Republic of the Philippines Court of Appeals Cebu City ‘SPECIAL NINETEENTH (19") DIVISION SPS. NELSON ARAGON and CA-G.R. CEB CV NO. 07008 IMELDA ARAGON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Members: FAJARDO, JR., J.G., Ch., “‘DADOLE-YGNACIO, M.G,, & - versus - LARGO, R.G., JJ. SPS. ANTERO BONGBONG and Promulgated: ROSARIO BONGBONG, Defendants-Appellants. 29 FEB 2004 i tO Ati DECISION FAJARDO, JR., J.: Where fraud and bad faith have been established, the award of moral damages is proper. Further, under Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code, the award of attorney's fees is proper where the plaintiff is compelled to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect his interest because of the defendant's act or omission.’ The Court has interpreted that this provision requires a showing of bad faith and not mere erroneous conviction of the righteousness of a defendant's cause.? The Case Before Us is an Appeal’ under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Decision‘ dated September 22, 2016 and Order> ice Justice Marilyn B, Lagura-Yap, per Office Order No, 01-24-PAM dated February 29, 2024 ps. Tumibay v. Sps. Lopez, G.R. No.171692, June 3, 2013. {Pryce Properties Corporation v. Sps. Octobre, G.R, No. 186976, December 07, 2016. ‘Original Records, p. 508-510. ‘Rollo, pp. 71-87. "Rollo, 88-89,CA-G.R. CEB CV NO. 07008, Page 2 of 19. DECISION dated October 11, 2017 of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court, Ormoc City (herein “court a quo”) in Civil Case No. 4542-0. The dispositive portion of the assailed September 22, 2016 Decision reads as follows: vox “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered confirming the ownership of the two (2) parcels of land covered by Tax Declaration no. 05-26015-00017 and Tax Declaration no. 05-26015- 00016 by Spouses Antero and Rosario Bongbong. However, defendants are hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiffs, Spouses Nelson and Imelda Aragon: 1. The amount of P525,000,00 plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from 28 June 2007 until fully satisfied; 2. The amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages; 3. The amount of P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages. 4. The amount of P20,000.00 as attorney's fees; 5. The amount of P10,000.00 as litigation expenses. SO ORDERED.”* rox The dispositive portion of the assailed October 11, 2017 Resolution is quoted hereunder, viz: Xxx “Wherefore, premises considered, the subject Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Modification of Decision is DENIED. SO ORDERED,“” Xxx ‘Rollo, p. 87. "Rollo, p. 88.CA-GR. CEB CV NO, 07008 Page 3 of 19. DECISION The Antecedents This instant controversy is rooted in a Complaint’ dated December 31, 2005 for quieting of title with damages docketed as Civil Case No. 4542-0 filed by plaintiffs-appellees (herein “appellees”) before the court a quo. In their complaint, appellees alleged that on July 20, 2002, they purchased two lots (herein “subject lots”), to wit: 1. A parcel of land situated in Brgy. Naulayan, Matag- ob, Leyte, containing an area of 11,828 square meters, which they bought from spouses Sergio Alegre and Remedios Alegre for the amount of 50,000.00; and 2. A parcel of land situated in Brgy. Naulayan, Matag- ob, Leyte, containing an area of 42, 756 square meters, which appellees bought from the heirs of the late spouses Norberto Regala and Leonila Amen for the amount of P100,000.00. Thereafter, appellees immediately took possession of the subject lots. Since then, appellees have been in public, peaceful, notorious and uninterrupted possession of the subject lots in the concept of an owner. Sometime in October 2005, defendants-appellants (herein “appellants”) allegedly disturbed appellees’ possession over the subject lots by claiming ownership over the same. Such claim has created a cloud to the title and ownership of appellees, to the prejudice of the latter's interests. By reason of the foregoing, appellees instituted the instant case, praying, among others, that any doubt in their ownership over the subject lots be cleared; and that appellants be ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses. “Original Records, pp. 17CA-GR. CEB CV NO, 07008 Page 4 of 19, DECISION Appellants refuted appellees’ allegations in their Answer with Counterclaim’ dated February 3, 2006, maintaining that Sergio Alegre and Norberto Regala, the vendors from whom appellees supposedly purchased the subject lots, did not have the capacity to sell the same. Allegedly, the original owner of the subject lots was the late Bartolome Viovicente (herein “Bartolome”)."” Bartolome lost in a case for forcible entry with damages, docketed as Civil Case No.1389-0, filed by Roberto F. Serafica and Carmen Carvajal. Consequently, the subject lots were levied to satisfy the judgment and for this reason, an auction sale was held on March 14, 1975, wherein appellants became the highest bidders. On March 15, 1975, a Certificate of Sheriff's Sale" was issued by the sheriff in appellants’ favor and was thereafter registered with the Office of the Registry of Deeds in Tacloban City. Bartolome failed to seasonably redeem the properties within the period allowed by law. Thus, a Certificate of Final Sale”? dated January 15, 1978 was issued in appellants! favor and was subsequently registered with the Office of the Registry of Deeds in Tacloban City on January 16, 1978. For this purpose, transfer taxes were paid and a new tax declaration in the name of Rosario V. Bongbong was issued. Since then, appellants took possession of the properties and exercised all acts of ownership over the same.” After the issuance of the Final Certificate of Sale in appellants! favor, Bartolome requested that the former allow him to occupy a portion of the subject lots. Out of kindness and generosity, appellants obliged and Bartolome was able to remain in the premises of the subject lots until his demise. However, prior to his death, Bartolome illegally sold the subject lots to Norberto Regala, without the knowledge and consent of appellants. Upon learning of the sale, appellants immediately confronted Bartolome, who admitted to the sale. Norberto Regala later on realized that Bartolome was no longer “Original Records, pp. 26-32 “Folder for Exhibits and Minutes, p. 11 "Folder for Exhibits and Minutes, pp. 12-13 Folder for Exhibits and Minutes, pp. 14-15. “Folder for Exhibits and Minutes, pp. 16-20.CA-GR. CEB CV NO. 07008 Page 5 of 19, DECISION the owner of the subject lots and decided to offer to buy the subject lots from the appellants who turned down the offer. From the foregoing, appellants contended that the tax declarations issued to Norberto Regala and Remedios Alegre, from whom appellees derived their claim of ownership over the subject lots, are spurious. They contended further that since the sale between Bartolome and Norberto Regala is void, it follows that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Simultaneous Sale executed by the heirs of Norberto Regala in favor of appellees are likewise void. Moreover, the sale executed by spouses Sergio Alegre and Remedios Alegre in favor of appellees is likewise void because the former had, in turn, bought the property from Norberto Regala, who, as previously established, did not acquire any title to the subject lots. During the Pre-Trial Conference held on August 23, 2010,"* appellees, through counsel, manifested that they already paid appellants the amount of Five Hundred Twenty Five Thousand (PHP/525, 000.00), representing the full purchase price of the subject lots. On August 8, 2011, during the conduct of continuation of the pre-trial conference, the following issues were identified and the following exhibits were marked, to wit: Xxx Issues 1. Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to the removal of doubts or quieting of title to the properties in question in their favor; 2. Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to damages; Whether or not the sale between Spouses Alegre and plaintiffs is null and void; 4, Whether or not the sale between plaintiffs and Sps. Norberto Regala and Leonila Amen is null and void; “Original Records, p. 155.