PI'>

Jl\epublic of the i~IJilippiJws

~~~~tTIIIl' [ourt

JtLllllla
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 17975-l

.JOA.Ql!IN C. ClllJNG, .JR.,

PAZ RO\'ERAS-SOLER, and
i\IA'-JSl iFTO IVIACEDA,

Pi!l if ionel's.
Present:
- \ ersus CARPIO, Choirperson.
BRION,
DEI, CASTILLO,

.lA( 'I~ I>ANIEL IVIONDRAGON,

(deceased), substituted by his sisters
namely: TEOTIMA M. BOURBON,
Fl\li\IA 1\1. MILLAN,
FliCENIA M. RAJ\1A and
ROS.\RIO 1\I. CABALLES;
CI.ARINDA REGIS-SCHMITZ and
;\IARL-\ UNA I\1ALMISA,

PEREZ, und
PERI ,AS-BFRNAIJE, Jf.

Promulgated:

. ........ . lle1ponden1s . ................ NQV

'.

Ll. 2012 ~1\1~~~

DECISION
DEI, CASTILLO, J.:

In making the indictment thcil

m~llllhtlL'

th;.ll

110

court's decision tails in the hmdamcntal

dccisil)n shall be remlered \\'ithutll expressing therein clearly and

distinctly the 121cts am! the law on which it is based, the demurring party should not

I h1s 1\:titiun l(x Review

llll (

'er!iol'un

assails I) the Nmcn1bcr 23, 2006

I )ccisJun- ui' the Cuurt ul' A.ppcals (CA) in C\-(i.R. CV No. 79615, \\ hich
~tllirllled the 1\'lay I 0. 2003 Deci~ion'

or the Regional Trial Court (RTC), l3r. 2-l

'\ Lt~tsi11 ('it\. Southem L.evte iit ( 'ivil Case No.

-

,.!

I<.-324~.

'

which in

the herein pelilluners Complaint it)! quieting ot title, and

2)

ltlrll

dismissed

the September 2,

/
1
:'

1
I I

lei

'/

.11

~~~ ~

~ -~ ()

,-._)lJ. pcllll<.:cl

i<ic-ilcc.:c ~~-.lido,

i\,_.,,,,._1, 11Jl

b;

I' i)icdic<t:t

:\SO'lJLialc IL:'ii'L:c:
dild

~IJ'-:'(J7. lk111H:d

1': 1sc:ILt

Run](;,>!

Bdl'td

b\ Judge

1:\ci!:;~tt'

B<Lile~dr-l'c~dtlld <!thl COI!Cli!Tcd

<i l<<tptlt

tn b\ AoSllCidl<.:

/~dU

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

2007 CA Resolution4 denying reconsideration thereof.

Factual Antecedents
Petitioners Joaquin G. Chung, Jr., Paz Royeras-Soler, and Mansueto
Maceda are descendants of Rafael Mondragon (Rafael) by his first wife, Eleuteria
Calunia (Eleuteria), while respondent Jack Daniel Mondragon5 (Jack Daniel) is
Rafaels descendant by his second wife, Andrea Baldos (Andrea).
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 224476 is registered in the name of
Heirs of Andrea Baldos represented by Teofila G. Maceda and covers 16,177
square meters of land in Macrohon, Southern Leyte (the land).

Petitioners claim that from 1921 up to 2000, Rafael appeared as owner of

the land in its tax declaration, and that a free patent was issued in 1987 in the name
of Andreas heirs upon application of Teofila G. Maceda (Teofila), who is
petitioners sister.

On the other hand, respondents claim that Andrea is the exclusive owner of
the land, having inherited the same from her father Blas Baldos. They add that
during Andreas lifetime, she was in lawful, peaceful and continuous possession
thereof in the concept of owner; that in 1954, Andrea conveyed a portion thereof
to one Crispina Gloria de Cano via a document written in the vernacular wherein
she categorically stated that she inherited the land from her father and she was the
true and exclusive owner of the land; that after Andrea died in 1955, her son
Fortunato Mondragon took over, paying taxes thereon religiously; and when
Fortunato died, his son Jack Daniel (herein respondent) came into possession and
4

Rollo, pp. 40-41; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Antonio L. Villamor.
Respondent Jack Daniel Mondragon passed away on February 14, 2009, and is herein substituted by
his heirs his sisters Teotima M. Bourbon, Emma M. Millan, Eugenia M. Rama and Rosario M.
Caballes per Resolution of the Court dated October 19, 2011 granting the motion for substitution
filed by respondents counsel (Id. at 168).
Records, pp. 71-72.

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

enjoyment thereof.

