4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

VOL. 90, MAY 25, 1979 175

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-34007. May 25, 1979:*

MARCELINO BELAMIDE, ALFREDO BELAMIDE

(deceased and herein substituted by his children Rodolfo,
Reynaldo, Lilian and Alfredo, Jr., all surnamed Belamide),
JOSE BELAMIDE, ANTONIO BELAMIDE, MARIA
BELAMIDE, LEONISA BELAMIDE and SALUD
BELAMIDE, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS and BIENVENIDO MONTOYA,
FRANCISCA MONTOYA and GREGORIO MONTOYA,
respondents.

Evidence; New Trial; New Trial cannot be obtained on ground

that court relied on falsified evidence where movants could have
presented the alleged genuine document, that respondent’s father
is unknown, during the trial.—There can be no grave abuse of
discretion by the Court of Appeals in denying petitioner’s Motion
for New Trial. The document alleged to be falsified (Exh. 8) was
presented in the trial in the lower court. Petitioners should have
attacked the same as falsified with competent evidence, which
could have been presented, if they had exercised due diligence in
obtaining said evidence, which is Annex “A” to the Motion for New
Trial (Annex F to Petition). It is, therefore, not a newly discovered
evidence that could justify a new trial (rule 37 [1-b], Rules of
Court.)
Same; Same; Alleged newly-discovered evidence will not
change the result as found by the decision below. Hence, new trial
properly denied.—The new evidence would neither change the
result as found by the decision. It might prove that Hilarion
Montoya was registered at birth without his father having been
given, but from the testimony of Marcelino Belamide, one of the
applicants (now petitioners), Vicenta Montoya was married twice,
although he did not know the first husband. Likewise, in the
opposition of private respondents (pp. 30-31, Record on Appeal), it
is there alleged that the land originally belonged to the spouses
Martin Montoya and Vicenta Montoya. This allegation was never
contradicted.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

Jurisdiction; Land Registration; Lower Court as a land

registration court may adjudicate the land applied for registration
to the applicants and oppositors when compelled to do so by the
conflicting claims of ownership of the parties to the proceedings.—
The jurisdic-

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

tion of the lower court as a land registration court to adjudicate

the land for purposes of registration cannot, as petitioners try to
do, be questioned. The applicants and oppositors both claim rights
to the land by virtue of their relationship to the original owner,
the late Vicenta Montoya. The Court is thus necessarily impelled
to determine the truth of their alleged relationship, and on the
basis thereof, to adjudicate the land to them as the law has
prescribed to be their successional rights. The law does not
require the heirs to go to the probate court first before applying
for the registration of the land, for a declaration of heirship. This
would be a very combersome procedure, unnecessarily expensive
and unreasonably inconvenient, clearly averse to the rule against
multiplicity of suits.
Same; Same; Court as land registration court may adjudicate
ownership of land sought to be registered between applicants and
oppositors who in effect acquiesced to the exercise of that
jurisdiction and presented their respective claims of ownership
over the land in question.—In filing their opposition to the
application, private respondents merely went to the same court
invoking its jurisdiction in exactly the same fashion as did the
petitioners. In effect, there was unanimity among the parties in
consenting to, or acquiescing in, the exercise of the jurisdiction of
the land registration court, no matter whether same is a limited
one. With this premise, and with the full opportunity given both
parties to air their sides with the presentation of all evidence as
they may desire in support thereof, as fully as could be done in
the ordinary court with general jurisdiction, the decision of the
lower court, sitting as a land court, supported as it is with
sufficient evidence, may no longer be questioned on jurisdictional
grounds.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

     Beltran, Beltran & Beltran for petitioners.

