80 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 104482. January 22, 1996.
BELINDA TAÑEDO, for herself and in representation of her

brothers and sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ TAÑEDO,
representing her minor daughter VERNA TAÑEDO, petitioners, vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAÑEDO
AND TERESITA BARERA TAÑEDO, respondents.
Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Supreme Court; The

“errors” which are reviewable by the Supreme Court in a petition for
review on certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals are only those
committed by said court, and not directly those of the trial court.—At the
outset, let it be clear that the “errors” which are reviewable by this Court in
this petition for review on certiorari are only those allegedly committed by
the respondent Court of Appeals and not directly those of the trial court,
which is not a party here. The “assignment of errors” in the petition quoted
above are therefore totally misplaced, and for that reason, the petition
should be dismissed. But in order to give the parties substantial justice we
have decided to delve into the issues as above re-stated. The errors
attributed by petitioners to the latter (trial) court will be discussed
______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
81
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 81
only insofar as they are relevant to the appellate court’s assailed Decision
and Resolution.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b56d65b416f6476d8000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/12
Succession; Contracts; Sales; No contract may be entered into upon a

future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law—such a
contract is not valid and cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of
any obligation between the parties.—The sale made in 1962 involving
future inheritance is not really at issue here. In context, the assailed
Decision conceded “it may be legally correct that a contract of sale of
anticipated future inheritance is null and void.” But to remove all doubts, we
hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code,
“(n)o contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases
expressly authorized by law.” Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is
not valid and cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any
obligation between the parties.
Same; Same; Same; An “affidavit of conformity” seeking to validate or

ratify a sale of future inheritance is useless.—Hence, the “affidavit of
conformity” dated February 28, 1980, insofar as it sought to validate or
ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of the respondent
Court, “suffers from the same infirmity.” Even private respondents in their
memorandum concede this.
Land Registration; Sales; Ownership; Ownership in an immovable

shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it first in the registry of
property.—The property in question is land, an immovable, and following
the above-quoted law, ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith
registers it first in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of sale in
favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners,
ownership would vest in the former because of the undisputed fact of
registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to
them at all.
Same; Same; Same; Possession; As between two purchasers, the one

who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who
has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the
immovable property.—Petitioners contend that they were in possession of
the property and that private respondents never took possession thereof. As
between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a
preferred right over the
82
other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession
of the immovable property.
Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; In petitions for review

under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be
raised and passed upon, and absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of
judgment, and unless the lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the
lower courts be amply demonstrated, the Supreme Court will not disturb
their findings.—To be sure, there are indeed many conflicting documents
and testimonies as well as arguments over their probative value and
significance. Suffice it to say, however, that all the above contentions
involve questions of fact, appreciation of evidence and credibility of
witnesses, which are not proper in this review. It is well-settled that the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review under Rule 45
of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised and
passed upon. Absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, and
unless the lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the lower courts be
amply demonstrated, the Supreme Court will not disturb their findings.
Same; Evidence; The mere fact that a party’s evidence was not believed
by both the trial court and the appellate courts, and that the said courts
tended to give more credence to the evidence presented by the other party, is
in itself not a reason for setting aside such courts’ findings.—At most, it
appears that petitioners have shown that their evidence was not believed by
both the trial and the appellate courts, and that the said courts tended to give
more credence to the evidence presented by private respondents. But this in
itself is not a reason for setting aside such findings. We are far from
convinced that both courts gravely abused their respective authorities and
judicial prerogatives.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Jose T. Bartolome for petitioners.
Joselito L. Lim for private respondents.
83
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 83

PANGANIBAN, J.:
Is a sale of future inheritance valid? In multiple sales of the same

real property, who has preference in ownership? What is the
probative value of the lower court’s finding of good faith in
registration of such sales in the registry of property? These are the
main questions raised in this Petition for review on certiorari under1
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside and reverse the Decision
2
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV NO. 24987 promulgated on
September 26, 1991 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 63, Third Judicial Region, Tarlac, Tarlac in Civil Case
No. 6328, and its Resolution denying reconsideration thereof,
promulgated on May 27, 1992.
By the Court’s Resolution on October 25, 1995, this case (along
with several others) was transferred from the First to the Third
Division and after due deliberation, the Court assigned it to the
undersigned ponente for the writing of this Decision.
The Facts
On October 20, 1962, Lazaro Tañedo executed a notarized deed of

absolute sale in favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Tañedo, and the
latter’s wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents herein, whereby he
conveyed to the latter in consideration of P1,500.00, “one hectare of
whatever share I shall have over Lot No. 191 of the cadastral survey
of Gerona, Province of Tarlac and covered by Title T-13829 of the
Register of Deeds of Tarlac,” the said property being his “future
inheritance” from his parents (Exh. 1). Upon the death of his father
Matias, Lazaro executed an “Affidavit of Conformity” dated
February 28, 1980 (Exh. 3) to “re-affirm, respect,
______________
1 Rollo, pp. 58-64.

