G.R. No. C.A. No. 9848 ; March 18, 1946
VICTORIANO VALDEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ANGEL B. PINE, defendant-appellant. CELERINA MAIMBAN, intervenor-appellee.

FACTS

The land in dispute originally belonged to Francisca Valdez, who died intestate on June 21, 1924. Her heirs were declared in a special proceeding. On June 20, 1924, while Francisca Valdez was unconscious, a deed of sale was prepared by Fermin Benavince, Ulpiano Zambrano, Antonio Lopez, and Nicolas Rosario, purporting to sell the land from Francisca Valdez to Ulpiano Zambrano. The deed was acknowledged on June 21, 1924. Original Certificate of Title No. 27521 was issued in Francisca Valdez’s name on July 16, 1924, posthumously. Based on the deed, Ulpiano Zambrano obtained an order cancelling the original title and issuing Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12205 in his name. This order was later declared null and void by the court on July 31, 1926. Ulpiano Zambrano then sold the land to Macario C. David and Pastora Zambrano, leading to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2481. The accused in the falsification of the deed (Benavince, Zambrano, Lopez, Rosario) were convicted, a judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendant Angel B. Pine was a bondsman for the accused in that criminal case. Pastora Zambrano and Macario C. David (through Mariano David) later sold their interests to defendant Angel B. Pine, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2846 was issued in his name. This was later replaced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8384 issued in a cadastral case. The heirs of Francisca Valdez remained in possession of the land. Estefania Valdez, an heir, sold a two-hectare portion to intervenor Celerina Maimban on October 11, 1934, who took possession. The trial court found that defendant Angel B. Pine was not a purchaser in good faith.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s findings of fact, particularly its conclusion that defendant-appellant Angel B. Pine was not a purchaser in good faith of the land in dispute, should be upheld.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court upheld the trial court’s factual finding that Angel B. Pine was not a purchaser in good faith, relying on the well-settled doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court, based on its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their demeanor, should not be disturbed on appeal unless it failed to consider material facts or circumstances. The trial court did not err in its conclusion. The judgment of the trial court, which decided in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees for the major part of the land and in favor of the intervenor-appellee for a two-hectare portion, was affirmed. Costs were imposed on the appellant.