Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
11th Judicial Region
Bislig City

JOAQUIN ARCENAL AND

ROSALINDA ARCENAL,
Plaintiffs, CIVIL CASE NO. 337

-versus- For:
“CANCELLATION OF TITLE, RECOVERY
SPS. WELIJADO AND NORMA PEÑAS OF POSSESSION WITH INJUNCTION
& ROMMEL PEÑAS,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------/

Omnibus Motion
for Reconsideration and for New Trial
COMES NOW Plaintiffs, by undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of its Decision 1dated September
17, 2019 which was received last November 15, 2019, the dispositive portion of
which reads, thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is

hereby DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence.

“SO ORDERED.”

the same being CONTRARY TO LAW and, in support thereof, most respectfully
states,

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

1. Article 8 of the Civil Code provides that judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws of the Constitution shall form a part of the legal
system of the Philippines;

2. As to the instant action for reconveyance, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to rule in the case of MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA vs.GREGORIA
TAGUFA, et al (G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015), that “xxx (a) private

1
An original copy of which is attached hereto as Annex “A” and made an integral part hereof.
Page | 1
 individual may bring an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land even if
the title thereof was issued through a free patent since such action does
not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the
decree of registration, but only to show that the person who secured the
registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.”

3. Also, in the case of SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA

CABARRUS, Petitioners vs. SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L. PO,
Respondents G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017, it was ruled that “xxx
notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered
owner may still be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its
true owners. The rationale for the rule is that reconveyance does not set
aside or re-subject to review the findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands. In
an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or
its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person's name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to the one with a better
right." (citations omitted)

4. “The rationale for allowing reconveyance despite the finality of the

registration is that the issuance of a certificate of title does not create or
vest ownership to a person over the property. Registration under the
Torrens system "is not a mode of acquiring ownership." A certificate is only
a proof of ownership. Thus, its issuance does not foreclose the possibility
of having a different owner, and it cannot be used against the true owner
as a shield for fraud.” (Ibid) (citations omitted)

5. “In an action for reconveyance, the parties are obliged to prove their
ownership over the property. Necessarily, the parties may present
evidence to support their claims. The court must weigh these pieces of
evidence and decide who between the parties the true owner is.” (Ibid)
(citations omitted) (emphasis supplied)

6. Going now to the evidence presented, in the case of HEIRS OF MARGARITA

PRODON vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMO S. ALVAREZ AND VALENTINA CLAVE,
REPRESENTED BY REV. MAXIMO ALVAREZ, JR., (G.R. No. 170604,
September 2, 2013), it was ruled that “xxx (t)he Best Evidence Rule applies
only when the terms of a written document are the subject of the inquiry.
In an action for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale
with right to repurchase that purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a
property, therefore, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and the
defendant is not precluded from presenting evidence other than the
original document.

Page | 2
7. “The primary purpose of the Best Evidence Rule is to ensure that the exact
contents of a writing are brought before the court, considering that (a) the
precision in presenting to the court the exact words of the writing is of
more than average importance, particularly as respects operative or
dispositive instruments, such as deeds, wills and contracts, because a slight
variation in words may mean a great difference in rights; (b) there is a
substantial hazard of inaccuracy in the human process of making a copy by
handwriting or typewriting; and (c) as respects oral testimony purporting to
give from memory the terms of a writing, there is a special risk of error,
greater than in the case of attempts at describing other situations
generally. The rule further acts as an insurance against fraud. Verily, if a
party is in the possession of the best evidence and withholds it, and seeks
to substitute inferior evidence in its place, the presumption naturally arises
that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes that its
production would expose and defeat. Lastly, the rule protects against
misleading inferences resulting from the intentional or unintentional
introduction of selected portions of a larger set of writings.18” (Ibid)
(citations omitted)

8. “But the evils of mistransmission of critical facts, fraud, and misleading

inferences arise only when the issue relates to the terms of the writing.
Hence, the Best Evidence Rule applies only when the terms of a writing
are in issue. When the evidence sought to be introduced concerns
external facts, such as the existence, execution or delivery of the writing,
without reference to its terms, the Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked.
In such a case, secondary evidence may be admitted even without
accounting for the original.” (Ibid) (citations omitted)

9. Finally, in the case of People v Tandoy (G.R. No. 80505, December 4, 1990),
the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that “(t)he best evidence rule
applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry.
Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually
executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
is admissible.”