2 Thirteenth Division, composed of J. Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, ponente, and JJ.
Arturo B. Buena, chairman, and Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., member.
84

acknowledge and validate the sale I made in 1962.” On January 13,

1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of
private respondents covering his “undivided ONE TWELVE (1/12)
of a parcel of land known as Lot 191 x x x” (Exh. 4). He
acknowledged therein his receipt of P10,000.00 as consideration
therefor. In February 1981, Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the
same property to his children, petitioners herein, through a deed of
sale dated December 29, 1980 (Exh. E). On June 7, 1982, private
respondents recorded the Deed of Sale (Exh. 4) in their favor in the
Registry of Deeds and the corresponding entry was made in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 166451 (Exh. 5).
Petitioners on July 16, 1982 filed a complaint for rescission (plus
damages) of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private
respondents covering the property inherited by Lazaro from his
father.
Petitioners claimed that their father, Lazaro, executed an

“Absolute Deed of Sale” dated December 29, 1980 (Exh. E),
conveying to his ten children his allotted portion under the
extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs of Matias, which deed
included the land in litigation (Lot 191).
Petitioners also presented in evidence: (1) a private writing
purportedly prepared and signed by Matias dated December 28,
1978, stating that it was his desire that whatever inheritance Lazaro
would receive from him should be given to his (Lazaro’s) children
(Exh. A); (2) a typewritten document dated March 10, 1979 signed
by Lazaro in the presence of two witnesses, wherein he confirmed
that he would voluntarily abide by the wishes of his father, Matias,
to give to his (Lazaro’s) children all the property he would inherit
from the latter (Exh. B); and (3) a letter dated January 1, 1980 of
Lazaro to his daughter, Carmela, stating that his share in the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his father was intended for
his children, petitioners herein (Exh. C).
Private respondents, however presented in evidence a “Deed of
Revocation of a Deed of Sale” dated March 12, 1981 (Exh. 6),
wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of peti-
85
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 85

tioners for the reason that it was “simulated or fictitious—without

any consideration whatsoever.”
Shortly after the case a quo was filed, Lazaro executed a sworn
statement (Exh. G) which virtually repudiated the contents of the
Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale (Exh. 6) and the Deed of Sale
(Exh. 4) in favor of private respondents. However, Lazaro testified
that he sold the property to Ricardo, and that it was a lawyer who
induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of his children after
giving him five pesos (P5.00) to buy a “drink” (TSN September 18,
1985, pp. 204-205).
The trial court decided in favor of private respondents, holding
that petitioners failed “to adduce a preponderance of evidence to
support (their) claim.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court, ruling that the Deed of Sale dated January
13, 1981 (Exh. 9) was valid and that its registration in good faith
vested title in said respondents.
The Issues
Petitioners raised the following “errors” in the respondent Court,

which they also now allege in the instant Petition:
“I. The trial court erred in concluding that the Contract of Sale
of October 20, 1962 (Exhibit 7, Answer) is merely voidable
or annulable and not void ab initio pursuant to paragraph 2
of Article 1347 of the New Civil Code involving as it does
a ‘future inheritance.’
“II. The trial court erred in holding that defendants-appellees
acted in good faith in registering the deed of sale of January
13, 1981 (Exhibit 9) with the Register of Deeds of Tarlac
and therefore ownership of the land in question passed on to
defendants-appellees.
“III. The trial court erred in ignoring and failing to consider the
testimonial and documentary evidence of plaintiffs-
appellants which clearly established by preponderance of
evidence that they are indeed the legitimate and lawful
owners of the property in question.
86

“IV. The decision is contrary to law and the facts of the case and
the conclusions drawn from the established facts are
illogical and off-tangent.”
From the foregoing, the issues may be restated as follows:
1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid?

2. Was the subsequent execution on January 13, 1981 (and
registration with the Registry of Property) of a deed of sale
covering the same property to the same buyers valid?
3. May this Court review the findings of the respondent Court
(a) holding that the buyers acted in good faith in registering
the said subsequent deed of sale and (b) in “failing to
consider petitioners’ evidence”? Are the conclusions of the
respondent Court “illogical and off-tangent?”
The Court’s Ruling
At the outset, let it be clear that the “errors” which are reviewable by
this Court in this petition for review on certiorari are only those
allegedly committed by the respondent Court of Appeals and not
directly those of the trial court, which is not a party here. The
“assignment of errors” in the petition quoted above are therefore
totally misplaced, and for that reason, the petition should be
dismissed. But in order to give the parties substantial justice we have
decided to delve into the issues as above re-stated. The errors

attributed by petitioners to the latter (trial) court will be discussed
only insofar as they are relevant to the appellate court’s assailed
Decision and Resolution.
The sale made in 1962 involving future inheritance is not really
at issue here. In context, the assailed Decision conceded “it may be
legally correct that a contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance
3
is null and void.”
______________
3 CA Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 62.
87
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 87

But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant

to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “(n)o contract may be entered into
upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by
law.”
Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot
be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between
the parties.
Hence, the “affidavit of conformity” dated February 28, 1980,
insofar as it sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless
and, in the words of the respondent Court, “suffers from the same
4
infirmity.” Even private respondents in their memorandum concede
this.
However, the documents that are critical to the resolution of this
case are: (a) the deed of sale of January 13, 1981 in favor of private
respondents covering Lazaro’s undivided inheritance of one-twelfth
(1/12) share in Lot No. 191, which was subsequently registered on
June 7, 1982; and (b) the deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 in
favor of petitioners covering the same property. These two
documents were executed after the death of Matias (and his spouse)
and after a deed of extra-judicial settlement of his (Matias’) estate
was executed, thus vesting in Lazaro actual title over said property.
In other words, these dispositions, though conflicting, were no
longer infected with the infirmities of the 1962 sale.
Petitioners contend that what was sold on January 13, 1981 was
only one-half hectare out of Lot No. 191, citing as authority the trial
court’s decision. As earlier pointed out, what is on review in these
proceedings by this Court is the Court of Appeals’ decision—which
correctly identified the subject matter of the January 13, 1981 sale to
be the entire undivided 1/12 share of Lazaro in Lot No. 191 and
which is the same property disposed of on December 29, 1980 in

favor of petitioners.
______________
4 At pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 145-146.
88

Critical in determining which of these two deeds should be given

effect is the registration of the sale in favor of private respondents
with the register of deeds on June 7, 1982.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of
vendees in cases of multiple sales, as follows:
“Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the
person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person
who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to
the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”
The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the

above-quoted law, ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good
faith registers it first in the registry of property. Thus, although the
deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in
favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because of
the undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners
have not registered the sale to them at all.
Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property
and that private respondents never took possession thereof. As
between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor
has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title,
5
even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property.
______________
5 Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 213 (March 13, 1989).
89
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 89
As to third issue, while petitioners conceded the fact of registration,

they nevertheless contended that it was done in bad faith. On this
issue, the respondent Court ruled:
“Under the second assignment of error, plaintiffs-appellants contend that

defendants-appellees acted in bad faith when they registered the Deed of
Sale in their favor as appellee Ricardo already knew of the execution of the
deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs; appellants cite the testimony of
plaintiff Belinda Tañedo to the effect that defendant Ricardo Tañedo called
her up on January 4 or 5, 1981 to tell her that he was already the owner of
the land in question ‘but the contract of sale between our father and us were
(sic) already consummated’ (pp. 9-10, tsn, January 6, 1984). This testimony
is obviously self-serving, and because it was a telephone conversation, the
deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 was not shown; Belinda merely told
her uncle that there was already a document showing that plaintiffs are the
owners (p. 80). Ricardo Tañedo controverted this and testified that he
learned for the first time of the deed of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of
his children ‘about a month or sometime in February 1981’ (p. 111, tsn,
6
Nov. 28, 1984). x x x”
The respondent Court, reviewing the trial court’s findings, refused to

overturn the latter’s assessment of the testimonial evidence, as
follows:
“We are not prepared to set aside the finding of the lower court upholding
Ricardo Tañedo’s testimony, as it involves a matter of credibility of
witnesses which the trial judge, who presided at the hearing, was in a better
position to resolve.” (Court of Appeals’ Decision, p. 6.)
In this connection, we note the tenacious allegations made by

petitioners, both in their basic petition and in their memorandum, as
follows:
1. The respondent Court allegedly ignored the claimed fact

that respondent Ricardo “by fraud and deceit and with
foreknowledge” that the property in ques-
______________
6 Court of Appeals’ Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 63.
90

