1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
NINTH DIVISION
CELIA PILIZ-BAYLON, JOSEPH PILIZ rep. by CA-G.R. CV No. 107586
Elmer Piliz, FELICIDAD PILIZ-RODRIGUEZ, RTC Br. 6, Baguio City
and FRANCIS PILIZ Lower Court Case No.7620-R
Plaintiffs-Appellees Re: Partition and Damages
-versus-
CYNTHIA PILIZ,
Defendant-Appellant
JAMES PILIZ,
Defendant,
x -----------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
_______________________________
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT
Comes now, defendant-appellant, CYNTHIA B. PILIZ, through counsel, and
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states–
That on March 23, 2018 defendant-appellant Cynthia B. Piliz received the
Decision in the above entitled case promulgated on March 6, 2018, the dispositive
of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, Regional Trial
Court Branch 6 of Baguio City in Civil Case No. 7620-R is
hereby AFFIRMED in TOTO.
SO ORDERED.” (Italics supplied)
1
2
Complainant-appellant Cynthia B. Piliz respectfully moves for
reconsideration of the afore-cited decision on the following grounds:
GROUNDS:
I. IT IS SUBMITTED, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT THE
HONORABLE COURT MISAPPREHENDED THE FACTS
AND THE FACTUAL MILIEU OF THE CASE IN HOLDING
THAT THE SALE OF CAYAT PILIZ, DURING HIS LIFETIME,
IN FAVOR OF HIS CHILD CYNTHIA PILIZ DATED
JANUARY 16, 1980 WAS COUPLED WITH AGREEMENT
THAT THE LATTER WILL HOLD THE PROPERTY IN TRUST
FOR HER FULL-BLOOD SIBLINGS. IT IS FURTHER
SUBMITTED THAT SUCH HOLDING IS MISPLACED AND
UNSUPPPORTED BY CATEGORICAL EVIDENCE ON
RECORD. IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE SAME WAS
UNCONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRED, SOLD, AND
CONVEYED BY CAYAT PILIZ INTER-VIVOS BY WAY OF
ONEROUS TITLE IN FAVOR OF CYNTHIA PILIZ WITHOUT
QUALIFICATIONS. THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED
OF SALE HAS SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE
OVERTHROWN BY BARE UNCORROBORATED AND SELF
SERVING ASSERTION OF CELIA BAYLON.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO
CONSIDER THAT EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF
ARGUMENT THAT A TRUST WAS INTENDED BY CAYAT
PILIZ, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO
TRUST IS IMPLIED BY LAW, IT BEING DISPUTABLY
PRESUMED THAT THERE IS A GIFT IN FAVOR OF THE
CHILD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1448 OF
REPUBLIC ACT 386. IN THE INSTANT CASE, RECORDS
REVEAL THAT THE SAME WAS NEITHER DISPUTED BY
THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, NOR HAD THEY ADDUCED
CATEGORICAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ITS HOLDING THAT
THE DISCOVERY OF THE FAMILY OF THE EXISTENCE OF
CRESENCIA’S CHILD FROM HER PRIOR MARRIAGE,
MARIO VILLARAMA, IMPELLED CAYAT PILIZ TO
2
3
TRANSFER THE PROPERTY TO CYNTHIA PILIZ AND
ANOTHER PROPERTY TO CELIA FOR THE ALLEGED
REASON THAT THEY ARE THE TWO ELDEST CHILDREN
AND OF LEGAL AGE AT THAT TIME IS UNSUPPORTED
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; OVER WHICH
THE COURT, FURTHER, INFERRED THAT: “The
institution of trust was apparently meant to secure the
property rights of Cayat’s children with Cresencia as
both of them had children outside their marriage.” IS
WITHOUT BASIS AND LIKELY NOT IN ACCORD WITH
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LIFE AND HUMAN
EXPERIENCE INASMUCH AS THE SAME WOULD
PROSPECTIVELY FORECLOSE THE HEREDITARY RIGHTS
OF CAYAT’S DULY FORTHCOMING CHILDREN,
LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE. MOREOVER, SAID
HOLDING WAS WITHOUT CITATION AS TO THE
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF PATERNITY AND FILIATION OF
MARIO VILLARAMA, AND HOW THE LATTER COULD
LEGALLY AFFECT THE PROPERTIES OF CAYAT PILIZ.