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

10. The instant case is a case for reconveyance filed by the plaintiffs praying,
among others, that the defendants or any person/s acting in their behalves
or their assignee or successors-in-interest to vacate the said land and to
turn over the peaceful possession thereof to the former and for damages.2

2
See Amended Complaint in the instant case.
Page | 3
11. Had it been the defendants who initiated the case, they would have filed a
case for quieting of title based on the inexistence of a deed of sale that
purportedly cast a cloud on the title of a property. Thus, the doctrine laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prodon vs. Alvarez, et al (G.R.
No. 170604, September 2, 2013) is applicable in the instant case since what
is at issue in the instant case is the existence of the subject deed of
conveyances, one from Peña to Bote and the other from Bote to Arcenal,
and not the terms of their writing.

12. What stood out in the trial is the testimony of plaintiff’s witness Rosalinda
Arcenal that while Norma Peñas, with the conformity of her husband,
Welijado Peñas, already sold their subject property to a certain Dr. Israel
Bote on August 16, 1984 (subject of the first deed of conveyance), her son,
Rommel Peñas, still caused the registration of the said land in their name
on January 30, 2004 asserting that he was just reclaiming his father’s
(Welijado) inheritance.

13. It was admitted that the subject land was owned by Welijado Peñas having
inherited the same from his late mother, Roberta Corteza (Decision, page 2,
citing the Answer) but, in their defense, defendants posited that Norma
Peñas did not sell the same and, also, she does not have the authority to
sell the same because it was not a conjugal property. But then again, the
first deed of conveyance showed that Welijado Peñas gave his conformity
to the sale executed by his wife, Norma Peñas, to a certain Dr. Israel Bote
and the former even affixed his thumbmark thereon.

14. Indeed, the existence of this first deed of conveyance was totally denied by
defendants as they asserted in their Answer that “defendant Norma Peñas
never sold [with or without authority of her husband, Welijado] any parcel
of land to one Israel P. Bote at any time on August 16, 1981 xxx” (see
Decision, page 2, quoting the Amended Answer). But how do they now
explain the existence of the Deed of Sale from Norma Peñas (with the
conformity of Welijado Peñas) to a certain Dr. Israel P. Bote? In view of the
foregoing, such registration is clearly underhanded, if not downright
fraudulent.

15. Clearly now, what is brought to fore is the issue of the existence of the
immediately foregoing deed of conveyance and, under the Prodon
Doctrine, the original of the said document need not be presented since the
Best Evidence Rule cannot be invoked under such circumstances.

16. By not considering even the existence of the subject deed of conveyances,
the defendants would have been shielded from their commission of fraud
which thereby allowed them to enrich themselves at the expense of herein
plaintiffs.
Page | 4
 AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
17. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had a difficult time to secure the originals of the
subject deed of conveyances. This could be explained by the fact that,
among others, a substantial amount of time had elapsed since the
execution of the subject Deed of Sale dated August 16, 1984 by Norma
Morales-Peñas in favor of Isreal Bote, M.D. and, in the course of the trial,
several lawyers handled the case for the plaintiffs. In fact, at one point in
time, due to the failure of plaintiffs’ previous counsel to appear for several
hearings, the instant case was almost dismissed.

18. With the handling of the undersigned lawyer of the instant case for the
plaintiffs, the first thing he did was to peruse the records of the Honorable
Court since the case records were not immediately given to him and, when
it was finally turned over, there were a lot of missing documents. Worse,
when the undersigned lawyer tried to reconstruct his records of the case,
he also found out that even the records of this Honorable Court had a lot of
missing documents, including pages and even the whole of certain
Transcript of Stenographic Notes. At one point in time, the undersigned
lawyer even suggested to this Honorable Court to reconstruct the said case
records.

19. The closest that the plaintiffs had to the originals of the subject Deed of
Sale dated August 16, 1984 was a certified true copy3 thereof. However,
instead of inquiring into the existence of the same, this Honorable Court
refused to admit it and, instead, faulted the plaintiffs for their failure to
submit the same during pre-trial or on the day of the presentation of the
witnesses.

20. Also, plaintiffs tried to set the reception of one of its witnesses, the
Municipal Assessor of Lingig, to prove that his records would show that the
ownership of the subject property was, at one point, under the name of
“Norma Morales” and, at another point, transferred from “Norma Morales”
to “Spouses Joaquin L. Arsenal & Rosalinda T. Arsenal” as can be shown in
his Certification4 dated June 13, 2013.

21. It was a MISTAKE on the part of plaintiffs’ counsel not following up or

insisting on the reconstruction of the court records of the case as well as in
not insisting that this Honorable Court admit the certified true copy of the
Deed of Sale dated August 16, 1984. It could likewise be treated as an
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE on the part of the plaintiffs’ counsel since he was
afraid that he would merit the ire of this Honorable Court considering that

3
A copy of the same is attached hereto as Annex “B” and made an integral part hereof;
4
A copy of the same is attached hereto as Annex “C” and made an integral part hereof.
Page | 5
 it has already expressed discontent on the very long time it was taking the
plaintiffs to conclude the presentation of their evidence. Under the
foregoing circumstances and as a respectful and obedient person, the
plaintiffs’ lawyer could not have guarded himself from the exercise of
ordinary prudence and by reason of which the rights of herein plaintiffs
have probably been impaired.

22. There are concrete documents presented before this Honorable Court that
would prod on a reasonable man to believe that, indeed, the subject
property had already been sold by the defendants and the same was
ultimately sold to herein plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, with all due
respect, it should have behooved this Honorable Court to inquire further on
the existence of these documents rather than to completely disallow them
for reasons of technicality if only to satisfy the principle of fairness and,
likewise, to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

23. While it is primarily the obligation of the litigants to prove their claims or
defenses, it is not totally unheard of that judges also propound their own
questions in their ultimate search for the truth and to ferret out the same
from the litigants and their witnesses5.

5
“(A) severe examination by a trial judge of some of the witness for the defense in an effort to
develop the truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has
assisted the prosecution with an evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had
intimidated the witnesses for the defense. The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable
leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to
make the record speak the truth. Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges of both the law and
the facts, and they would be negligent in the performance of their duties if they permitted a
miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which
might develop some material bearing upon the outcome. In the exercise of sound discretion,
he may put such question to the witness as will enable him to formulate a sound opinion as to
the ability or the willingness of the witness to tell the truth. A judge may examine or cross-
examine a witness. He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the
witness and to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other
party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he propounds happen to
reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party.” (People vs. Zheng Bai
Hui, et al (G.R. No. 127580, August 22, 2000)) (citations omitted)

Page | 6
 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that –

(a) The Decision dated September 17, 2019 be RECONSIDERED on the

ground of being contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence and
allow the presentation of certified true copies of subject documents;
and

(b) Corollarily, the prayer for the conduct of a NEW TRIAL be GRANTED on
the ground of mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary
prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such
herein plaintiffs have probably been impaired in his rights, specifically,

(b.1) to reconstruct the court records of the case; and

(b.2) to receive the testimony of plaintiffs’ witness, Municipal

Assessor of Lingig, Surigao del Sur, on the certification he issued
last June 13, 2013 and related matters; and

(b.3) for other matters that this Honorable Court may deem proper
and reasonable.

Other remedies which are just and equitable under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for by herein plaintiffs.

29th day of November 2019. Mangagoy, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur.

ATTY. GEOFFREY G. CAGAKIT

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Copy furnished:

EXPLANATION

NOTICE OF HEARING

Page | 7
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Page | 8