i\epubhc of tbe ~btltpptneS'

~upreme QCourt
.ff[antla

THIRD DIVISION

LAGRIMAS DE JESUS G.R. No. 162930

ZAMORA,
Petitione:~.
Present:
-versus

SPOUSES BEATRIZ ZAMORA VELASCO, JR., J, Chairperson,

HIDALGO MIRANDA and PERALTA,
ARTURO MIRANDA, ROSE ABAD,
MARIE MIRANDA GUANIO, MENDOZA, and
MARY JULIE CRISTINA . S. LEONEN,JJ.
ANG, JESSIE JAY S. ANG,
JASPER JOHN S. ANG and the Promulgated:
REGISTER OF . DEEDS .. for
Davao City, 05 December 2012
Respondents. (J{(~~
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1----~----------x

DE ClSION

PERALTA,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Court of Appeals'

Decision dated September 17, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74156, and its
Resolution dated February 9, 2004, denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 12, which tiismissed petitioner's
complaint for specific performance, annulment of sale and certificate of title ··
and damages.

Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Decision -2- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
The facts, as stated by the Court of Appeals and the trial court, are as
follows:
 

Petitioner is the widow of the late Fernando Zamora, the son of

Alberto Zamora. Respondent Beatriz Miranda is the cousin of Alberto
Zamora, while respondent Rose Marie Miranda-Guanio is the daughter of
respondent Beatriz Miranda.

Respondent Beatriz Miranda was the registered owner of the property

in question, which is a parcel of land, with an area of more or less 5,090
square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1594 of
the Register of Deeds for the City of Davao. The said parcel of land is
located at Carmelite, Bajada, Davao City.

According to petitioner, her father-in-law, Alberto Zamora, through

an encargado, Eduardo Cecilio, was in possession of the property in
question. In 1952, she (petitioner) was designated by Alberto Zamora as his
assistant on land matters. The property in question was turned over to her
and she was introduced to Eduardo Cecilio. After the year 1952, Alberto
Zamora told her that the property in question was owned by respondent
Beatriz Miranda whose family was permanently residing in Manila.

Petitioner allegedly contacted respondent Beatriz Miranda, and

petitioner was given a calling card and was told to see her (Beatriz). In
October 1972, petitioner claimed that she went to the residence of
respondent Beatriz Miranda in Quezon City. While there, they talked about
the property in question and respondent Beatriz Miranda drew a sketch
depicting the location of the property.2 Thereafter, petitioner alleged that
respondent Beatriz Miranda sold to her the said property for the sum of
P50,000.00. An acknowledgment3 of the receipt of the amount of
                                                            
2
Exhibits “B,” to “B-1,” records, vol. I, p. 266.
3
Exhibit “B-2,” id.
Decision -3- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
P50,000.00 was prepared, and respondent Beatriz Miranda allegedly signed4
the same. The receipt was dated October 23, 1972.5 In the sketch, and
acknowledgment of the receipt of P50,000.00, marked as Exhibit "B,"6 there
is a notation "Documents for Agdao Property follows." This notation
referred to the property in Agdao, which was the subject of negotiation.
Petitioner prepared the document relative to the Agdao property.7

Petitioner further claimed that after 1972, she rented out portions of
the property in question. Eduardo Cecilio allegedly continued to be her
encargado as there were squatters on the property. In January 1996, the
tenants reported to her that there were two men who went to the property in
question. On the first week of February 1996, she (petitioner) met Atty.
Cabebe and Mr. Joe Ang. She informed them that she was the owner of the
property in question as she bought it in 1972. After sometime, she
(petitioner) learned that the occupants of the property in question were being
harassed and were told to vacate. She (petitioner) went to Manila and
confronted respondent Beatriz Miranda, and told her that she would file a
case in court.

On June 14, 1996, petitioner filed with the RTC of Davao City,
Branch 12 (trial court) an action for specific performance, annulment of sale
and certificate of title, damages, with preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.8

Petitioner prayed that the Court render judgment nullifying the deed
of sale between respondents Beatriz Miranda and Ang involving the
property covered by TCT No. T-1594; declaring petitioner to be the owner
of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-1594 and ordering respondent

                                                            
4
Exhibit “B-3,” id.   
5
Exhibit “B-4,” id.   
6
Id.
7
Exhibit “C,” id. at 17.
8
Docketed as Civil Case No. 24,442-96.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
Beatriz Miranda to execute the corresponding deed of sale in her favor; and
ordering respondents, except the Registrar of Deeds, to pay her (petitioner)
damages, including litigation expenses and attorney's fees.

On June 17, 1996, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued. The

said Temporary Restraining Order was extended for 15 days pursuant to the
Order dated June 24, 1996. On July 1, 1996, a Status Quo Order was issued.
Petitioner claimed that respondents did not respect the court orders as they
caused the demolition of the structures on the property in question. The
property was levelled and, thereafter, improvements were introduced
thereon by respondents.

