Case Digest: Alcala vs. CA, October 31, 1956

Evidence | Rule 130

Reyes, J

Recit Ver:

The Court upheld the lower court's judgment that recognized the Plaintiffs-Appellees as owners of the remaining land after separating portions owned by Leandro Rangel and Maxima Alcala. It was determined that Alcala's purchase in 1930 was limited to about 8,547 square meters, while a portion was donated to Rangel and his wife as a marriage gift, leaving the Plaintiffs as heirs of Pedro Rangel entitled to the rest of the property.

The Court also upheld the decision to change the eastern boundary owner of the Appellants’ land from Manuel Rabago to Leandro Rangel, primarily based on Exhibit 4, which indicated that Appellant Maxima Alcala acknowledged Rangel's ownership of that land portion. The Appellants' claims that the document was fraudulent were unsupported, as Notary Public Jose Montemayor confirmed that a certified copy was made before the original was lost, making it admissible as secondary evidence. The court clarified that certification by the Bureau of Archives is not required for the admissibility of secondary evidence if the original is proven lost. Additionally, the Appellants’ argument regarding the notarial register's entry numbers was dismissed as unfounded, and substantial evidence confirmed Rangel's status as a boundary owner, supported by sales documents and Alcala's own admission recognizing Rangel as the adjoining owner.

Facts:

• In 1912, Pedro Rangel died.

• He left a parcel of land of approximately three hectares, bounded by:

1. Estero Cabatuan, 

2. Manuel Rabago, 

3. Vicente Montemayor, and 

4. Nicolas Navarro.

• Plaintiffs Bernarda Rangel, Maria Rangel, Leandro Rangel, Ursula Rangel, and Eufemia Rangel are heirs of Pedro Rangel.

• Eufemia's heir is Milagros Serna.

• In March 1914, Leandro Rangel married Marta Regines.

• Andrea Navarro, widow of Pedro Rangel, along with Pedro's heirs, donated one (1) hectare of land to Marta as a marriage gift.

• Marta and Leandro possessed the land until a legal dispute arose.

• In 1945, Maxima Alcala filed a forcible entry case against Leandro Rangel, claiming the land based on a pacto de retro sale from Andrea Navarro in 1930. 

• An amicable settlement was reached, with both parties renouncing claims, leading to the dismissal of the case.

• Maxima and her husband Hospicio Redito initiated another forcible entry case against Leandro.

• Court: Ruled in favor of Maxima and Hospicio, denying Leandro's motion for a new trial. 

• Leandro did not appeal, making the decision final.

• In March 1946, Leandro and the other heis filed a new case against Maxima, Hospicio Redito, and Justice of the Peace Nemesio Balonso to reclaim the disputed land.

• Lower Court:

• Maxima Alcala declared the owner of approximately 1 hectare of land (with corrected eastern boundary from Manuel Rabago to Leandro Rangel).

• Leandro Rangel and Marta Regines declared owners in fee simple of another 1 hectare of land, with the court ordering the delivery of this portion to them.

• Plaintiffs Bernalda Rangel, Martin Rangel, Ursula Rangel, and Eufemia Rangel (represented by Milagros Corna) declared owners of the remaining land portion after separating the previously designated properties, with delivery ordered to them.

• Defendants were ordered to pay P300 for the value of the owners' share of land products for the agricultural years 1945, 1946, and 1947.

Issues: 

1. Whether the lower court erred in adjucating a portion of the lot in question to Plaintiffs-Appellees. NO

2. Whether the lower court erred in “altering the eastern boundary owner of Appellants’ land from Manuel Rabago to Leandro Rangel” NO

3. Whether the lower court erred in condemning Appellants to pay P300 as the value of the owner’s share of the harvest of said land for the agricultural years 1945-1946 and 1946-1947. YES

Held:

In this Court, Appellants question the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the judgment of the lower court adjucating a portion of the lot in question to Plaintiffs-Appellees, and allege that said Court also erred in “altering the eastern boundary owner of Appellants’ land from Manuel Rabago to Leandro Rangel”, and in condemning Appellants to pay P300 as the value of the owner’s share of the harvest of said land for the agricultural years 1945-1946 and 1946-1947.

