FACTS:
The subject land had been part of the land claim of Mateo Cariño. Within this site, buildings were constructed which were bought by Sioco Cariño, son of Mateo Cariño and grandfather of private respondent Jose Cariño. Sioco Cariño then took possession of the buildings and the land.
Ting-el Dicman, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had been employed by Sioco Cariño as his cattle herder.
On the advice of his lawyers, and because there were already many parcels of land recorded in his name, Sioco Cariño caused the survey of the land in controversy in the name of Ting-el Dicman.
Ting-el Dicman executed a public instrument entitled "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land" with Sioco Cariño, which reads: That Mr. Sioco Cariño has advanced all expenses for said survey xxx, and also all other expenses for the improvement of said land, to date; That for and in consideration of said advance expenses, I hereby pledge and promise to convey, deliver and transfer unto said Sioco Cariño, his heirs and assigns, one half (1/2) of my title, rights, and interest to and in the aforesaid parcel of land; same to be delivered, conveyed and transferred to him, his heirs and assigns, by me, my heirs, and assigns, xxx.
After the execution of the foregoing deed, Sioco Cariño, who had been in possession of the land in controversy since 1916, continued to stay thereon.
On January 10, 1938, Sioco Cariño executed, as seller, a public instrument entitled "Deed of Absolute Sale" covering the subject land and its improvements with his son, Guzman Cariño, as buyer. Consequently, Guzman Cariño took possession of the property publicly, peacefully, and in the concept of owner.
Guzman Cariño had the entire Lot resurveyed so as to indicate the half portion that belonged to him and the other half that belonged to the petitioners. The resurvey evenly divided the lot into Lot 76-A and 76-B
A petition was later filed by the heirs of Ting-el Dicman which sought to establish ownership over Lot 76-A and Lot 76-B. Guzman Cariño opposed the petition insofar as he insisted ownership over Lot 76-B, the land in controversy.
While the foregoing petition was pending in the trial court, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 628 excluding from the operation of the Baguio Townsite Reservation certain parcels of public land known as ‘Igorot Claims’. One such claim pertained to the "Heirs of Dicman,"
As a consequence, the trial court dismissed the petition insofar as Lot 76-B was concerned, and the certificate of title issued pursuant to the partial decision involving Lot 76-A was invalidated.
After the dismissal of the case, Guzman Cariño was left undisturbed in his possession of the subject property until his death. His remains are buried on the land in question
On April 20, 1983, petitioners, suing as compulsory heirs of Ting-el Dicman, revived the foregoing case by filing a complaint for recovery of possession with damages involving the subject property
Private respondent Jose Cariño filed his answer and prayed for dismissal. RTC ruled in favor of respondents Carino
CA affirmed RTC. CA based its ruling on the following reasons: that the petitioners raised for the first time on appeal the issue on whether the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land" is void ab initio under Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu
The subject land had been part of the land claim of Mateo Cariño. Within this site, buildings were constructed which were bought by Sioco Cariño, son of Mateo Cariño and grandfather of private respondent Jose Cariño. Sioco Cariño then took possession of the buildings and the land.
Ting-el Dicman, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had been employed by Sioco Cariño as his cattle herder.
On the advice of his lawyers, and because there were already many parcels of land recorded in his name, Sioco Cariño caused the survey of the land in controversy in the name of Ting-el Dicman.
Ting-el Dicman executed a public instrument entitled "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land" with Sioco Cariño, which reads: That Mr. Sioco Cariño has advanced all expenses for said survey xxx, and also all other expenses for the improvement of said land, to date; That for and in consideration of said advance expenses, I hereby pledge and promise to convey, deliver and transfer unto said Sioco Cariño, his heirs and assigns, one half (1/2) of my title, rights, and interest to and in the aforesaid parcel of land; same to be delivered, conveyed and transferred to him, his heirs and assigns, by me, my heirs, and assigns, xxx.
After the execution of the foregoing deed, Sioco Cariño, who had been in possession of the land in controversy since 1916, continued to stay thereon.