     Fortunato Jose for private respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the

Court of Appeals (4th Division) promulgated on June 9,
1971, affirming the amended decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cavite City the dispositive portion of which
reads:
177

VOL. 90, MAY 25, 1979 177

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the

Court hereby adjudicates the parcel of land described in Plan
Psu18949 situated in the poblacion of Silang, Cavite, in favor of
the applicants (Marcelino Belamide, of legal age, Filipino,
married to Patrocinia de Castro, and resident of Silang; Cavite;
Alfredo Belamide, of legal age, Filipino, married to Anita Velez,
and resident of Silang, Cavite; Jose Belamide, of legal age,
Filipino, married to Elisea Quiamzon, and resident of Silang
Cavite; Antonio Belamide, of legal age, Filipino, single, and
resident of Silang, Cavite; Maria Belamide, Filipino, of legal
age, married to Sofronio Bayla, and resident of Silang, Cavite;
Leonisa Belamide, of legal age, married to Fulgencio Reyes, and
resident of Silang, Cavite; and Salud Belamide, of legal age,
Filipino, married to Conrado Menchavez, and resident of Silang,
Cavite) and the oppositors (Bienvenido Montoya, Gregorio
Montoya and Francisco Montoya, Filipinos, of legal age, married
and residents of Silang, Cavite) in the following proportions:
“Three-fourths (3/4) undivided share belongs to the applicants,
and one-fourth (1/4) undivided share belongs to the oppositors.
“Once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree
of registration be issued upon proof that the corresponding estate
and inheritance taxes have been paid, or certificate of tax
exemption has been issued.”

Petitioners herein were the applicants for the registration

of the parcel of land involved in this case. The private
respondents were the oppositors allowed on Motion for a
New Trial, to file an opposition even after a decision has
already been rendered by then Judge Felix V. Makasiar,
after hearing, following the issuance of a general default
order. (pars. 1-3, Petition).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

From the amended decision rendered after the new trial,

both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals which
found the essential facts as narrated in the decision
appealed thereto as duly established by the evidence, and
quoted the same approvingly as follows:

“The next question that presents itself is when and by whom was
the land in question acquired. The oppositors allege that the
acquisition was made during the first marriage of Vicenta
Montoya to

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

Martin Montoya, whereas the applicants maintain that such land

was acquired during the marriage (second marriage) of Vicenta
Montoya to Jose Velardo. Both contentions are not supported by
any document. However, the fact that Susana Velardo Belamide
sold a portion of the land in question (Exh. 6) to the Municipality
of Silang, Cavite (for widening of the street) on May 1933 without
the intervention of, or opposition from, Hilarion Montoya who
died on December 2, 1955 (Exh. 3), coupled with the fact that
Susana Velardo Belamide has possession of the property since
the death of her mother (Vicenta Montoya) in 1931 after she sold
the same to the herein applicants on July 20, 1951 (Exh. B),
convince the Court that said property was acquired during the
coverture of Jose Velardo and Vicenta Montoya. Consequently,
upon the death of Jose Velardo in 1888, the one-half (1/2)
undivided portion of the property passed by inheritance to
Susana Velardo Belamide and the other one-half (1/2) undivided
portion went to Vicenta Montoya as her share of the conjugal
estate. Upon the death of the latter on February 28, 1931, her
undivided one-half (1/2) share of the property should be divided
equally between Susana Velardo Belamide and Hilarion
Montoya, that is, each is entitled to one-fourth (1/4) undivided
share. Hence, Susana Velardo Belamide’s share is three-fourths
(3/4) while Hilarion Montoya’s share passed by inheritance to his
children, the herein oppositor. For this reason, the sale made by
Susana Velardo Belamide in favor of the applicants (Exh. B) is
null and void only with respect to the one-fourth (1/4) undivided
portion of the property (the share of the herein oppositors) who
did not consent to the sale).”

As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the

amended decision of the Court of First Instance, this time
rendered by Hon. Jose P. Alejandro, and denied a Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners herein on June
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

29, 1971 (An-nex E to Petition), as well as a Motion for a

New Trial (Annex F to Petition). The ground for the Motion
for New Trial was that Exhibit 8 of the oppositors (private
respondents herein) which was allegedly relied upon by
both the Court of First Instance and the Court of
Appeals is a falsified document. As recited in the petition,
par. 12 thereof (p. 8, Rollo), the falsification consists of the
following:

“According to the official records of the Civil Registrar of Silang,

Cavite, the name of the father of Hilarion Montoya in the

179

VOL. 90, MAY 25, 1979 179

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

marriage column is in blank. But according to Exhibit 8, the name

of the father of Hilarion Montoya is Martin Montoya. Thus, while
the official record of the civil registrar shows that oppositors’
father, Hilarion, had an unknown father, thru falsification,
Hilarion’s father was made to appear in Exhibit 8 as Martin
Montoya. The latter falsely became husband of Vicenta Montoya,
thereby enabling private respondents to inherit 1/4 of the land in
dispute from Vicenta Montoya.”

It is the denial of the Motion for New Trial by the Court of

Appeals which petitioners allege to be in grave abuse of
discretion, and their allegation that the Court of First
Instance, as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction
to declare who are the heirs of Vicenta Montoya and
partition the property by adjudicating 1/4 pro-indiviso to
private respondents as children of Hilarion Montoya,
allegedly an unacknowledged natural child of Vicenta
Montoya, and that as a consequence, the Court of
Appeals, likewise, is without jurisdiction, or acted in grave
abuse of discretion, in affirming the decision of the lower
court, that petitioners came to this Court with the
present petition.
1. There can be no grave abuse of discretion by the
Court of Appeals in denying petitioners’ Motion for New
Trial. The document alleged to be falsified (Exh. 8) was
presented in the trial in the lower court. Petitioners
should have attacked the same as falsified with competent
evidence, which could have been presented, if they had
exercised due1
diligence in obtaining said evidence, which is
Annex “A” 2
to the Motion for New Trial (Annex F to
Petition). It is, therefore, not a newly discovered evidence

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

that could justify a new trial (Rule 37 [1-b], Rules of

Court).
The new evidence would neither change the result as
found by the decision. It might prove that Hilarion
Montoya was registered at birth without his father having
been given, but from the testimony of Marcelino
Belamide, one of the applicants (now petitioners), Vicenta
Montoya was married

_______________

1 p. 69, Rollo.
2 p. 66, Rollo.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

twice, although he did not know the first husband.

Likewise, in the opposition
3
of private respondents (pp. 30-
31, Record on Appeal) , it is there alleged that the land
originally belonged to the spouses Martin Montoya and
Vicenta Montoya. This allegation was never contradicted.
The document sought to be presented by petitioners, as
stated in their Motion for New Trial in the Court of
Appeals, cannot effectively destroy this allegation, first,
because the marriage between Martin Montoya and
Vicenta Montoya could have taken place after the birth of
Hilarion Montoya who was thus legitimized, and second,
Martin Montoya and Vicenta Montoya evidently lived
together as husband and wife, and are, therefore, presumed
to have been legally married (Section 5, par. [bb], Rule 131,
Rules of Court). This Court held that a man and a woman
who are living under the same roof are presumed to be
legitimate spouses (Que Quay vs. Collector of Customs, 33
Phil. 128), and in the instant case, no less than one of the
herein petitioners, Marcelino Belamide, testified that
Vicenta Montoya married twice. The records suggest no
other husband by the first marriage than Martin Montoya,
who then could have been the father of Hilarion Montoya
who, undisputedly, is the son of Vicenta Montoya.
With the law and the evidence showing with reasonable
sufficiency that Hilarion Montoya from whom private
respondents would derive hereditary rights over the land in
question, is the legitimate son of Vicenta Montoya, the
adjudication of said land by the lower court, as specified
in its decision, is in accordance with law.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

2. The jurisdiction of the lower court as a land

registration court to adjudicate the land for purposes of
registration cannot, as petitioners try to do, be questioned.
The applicants and oppositors both claim rights to the land
by virtue of their relationship to the original owner, the
late Vicenta Montoya. The Court is thus necessary
impelled to determine the truth of their alleged
relationship, and on the basis thereof, to adjudicate the
land to them as the law has prescribed to be their
successional rights. The law does not require the heirs to go
to

______________

3 p. 20, Rollo.

