Lorenzana vs. Lelina

A Deed of Final Conveyance resulting from a levy on property not belonging to the judgment debtor is void and must be cancelled, and the boundaries stated in a deed of sale prevail over the area specified in determining the extent of land conveyed, pursuant to Article 1542 of the Civil Code.

Ambrosia Lelina, married to Aquilino Lelina, owned a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 14324-C in Bimmanga, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur. On April 1, 1975, she executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one-half of that property in favor of her son, respondent Rodolfo Lelina. Separately, petitioner Anita U. Lorenzana had obtained a final judgment against Aquilino in a collection case on March 20, 1975, and sought to enforce it by levying on the 16,047 sq. m. property registered under Ambrosia's name. The dispute arose when respondent discovered in August 1996 that a Deed of Final Conveyance and a new Tax Declaration had been issued in petitioner's name over the same property.

On April 1, 1975, Ambrosia Lelina, wife of Aquilino Lelina, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over one-half of an undivided parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 14324-C in favor of her son, respondent Rodolfo Lelina. The deed specified an area of only 810 sq. m. as the one-half portion conveyed, but it also contained the full description of the land covered by TD No. 14324-C, bounded on the north by Constancio Batac and the National Highway, on the east by Cecilio Lorenzana, on the south by a creek, and on the west by Andres Cuaresma. Immediately after the execution of the deed, respondent took possession of the property. The tenants—Fidel Labiano, Venancio Lagria, and Magdalena Lopez—continued to deliver his share of the produce from the property as well as from the remaining half of the land covered by TD No. 14324-C until December 1995.

Prior to the sale, petitioner Anita U. Lorenzana had filed a collection case against Aquilino, which resulted in a decision in her favor that became final on March 20, 1975, with an Entry of Judgment issued on April 10, 1975. To enforce that judgment, the sheriff levied on a 16,047 sq. m. property covered by TD No. 11-05370-A registered under Ambrosia's name. Petitioner claimed she emerged as the sole and highest bidder at the auction sale conducted on September 29, 1977, and a Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor and registered with the Register of Deeds on October 18, 1977. No redemption having been made within the one-year period, a Deed of Final Conveyance was issued in her favor on October 9, 1978, and registered on October 16, 1978. Petitioner testified that she did not immediately possess the levied property but only did so in 1995.

Around August 1996, respondent and his tenants were invited to the Municipal Agrarian Office of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, where they were informed that the property was already owned by petitioner by virtue of the Deed of Final Conveyance and TD No. 11-21367-A, both in petitioner's name. Respondent thereupon filed a complaint for quieting of title and cancellation of documents on September 24, 1996 with the RTC of Tagudin, Ilocos Sur. During trial, it was undisputed that the property described in the Deed of Absolute Sale was found within the levied property, and that both shared the same boundaries. Respondent also testified that the other half of the levied property was owned by Godofredo Lorenzana, with whom he had agreed that respondent would hold in trust the latter's share of the produce.

Petitioner's account of how she acquired ownership was internally inconsistent. In her Answer, she claimed ownership by virtue of being the highest bidder at the public auction to execute the judgment in the collection case. During her testimony, however, she claimed that the levied property was awarded to her husband by her father-in-law—the brother of Ambrosia—and that Aquilino was merely appointed as administrator of the land. The RTC found these inconsistencies glaring and declined to credit either version, treating her claim of ownership as anchored solely on the Deed of Final Conveyance. The RTC and CA both found that the levied property was Ambrosia's paraphernal property, that respondent had acquired his half before the auction sale, and that the levy and execution were therefore void.

• Best Evidence Rule: Petitioner argued that respondent's sole basis for his claim of ownership was the Deed of Absolute Sale, the original of which was not presented in court. Since only a photocopy was submitted, its contents were inadmissible for violating the best evidence rule, and respondent's claim of ownership should accordingly be denied.
• Area Limitation: Petitioner maintained that even if the Deed of Absolute Sale were considered in evidence, it only proved respondent's ownership over 810 sq. m., not half of the 16,047 sq. m. levied property. The area awarded should therefore be limited to what was prayed for in the complaint.
• Conjugal Ownership: Petitioner asserted that at the very least, the levied property was jointly owned by the spouses Ambrosia and Aquilino and could be validly held answerable for Aquilino's obligations. The Deed of Final Conveyance should not have been totally invalidated but should have been upheld as to the other half of the levied property.
• Trust Arrangement: Petitioner maintained that the lower courts should not have ordered the remaining half of the levied property to be held in trust by respondent, because the alleged landholding of Godofredo was not proven to be the same as or even part of the levied property.