IV. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO
CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS OF JAMES PILIZ
OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO INTENTION
ON THE PART OF CYNTHIA PILIZ TO CREATE AN
EXPRESS TRUST, IN THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
TRUSTS WAS PROCURED THROUGH THREATS,
INTIMIDATION, AND CONTINUING ILL TREATMENT BY
THEIR MOTHER CRESENCIA PILIZ, WHICH INCLUDES
JAMES PILIZ’S DECLARATION AGAINST HIS OWN
RIGHTS AND INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
V. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT PUT MORE
WEIGHT AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE ON THE TESTIMONY
OF ERLINDA PALAT OVER AND ABOVE THE JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE DECLARATION OF JAMES
PILIZ AGAINST HIS INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, BOTH OF WHOM ARE INSTRUMENTAL
WITNESSES TO THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST DATED MAY 3, 1990.
3
4
VI. WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST WAS PROCURED
THROUGH INTIMIDATION, THREATS, AND
CONTINUING ILLTREATMENT OF CYNTHIA’S MOTHER,
IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORABLE
COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE
CONSUMMATED SALE CONTRACTED BY THE CYNTHIA
PILIZ IN 1995 CONSTITUTES A POSITIVE ACT OF
REPUDIATION OF THE EXPRESS TRUST IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1458 AND 1477 OF REPUBLIC
ACT 386, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WAS SOLD BY NO LESS
THAN THE TRUSTOR HERSELF ON FEBRUARY 28, 1995.
VII. THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED GRIEVOUS
ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE DECISION OF
THE COURT A QUO, WHICH CONCOMITANTLY
AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT’S RULING OF PARTITION
ON THE BASIS OF SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE
UNDER RULE 69 OF THE RULES OF COURT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF
DONATION UNDER ARTICLE 1448 OF THE NEW CIVIL
CODE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS THEREFORE,
FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORABLE COURT
CONCOMITANTLY ERRED IN FAILING TO SEE THAT THE
LOWER COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN THE LATTER RULED PARTITION ON THE BASIS
OF SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE UNDER RULE 69 OF
THE RULES OF COURT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN
PROPERLY COGNIZABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
RULE 90 INSTEAD OF 69 OF THE RULES OF COURT
WITH ITS HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS
INHERITED FROM CAYAT PILIZ.
VIII. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED
WHEN IT FAILED TO SEE THAT THERE EXIST NO BASIS
TO PARTITION THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER RULE
69 OF THE RULES OF COURT, HENCE, THE CASE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
4
5
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS:
I. IT IS SUBMITTED, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
THAT THE HONORABLE COURT
MISAPPREHENDED THE FACTS AND THE
FACTUAL MILIEU OF THE CASE IN HOLDING
THAT THE SALE OF CAYAT PILIZ, DURING HIS
LIFETIME, IN FAVOR OF HIS CHILD CYNTHIA
PILIZ DATED JANUARY 16, 1980 WAS COUPLED
WITH AGREEMENT THAT THE LATTER WILL
HOLD THE PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR HER FULL-
BLOOD SIBLINGS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED
THAT SUCH HOLDING IS MISPLACED AND
UNSUPPPORTED BY CATEGORICAL EVIDENCE
ON RECORD. IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE
SAME WAS UNCONDITIONALLY TRANSFERRED,
SOLD, AND CONVEYED BY CAYAT PILIZ INTER-
VIVOS BY WAY OF ONEROUS TITLE IN FAVOR
OF CYNTHIA PILIZ WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS.
THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED OF SALE
HAS SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE
OVERTHROWN BY BARE UNCORROBORATED
AND SELF SERVING ASSERTION OF CELIA
BAYLON.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT EVEN ASSUMING
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT A TRUST
WAS INTENDED BY CAYAT PILIZ, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO TRUST IS
IMPLIED BY LAW, IT BEING DISPUTABLY
PRESUMED THAT THERE IS A GIFT IN FAVOR OF
THE CHILD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE 1448 OF REPUBLIC ACT 386. IN THE
INSTANT CASE, RECORDS REVEAL THAT THE
SAME WAS NEITHER DISPUTED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, NOR HAD THEY
ADDUCED CATEGORICAL EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ITS
HOLDING THAT THE DISCOVERY OF THE
FAMILY OF THE EXISTENCE OF CRESENCIA’S
CHILD FROM HER PRIOR MARRIAGE, MARIO
VILLARAMA, IMPELLED CAYAT PILIZ TO
TRANSFER THE PROPERTY TO CYNTHIA PILIZ
5
6
AND ANOTHER PROPERTY TO CELIA FOR THE
ALLEGED REASON THAT THEY ARE THE TWO
ELDEST CHILDREN AND OF LEGAL AGE AT THAT
TIME IS UNSUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE; OVER WHICH THE
COURT, FURTHER, INFERRED THAT: “The
institution of trust was apparently meant to
secure the property rights of Cayat’s children
with Cresencia as both of them had children
outside their marriage.” IS WITHOUT BASIS
AND LIKELY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF LIFE AND HUMAN
EXPERIENCE INASMUCH AS THE SAME WOULD
PROSPECTIVELY FORECLOSE THE HEREDITARY
RIGHTS OF CAYAT’S DULY FORTHCOMING
CHILDREN, LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE.
MOREOVER, SAID HOLDING WAS WITHOUT
CITATION AS TO THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF
PATERNITY AND FILIATION OF MARIO
VILLARAMA, AND HOW THE LATTER COULD
LEGALLY AFFECT THE PROPERTIES OF CAYAT
PILIZ.
1. The above grounds being interrelated are hereby discussed jointly in the
following:
__________________________________________________
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HOLDING
OF THE HONORABLE COURT IS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE APART
FROM THE FACT THAT CAYAT PILIZ HELD VAST TRACK OF
LANDS DURING HIS LIFETIME (NOT ONLY TWO AS
CONCEALED BY CELIA), RECORD OF THE CASE REVEAL THAT
THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS OF THE HOLDING OF THE
HONORABLE COURT THAT THE DEED OF SALE EXECUTED
DATED JANUARY 16, 1980 WAS COUPLED WITH THE
AGREEMENT THAT CYNTHIA PILIZ WILL HOLD THE PROPERTY
IN TRUST FOR HER FULL-BLOOD SIBLINGS. NOTABLY, THE DEED
OF SALE ITSELF ON ITS FACE, DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE SUCH
HOLDING. MOREOVER, RECORDS REVEAL THAT THERE WERE
NO CATEGORICAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLEES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID AGREEMENT. FROM
THE OUTSET, THE RECORDS LIKEWISE SHOW THAT THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
PROVING THAT CAYAT PILIZ WAS IMPELLED BY THE ALLEGED
UNUSUAL FAMILY SITUATION TO SIMULTANEOUSLY EXECUTE
THE ALLEGED ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST ON MARCH 1,
6
7
1980. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS CRESENCIA PILIZ WHOSE
HERIDITARY SHARE HAD BEEN THINNED DOWN DUE TO THE
TRANSFER MADE BY CAYAT TO CYNTHIA PILIZ WHO COULD
ONLY HAVE THE MOTIVE TO COMPELL CYNTHIA TO EXECUTE
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST DATED MARCH 1, 1980.
2. From the outset, record of the case reveal that there were no
evidence adduced by the plaintiffs-appellees that categorically proves that Cayat
Piliz transferred his property in favor of Cynthia Piliz (Cynthia for brevity) in trust
for her siblings at that time, except of the bare uncorroborated and self serving
testimony of Celia Baylon (Celia for brevity) pointing out a flimsy reason of an
unusual family situation that allegedly impelled her father to transfer the
property in favor of Cynthia Piliz. Record shows, though, that there is equally no
evidence on record that would prove that the alleged Acknowledgment of Trust
dated March 1, 1980 was indeed executed at the behest of Cayat Piliz due to the
claimed unusual family situation.
3. If at all, there is equally no evidence found in the records of the case
that would categorically show that the presence of Mario Villarama had indeed
impaired the property rights of Cayat Piliz and his children. While Celia claims that
the family discovered the existence of Cresencia Bruno’s child from a prior
marriage, Mario Villarama, her claim that the Mario’s presence impelled Cayat
Piliz to transfer her property to Cynthia is absurd, implausible, and unsupported
by evidence. For how could a child of a prior marriage legally affect the property
rights of a subsequent marriage without proof of the latter’s paternity or filiation,
and how the same could possibly affect the property regime of the second
marriage. Indeed, records of the case reveal that plaintiffs-appellees did not
tender any evidence pertaining to the paternity and filiation of Mario Villarama,
and how the latter could have legally affected the property rights of Cayat Piliz
and his children at the time of the execution of the deed of sale in 1980. For one,
the mere fact that Mario Villarama utilizes the surname Villarama instead of her
mother’s surname ‘Bruno’ portends that he is a legitimate child of Mr. Villarama,
so to speak.
4. On that score, it would seem therefore that the claim of Celia that
the presence of Mario Villarama could adversely affect the property regime of
Cayat Piliz is merely feared than real. That thenceforth, by itself, it is submitted
with all due respect that the Honorable Court’s holding that states: “the
institution of trust was apparently meant to secure the property rights of Cayat’s
children with Cresencia as both of them had children outside their marriage” was
clearly unfounded.
5. On the other hand, records reveal that plaintiffs-appellees did not
dispute the legal presumption mandated under the provisions of Article 1448 of
the New Civil Code that the transfer made in favor of Cynthia by his father Cayat
7
8
Piliz is legally presumed a donation in favor of the former. Except however of the
bare uncorroborated and self serving assertion of Celia that the Deed of Sale
executed by Cayat Piliz on January 16, 1980 was allegedly carried out to transfer
the property to Cynthia in trust for his full-blood due to lack of consideration. Be
that as it may, however, the legal presumption of sufficient cause and
consideration of a contract under Article 1354 of the New Civil Code cannot be
overturned by bare, uncorroborated, and self serving assertion, there must be a
clear and convincing evidence to overturn the same.
IV. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS OF JAMES PILIZ OF THE FACT
THAT THERE WAS REALLY NO INTENTION ON
THE PART OF CYNTHIA PILIZ TO CREATE AN
EXPRESS TRUST, IN THAT THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUSTS WAS
PROCURED THROUGH THREATS,
INTIMIDATION, AND CONTINUING ILL
TREATMENT BY THEIR MOTHER CRESENCIA
PILIZ, WHICH INCLUDES JAMES PILIZ’S
DECLARATION AGAINST HIS OWN RIGHTS AND
INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
V. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED WHEN IT PUT
MORE WEIGHT AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE ON
THE TESTIMONY OF ERLINDA PALAT OVER AND
ABOVE THE JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS AS WELL AS
THE DECLARATION OF JAMES PILIZ AGAINST
HIS INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
BOTH OF WHOM ARE INSTRUMENTAL
WITNESSES TO THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST DATED MAY 3,
1990.
1. The above grounds being interrelated are hereby discussed jointly in
the following:
___________________________________________________
BY LARGE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF
JAMES PILIZ AS WELL AS HIS DECLARATION AGAINST HIS OWN
INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COULD HAVE EVEN
MORE EMPHATIC INSOFAR AS IT ESTABLISHES THE FACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE PRESENT CASE, HAD THE
HONORABLE COURT CONSIDERED ITS EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT
8
9
AND VALUE OVER AND ABOVE THE TESTIMONY OF ERLINDA
PALAT (ORDINARY WITNESS) WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO
PERJURE HER STATEMENTS UNDER PEER PRESSURE. NEEDLESS
TO SAY, THE SAME COULD HAVE SHED LIGHT AS TO THE
VERACITY OF THE SELF SERVING STATEMENTS OF CELIA
BAYLON WHO CONTINUOUSLY BICKER ABOUT HER CLAIM
OVER THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE CASE.
2. Needless to say, the Verified Manifestation dated May 26, 2012 filed
before the lower court by James Piliz which consists mainly of his judicial
admissions affirming the averments of the answer of the defendant-appellant
Cynthia Piliz which, further, consists principally of his declaration against his own
interest over the subject property should have given more weight and evidentiary
value over and above the testimony of Erlinda Palat and Celia. For one, James Piliz
could not have made his declaration against his interest unless he believes it to be
true and forthright. As such, it could have been a miss on the part of the
Honorable Court not to consider this crucial and decisive evidentiary facts if only
to ferret out the truth regarding the case.
