FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254492. February 15, 2022.]
ELEDIO ACIBAR y TUBA, AS REPRESENTED BY JULITA ENERO y TUBA, petitioner,vs. NESTOR MAGPAYO y LOBOS, ROMEO ACERO y OSAL, ROQUE MONTAÑO y PALACIO, EDWIN MONTAÑO y PALACIO, AND ALL PERSONS WHO DERIVED INTEREST FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022which reads as follows:
"GR. No. 254492 — Eledio Acibar y Tuba, as represented by Julita Enero y Tuba v. Nestor Magpayo y Lobos, Romeo Acero y Osal, Roque Montaño y Palacio, Edwin Montaño y Palacio, and all persons who derived interest from the subject property.
THE CASE
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 09741 entitled "Nestor Magpayo, Romeo Acero, Roque Montaño and Edwin Montaño v. Eledio Acibar, represented by Julita Enero:"
1. Decision 1 dated April 30, 2019, reversing the declarations of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) that petitioner Eledio Acibar (Eledio) is the lawful owner of the subject property and its directive for respondents Nestor Magpayo (Nestor), Romeo Acero (Romeo), Roque Montaño (Roque) and Edwin Montaño (Edwin) to clear up and vacate the same; and
2. Resolution 2 dated September 29, 2020, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Antecedents
Petitioner Eledio, represented by his mother, Julita Enero (Julita), filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages against respondents Nestor, Romeo, Roque and Edwin before the MCTC, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar involving a residential lot in Doña Anatulia Street, Zone 1, San Roque, Northern Samar, particularly described as follows:
TAX DECLARATION NO. 381
A portion or part only of a parcel of residential lot located at Poblacion, San Roque, N. Samar; containing an area of Four Hundred Seventy One (471) square meters which is 3/4 in size of the entire parcel of land and shall be bounded on the North by Julita Enero; on the South by Dona Anatulia St. and Felix Acibar; on the East by Antero Galdones and Felix Acibar and on the West by Osmeña St. under Tax Declaration No. 381 in the name of our deceased father Rufino Acibar who died in 1972. 3
In his Complaint, petitioner alleged that his grandfather Rufino Acibar (Rufino) owned a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. (TD) 381. After his grandfather's demise, he bought 100 square (sq.) meters of the lot from Rufino's children Ocita 4 Acibar (Ocita) and Percila Acibar (Percila) through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 20, 1980. He had the lot surveyed, hence, the portion he bought is now denominated Lot 347 and TD 381 was cancelled by TD 3554 in his name. HESIcT
Subsequently, he bought another 172 sq. meters from the remaining 371 sq. meters of the lot from his aunt Concepcion Acibar (Concepcion) and his mother Julita through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 1, 2005. He again caused the survey of the lot, as a consequence of which, the second portion he bought is now denominated as Lot 348 and covered by TD 2244. He had been religiously paying taxes on the property. 5
He and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, peaceful, public, adverse and continuous possession of the land for more than fifty (50) years. Respondents, however, illegally occupied portions of the land without his consent. Despite demands to vacate, respondents refused to vacate the property.
Julita testified that in 1960, she acquired from Santiago Delizon and Francisca Delizon one of the lots adjoining the subject property which was originally owned by her father-in-law Rufino way back since 1945. When Rufino died on March 10, 1972, his children Felix Acibar (Felix), Ocita, and petitioner's father Pepito Acibar (Pepito) succeeded as co-owners of the subject property and "no one else claimed (it)." Petitioner bought the land through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed between petitioner, as buyer, and Ocita and Percila, as co-sellers, on March 20, 1980. The remaining portion of the land was acquired by petitioner from Julita and Concepcion, wife of Felix through another Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 1, 2005. 6
On the other hand, Ocita testified that respondents are her grandchildren. The lot in question was originally owned by her late father Rufino since 1945. No other person claimed the land during Rufino's lifetime and even after his demise. Petitioner is now the owner of the lot which petitioner bought from her and her siblings. Sometime in 1984, her niece Alecia and the latter's spouse Damian Montaño (Damian) asked permission from her brother Felix to build a house on petitioner's lot so their children may be able to study in the nearby school. At present, her grandson respondent Roque is occupying the lot. 7
In their Answer, respondents countered that they have been in open, continuous, actual, and uninterrupted possession of the land, now designated as Lot Nos. 347 and 348, in the concept of holders for more than seventy (70) years tacked from their predecessors-in-interest. Their grandfathers and fathers occupied Lot Nos. 347 and 348 with the permission of the true and lawful owner, Juan Abalon (Juan). 8
The land is presently owned by the Heirs of Juan, namely: Manuel Abalon and Nela Abalon. It is covered by TD 1020 in their names, and is particularly described therein as:
A land located in Maroyondoyon, Cbugawa, Bagsang, Zone 1, San Roque, N. Samar, denominated as Assessor's Lot No. 715 and bounded as follows:
North: Laoangan River & provincial road;
East: I. Sosing and J. Abalon & Laoangan River;
South: F. Mila, V. Cagro Suriano, N. Atencio, C. Abalon & C. Naza;
West: Barangay Laoangan, J. Abalon, L. Sosing & Mila, containing an area of 110-47-93 hectares. 9
This tax declaration contains a note that it was cancelled by TDs 3378, 3379 and 3380. The land was surveyed for Florentino Flores, father of Juan and included in the survey approved by the Bureau of Land on March 3, 1939. It is now denominated as Lot 347 and Lot 348 and occupied by them (respondents). 10
Respondents further alleged that neither petitioner, his mother, nor their predecessors-in-interest have actually occupied the land in dispute and that petitioner is already staying in San Mateo, Rizal. Petitioner could not be considered a buyer in good faith because he had notice that they (respondents) and their predecessors-in-interest were the actual possessors of the subject lot as his mother is the owner of one of the adjoining lots. 11
