SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202088. March 8, 2017.]

MANUEL L. BAUTISTA, SPOUSES ANGEL SAHAGUN and CARMELITA

BAUTISTA, and ANIANO L. BAUTISTA , petitioners, vs. MARGARITO L.
BAUTISTA respondent.
BAUTISTA,

DECISION

PERALTA J :
PERALTA, p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari led by petitioners Manuel L.

Bautista, Spouses Angel Sahagun and Carmelita Bautista, and Aniano L. Bautista before
this Court is the Decision 1 dated March 6, 2012 and Resolution 2 dated May 25, 2012
of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the Decision 3 dated February 16, 2009 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 32, declaring that the subject
property covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. T-59882 is exclusively
owned by respondent Margarito L. Bautista (Margarito).
The factual and procedural antecedents follow:
The present case stemmed from a Complaint for Partition and Accounting with
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction led by
the petitioners against Margarito and the other defendants over several properties
allegedly co-owned by them, which included the subject property.
The Bautista siblings — Margarito, Manuel L. Bautista, Carmelita Bautista
Sahagun (Carmelita), Aniano L. Bautista (Aniano), Florencia Bautista de Villa (Florencia),
and Ester Bautista Cabrera (Ester) — established a lending business through a common
fund from the proceeds of the sale of a parcel of coconut land they inherited from their
mother Consorcia Lantin Bautista. 4 Margarito, Florencia, and Ester managed the
business with Reginald Sahagun, Carmelita's son, as credit investigator. 5 Senen
Cabrera, Ester's husband, prepared the documents for mortgage and reported the
status of the lending business to the Bautista siblings. 6 Through the said lending
business, the siblings acquired several real properties in San Pablo City. 7
On March 2, 1998, Amelia V. Mendoza (Amelia) obtained a loan in the amount of
P690,000.00 from Florencia, and secured the same with a real estate mortgage over a
25,518-square-meter parcel of land she owned situated at Barangay Sta. Monica, San
Pablo City, denominated as Lot 2, Plan Psu-45117 and covered by Transfer Certi cate
of Title (TCT) No. T-2371 (Sta. Monica property). 8 They later extended the mortgage
through a Kasulatan ng Pagdaragdag ng Sanla, for an additional loan of P115,000.00 on
April 6, 1998. 9
On May 13, 1998, Amelia and Florencia renewed the mortgage for P1,085,000.00
10 and cancelled the previous loan of P690,000.00 through a "Cancellation and
Discharge of Mortgage." 1 1
Subsequently, on April 12, 1999, Amelia and Florencia executed another
Kasulatan ng Pagdaragdag ng Sanla in the amount of P57,500.00. 1 2 Florencia,
thereafter, received the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-2371, which she, in turn,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 entrusted to Carmelita when she went overseas.
On November 28, 2002, Amelia allegedly sold the subject property to Margarito
through a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan 1 3 for P500,000.00 and, likewise, cancelled the
P1,085,000.00 loan through another "Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage." 1 4 On
the same date, Florencia led a Petition for the Issuance of a Second Owner's Duplicate
of TCT No. T-2371 before the RTC of San Pablo City, Branch 29. 1 5 She alleged that she
was the mortgagee of the subject property, and that she could not locate, despite
diligent search, the owner's duplicate title in her possession, which she misplaced
sometime in September 2002. 1 6 Florencia also executed a Special Power of Attorney
in favor of Margarito to represent her in the proceedings. 1 7 acEHCD

