12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

AMELIAB.HEBRON,
Petitioner,

versus

FRANCOL.LOYOLA,
ANGELOL.LOYOLA,
RAFAELL.LOYOLA,
ARMANDOL.LOYOLA,
SENENL.LOYOLA,
MA.VENUSL.RONQUILLO,
PERLAL.ABADandthe
IntestateEstateofEDUARDO
L.LOYOLA,CARMELITAA.
MANABO,HERMINIA
AGUINALDOROSAS,DIGNA
AGUINALDOVALENCIA,
ROGELIOAGUINALDO,
MILAAGUINALDODIAZ,
BABYAGUINALDO,RUBEN
LOYOLAsubstitutedbyJosefina
C.Loyola,GlesildaA.Legosto,
EvelynC.Loyola,MarinaC.
Loyola,AureC.Loyola,Corazon
C.LugardaandJovenFrancisco

G.R.No.168960

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
VELASCO,JR.,

C.Loyola,LORENZOLOYOLA,
CANDELARIALOYOLA,
NICANDROLOYOLA,FLORA
LOYOLA,TERESITAL.
ALZONA,VICENTELOYOLA,

LEONARDODECASTRO,
DELCASTILLO,and
PEREZ,JJ.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

1/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

ROSARIOL.LONTOC,
SERAFINLOYOLA,ROBERTO
LOYOLA,BIBIANOLOYOLA,
PURITALOYOLA,ESTELA
LOYOLA,ESTERDANICO,
EDUARDODANICO,EMELITA
DANICO,MERCEDITA
DANICO,HONESTODANICO,
DANTEDANICO,ERLINDA
DANICODOMINGUEZrepre
sentedbyTeodoroDominguez
andBeverlyAnneDominguez,
EFRENCABIGANand
ISIDROCABIGAN,
Respondents.

ALBERTOL.BAUTISTA
representedbyFelicidadG.
Bautista,AgnesB.Zulueta,
AyreenB.Alba,Joseph
AnthonyG.Bautista,AnnJanet
G.BautistaandALFREDOL.
BAUTISTA,
UnwillingRespondents.

Promulgated:
July5,2010

xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Courts, not being omniscient, can only strive to determine what actually and truly
transpiredbasedontheevidencebeforeitandtheimperfectrulesthatweredesignedtoassistin
establishingthetruthindisputedsituations.Despitethedifficultiesinascertainingthetruth,the
courts must ultimately decide. In civil cases, its decision must rest on preponderance of
admissibleevidence.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

2/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

[1]
ThispetitionforreviewassailstheFebruary22,2005Decision andtheJuly7,2005
[2]
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV. No. 64105. The CA partially
[3]
grantedtheappealbeforeitandmodifiedtheJune22,1999Decision oftheRegionalTrial
Court(RTC)ofCavite,Branch20,whichorderedthepartitionoftwoparcelsoflandamongthe
sevensetsofplaintiffs(respondentsherein).

FactualAntecedents

Thiscaseoriginatedfromasuitforpartitionanddamagesconcerningthetwoparcelsof
landdenominatedasLotNos.730and879oftheCarmonacadastre.LotNo.730,withanarea
of17,688squaremeters,wasownedbyRemigiaBaylonwhowasmarriedtoJanuarioLoyola.
LotNo.879,withanareaof10,278squaremeterswasownedbyJanuarioLoyola,thehusband
ofRemigiaBaylon.JanuarioandRemigiahadsevenchildren,namelyConrado,Jose,Benjamin,
Candida,Soledad,CristetaandEncarnacion,allsurnamedLoyola.

TheadministrationofthesaidlotswasentrustedtoEncarnacionLoyolaBautista.Allthe
heirsofJanuarioandRemigiareceivedtheirsharesinthefruitsofthesubjectpropertiesduring
Encarnacion's administration thereof. With the latter's death on September 15, 1969,
administrationofthesubjectpropertieswasassumedbyherdaughter,AmeliaBautistaHebron,
who,aftersometime,startedwithholdingthesharesofCandidaandtheheirsofConrado.By
thetimepartitionofthesaidpropertieswasformallydemandedonNovember4,1990,Candida
wastheonlyonestilllivingamongthechildrenofJanuarioandRemigia.Therestweresurvived
andrepresentedbytheirrespectivedescendantsandchildren,towit:

