GR 222614; (March, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 222614 . March 20, 2019.
HEIR OF PASTORA T. CARDENAS AND EUSTAQUIO CARDENAS, NAMELY REMEDIOS CARDENAS-TUMLOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JANET TUMLOS-QUIZON, PETITIONER, V. THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE CHURCHES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY REO REPOLLO AND LEOCADIO DUQUE, JR., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios Cardenas-Tumlos, represented by her daughter Janet Tumlos-Quizon, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against respondent CAMACOP. Petitioner claimed to be the heir of the registered owners, Spouses Cardenas, of a 410-square meter lot in Cotabato. She alleged that CAMACOP had unlawfully occupied the property since 1962 for its church activities, and despite demands, refused to vacate.
Respondent CAMACOP admitted the lot was registered under the Cardenas name but asserted its occupation was lawful due to a purchase from the late Pastora Cardenas in 1962. It claimed the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and signed copies of a Deed of Sale were forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval under Commonwealth Act No. 141 . It also argued the action was barred by prescription and laches due to petitioner’s 47-year inaction. The RTC and the CA dismissed the complaint, finding a sale was proven.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaint, thereby upholding CAMACOP’s right to possess the property based on an alleged 1962 sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and RTC decisions. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of CAMACOP’s evidence to prove the alleged sale and establish a superior right of possession. While factual findings of lower courts are generally respected, the Supreme Court may review them if glaringly erroneous. Here, the evidence for the sale was critically deficient.
CAMACOP failed to present the original Deed of Sale or a certified copy. The purported carbon copies it submitted were unsigned and unnotarized, thus inadmissible as secondary evidence without proof of the original’s execution and loss. Testimonies from CAMACOP’s witnesses were inconsistent and hearsay; one witness admitted not seeing the signing, and another could not confirm if the required Secretary’s approval was obtained. Consequently, CAMACOP did not discharge its burden of proof. Without valid proof of sale, its possession remained merely tolerant, and the action for recovery, filed within ten years from the last demand, was not barred. The registered owners’ heir, therefore, retained a better right to possess. The Court ordered CAMACOP to turn over possession, except for a 110-square meter portion it could retain due to acquisitive prescription.