tion had already been sold to petitioners, made Lazaro

execute the deed of January 13, 1981;
2. There is allegedly adequate evidence to show that only 1/2
of the purchase price of P10,000.00 was paid at the time of
the execution of the deed of sale, contrary to the written
acknowledgment, thus showing bad faith;
3. There is allegedly sufficient evidence showing that the deed
of revocation of the sale in favor of petitioners “was tainted
with fraud or deceit.”
4. There is allegedly enough evidence to show that private
respondents “took undue advantage over the weakness and
unschooled and pitiful situation of Lazaro Tañedo . . .” and
that respondent Ricardo Tañedo “exercised moral
ascendancy over his younger brother he being the eldest
brother and who reached fourth year college of law and at
one time a former Vice-Governor of Tarlac, while his
younger brother only attained first year high school x x x”;
5. The respondent Court erred in not giving credence to
petitioners’ evidence, especially Lazaro Tañedo’s
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated July 27, 1982 stating that
Ricardo Tañedo deceived the former in executing the deed
of sale in favor of private respondents.
To be sure, there are indeed many conflicting documents and

testimonies as well as arguments over their probative value and
significance. Suffice it to say, however, that all the above contentions
involve questions of fact, appreciation of evidence and credibility of
witnesses, which are not proper in this review. It is well-settled that
the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law
may be raised and passed upon. Absent any whimsical or capricious
exercise of judgment, and unless the lack of any basis for the
conclusions made by the lower courts be amply demonstrated, the
Supreme Court will not disturb their findings. At most, it appears
that petitioners have shown that their evidence was
91
VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 91

not believed by both the trial and the appellate courts, and that the
said courts tended to give more credence to the evidence presented
by private respondents. But this in itself is not a reason for setting
aside such findings. We are far from convinced that both courts
gravely abused their respective authorities and judicial prerogatives.
As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of

7
Appeals and Goldrock Construction and Development Corp.:
“The Court has consistently held that the factual findings of the trial court,
as well as the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be
reviewed on appeal. Among the exceptional circumstances where a
reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is allowed are when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or
impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
facts; when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; when
the findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to
the admissions of both appellant and appellee. After a careful study of the
case at bench, we find none of the above grounds present to justify the re-
evaluation of the findings of fact made by the courts below.”
In the same vein, the ruling in the recent case of South Sea Surety
8
and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. is
equally applicable to the present case:
“We see no valid reason to discard the factual conclusions of the appellate
court. x x x (I)t is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate all
over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the
parties, particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court
and the appellate court on the matter coincide.” (italics supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of

the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. No costs.
______________
7 G.R. No. 112130, March 31, 1995; J. Flerida Ruth P. Romero, ponente.
8 G.R. No. 102253, June 2, 1995; J. Jose C. Vitug, ponente.
92

Valmonte vs. Court of Appeals
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco,

JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.—The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution

of wills is to close the door against bad faith and fraud, accordingly,
laws on this subject should be interpreted to attain these primordial
ends. (Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 488 [1994])
In the absence of proof of gross inadequacy of the price, the fact

that the sale was made with what might appear as an inadequate
consideration does not make the contract one of mortgage. (Noel vs.
Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 78 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

80 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

80 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

80 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/18/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 252

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

BELINDA TAÑEDO, for herself and in representation of her

Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; Supreme Court; The

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 81

Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

Succession; Contracts; Sales; No contract may be entered into upon a

Same; Same; Same; An “affidavit of conformity” seeking to validate or

Land Registration; Sales; Ownership; Ownership in an immovable

Same; Same; Same; Possession; As between two purchasers, the one

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; In petitions for review

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 83

Is a sale of future inheritance valid? In multiple sales of the same

September 26, 1991 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial

On October 20, 1962, Lazaro Tañedo executed a notarized deed of

1 Rollo, pp. 58-64.

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

acknowledge and validate the sale I made in 1962.” On January 13,

Petitioners claimed that their father, Lazaro, executed an

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 85

tioners for the reason that it was “simulated or fictitious—without

Petitioners raised the following “errors” in the respondent Court,

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

From the foregoing, the issues may be restated as follows:

1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid?

The Court’s Ruling

decided to delve into the issues as above re-stated. The errors

3 CA Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 62.

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 87

But to remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant

which is the same property disposed of on December 29, 1980 in

4 At pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 145-146.

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Critical in determining which of these two deeds should be given

The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 89

Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals

As to third issue, while petitioners conceded the fact of registration,

“Under the second assignment of error, plaintiffs-appellants contend that

The respondent Court, reviewing the trial court’s findings, refused to

In this connection, we note the tenacious allegations made by

1. The respondent Court allegedly ignored the claimed fact

6 Court of Appeals’ Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 63.

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tion had already been sold to petitioners, made Lazaro

To be sure, there are indeed many conflicting documents and

VOL. 252, JANUARY 22, 1996 91

As held in the recent case of Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco,

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The object of the solemnities surrounding the execution

In the absence of proof of gross inadequacy of the price, the fact

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.