Respondent Rose Marie Miranda-Guanio declared that before the year

1941, her mother, respondent Beatriz Miranda, was a resident of Davao
City. Her mother left Davao City in 1942 and resided in Manila, and she
went to Davao City for vacation only. Her mother owned the property in
question. When her mother (Beatriz) left Davao City, she did not appoint
anyone to administer or take care of her property. She (Rose Marie) disputed
the claim of petitioner that the latter visited her mother in 1972. She alleged
that on June 26, 1972, she gave birth to her first child and that she and her
mother, Beatriz, took care of her child. She declared that the signature on the
receipt dated October 23, 19729 was not the signature of her mother, Beatriz
Miranda. She identified the genuine signatures of her mother (Beatriz)
which were reflected on the Voter's Affidavit (Exhibits "1" - "24"); the 1973
Residence Certificate (Exhibits "3"-"20"); the 1980 Residence Certificate
(Exhibits "4"-"21"); the 1981 Residence Certificate (Exhibits "5"-"22"); the
1974 expired passport (Exhibits "6"-"17").10 She also alleged that because of
this case she suffered damages and incurred expenses of litigation.

                                                            
9
Exhibit "B," records, vol. I, p. 266.
10
Id. at 347-351; 354-372.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
Mr. Arcadio Ramos, Chief Document Examiner and Chief,
Questioned Documents Division of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), Manila, was presented to determine whether or not the signature of
respondent Beatriz Miranda appearing on the receipt dated October 23,
1972 was her genuine signature per the Order dated November 17, 1997.

After samples of the genuine signatures of respondent Beatriz

Miranda (Exhibits "1" to "7" and "12" to "28") and the original copy of the
receipt dated October 23, 1972 were submitted to Mr. Ramos, he prepared
two reports with the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS:
Scientific comparative examination of the specimens submitted
under the stereoscopic microscope, with the aid of hand lens and
photographic enlargements (comparison chart), reveal significant
differences in handwriting characteristics existing between the questioned
and the sample signatures "Beatriz H. Miranda" to wit:

- manner of execution of strokes;

- structural pattern of letters; and
- other identifying minute details.

The questioned and the sample signatures "Beatriz H. Miranda" were NOT
WRITTEN by one and the same person.11

Atty. George Cabebe testified for respondents Mary Julie Cristina

Ang, Jessie Jay Ang and Jasper John Ang. He declared that as the lawyer of
Mr. Jose Ang, the father of respondents Ang, his advice was sought
regarding the purchase of the property in question, which was registered in
the name of respondent Beatriz Miranda. He asked for the copy of the title
(TCT No. T-1594) in the name of Beatriz Miranda, and verified from the
Register of Deeds whether or not there was an encumbrance. When he
found no encumbrance annotated on the title, he inspected the property in
question and found thereon several squatters, who agreed to vacate the
premises provided they were given financial assistance. With these findings,

                                                            
11
Exhibits “8-A” to “8-B;” “9-A” to “9-B,” records, vol. II, pp. 366-369.
Decision -6- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
he recommended to respondents Ang to proceed in purchasing the property
of Beatriz Miranda. Thus, respondents Ang purchased the property in
question, and they were issued TCT No. T-258316.12 The
squatters/occupants of the property in question, including Eduardo Cecilio,
the alleged encargado of petitioner, were given financial assistance13 and
they vacated the property in question.

As agreed upon by the parties during the pre-trial conference, the

issues that had to be resolved were as follows: (1) whether or not the Deed
of Sale executed by defendant (respondent) Beatriz Miranda in favor of
defendants (respondents) Ang on February 26, 1996 was valid; (2) whether
or not the plaintiff (petitioner) can recover the claims in the complaint; (3)
whether or not defendants (respondents) can recover the claims in their
counterclaims; and (4) whether or not defendants (respondents) Ang can
recover the claims in the cross-claim.

On February 4, 2002, the trial court rendered a Decision,14 the

dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby

rendered dismissing the complaint.

All claims of the contending parties are disallowed.

Costs against the plaintiff.15

 
The trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint on the ground that the
receipt dated October 23, 1972 which was the basis of petitioner's claim of
ownership over the subject property, was a worthless piece of paper,
because it was established by Mr. Arcadio Ramos, an NBI handwriting
expert, that the signature appearing on the receipt was not the signature of

                                                            
12
Exhibits "2" and "2-A," id. at 484.
13
Exhibits "3" to "45," id. at 486-611.
14
CA rollo, p. 52.
15
Id. at 60.
Decision -7- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
respondent Beatriz Miranda, as vendor of the property, and the testimony of
Mr. Ramos was not controverted.

