hernandez vs hernandez

7/25/2019 Hernandez vs Hernandez

1/8

G.R. No. 158576 March 9, 2011

CORNELIA M. HERNANDEZ,Petitioner,vs.CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PEREZ, J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review1of the Decision of the Court of ppea!s in C"#.R. C$ No.%&1'()dated )* +a )&&-. he appe!!ate court reversed the Decision of the Re/iona! ria!Court of +a0ati, Branch 1& 2RC Branch 1&3, in Civi! Case No. &&"11(' -dated 1) 4e5ruar)&&1, dec!arin/ that the 6uitc!ai7 si/ned 5 the petitioner is va!id and incontroverti5!e.

he controvers 5etween the parties 5e/an when the Repu5!ic of the Phi!ippines, throu/h theDepart7ent of Pu5!ic 8or0s and 9i/hwas 2DP893, offered to purchase a portion of a parce! of

!and with an area of '&,1-- s6uare 7eters, covered 5 C No. "-:%1

(

of the Re/istr ofDeeds for anauan, Batan/as, !ocated at San Rafae!, Sto. o7as, Batan/as, for use in thee;pansion of the South


2/8

8e wi!! /ive ou One housand 4ive 9undred 2P',&&.&&3 2sic3 Pesos each for the preparationof the p!eadin/ 5efore the Re/iona! ria! Court and such other reasona5!e e;penses of !iti/ationpro"indiviso.

$er ru! ours,

2S/d.3 PCENCI 4. 9ERNNDEF

2S/d.3 CORNE


3/8

7oved for the withdrawa! of her one"third 21H-3 share of the ?ust co7pensation, which ise6uiva!ent to Seven +i!!ion hree 9undred went"One housand 4ive 9undred Pesos2P%,-)1,&&.&&3 the a7ount a pro"indiviso owner is to receive.

In the Order1'dated )( >anuar )&&&, >ud/e Rosa!es, even with the irre/u!arit that the 7otionto withdraw was not fi!ed 5 the counse! of record, /ranted the 7otion of petitioner, with the

condition that the 7one sha!! 5e re!eased on! to the attorne"in"fact, +r. Ceci!io 4. 9ernande=.he tria! court too0 co/ni=ance of the irrevoca5!e nature of the SP dated 1' Octo5er1**:.1*Ceci!io, therefore, was a5!e to /et not ?ust one"third 21H-3 of, 5ut the entire su7 of wentOne +i!!ion, Nine 9undred Si;t"4our housand 4ive 9undred Pesos 2P)1,*:(,&&.&&3.

On % 4e5ruar )&&&, Corne!ia received fro7 Ceci!io a Ban0 of the Phi!ippine Is!ands Chec0a7ountin/ to One +i!!ion One 9undred went"hree housand Pesos 2P1,1)-,&&&.&&3.)&hechec0 was however acco7panied 5 a Receipt and @uitc!ai7)1docu7ent in favor of Ceci!io. Inessence it states thatA 213 the a7ount received wi!! 5e the share of Corne!ia in the ?ustco7pensation paid 5 the /overn7ent in the e;propriated propert 2)3 in consideration of thepa7ent, it wi!! re!ease and forever dischar/e Ceci!io fro7 an action, da7a/es, c!ai7s orde7ands and 2-3 Corne!ia wi!! not institute an action and wi!! not pursue her co7p!aint or

opposition to the re!ease to Ceci!io or his heirs or assi/ns, of the entire a7ount deposited in theud/e Feus C.5ro/ar denied the 7otion and nu!!ified the 6uitc!ai7 in favor of Ceci!io. he fa!!o of the casereadsA

89ERE4ORE, ?ud/7ent is here5 rendered in favor of the p!aintiff and a/ainst the defendant,dec!arin/ the receipt and 6uitc!ai7 si/ned 5 the p!aintiff dated 4e5ruar %, )&&& as nu!! andvoid and orderin/ the defendant to pa the p!aintiff the a7ount of

1. P:,1*',(1%.:&, inc!udin/ the accrued interest thereon with 1) per annu7, co7putedfro7 the date of the fi!in/ hereof unti! the said a7ount is fu!! paid

). pa7ent of P)&&,&&&.&& to the p!aintiff 5 the defendant 5 wa of 7ora! da7a/es

-. attorneGs fees in the su7 of P1&&,&&&.&& and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_158576_2011.html#fnt27


4/8

(. cost of suit.)'