1.ConradoLoyola,byhischildren,RubenLoyola,nowsubstitutedbyhisheirs,namely,
Josefina,Edgardo,Evelyn,Marina,Aure,CorazonandJovenFrancisco,allsurnamedLoyola,
and respondents Lorenzo Loyola, Candelaria Loyola, Flora Loyola, Nicardo Loyola, Teresita
LoyolaAlonza,VicenteLoyolaandRosarioLoyolaLontoc

2.JoseLoyola,byhischildren,respondentsSerafinLoyola,BibianoLoyola,Roberto
Loyola,PuritaLoyolaLebrudoandEstelaLoyola
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

3/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

3.BenjaminLoyola,byhischildren,respondentsFrancoLoyola,AngeloLoyola,Rafael
Loyola,SenenLoyola,PerlaLoyolaAbad,Ma.VenusLoyolaRonquillo,ArmandoLoyolaas
wellashisdaughterinlawbyhisson,EduardoLoyola,respondentCarmenHermosa

4. Soledad Loyola, by her children, respondents Ester Danico, Eduardo Danico,

5.CristetaLoyola,byherchildren,respondentsEfrenCabiganandIsidroCabiganand

6.EncarnacionLoyolaBautista,byherson,respondentAlfredoBautista,bypetitioner
AmeliaBautistaHebron,andbyherdaughterinlawbyherson,AlbertoBautista,respondent
Felicidad Bautista, and the latter's children, respondents Anjanet, Agnes, Ayren and Joseph
Anthony,allsurnamedBautista.

Forpetitioner'sfailuretoheedtheirformaldemand,respondentsfiledwiththeRTCof
Imus,Cavite,Branch20,thecomplaintforpartitionanddamagesfromwhichtheinstantsuit
stemmed. While manifesting her conformity to the partition demanded by her coheirs,
petitionerclaimedinheramendedanswerthatCandidaandtheheirsofConradohavealready
relinquishedtheirsharesinconsiderationofthefinancialsupportextendedthembyhermother,
Encarnacion.Inthepretrialorder,thetrialcourtconsequentlylimitedtheissuetoberesolvedto
theveracityoftheaforesaidwaiverorassignmentofsharesclaimedbypetitioner.

Trialonthemeritsthenensued.Whileconcedingtheirreceiptoffinancialassistance
fromEncarnacion,CandidaandtheheirsofConradomaintainedthatadequaterecompensehad
beeneffectivelymadewhentheyworkedwithoutpayattheformer'sricemillandhouseholdor,
inthecaseofCarmelitaAguinaldoManabo,whenshesubsequentlysurrenderedherearningsas
apublicschoolteachertohersaidaunt.

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

OnJune22,1999,thetrialcourtrenderedaDecisiongrantingthepartitionsought.The
dispositiveportionoftheDecisionstates:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

4/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedorderingthe
partitionofthefollowingrealproperties,towit:

1.TheparceloflandknownasLot730oftheCarmonaCadastrewithanareaof17,688
sq.metersmoreoflessand

2.theparceloflandknownasLot879oftheCarmonaCadastrewithanareaof10,278
sq.meters,moreofless

amongalltheseven(7)setsofplaintiffsinseven(7)equalparts.

Inthisregard,thepartiesaredirectedwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceipthereoftomake
thepartitionofthetwo(2)lotsamongthemselvesshouldtheyagree,andthereafter,tosubmitin
Courttheirdeedofpartitionforitsconfirmation.

[4]
SOORDERED.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

Petitioner,thedefendantinthecasebeforetheRTC,appealedtheDecisiontotheCA.
TheCAfoundthepetitionerentitledtoparticipateinthepartitionofthesubjectproperties.It
stated that petitioner's inadvertent exclusion from the partition of the subject properties arose
fromthetrialcourt'suseofthephrase"seven(7)setsofplaintiffs"inthedispositiveportionof
theappealedDecisioninsteadofthemoreaccurate"seven(7)setsofheirs."

TheCAhowever,likethetrialcourt,foundthatpetitionerwasnotabletoprovethe
existenceofthewaiverorassignmentoftheirsharesbyCandidaandtheheirsofConrado.The
dispositiveportionoftheDecisionstates:

WHEREFORE,theappealisPARTIALLYGRANTEDandtheappealedJune22,
1999decisionis,accordingly,MODIFIEDtoincludeappellant'sparticipationinthepartitionof
thesubjectparcelsasoneoftheheirsofEncarnacionLoyolaBautista.TherestisAFFIRMED
[5]
intoto.

TheCAdeniedthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitioner.Hence,petitioner
elevatedthecasetousviathepresentpetitionforreview.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

5/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

Issues

Petitionerraisesthefollowingissues:

I
WHETHERXXXTHEAPPELLATECOURTERREDINAFFIRMINGTHERULINGOF
THETRIALCOURTTHATTHEBURDENOFPROOFWASSHIFTEDTODEFENDANT
APPELLANT AMELIA B. HEBRON AND THAT THE LATTER FAILED TO
SUBSTANTIATEHERCLAIMWITHPREPONDERANCEOFEVIDENCE.

II
WHETHERXXXTHEAPPELLATECOURTERREDINAFFIRMINGTHERULINGOF
THETRIALCOURTTHATASPOUSEPRESENTCANNOTRELINQUISHTHESHARES
IN THE PARCELS OF LAND IF IT WILL DEPRIVE MINOR CHILDREN OF THEIR
HEREDITARYRIGHTS.

III
WHETHERXXXTHEAPPELLATECOURTERREDINAFFIRMINGTHERULINGOF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT NO CONCRETE PROOF EVIDENCING THE SALE OR
ASSIGNMENT OF SHARES OF CANDIDA LOYOLAAGUINALDO AND CONRADO
LOYOLAINTHETWOPARCELSOFLANDINFAVOROFPETITIONER'SMOTHER,
ENCARNACION LOYOLABAUTISTA, HAD BEEN PRESENTED BY PETITIONER
DURINGTHETRIALDESPITETHEEXISTENCEOFPAROLEVIDENCEBYWAYOF
ANEXCEPTIONTOTHESTATUTEOFFRAUDS.

IV
WHETHERXXXTHEAPPELLATECOURTCOMMITTEDAREVERSIBLEERRORIN
NOT CONSIDERING THAT CANDIDA LOYOLAAGUINALDO AND THE HEIRS OF
CONRADOLOYOLAAREBARREDBYESTOPPELINASSERTINGTHATTHEYARE
[6]
STILLENTITLEDTOSHAREINTHEQUESTIONEDPARCELSOFLAND.

Petitioner'sArguments

Petitionercontendsthatshehasnoaffirmativeallegationtoprove,hence,theburdenof
proofisonrespondentsandnotonher.Andifatall,shehasproventhatCandidaandtheheirsof
Conradohaverelinquishedtheirrespectiveshares.

ShefurthercontendsthatownershipofinheritedpropertiesdoesnotfallunderArticles
321and323oftheCivilCodeandthus,thepropertiesinheritedbythechildrenofConradocan
bealienatedbytheirmother,Victorina,infavorofpetitioner'smother.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

6/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

Petitioneralsocontendsthatherparolevidenceprovedtheallegedexecutedagreementof
waiverofsharesinthetwosubjectinheritedpropertiesinconsiderationoftheeducationaland
otherfinancialsupportextendedbyEncarnaciontoCandidaandConrado'srespectivefamilies.

Finally,petitionerpositsthatCandidaandtheheirsofConradoareestoppedbylaches
fromassertingtheirentitlementtosharesinthesubjectproperties.

Respondents'Arguments

Ontheotherhand,respondentsarguethatCandidaandtheheirsofConradohavenot
relinquished their shares in the litigated properties. They insist that the alleged agreement of
relinquishmentofsharescannotbeprovedbyparolevidence.

Theyalsocontendthatalltheissuesraisedarefactualinnature,andthefindingsoffactof
the CA are final and conclusive and thus, may not be the subject of review by the Supreme
Court,absentanyoftherecognizedexceptionstothesaidrule.

OurRuling

Thepetitionhasnomerit.
BurdenofProof

Rule131oftheRulesofCourtstates:

Section1.BurdenofProof.Burdenofproofisthedutyofapartytopresentevidenceon
thefactsinissuenecessarytoestablishhisclaimordefensebytheamountofevidencerequired
bylaw.(Emphasissupplied)

Fromtheaboveprovisionitisclearthatthedefendant,notonlytheplaintiff,alsohasa
burdenofproof.Theplaintiffshavethedutytoestablishtheirclaims.And,itisthedefendants
whohavethedutytoestablishtheirdefenses.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

7/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

Childrenofthedeceased,likeCandidaandhersiblings,arecompulsoryheirswhoare
entitled to a share in the properties of the deceased. Art. 980 of the Civil Code states: "The
childrenofthedeceasedshallalwaysinheritfromhimintheirownright,dividingtheinheritance
inequalshares."TheheirsofConradoarealsoheirsofRemigiaandJanuario,beingthechildren
of a child of Remigia and Januario and as such are entitled to their shares in the estate of
[7]
RemigiaandJanuario.

PetitionerhasadmittedinheranswerthatrespondentsareheirsofRemigiaandJanuario
[8]
[9]
and that the two subject properties were left behind by Remigia and Januario. "An
admission,verbalorwritten,madebyapartyinthecourseoftheproceedingsinthesamecase,
[10]
doesnotrequireproof."
Hence,wefindnoerrorcommittedbytheCAwhenitaffirmedthe
rulingofthetrialcourtthattheburdenwasonpetitionertoestablishheraffirmativedefenseof
waiverorsaleofthesharesofCandidaandtheheirsofConrado.

ThedefenseofpetitioneristhatCandidaandtheheirsofConradohavewaivedorsold
theirsharesinthesubjectproperties.Thisallegedfactisdeniedbytherespondents.Hence,this
isthefactthatisatissueandthisallegedfacthastobeprovenbypetitioner,whoistheonewho
raisedthesaidallegedfact.Theburdenofproofofthedefenseofwaiverorsaleisonpetitioner.

Whetherpetitionerhasbeenabletoprovethesaidfactisundoubtedlyaquestionoffact,
notoflaw.Itinvolvestheweighingandcalibrationoftheevidencepresented.Intheabsenceof
any of the exceptions that call for the Court to do so, the Court will not disturb the factual
findingsoftheRTCthatwereaffirmedbytheCAinthepresentcase.

SharesofMinorChildren

TheminorchildrenofConradoinheritedbyrepresentationinthepropertiesoftheir
grandparentsRemigiaandJanuario.These children, not their mother Victorina, were the co
ownersoftheinheritedproperties.Victorinahadnoauthorityorhadactedbeyondherpowersin
conveying,ifshedidindeedconvey,tothepetitionersmothertheundividedshareofherminor
childreninthepropertyinvolvedinthiscase.Thepowersgiventoherbythelawsasthenatural
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

8/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

guardiancoversonlymattersofadministrationandcannotincludethepowerofdisposition.She
should have first secured the permission of the court before she alienated that portion of the
[11]
property in question belonging to her minor children.
In a number of cases, where the
guardians,mothersorgrandmothers,didnotseekcourtapprovalofthesaleofpropertiesoftheir
[12]
wards,minorchildren,theCourtdeclaredthesalesvoid.

AlthoughtheCAinaccuratelycitedArticles321and323oftheCivilCode,itsconclusion
thatVictorinahadnocapacitytorelinquishherchildren'ssharesintheinheritedpropertieswas,
nevertheless,correct.

EvidenceofSale/WaiverofSharesinRealProperties

Onthisfactualissuetoo,wefindnoreasontodisturbthefindingoftheCAaffirmingthat
of the RTC that petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence her alleged fact of
relinquishment,bysaleorwaiver,ofthesharesofCandidaandtheheirsofConrado.Again,the
courthasnodutytodelveintoandweighthepiecesofevidencepresentedbythepartiesand
passeduponbyboththeRTCandtheCAwithconsistentconclusionsonthismatterandabsent
theotherexceptionstothegeneralrule.Nevertheless,wedidso,butfindnoerrorinthefindings
oftheRTCandtheCAonthisissue.

Theverysketchyandpartlyhearsaytestimonyofpetitionerwasresoundinglyrebuttedby
the testimonies of the respondents. The hearsay letter of Soledad, selfserving entries of
relinquishment in the notebook of accounts and tampered notebook of educational expenses
hintingatarelinquishmentofsharescannotbegivenweight.Moreover,thesewererefutedby
the presentation of document embodying the notarized extrajudicial partition establishing no
suchrelinquishment.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateinfavorofpetitioner.

Absentapreponderanceofevidenceonthefactinissueofrelinquishmentofshares,then
CandidaandtheheirsofConrado,asadmittedheirsofRemigiaandJanuario,areentitledtotheir
sharesinthetwosubjectproperties.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

9/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

Laches

Lachesisthefailureoforneglectforanunreasonableandunexplainedlengthoftimeto
dothatwhichbyexercisingduediligence,couldorshouldhavebeendoneearlier,ortoasserta
rightwithinreasonabletime,warrantingapresumptionthatthepartyentitledtheretohaseither
[13]
abandoneditordeclinedtoassertit.

Inthepresentcase,thebookofaccounts,showingtherecordofreceiptsofsomeheirsof
theirshares,hasrepeatedentriesinAmelia'shandwritingthatCandidaandtheheirsofConrado
arenolongerentitledtosharesinthefruitsofthepropertiesinlitigationbecausetheyhavesold
orgiventheirshareinthesaidpropertiestoEncarnacion.TheseentriesonlyprovethatAmelia
no longer recognized the entitlement of Candida and the heirs of Conrado to their respective
shares.ItisrelevanttonotehoweverthattheentriesinthebookofaccountsstartedonlyonJuly
17,1986.Hence,thereisdefiniteproofofnonrecognitionbypetitionerofCandidaandtheheirs
ofConrado'sentitlementtosharesinthesubjectpropertiesstartingonlyonJuly17,1986.Before
thistime,duringtheadministrationofthepropertiesbyEncarnacionLoyolaBautistaandsome
undeterminednumberofyearsafterherdeath,CandidaandtheheirsofConradowereprovento
havebeenreceivingtheirsharesinthefruitsofthesubjectproperties.

Onrecordisthewrittendemandletterforpartitionofthelitigatedpropertiessignedby
CandidaandtheheirsofConradodatedNovember4,1990.Thecomplaintforpartitionwas
subsequentlyfiledonFebruary23,1993.

FromJuly17,1986,toNovember4,1990only4yearshaveelapsed.EvenfromJuly17,
1986toFebruary23,1993justsixyearshavepassed.Consideringthatthepartiesareclosely
relatedtoeachotherandconsideringalsothatthepartiesaremanydifferentheirs,someofwhom
resideoutsidethePhilippines,thepassageofsixyearsbeforetherespondentsaskedforpartition
throughthecourtisnotunreasonable.Wefindrespondentsnotguiltyoflaches.

WHEREFOREthepetitionforreviewisDENIED.TheFebruary22,2005Decision
and the July 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV. No. 64105 are
AFFIRMED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

10/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

Costsagainstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
Chiefjustice
Chairperson

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

11/12

12/8/2014

G.R.No.168960

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3952pennedbyAssociateJusticeRebeccaDeGuiaSalvadorandconcurredinbyAssociateJustices
ConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andAuroraSantiagoLagman.
[2]
Id.at3536.
[3]
Records,pp.262266pennedbyJudgeLucenitoN.Tagle
[4]
Id.at266.
[5]
Rollo,p.51.
[6]
Id.at106.
[7]
Art.981.Shouldchildrenofthedeceasedandthedescendantsofotherchildrenwhoaredead,survive,theformershall
inheritintheirownright,andthelatterbyrightofrepresentation.
[8]
Records,p.74.
[9]
Id.at75.
[10]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule130,Section4.
[11]
Badillov.Soromero,236Phil438,448449(1987).SeealsoNariov.PhilippineAmericanLifeIns.Co.126Phil.793,
801(1967).
[12]
Laforgav.Laforga,22Phil.374(1912)LedesmaHermanosv.Castro,55Phil.136(1930)Intonv.Quintana, 81
Phil.97,101(1948).
[13]
Velez,Sr.v.Rev.Demetrio,436Phil.1,78(2002).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/168960.htm

12/12