The trial court observed that petitioner was an astute businesswoman

knowledgeable in transactions involving real estate. She would not have
been designated by her father-in-law as his assistant on land matters if she
did not know anything about transactions involving real estate. Thus, if the
property in question was really sold to petitioner by respondent Beatriz
Miranda in 1972, she should have taken the appropriate action to perfect her
title over the said property. She should have asked for the delivery of the
owner's duplicate copy of the title. The fact that the owner's duplicate copy
of the title remained in the possession of Beatriz Miranda until she sold the
property in question to respondents Ang only showed that the property was
not sold to petitioner. It also appeared that for more than 20 years, petitioner
did nothing to perfect her title to the property allegedly sold to her.

The trial court found that the Deed of Sale16 dated February 26, 1996,
executed by respondent Rose Marie Miranda-Guanio, as attorney-in-fact of
Beatriz Miranda, in favor of respondents Ang, involving the property in
question, was valid. All the requisites of a valid sale were present when the
deed was executed. The sale was registered in the Register of Deeds and a
new transfer certificate of title17 was issued in the name of respondents Ang.
The trial court declared that the certificate of title in the names of
respondents Ang was a conclusive evidence of ownership.

Petitioner appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of

Appeals.

Petitioner alleged that the trial court erred in finding that the receipt
evidencing the sale of the subject property was a worthless piece of paper
                                                            
16
Exhibit “G,” records, vol. I, p. 25.
17
Exhibit “2,” records, vol. II, p. 484.
Decision -8- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
which could not be made the basis of her claim of ownership over the land
in question; and that the trial court erred in dismissing the case.

On September 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision, the

dispositive portion of which reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appealed

decision is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant.18

The Court of Appeals stated that as the receipt presented by petitioner

was a private document, it could not be made the basis of her claim of
ownership over the property in question. More so, when the NBI
handwriting expert, Mr. Arcadio Ramos, found the signature of respondent
Beatriz Miranda on the receipt to be forged, as he concluded that the
questioned and the sample signatures presented were not written by one and
the same person.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals stated that even on the implausible

assumption that respondent Beatriz Miranda's signature on the disputed
document was not forged, and was therefore valid, such fact cannot be
successfully invoked to invalidate the title subsequently issued to respondents
Ang. At the time respondents purchased the land in question from attorney-
in-fact Rose Marie Miranda-Guanio on February 26, 1996, TCT No. T-1594
was in the name of respondent Beatriz Miranda. The Court of Appeals
stated that settled is the rule that where the certificate of title is in the name
of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has a right to rely
on what appears on the certificate of title. Thus, when innocent third
persons, such as respondents Ang, relying on the correctness of the
certificate thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the courts cannot
disregard such rights.19

                                                            
18
Rollo, p. 49. (Emphasis in the original)
19
Citing Director of Lands v. Abache, 73 Phil. 606 (1941-1942).
Decision -9- G.R. No. 162930

 
 
Petitioner filed this petition raising these issues:

I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RULED
THAT THE RECEIPT DATED OCTOBER 23, 1972, EVIDENCING
THE SALE OF THE LAND BY RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA
HIDALGO MIRANDA TO PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS
ZAMORA, BEING A PRIVATE DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID AND
BINDING AND CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS OF SAID
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

II
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
THAT THE SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA
HIDALGO MIRANDA ON THE RECEIPT OR NOTE EVIDENCING
THE SALE OF THE LAND BY SAID RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA IS FORGED,
CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH
FINDING AND, CONSIDERING FURTHER THAT UNDER THE
RULES SHE IS DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED THE
GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF SAID RECEIPT OR
NOTE FOR HER FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY DENY THEM
UNDER OATH IN HER ANSWER.

III
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
THAT RESPONDENTS “ANGS” ARE PURCHASERS IN GOOD
FAITH AND FOR VALUE OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE EVEN IF
THEY HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREVIOUS SALE OF
THE LAND BY RESPONDENT BEATRIZ HIDALGO MIRANDA TO
THE PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA WHO WAS IN
POSSESSION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH HER ENCARGADO
AND TENANTS.

IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FOUND
PETITIONER LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA GUILTY OF
LACHES, INSTEAD OF FINDING THAT SINCE THE ACTION OF
SAID PETITIONER, WHO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND, IS
ACTUALLY ONE FOR QUIETING OF TITLE OF REAL PROPERTY,
AND RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA,
RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT OF SAID
PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF SALE, HAD
FROM TIME TO TIME PROMISED TO EXECUTE THE DEED OF
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 162930

 
 
SALE, THE ACTION OF SAID PETITIONER DID NOT PRESCRIBE
NOR [WAS IT] BARRED BY LACHES.