• Quiet Title: Respondent claimed that a cloud appeared over his ownership and possession of the property when he discovered the Deed of Final Conveyance and Tax Declaration in petitioner's name, warranting an action for quieting of title and cancellation of documents.
• Scope of Claim: In his Memorandum dated December 16, 2004, respondent clarified that the land he was claiming was the one-half of the 16,047 sq. m. formerly covered by TD No. 14324-C described in the Deed of Absolute Sale, and prayed that his title to that portion be upheld.
• Trust for Godofredo: Respondent testified that the other half of the levied property had been sold to Godofredo Lorenzana, and that they agreed respondent would receive the proceeds of the produce on Godofredo's behalf.

• Ownership of the Property: Whether respondent is the owner of one-half (1/2) of the levied property comprising 16,047 sq. m.
• Cancellation of Documents: Whether the Deed of Final Conveyance and TD No. 11-21367-A, both in the name of petitioner, were correctly cancelled.

• Ownership of the Property: Yes. Respondent is the owner of half of the levied property, the Deed of Absolute Sale having been validly admitted in evidence and the boundaries therein prevailing over the stated area of 810 sq. m. under Article 1542 of the Civil Code.
• Cancellation of Documents: Yes. The Deed of Final Conveyance and TD No. 11-21367-A were correctly cancelled, having resulted from a void levy on Ambrosia's paraphernal property, which could not answer for her husband's separate obligation.

• Ownership of the Property: The Court affirmed respondent's ownership on several grounds. First, petitioner waived her objection under the best evidence rule. While the rule requires the original document when the contents are in issue, evidence not objected to at the proper time is deemed admitted. Respondent formally offered the Deed of Absolute Sale as Exhibit A on February 12, 2003; petitioner filed a Comment and Objection on February 21, 2003, but objected only on the ground that the deed was self-serving—not on best evidence grounds. The RTC admitted the deed on February 27, 2003. Having failed to specify the best evidence ground at the time of formal offer, petitioner waived that objection and could not raise it for the first time on appeal. Second, the deed, having been admitted, sufficiently proved respondent's ownership when coupled with his continuous possession from 1975 until 1995. Third, while the deed specified only 810 sq. m., the boundaries described therein matched those of the levied property under TD No. 11-05370-A and petitioner's TD No. 11-21367-A. Under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, where land is sold for a lump sum and boundaries are specified together with area, the vendor is bound to deliver all land within the boundaries even if it exceeds the stated area. Boundaries prevail over area in defining a piece of land. Fourth, respondent clarified his claim for one-half of the levied property in his Memorandum before the RTC, and petitioner was not deprived of due process, having actively participated in the proceedings and having admitted that the property was found within the levied property. Fifth, petitioner failed to prove her own ownership by preponderance of evidence. Her versions were inconsistent—claiming at different times that she acquired the property through the auction sale and that it was awarded to her husband by her father-in-law. These inconsistencies undermined her credibility, and her claim anchored solely on the Deed of Final Conveyance likewise failed.

• Cancellation of Documents: The Deed of Final Conveyance and TD No. 11-21367-A were correctly cancelled because they resulted from an invalid levy. Money judgments are enforceable only against property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. The determinative question is to whom the property belonged at the time of the levy and execution sale. Respondent acquired the property through the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1975, while petitioner bought the levied property at auction on September 29, 1977—respondent therefore already owned the property and it could not be levied for Aquilino's obligations. As to the other half, the levied property was Ambrosia's paraphernal property, as evidenced by TD No. 11-05370-A in her name, a provision in the Deed of Final Conveyance stating that Ambrosia exclusively owned the land, and petitioner's own admission in her Appellant's Brief. Paraphernal property may not answer for the husband's obligations. Even assuming the property were conjugal, it still could not be levied upon because petitioner presented no proof that the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family, and Aquilino's interest in conjugal property was merely inchoate prior to liquidation of the conjugal partnership. As to the other half attributed to Godofredo, the CA credited respondent's testimony that it was sold to Godofredo and that respondent would receive the produce on his behalf. Petitioner failed to prove her ownership over that portion. Petitioner's claim that respondent's failure to register the Deed of Absolute Sale or declare it for taxation purposes should benefit her was rejected, because petitioner had no valid claim over the property in the first place.

• Waiver of Objection to Admissibility of Evidence — Evidence not objected to at the proper time is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court. Objection to documentary evidence must be made at the time it is formally offered—after all witnesses of the offering party have testified—and the grounds must be specified. Grounds not raised at the proper time are deemed waived, even if the evidence would have been inadmissible if properly challenged. The appellate court may not consider any ground of objection except those raised at the proper time. In this case, petitioner objected to the Deed of Absolute Sale only as "self-serving" during the formal offer, not on best evidence grounds, thus waiving the best evidence objection.

