G.R NO.
162930
DECEMBER 5, 2012
ZAMORA VS. SPOUSES MIRANDA
FACTS:
Lagrimas De Jesus Zamora, the petitioner, is a widow of the late Fernando Zamora who
is the son of Alberto Zamora wherein respondent Beatriz Miranda is the cousin of Alberto
Zamora, while respondent Rose-Marie Miranda-Guanio is the daughter of respondent Beatriz
Miranda.
The respondent Miranda was a registered owner of a property in question, which 9is a
parcel of land, with an area of more or less 5,090 square meters where it is covered under the
Transfer of Certificate (TCT) No. 1594 of the Register of Deeds in Davao City. The property in
question is to be founded at Carmelite, Bajada, Davao City.
According to the petitioner, her father-in-law was Alberto Zamora, through an encargado
who owned the property in question. In 1952 she was designated as the assistant in land matters
of Alberto Zamora. After a year, she was told that the property in question was owned by
respondent Beatriz Miranda who was permanently residing in Manila. Petitioner claimed that she
had allegedly contacted the respondent where she was given a calling card and was told to see
her. In October 1972, the petitioner contends that she went to the resident of the respondent and
talk about the property, whereof a sketch was drawn to depict the location of the property.
Thereafter, the petitioner alleged that the property was sold to her by the respondent for a sum of
P50,000,000 with an acknowledgment of the receipt of the consideration, marked as Exhibit “B”,
there are a notation “Documents for Agdao Property follows”. The notation refers to the property
in Agdao, which is subject to negotiation, thenceforward the petitioner prepared the document
relative to the Agdao Property.
Petitioner further asserted that after 1972, she rented out portions of the property in
question. However, in January 1996 the tenants reported that two men went to the property in
question. In February 1996, the petitioner had met Atty. Cabebe and Mr. Joe Ang, where she
informed them that she was the owner of the property after she bought it in 1972. After a while,
she (petitioner) learned that the occupants of the property were being harassed and were told to
vacate. Therefore, the petitioner went to Manila to confront respondent Beatriz Miranda and told
her that she would file a case in court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the receipt presented by petitioner proves her ownership of the property in
question.
DECISION:
No. The Court had held to Article 1358 of the Civil Code which provides that acts and
contracts which have their object the transmission of real rights over immovable property or the
sale of real property must appear in a public document. However, if the law requires a document
in a special form, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the
perfection of the contract happens. The contract of sale of property in question must be on public
document in order for it to be of convenience and a greater protection of the parties and to make
the contract binding against the third person. The Court of Appeals had affirmed that the receipt
dispensed was not of the public instrument but was a private document. Hence, it could not be
made as a basis over her (petitioner) claim of ownership on the property in question.
Subsequently, the receipt which was presented as evidence dated October 23, 1972,
cannot prove ownership of Zamora- petitioner over the subject property of respondent Beatriz
Miranda. Because the signature on the receipt of Beatriz Miranda as a 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. The receipt presented has no evidentiary
value to prove the petitioner’s claim of ownership over the property in question and that it was
forged making it a conclusive and final decision in the Court of Appeals. Thus, there is no need
to discuss the other issues raised by the petitioner based on the assumption that she has a valid
claim over the subject property and affirmed the decision of the trial court of dismissing the
complaint of the petitioner.
