G.R. No.

97929 December 17, 1991

BENJAMIN DY,
petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BIENVENIDO MANALO AND PARAMOUNT

DEVELOPMENT
BANK,
respondents

It appears that on June 30, 1983, Bienvenido Manalo purchased Lot 2

for P9,000.00 from Paramount Development Bank, the herein other
private respondent. The bank expressly warranted valid title to and
peaceful possession of the property and that it was free from all liens
and encumbrances. On August 1, 1983, the Deed of Absolute Sale was
issued in the name of Manalo.
Also on June 30, 1983, Manalo and Paramount entered into another
agreement pursuant to which the latter committed itself to sell Lot 3
to Manalo for the sum of P9,000.00. P3,000.00 was to be paid in
advance and the balance in specified installments.

Manalo alleges that when he went to occupy the said lots pursuant to the above-
mentioned contracts, he found that they had been fenced by Benjamin Dy, who claimed
to be the owner of the properties. Manalo then demanded from Paramount that it eject
Dy pursuant to its express warranty under the Deed Absolute Sale. He also informed
the bank that he would suspend the amortizations on Lot 3 until the land was cleared of
occupants.

The bank having failed to comply with Manalo's demand, the latter filed a complaint
against it in the Regional Trial Court Angeles City. Manalo demanded that the defendant
make good its warranty under the Deed of Absolute Sale, eject the occupants of Lot 3,
and execute a Deed of Absolute Sale thereof upon his full payment of the agreed
purchase price. He also demanded actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as
litigation expenses, including attorney's fees.

Petitioner, Benjamin Dy as plaintiff-intervenor, averred that the real owner of Lots 2 and
3, having purchased them on February 2, 1972 from his father, Dy Hong, for
P14,000.00. Dy Hong had acquired these lots from the Doña Agripina Subdivision on
September 4, 1964, as evidenced by two receipts issued to him by the seller. The
intervenor claimed he had been in possession o the lots since 1964 and that both
Manalo and the bank knew he was the owner of these properties.

The trial court ruled against petitioner, saying that his evidence of ownership was
insufficient, consisting as it did only of the two receipts and the deed of sale from his
father. No deed of sale from the Doña Agripina Subdivision was submitted. The deed of
sale signed by his father, who supposedly acquired the land from the subdivision, was
by itself alone a "worthless document." There was no proof either that the disputed lots
belonged to the subdivision as the evidence of record showed that the land was
originally owned by one Eusebio Lopez, who mortgaged it to Paramount.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner is the owner of the two lots?

Held: No, The court ruled that petitioner has not proved that he is the owner of the
lots. His evidence on this matter consisted only of the deed of sale executed and signed
by his father, the two receipts supposedly issued by the Doña Agripina Subdivision, and
his own testimony. As observed by the trial court, it has not even been shown that at the
time of the alleged sale in favor of the petitioner father, the lots were owned by the Doña
Agripina Subdivision.

The two receipts allegedly issued by the subdivision are private documents. In proving
their due execution and genuinness, it is not sufficient that the witness state in a general
manner that the person whose signature appears thereon the one who executed the
document. The testimony of an eye witness authenticating a private document must be
positive, categorically stating that the document was actually eye-witness by the person
whose name is subscribed thereto.