As to the first assignment of error, appellant has no reason to complain that the trial court did not consider the documents that he presented as his only evidence (Exhs. A, A-1 to K). In ruling in favor of the appellees and against appellant, it cannot be seriously asserted that the trial court did not give due regard to the prima-facie effect or value of appellant's documentary evidence, particularly the deed of sale (Exhibit A), the certificate of title, TCT No. 59373 in the name of his wife Virginia T. Reyes (Exh. B), the tax declaration also in her name (Exh. K), and the extrajudicial settlement affidavit of appellant Reyes (Exh. C). Otherwise, the court should not have found it necessary to enter, as it did, into a thorough, extensive analysis of the evidence of the appellee, both testimonial and documentary (Exh. 1).
It cannot, likewise, be denied that appellant failed to contradict the testimony of appellee Reyes to the effect that he placed the land in question in the name of his daughter, Virginia, only to conform with the requirement of the hacienda-owner, Justa G. Vda de Guido, that no one person can buy more than two lots at a time, and that since the sale, the property had been taken into his possession up to the time it was sold, the products thereof having been received by appellee Reyes even after her daughter's marriage to appellant. This unrebutted testimony of appellee Reyes could not have been evaluated except by weighing it against the documentary evidence of appellant. But with appellant giving no testimony to rebut that of appellee Reyes, the lower court cannot be said to be in error, as claimed by appellant (2nd assignment of error), in finding that "plaintiff failed to substantiate his complaint and did not even bother to contradict defendant Faustino Reyes" testimony.
The observation of the lower court that appellant failed to substantiate his complaint is glaringly true with respect to the allegation that the baby of Virginia T. Reyes died after the mother died of coronary embolism on the same date she gave delivery (sic) to the baby girl. This allegation was specifically denied in the answer of appellee Reyes, who repeated his averment therein in his testimony in court that the baby was born dead because its head was crushed when extracted from the mother's womb with forceps. Yet, appellant did not take the witness stand to deny this fact. None of his documentary evidence on the sole reliance of which he rested his case relates to how the baby was born — alive or dead. This point is precisely the most decisive factor in determining the merit of his claim to have inherited the property in question from the child, because the latter inherited it from its mother. It was incumbent upon him to prove that the child was born alive and died after the mother has (sic) died earlier, as required by Art. 43 of the Civil Code which provides:
Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
Not only did appellant failed (sic) to discharge the duty imposed upon him for having alleged the death of his wife prior to that of his child, but also failed to contradict the positive and categorical testimony of appellee Reyes that the child was born dead. The alleged admission in the answer of the appellees spouses to substantiate the allegation of the appellant in his complaint is ineffective against the specific denial in appellee Reyes' answer, repeated in his testimony. With this particular matter in issue, it is Reyes who is directly concerned, and the supposed admission of the appellee-spouses who are complete strangers to the family of appellant and Reyes, can have no binding force and effect upon the latter. Hence, on the opposing claims as to who would inherit the property in question, that of appellee must be sustained as the lower court ruled correctly. With this finding alone, the dismissal of the complaint would be in order and fully justified.
Moreover, as allegedly intimated, the lower court's finding that the land was actually owned by Faustino B. Reyes, notwithstanding that the title was in the name of Virginia T. Reyes, pursuant to the deed of sale where the latter was made to appear as the buyer, finds convincing support from the evidence of record. It was clearly explained why both the deed of sale and the certificate of title mentioned Virginia T. Reyes as the owner. The explanation was fully supported by the agreement (kasunduan) duly notarized on June 15, 1955 (Exh. 1) which shows that Faustino Reyes was the buyer of three lots with a total consideration of P14,000.00. At the time of the execution of this agreement, he paid P11,000.00, leaving only a balance of P3,000.00 which he paid later. Virginia, then only 18 years of age, could not paid (sic) the price of the lot in question. By no stretch of the imagination can it be asserted that she bought the land herself as the deed of sale purports to show. The extrajudicial adjudication affidavit of appellee Reyes (Exh. C) can not, under the circumstances just noted, be read as an admission of Reyes that her daughter, Virginia, was the owner of the land, as appellant contends. It is evident that the execution of this document was resorted to only as the most practical and expeditious way to transfer the land from the name of Virginia T. Reyes to that of appellee Reyes. It cannot have a greater probative value than the deed of sale (Exh. A) and the certification of title (Exh. B) relied upon by appellant, which have already been shown to be of no avail against the clear and convincing evidence of appellee.
There is no question of trust involved under the proven facts of the case, as appellant raises in his third assignment of error. The court a quo made no finding as to the existence or non-existence of one. As cited by appellant himself, Article 1448, New Civil Code, provides:
There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the practice is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. However, if the person to whom the title is conveyed is a child, legitimate or illegitimate, of the one paying the price of the sale; no trust is implied by law, it being disputably presumed that there is a gift in favor of the child. (Emphasis supplied).
The disputable presumption of a gift as created in the aforequoted provision has been amply overcome by the evidence of appellee Reyes, as already demonstrated. If it was a gift, the land should have been taken possession of by appellant at least after he married his wife as the supposed beneficiary. They then should have enjoyed also the fruits, and also paid for the tax. No evidence, however, of such payment was presented. To all appearances, appellant knew as a fact that his wife never was the owner of the land, not even as a gift under the legal provision he cited. Otherwise, it should not have taken him almost seven long years to assert ownership with the filing of the present action. That this action is a mere afterthought, stirred by a legal mind with a gambling instinct is not just a mild surmise, considering how long it took the appellant to file it in court and its contingent nature. It may be well to remember, however, that lawsuits are not won by chance, as by the turn of the dice, or how the cards fall on the gambling table — not while the courts sit, anyway. 5
