View full case

DIMAGUILA v. JOSE

FACTS:

The subject property in Liliw, Laguna was owned by Perfecto and Vitaliano Monteiro. After their deaths, the property went to their children, including Pedro. Pedro's children sold their rights over the property to Spouses Monteiro, who claimed ownership of a portion of the southern-half of the property. The Dimaguilas, claiming to be the rightful owners of the same portion, filed a complaint to declare the sale as null and void. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Monteiro, declaring the sale as valid. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, acknowledging the lack of documentary stamp on the sale document but ruling that it could be remedied by affixing the stamp. The CA also upheld the award of rentals and attorney's fees to Spouses Monteiro. The petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's rulings.

ISSUES:

  1. The main issues in this case are:

  2. Whether there was a partition of the subject property;

  3. Whether the 1/3 portion of the southern-half of the subject property was sold to the respondent spouses.

  4. Whether the subject property had already been partitioned into definite portions prior to the original complaint for partition filed in 1993.

  5. Whether the admission made by the petitioners in their original answer is binding and conclusive upon them.

  6. Whether the cadastral maps and the list of claimants are exceptions to the best evidence rule and hearsay rule.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the resolution of these issues involves questions of fact that are beyond the Court's ambit of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The findings of fact of the RTC were affirmed by the CA, and as such, the Court cannot reevaluate the evidence presented and determine whether there was a partition of the property and whether the 1/3 portion of the southern half was sold to the respondent spouses. Therefore, the Court denied the petition.

  2. Yes, the subject property had already been partitioned into definite portions more than 20 years prior to the original complaint for partition filed in 1993. The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition stated that the property was divided into southern and northern halves, as reflected in the cadastral map of Liliw. The admission made by the petitioners in their original answer also confirmed this division.

  3. Yes, the admission made by the petitioners in their original answer is binding and conclusive upon them. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. The respondent spouses had relied on the petitioners' admission and amended their complaint based on it. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from denying or disproving the partition of the property.

  4. Yes, the cadastral maps and the list of claimants are exceptions to the best evidence rule and hearsay rule. As certified true copies of original public records, they fall under the exception to the best evidence rule. Additionally, under Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, entries in official records, such as the cadastral maps and the list of claimants, made in the performance of the duty of a public officer or by a person specifically required by law, are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Hence, the cadastral maps and the list of claimants are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are deemed to be trustworthy evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Preponderance of evidence - Spouses Monteiro, as the plaintiffs, had the burden of proof to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence, which is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence." Preponderance of evidence is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.

  • Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require proof, and may only be contradicted by showing that it was made through palpable mistake.

  • Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an admission is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

  • The best evidence rule, as provided in Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, states that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

  • Section 7 of Rule 130 provides that when the original document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

  • Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record.

  • Cadastral maps and corresponding lists of claimants qualify as entries in official records and are exceptions to the hearsay rule. They are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

  • Entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer or person specifically required by law are considered trustworthy and are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

  • A party who files a notice of consignation and tenders payment for redemption of a property admits the existence, due execution, and validity of the document used as the basis for redemption, and is estopped from questioning its admissibility in evidence.

  • Only co-owners have the personality to challenge the sale of a property. Real parties-in-interest are those who will be benefited or injured by the judgment directly or who are entitled to the avails of the suit.