On January 10, 1938, Sioco Cariño executed, as seller, a public instrument entitled "Deed of Absolute Sale" covering the subject land and its improvements with his son, Guzman Cariño, as buyer. Consequently, Guzman Cariño took possession of the property publicly, peacefully, and in the concept of owner.
Guzman Cariño had the entire Lot resurveyed so as to indicate the half portion that belonged to him and the other half that belonged to the petitioners. The resurvey evenly divided the lot into Lot 76-A and 76-B
A petition was later filed by the heirs of Ting-el Dicman which sought to establish ownership over Lot 76-A and Lot 76-B. Guzman Cariño opposed the petition insofar as he insisted ownership over Lot 76-B, the land in controversy.
While the foregoing petition was pending in the trial court, President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 628 excluding from the operation of the Baguio Townsite Reservation certain parcels of public land known as ‘Igorot Claims’. One such claim pertained to the "Heirs of Dicman,"
As a consequence, the trial court dismissed the petition insofar as Lot 76-B was concerned, and the certificate of title issued pursuant to the partial decision involving Lot 76-A was invalidated.
After the dismissal of the case, Guzman Cariño was left undisturbed in his possession of the subject property until his death. His remains are buried on the land in question
On April 20, 1983, petitioners, suing as compulsory heirs of Ting-el Dicman, revived the foregoing case by filing a complaint for recovery of possession with damages involving the subject property
Private respondent Jose Cariño filed his answer and prayed for dismissal. RTC ruled in favor of respondents Carino
CA affirmed RTC. CA based its ruling on the following reasons: that the petitioners raised for the first time on appeal the issue on whether the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land" is void ab initio under Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu
ISSUE:
W/N the Deed of Conveyance was invalid, hence, would not make Carino the lawful
owner and possessor of the subject lot
RULING:
NO. SC ruled in favor of Carino.
RATIO:
The foregoing issue and the incidents thereunder were never raised by the
petitioners during the proceedings before the RTC. Suffice it to say that
issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the
proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel. Matters, theories or
arguments not brought out in the original proceedings cannot be considered on
review or appeal where they are raised for the first time. To consider the
alleged facts and arguments raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the
basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.
Even if this Court should declare the sale null and void or the agreement
merely a contract to sell subject to a suspensive condition that has yet to
occur, private respondent nonetheless acquired ownership over the land in
question through acquisitive prescription.
The
records show that as early as 1938, the land in controversy had been in the
possession of Guzman Cariño, predecessor-in-interest of private respondent,
continuously, publicly, peacefully, in concept of owner, and in good faith with
just title, to the exclusion of the petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest, well beyond the period required under law to acquire
title by acquisitive prescription which, in this case, is 10 years.
As
correctly held by the RTC, there is no evidence to the effect that Ting-el
Dicman or his successors-in-interest ever filed any action to question the
validity of the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in
Agricultural Land" after its execution on October 22, 1928 despite having
every opportunity to do so. Nor was any action to recover possession of the
property from Guzman Cariño instituted anytime prior to April 24, 1959, a time
when the period for acquisitive prescription, reckoned from Guzman’s occupation
of the property in 1938, had already transpired in his favor. No evidence
likewise appears on the record that Sioco Cariño or his Estate ever filed any
action to contest the validity of the "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated
January 10, 1938. Though counsel for the Estate of Sioco Cariño tried to assail
the deed as a forgery in the trial court, the attempt failed and no appeal was
lodged therefrom.
For
over 30 years reckoned from the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and
Interests in Agricultural Land" dated October 22, 1928, or 20 years
reckoned from the "Deed of Absolute Sale" dated January 10, 1938,
they neglected to take positive steps to assert their dominical claim over the
property. With the exception of forgery, all other issues concerning the
validity of the two instruments abovementioned, as well as the averment that
the former was in the nature of a contract to sell, were issues raised only for
the first time on appeal and cannot therefore be taken up at this late a stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment