CASE 2013-0023: VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, -VERSUS- UNIWIDE SALES, INC. AND DOLORES BAELLO TEJADA, RESPONDENTS. (G.R. NO. 170677, 31 JULY 2013, PERALTA J.) SUBJECT/S: ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OR RECONVEYANCE OF TITLE (BRIEF TITLE: VSD REALTY VS. UNIWIDE)

 

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 

“WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in accordance with the two preceding paragraphs of this Resolution.

 

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 

WHAT ARE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT OR RECONVEYANCE OF TITLE?

 

 

A.      a party seeking it should establish not merely by a preponderance of evidence but by clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his.

 

 

B.      Article 43419 of the Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and; second, his title thereto.

 

 

C.      In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

 

 

 

CAN A PARTY INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE EVEN WHEN THE CASE IS ALREADY AT THE SUPREME COURT?

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER: THAT IT HAS A VALID TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. RESPONDENT HOWEVER FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PRESENTING AN AFFIDAVIT OF A WITNESS SHOWING THAT PETITIONER’S TITLE DID NOT COME FROM AN AUTHENTIC TITLE (OCT NO. 994 DATED 03 MAY 1917). CAN THE SUPREME COURT STILL ENTERTAIN SUCH NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

 

 

YES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO RESOLVE THE NEW ISSUE RAISED AND REPORT ITS FINDINGS TO THE SUPREME COURT.

 

 

Accordingly, the Court hereby remands this case to the Court of Appeals.

 

 

The Court of Appeals is tasked to hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to this Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three (3) months from finality of this Resolution.

 

 

In determining which of the conflicting claims of title should prevail, the Court of Appeals is directed to establish, based on the evidence already on record and other evidence that will be presented in the proceedings before it, the following matter:

 

 

(1) Whether the title of Felisa D. Bonifacio, TCT No. 265777/T- 1325, and the title of VSD, TCT No. T-285312, can be traced back to the legitimate and authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917;

 

 

(2) Whether Eleuteria Rivera Bonifacio, who allegedly assigned the subject property to Felisa D. Bonifacio, had the right and interest over the subject property, and whether Eleuteria Rivera Bonifacio was entitled to assign her alleged rights and interests over the subject property, known as Lot 23-A-4-B-2-A-3-A, Psd 706, covered by OCT No. 994, to Felisa D. Bonifacio;

 

 

(3) Whether the copy ofFelisa Bonifacio’s TCT No. 265777/T-1325 was tampered with to fraudulently reflect that it was derived from the legitimate and authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917;

 

 

( 4) Whether respondent Baello’s TCT No. (35788) 12754 can be traced back to the legitimate and authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917;

 

 

(5) Whether the technical description of the title ‘of Baello covers the subject property; and

 

 

(6) Such other matters necessary and proper in determining which of the conflicting claims of title should prevail.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2013-0023 -JULY 2013 – UNIWIDE