RPA, RN

Natividad vs. Natividad

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 198434, February 29, 2016

HEIRS OF LEANDRO NATIVIDAD AND JULIANA V. NATIVIDAD, Petitioners, v. JUANA MAURICIO-

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Challenged in the present petition for review on certiorari are the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dated February 7, 2011 and August 25, 2011, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 92840. The
assailed CA Decision modified the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 75,
in Civil Case No. 1637-02-SM, while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

The present petition arose from an action for specific performance and/or recovery of sum of money filed
against herein respondents by the spouses Leandro Natividad (Leandro) and Juliana Natividad (Juliana), who
are the predecessors of herein petitioners.

In their Complaint, Leandro and Juliana alleged that sometime in 1974, Sergio Natividad (Sergio), husband
of respondent Juana Mauricio-Natividad (Juana) and father of respondent Jean Natividad-Cruz (Jean),
obtained a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). As security for the loan, Sergio
mortgaged two parcels of land, one of which is co-owned and registered in his name and that of his siblings
namely, Leandro, Domingo and Adoracion. This property is covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
5980. Sergio's siblings executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing him to mortgage the said property.
The other mortgaged parcel of land, covered by OCT No. 10271, was registered in the name of Sergio and
Juana. Subsequently, Sergio died without being able to pay his obligations with DBP. Since the loan was
nearing its maturity and the mortgaged properties were in danger of being foreclosed, Leandro paid Sergio's
loan obligations. Considering that respondents were unable to reimburse Leandro for the advances he made
in Sergio's favor, respondents agreed that Sergio's share in the lot which he co-owned with his siblings and
the other parcel of land in the name of Sergio and Juana, shall be assigned in favor of Leandro and Juliana.
Leandro's and Sergio's brother, Domingo, was tasked to facilitate the transfer of ownership of the subject
properties in favor of Leandro and Juliana. However, Domingo died without being able to cause such
transfer. Subsequently, despite demands and several follow-ups made by petitioners, respondents failed and
refused to honor their undertaking.

1
 RPA, RN

Respondents filed their Answer denying the allegations in the complaint and raising the following defenses:
(1) respondents are not parties to the contract between Sergio and DBP; (2) there is neither verbal nor
written agreement between petitioners and respondents that the latter shall reimburse whatever payment
was made by the former or their predecessor-in-interest; (3) Jean was only a minor during the execution of
the alleged agreement and is not a party thereto; (4) that whatever liability or obligation of respondents is
already barred by prescription, laches and estoppel; (5) that the complaint states no cause of action as
respondents are not duty-bound to reimburse whatever alleged payments were made by petitioners; and (6)
there is no contract between the parties to the effect that respondents are under obligation to transfer
ownership in petitioners' favor as reimbursement for the alleged payments made by petitioners to DBP.

Respondents waived their right to present evidence and they merely filed their memorandum. Also, during
pendency' of the trial, Leandro died and was substituted by his heirs, herein petitioners.

On November. 4, 2008, the RTC rendered its Decision in favor of petitioners, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. Defendants Juana Mauricio [Vda.] de Natividad and Jean Natividad-Cruz are ordered to effect the transfer
of title in OCT No. 5980 with respect to the undivided share of the late Sergio Natividad; and in OCT No.
10271 both of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal in favor of plaintiff Juliana [Vda.] de Natividad
and the Heirs of the late Leandro Natividad.

2. Defendants to pay jointly and severally, attorney's fees in the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00); and cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.3ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, respondents filed an Appeal with the CA.

On February 7, 2011, the C A'promulgated its questioned Decision, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated November 4, 2008 is hereby
" MODIFIED in that defendants-appellants Juana Mauricio-Natividad and Jean Natividad-Cruz are ordered
instead to reimburse plaintiffs-appellees Juliana Natividad and the heirs of the late Leandro Natividad the
amount of P162,514.88 representing the amount of the loan obligation paid to the Development Bank of the
Philippines, plus legal interest of 12% per annum computed from June 23, 2001 until finality of the
judgment, the total amount of which shall be to the extent only of defendants-appellants' successional rights
in the mortgaged properties and Juana1 s conjugal share in [the] property covered by OCT No. 10271. The
award of attorney's fees and cost of suit are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Petitioners filed a Motion 'for Partial Reconsideration, while respondents filed their own Motion for
Reconsideration, both of which, however, were denied by the CA in its assailed Resolution dated August 25,
2011.

Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:

I. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING THAT THE VERBAL AGREEMENT
TO CONVEY THE PROPERTY SHARES OF SERGIO NATIVIDAD IN THE PAYMENT OF HIS OBLIGATION
IS COVERED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN PARTIALLY
EXECUTED, IS CONTRARY TO EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.

