Nora B. Calalang-Parulan vs.
Rosario Calalang-Garcia
Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals, Thirteenth Division.
Syllabi Class :Remedial Law|Evidence|Clear and Convincing Evidence|Fraud
Syllabi:
1. Remedial Law; Evidence; Clear and Convincing Evidence ; Fraud; Fraud must be
established by clear and convincing evidence. Mere preponderance of evidence is not even
adequate to prove fraud.-
—It is only upon the death of Pedro Calalang on December 27, 1989 that his heirs
acquired their respective inheritances, entitling them to their pro indiviso shares to his whole
estate. At the time of the sale of the disputed property, the rights to the succession were not yet
bestowed upon the heirs of Pedro Calalang. And absent clear and convincing evidence that the
sale was fraudulent or not duly supported by valuable consideration (in effect an inofficious
donation inter vivos), the respondents have no right to question the sale of the disputed property
on the ground that their father deprived them of their respective shares. Well to remember, fraud
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Mere preponderance of evidence is not
even adequate to prove fraud. The Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance of
Property must therefore be dismissed.
2. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Question of Fact; What is involved is indeed a question
of fact which is generally beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) to resolve in a
petition for review on certiorari. However, a recognized exception to the rule is when the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) have conflicting findings of fact.-
—Preliminarily, we note that the resolution of the issue in this case requires a reevaluation
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties in order to trace the title of the
disputed property. What is involved is indeed a question of fact which is generally beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court to resolve in a petition for review on certiorari. However, a recognized
exception to the rule is when the RTC and CA have conflicting findings of fact as in this case.
Here, while the trial court ruled that the disputed property belonged to the conjugal partnership of
the first marriage of Pedro Calalang with Encarnacion Silverio, the court a quo declared that the
evidence proved the sole and exclusive ownership of the disputed property of Pedro Calalang.
3. Civil Law; The phrase “Pedro Calalang, married to Elvira Berba [Calalang]” merely describes
the civil status and identifies the spouse of the registered owner Pedro Calalang.-
—A plain reading of the above provision would clearly reveal that the phrase “Pedro
Calalang, married to Elvira Berba [Calalang]” merely describes the civil status and identifies the
spouse of the registered owner Pedro Calalang. Evidently, this does not mean that the property is
conjugal. In Litam v. Rivera, 100 Phil. 364 (1956), we declared: Further strong proofs that the
properties in question are the paraphernal properties of Marcosa Rivera, are the very Torrens
Titles covering said properties. All the said properties are registered in the name of “Marcosa
Rivera, married to Rafael Litam.” This circumstance indicates that the properties in question
belong to the registered owner, Marcosa Rivera, as her paraphernal properties, for if they were
conjugal, the titles covering the same should have been issued in the names of Rafael Litam and
Marcosa Rivera. The words “married to Rafael Litam” written after the name of Marcosa Rivera, in
each of the abovementioned titles are merely descriptive of the civil status of Marcosa Rivera, the
registered owner of the properties covered by said titles.
4. Same; Succession; It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the
time of death.-
—It is hornbook doctrine that successional rights are vested only at the time of death.
Article 777 of the New Civil Code provides that “[t]he rights to the succession are transmitted
from the moment of the death of the decedent.” In Butte v. Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc., 4 SCRA
526 (1962), we proclaimed the fundamental tenets of succession: The principle of transmission as
of the time of the predecessor’s death is basic in our Civil Code, and is supported by other related
Nora B. Calalang-Parulan vs. Rosario Calalang-Garcia
articles. Thus, the capacity of the heir is determined as of the time the decedent died (Art. 1034);
the legitime is to be computed as of the same moment (Art. 908), and so is the inofficiousness of
the donation inter vivos (Art. 771). Similarly, the legacies of credit and remission are valid only in
the amount due and outstanding at the death of the testator (Art. 935), and the fruits accruing
after that instant are deemed to pertain to the legatee (Art. 948).
Division: FIRST DIVISION
Docket Number: G.R. No. 184148
Counsel: Macarius S. Galutera for respondents.
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated
December 21, 2007 and Resolution dated July 25, 2008 of the Thirteenth Division of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 72531 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 370-M-91, or the
Complaint for Annulment of Sale and Reconveyance of Property filed by the respondents with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Malolos, Bulacan, on June 10, 1991, is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