//rieved, Ceci!io appea!ed the Decision of the tria! court. he Court of ppea!s did not discusswhether the defau!t order was proper. 9owever, the appe!!ate court, in its Decision dated )*+a )&&- reversed and set aside the ru!in/ of the tria! court. he dispositive portion readsA

89ERE4ORE, pre7ises considered, the Decision dated 4e5ruar 1), )&&1, of the Re/iona!ria! Court of +a0ati, Nationa! Capita! >udicia! Re/ion, Branch 1&, in Civi! Case No. &&"11(', ishere5 RE$ERSED and SE SIDE and a new one is entered orderin/ the dis7issa! of theco7p!aint fi!ed on Septe75er 1-, )&&& 5 the appe!!ee a/ainst the appe!!ant. Nopronounce7ent as to costs.)*

Petitioner Corne!ia now su57its that the Court of ppea!s erred in ho!din/ the va!idit of thereceipt and 6uitc!ai7 docu7ent contrar to !aw and ?urisprudence.-&She ho!ds that thedistri5ution of award that transpired is un?ust and pras that the decision of the RC Branch 1&of +a0ati 5e reinstated.

8e a/ree.

he tria! court awarded the 9ernande= fa7i!, a7on/ others, a tota! a7ount of P)1,*:(,&&.&&for the e;propriation of 1(,:(- s6uare 7eters of !and to 5e used as e;tension of the South


5/8

It was on these 5ase and cei!in/ prices, conditions which principa!! 7oved 5oth parties to enterinto the a/ree7ent on the sche7e of co7pensation, that an o5vious 7ista0e was 7ade. hetria! court, deviatin/ fro7 the princip!e that ?ust co7pensation is deter7ined 5 the va!ue of the!and at the ti7e either of the ta0in/ or fi!in/,-'which was in 1**-, deter7ined the co7pensationas the 1**' va!ue of P1,&&.&& per s6uare 7eter. he tria! court ratiocinated that the 1**'va!ue was considered for the reason, a7on/ others thatA

-. It is co77on 0now!ed/e that prices of rea! estate in Batan/as, inc!udin/ andHor particu!ar! inSto.o7as and anauan have s0roc0eted in the past two ears-*2E7phasis ours3.

his 1**' s0roc0eted price of P1,&&.&& per s6uare 7eter was pounced upon 5 Ceci!io asthe a7ount a/ainst which the 1**- cei!in/ of P-&&.&& per s6uare 7eter shou!d 5e co7pared,there5 /ivin/ hi7 the a7ount co7puted(&as fo!!owsA

CECI


6/8

principa!. 9is position is ana!o/ous to that of a trustee and he cannot, consistent! with theprincip!es of /ood faith, 5e a!!owed to create in hi7se!f an interest in opposition to that of hisprincipa! or cestui que trust.(1

Instead of an accountin/, what Corne!ia received was a receipt and 6uitc!ai7 docu7ent thatwas read for si/nin/. s testified to 5 Corne!ia, due to her frai! condition and ur/ent need of

7one in order to 5u 7edicines, she neverthe!ess si/ned the 6uitc!ai7 in Corne!ioGs favor.@uitc!ai7s are a!so contracts and can 5e voided if there was fraud or inti7idation that !eads to!ac0 of consent. he facts show that a si7p!e accountin/ of the proceeds of the ?ustco7pensation wi!! 5e enou/h to satisf the curiosit of Corne!ia. 9owever, Ceci!io did notdisc!ose the truth and instead of co7in/ up with the re6uest of his aunt, he 7ade a contractintended to 5ar Corne!ia fro7 recoverin/ an further su7 of 7one fro7 the sa!e of herpropert.

he preparation 5 Ceci!io of the receipt and 6uitc!ai7 docu7ent which he as0ed Corne!ia tosi/n, indicate that even Ceci!io dou5ted that he cou!d va!id! c!ai7 '-.&% of the price ofCorne!iaGs !and on the 5asis of the 11 Nove75er 1**- a/ree7ent. Based on the attendin/circu7stances, the receipt and 6uitc!ai7 docu7ent is an act of fraud perpetuated 5 Ceci!io.

$er c!ear!, 5oth the service contract of 11 Nove75er 1**- !etter" a/ree7ent, and the !aterreceipt and 6uitc!ai7 docu7ent, the first vitiated 5 7ista0e and the second 5ein/ fraudu!ent,are void.

II.

Ceci!ioGs !ast source of authorit to co!!ect pa7ent fro7 the proceeds of the e;propriation is theSP e;ecuted on 1' Octo5er 1**: 5 the 9ernande=es in favor of Ceci!io as their true and!awfu! attorne with respect to the e;propriation of the 9ernande= propert. t the outset, it7ust 5e underscored that the SP did not specif the co7pensation of Ceci!io as attorne"in"fact of the 9ernande=es.

he SP, however, 7ust 5e appreciated in the !i/ht of the fact that Ceci!io was appointed andacted as appraisa! co77issioner in the e;propriation case under the provisions of Section ,Ru!e :% of the Ru!es of Court, which providesA

SEC. .Ascertainment of co7pensation. M Upon the rendition of the order of e;propriation, thecourt sha!! appoint not 7ore than three 2-3 co7petent and disinterested persons asco77issioners to ascertain and report to the court the ?ust co7pensation for the propertsou/ht to 5e ta0en. he order of appoint7ent sha!! desi/nate the ti7e and p!ace of the firstsession of the hearin/ to 5e he!d 5 the co77issioners and specif the ti7e within which theirreport sha!! 5e su57itted to the court. 2E7phasis ours3.

he co77issioner to 5e appointed is specifica!! re6uired to 5e disinterested. s defined, suchperson 7ust 5e free fro7 5ias, pre?udice or partia!it.()he record of perfor7ance 5 Ceci!io ofhis duties as co77issioner showsA 213 Order dated 1- Septe75er 1**: appointin/ Ceci!io andthree others as court co77issioners 2)3 /ree7ent on the course of action of theco77issioners appointed 1- Septe75er 1**: where5 respondent Ceci!io si/ned as a courtco77issioner 2-3 ppraisa! Co77ission Report dated 1& >anuar 1**% si/ned 5 respondentand his fe!!ow court co77issioners 2(3 Dissentin/ Opinion on the


7/8

as co77issioners, which oath sha!! 5e fi!ed in court with the other proceedin/s in the case.Evidence 7a 5e introduced 5 either part 5efore the co77issioners who are authori=ed toad7inister oaths on hearin/s 5efore the7, and the co77issioners sha!!, un!ess the partiesconsent to the contrar, after due notice to the parties to attend, view and e;a7ine the propertsou/ht to 5e e;propriated and its surroundin/s, and 7a 7easure the sa7e, after which eitherpart 7a, 5 hi7se!f or counse!, ar/ue the case. he co77issioners sha!! assess the

conse6uentia! da7a/es to the propert not ta0en and deduct fro7 such conse6uentia! da7a/esthe conse6uentia! 5enefits to 5e derived 5 the owner fro7 the pu5!ic use or purpose of thepropert ta0en, the operation of its franchise 5 the corporation or the carrin/ on of the5usiness of the corporation or person ta0in/ the propert. But in no case sha!! the conse6uentia!5enefits assessed e;ceed the conse6uentia! da7a/es assessed, or the owner 5e deprived ofthe actua! va!ue of his propert so ta0en.

Ceci!io acted for the e;propriation court. 9e cannot 5e a!!owed to consider such action as an actfor or in 5eha!f of the defendant in the sa7e case. Ceci!io cou!d not have 5een a hearin/ officerand a defendant at the sa7e ti7e. Indeed, Ceci!io foisted fraud on 5oth the Court and the9ernande=es when, after his appoint7ent as co77issioner, he accepted the appoint7ent 5the 9ernande=es to represent and sue for the7.

It shou!d 5e noted, fina!!, that, as co7p!etion of his appoint7ent as co77issioner,co7pensation for the wor0 he has done for the court was awarded, as stated in the decisionrendered in the case, thusA

4ina!!, p!aintiff is directed to pa the correspondin/ Co77issionerGs fees of the fo!!owin/, to witA

1. Eric 4austino >. Esperan=a Chair7an P,&&&.&&

2. Cc!"!o F. Hr#a#$% & M'(r ),000.00

-. +a/no /ui!ar +e75er (,&&&.&&

(. +e!chor Di7aano +e75er (,&&&.&&((

III.

Ceci!io 5reached an o5!i/ation that is neither a !oan nor for5earance of 7one. he decision ofthe !ower court orderin/ Ceci!io to pa the a7ount of P:,1'*,(1%.:& to Corne!ia at 1) perannu7 unti! fu!! paid shou!d 5e 7odified to : per annu7 fro7 the ti7e of the fi!in/ of theco7p!aint up to the date of the decision, and at 1) per annu7 fro7 fina!it unti! fu!! paid, inorder to confor7 to the doctrine enunciated 5 Eastern Shippin/


8/8

with the fo!!owin/ +ODI4ICIONS that the interest on the 7onetar awards shou!d 5e at :per annu7 fro7 the ti7e of the fi!in/ of the co7p!aint up to the date of the decision, and at 1)per annu7 fro7 fina!it unti! fu!! paid.

SO ORDERED.

hernandez vs hernandez

Documents