G.R. No. 156879. January 20, 2004.

* executed and attested through the intervention of a

FLORDELIZA CALPATURA FLORA, notary public is evidence of the facts in a clear,
DOMINADOR CALPATURA and TOMAS unequivocal manner therein expressed. Otherwise
CALPATURA, JR., Heirs of TOMAS stated, public or notarial documents, or those
instruments duly acknowledged of proved and
CALPATURA, SR., petitioners, vs. ROBERTO,
certified as provided by law, may be presented in
ERLINDA, DANIEL, GLORIA, PATRICIO, JR. evidence without further proof, the certificate of
and EDNA, all surnamed PRADO and NARCISA acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
PRADO, respondents. execution of the instrument or document involved. In
Civil Law; Property; Conjugal Partnership; order to contradict the presumption of regularity of a
Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a public document, evidence must be clear, convincing,
condition sine qua non in order for the presumption in and more than merely preponderant.
favor of conjugal ownership to operate.—Article 160
of the Civil Code, which was in effect at the time the PETITION for review on certiorari of the
sale was entered into, provides that all property of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership unless it is proved that it pertains The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Proof of      Americo H. Acosta for petitioners.
acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua      Geronga, Cimafranca & Associates for
non in order for the presumption in favor of conjugal respondents.
ownership to operate.
Remedial Law; Parole Evidence; Parole YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction
of the terms of a written instrument by testimony or The property under litigation is the northern half
other evidence purporting to show that, at or before portion of a residential land consisting of 552.20
the execution of the parties’ written agreement, other square meters, more or less, situated at 19th
or different terms were agreed upon by the parties, Avenue, Murphy, Quezon City and covered by
varying the purport of the written contract; Whatever
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 71344 issued on
is not found in the writing is understood to have been
waived and abandoned.—In the instant case, while
August 15, 1963 by the Register of Deeds of
Narcisa testified during cross-examination that she Quezon City in the name of Narcisa Prado and
bought the subject property from People’s Homesite her children by her first husband, Patricio Prado,
Housing Corporation with her own funds, she, Sr., namely, Roberto, Erlinda, Daniel, Gloria,
however admitted in the Agreement of Purchase and Patricio, Jr. and Edna, respondents herein.
Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale that the property The pertinent facts are as follows:
was her conjugal share with her first husband, On December 19, 1959, Patricio Prado, Sr.
Patricio, Sr. A verbal assertion that she bought the died. Narcisa subsequently married Bonifacio
land with her own funds is inadmissible to qualify the Calpatura. In order to support her minor children
terms of a written agreement under the parole with her first husband, Narcisa and her brother-in-
evidence rule. The so-called parole evidence
law, Tomas Calpatura, Sr., executed on April 26,
rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the
terms of a written instrument by testimony or other
1968 an Agreement of Purchase and
evidence purporting to show that, at or before the Sale whereby the former agreed to sell to the
398
execution of the parties’ written agreement, other or
different terms were agreed upon by the parties, 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
varying the purport of the Flora vs. Prado
_______________ latter the northern half portion of the property for
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
the sum of P10,500.00.  On July 28, 1973, Narcisa
1

executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of

397 Tomas over the said property. 2

VOL. 420, JANUARY 20, 2004 In 1976, Tomas’ daughter, Flordeliza

Calpatura Flora, built a two-storey duplex with
Flora vs. Prado
firewall  on the northern half portion of the
3

written contract. Whatever is not found in the

writing is understood to have been waived and property. Respondents, who occupied the
abandoned. southern half portion of the land, did not object to
Same; Evidence; Public Documents; A public the construction. Flordeliza Flora and her
document executed and attested through the husband Wilfredo declared the property for
intervention of a notary public is evidence of the facts taxation purposes  and paid the corresponding
4

in a clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed; In taxes thereon.  Likewise, Maximo Calpatura, the
5

order to contradict the presumption of regularity of a son of Tomas’ cousin, built a small house on the
public document, evidence must be clear, convincing, northern portion of the property.
and more than merely preponderant.—Anent the On April 8, 1991, respondents filed a
second issue, the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and
Narcisa in favor of Tomas is contained in a notarized
delivery of possession of the northern half portion
document. In Spouses Alfarero, et al. v. Spouses
Sevilla, et al., it was held that a public document of the subject property against petitioners
Flordeliza Calpatura Flora, Dominador Calpatura
and Tomas Calpatura, Jr. before the Regional and reaching the majority age in violation of
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100, Article 1391 of the Civil Code. 9

docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91- _______________

8404.  Respondents alleged that the transaction
6
7
 (2) This lot is being sold subject to the condition that it
embodied in the Agreement to Purchase and cannot be resold within a period of twenty five (25) years from
Sale between Narcisa and Tomas was one of the date of this contract, and that if by circumstances, the
mortgage and not of sale; that Narcisa’s children purchaser is constrained to resell, within this period, he may
tried to redeem the mortgaged property but they sell it only to the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation
at the original purchase price plus 5% interest per annum and
learned that the blank document which their the appraised cost of the improvements thereon.
mother had signed was transformed into a Deed 8
 Through Judge Mariano C. Del Castillo.
of Absolute Sale; that Narcisa could not have sold 9
 The action for annulment shall be brought within four
years. This period shall begin:
the northern half portion of the property x x x      x x x      x x x
considering that she was prohibited from selling In case of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the
the same within a period of 25 years from its same.
And when the action refers to contracts entered into by minors or
acquisition, pursuant to the condition other incapacitated persons, from the time the guardianship ceases.
_______________
400
1
 Records, p. 36. 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
2
 Records, p. 202.
3
 Affidavit executed by Narcisa Prado authorizing spouses Flora vs. Prado
Wilfredo and Flordeliza Flora to construct a firewall. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of
4
 Tax Declaration No. B-102-00-537 issued by City Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV
Assessor of Quezon City.
5
 Receipts secured by Flordeliza Calpatura Flora but issued
No. 56843. On October 3, 2002, a decision  was 10

in the name of Narcisa Prado— rendered by the Court of Appeals declaring that
Receipt Nos. 598798-1991; 966399-1992; 073714-1993; respondents were co-owners of the subject
309113-1993; 690423-1994; 1015627-1995; 223105-1996 property, thus the sale was valid only insofar as
Receipts in the name of Flordeliza Flora—583531-1976;
583530-1977; 982901-1978; 982902-1979; 982903-1980
Narcisa’s 1/7 undivided share thereon was
6
 Records, pp. 16-21. concerned. The dispositive portion of the said
decision reads:
399 “WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is
VOL. 420, JANUARY 20, 2004 AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the sale
Flora vs. Prado in dispute is declared valid only with respect to the
annotated at the back of the title;  that Narcisa, as
7 one-seventh (1/7) share of plaintiff-appellant
natural guardian of her children, had no authority NARCISA H. PRADO in the subject property, which
to sell the northern half portion of the property is equivalent to 78.8857 square meters. In all other
respects, the same decision stands. No pronouncement
which she and her children co-owned; and that
as to costs.
only P5,000.00 out of the consideration of “SO ORDERED.” 11

P10,500.00 was paid by Tomas.

In their answer, petitioners countered that Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
Narcisa owned 9/14 of the property, consisting of which was denied in a Resolution dated January
1/2 as her share in the conjugal partnership with 14, 2003.  Hence this petition for review on the
12

her first husband and 1/7 as her share in the estate following assigned errors:
of her deceased husband; that the consideration of I
the sale in the amount of P10,500.00 had been
fully paid as of April 1, 1968; that Narcisa sold THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
her conjugal share in order to support her minor COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN MODIFYING THE DECISION
children; that Narcisa’s claim was barred by
RENDERED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
laches and prescription; and that the Philippine WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
Homesite and Housing Corporation, not the THAT, ASIDE FROM THE DECLARATION OF
respondents, was the real party in interest to THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE, THE
question the sale within the prohibited period. PETITIONERS HEREIN HAVE TAKEN ACTUAL
On April 2, 1997, the court a quo  dismissed 8
POSSESSION OF THE SAID ONE-HALF (1/2) TO
the complaint. It found that the sale was valid; THE EXCLUSION OF THE RESPONDENTS AND
that the Agreement to Purchase and Sale and INTRODUCED IMPROVEMENTS THEREON.
the Deed of Absolute Sale were duly executed;
that the sum of P10,500.00 as selling price for the II
subject property was fully paid there being no THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
demand for the payment of the remaining COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF
balance; that the introduction of improvements DISCRETION IN MODIFYING THE DECISION
thereon by the petitioners was without objection RENDERED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
from the respondents; and that Roberto and WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
Erlinda failed to contest the transaction within CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT IN
four years after the discovery of the alleged fraud THE SALE THAT THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE
CONJUGAL SHARE OF RESPONDENT NARCISA
PRADO AND THE OTHER RESPONDENTS HAD  Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146942, 22 April
16

NO FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO ACQUIRE THE 2003, 401 SCRA 410.

SAID PROPERTY 402
_______________
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
10
 Penned by Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. with Justices Flora vs. Prado
Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Sergio L. Pestaño, concurring.
11
 CA-G.R. CV No. 56843, pp. 9-10, Rollo, pp. 95-96.
In the instant case, while Narcisa testified during
12
 CA Rollo, pp. 97-99. cross-examination that she bought the subject
property from People’s Homesite Housing
401
Corporation with her own funds,  she, however 17

VOL. 420, JANUARY 20, 2004 admitted in the Agreement of Purchase and

Flora vs. Prado Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale that the
SINCE THEY WERE MINORS THEN AT THE property was her conjugal share with her first
ISSUANCE OF THE SAID TCT NO. 71344 ON husband, Patricio, Sr.  A verbal assertion that she
18

AUGUST 15, 1963.

bought the land with her own funds is
III inadmissible to qualify the terms of a written
agreement under the parole evidence rule.  The 19

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS so-called parole evidence rule forbids any

COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF addition to or contradiction of the terms of a
DISCRETION IN NOT DECLARING THE HEREIN written instrument by testimony or other evidence
RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF LACHES IN FILING purporting to show that, at or before the execution
THE INSTANT CASE ONLY ON APRIL 8, 1991, of the parties’ written agreement, other or
THAT IS 18 YEARS AFTER THE SAID SALE different terms were agreed upon by the parties,
WITH THE PETITIONERS TAKING ACTUAL varying the purport of the written contract.
POSSESSION OF SAID PORTION OF THE
Whatever is not found in the writing is
PROPERTY.
understood to have been waived and abandoned. 20

IV Anent the second issue, the Deed of Absolute

Sale executed by Narcisa in favor of Tomas is
THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON. COURT contained in a notarized  document. In Spouses
21

OF APPEALS WILL UNDULY ENRICH THE Alfarero, et al. v. Spouses Sevilla, et al.,  it was 22

RESPONDENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE held that a public document executed and attested
HEREIN PETITIONERS. 13
through the intervention of a notary public is
At the outset, it must be stressed that only evidence of the facts in a clear, unequivocal
questions of law may be raised in petitions for manner therein expressed. Otherwise stated,
review before this Court under Rule 45 of the public or notarial documents, or those instruments
Rules of Court.  It was thus error for petitioners to
14
duly acknowledged of proved and certified as
ascribe to the Court of Appeals grave abuse of provided by law, may be presented in evidence
discretion. This procedural lapse notwithstanding, without further proof, the certificate of
in the interest of justice, this Court shall treat the acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of
issues as cases of reversible error. 15
the execution of the instrument or document
The issues for resolution are: (1) Is the subject involved. In order to contradict the presumption
property conjugal or paraphernal? (2) Is the of regularity of a public document, evidence must
transaction a sale or a mortgage? (3) Assuming be clear, convincing, and more than merely
that the transaction is a sale, what was the area of preponderant.
_______________
the land subject of the sale?
Article 160 of the Civil Code, which was in 17
 TSN, 25 April 1994, p. 21.
effect at the time the sale was entered into, 18
 Deed of Absolute Sale, p. 1, Rollo, p. 202.
provides that all property of the marriage is
19
 Rule 130, Section 7, 1964 Rules of Court.
Evidence of written agreements.—When the terms of an agreement
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all
unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to such terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other
the husband or to the wife. Proof of acquisition than the contents of the writing x x x.
during the marriage is a condition sine qua non in
 Manufacturers Building, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
20
order for the presumption in favor of conjugal No. 116847, 16 March 2001, 354 SCRA 521, citing CKH
ownership to operate. 16
Industrial and Development Corporation v. Court of
_______________ Appeals, 338 Phil. 837, 851; 272 SCRA 333 (1997).
 Notary Public Ex Oficio Manuel P. Pastor.
21

13
 Rollo, p. 8.  G.R. No. 142974, 22 September 2003, 411 SCRA 387.
22

14
 Section 1, Rule 45, Rules of Court.
15
 Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138441, 15 403
August 2003, 409 SCRA 133 citing AB Leasing and Finance VOL. 420, JANUARY 20, 2004
Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
138342, 8 July 2003, 405 SCRA 380; Panado v. Court of Flora vs. Prado
Appeals, 298 SCRA 110, 116 (1998); People’s Aircargo and It is well-settled that in civil cases, the party that
Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 170, alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.  Except 23

