G.R. No. L-68989 January 28, 1988
ANDREA CORDOVA VDA. DE GUTIERREZ (deceased), now represented by RITA C. MEJIA (Executrix), petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, LINO B. GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO B. GUTIERREZ, CONRADO P. GUTIERREZ, LOURDES P. GUTIERREZ, TERESITA T. GUTIERREZ, VIRGINIA T. GUTIERREZ, AUGUSTO G. GUTIERREZ, RICARDO G. GUTIERREZ, and NICOLAS MANALAC, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Andrea Cordova Vda. de Gutierrez, then a widow, purchased a property in Novaliches from Quirico Abeto on September 12, 1947, for P25,000. A deed of absolute sale was executed, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 5779 was issued in her name. On the same date, she mortgaged the property back to Abeto for P15,000. She later married Lino Gutierrez in 1951, who died in 1962. In the judicial settlement of Lino’s estate, his children entered into a Compromise Agreement admitting the Novaliches property was the paraphernal property of the petitioner, which the court approved in 1964.
Subsequently, the Gutierrez respondents filed an amended complaint for declaration of an implied trust and to quiet title, alleging the property was purchased by the late Lino Gutierrez for the benefit of 18 persons, including themselves and intervenor Nicolas Manalac, and that petitioner was merely a trustee. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim on the title, and awarded attorney’s fees to the petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court and declaring petitioner a trustee over a portion of the property for the private respondents.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. The legal logic centers on the supremacy of public documents and judicial admissions over unsubstantiated claims of an implied trust. The deed of absolute sale, the mortgage contract, and the tax declarations are public instruments that clearly establish petitioner’s exclusive ownership, having purchased the property with her own funds before her marriage. These documents enjoy the presumption of regularity and truth.
Crucially, the Compromise Agreement in the intestate proceedings, where the Gutierrez heirs expressly admitted the property was petitioner’s exclusive paraphernal property, constitutes a judicial admission that is conclusive and cannot be contradicted unless shown to be made through palpable mistake. The testimony of Antonio Gutierrez, attempting to claim the property was bought with his father’s funds, is unreliable as he was a signatory to that Compromise Agreement and his subsequent testimony is a complete reversal of his prior judicial admission. The claim of an implied trust was not substantiated by clear, convincing, and conclusive evidence. Therefore, the respondent court’s reliance on such testimony to overturn the trial court’s factual findings and the conclusive effect of the public documents and judicial admission was a reversible error.