On August 18, 2000, Jack Daniel sold a 1,500-square meter portion of the
land to his co-respondent Clarinda Regis-Schmitz (Regis-Schmitz).

On the claim that Jack Daniel had no right to sell a portion of the land and
that the sale to Regis-Schmitz created a cloud upon their title, petitioners filed
Civil Case No. R-3248, with a prayer that Jack Daniel be declared without right to
sell the land or a portion thereof; that their rights and those belonging to the
legitimate heirs of Rafael and Eleuteria be declared valid and binding against the
whole world; that the respondents be restrained from creating a cloud upon OCT
No. 22447; and that Jack Daniels sale to Regis-Schmitz be declared null and void.

After respondents filed their Answer, petitioners moved for judgment on

the pleadings. In an October 16, 2002 Order,7 the trial court denied the motion.
Notably, during proceedings taken on the motion, petitioners made an admission
in open court that respondent Jack Daniel is Andreas grandson and heir.8

At the pre-trial conference, it was mutually agreed by the parties that the
sole issue to be resolved is whether Jack Daniel possessed the right to dispose a
portion of the land.9

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

After trial, the court a quo rendered its May 19, 2003 Decision10 dismissing
the case. It held that with the admission that Jack Daniel is an heir of Andrea, he
being the latters grandson and therefore her heir, he is thus a co-owner of the land
which forms part of Andreas estate, and thus possesses the right to dispose of his

7
8
9
10

CA rollo, pp. 135-136.

Id.
Records, p. 301.
Id. at 563-567.

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

undivided share therein. The trial court held that petitioners remedy was to seek
partition of the land in order to obtain title to determinate portions thereof.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioners appealed the dismissal, claiming that the trial courts Decision
violated the constitutional requirement that no decision shall be rendered without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based.11 They continued to question Jack Daniels sale to Regis-Schmitz, who
they claim was married to a foreign national and thus disqualified from purchasing
a portion of the land; the non-registration of the sale; the alleged false claim on the
deed of sale by Jack Daniel that he is the exclusive owner of the land; and the lack
of authority of the notary public who notarized the sale.

The respondents countered that the sole issue that required resolution was,
as circumscribed by the trial court, the capacity of Jack Daniel to dispose of a
portion of the land, and nothing more.

The CA sustained the trial court. It held that petitioners were bound by the
agreement during pre-trial and by the pre-trial order to limit the determination of
the case to the sole issue of whether Jack Daniel possessed the capacity to dispose
a portion of the land. Since they did not object to the trial courts pre-trial order,
petitioners are bound to abide by the same. It concluded that the other issues
which were not related to Jack Daniels capacity to dispose deserved no
consideration, citing the pronouncement in Philippine Ports Authority v. City of
Iloilo12 that the determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the
consideration of other questions on appeal.

11

12

CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 14:

Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
xxxx
453 Phil. 927, 938 (2003).

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

The CA further ruled that contrary to petitioners submission, Civil Case

No. R-3248 was decided on the merits, as the trial court squarely addressed the
issues and the evidence; that it having been discovered through petitioners own
admission in court that Jack Daniel was a co-heir, and thus co-owner, of the land,
all questions relative to his capacity to convey a portion thereof have therefore
been resolved in the affirmative.

On the other hand, the CA noted that while Jack Daniel is admittedly a
direct descendant of Rafael by his second wife Andrea, petitioners do not appear
to be her heirs and instead are descendants of Rafael by his first wife Eleuteria
which thus puts their claimed title to the land in doubt; and that although OCT No.
22447 cites Teofila, petitioners sister, it includes her in the title merely as the
purported representative of Andreas heirs and does not indicate her as an owner
of the land. Finally, the CA observed that it was Jack Daniel, and not the
petitioners, who occupied the land. Nevertheless, it affirmed the trial courts
Decision.

Issues

The instant petition now raises the following issues for resolution:

1. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULE VIII, SEC. 14, CONSTITUTION

AND RULE 36 TO DECLARE THE DECISION NULL AND VOID.
2. MISAPPREHENSION OF [SIC] TO THE TRUE AWARDEE OF OCT
NO. 22447 TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION [OVER]
THE CASE.
3. FAILURE TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
RESPONDENT CLARINDA REGIS SCHMITZ.
4. FAILURE TO DECLARE THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DECISION AS NULL AND
VOID FOR FAILING TO ESTABLISH THE CONDITIONS SINE QUA
NON TO SUPPORT THE ORDER AND DECISION OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO DISMISS THE CASE.