181

VOL. 90, MAY 25, 1979 181

Belamide vs. Court of Appeals

the probate court first before applying for the registration

of the land, for a declaration of heirship. This would be a
very cumbersome procedure, unnecessarily expensive and
unreasonably inconvenient, clearly averse to the rule
against multiplicity of suits.
Furthermore, petitioners should not now be heard to
complain after they have themselves gone to the lower
court to have their title to the land registered in their
names without having had a previous declaration of their
heirship by the probate court. In filing their opposition to
the application, private respondents merely went to the
same court invoking its jurisdiction in exactly the same
fashion as did the petitioners. In effect, there was
unanimity among the parties in consenting to, or
acquiescing in, the exercise of the jurisdiction of the land
registration court, no matter whether same is a limited
one. With this premise, and with the full opportunity given
both parties to air their sides with the presentation of all
evidence as they may desire in support thereof, as fully as
could be done in the ordinary court with general
jurisdiction, the decision of the lower court, sitting as a
land court, supported as it is with sufficient evidence, may
no longer be questioned on jurisdictional grounds. (See
Martin Aglipay vs. Hon. Isabelo delos Reyes, Jr., G. R. No.
L-12776, March 23, 1960; Franco vs. Monte de Piedad and
Savings Bank, L-17610, April 22, 1963, 7 SCRA 660; City
of Tarlac vs. Tarlac Development Corporation, L-24657,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

July 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 466; City of Manila vs. Manila

Lodge No. 761, L-24469, July 31, 1968, 24 SCRA 466; City
of Manila vs. Army and Navy Club of Manila, L-24481, 24
SCRA 466; Demetrio Manalo vs. Hon. Herminio C.
Mariano, et. al, L-33850, January 22, 1976, 69 SCRA, 80).
For all the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

          Teehankee (Chairman), Santos, Guerrero, and

Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
     Makasiar and Fernandez, JJ., took no part.

______________

* Designated to sit with the First Division.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals

Petition dismissed.
Notes.—An applicant for land registration is not
relieved from the duty of submitting, in evidence, the
original tracing cloth plan of the land applied for even if a
blue print copy of the plan was superimposed in the
military plan of the area declared as a reservation.
(Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177).
A torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is
not final is a nullity. (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 65 SCRA
5).
A claim that one is the holder of an informacion
posesoria cannot succeed where the alleged holder does not
appear in the official list of holders of said titles. (Ibid., 68
SCRA 177). An amendment to application for registration
need not be published anew if the amendment merely
excludes portions covered by the original application.
(Benin vs. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531).
The courts do not have the power to determine who are
entitled to an award of free patent titles over parcels of
property that yet belonged to the public domain. (Dajunos
vs. Tandayag, 40 SCRA 449).
A Court of First Instance cannot act in its capacity as a
land registration court on a petition for the cancellation of
entries from a transfer certificate of title if there is an
opposition to the petition which raises a legal issue.
(Register of Deeds of Iloilo vs. CM. Hodges, 7 SCRA 147;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
4/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 090

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Jimenez, 36 SCRA

426).
A land registration court which has validly acquired
jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title
thereto, cannot be divested of said jurisdiction by a
subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by
the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the
same parcel of land. (De los Angeles vs. Santos, 12 SCRA
622).
Under Section 21 of the Land Registration Act, an
application for registration of land is required to contain,
among others, a description of the land subject of the
proceedings, the name, status and address of the applicant,
as well as the names and addresses of all occupants of the
land and of all adjoining
183

VOL. 90, MAY 25, 1979 183

Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals

owners, if known, or if unknown of the steps taken to

locate them. (Fewker vs. Vasquez, 39 SCRA 514).
When the pleadings show the existence of real
controversion of facts and issues between the parties, the
summary proceedings for cancellation of an existing
certificate of title and issuance of a new transfer title in
place thereof cannot be availed of by the court as land
registration court. (Melgar vs. Spouses Melgar and Dana-
Ala, 51 SCRA 152).
The summary proceeding under Section 112 of Act 496
may not be granted where lower court raises a serious and
contentious issue of fraud against oppositors title. (Lamera
vs. Callanga, 54 SCRA 20).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162cf5eda8e608bd769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9