Amada Cotoner-Zacarias vs. Spouses Alfredo and The Heirs
Amada Cotoner-Zacarias vs. Spouses Alfredo and The Heirs
Amada Cotoner-Zacarias vs. Spouses Alfredo and The Heirs
It is true that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the The facts of this case differ from Manchester
complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, and similar situations envisioned under the
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, circular. The complaint filed by respondents
Revilla spouses included in its prayer the spouses provides that the land had a market
amount of ₱50,000.00 as actual damages, value of ₱13,500.00, while the mango trees had
without mention of any other amount in the a market value of ₱3,500.00.62 Petitioner
body of the complaint. No amended complaint alleged in her petition that respondents Revilla
was filed to increase this amount in the prayer. spouses offered to sell the property to her for
Thus, the Court of Appeals found as follows: ₱50,000.00,63 while the trial court found that
the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" reflected the
In the case at bench, the complaint filed by the
amount of ₱20,000.00.64 Subsequent tax
Spouses Revilla only asked for actual damages
declarations in the name of petitioner, the
in the amount of ₱50,000.00. While the Spouses
Casorla spouses, and the Sun spouses all
Revilla mentioned the amount of
provided for land market values lower than
₱12,000,000.00 as actual damages in the pre-
₱50,000.00.65 The deed of sale in favor of the
trial, said amount was not stated in the
Casorla spouses states that the assessed value
complaint and neither was it awarded by the
of the property was ₱1,400.00, and the
lower court in its judgment. Hence, said amount
consideration for the sale was ₱50,000.00.66 The
was not even considered by the court a quo
subsequent deed of sale in favor of the Sun
when it awarded damages in favor of the
spouses provides for the same amount as
Spouses Revilla. Considering that the complaint
consideration.67
was not formally amended by the spouses to
increase the amount of actual damages being None of these documents submitted by
sought, the trial court was not stripped of its petitioner indicate an amount in excess of the
jurisdiction to try the case since the Spouses ₱50,000.00 prayed for by respondents Revilla
Revilla correctly paid the docket fees based spouses as actual damages in their complaint.
merely on what was prayed for in the Thus, the basis for the ₱12,000,000.00 value
complaint.Indeed, the mere mentioning by the raised during pre-trial is unclear. Based on the
Spouses Revilla of the amount of complaint, respondents Revilla spouses paid the
₱12,000,000.00 during the pre-trial is correct docket fees computed from the
inconsequential, as the trial court properly amounts in their prayer.
acquired jurisdiction over the action when the
III.
Spouses Revilla filed the complaint and paid the
requisite filing fees based on the amount as The third issue involves the reinstatement of
prayed for in the complaint.59 (Emphasis respondents Revilla spouses in the property and
supplied) reconveyance of its tax declaration in their
favor.
In Padlan v. Dinglasan,60 this court reiterated
that "[w]hat determines the jurisdiction of the Petitioner argues that antichresis is a formal
court is the nature of the action pleaded as contract that must be in writing in order to be
appearing from the allegations in the complaint valid.68 Respondents Revilla spouses were not
[and] [t]he averments therein and the character able to prove the existence of the alleged
of the relief sought are the ones to be antichresis contract. On the other hand, the sale
consulted."61 of the property to petitioner was established by
the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" and the
Petitioner attached copies of the tax
testimony of Rosita Castillo, the second wife of
declarations and deeds of sale over the
the previous owner, Felimon Castillo.69
property to the petition. Tax Declaration No.
7971 in the name of respondents Revilla
We affirm the lower courts’ order of Php3,000.00 as rental for the first year, 1981,
reinstatement and reconveyance of the with no specific agreement as to the period
property in favor of respondents Revilla covered by such rental[.]73 (Emphasis supplied)
spouses.
Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides that "[b]y
Respondents Revilla spouses’ complaint sought the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires
"to annul the sales and transfers of title the right to receive the fruits of an immovable
emanating from Tax Declaration No. 7971 of his debtor, with the obligation to apply them
registered in their name involving a 15,000- to the payment of the interest, if owing, and
square[-]meter unregistered land . . . with thereafter to the principal of his credit."
prayer for reconveyance and claims for
Thus, antichresis involves an express agreement
damages."70 There was no prayer to declare the
between parties such that the creditor will have
purported contract of sale as antichresis.71 Thus,
possession of the debtor’s real property given
respondents Revilla spouses neither discussed
as security, and such creditor will apply the
nor used the term "antichresis" in their
fruits of the property to the interest owed by
comment and memorandum before this court.
the debtor, if any, then to the principal
They focused on the nature of their complaint
amount.74
as one for annulment of titles on the ground of
forgery.72 At most, the trial court’s summary of The term, antichresis, has a Greek origin with
respondents Revilla spouses’ evidence "‘anti’ (against) and ‘chresis’ (use) denoting the
described the parties’ agreements as follows: action of giving a credit ‘against’ the ‘use’ of a
property."75
Plaintiffs’ evidence and the testimony of
plaintiff Alfredo Revilla tend to indicate that Historically, 15th century B.C. tablets revealed
plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of a that "antichresis contracts were commonly
15,000-square[-]meter unregistered land, employed in the Sumerian and Akkadian
located at Brgy. Adlas, Silang, Cavite. Their Mesopotamian cultures."76 Antichresis contracts
ownership being evidenced by Tax Declaration were incorporated in Babylonian law, modifying
No. 7971, s. 1980 (Exh. "A"). Sometime in 1981, and combining it with that of mortgage
plaintiffs needed money for the travel and pledge.77 Nearing the end of the classical period,
deployment of plaintiff Alfredo to Saudi Arabia. antichresis contracts entered Roman law that
Plaintiff Paz Revilla sought financial help from "adopted the convention that the tenant
defendant Cotoner-Zacarias from whom she usufruct had to be exactly compensated by the
was able to obtain a loan but secured with and interest on the lump sum payment."78 During
by way of mortgage of the subject property. The the middle ages, canon law banned antichresis
parties further agreed that defendant Cotoner contracts for being a form of usury.79 These
Zacarias would take possession of the subject contracts only reappeared in the 1804
property and cultivate it with the earnings Napoleonic Code that influenced the laws of
therefrom to be used to pay-off the loan and most countries today.80 It had been observed
the annual realty taxes on the land.It was their that "antichresis contracts coexist with periodic
agreement with defendant Cotoner Zacarias rent contracts in many property markets."81
that the latter will rent the subject property and
with that agreement, the lease started In the Civil Code, antichresis provisions may be
sometime in 1981 and plantiffs got from found under Title XVI, together with other
defendant Cotoner-Zacarias the amount of security contracts such as pledge and mortgage.
Antichresis requires delivery of the property to of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
the antichretic creditor, but the latter cannot saying that "there exist significant differences in
ordinarily acquire this immovable property in handwriting characteristics/habits between the
his or her possession by prescription.82 questioned and the standard/sample signatures
‘ALFREDO REVILLA’ such as in the manner of
Similar to the prohibition against pactum
execution of strokes, structural pattern of
commissorium83 since creditors cannot
letters/elements, and minute identifying
"appropriate the thingsgiven by way of pledge
details", as well as the trial court’s own visual
or mortgage, or dispose of them,"84 an
analysis of the document and the sample
antichretic creditor also cannot appropriate the
signatures of plaintiff-appellee Alfredo, clearly
real property in his or her favor upon the non-
showed that his signature on the said Kasulatan
payment of the debt.85
ng Bilihan ng Lupawas indeed forged.89
Antichresis also requires that the amount of the
Petitioner contends that the lower courts never
principal and the interest be in writing for the
declared as falsified the signature of Alfredo’s
contract to be valid.86
wife, Paz Castillo-Revilla. Since the property is
However, the issue before us does not concern conjugal in nature, the sale as to the one-half
the nature of the relationship between the share ofPaz Castillo-Revilla should not be
parties, but the validity of the documents that declared as void.90
caused the subsequent transfers of the
The transaction took place before the effectivity
property involved.
of the Family Code in 2004. Generally, civil laws
The reinstatement of the propertyin favor of have no retroactive effect.91 Article 256 of the
respondents Revilla spouses was anchored on Family Code provides that "[it] shall have
the lower courts’ finding that their signatures as retroactive effect insofar as it does not
sellers in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
were forged. accordance with the Civil Code or other laws."