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

5. WHETHER X X X ATTY. PATERNO A. GONZALEZ WAS A DULY

AUTHORIZED NOTARY PUBLIC; PURPORTED COPY OF
APPOINTMENT BEARS NO COURT SEAL, AS COURT EVIDENCE.13

Petitioners Arguments

In their Petition, the petitioners, speaking through their counsel and copetitioner Chung, persistently argue, as they did in the CA, that the trial courts
Decision violated the constitutional requirement that no decision shall be rendered
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is based. They claim that it is not true that Andrea is the owner of the land; that
Jack Daniels sale to Regis-Schmitz is null and void because she is disqualified
from owning land in the Philippines; that he had no right to sell the said portion,
and the sale deprived them of their supposed legitime; that their admission made
in open court to the effect that Jack Daniel is an heir of Andrea cannot supplant a
declaration of heirship that may be issued by a proper testate or intestate court; that
the claim that Andrea is the true and lawful owner of the land is false; that when
their motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, their judicial admission
that Jack Daniel was Andreas grandson and heir was expunged; and that Jack
Daniels deed of sale with Regis-Schmitz was a falsity for lack of authority of the
notarizing officer.

Petitioners likewise argue that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of Regis-Schmitz because her counsel did not possess the
appropriate authority to represent her.

Petitioners thus pray that the CA Decision be set aside; that the Court quiet
title to OCT No. 22447; that the sale by Jack Daniel to Regis-Schmitz be declared
null and void; and that the Court award them P50,000.00 moral damages,
P10,000.00 exemplary damages, and P30,000.00 attorneys fees.

13

Rollo, p. 8.

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

Respondents Arguments
Respondents point out a defective verification in the Petition, and add that
petitioners continue to raise irrelevant issues such as the capacity of RegisSchmitz to acquire a portion of the land and the commission of the notary public
which the CA properly disregarded. They point out that the CA is correct in its
observation that petitioners apparently do not possess the required title to maintain
a suit for quieting of title, they being strangers to OCT No. 22447 as they proceed
from Eleuteria, Rafaels first wife, and not his second wife Andrea, who in fact
owns the land and in whose name it is titled.

Respondents echo the trial court and the CAs common pronouncement
that on account of petitioners admission that Jack Daniel is an heir of Andrea, this
makes him a co-owner of the land, and as such, he possessed the capacity to
dispose of his undivided share to Regis-Schmitz. This admission, they argue, thus
settled the lone issue in Civil Case No. R-3248 of whether Jack Daniel may
validly dispose of a portion of the land.

On the question of the notary publics commission, respondents argue that

they have adduced sufficient evidence to refute petitioners claim that the notary
public, Atty. Paterno Gonzalez, possessed the authority to notarize documents at
the time. They direct the Courts attention to the appointment issued by Executive
Judge Fernando Campilan, Jr., the testimony of the latters clerk of court
confirming the issuance of the notarial commission, and Atty. Gonzalezs oath of
office as notary during the period in question.

Finally, on the issue that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
person of Regis-Schmitz, respondents point to the fact that since Regis-Schmitz
appointed Jack Daniel as her attorney-in-fact to represent her in Civil Case No. R3248, no authority from her was required in order that Jack Daniels counsel may
represent her.

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The constitutional requirement that every decision must state distinctly

and clearly the factual and legal bases therefor should indeed be the primordial
concern of courts and judges. Be that as it may, there should not be a mechanical
reliance on this constitutional provision. The courts and judges should be
allowed to synthesize and to simplify their decisions considering that at
present, courts are harassed by crowded dockets and time constraints.
Thus, the Court held in Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals:
It is understandable that courts with heavy dockets and
time constraints, often find themselves with little to spare in the
preparation of decisions to the extent most desirable. We have
thus pointed out that judges might learn to synthesize and to
simplify their pronouncements. Nevertheless, concisely written such
as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly express at
least in minimum essence its factual and legal bases.14 (Emphasis
supplied)

The Court finds in this case no breach of the constitutional mandate that
decisions must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they
are based. The trial courts Decision is complete, clear, and concise. Petitioners
should be reminded that in making their indictment that the trial courts Decision
fails to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
they should not mistake brevity for levity.

The issues in a case for quieting of title are fairly simple; the plaintiff need
to prove only two things, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or
an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) that
the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his
title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Stated differently, the plaintiff must show
that he has a legal or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and

14

People v. Sadiosa, 352 Phil. 700, 712 (1998).

Decision

G.R. No. 179754

that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.15

This case does not involve complex issues that require extensive
disquisition. Quite the contrary, it could have been resolved on a simple motion to
dismiss. The trial court apparently was satisfied that the first requisite, possession
by petitioners of a legal or equitable title to the land, was complied with; it
concluded that petitioners held equitable title, being descendants of Rafael, albeit
by his first marriage to Eleuteria. The trial court assumed that although the land
was titled in the name of Heirs of Andrea Baldos represented by Teofila G.
Maceda, Rafael had a share therein on account of his marriage to Andrea. From
this assumption, the trial court then concluded that petitioners must at least have a
right to Rafaels share in the land, which right grants them the equitable title
required to maintain a suit for quieting of title. This assumption, nevertheless, is
decidedly erroneous.

It is evident from the title that the land belongs to no other than the heirs of
Andrea Baldos, Rafaels second wife. The land could not have belonged to
Rafael, because he is not even named in OCT No. 22447. With greater reason
may it be said that the land could not belong to petitioners, who are Rafaels
children by his first wife Eleuteria. Unless Eleuteria and Andrea were related by
blood such fact is not borne out by the record they could not be heirs to each
other. And if indeed Eleuteria and Andrea were blood relatives, then petitioners
would have so revealed at the very first opportunity. Moreover, the fact that
Rafael died ahead of Andrea, and that he is not even named in the title, give the
impression that the land belonged solely to the heirs of Andrea, to the exclusion of
Rafael. If this were not true, then the title should have as registered owners the
Heirs of Rafael and Andrea Mondragon, in which case the petitioners certainly
would possess equitable title, they being descendants-heirs of Rafael. Yet OCT
No. 22447 is not so written.

15

Lucasan v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 176929, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 306,
314.

c;

10

ilLLhlllll

~~dd

[() this is the

l~ict

that petitioners are not in possession

R. No. 17975cf

or the land.

diflert'nl \ ie\\ would have been taken il'they were. Indeed, not even the tact that
their siskT I eolila f'vlaceda's name appears in OCT No. 22447 could warrant a
di r1ere1ll conclusioJL

Her name appears therein only as a representative of

1
.\ndrc<ls heirs As mere representative. she could have no better right. c'

the h<.tsis of the l(m.:going considerations, Civil Case No. R-324X

( l11

desen L'd

110

greener treatment than dismissal. Petitioners do not possess legal ur

~.,_,Jtlit<.tble

title tu the Lmd. such that the only recoutse lc!ll()r the trial cou11 was to

dismi:-,s the cdse. Thus said, although they both arri\ed at the correct conclusion,
thl.:'

11

i<.1l coun i.ll1d the CA did so by an erroneous appreciation ol' the

l~Kts

and

e\ idellCC.

Petitiot1l.:'rs cannot. on the pretext of maintaining a suit /()r quieting of title.

ild\

e thl.:'tnsclves declared as Andrea's heirs so that they may claim a share in the

land. It' they tntly believe that they are entitled to a share in the land, they may
d\

eli l (ll. the remedies a!lcmJed to excluded heirs under the Rules of Court, or sue

Iur the annulment

11d 111e.

or OCf No. 2244 7 and seek the issuance of new titles in their

or rl.:'cm c;r dctmagcs in the event piescri pti on has set in.

17

\\'ith thl.:'se lindings. the Court lincls no need to consider the parties' other
~llgLilliCills.

lc)llllded as they are on the erroneous pronouncements ofthe trial court

\\II ER EFORE. premises considered, the Petition

IS

DEN I ED. Civil

( dsc No. 1<-3.248 is accordingly DISIVJISSED.

SO ORDERED.

/'

~AY~c:J
1\V\RIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
.~ssociure )usricc
"-,l'l..' (

-,,I

11/;'J/I\

1 1/)JIIl_

-~-~.2

!c.ul/illllt

l 1 1lii ..~

/.u!l<'

j_

~!~](lb.!)

lu!IJ<,f!i'

/-,'!;t,!Udl'~

1l

l'h1l 107. 120121 (2\1011

II

(i

1\ Nu. 17lJ7)-l

\\ L C Cl N ( . lll-z:

.-lssuciute .Justice

( 'ho irpersun

.JO~RICZ

ARTURO D. BRION

llssociure .Ius! ice

Jssociule .Justice

ESTEI~A

!kO~fu..JJ/

!VI.JPERLAS-BERNABE
A.1sociurc: .lusrice

ATTESTATION
I altt.::st that the conclusions m the above Decision had been reached in
l:nnsulli.ttiot1 before the case was assigned to the v.rriter of the opinion of the
( .o mt s I ) i \is i() n.

ANTONIO T. CAR
.'lssociure .Justice
( 'hoi!pt.!rwn

CERTIFICATI()N
I ceni I) that the conclusions ;;1 th<.: abme Uecision had been reached in
ull1sultation beJ(;re the case wu~ d~;:,i):'.nt:d to the writer ~)r the opinion of the
( 'ottn s I )i\ ision.
L~,_~

MARIA I .Of iHDES P. A. SERENO

Chc! .Ius/icc: