Heir of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas vs. The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc.

In an action for recovery of possession of registered land, the plaintiff must establish a positive right of possession. While the Supreme Court generally defers to factual findings of lower courts, it may reexamine the evidence when such findings are glaringly erroneous or unsupported by the record. To prove the contents of a lost document through secondary evidence, the offeror must strictly follow the hierarchy under Section 5, Rule 130: first, by presenting a copy; second, by a recital of its contents in an authentic document; or third, by testimony of witnesses. Self-serving documents and unauthenticated photocopies are insufficient to establish the existence and contents of a lost deed of sale. Furthermore, no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession under Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, and the defense of laches requires not merely delay but also prejudice to the adverse party and inequity in permitting the claim to be enforced.

Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas were the registered owners of Lot 90, Psd-37322, a 410-square meter parcel of land located at Poblacion 6, Midsayap, Cotabato, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-6097. Adjacent to this property is Lot 3924-A owned by The Christian and Missionary Alliance Churches of the Philippines, Inc. (CAMACOP), where its church is constructed. Since 1962, CAMACOP had been occupying the subject property, claiming it was purchased from Pastora Cardenas on May 31, 1962 for One Hundred Twenty Pesos (P120.00). Remedios Cardenas-Tumlos, the sole daughter and compulsory heir of the deceased spouses, resided in the United States and discovered CAMACOP's construction activities on the subject property only in the year 2000. After negotiations and demands failed, Remedios, represented by her daughter Janet Tumlos-Quizon through a Special Power of Attorney, filed an action for recovery of possession in 2009.

• The subject property is Lot 90, Psd-37322, with an area of 410 square meters, located at Poblacion 6, Midsayap, Cotabato, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-6097 and Tax Declaration No. K-019938, registered in the names of Pastora T. Cardenas and Eustaquio Cardenas.
• Remedios Cardenas-Tumlos is the sole daughter and compulsory heir of the deceased spouses Cardenas, and she resides in the United States of America.
• CAMACOP is a religious corporation owning the adjacent Lot 3924-A, Psd-12-013791, where its church is located.
• CAMACOP claimed that on May 31, 1962, it purchased the subject property from Pastora Cardenas for P120.00, allegedly evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale denominated as Doc. No. 491; Page No. 100; Book No. I; Series of 1962, notarized by Atty. Rodofolo T. Calud.
• CAMACOP alleged that all copies of the Deed of Sale were sent to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now DENR) for approval under Commonwealth Act No. 141 and were subsequently lost.
• CAMACOP presented as evidence letters from Atty. Calud to the DANR Secretary dated May 31, 1962, May 6, 1963, July 23, 1963, January 13, 1964, May 19, 1964, July 27, 1964, November 21, 1966, and December 23, 1968; an unsigned letter from Aurora B. Marcos of DANR dated March 2, 1964; a Sworn Affidavit of Rev. Leodegario C. Madrigal dated November 20, 1962; and a letter dated December 2, 1999 from Reo Repollo to Rev. Ferdinand Pabrua.
• CAMACOP's witness Eudecia M. Repollo, former Secretary-Treasurer of CAMACOP, testified that she paid P120.00 to Pastora Cardenas and co-signed the deed, but admitted on cross-examination that the property purchased measured only 110 square meters, not 410 square meters, and that she was sure it was only 110 square meters because the other portion was donated by Mr. Pascual Cocal.
• CAMACOP's other witnesses, Reo Repollo and Pastor Jerry Juarez, admitted they had no personal knowledge of the alleged sale or the preparation of the documents.
• Petitioner discovered CAMACOP's construction activities on the subject property only in the year 2000, after which she engaged in negotiations with CAMACOP and barangay officials, and sent formal demand letters in 2009 before filing suit.
• The Pre-Trial Order dated April 12, 2010 admitted that the property remained registered in the names of Pastora and Eustaquio Cardenas and was declared for tax purposes in their names, with real property taxes paid under Pastora's name in 2009 and 2010.
• Petitioner admitted in her Prayer for Relief that CAMACOP rightfully owned the 110-square meter portion of the subject property adjacent to Lot 3924-A.

• Remedios Cardenas-Tumlos, as the sole heir and represented by her attorney-in-fact, has a positive right to possess the subject property as evidenced by the Transfer Certificate of Title and tax declarations still in the names of her parents.
• CAMACOP failed to prove the existence and contents of the alleged 1962 Deed of Sale through competent secondary evidence.
• The letters presented by CAMACOP are self-serving and constitute inadmissible hearsay because they were authored by CAMACOP's own counsel and representatives.
• The documentary evidence consists of mere photocopies that were not properly authenticated under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
• CAMACOP's witness Eudecia Repollo admitted that the sale, if any, only covered 110 square meters, not the entire 410 square meters.
• The claim is not barred by prescription because the property is registered under the Torrens system, making the right to recover possession imprescriptible.
• The claim is not barred by laches because petitioner only discovered the occupation in 2000 and immediately took steps to assert her rights by engaging in negotiations and sending demand letters before filing suit in 2009.

• CAMACOP lawfully purchased the subject property from Pastora Cardenas on May 31, 1962, as evidenced by the Deed of Sale, and the owner's duplicate copy of the title was surrendered to the church representative.
• The copies of the Deed of Sale were transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for approval pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 141 and were subsequently lost, justifying the presentation of secondary evidence.
• CAMACOP's continuous occupation of the subject property for forty-seven (47) years since 1962 bars the claim by prescription.
• Petitioner slept on her rights for over forty (40) years since the death of her parents and only took formal action in 2009, rendering the claim barred by laches and stale demand.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court may reexamine the factual findings of the lower courts when such findings are glaringly erroneous or unsupported by the record.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Who between the heir of the registered owners and CAMACOP has the better right to possess the subject property.
  • Whether CAMACOP sufficiently proved the existence and contents of the purported 1962 Deed of Sale through secondary evidence.
  • Whether the petitioner's claim is barred by prescription.
  • Whether the petitioner's claim is barred by laches.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that while it is not a trier of facts, it may exercise its discretion to undergo a close examination of testimonial and documentary evidence where the findings of fact of the lower courts are not supported by the record or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute a serious abuse of discretion.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that petitioner established her positive right of possession through the admitted fact that the subject property remains registered in the names of her predecessors-in-interest and is declared for tax purposes in their names, supported by payment of real property taxes.
  • The Court found that CAMACOP failed to present sufficient secondary evidence to establish the existence and contents of the purported 1962 Deed of Sale. CAMACOP failed to present: (1) any copy of the deed; (2) any authentic document containing a recital of the deed's contents; and (3) any credible witness with personal knowledge of the deed's execution.
  • The letters of Atty. Calud were deemed self-serving because a party cannot make evidence for himself by writing letters containing the statements he wishes to prove.
  • The documents presented were mere photocopies that were not properly authenticated under Section 20, Rule 132, and were identified by witnesses who did not see their execution or know of the genuineness of the signatures.
  • Witness Eudecia Repollo's testimony established that if a sale occurred, it only covered 110 square meters, not the entire 410 square meters.
  • The Court ordered CAMACOP to turn over possession of the subject property to petitioner, except for the 110-square meter portion which CAMACOP was allowed to retain based on petitioner's express admission.
  • The Court held that prescription does not apply to registered land under Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which provides that no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
  • The Court held that laches does not apply because petitioner only discovered the occupation in 2000, immediately engaged in negotiations, and filed suit when CAMACOP failed to produce the deed. Mere delay without prejudice to the adverse party does not constitute laches.

• Action for Recovery of Possession — An action for the recovery of possession must be founded on positive rights on the part of the plaintiff and not merely on negative ones, such as the lack or insufficiency of title on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff must establish a better right to possess the property.
• Hierarchy of Secondary Evidence — Under Section 5, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, when the original document has been lost or destroyed, the offeror must prove its existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith, and may prove its contents by: (1) a copy, (2) by a recital of the contents in some authentic document, or (3) by testimony of witnesses, in the order stated.
• Self-Serving Evidence — A party cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter authored by himself containing the statements that he wishes to prove. Such documents are considered self-serving and insufficient to prove the facts asserted therein.
• Authentication of Private Documents — Under Section 20, Rule 132, before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
• Imprescriptibility of Registered Land — Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) provides that no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible.
• Laches Distinguished from Prescription — Laches is defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right, taken in conjunction with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, as will operate as a bar in equity. Laches is different from prescription: prescription is concerned with the fact of delay and is statutory, while laches is concerned with the effect of delay and is based on equity. Laches requires not merely delay but also prejudice to the adverse party.

• "A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter authored by himself containing the statements that he wishes to prove."
• "It is quite unbelievable and extraordinary that not even a single copy of the purported Deed of Sale was retained by CAMACOP or its counsel, considering the grave importance of such a document."
• "An action for the recovery of possession must be founded on positive rights on the part of the plaintiff and not merely on negative ones, as the lack or insufficiency of title, on the part of the defendant."
• "No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession."

• Lim v. Court of Appeals (242 Phil. 41) — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court may reexamine factual findings when they are not supported by the record or are glaringly erroneous.
• Florentino v. Cortes (18 Phil. 281) — Cited for the principle that an action for recovery of possession must be founded on positive rights of the plaintiff.
• Heirs of Brusas v. Court of Appeals (372 Phil. 47) — Cited for the rule that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property.
• Villanueva v. Balaguer (608 Phil. 463) — Cited for the principle that a party cannot create evidence for himself through self-serving letters.
• Reyes v. Court of Appeals (328 Phil. 171) — Cited for the rule that no title to registered land can be acquired by prescription.
• Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (281 Phil. 177) — Cited for the conclusiveness of Torrens titles and the indefeasibility of registered ownership.
• Umbay v. Alecha (220 Phil. 103) — Cited for the principle that the right to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible and that hereditary successors step into the shoes of their predecessor-in-interest.
• Heirs of Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan (160 Phil. 615) — Cited for the definition of laches and its distinction from prescription.
• Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals (332 Phil. 206) — Cited for the enumeration of the essential elements of laches.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs Petitions for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
• Section 5, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs the admissibility of secondary evidence when the original document is lost or destroyed.
• Section 20, Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence — Governs the authentication and proof of due execution of private documents.
• Section 47, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that no title to registered land shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
• Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) — Cited regarding the requirement of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for transfers of public land.