II. WITH DUE RESPECT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INTEREST
ON THE UNPAID LOAN OBLIGATION SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON JUNE 23, 2001, DATE OF THE
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT INSTEAD OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1994, WHEN THE PARTIES VERBALLY AGREED
TO CONVEY THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE EXTRAJUDIC1AL SETTLEMENT
OF ESTATE OF SERGIO NATIVIDAD.5

2
 RPA, RN

Petitioners, insist that there was a verbal agreement between respondents and Leandro, their predecessor-
in-interest, wherein the subject properties shall be assigned to the latter as reimbursement for the
payments he made in Sergio's favor. To support this contention, petitioners relied heavily on the
Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, which was executed by respondents to prove that there was indeed
such an agreement and that such a Settlement is evidence of the partial execution of the said agreement.
The provisions of the said Settlement are as follows:

EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AMONG HEIRS

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT, made and entered into by and among:

JUAN M. NATIVIDAD, widow; JEAN N. CRUZ, married to JERRY CRUZ; JOSELITO M. NATIVIDAD, single, all of
legal age, Filipino citizens, and residents of Malanday, San Mateo, Rizal

WITNESSETH

That the above-named parties, is the legitimate wife and children and sole heirs of the deceased SERGIO
NATIVIDAD, who died in San Mateo, Rizal on May 31, 1981;

That the said deceased, at the time of his death, left certain real estate properties located at San Mateo,
Rizal, and Montalban, Rizal, more particularly described as follows:

a. A whole portion of a parcel of land (Plan Psu-295655, L.R. Case No. Q-29, L.R.C. Record No. N-295
________ , situated in the Barrio of Malanday, Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, containing an
area of TWO HUNDRED EIGHT (208) SQUARE METERS, more or less, and covered by OCT NO. 10271.

b. A one-fourth (1/4) share in the parcel of land situated in Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal, containing an area
of 2,742 square meters, Covered by OCT No. 10493.

c. A one-fourth (1/4) share in the parcel of land situated in San Jose, Montalban, Rizal, containing an area of
4,775 square meters, and covered by OCT No. ON-403.

d.  A one-fourth (1/4) share in the parcel of land situated in Cambal, San Mateo, Rizal, containing an area of
13,456 square meters, and covered by OCT No. 5980.

That no other personal properties are involved in this extrajudicial settlement.

That to the best knowledge and information of the parties hereto, the said deceased left certain obligations
amounting to PI75,000.00 representing loan obligations with the Development Bank of the Philippines.

That a notice of this extrajudicial settlement had been published once a week for three consecutive weeks
in____________ a newspaper of general circulation in ___________, as certified by the said newspaper
hereto attached as Annex "A";

That the parties hereto being all of legal age and with full civil capacity to contract, hereby by these
presents, agree to divide and adjudicate, as they hereby divide and adjudicate, among themselves the
above-described real estate property in equal shares and interest.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this document on this 2nd day of September, 1994 in San
Mateo, Rizal, Philippines.

x x x6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

After a careful reading of the abovequoted Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, the Court agrees with the
CA that there is nothing in the said document which would indicate that respondents agreed to the effect
that the subject properties shall be transferred in the name of Leandro as reimbursement for his payment of
Sergio's loan obligations with the DBP. On the contrary, the second to the last paragraph of the said
Settlement clearly shows that herein respondents, as heirs of Sergio, have divided the subject properties
exclusively among themselves.

3
 RPA, RN

There is no competent evidence to prove the verbal agreement being claimed by respondents. Aside from
the subject Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, the self-serving claims of Leandro on the witness stand,
as well as the cash voucher,7 which supposedly represented payment of P8,000.00 given to Atty. Domingo
Natividad for the expenses in transferring the title of the subject properties in Leandro's favor, would hardly
count as competent evidence in the eyes of the law. Respondents' claim of the existence of a verbal
agreement between them, on one hand, and petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, on the other, remains to
be mere allegation. It is an age-old rule in civil cases that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence.8

In relation to petitioners' contention that the subject verbal agreement actually existed, they-reiterate their
contention that the conveyance of the subject properties in their favor is not covered by the Statute of
Frauds because they claim that respondents' execution of the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs
constitutes partial  execution of  their alleged agreement.

The Court does not agree.

Suffice it to say that there is no partial execution of any contract, whatsoever, because petitioners failed to
prove, in the first place, that there was a verbal agreement that was entered into.

Even granting that such an agreement existed, the CA did not commit any error in ruling that the
assignment of the shares of Sergio in the subject properties in petitioners' favor as payment of Sergio's
obligation cannot be enforced if there is no written contract to such effect. Under the Statute of Frauds9, an
agreement to convey real properties shall be unenforceable by action in the absence of a written note or
memorandum thereof and subscribed by the party charged or by his agent. As earlier discussed, the pieces
of evidence presented by petitioners, consisting of respondents' acknowledgment of Sergio's loan obligations
with DBP as embodied in the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, as well as the cash voucher which
allegedly represents payment for taxes and transfer of title in petitioners' name do not serve as written
notes or memoranda of the alleged verbal agreement.

The foregoing, notwithstanding, the Court finds it proper to reiterate the CA ruling that, in any case, since
respondents had already acknowledged that Sergio had, in fact, incurred loan obligations with the DBP, they
are liable to reimburse the amount paid by Leandro for the payment of the said obligation even if such
payment was made without their knowledge or consent.

Article 1236 of the Civil Code clearly provides that:

The creditor is not bound to accept payment or performance by a third person who has no interest in the
fulfillment of the obligation, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.

Whoever pays for another may demand from the debtor what he has paid, except that if he paid
without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor, he can recover only insofar as the
payment has been beneficial to the debtor. (Emphasis supplied)

Neither can respondents evade liability by arguing that they were not parties to the contract between Sergio
and the DBP. As earlier stated, the fact remains that, in the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs,
respondents clearly acknowledged Sergio's loan obligations with the DBP. Being Sergio's heirs, they succeed
not only to the rights of Sergio but also to his obligations.

The following provisions of the Civil Code are clear on this matter, to wit:

Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the
extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others
either by will or by operation of law.

Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not
extinguished by his death.

Art. 781. The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the transmissible rights and
obligations existing at the time of his death, but also those which have accrued thereto since the opening of
the succession.

4
 RPA, RN

In the present case, respondents, being heirs of Sergio, are now liable to settle his transmissible obligations,
which include the amount due to petitioners, prior to the distribution of the remainder of Sergio's estate to
them, in accordance with Section I,10 Rule 90 of the Rules of Court.

As to when the interest on the sum due from respondents should be reckoned, the Court finds no error in
the ruling of the CA that such interest should be computed from June 23, 2001, the date when petitioners
made a written demand for the payment of respondents' obligation.11 There is no merit in petitioners'
contention that the reckoning date should have been September 23, 1994, the date when respondents
executed the Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs, because there is nothing therein to prove that
petitioners, at that time, made a demand for reimbursement.

However, the rate of interest should be modified in view of the issuance of Circular No. 799, Series of 2013
by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB). The said Circular reduced the "rate of interest
for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the
absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest," from twelve percent (12%) to six percent
(6%) per annum. The Circular was made effective on July 1-, 2013. Hence, under the modified guidelines in
the imposition of interest, as laid down in the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames,12 this Court held that:

xxxx

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the
rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:

1.  When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of  a sum  of  money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in  writing.
Furthermore,  the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum  to  be  computed  from  default,  i.e., 
from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2.  When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money,  is breached,  an  interest on the
amount  of damages awarded  may  be imposed  at  the discretion, of the court at the rate of 6% per
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages,  except when or  until
the  demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established
with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art.  1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the
time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is
made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).
The .actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.

3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be
6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by
then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. (Emphasis supplied)

x x x13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The Court explained that:

[F]rom the foregoing, in the absence of an express stipulation as to the rate of interest that would govern
the parties, the rate of legal interest for loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate
allowed in judgments shall no longer be twelve percent (12%)  per annum -as reflected in the case
of Eastern Shipping Lines and Subsection X305.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Btoks and Sections
4305Q.1, 4305S.3 and 4303P.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions, before its
amendment by BSP-MB Circular No. 799 - but will now be six percent (6%) per annum effective July 1,
2013. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the new rate could only be applied prospectively and not
retroactively. Consequently, the twelve percent (12%) per annum legal interest shall apply only until June
3.0, 2013. Come July 1, 2013, the new rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the prevailing rate of
interest when applicable.14

Thus, in accordance with the above ruling, the rate of interest on the principal amount due to petitioners
shall be 12% from June 23, 2001, the date when petitioners made a demand for payment, to June 30,

5
 RPA, RN

2013. From July 1, 2013, the effective date of BSP-MB Circular No. 799, until full satisfaction of the
monetary award, the rate of interest shall be 6%.-

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated
February 7, 2011 and August 25, 2011, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 92840
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by ORDERING respondents to pay petitioners, in addition to the
principal amount of P162,514.88, interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
computed from June 23, 2001 to June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%)  per annum from July 1, 2013 until
full satisfaction of the judgment award.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary