Bordalba v. Court of Appeals
Bordalba contended that the testimonies for private respondents which
GR # 112443 | 374 SCRA 555 | January 25, 2002
Petitioner: TERESITA P. BORDALBA
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF NICANOR JAYME, namely,
CANDIDA FLORES, EMANNUEL JAYME, DINA JAYME DEJORAS, EVELIA
JAYME, and GESILA JAYME; AND HEIRS OF ASUNCION JAYME-BACLAY,
namely, ANGELO JAYME-BACLAY, CARMEN JAYME-DACLAN and ELNORA
JAYME BACLAY
DOCTRINE
Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of
the latter, while holding title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.
FACTS
1. Subject lot is originally owned by the late spouses Carmeno Jayme and
Margarita Espina de Jayme. In 1947, an extrajudicial partition, was executed,
describing said parcel of land. Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez, Bordalba’s
mother, filed with the RTC an amended application for the registration of the
lot described.
2. Vda. de Perez alleged that the lot sought to be registered was originally a part
of a land owned by her late parents, the Sps. de Jayme; and that 1/3 of said
land was adjudicated to her in an extrajudicial partition. She further stated that
a portion of the lot for which title is applied for is occupied by Nicanor Jayme
with her permission.
3. Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay filed their opposition 6
contending that said application included the 1/3 portion inherited by them in
the 1947 extrajudicial partition. The case was dismissed for lack of interest of
the paties.
4. Bordalba subsequently filed an application, seeking the issuance of a Free
Patent over the same lot subject of the aborted application of her mother,
Elena Jayme. Bordalba was successfully granted Free Patent.
5. Upon learning of the issuance of the Free Patent in favor of Bordalba and an
OCT, as well as the conveyances made by Bordalba involving the subject lot,
private respondents filed with the RTC, the instant complaint against
Bordalba, Sps. Cabahug, Rural Bank of Mandaue and the Director of the
Bureau of Lands.
6. Bordalba contended that she acquired the subject lot by purchasing it from her
mother. On cross-examination, Bordalba admitted that the properties of Sps.
De Jayme were partitioned by the heirs in 1947 but she was not aware of the
Extrajudicial Partition. But she did identify one of the signatures in the Deed
to be her mother’s.
7. The trial court, found that fraud was employed by Bordalba in obtaining Free
Patent. However, it declared that Sps. Cabahug and Rural Bank of Mandaue
are purchasers and mortgagee in good faith. The CA affirmed.
8.
touched on matters occurring prior to the death of her mother should not have
been admitted in violation of the dead man’s statute. And also question the
rights of private respondents to inherit and as to the identity of the disputed lot
in the Deed of extrajudicial partition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N the dead man statue applies
2. W/N the disputed lot is the subject lot in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition.
RULING & RATIO
- NO
o The dead man’s statute does not operate to close the mouth of a
witness as to any matter of fact coming to his knowledge in any other
way than through personal dealings with the deceased person, or
communication made by the deceased to the witness.
o Since the claim of private respondents and the testimony of their
witnesses in the present case is based, inter alia, on the 1947 Deed
of Extra-judicial Partition and other documents, and not on dealings
and communications with the deceased, the questioned testimonies
were properly admitted by the trial court.
- YES
o Bardolba’s mother acknowledged in her application for registration of
Lot No. 1242 that the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was the source
of her claim over the lot sought to be registered.
o She further admitted that the lot now known as Lot No. 1242 (799-C)
was part of the parcel of land inherited by her and her co-heirs, to the
extent of 1/3 share each.
o Under Section 31, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules on Evidence,
where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration,
or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the
property, is evidence against the former.
DISPOSITION
Petition was denied.
Page 1 of 1