V
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE
CASE INSTEAD OF (1) ANNULLING THE SALE BETWEEN
RESPONDENT BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA AND THE
RESPONDENTS “ANGS”; (2) DECLARING THE PETITIONER
LAGRIMAS DE JESUS ZAMORA TO BE THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY IN DISPUTE; (3) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
BEATRIZ ZAMORA HIDALGO MIRANDA TO EXECUTE THE
DEED OF SALE IN A PUBLIC INSTRUMENT IN FAVOR OF SAID
PETITIONER TO ENABLE THE LATTER TO REGISTER THE SALE;
AND (4) ORDERING ALL THE RESPONDENTS, EXCEPT THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS, TO PAY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES IN SUCH SUMS AS THE HONORABLE COURT MAY FIX.20

The Court notes that the issues raised by petitioner alleged grave
abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals, which is proper in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but not in the present petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals

erred in affirming the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint for
specific performance, annulment of sale and certificate of title and damages.
 

As stated by the trial court, petitioner principally prays that she be

declared the owner of the subject property; that respondent Beatriz Miranda
be ordered to execute a deed of sale in her (petitioner's) favor; and that the
sale of the subject property in favor of respondents Ang be nullified.

The sole evidence relied upon by petitioner to prove her claim of

ownership over the subject property is the receipt dated October 23, 197221
which states:

                                                            
20
Memorandum of Petitioner, rollo, pp. 157-158.
21
   Records, vol. I, p. 16.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 162930

 
 
Rec'd the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000) pesos from Lagrimas
Zamora as payment for the property at Carmelite, Bajada, Davao City.

Documents for Agdao property follows.

(signed)
Beatriz H. Miranda

Can the receipt dated October 23, 1972 evidencing sale of real
property, being a private document, be a basis of petitioner's claim over the
subject property?

Article 135822 of the Civil Code provides that acts and contracts
which have for their object the transmission of real rights over immovable
property or the sale of real property must appear in a public document. If the
law requires a document or other special form, the contracting parties may
compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been
perfected.23

In Fule v. Court of Appeals,24 the Court held that Article 1358 of the
Civil Code, which requires the embodiment of certain contracts in a public
instrument, is only for convenience, and registration of the instrument only
adversely affects third parties. Formal requirements are, therefore, for the
benefit of third parties.25 Non-compliance therewith does not adversely

                                                            
22
Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest
therein a governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal
partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing
or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing,
even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles, 1403, No. 2
and 1405. (Emphasis supplied.)
23
Civil Code,  Art. 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and
contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that
form, once the contract  has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action
upon the contract.
24
G.R. No. 112212, March 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 698.
25
Fule v. Court of Appeals, supra, at 713; 364. 
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 162930

 
 
affect the validity of the contract nor the contractual rights and obligations of
the parties thereunder.26
 

However, in this case, the trial court dismissed petitioner's complaint

on the ground that the receipt dated October 23, 1972 (Exhibit “B”) is a
worthless piece of paper, which cannot be made the basis of petitioner’s
claim of ownership over the property as Mr. Arcadio Ramos, an NBI
handwriting expert, established that the signature appearing on the said
receipt is not the signature of respondent Beatriz Miranda.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the

complaint.

The Court sustains the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The receipt dated October 23, 1972 cannot prove ownership over the
subject property as respondent Beatriz Miranda's signature on the receipt, as
vendor, has been found to be forged by the NBI handwriting expert, the trial
court and the Court of Appeals. It is a settled rule that the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal, except under any of the
following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based
on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are
based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of
evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the
trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed
facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10)

                                                            
26
Id. 
Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 162930

the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and ( 11) such
findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. 27

Considering that the aforementioned excepti~ms are not present in this

case, the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that the signature of
respondent Beatriz Miranda on the receipt dated October 23, 1972 is forged
is final and conclusive upon this Court. Consequently, the complaint of
petitioner has no leg to stand on and was properly dismissed by the trial
court.

As the receipt dated October 23, 1972 has no evidentiary value to

prove petitioner's claim of ownership over the property in question, there is
no need to discuss the other issues. raised by petitioner based on the
assumption that she has a valid claim over the subject property.

In fine, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of
the trial court dismissing the complaint.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Tl~te Court of Appeals'

Decision dated September 17, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74156, and its
Resolution dated February 9, 2004, are hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

27
Larena v. Mapili, G.R. No. 146341, August 7, 2003,408 SCRA 484,488-489.
Decision - 14- G.R. No. 162930

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITE J. VELASCO, JR.

~
ROBERTO A. "ABAD JOSE CA~NDOZA
Associate Justice Ass~Jk~J:~~ce

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division. ·

J. VELASCO, JR.

Chai

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

Acting Chief Justice