G.R. No. 196510. September 12, 2018.
SOFIA TABUADA, NOVEE YAP, MA. LORETA NADAL, AND GLADYS EVIDENTE, PETITIONERS, V. ELEANOR TABUADA, JULIETA TRABUCO, LAURETA REDONDO, AND SPS. BERNAN CERTEZA & ELEANOR D. CERTEZA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, the widow and daughters of the late Simeon Tabuada, filed an action to declare null a real estate mortgage over a property registered in the name of Loreta Tabuada, Simeon’s mother. The mortgage and a promissory note were dated 1994 and ostensibly signed by Loreta. However, Loreta had died in 1990. Respondents Eleanor Tabuada (Simeon’s sister-in-law), Julieta Trabuco, and Laureta Redondo obtained a loan from respondent Spouses Certeza using the property as collateral. Upon learning of the mortgage from a demand letter, petitioners confronted the respondents, who admitted to the transaction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared all respondents in default for failure to file timely answers and, after an ex parte hearing, ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the mortgage void and awarding damages.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision. The CA held that the RTC erred in declaring the Spouses Certeza in default, as their letter to the judge expressing intent to file an answer constituted a responsive pleading. More critically, the CA ruled that petitioners failed to prove their legal standing as compulsory heirs of Loreta Tabuada, as they did not submit any documentary evidence, such as an extrajudicial settlement of estate, to establish their relationship to the deceased and their right to sue. The CA thus dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their heirship and legal standing through documentary evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC judgment. The Court clarified that proof of a legal relationship, such as heirship, is not confined to documentary evidence. Under the Rules of Court, evidence includes object, documentary, and testimonial evidence. A fact in issue can be established by any competent proof that constitutes a preponderance of evidence. Here, petitioner Sofia Tabuada testified under oath that she was the widow of Simeon, who was the son of Loreta Tabuada, and that her co-petitioners were their daughters. This testimonial evidence, which was unrebutted due to respondents’ default, was competent and sufficient to establish petitioners’ status as heirs. The CA incorrectly required exclusive documentary proof.
On the substantive issue, the mortgage was indisputably void. The law requires that a mortgagor must be the owner or have the free disposal of the property, or be legally authorized. The mortgage document was executed in 1994 by a person purporting to be Loreta Tabuada, who had died in 1990. A contract by a deceased person is a nullity. Consequently, the mortgage contract was void ab initio. The award of moral damages was also proper, as the fraudulent mortgage of their home property caused petitioners mental anguish, sleepless nights, and anxiety, which are grounds for moral damages under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court therefore declared the mortgage null and void and affirmed the awards for damages and attorney’s fees.