This court has held that the "question of forgery Article 165 of the Civil Code states that "[t]he
is one of fact."87 Well-settled is the rule that husband is the administrator of the conjugal
"[f]actual findings of the lower courts are partnership." Article 172 of the Civil Code
entitled great weight and respect on appeal, provides that "[t]he wife cannot bind the
and in fact accorded finality when supported by conjugal partnership without the husband’s
substantial evidence on the record."88 consent, except incases provided by law."92 In
any case, the Family Code also provides as
The Court of Appeals agreed with the finding of follows:
the trial court that the signature of Alfredo
Revilla in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" was Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of
forged: the community property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
It was convincingly found by the court a quo husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to
that the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupaor Deed of recourse to the court by the wife for proper
Sale covering the subject property allegedly remedy, which must be availed of within five
executed by the Spouses Revilla in favorof years from the date of the contract
Zacarias was spurious, as the trial court, after implementing such decision.
relying on the report of the handwriting experts
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or of a Commission/Order appointing Atty.
otherwise unable to participate in the Diosdado de Mesa, the lawyer who notarized
administration of the common properties, the the subject document, as Notary Public for the
other spouse may assume sole powers of Province and City of Cavite (Exh. "Y" to "Y-2");
administration. These powers do not include Certification from the Records Management
disposition or encumbrance without authority and Archives Office, Manila that no copy is on
of the court or the written consent of the other file with the said office of the Deed of Sale
spouse. In the absence of such authority or allegedly executed by plaintiffs before Notary
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall Public Diosdado de Mesa, for and within Imus,
be void. However, the transaction shall be Cavite, acknowledged as Doc. No. 432, Page No.
construed as a continuing offer on the part of 45, Book No. VIII, Series of 1979 (Exh. "Z" to "Z-
the consenting spouse and the third person, 1"); Certification issued by Clerk of Court, Atty.
and may be perfected as a binding contract Ana Liza M. Luna, Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay
upon the acceptance by the other spouse or City that there is no available record on file of a
authorization by the court before the offer Commission/Order appointing Atty. Diosdado
iswithdrawn by either or both offerors. de Mesa as Notary Public for the Province and
(Emphasis supplied) Cities of Tagaytay, Cavite and Trece Martires in
1979 (Exh. "AA" to"AA-2"); Certification issued
Thus, as correctly found by the Court of
by Clerk of Court, Atty. Jose O, Lagao, Jr.,
Appeals, "assuming arguendo that the signature
Regional Trial Court, Multiple Sala, Bacoor,
of plaintiff-appellee Paz on the Kasulatan ng
Cavite that there isno available record on file of
Bilihan ng Lupawas not forged, her signature
a Commission/Order appointing Atty. Diosdado
alone would still not bind the subject property,
de Mesa as Notary Public for the Province and
it being already established that the said
City of Cavite (Exh. "BB" to "BB-2"); and
transaction was made without the consent of
Certification issued by Clerk of Court, Atty.
her husband plaintiff-appellee Alfredo."93
Regalado E. Eusebio, Regional Trial Court,
Lastly, petitioner argues that she has no Multiple Sala, Imus, Cavite that there is no
obligation to prove the genuineness and due available record on file of a Commission/Order
execution of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" appointing Atty. Diosdado de Mesa as Notary
considering it is a public document.94 Public for the Province of Cavite (Exh. "CC" to
"CC-2").95 (Emphasis supplied).
The trial court found otherwise. Atty. Diosdado
de Mesa, who allegedly notarized the Petitioner contends that the Sun spouses were
"Kasulatanng Bilihan ng Lupa," was not a buyers in good faith for value, thus, the court
commissioned notary public. The trial court erred in ordering reinstatement of the property
discussed as follows: in favor of respondents Revilla spouses.96
Furthermore, it was discovered that the notary This court has held that "the rule in land
public who purportedly notarized the registration law that the issue of whether the
"Kasulatanng Bilihan ng Lupa" has not been buyer of realty is in good or bad faith is relevant
registered notary public in the province of only where the subject of the sale is
Cavite in 1979 nor at present. The record bears registeredland and the purchase was made
out various Certifications to prove there is no from the registered owner whose title to the
available record on file with the Office of the land is clean[.]"97 Our laws have adopted the
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Cavite City Torrens system to strengthen public confidence
in land transactions: [T]he Torrens system was
adopted in this country because it was believed
to be the most effective measure to guarantee
the integrity of land titles and to insure their
indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. If a person
purchases a piece of land on the assurance that
the seller’s title thereto is valid, he should not
run the risk of losing his acquisition. If this were
permitted, public confidence in the system
would be eroded and land transactions would
have to be attended by complicated and not
necessarily conclusive investigations and proof
of ownership.98