Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 153476 September 27, 2006 HKO H PO, HENR! TENG "#$ NN TENG, petitioners, TENG, petitioners, vs. %URENCE T&NG, NTHON! T&NG "#$ E'MUN' T&NG, respondents. T&NG, respondents. DECISION (CUN, J.) his is a petition for revie! revie! " of the decision and resolution of the Court of #ppeals $C#%, dated &anuar' (", )**) and Ma' +, )**), respectivel', in C#-.R. CV No. +/*, entitled 012o #h Pao, et al., v. 3aurence Chua in4, et al.0 he controvers' controvers' involves t!o feudin4 fa5ilies fa5ilies of the sa5e clan battlin4 over a piece of propert' re4istered in the na5e of respondents. Petitioners clai5 that the propert' !as bou4ht b' their patriarch, the late en4 Chin4 3a', !ho alle4edl' entrusted the sa5e to his son fro5 a previous 5arria4e, #rsenio in4, the deceased father of herein respondents. he antecedents antecedents) are as follo!s6 On &une "), "78", the spouses #risteo Ma'o and Salud Masan42a' sold for P+*,*** the propert' sub9ect of this case !hich is located at "+)( Vas:ue; St., Malate, Manila to #rsenio in4. ransfer Certiutuan Cit'. en4 en4 Chin4 3a', 3a', on the other hand, !as a Chinese citi;en, and althou4h his na5e did not appear in the corporate records of riu5ph i5ber, Inc., he !as the one 5a2in4 business decisions for the co5pan'. ( 1e beca5e a naturali;ed =ilipino citi;en on &anuar' "/, "788. # colonialst'le house !as standin4 on the disputed lot !hen it !as bou4ht. en4 Chin4 3a' occupied the sa5e, to4ether !ith his second !ife, petitioner 12o #h Pao, and their children, petitioners 1enr' and #nna en4. #rsenio also sta'ed in the sa5e house. Several 'ears later, #rsenio 5arried -er5ana Chua. he' 5oved to a ne! house that !as erected on the sa5e lot behind the old colonial house. -er5ana bore three sons, respondents herein, na5el', 3aurence, #nthon' and Ed5und, all surna5ed in4. 3ater, #rsenio and his fa5il' relocated relocated to >utuan Cit' but the' !ould sta' in their old house in Malate !henever the' ca5e to Manila. # careta2er !as hired to oversee it. en4 Chin4 3a' also transferred to >utuan Cit'. Petitioners re5ained in the colonial house, and en4 Chin4 3a' !ould 9oin the5 each ti5e he !ent to Manila. #rsenio died in "7+), predeceasin4 his father, en4 Chin4 3a', and leavin4 as co5pulsor' heirs, the survivin4 spouse, -er5ana, and respondents !ho !ere all 5inors at that ti5e. In the intestate proceedin4s for the settle5ent of #rsenio?s estate before the Court of =irst Instance $C=I% of #4usan del Norte and >utuan Cit', the court issued an Order on October )(, "7+@ approvin4 the pro9ect of partition !hich included, a5on4 others, the propert' in :uestion !hich !as ad9udicated in favor of respondents. respondents. On =ebruar' , "7+8, -er5ana utuan over the persons and properties of her 5inor children. he court appointed her as 4uardian on Nove5ber )", "7+/.
In vie! of the Order of the C=I ad9udicatin4 the disputed propert' in favor of respondents, C No. 8(77" !as cancelled and in lieu thereof, C No. "(") !as issued in the na5e of respondents on &ul' (, "7+7. !o 'ears later, trouble bre!ed bet!een en4 Chin4 3a' and his dau4hterinla!, -er5ana, concernin4 the properties in Manila and >utuan Cit', as !ell as the stoc2s of riu5ph i5ber, Inc. !hich involved 5illions of pesos. On #pril )/, "7/", en4 Chin4 3a' utuan a 5otion to recall -er5ana?s 4uardianship over her 5inor children for her failure to 4ive hi5, as the paternal 4randfather of the 5inors, notice of the 4uardianship proceedin4s pursuant to #rticles ( and (@@ of the Civil Code. 1e added that -er5ana sou4ht the 4uardianship 5erel' to see2 authorit' to sell the properties of the !ards. On her part, -er5ana averred that en4 Chin4 3a' had raised this issue onl' as a levera4e a4ainst her in their case before the Securities and EAchan4e Co55ission $SEC% pertainin4 to the li:uidation of the assets of i5ber riu5ph, Inc. On &ul' )", "7/+, the court rendered a decision revo2in4 the letters of 4uardianship of -er5ana, fro5 !hich she appealed. On &anuar' (*, "7/7, en4 Chin4 3a' died. 1is survivin4 heirs, ho!ever, decided not to contest an' further the letters of 4uardianship previousl' 4ranted to -er5ana. 1ence, on Nove5ber (, "7/7, the case !as ordered ter5inated. @ #n estate taA return si4ned b' petitioner #nna en4 !as uhan4in, >utuan Cit'. he residence of petitioners !ho !ere listed as heirs !as stated to be on #. Vas:ue; Street, Er5ita, Manila, !hich is the propert' in :uestion. #ppearin4 on the dorsal side of the estate taA return !as a list of properties belon4in4 to en4 Chin4 3a'. he onl' properties that !ere listed, ho!ever, !ere those located in Cavite and >utuan Cit'. On Ma' )+, "77", respondents, throu4h counsel, sent a de5and letter to petitioners to vacate the propert' in :uestion. Bhen the latter refused, respondents instituted an e9ect5ent case a4ainst the5 in the Metropolitan rial Court $MeC% of Manila. Petitioners, in turn, on &anuar' )", "77), utuan Cit' in "7/". Se5brano li2e!ise stated that !hen he !ent to Manila in Nove5ber of "78", en4 Chin4 3a' brou4ht hi5 to the house that he purportedl' bou4ht but since he !as a Chinese national at that ti5e, the title to the propert' !as placed in the na5e of #rsenio. 8
On crosseAa5ination, Se5brano 5entioned that he did not 2no! !ho the vendor of the propert' !as but the purchase price, as he !as supposedl' told b' #rsenio, !as P"@*,***F that not all the docu5ents of the corporation !ere presented in the proceedin4s at the SECF that he did not 2no! !here the proceeds of the chec2 !entF and, that en4 Chin4 3a' utuan Cit'. he' as2ed for the dis5issal of the co5plaint, and E #PP3IED O 1IS C#SE. II B1E1ER SECION ) $)nd SENENCE%, RH3E "(* O= 1E REVISED RH3ES O= EVIDENCE #ND 1E 1O3DIN-S IN SEVER#3 C#SES M# >E #PP3IC#>3E O 1E ESIMON O= #N-E3 SEM>R#NO RE3#IVE O 1E DEC3#R#ION, #S BE33 #S #CION, O= 1E 3#E EN- C1IN- 3# 1# 1E 3#ER OBNED 1E PROPER IN JHESION. III B1E1ER SECION (/, RH3E "(*, O= 1E REVISED RH3ES O= EVIDENCE M# >E #PP3IC#>3E O 1E ESIMON O= #N-E3 SEM>R#NO #==ECIN- 1E DEC3#R#ION O 1IM O= #RSENIO IN-, I.E. 0>I>I3I SI ## N- >#1# S# M#NI3#0 #S #N EKCEPION O 1E 1E#RS# RH3E. IV B1E1ER 1E 1O3DIN- IN PEOPLE V. ULPINDO, )@8 SCR# )*" #ND PEOPLE V. LIAN, )@@ SCR# @() M# >E #PP3IED O #N-E3 SEM>R#NO?S ESIMON #S CON#INED IN 1E SN. V B1E1ER SECION (, RH3E "(*, O= 1E REVISED RH3ES O= EVIDENCE M# >E #PP3IC#>3E O RESPONDEN #N1ON IN-?S #DMISSION #S EK#N IN 1E RECORD O S1OB SPECI=IC INEN, 1#>I #ND 1E 3ILE ON 1E P#R O= EN-
C1IN- 3# IN 1#VIN- 1IS SON, #RSENIO IN-, #C #S 1IS RHSEE O= SEVER#3 PROPERIES. VI B1E1ER SECION )8, RH3E "(* O= 1E REVISED RH3ES O= EVIDENCE $ON #DMISSION #-#INS INERES% #ND SECION , RH3E ")7 $ON &HDICI#3 #DMISSION% O= 1E S#ME RH3ES M# >E #PP3IED O RESPONDEN #N1ON IN-?S #DMISSION #S EK#N IN 1E RECORD, I.E., 1E PROPER IN JHESION B#S OBNED > ENC1IN- 3#. VII B1E1ER, #S #PP3IED O 1E HNDISPHED =#CS O= 1E C#SE, 1E RH3E ON >HRDEN O= EVIDENCE, I.E., O S1OB 1# #RSENIO IN- P#ID 1E PRICE O= 1E SH>&EC PROPER, >EIN- C#P#>3E O= DOIN- SO, B#S S1I=ED O RESPONDENS #=ER PEIIONERS 1#D SHCCESS=H33 PROVEN, > ESIMONI#3 EVIDENCE, 1# 1E PHRC1#SE PRICE O= 1E PROPER B#S P#ID > EN- C1IN- 3# #ND MERE3 ENRHSED 1E S#ME O 1IS SON, #RSENIO IN-, #S 1E =ORMER B#S 1EN # C1INESE CIIEN B1O B#S NO #33OBED O OBN RE#3 ES#E PROPER $"7(@ CONSIHION% 3E #3ONE 1E =#C 1# 1E =ORMER, > PREVIOHS CONDHC, 1#D #3RE#D ENRHSED O 1IS SON SEVER#3 PROPERIES HNDER 1E S#ME RE#SON. he Court notes that !hile the petition had been
on the personal 2no!led4e of the !itness but on the 2no!led4e of so5e other person not on the !itness stand. "/ Even if the alle4ed state5ent of #rsenio to Se5brano relatin4 to the fact that his father, en4 Chin4 3a', !as bu'in4 a house in Manila, can be ad5issible in evidence as a declaration a4ainst his pecuniar' interest under Section (/ of Rule "(* of the Rules of Court,"7 still, the veracit' as to !hether the deceased actuall' 5ade this state5ent is sub9ect to scrutin'. Clearl', the RC and the C# cast doubt on Se5brano?s credibilit', and the Court does not
