anita executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication in 1993, claiming the property exclusively. Rodolfo argued that as Juan’s surviving brother, he was entitled to a share, especially after their sister Rizalina waived her rights in his favor. Anita denied Rodolfo was Juan’s legitimate brother, claiming Juan’s mother was Dolores Lopez, and asserted the property was her exclusive purchase. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Rodolfo’s complaint, finding he failed to prove his filiation with Juan, and awarded damages to Anita. The Court of Appeals (CA) partly affirmed the RTC, upholding the dismissal but deleting the award of exemplary damages. Rodolfo elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether Anita is estopped from impugning the relationship between Juan and Rodolfo; (2) whether the evidence, particularly the Extrajudicial Settlement, sufficed to prove Rodolfo’s entitlement to a share in the property; and (3) assuming Juan’s mother was different, whether Rodolfo is entitled to the whole property as inheritance from his mother Guillerma.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the petition raised questions of fact, which are not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition. The Court affirmed the CA’s findings that Rodolfo failed to prove his filiation with Juan by preponderance of evidence. The Extrajudicial Settlement, lacking Juan’s signature and other corroborative evidence like Juan’s birth certificate, was insufficient to establish their relationship. The claim of estoppel against Anita was unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Rodolfo’s alternative claim for full ownership, based on the property originating from his mother, was a new theory raised only on appeal and could not be entertained. The awards of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to Anita were sustained due to Rodolfo’s unfounded suit.