Petitioners tried to oppose the issuance, 1 8 but on January 30, 2003, the RTC
granted the petition and TCT No. T-59882 was later issued in the name of Margarito. 1 9
On January 12, 2004, petitioners registered an Adverse Claim over the Sta. Monica
property, which was annotated on TCT No. T-59882. 2 0
Failing to settle their differences, petitioners subsequently instituted a Complaint
for Partition and Accounting with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction docketed as Civil Case No. SP-6064(04) before the RTC of San
Pablo City, Branch 32, over several properties against herein respondent Margarito, the
Spouses Marconi de Villa and Florencia Bautista, and the Spouses Senen Cabrera and
Ester Bautista. 2 1 Petitioners averred that Margarito and the others refused to heed
their oral and written demands for the partition of the properties they co-owned, which
included the Sta. Monica property. 2 2
On April 23, 2004, the parties led a "Partial Settlement" manifesting that they
have entered into an amicable settlement over the other properties involved in the
complaint. 2 3 In a Decision 2 4 dated April 28, 2004, the RTC approved the compromise
agreement.
Since no settlement was reached as regards the Sta. Monica property,
petitioners presented copies of their bank transactions with Far East Bank to support
their claim of co-ownership over the same. 2 5 They also presented an undated,
unnotarized, and without the name of the vendee Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan (blank
Kasulatan), which Amelia purportedly executed and signed disposing the subject
property in favor of the Bautista siblings. 2 6 Petitioner Carmelita also alleged that the
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-2371 in the name of Amelia was in her possession and
was never lost.
For his part, Margarito asseverated that he exclusively owns the property in
controversy since he used his personal funds in purchasing the land. 2 7 Margarito
presented TCT No. T-59882 covering the Sta. Monica property, and the Tax Declaration
and Receipts thereof. 2 8
On February 16, 2009, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared,
among other things, that the Sta. Monica property was commonly owned by the
siblings. 2 9 The RTC also ordered that the property be partitioned among all of them
and that an accounting of its income be held. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
a. Declaring the lot covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-59882, with
an area of 25,578 square meters, situated at Barangay Sta. Monica, San
Pablo City, as commonly owned by the plaintiffs and defendants;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 b. Ordering the partition of the lot covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title No.
T-59882 between and among Manuel L. Bautista, Carmelita B. Sahagun,
Margarito L. Bautista, Florencia Bautista De Villa, Aniano L. Bautista and
Ester B. Cabrera;
c. Ordering defendant Margarito Bautista to render an accounting of all the
income from the subject lot in litigation from November 28, 2002, up to the
present, until the rendition of the account; and
d. Directing defendant Margarito Bautista to deliver to the plaintiffs and the
other defendant their respective shares of the income derived from the lot
in litigation starting November 28, 2002.
No pronouncement as to the award of damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.
SO ORDERED. 3 0
On March 3, 2009, Margarito led a Motion for Reconsideration, 3 1 but the RTC
denied it in an Order 3 2 dated April 2, 2009.
Aggrieved, Margarito elevated the case before the CA. In a Decision dated March
6, 2012, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The fallo of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED. The
Decision dated February 16, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Branch 32 is hereby SET ASIDE. The subject property covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. T-59882 under the name of defendant-appellant
Margarito L. Bautista is declared exclusively owned by defendant-appellant
Margarito L. Bautista.
SO ORDERED. 3 3
The CA concluded that petitioners failed to establish that they are co-owners of
the Sta. Monica property. It held that the TCT under Margarito's name was an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property and has more probative weight
than the blank Kasulatan adduced by the petitioners. Consequently, petitioners' action
for partition and accounting cannot be acted upon because they failed to prove that
they are co-owners of the Sta. Monica property.
Petitioners led a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the Resolution
dated May 25, 2012.
Hence, the present recourse raising the following errors on the part of the
appellate court: SDHTEC

A. The Court of Appeals seriously erred when it relied on the case of Manuel
Catindig vs. Aurora Irene Vda. de Meneses which led to a conclusion that
the TCT held by the defendant-appellant serves as an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to said property.
B. The Decision promulgated on March 06, 2012 subject of this Petition failed
to consider the fact that the appealed Decision dated February 16, 2009 of
the court a quo is already nal and executory, and for which reason, the
Court of Appeal[s] has no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal.
C. The Court of Appeals erred when it failed to appreciate the fact that there
was a compromise decision based on an agreement by all the parties
which included property where some of the titles are already in the names
of the siblings concerned.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 D. The Court of Appeals thus erred when it did not give weight to the evidence
presented by the petitioners-appellees and this is notwithstanding the
findings of the court a quo in their favor.
The petition is impressed with merit.
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the
CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the
appellate court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 3 4 We note
that the arguments raised here would necessarily require a re-evaluation of the parties'
submissions and the CA's factual ndings. Nevertheless, the need to make a de nitive
nding on the factual issue in light of the con icting rulings rendered by the RTC and
the CA justifies this Court's review. 3 5
At the outset, petitioners maintain that the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal since the Decision dated February 16, 2009 of the RTC was already nal and
executory. They claim that the motion for reconsideration led by Margarito before the
RTC was not in accordance with the Rules because a copy of the said motion was
served or received by them through a private courier service and that there was a
defect in the verification or affidavit of service. 3 6
The Rules provide that pleadings may be led in court either personally or by
registered mail. 3 7 In the rst case, the date of ling is the date of receipt. In the second
case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt. Though ling of pleadings thru a private
courier is not prohibited by the Rules, it is established in jurisprudence that the date of
actual receipt of pleadings by the court is deemed the date of ling of such pleadings,
and not the date of delivery thereof to a private letter-forwarding agency. 3 8 Records
reveal that respondent received a copy of the Decision on February 23, 2009. In an
Order 3 9 dated March 5, 2009, the trial court acknowledged that it received the motion
for reconsideration led by respondent on March 4, 2009, or on the 9th day, which is
still within the reglementary period.
The RTC gave petitioners 15 days from notice to le a comment on the motion
for reconsideration led by respondent. Petitioners led its Opposition to the Motion
for Reconsideration on March 12, 2009. 4 0 In their Opposition, petitioners pointed the
defect in the service of the motion when the same was delivered through LBC, a private
courier. They also alleged therein that the motion should be denied as it would
prejudice their rights. From the foregoing, the RTC gave petitioners the opportunity to
be heard, and suf cient time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose the same. It
was not even alleged nor proven that the motion for reconsideration was led out of
time. Considering the circumstances, the purpose of the service of the motion was
substantially complied with. The Rules should be liberally construed as long as their
purpose is sufficiently met and no violation of due process and fair play takes place. 4 1
While We disagree with the petitioners on the procedural issues, this Court,
however, nds cogent reasons to grant the petition based on the substantial issues
raised in the case at bar.
It is to be noted that the present action stemmed from an action for partition and
accounting. A special civil action of judicial partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
is a judicial controversy between persons who, being co-owners or coparceners of
common property, seek to secure a division or partition thereof among themselves,
giving to each one of them the part corresponding to him. 4 2 The object of partition is
to enable those who own property as joint tenants, or coparceners, or tenants in
common to put an end to the joint tenancy so as to vest in each a sole estate in speci c
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 property or an allotment in the lands or tenements. 4 3 It is typically brought by a person
claiming to be the owner of a speci ed property against a defendant or defendants
whom the plaintiff recognizes to be his co-owners 4 4 and is premised on the existence
or non-existence of co-ownership between the parties. 4 5 Hence, unless and until the
issue of co-ownership is de nitively resolved, it would be premature to effect a
partition of an estate. 4 6
Consequently, the rst stage of an action for judicial partition and/or accounting
is concerned with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists and
a partition is proper. 4 7 In the case at bar, petitioners aver that although the Sta. Monica
property was registered solely in Margarito's name, they are co-owners of the property
because it was acquired through the siblings' lending business, as such, they are
entitled to partition and the conveyance to them of their respective shares. AScHCD

