now Nancy who pays the taxes on the land. She could not believe that her uncle donated the land already sold by him to Abalos spouses, at the time he was only 53 years old; and he was 55 years old when the same land was sold to Alvaro. Juan Flores died on April 15, 1997 five (5) days after the donation. She went to the Registry of Deeds and found that the Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale was not registered. According to a sister of Juan Flores, Juan Flores approached his younger sister (Mama Neneng) saying about certain papers that defendants were trying to make him sign. Mama Neneng (Trinidad Flores) said Juan Flores does not want to sign any such document.16

On cross-examination, the witness said that the Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale was executed by the parties in the office of an attorney at Urdaneta, Pangasinan. She was thirty (30) years old at the time; presently she is living in Pasay City. Every now and then she goes to Binmaley. In 1984, when their brother died, Jose and Aurora Abalos took a vacation in the Philippines, Alvaro was the one (1) paying taxes for the subject land starting 1976 but she does not have documents to show to the court. Alvaro's mother mortgaged the property to Emilio on January 9, 1984, but she admitted as the document showed, there was no signature of Emilio, the alleged mortgagee. Her mother is already dead. Juan Flores is the brother of her mother Aurea. When Juan Flores became ill, he was almost left alone; her brother visits him and sometimes gives him cash. Later on, Juan Flores lived with his nephew Tito Flores. She denied visiting Juan Flores before his death about certain documents but he visits him

every now and then. She is not aware of the tax receipts of Juan Flores dating wayback 1950 up to the time he donated the property to the defendants.17

TRINIDAD FLORES CALDERON testified that she knows the subject land as they once lived therein' it was sold by her brother Juan Flores to Alvaro F. Asperilla, Jr. The present owner of the property is Alvaro. She knows the

16 TSN, August 9, 2001, pp. 2-15. 17 Ibid., pp. 15-22.

defendants who are the children of her older sister Pilar Flores. Defendant Rosita Flores is the live-in partner of Benjamin whose wife is Odessa. Tito Flores and Benjamin Flores are siblings. Plaintiffs filed this case because the defendants refused to give the fishpond portion which was sold by Juan Flores to Alvaro. When Nancy Asperilla was constructing a small hut it was destroyed by Tito Flores. 18 When Juan Flores was still alive, he told her that her nephews and nieces (defendants) were forcing him to sign a document but he refused. She saw the corpse of her brother and he looked as if he was fighting with his fist raised. 19

On cross-examination, the witness maintained she was able to talk to Juan Flores one (1) month before he died in March 1997. She admitted that she had asked Juan Flores to live with her but the latter refused as he will be away from his land. It was on April 16, 1997 when they informed her about his brother's death. She clarified that Juan Flores owned two (2) parcels of land; one (1) is "penakol" which was sold by her brother ("penakol" with a residential land). As to his riceland, it was Tito Flores who was farming it. She knows that Juan Flores did not donate the

"penakol" because it was sold to her other nephew Alvaro Asperilla. She admitted that she is not in good terms with the defendants. Juan Flores stayed with Tito Flores because he had no house of his own; he was an old bachelor. She also confronted the defendants about what Juan Flores told her that they were forcing him to sign a document. But thereafter, she suddenly learned of his brother's death; she was not able to make a report or complaint to the police authorities. She also does not know why is it that Tito Flores was not impleaded

in this case.20

EMILIO FERNANDEZ testified that she knows plaintiff Nancy Asperilla as she used to go to their place, and also the defendants who are the siblings of the parents of his son-inlaw. He knows the subject land because he leased the same from Aurea Asperilla and

18 TSN, September 25, 2001, pp. 3-5. 19 TSN, November 27, 2001, pp. 2-4. 20 lbid., 4-6.

Alvaro F. Asperilla, Jr. from January 1981 to 1985. He was not able to finish the five (5)-year lease because whenever it rains the dike which is very low becomes flooded. In 1982, he offered to return the property but the lessors gave it back to him in 1984 so he could improve the same but raising the dike. From 1084 to 2000 he continued to lease the land. For this second lease, there was a contract executed by Mrs. Aurea Asperilla who invited him to the house of Barangay Councilman Pedro Flores. Mrs. Asperilla and councilman Flores signed it but he did not sign it because Mrs. Asperilla advised him not to affix his signature as his name already appeared in the contract as the lessor. He paid yearly rental of P200.00 to Mrs. Aurea Asperilla; after her death in 1996, he paid rentals to the children (Emelita and Araceli Asperilla). Alvaro Asperilla died in April 1984. He returned the property to Nancy Asperilla in December 2000. During the lease he raised "tilapia"

