G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966
HOSPICIA ENCABO alias SIMPLICIA ENCABO, ET AL., vs. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Hospicia Encabo and her daughters (the Encisos) filed an action to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land (Lots C and D, approx. 17,341 sq. m.) from defendant-appellee Cebu Portland Cement Company (Cepoc). They alleged that in 1937, Romualdo Enciso sold only a 15,000 sq. m. portion (Lot B) to Cepoc for P2,000. They claimed Cepoc was allowed to use the disputed Lots C and D based on a promise to pay fair rentals and provide employment, upon which they relied. Cepoc constructed permanent improvements on the lots. Cepoc, in its amended answers, claimed ownership in fee simple of Lots B, C, and D, asserting the action was barred by prior judgment and prescription. It presented a Deed of Sale (Exhibit 6) dated September 1, 1936, showing the Encisos sold a 30,714.90 sq. m. parcel (which included the disputed lots) for P2,000. Cepoc also presented evidence that this land was decreed in its name in Land Registration Case No. 418 (Decree No. 647162, August 10, 1937). The Encisos admitted the sale but claimed the area sold was only 15,000 sq. m. and alleged Exhibit 6 was a forgery. They referred the document to the NBI, whose examiner, Felipe P. Logan, issued an opinion adverse to its genuineness. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the Encisos to pay damages.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the area of land sold by the Encisos to Cepoc on September 1, 1936, was 15,000 or 30,714.90 square meters. This depends on: (1) whether the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 6) is a forgery, and (2) whether the land has been registered in Cepoc’s name.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 6) was genuine and conveyed 30,714.90 sq. m. to Cepoc. The Court found no binding agreement for Cepoc to accept the NBI expert’s opinion, as Cepoc had reserved its right to dispute the findings. The Court noted that expert opinions are not binding on courts, especially when the expert was not presented for cross-examination. The Court emphasized the corroborating evidence: the land was registered in Cepoc’s name in 1937 without opposition; Cepoc constructed permanent improvements on the land and treated it as its exclusive property; and the Encisos only made rental demands starting in 1941 and filed suit in 1953, conduct inconsistent with ownership. The Court also found no error in admitting Cepoc’s second amended answer, as it merely conformed the pleadings to the evidence presented. Ownership was vested in Cepoc.