11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

SECONDDIVISION

GILBERTURMA,TEOFILO
URMA,DANTEURMA,
andJERRYURMA,
Petitioners,

versus

HON.ORLANDOBELTRAN,inhis
capacityasPresidingJudge,RTC
Branch11,Tuao,Cagayan,LOLITA
URMA,MELBAR.MAMUAD,
MARCELAURMACAINGAT,
HIPOLITOMARTIN,EDMUND
URMA,ALBINAURMA
MAMUAD,CIANITAAGUSTIN
FAUSTOMADAMBA,and
LAUREANOANTONIO,
Respondents.

G.R.No.180836

Present:

CARPIO,J.,Chairperson,
NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,and
MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:
August8,2010

XX

DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtassailing1]theSeptember18,2007
[1]
Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Tuao, Cagayan (RTC), in Civil Case No. 354T,
[2]
deciding the case in favor of the private respondents and 2] its December 10, 2007 Order denying
petitionersMotionForNewTrial.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners for partition,
quieting of title, recovery of ownership, and damages over two parcels of land covered by Original
CertificateofTitle(OCT)No.P1812andNo.P1630.

Thepetitionersandrespondentsarebloodrelativesbeingthenearestofkinofthedeceasedspouses
Laureano Urma (Laureano) and Rosa LabradorUrma (Rosa). They are the children of Laureanos brother
whopredeceasedhim.

Thepetitionersclaimownershipofthelottheyareoccupyingbyvirtueofadeedofsaleallegedly
executed by Laureano on April 10, 1985 in favor of petitioner Teofilo Urma, and in agreement with
respondent Marcela UrmaCaingat. On the other hand, six (6) of the respondents claim ownership over
portionsofthesubjectpropertybyvirtueofadeedofdonationexecutedintheirfavorbyRosainFebruary
1996.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

1/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

1996.

Duringthepretrialproceedingsofthecase,bothpartiesagreedthattheonlymattertoberesolved
wasthevalidityoftheabsolutedeedofsale,whichasclaimedbythepetitionerswasexecutedbyLaureano
in1985overonehalfofthepropertycoveredbyOCTNo.P1630.Ifthesaiddeedofsalewasvalid,the
subsequent deeds of donation executed by Rosa in favor of the respondents would be without force and
effect.

The parties also agreed that the thumb mark of Laureano affixed on the notarized deed of sale be
subjected to a dactylascopic examination by an expert from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Saidexaminationwouldentailcomparisonofthethumbmarkonthequestionedabsolutedeedofsalewith
thegenuinespecimenthumbmarkofLaureanoinhisVotersRegistrationRecordonfilewiththeOfficeof
theElectionRegistrar.

Upon orders of the trial court, the NBI performed the examination and found that the questioned
fingerprint was not identical with the genuine specimen thumbmark. Hence, the NBI concluded that the
absolutedeedofsalesupposedlyexecutedbyLaureanowasaspuriousdocument.

In its decision dated September 18, 2007, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondents by declaring
them the absolute owners of portions of the disputed land and ordering the petitioners to vacate said
portions. In the same ruling, the RTC also ordered the partition of the remaining portions of the subject
propertyamongallthepartiesinequalshares.Specifically,thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1.DeclaringplaintiffLolitaUrma,MelbaMamuad,MarcelaUrmaCaingat,HipolitoMartin,
EdmundUrmaandAlbinaUrmaMamuadtobetheabsoluteownersofoneeight(1/8)ofeachof
the property covered by O.C.T. No. P1630 equivalent to Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy
seven(10,777sq.m.)squaremeters

2.OrderingdefendantTeofiloUrmatovacatethepropertywhichheisoccupyingequivalent
toonehalf(1/2)ofthepropertycoveredbyO.C.T.No.P1630andsurrenderpossessionthereofto
theplaintiffs

3. Ordering the other defendants, namely Gilbert Urma, Dante Urma and Jerry Urma to
vacatetheportionsofthepropertycoveredbyO.C.T.No.1630whichtheyhaveoccupiedandare
stilloccupyingandsurrenderpossessionthereoftotheplaintiffs

4.Orderingthepartitionoftheremaining21,559squaremeterscoveredbyO.C.T.No.1630
aswellastheentirepropertycoveredbyO.C.T.No.1812infavorofallthepartiesinequalshares.

Costsdeoficio.

[3]
SOORDERED.

Inthebeliefthattheircounselcommittedgrossnegligenceinhandlingtheircase,thedefendantsfiled
[4]
aMotionForNewTrial. Theyarguedthattheircounselshouldnothavejoinedthemotionforajudgment
on the pleadings because their answer contained specific denials and defenses which tendered an issue.
Theylikewiseclaimedthattheywereuneducatedandnottoofamiliarwiththenicetiesofthelawandlegal
[5]
procedures.Hence,theyshouldnotbeboundbythemistakesandomissionsoftheircounsel.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

[6]

2/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

[6]
OnDecember10,2007,theRTCissuedthequestionedOrder denyingpetitionersMotionForNew
Trial on the ground that the same was without factual or legal basis and that there were no irregularities
committedduringthetrial.

TheRTCreasonedoutthattheparties,throughtheirrespectivecounsels,agreedduringthepretrial
thattheonlyissueoffactaroundwhichthewholecaserevolvedwasthegenuinenessofthedeedofabsolute
saledatedApril10,1985allegedlyexecutedbyLaureanoinfavorofTeofiloUrmathatsaiddocumentbe
examined by the NBI; that both parties would accept the result of the dactyloscopic examination to be
conductedandthatsaidresultwouldbethebasisofthejudgmenttoberendered.Itwasfurtherstipulated
thatiftheNBIreportwouldstatethatLaureanoindeedexecutedthedeedofsale,thejudgmentwouldbein
favorofthepetitioners.Otherwise,thedecisionshouldfavortherespondents.

Aggrieved, petitioners came straight to this Court, through a petition for review under Rule 45,
anchoredonthefollowing

ARGUMENTS:

IT WAS CLEAR ERROR AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE
[7]
COURTAQUOTOHAVERENDEREDJUDGMENTONTHEPLEADINGSMOTUPROPIO
IN DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, THE COURT A QUO HAS LIKEWISE
[8]
ERREDANDCOMMITTEDGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION

PETITIONERTEOFILOURMAISTHEOWNERINFEESIMPLEOFONEHALFPORTIONOF
[9]
THESUBJECTPROPERTYINVIEWOFTHEISSUANCEOFATCTFORSAIDPORTION.

IntheResolutionofApril13,2009,thepetitionwasgivenduecourseandthepartieswererequiredto
[10]
submittheirrespectivememoranda.

In advocacy of their position, the petitioners in their memorandum argue that the Rules of Court
providesthatajudgmentonthepleadingsisproperonlywhentheanswerfailstotenderanissueoradmits
the material allegations in the complaint. According to the petitioners, the answer filed by their former

counselraisedspecificdenials/affirmativedefensestherebytenderinganissueonlitigablematters.Hence,
judgmentonthepleadingswasnotproper.

Petitioners further argue that the judgment of the RTC was merely based on the result of the
dactylascopicexaminationconductedbytheNBIforensicexpertwhowasnotevenpresentedinopencourt.
Thus,theywerenotaccordedtheopportunitytocrossexaminehim.Moreover,sincetheNBIhandwriting
examinerwasnotqualifiedasanexpertwitness,theNBIreportisinadmissibleinevidenceandcannotbe
usedagainstthem.