181 (1998).
for the bare allegation that the transaction was 25 years from acquisition. In Sarmiento, et al. v.
one of mortgage and not of sale, respondents Salud, et al.,  it was held that:
27

failed to adduce evidence in support thereof. x x x The condition that the appellees Sarmiento
Respondents also failed to controvert the spouses could not resell the property except to the
presumption that private transactions have been People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC
fair and regular. 24
for short) within the next 25 years after appellees’
purchasing the lot is manifestly a condition in favor of
Furthermore, Narcisa, in fact did not deny that
the PHHC, and not one in favor of the Sarmiento
she executed an Affidavit allowing spouses spouses. The condition conferred no actionable right
Wilfredo and Flordeliza Flora to construct a on appellees herein, since it operated as a restriction
firewall between the two-storey duplex and her upon their jus disponendi of the property they bought,
house sometime in 1976. The duplex was made of and thus limited their right of ownership. It follows
strong materials, the roofing being galvanized that on the assumption that the mortgage to appellee
sheets. While the deed of sale between Tomas Salud and the foreclosure sale violated the condition
and Narcisa was never registered nor annotated in the Sarmiento contract, only the PHHC was entitled
on the title, respondents had knowledge of the to invoke the condition aforementioned, and not the
possession of petitioners of the northern half Sarmientos. The validity or invalidity of the sheriff ’s
portion of the property. Obviously, respondents foreclosure sale to appellant Salud thus depended
exclusively on the PHHC; the latter could attack the
recognized the ownership of Tomas, petitioners’
sale as violative of its right of exclusive reacquisition;
predecessor-in-interest. but it (PHHC) also could waive the condition and treat
Respondents belatedly claimed that only the sale as good, in which event, the sale can not be
P5,000.00 out of the P10,500.00 consideration assailed for breach of the condition aforestated.
was paid. Both the Agreement of Purchase and
Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale state that said Finally, no particular portion of the property
consideration was paid in full. Moreover, the could be identified as yet and delineated as the
presumption is that there was sufficient object of the sale considering that the property
consideration for a written contract. 25 had not yet been partitioned in accordance with
The property being conjugal, upon the death the Rules of Court.  While Narcisa could validly
28

of Patricio Prado, Sr., one-half of the subject sell one half of the subject property, her share
property was automatically reserved to the being 9/14 of the same, she could not have
surviving spouse, Narcisa, as her share in the particularly conveyed the northern portion thereof
conjugal partnership. Patricio’s rights to the other before the partition, the terms of which was still
half, in turn, were transmitted upon his death to to be determined by the parties before the trial
his heirs, which includes his widow Narcisa, who court.
is entitled to the same share as that of each of the _______________
legitimate children. Thus, as a result of the death If a widow or widower and legitimate children or descendants are left,
of Patricio, a regime of co-ownership arose the surviving spouse has in the succession the same share as that of
each of the children.
between Narcisa and the other heirs in relation to
the property. The remaining one-half was  45 SCRA 213, 215-216 (1972).
27

transmitted to his heirs by intestate succession.  Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114151, 17
28

September 1998, 295 SCRA 536.

By the law on intestate succession, his six
children and Narcisa Prado inherited the same at 405
one-seventh (1/7) each pro indiviso.  Inasmuch as
26
VOL. 420, JANUARY 20, 2004
Narcisa inherited one-seventh Flora vs. Prado
_______________
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
23
 Citibank, NA Mastercard v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 150905, Appeals on October 3, 2002, as well as the
23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 577. Resolution dated January 14, 2003 is PARTLY
24
 Rule 131, Section 5 (p), 1964 Rules of Court. AFFIRMED subject to the following
25
 Rule 131, Section 5 (r) of the 1964 Rules of Court.
26
 Article 996 of the Civil Code.
MODIFICATIONS:

404 1. 1)Narcisa Prado is entitled to 9/14 of the

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED residential land consisting of 552.20
Flora vs. Prado square meters, more or less, situated at
(1/7) of her husband’s conjugal share in the said 19th Avenue, Murphy, Quezon City and
property and is the owner of one-half (1/2) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
thereof as her conjugal share, she owns a total of No. 71344;
9/14 of the subject property. Hence, Narcisa 2. 2)the sale of the undivided one half
could validly convey her total undivided share in portion thereof by Narcisa Prado in favor
the entire property to Tomas. Narcisa and her of Tomas Calpatura, Sr. is valid.
children are deemed, co-owners of the subject
property. Furthermore, the case is REMANDED to the
Neither can the respondents invoke the court of origin, only for the purpose of
proscription of encumbering the property within determining the specific portion being conveyed
in favor of Tomas Calpatura, Sr. pursuant to the
partition that will be agreed upon by the
respondents.
SO ORDERED.
     Davide, Jr. (C.J.,
Chairman), Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
Judgment and resolution partly affirmed with
modifications.