To support their allegations, petitioners presented several mortgage contracts

evidencing the transactions between Amelia and Florencia, computer printouts of their
bank transactions, and the blank Kasulatan. In Carmelita's direct testimony, she
illustrated how they acquired properties through their lending business and how
ownership of the properties was transferred under their names. She also testi ed that
the money used in the purchase of the Sta. Monica property came from their common
fund. The pertinent portions of her testimony read:
ATTY. JAVIER
Q: And how did you acquire these properties?
properties
A: Through our lending activities,
activities sir.
Q: Would you care to illustrate the actual acquisition or demonstrate the
acquisition?
A: If the borrower failed to pay, she or he [is] requested to secure the
Deed of Sale,
Sale sir.
COURT
Paano, paano? Tagalugin nga.
A: We foreclosed the mortgage, sir.
ATTY. JAVIER
Q: But there was the mentioning of a Deed of Sale?
A: We asked the borrower to execute the Deed of Sale, sir.
Q: And by these sales, in whose names were these properties put?
A: To us, on our names, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. JAVIER
Q: Now, I am asking you, how about the Sta. Monica property?
A: The Sta. Monica is co-owned also by six (6), sir.
Q: Why do you say so?
A: Because the money acquired . . . Ang pera . . . The money used in
buying that property came from the common funds, sir.
Q: Do you have tangible proof of this?
A: The computer [printout] as to the one withdrawn in our bank account, sir.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: Is this the one you are referring to?
A: Yes, this [is] what I mean, all the transactions are here, sir.
Q: Do you have other than these computer [printouts], Exhibit "B," do you have
any tangible proof that the Sta. Monica property is co-owned by the six (6)
Bautista siblings?
A: The blank Deed of Sale issued,
issued sir.
Q: I am now showing to you a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan already
previously marked as Exhibit "E" and consisting of two (2) pages, could
this be that Kasulatan?
A: This is the document I am referring to, sir.
ATTY. JAVIER
For the record, we wish that it be re ected that the Kasulatan does not
indicate although it indicates the vendor, does not indicate the
vendee, Your Honor. And the same has not been notarized. 4 8
From the foregoing, petitioners established the manner in which they acquired
several properties through their business and have them registered under their names.
Even the compromise agreement they entered into, which was approved by the RTC,
re ected their claim and admission that they co-owned the properties although titled to
only one of their siblings. It was, thus, logical for the RTC to conclude that it was
through this practice that they also acquired the Sta. Monica property.
Moreover, several other circumstances buttressed petitioners' claim, among
which is that they have proven that their lending business has the nancial capacity to
acquire the Sta. Monica property; that Florencia, who was co-manager of the business,
entered into several mortgage transactions with Amelia; and that the blank Kasulatan
was in their possession. They even opposed the issuance of a second owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-2371 since the original TCT was in their safekeeping and
was not actually lost.
As for Margarito, he narrated in his direct testimony how the ownership of the
property was allegedly transferred to him:
ATTY. REYES
Q: Will you kindly tell the Honorable Court, how it came about this property in
Sta. Monica, San Pablo City was purchased by you, I am referring to the
Deed of Sale of Amelia Mendoza from the start up to the nal deed of
sale?
A: That property was mortgaged to my sister Florencia de Villa, and part of
the money came from my own money. At that time Amelia Mendoza
informed me that she would like to sell that property to both of us[,]
Florencia and I, and then Florencia de Villa asked me if I am interested to
buy that property.
Q: What was your answer?
A: I told her that I am interested. AcICHD