ThepetitionersalsolamentthattheRTCdeniedtheirMotionForNewTrialwithoutconductingany
hearingonsaidmotion.Theyclaimthat,infact,withtheexecutionofthedeedofsalebyLaureanoinfavor
ofTeofiloUrma,OCTNo.P1630wascancelledandTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)Nos.T5950andT
5951wereissuedinthenamesofLaureanoUrmaandTeofiloUrma,respectively.TheRTC,however,was
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

3/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

not apprised of the cancellation of OCT No. P1630 because their former counsel did not present any
evidence.

RESPONDENTSPOSITION

The respondents counter that the petition should be dismissed since under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, only questions of law may be raised. They claim that the petition on its face does not state any
special or important reason that merits the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court to review this case.
Petitionersissuesreferto1)theactionsoftheirformercounsel,and2)thereliancebytheRTCintheresult
ofthedactylascopicexamination,whichobviouslyarenotquestionsoflaw.

Respondents also assert that during the pretrial stage, the Rules of Court allows stipulation or
admission of facts and documents to avoid unnecessary proof. Thus, the RTC has the discretion to put
evidentiary value on the report of the NBI expert who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
performanceofhisduties.

For the respondents, it would be pointless to go to trial or to conduct a new trial because it was
alreadyascertainedthatthedeedofsalewasaproductofforgery.

THECOURTSRULING

Thepetitionfails.

As correctly argued by the respondents, the petitioners are questioning the procedural decisions of
their former counsel and the reliance by the RTC on the result of the dactylascopic examination. The
petitioners claim that their substantive and procedural rights were violated due to their former counsels
mistakeornegligenceinhandlingtheircase.

Thus,thepetitionersprayforthereopeningofCivilCaseNo.354Tsothattheevidencepertainingto
theauthenticityofthesubjectdeedofsalewouldbeevaluatedagain.Thisisobviouslyaquestionoffact
whichwasalreadyruleduponbytheRTCwiththeholdingthatitwasnotexecutedbyLaureanoUrma.In
otherwords,itwouldentailanotherreviewoftheevidence.

IthasalwaysbeenheldthatitisnotthefunctionofthisCourttoreexamineorweightheevidence
submittedbythepartiesalloveragain.ThisCourtisdefinitelynotthepropervenuetoconsiderafactual
issueasitisnotatrieroffacts.

At any rate, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and agreed to abide by its terms and the
results thereof. The trial court also acted on the basis of their stipulations and rendered judgment
accordingly.Consideringthatthestipulationoffactshasnotbeensetaside,theCourtagreesthatitwouldbe
pointless to hold a new trial. It would only prolong the litigation and unnecessarily delay the final
dispositionofthecase.ThesituationathandisnotsubstantiallydifferentfromthecaseofJesusD.Morales
[11]
&CarolinaNuquiv.CourtofAppeals,
whereitwaswritten:
Ostensibly, the heart of the matter lies in whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

4/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

Ostensibly, the heart of the matter lies in whether or not the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale is valid. And on this score, there is little doubt that its legitimacy had been
dulyestablished.Theburdenwasontheprivaterespondentstoimpugnthegenuinenessoftheir
signaturesonthedocumentwhichhavingbeennotarizedisimbuedwiththecharacterofapublic
documentyettheywereunabletopresentasingleshredofcountervailingevidence.Moreover,the
validityoftheDeedofExtrajudicialSettlementwithSalehasbeenstrengthenedbythefindingsof
the NBI that the signatures of the private respondents were genuine, findings with which the
privaterespondentsthemselvesagreedtoabidepursuanttotheStipulationofFacts.
xxxxxxxxx

Foranother,sinceprivaterespondentsundertookintheStipulationofFactstorecognizethe
ownership of the petitioners and immediately vacate the subject property, together with the
tenants,shouldthegenuinenessofthesignaturesintheDeedofExtrajudicialSettlementWithSale
beupheld,whichhasbecomethecase,andsincetheStipulationofFactshasnotbeensetaside,it
isperfectlyappropriatefortheCourttoaffirmthepetitionersownershipandtoordertheprivate
respondentsevictionfromthesubjectproperty.Theappellatecourtssuggestionthatthepetitioners
institute a new, separate action to recover possession of the subject property is inconsistent with
the foregoing considerations and contravenes the avowed policy to achieve just, speedy and
inexpensiveresolutionofcases.

