G.R. No. 185477 - HERMINIO M. GUTIERREZ AND ELISA A. GUTIERREZ-MAYUGA, VS. FLORA MENDOZA-PLAZA AND PONCIANO HERNANDEZ. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly denied the above material averments in their Answer, [10] asserting that Ignacio and his first wife, Juana, had been in possession of the subject property as early as 1900. After the death of Juana, Dominador, Victoria and Ignacio took over possession of the subject property. When Dominador and Victoria died in 1940 and 1943, respectively, their heirs, including petitioners, occupied and possessed the subject property openly, peacefully and publicly. Petitioners likewise disputed the genuineness and authenticity of the deed of donation inter vivos , considering that for more than 65 years the said document was not registered with the office of the Register of Deeds to cause its transfer to respondents. Respondents' presence on and occupancy of a portion of the subject property were allegedly a mere tolerance on the part of petitioners. Thus, the title and rights of petitioners over the subject property were absolute and legal by virtue of succession. On 15 June 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision in favor of respondents, the dispositive portion of which provides: WHEREFORE , judgment is rendered in favor of the [respondents] and against [petitioners]: 1. Pronouncing and confirming that the [respondents] are the lawful, true and rightful owners of the land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint [subject property], and hereby remove the cloud and quiet their title thereto: 2. Ordering the [petitioners] to refrain from disturbing in whatever manner the ownership and possession of the [respondents] over the land subject matter of this litigation; 3. Pronouncing [petitioners] to have lost the house of strong and concrete materials which they built in bad faith on the land of the [respondents] without right to indemnity, and ordering the [petitioners] to demolish and remove the said house from the [respondents'] land within thirty (30) days from the date this judgment becomes final at their own expense and thereafter vacate and restore to the [respondents] possession of the portion of the land which the [petitioners] have occupied. 4. Ordering the [petitioners] to pay [respondent] Ponciano Hernandez the sum of P50,000.00 for moral damages, and another sum of P20,000.00 to both [respondents] for attorney's fees. 5. Plus the costs assessed against the [petitioners]. [11] Principally, the RTC relied on the deed of donation inter vivos in awarding the subject property to respondents. The same was properly identified and described in the testimony of Mercedes Mendoza, one of the daughters of Ignacio by his second marriage. The deed was also a notarized document, which was executed with all the formal requirements of the law. Thus, the recitals contained therein were presumed to be true and authentic, which presumption the petitioners failed to overcome with clear, convincing, overwhelming and more than merely preponderant evidence. The RTC also ruled that the deed of donation inter vivos was an ancient document, [12] having been executed on 8