on the land.21

On cross-examination, the witness affirmed that the document was prepared by Pedro Flores who signed it as a witness. He admitted that he became blind in 1990 but he continued to lease the property up to the year 2000, sending his children to work on the land upon his orders or instructions. He knows the land to be previously owned by Juan Flores. As to the contract of lease, Alvaro did not any more sign it because in 1983, he told him that it is his mother who will be responsible for the preparation of the contract and sign the document in his behalf because he is working in Manila. There was no receipt for the yearly rentals he paid as their agreement provides he will give rental after he harvested in December, 22

BENJAMIN FLORES testified that the subject land was given to them by his uncle Juan Flores. Before the donation, the land was leased by Juan Flores to one (1) Fernandez (for five [5] years) who sub-leased it to one

21 TSN, January 8, 2002, pp. 5-11. 22 lbid., pp. 12-16.

(1) Mr. Ramirez until the year 2000. As proofs of their ownership, the witness produced TD No. 19313 and receipts for tax payments (1980 to 2001), and also the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos dated April 10, 1997. Atty. Arsenio Cabanting prepared the document in Urdaneta City; Juan Flores caused it to be prepared. After the execution of the deed of donation, they transferred the land in their name based on TD No. 15565. TD No. 19313 cancelled TD No. 465. They went to the Assessor's Office and later to the BIR office in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Before the donation, it was his sisters who paid the taxes because he was then abroad.23

On cross-examination, the witness recalled it was in 1990 when Emilio Fernandez leased the land of Juan Flores; the latter did not give him the contract and Emilio sub-leased the property to Jun Ramirez up to the year 2000. Ramirez turned over the land to him. The Deed of Donation was executed in Urdaneta City; those present were Juan Flores, his sisters Avelina and Lydia, his wife Rosita and Tito Flores. Juan Flores was then already 65 years old and was living with his brother Tito Flores. He was present when his uncle Juan Flores died; they registered his death (LCR). He started paying taxes on the subject land in 1997; prior to this. It was his uncle who was paying the realty taxes and he was being accompanied by his sister. When his uncle donated the property to them, he also turned over to him all the documents. He came to know of the previous transactions over the subject land in 1997 after his uncle's death because the plaintiffs were claiming to be the owners telling him it was already sold to plaintiffs. Still, he waited for three (3) long years before transferring the property in their name in 2000.24 On re-direct, he said that Juan Flores died of a heart attack. After the donation, he and his brother Tito Flores informed Ramirez that they are the owners. They told the plaintiffs they have a deed of

23 TSN, February 20, 2002, pp. 3-11. 24 TSN, April 11, 2002, pp. 2-8.

donation in their favor. It took them three (3) years to transfer the land in their name due to financial constraints.25 On re-cross examination, the witness said Juan Flores died in the house of Tito Flores; they did not cause an autopsy of his body.26

ARTHUR DAVID, an employee of the Registry of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan brought to the court the primary book under Act No. 3344. The book showed that Entry No. 148325 is actually a Notice of Attachment executed by Sheriff Leo Beltran in favor of Lagrimas Neth M. Serapion and John Deed [sic]; Date of Document: November 8, 2000. It is not the Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro. The Certification in the said document bears the signature of their OIC-Deputy Register of Deeds Edna Ferrer, and also that of Melendre Caledra-Velasquez who is the one (1) incharge of entering documents under Act No. 3344.27

On cross-examination, the witness agreed that the document certified to by Edna Ferrer as not having been registered with their office is a document Deed of Sale With Right To Repurchase, whereas the document on which the witness testified is a Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale.28 Witness was asked to bring the primary book to ascertain the registration of the "Deed of Sale With Right To Repurchase" supposedly on the date February 5, 1976.29 On re-direct examination, the witness maintained that the document Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale is not registered in their office despite the rubber stamp of their office on it in the signature of their OIC Deputy Register Edna Ferrer.30 On recross examination, the court noted that the Certification pertains to non-registration of Deed of Sale with Right To Repurchase instead of the Sale of Right Under Pacto De Retro Sale; the OIC Deputy Register of Deeds was misled.31

25 lbid., pp. 8-9.