• Boundaries Prevail Over Area in Land Sales — What defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in the description but its boundaries, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. Where land is sold for a lump sum and not at a rate per unit of measure, the boundaries determine the scope of the sale, not the area. Under Article 1542 of the Civil Code, where boundaries are specified together with area, the vendor is bound to deliver all land within the boundaries even when it exceeds the area stated in the contract. In this case, the boundaries in the Deed of Absolute Sale matched those of the levied property, so respondent's ownership extended to half of the entire property within those boundaries, notwithstanding the deed's reference to only 810 sq. m.

• Paraphernal Property Not Answerable for Spouse's Obligations — Paraphernal property may not be levied upon to satisfy the husband's obligations. Even if the property were conjugal, it may not be levied upon unless the obligation redounded to the benefit of the family, and the husband's interest in conjugal property is merely inchoate prior to liquidation of the conjugal partnership. The determinative question is to whom the property belonged at the time of the levy and execution sale. In this case, the levied property was Ambrosia's paraphernal property, Ambrosia was not a party to the collection case, and respondent had already acquired his half before the auction sale.

• Burden of Proof and Preponderance of Evidence in Civil Cases — He who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and upon the plaintiff in a civil case the burden of proof never parts. Once the plaintiff makes a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert it. The party having the burden of proof must produce preponderance of evidence, relying on the strength of its own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opposing party's. In this case, respondent established a prima facie case of ownership through the Deed of Absolute Sale and his possession, shifting the burden to petitioner, who failed to overcome it due to her inconsistent theories of acquisition.

• "What really defines a piece of land is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty mentioned in the description, but its boundaries laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine that boundaries prevail over area in determining the extent of land conveyed, a principle frequently cited in property disputes involving discrepancies between stated area and metes and bounds.

• "Money judgments are enforceable only against property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone." — This states the fundamental rule limiting execution to the judgment debtor's own property, the violation of which renders the levy and subsequent sale void.

• "In order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds specified." — This defines the procedural requirement for objecting to evidence, establishing that failure to specify grounds at the time of formal offer constitutes a waiver.

• "The determinative question here is to whom the property belongs at the time of the levy and execution sale." — This frames the critical inquiry in assessing the validity of a levy on execution, anchoring the Court's conclusion that the levy was void because respondent had already acquired the property.

• Catindig vs. Vda. de Meneses, G.R. Nos. 165851 & 168875, February 2, 2011 — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal under Rule 45, subject to recognized exceptions.
• Dantis vs. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013 — Cited for the doctrine on burden of proof, burden of evidence, and preponderance of evidence in civil cases, including the principle that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant.
• Balantakbo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108515, October 16, 1995 — Cited for the doctrine that boundaries, not area, define a piece of land and determine the scope of a sale made for a lump sum.
• Go vs. Yamane, G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006 — Cited for the rule that paraphernal property may not answer for the husband's obligations and that the husband's interest in conjugal property is merely inchoate prior to liquidation of the conjugal partnership.
• Gagoomal vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813, January 18, 2012 — Cited for the rule that money judgments are enforceable only against property unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor, and that a third person whose property is mistakenly levied upon may vindicate ownership through a separate action.
• People vs. Martin, G.R. No. 172069, January 30, 2008 — Cited for the rule that grounds for objection not raised at the proper time are deemed waived, and that the appellate court may not consider any ground except those raised below.

• Article 1542, Civil Code — Provides that in the sale of real estate made for a lump sum, there shall be no increase or decrease of price although there be a greater or lesser area than stated; and where boundaries are specified together with area, the vendor is bound to deliver all land within the boundaries even when it exceeds the area specified. Applied to hold that the boundaries in the Deed of Absolute Sale prevailed over the 810 sq. m. area stated, extending respondent's ownership to half of the entire 16,047 sq. m. property.
• Section 3, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court — Embodies the best evidence rule, requiring the original document when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. Applied in the context of petitioner's waived objection to the photocopy of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Section 36, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Requires that objection to admissibility of evidence be made at the proper time and that grounds be specified. Applied to hold that petitioner's failure to object on best evidence grounds during the formal offer constituted a waiver.
• Sections 34 & 35, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Govern the formal offer of documentary evidence after all witnesses have testified, specifying the purpose for which the evidence is offered. Applied to determine the proper time for objection.
• Section 16, Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court — Provides remedies for third persons whose property is levied upon to answer for another's indebtedness, including an independent separate action to vindicate ownership. Applied to uphold respondent's action for quieting of title.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.