3. Relatively, upon the other hand, these judicial admissions made by
James Piliz in the course of the proceedings of the case could not have been
validly contradicted by the latter’s subsequent execution of a ‘Partial Compromise
Agreement’ and Affidavit admitting the existence of co-ownership, dated May 16,
2014 filed by latter which was admittedly executed by him to buy peace with the
plaintiffs-appellees two (2) years thereafter. Be that as it may, however, it is
axiomatic in our legal system that a judicial admission may only be contradicted
upon showing that such admission was made through palpable mistake, or that
no such admission was made. In this case, records reveal that no such
contradiction was made by the latter as regards his judicial admission. Thus, Rule
129, Section 4 of the Rules of Court is explicit, in the following, to wit:
“Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, Section 4. Judicial
admissions. – An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. The admission may be
contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.”
(Italics supplied)
4. Largely, therefore, the judicial admission of James Piliz no less than
points to the fact that there was certainly no intention on the part of Cynthia Piliz
(trustor) to create an express trust in favor of her full-blood siblings, owing to the
fact that the execution of the Acknowledgment of Trusts was procured through
threats, intimidation, continuing ill treatment by their mother, and vitiated
consent. That henceforth, under these circumstances, it is as if no express trust
9
10
was created at all despite of the execution of the acknowledgment of trust; above
which was procured through compulsion, duress and intimidation, and the like.
On that score, the acknowledgment of trust despite its execution, being spurious,
could not have validly established an express trust under the provision of Article
1441 of the New Civil Code as there had been no intention to create an express
trust by the trustor, Cynthia. Thus, Article 1441 of the New Civil Code is explicit in
the following, to wit:
“Art. 1441. Trust are either express or implied. Express
trusts are created by the intention of the trustor or of the
parties. Implied trusts come into being by operation of
law.” (Italics and emphasis supplied)
VI. WITHOUT LOSING SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRUST WAS
PROCURED THROUGH INTIMIDATION,
THREATS, AND CONTINUING ILLTREATMENT
OF CYNTHIA’S MOTHER, IT IS FURTHER
SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORABLE COURT
ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT THE
CONSUMMATED SALE CONTRACTED BY THE
CYNTHIA PILIZ IN 1995 CONSTITUTES A
POSITIVE ACT OF REPUDIATION OF THE
EXPRESS TRUST IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE 1458 AND 1477 OF REPUBLIC ACT
386, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WAS SOLD BY NO
LESS THAN THE TRUSTOR HERSELF ON
FEBRUARY 28, 1995.
1. It is submitted that it could have been amiss on the part of the
Honorable Court not to consider that the consummated sale of the subject
property made by Cynthia Piliz on February 28, 1995 constitutes a positive act of
repudiation of the express trust. The provisions of Article 1458 of the New Civil
Code in relation to Article 1477 thereof is quite enlightening in so far as it proves
the fact of repudiation of the alleged express trust which Cynthia Piliz was
compelled to execute because of the continuing threats, coercion, intimidation,
and ill treatment of her mother, who could have the only motive of securing the
properties procured by Cayat Piliz during his lifetime, spurned by the fact that
illegitimate children of the latter could thin down her economic benefits from the
vast land holdings of Cayat Piliz. Thus, clearly, the provisions of law on sales is
explicit in the following, to wit:
“Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting
parties obligates himself to transfer ownership of and to
10
11
deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay
therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent.”
“Article 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive
delivery thereof” (Italics supplied)
2. Is submitted that no less than the provisions of law on sales exhorts
by itself that a consummated sale constitutes a positive act of repudiation of
express trust. It goes without saying therefore that a mere fact of a consummated
sale of a real property constitutes the following act of repudiation of an express
trust in view of the legal requirement of a valid contract of sale, to wit: (a) Factual
and unequivocal act of repudiation because the vendor must be able to transfer
ownership of the thing sold; (b) The same was made known to the beneficiary,
which act is not only made known to the beneficiaries but even to the whole
world, as it were; in view of the requirement of law that the same must be
contained in a public instrument and filed before the Registry of Property.
Moreover; (c) The evidence thereon that the property had been transferred by
the vendor to the vendee is clear and conclusive as to the fact of transfer of
ownership to the latter, as the sale itself cannot be consummated without the
actual transfer of ownership to the vendee.
3. Additionally, on the other hand, it must be considered that in this
case, the very person who is repudiating the express trust is the very person who
allegedly had created the express trust herself; with a view of the fact that she
was repudiating the same because she knew all along that it is as if there is no
express trust to talk about from the onset.
VII. THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED
GRIEVOUS ERROR WHEN IT AFFIRMED IN TOTO
THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO, WHICH
CONCOMITANTLY AFFIRMED THE LOWER
COURT’S RULING OF PARTITION ON THE BASIS
OF SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE UNDER
RULE 69 OF THE RULES OF COURT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION
OF DONATION UNDER ARTICLE 1448 OF THE
NEW CIVIL CODE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT IS
THEREFORE, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE
HONORABLE COURT CONCOMITANTLY ERRED
IN FAILING TO SEE THAT THE LOWER COURT
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN THE
LATTER RULED PARTITION ON THE BASIS OF
SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE UNDER RULE
69 OF THE RULES OF COURT, WHICH COULD
11
12
HAVE BEEN PROPERLY COGNIZABLE UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 90 INSTEAD OF 69
OF THE RULES OF COURT WITH ITS HOLDING
THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS INHERITED
FROM CAYAT PILIZ.
VIII. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONORABLE
COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SEE THAT
THERE EXIST NO BASIS TO PARTITION THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER RULE 69 OF THE
RULES OF COURT, HENCE, THE CASE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
1. Record of the case reveals that there was certainly no attempt made
by the plaintiffs to overcome the legal presumption of donation in this case. As a
matter of fact, plaintiffs themselves affirmed the existence and due execution of
the subject Deed of Sale dated January 16, 1980. Consequently, there could have
been no implied trust to speak about inasmuch as the law itself forecloses the
view that the subject property was held in trust by Cynthia Piliz in favor of her
siblings by way of implied trust. As such, it is submitted that it is important to
note at this point that the legal presumption of donation subsists in view of the
provisions of Article 1448 of the New Civil Code.
2. Similarly, on the other hand, without losing sight of the fact that the
Deeds of Acknowledgment of Trusts executed was procured through threats,
intimidation, and continuing ill-treatment by her mother; nevertheless, records of
the case likewise reveal that Cynthia Piliz have equally repudiated the express
trust by way of selling the property subject of the Acknowledgment of Trust, over
which resulted with the legal effect of disabling the express trust and rendering
inoperative the subject Deed of Acknowledgment of Trust. Albeit superfluously, it
is submitted, however, that the same had indubitably foreclosed the claim of the
plaintiffs-appellees of co-ownership by way of express.
3. Hence, it is submitted therefore that this could have prompted the
lower court to dismiss the subject complaint on the ground that there exists no
basis to partition the property under Rule 69. There being no grounds left in
favor of the plaintiffs to successfully partition the property except by way of the
remedy of collation and partition as provided for under Rule 90 of the Rules of
Court.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the foregoing circumstances of the
present case, it is submitted that the case be dismissed inasmuch as the wrong
remedy was availed of by the plaintiffs. (Vda. De Daffon vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
129017, August 20, 2002).
12
13
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this
Honorable Court that the Decision rendered in this case by the Court of Appeals
Ninth Division dated March 6, 2018 be set aside and reconsidered, and new one
rendered DISMISSING the case on the ground that there exist no basis to
partition the subject property under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under
the premises are likewise prayed for.
Baguio City, for Manila, Philippines, this 6th day of April 2018
Conforme:
CYNTHIA B.PILIZ
Defendant-Appellant
ANTHONY A. AMINO
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CYNTHIA PILIZ
Rolls of Attorney: 54590; 5-4-07/ Manila
IBP: 02384; 2-13-18/ Baguio City
PTR: 3210285; 07-06-17/Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No: V – 0008628
191 Marcos Highway, Bakakeng Central Barangay, Baguio City
Tel. Nos: 09176619716/4421144
COPY FURNISHED:
By personal service
ATTY. CHRISTINE ANGELICA ELVEÑA
Quadra Law Office
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Rm. 501 5th floor National Life Building
Session Road, 2600 Baguio City
EXPLANATION
A copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION was served upon
the adverse party through registered mail due to time constraint and lack of
personnel to effect personal service.
ANTHONY A. AMINO
13