26 lbid., p. 9.

27 TSN, July, 2, 2002, pp. 2-4.

28 lbid., pp. 5-6.

29 Ibid., p. 7-8.

30 TSN, July 17, 2002, pp. 2-4. 31 Ibid., pp. 5-7.

MELENDRE CARIDAD VELASQUEZ, Land Registration Examiner of the Registry of Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasinan testified that the Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale was presented to their office on March 20, 2001, which he translated in English as she understood that it is the same with the Deed of Sale with Right To Repurchase. The Certification was in English. But she does not have any idea about the document Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale, which was the only document presented to them (and not to the Deed of Sale With Right To Repurchase). Examining the document, she found it has no entry number before the rubber stamp pad for inscription number was stamped. There could be manipulation or anomaly as their office could not inscribe without an entry number. She identified the signature as that of their OIC Deputy Register of Deeds Edna Ferrer. She was the one (1) who prepared the Certification after verifying with their registry book, and let Edna Ferrer sign the same. Edna Ferrer said her signature is genuine but the inscription appearing in the document is not, upon verification from the registration book. What was presented is the xerox copy of the document.32

EDNA FERRER, the OIC-Deputy Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan testified that the Sale of Right Under Pacto de Retro Sale was not registered in their office. The inscription was just inserted with document presented for registration considering the voluminous documents presented in their office.33

On cross-examination, the witness stated that was not aware of the registration of the other document, the Deed of Sale With Right To Repurchase, although the inscription at the back thereof appears to be genuine. She just presumed that the document passed the examiner who prepared the stamping of the document (entry clerk). She did not any more verify nor did she check the supporting papers whether they are genuine or not. She did not check the entry book but just presumed

32 TSN, August 6, 2002, pp. 2-11. 33 TSN, August 28, 2002, pp. 3-4.

that everything is in order. She insisted they do not have the original copy of the document and noticed only later that they do not have it in their file and was not also recorded in their record book; different employees prepare the entry, put the entry number, and there until it is for her to sign. She explained that the document/xerox copy was just inserted and there is no really existing file and their office. But she insisted she usually looks at the entry number before affixing her signature.34 On re-direct, witness was asked to verify what document is under Entry No. 418350, to which she replied it is a Notice of Attachment.35

ARTHUR DAVID upon being recalled to the witness stand testified that he tried to locate

the Deed of Sale With Right To Repurchase

but cannot find it in their office.36 On recross examination, he explained that he could not also locate the primary registry book for the year 1976 to verify the supposed registration on February 5, 1976 of the said document. Both document and primary book are now missing. The entry number is supposedly 298082.37

ATTY. ARSENIO T. CABANTING testified that the parties to the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos first went to his office saying that Juan Flores was going to donate the subject property; after being assured by them he asked for the document showing the boundaries thereof in their respective residence certificates. At the time, Juan Flores who was already more than 70 years old appears alright and just like a normal person; he was accompanied by the donees/defendants.38

On cross-examination, the witness said that previous to the notarization, he had met Benjamin Flores and his wife. He was the one (1) who personally prepared the document. Juan Flores was even older than him; he was 69 years old. He had notarized several documents in 1997 and as far as

34 lbid., pp. 4-9.

35 lbid., pp. 9-10.

36 TSN, September 18, 2002, pp. 3-4. 37 Ibid., pp. 4-6.

38 TSN, November 19, 2002, pp. 2-4.

he can remember, Juan Flores appears normal to him. He did not any more ask Juan Flores if he has previous transactions over the subject land. He just prepared the document, explained in Pangasinan dialect to Juan Flores the implications of the document and notarized it. Neither did he try to ascertain the identity of those witnesses to the signing of the deed.39 Answering questions from the court, the witness admitted he just relied on the tax declaration as he would not prepare and notarize a document if there was already a sale of the property involved. He had so far not yet encountered a document being prepared but the subject property was already disposed. He was not aware of the previous sale by Juan Flores of the same property, because had he known about it, he should have refused preparing the document for notarization.40