Q: What nally happened, when Amelia Mendoza informed you about that
Deed of Sale, what was the final consideration of the Deed of Sale?
A: What was stated in the Absolute Deed of Sale was [P]500,000.00.
[P]500,000.00
Q: But again that was actually paid by you?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 A: What was stated in the annotation at the back of the title plus
Amelia Mendoza asked for additional amount of P50,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. REYES
Q: Do you remember Mr. Witness, when did you execute the Deed of Sale with
Amelia Mendoza?
A: More or less on November 28, 2002.
Q: Do you have a copy of that document?
A: I will try to look with the files I have on hand.
I have here the document stating the amount of [P]500,000.00 only.
Q: Why [did it take] you four (4) years in order to execute that Deed
of Sale?
Sale
A: Because the mortgage to sell was prepared in order for them to
redeem the property and at the same time to return the money we
have given.
xxx xxx xxx 4 9
The CA held that Margarito presented pieces of evidence, including a deed of
sale between Amelia and Margarito. However, as found by the RTC and based on the
List of Exhibits, aside from his bare allegations and testimony, Margarito neither
identi ed nor presented the deed of sale during trial nor formally offered the same as
his evidence. 5 0 It is elementary that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
and a mere allegation is not evidence. 5 1 It appears that Margarito's evidence of
exclusive ownership are the certi cate of title, the tax declarations pertaining thereto,
his bank deposits, and other mortgage contracts involving different mortgagors.
Despite all these, Margarito failed to prove that Amelia conveyed the Sta. Monica
property exclusively in his name. It is also quite intriguing why he did not even bother to
present the testimony of Amelia or of Florencia, who could have enlightened the court
about their transactions. In addition, We nd it incredible that a property, which secured
a loan roughly over a million pesos, would be sold for considerably less than that
amount or for only P550,000.00.
As for the TCT No. T-59882 in the name of Margarito, like in the case at bar,
although a certi cate of title is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land, the mere
issuance of the same in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that
the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certi cate
or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired
interest subsequent to the issuance of the certi cate of title. 5 2 The principle that a
trustee who puts a certi cate of registration in his name cannot repudiate the trust by
relying on the registration is one of the well-known limitations upon a title. 5 3
There is an implied trust when a property is sold and the legal estate is granted
to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the bene cial
interest of the property. 5 4 This is sometimes referred to as a purchase money
resulting trust, the elements of which are: (a) an actual payment of money, property or
services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; and (b) such
consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust. 5 5
A trust, which derives its strength from the con dence one reposes on another
especially between families, does not lose that character simply because of what
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 appears in a legal document. 5 6 From the foregoing, this Court nds that an implied
resulting trust existed among the parties. The pieces of evidence presented
demonstrate their intention to acquire the Sta. Monica property in the course of their
business, just like the other properties that were also the subjects of the partition case
and the compromise agreement they entered into. Although the Sta. Monica property
was titled under the name of Margarito, the surrounding circumstances as to its
acquisition speak of the intent that the equitable or bene cial ownership of the
property should belong to the Bautista siblings.
Inevitably, the RTC's Order of partition of the Sta. Monica property was
erroneously set aside by the CA and this Court is convinced that petitioners
satisfactorily established that they are co-owners of the property and are entitled to the
reliefs prayed for.
WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated March 6,
2012 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
93562 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . Consequently, the Decision dated February 16,
2009 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32, in Civil Case No. SP-
6064(04) is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Mendoza, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Remedios S.

Salazar-Fernando and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring, rollo, pp. 40-49.

2. Id. at 51-53.

3. Penned by Judge Agripino G. Morga; id. at 72-81.

4. Rollo, p. 41.

5. Id. at 42.

6. Id.

7. Id. at 41.

8. Id. at 74.

9. Id.

10. Id. at 43.

11. Id.

12. Id. at 74.

13. Id. at 43.

14. Id. at 43-44.

15. Id. at 43.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 43-44.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com