TheCourthasstatedonseveraloccasionsthatthepretrialformspartoftheproceedings,andmatters
dealtwiththereinmaynotbebrushedasideintheprocessofdecisionmaking.Otherwise,therealessence
[12]
ofcompulsorypretrialwouldbeinconsequentialandworthless.

With regard to the petitioners argument that they should be excused from the procedural blunder
committedbytheirformercounsel,theCourtfindsitbereftofmerit.Thepetitionerswerenotdenieddue
processandtheirrightswerenotviolatedwhentheircounsel,Atty.RaulMorales,agreedthattheonlyissue
thatneededtoberesolvedwastheauthenticityofthedeedofsaleinfavorofpetitionerTeofiloUrma.

Therewasnothingamissinenteringintosuchstipulations.Thepetitionersonlycriedfoulwhenthe
examination result turned out to be unfavorable to them. It was clearly stipulated that the parties would
abide by the results of the NBI dactylascopic examination. Both parties agreed to submit the questioned
documenttotheNBIwhereoneofitsexaminerswouldbeassignedtoconducttheexamination.Thus,the
parties did not reserve any right to question the expertise of the NBI examiner. Apparently, there was no
stipulationeitherthathewouldbecrossexaminedontheresult.

Grantingthattheircounselmadeamistakeinenteringintosuchstipulations,suchproceduralerror
unfortunatelyboundthem.TheCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthemistakeornegligenceofacounselinthe
area of procedural technique binds the client unless such mistake or negligence of counsel is so gross or
palpablethatwouldrequirethecourtstostepinandaccordrelieftotheclientwhosufferedthereby.Without
thisdoctrinalrule,therewouldneverbeanendtoasuitsolongasanewcounselcouldbeemployedto
[13]
allegeandshowthatthepriorcounselhadnotbeensufficientlydiligent,experienced,orlearned.

Finally, the Court finds the judgment of the RTC correct, fair and judicious considering that both
parties,beingthenearestofkinofthedeceasedspousesLaureanoandRosa,weregiventheirrightfulshares
in the subject property. As mentioned earlier, the judgment declared each of the respondents the absolute
ownerofoneeight(1/8)ofthepropertycoveredbyOCTNo.P1630equivalentto10,777squaremetersby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

5/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

ownerofoneeight(1/8)ofthepropertycoveredbyOCTNo.P1630equivalentto10,777squaremetersby
[14]
virtueofthenotarizeddeedsofdonations
executedintheirfavorbyRosaonFebruary22and23,1996.
Theremaining21,559squaremeterscoveredbyOCTNo.P1630aswellastheentirepropertycoveredby
OCTNo.P1812wasorderedpartitionedinfavorofallthepartiesinequalshares.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the September 18, 2007 Judgment of the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch11,Tuao,Cagayan,isherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURADIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ROBERTA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

6/7

11/2/2016

G.R.No.180836

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
[1]
Rollo,pp.3841.PennedbyJudgeOrlandoBeltran,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch11,Tuao,Cagayan.
[2]
Id.at4950.
[3]
Id.at4041.
[4]
Id.at42.
[5]
Id.at4245.
[6]
Supranote2.
[7]
Rollo,p.27.
[8]
Id.at30.
[9]
Id.at33.
[10]
Id.at119.
[11]
499Phil.655,671(2005).
[12]
AntonioLimTanhuv.Ramolete,160Phil.1101,1155(1975).
[13]
JaimeT.Torresv.ChinaBankingCorporation,G.R.No.165408,January15,2010.
[14]
Rollo,pp.5964.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/180836.htm

7/7