In so far as the Court of Appeals adjudged Plaintiffs-Appellees to be the owner of the remaining area of the land in question, after separating the portions thereof owned by the spouses Leandro Rangel and Marta Regines, and by Appellant Maxima Alcala, we did no error in the judgment appealed from. 

It is clear from the allegations of the complaint and the evidence that all that Appellant Alcala purchased in 1930 from Andrea Navarro, mother of the Plaintiffs, was a portion of the land in question of about 8,547 square meters (see R. A., p. 26); while another portion thereof of less than a hectare in area was donated by Plaintiffs and their mother Andrea Navarro to their brother Leandro Rangel and his wife Marta Regines in consideration of their marriage in 1914. Since the land now in question is about three hectares in area, the trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in declaring that Plaintiffs-Appellees are the owners of the remainder of said property, as heirs of their deceased father Pedro Rangel, the former owner thereof. Appellants cannot rightfully claim the whole land as described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, since their evidence shows that they are entitled to, and have been possessing, only a portion of said land of about 8,500 square meters.

As for that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals changing the eastern boundary owner of Appellants’ land from Manuel Rabago to Leandro Rangel, we see no reason to alter the same. This holding was based mainly on Exhibit 4, wherein Appellant Maxima Alcala appears to have recognized the ownership of Leandro Rangel of that portion of the land in question east of her property. There is no proof whatever to support Appellants’ claim that this document is spurious and anomalous. According to the findings of the Court of Appeals, Notary Public Jose Montemayor, before whom it was acknowledged, testified without objection during the trial in the Court below that the original thereof had been lost, but the Exhibit 4 was a certified copy which he made of the original before its loss. 

The Rules of Court do not require, as Appellants claim, that it should always be the Bureau of Archives who should make the certification of the loss of the original of a public document, in order that secondary evidence thereof could be admissible. As long as the originals thereof in the possession of the parties have been proven lost, a certified copy of the document made before it was lost is admissible as secondary evidence of its contents, and the burden of proof is upon the party questioning its correctness to show that it is not a true and authentic copy of the original. 

Appellants also claim that Exhibit 4 is anomalous, because its entry number in the notarial register of Notary Public Montemayor (Doc. No. 35, page 96, book 6) had allegedly jumped backward because of another document (Exhibit 8) acknowledged at an earlier date by Montemayor was identified as Doc. No. 86, page 65, book IV. The argument is clearly unfounded, since Exhibit 4 was entered in the sixth book of Montemayor’s register, while the earlier one, Exhibit 8, was entered in his fourth, or earlier, book, documents being consecutively entered in each book. In any case, with or without Exhibit 4, there is enough proof to show that Leandro Rangel is one of Appellant Alcala’s boundary owners;  namely, the sale in her favor Exhibit “1” showing Leandro Rangel to be her boundary owner in the south; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe survey plan of her land showing Leandro Rangel to be her boundary owner of the northeast and east (Exhibit “B”); and her own admission when she ordered the survey of her property, noted by the Court of Appeals (Decision p. 6), wherein “she recognized Leandro Rangel as the adjoining owner on the East of her land”.

We agree with the Appellants, however that the decisions of the Court below erred in ordering them to deliver to Plaintiffs and the spouses Landro Rangel and Marta Regines, those portion of the land in question belonging to the latter, and to pay them the owners’ share of the harvest of said land for the agricultural years 1945-1946 and 1946-1947. There is no evidence to show that Appellants have at any time possessed the entire lot of three hectares described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. On the other hand, both the lower Court and the Court of Appeals found that Appellants entered into the possession of only about 1 hectare of the land, the seedling capacity of which is only 14 gantas, and that its survey of the land possessed by Appellants showed that its area was only 8,899 square meters. Furthermore, the decision in the previous case No. 709, which has become final is conclusive that it was Leandro Rangel who usurped the land of the Appellants, and not vice-versa. In fact, the basis of Appellees’ present claim for damages is the alleged nullity of the sale by their mother in favor of Maxima Alcala, and this claim was rejected by both Courts below. Hence the award of damages is without factual or legal basis.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified by eliminating that part of the same requiring Defendants to deliver to Plaintiffs Bernardo Rangel, et al., and to the spouses Leandro Rangel and Marta Regines, the portions of the land in question pertaining to them, as well as that part thereof condemning Defendants to pay damages to Plaintiffs. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. No costs in this Instance. SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Felix, JJ., concur.