View full case

MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA

FACTS:

The case at hand revolves around a dispute between registered co-owners, Anita Lozada Slaughter and Peregrina Lozada Saribay, and their nephew Antonio J.P. Lozada. Anita and Peregrina sold two lots to Antonio through a Deed of Sale, which was duly notarized and authenticated by the Philippine Consul's Office. Antonio then recorded the sale and obtained new titles in his name from the Register of Deeds in Cebu.

However, Marissa R. Unchuan, the petitioner, caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the lots, asserting that Anita had donated a share to her through an unregistered Deed of Donation. As a result, Antonio and Anita filed a case for quieting of title against Marissa, while Marissa filed a case seeking to void the Deed of Sale and cancel the titles. Both cases were consolidated and jointly tried.

Initially, the trial court favored Antonio and Anita, declaring them as the absolute owners of the properties and voiding the Deed of Donation. However, upon Marissa's motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed its decision. It declared the Deed of Sale as void, ordered the cancellation of titles in Antonio's name, and affirmed the validity of the Deed of Donation in favor of Marissa.

Appeals were subsequently filed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with some modifications. The Court restored the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses to both parties.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which raised issues regarding the validity of the sale, the alleged violation of petitioner's right to due process, and whether petitioner's case is barred by laches.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals violated the petitioner's right to due process.

  2. Whether or not the sale between the sisters Lozada and their nephew Antonio violated the public policy prohibiting aliens from owning lands in the Philippines.

  3. Whether or not Peregrina's physical ability to execute the Deed of Sale on March 11, 1994 should be ascertained.

  4. Whether or not the Deed of Donation is admissible in evidence.

  5. Whether or not the Deed of Donation is void.

  6. Whether or not the videotaped statement of Anita is admissible as evidence.

  7. Whether or not the award of moral damages and exemplary damages is justified.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not violate the petitioner's right to due process. While the decision may not have directly addressed all the contentious issues raised by the appellant and the reasons for refusing to believe the contentions, as long as the decision contains the necessary findings of facts to warrant its conclusions, there is no error on the part of the appellate court.

  2. The Court ruled that the sale between the sisters Lozada and their nephew Antonio did not violate the public policy prohibiting aliens from owning lands in the Philippines. The lots were not registered in Dr. Lozada's name and were actually intended to be included as capital of Damasa Corporation, wherein Antonio and Dr. Lozada were to hold 60% and 40% of the shares, respectively. Under Republic Act No. 7042, a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines of which at least 60% of the capital stock is owned by citizens of the Philippines is considered a Philippine National and may acquire disposable lands in the Philippines.

  3. The Court held that the petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to establish the total impossibility for Peregrina to execute the Deed of Sale. The medical records presented by the petitioner were unauthenticated and were therefore excluded from evidence. Moreover, the records showed that Peregrina was able to issue checks close to the date of the sale, indicating that she was not incapacitated. Thus, the Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

  4. The Deed of Donation is not admissible in evidence because it appears to have been altered after its execution and the party producing it failed to account for the alteration.

  5. The Deed of Donation is void because it was not duly notarized and the lands described in the deed had been previously cancelled.

  6. The videotaped statement of Anita is not admissible as evidence because it lacks authentication, but its exclusion does not affect the conclusion that petitioner failed to prove her right to the lands.

  7. The award of moral damages and exemplary damages is deleted because there is no factual and legal basis for such an award.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Faithful adherence to Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is a paramount component of due process and fair play.

  • A notarized and authenticated deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and is admissible without further proof of due execution.

  • In order for the donation of an immovable to be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying the property donated and the value of the charges the donee must satisfy.

  • Acceptance of a donation may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it must be done during the lifetime of the donor.

  • The rules require a party producing a document as genuine, which has been altered and appears to have been altered after its execution, to account for the alteration. If the party fails to do so, the document shall not be admissible in evidence.

  • A document that is not duly notarized is not admissible in evidence.

  • Admissions against interest are admissible even if they are hearsay, while declaration against interest are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.