ROSITA SALES FLORES testified that as one (1) of the defendants in this case she went to the Assessor's Office and found that the property covered by TD No. 627 (which was cancelled by plaintiffs' TD No. 19618) has different boundaries and location. In TD No. 19618, the location is Sta. Rosa boundary and in TD No. 627 the property is located near Calit Road about 1 kilometer away. In TD No. 627, the Cadastral Lot No. is 10630 part; in the other tax declaration, it is not written, but according to the tax mapping which they got from the DENR (San Fernando, La Union) Form 37, their tax declaration is located in Sta. Rosa boundary, while in TD No. 627 it is located near Calit Road. Earlier, she went to the Municipal Assessor of Binmaley, Pangasinan but they could not show him the cadastre mapping and they sent him to Dagupan City where she was advised to proceed to San Fernando City, La Union which office issued to her the xerox copy of the tax mapping. According to said document, Lot No. 10704 (based on plaintiffs' deed of sale) could not be found. From the Assessor's Office, it was also found that a new tax declaration was issued

39 Ibid., pp. 5-8.

40 Ibid., pp. 8-9.

to Alvaro Asperilla, Jr. which they based on TD No. 627; she asked them about its location, boundaries and area which is different; the PIN number is also different.41

On cross-examination, the witness was confronted with TD No. 627 which indicated the location of the property as Gayaman, Binmaley, Pangasinan and not Calit Road. She insisted that according to the cadastral mapping, the lot covered by TD No. 627 is located in Calit Road. She pointed out the different statement of boundaries in TD Nos. 627 and 19618 in that the latter showed the boundaries designated by names of the property owners while in the former, it is the lot numbers. She does not know if the property reflected in DENR Form 37 is the same property being claimed by the plaintiffs since the lot number indicated is the tax declaration, Lot No. 10704 cannot be found; the lot number in DENR Form 37 is 10712. On the other hand, the lot reflected in DENR Form 37 is the same lot declared in TD No. 19313 in the name of defendants. She admitted that the Bureau of Lands did not actually conduct an on-site investigation as it is very far from San Fernando City, La Union. Under the tax mapping, Lot No. 10712 is the land being claimed by the defendants which was donated to them by Juan Flores. Lot No. 10712 is indicated in the name of Juan Flores as owner. Juan Flores died leaving several properties; he did not tell them the lot number but it is stated in the tax mapping that Lot No.10712 is in the name of Juan Flores. She did not request for a certification from the DENR office but only asked for a certified true copy.42

After the formal offer of documentary evidence and submission of the parties' respective memoranda, the case was submitted for decision.43 On April 15, 2005, judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as earlier stated. In ruling for the plaintiffs, the trial court made the following findings and conclusions, to wit:

"From the testimonies of the officials of the Register of Deeds, the 'Deed of Sale with Right of

41 TSN, March 25, 2003, pp. 2-8. 42 TSN, April 23, 2003, pp. 2-7. 43 Records, pp. 162-186.

Repurchase' in 1976 was registered under Entry No. 418325 (Exhibit '7') while the 'Deed of Sale of Right with Pacto de Retro Sale' in 1978 was not registered as the alleged registration could not be found in the primary book of the Registry of Deeds. Both Deeds however were notarized.

"The 'Deed of the Donation Inter Vivos' executed in 1997 was not only notarized but was also registered with the Registry of Deeds.

"Did the registration of the 'Deed of Donation Inter Vivos' vest better right on the defendants herein?'

"It has been repeatedly held that registration does not vest title. Registration is not one of the modes acquiring ownership but it is merely an evidence of such title over a particular property. It does not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.

"In the herein case, the defendants could not claim better right than the plaintiffs. It is a basic principle in a deed of sale with pacto de retro that once there is a failure to redeem within the stipulated period, ownership over the property subject of a pacto de retro sale becomes consolidated with the vendee a retro by operation of law. [De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 156 SCRA 701]

"As explicitly explained by the Supreme Court in De Guzman vs. CA [supra].

'The essence of a pacto de retro sale is that the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject to the resolutory condition of a repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. Failure thus of the vendee a retro to perform resolutory condition vests upon the vendee by operation of law absolute title and ownership over the property sold and failure of the vendee a retro to consolidate his title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code does not impair such title and ownership for the method prescribed thereunder is merely for the purpose of registering consolidated title.' (Underscoring supplied)'

"The registration of the 'Deed of Donation Inter Vivos' by the defendants in 2000 did not improve their right over the subject property. Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered land cannot prejudice third persons with better right. In Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Panlileo, [197 SCRA 245]

mere registration of a sale in ones' favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendee was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale unrecorded. The case of