CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ

CONRADO NUÑEZ, JR. VS. SPOUSES OSCAR AND NORMA NUNEZ 

G.R. No. 267108 

February 05, 2025  

 

FACTS: 

Spouses Nuñez, Conrado and Maria had six children. According to the petitioners, Maria and her family occupied a parcel of land, the Corregidor Property since the early 1960’s. In 1988, to develop the property, Oscar, one of the children was tasked to process a loan with the ADB to fund the development. The Corregidor Property was used as a collateral for the loan. Maria died in 1988 and after full payment of the loan, the petitioners discovered that Maria’s title and tax declaration were already cancelled, and a title of ownership was issued in the name of Oscar.  

According to the petitioners the property is owned by Maria however only a photocopy of the first page of the TCT was presented since they cannot locate the owner’s duplicate certificate of title despite diligent efforts. They presented a Certification from the RD of QC that the original TCT was not included among those saved during the fire that razed the city hall building in 1988. In contrast to the petitioner’s narrative, respondents claimed that the Corregidor Property is owned by Oscar as evidenced by a TCT. The property was previously awarded to Jose Jovillo Jr. however it became available to new applicants due to his failure to comply with the requirements of the NHA. A compromise agreement was executed between Oscar and NHA. In 1981 a case was filed against Maria, among others for alleged anomalous titling and awarding of the Corregidor property. The case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Maria submitted an affidavit stating the lot occupied by her was covered by a TCT in the name of her son Oscar. Later respondents decided to sell the Corregidor property. This was followed by the complaint for Annulment of Title filed by the petitioners against respondents. The respondents on the other hand, initiated a case for unlawful detainer against the petitioners which also reached the SC. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioners herein because the complaint failed to allege how and when the entry or dispossession was effected.  

The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners which the CA reversed.  

ISSUE: 

Whether the CA committed reversible error in discrediting Maria’s title.  

RULING: 

No. The CA did not commit a reversible error in discrediting Maria’s title.  

The SC held that petitioners' unsubstantiated and self-serving claims do not hold water against the overwhelming pieces of evidence presented by respondents. 

The SC held that petitioners failed to prove that the Corregidor property was owned by their mother, Maria. Consequently, there is no basis for their claim that it is co-owned. In SC discussed that in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his or her case by preponderance of evidence wherein evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.  

It cited the case of Sps. Yabut v. Alcantara where it explained the nature of an action for reconveyance. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy that seeks to transfer or reconvey property, wrongfully registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner. To warrant reconveyance of the land, the plaintiff must allege and prove, among others, ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant's erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration of the property. The following requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other illegal means; (3) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible but within four years from the discovery of the fraud, or not later than ten [10] years in the case of an implied trust. 

The SC held that the petitioners were not able to satisfy the second requisite. The main evidence submitted by the petitioners was the photocopy of the first page of the TCT under her name. Under the Rules on Evidence, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Further, when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his or her part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. 

Here, while the alleged loss of the original of the TCT may have been supported by the Certification from the RD of Quezon City, still, the foregoing testimonies failed to raise any reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the owner's duplicate original copy. There is also no showing that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper places. Thus, the RTC erred in admitting it as evidence. 

The SC also did not agree that the RTC was correct in ruling in favor of the authenticity and existence of the original copy of TCT No. 262412 because Oscar's title indicates that it was derived therefrom. It stressed that the burden of proof was on the petitioners to prove that the property was co-owned, and not on the respondents to prove that they are the owners thereof. The certificate of title in the name of Oscar serves as evidence of his indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the Corregidor Property. 

As such, the petition was denied.  

*Link to full case here