This is another case involving the inheritance of a property. The parties involved here are the surviving wife and her alleged brother-in-law. Who has the burden of proof in establishing such a relationship? And what kind of proof is necessary to discharge such burden? These are the questions mainly raised and resolved in this case.
This case involved a parcel of land with an area of 350 square meters covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title situated in a suburban city. It is registered in the name Charito, who inherited it from her deceased husband, Ben. The subject property was originally owned by the parents of Ben, Jaime and Minda, who also begot two other children Lina and Doming. When Jaime and Minda died, the surviving children executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the estate of their parents wherein the subject property was adjudicated in favor of Ben, Charito’s husband.
When Ben died, Charito executed an Affidavit of Self Adjudication adjudicating unto herself the subject property. So a new title was issued in the name of Charito. When Ben’s brother Doming learned about said Affidavit, he filed, among others, a complaint against Charito for cancellation of said title and re-conveyance of one-half of subject property to him, plus attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
Doming alleged that the Affidavit of Self Adjudication was a total falsity because at the time of Ben’s demise, he was survived not only by his wife Charito, but also by him and their sister Lina as collateral relatives. Doming also alleged that Lina already executed a Deed of Waiver of Rights wherein she relinquished in his favor all her rights and participation over said property. So, Doming claimed he is now entitled to one-half thereof.
For her part, Charito claimed that the subject property is her exclusive property, since she purchased the same with her own money. She also claimed that Doming is not a legitimate brother of her late husband Ben. So Charito also filed a compulsory counter-claim for damages against Doming for filing a baseless and malicious action against her.
After trial, where the parties presented their own witnesses to prove their allegations, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Charito and ordered Doming to pay exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and cost of suit. The RTC ruled that the Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Ben’s parents does not suffice to support Doming’s claim that he is the brother of Ben. This ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA) except the award of exemplary damages for lack of basis.
On appeal by Doming to the Supreme Court, the decision of the CA was affirmed. The SC said that the arguments of Doming essentially raise questions of fact which are not proper subject of an appeal by Certiorari because the factual findings of the appellate court are considered final, binding or conclusive on the parties and on this court, especially when supported by substantial evidence. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his/her case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is defined as the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is synonymous with “greater weight of credible evidence.” It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Thus, it is incumbent upon Doming to prove that he is the brother of Ben, the decedent. Unfortunately, Doming failed to overcome this burden. The record is bereft of any evidence submitted by Doming to prove his relationship with the decedent. He should have submitted documents, such as birth certificates duly showing that he and Ben have the same mother, father or both.
Hence the decision of the CA partially dismissing Doming’s appeal is affirmed without prejudice to the filing before the appropriate court, of an intestate proceeding for the purpose of determining the heirs who may be entitled to inherit to the estate of Ben’s parents. The award of exemplary damages is deleted (Caranto vs. Caranto, G.R. 202889, March 2, 2020).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com