Roque testified that his father is Arturo Montaño, son of Damian who died in 1978, in the very same house he is presently occupying. It was his grandfather who asked permission from Juan to build a house on the subject lot. The other respondent Romeo who is married to his aunt, also lived in the property at the same time Roque did. Nestor is another neighbor who never saw petitioner in the subject property. 12
Edwin testified that he is residing in Zone 1, San Roque where the subject property is situated. His parents, Pektay and Agustin Acero were tenants of Juan and had been in possession of the property for a long time. Juan was succeeded by his children Manuel and Nela Abalon. He is fifty six (56) years old and he has never left the property since birth. He is not claiming the land he is occupying since he recognizes that it is owned by Juan. 13 caITAC
Nestor testified that he built a house on a portion of the subject property in 1945 and has since stayed there together with his wife and children. He knows that the land is owned by the Manuel Abalon and Nela Abalon. It was his father Miguel Magpayo who first stayed in the property, but he himself was also born there. He knows petitioner being his neighbor. They (petitioner and family) are new occupants of the property. Julita started to live in the adjacent lot only in 1979. 14
Marilyn Siervo, Municipal Assessor of San Roque testified that the tax declaration presented by respondents, TD 1020, was canceled by TD 3378, TD 3378, and TD 3380 during the 1994 tax revision. Subsequently, TD 3380 was canceled by TD 00175, TD 00716, TD 00177, and TD 00183. 15
Ruling of the MCTC
By Decision 16 dated April 28, 2014, the 5th MCTC, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar ruled in favor of petitioner, viz.:
WHEREFORE, by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, thus:
1. Declaring plaintiff Eledio Acibar, owner of the land, identified as Lot Nos, 347 and 348.
2. Ordering defendants, Nestor Magpayo, Romeo Acero, Roque Montaño and Edwin Montaño to vacate the land and to remove whatever improvements they introduced inside the land at their own expense.
3. Defendants to pay plaintiff rental for the portion they occupy at Php100.00 a month until such time that they vacate the land.
4. Defendants to pay jointly and severally Attorney's fees of Php15,000.00.
5. To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
The MCTC held that petitioner, through preponderance of evidence, proved that he is the legitimate owner of the lot in question and as such, he has the right to evict respondents therefrom. It was only upon petitioner's tolerance that respondents were able to occupy the property. Respondents' claim that the land is owned by the Abalons cannot be sustained based on the tax declarations they presented because the same pertained to a different location. TD 3380 which was cancelled by TD 00176, 00177, 05-04085 and 05-04086, covers Brgy. Dale, Brgy. Zone 111 and Brgy. Zone 4, and not Brgy. Zone 1 where the subject lot is located. Even the boundaries mentioned do not conform to the boundaries of the lot in question. While it is true that respondents have stayed in the property for quite a length of time, their possession can never ripen into ownership as they themselves admitted that the land is owned by the Abalons, and not by them. 17
On the other hand, petitioner was able to prove that the lot was previously owned by his grandfather Rufino based on TD 381 and that respondents were merely permitted by his uncle Felix to build a house on the lot. 18
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
By Decision 19 dated May 13, 2015, the RTC-Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, affirmed.
It found that the tax declarations presented by the respondents reflecting the names of the owners as Manuel Abalon and Nela Abalon, the alleged original owners, are insufficient to prove that the lot in question is owned by the Abalons and not by herein petitioner. Too, respondents' claim that they and their predecessors were allowed by Juan to occupy a portion of the latter's property was not supported by any satisfactory evidence. The alleged owners were never impleaded and not one of them was called to testify on their supposed ownership of the lot or even on the supposed permission granted by Juan and his heirs to respondents and their predecessors-in-interest to occupy the property. 20
Petitioner, on the other hand, proved that he acquired the first 100 sq. meters of the lot by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 20, 1980, executed between him, as buyer, and his aunts Ocita and Percila, as sellers. On May 13, 2005, petitioner's aunt Concepcion and Julita executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioner over another 172 sq. meters of the same property. 21
By preponderance of evidence, petitioner was able to prove his ownership. As possession is one of the attributes of ownership, possession must as a matter of right, be delivered to him. 22
Respondent's motion for reconsideration 23 was denied under Resolution dated October 13, 2015.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On respondents' appeal, the Court of Appeals, through Decision 24 dated April 30, 2019 reversed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 13 May 2015 and Order dated 13 October 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman Northern Samar in Civil Case No. C-1452, affirming the Decision dated 28 April 2014 of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar in Civil Case No. 667, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint for Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages filed by respondent Eledio Acibar in Civil Case No. 667, is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.25
It held that petitioner failed to prove the requisites of accion reinvidicatoria. Petitioner failed to conclusively show the metes and bounds of the larger property in relation to the metes and bounds of the property over which he was asserting ownership; thus, there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove the identity of the said property. 26 ICHDca
The deeds of absolute sale specified only the extent of the area sold to petitioner. There was no document presented showing the entire residential lot from which 471 [272] sq. meters was supposedly taken. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the twin deeds of absolute sale did not bear the purported metes and bounds of the property. 27
While in his Complaint, petitioner mentioned that TD 381 was in the name of his alleged predecessor-in-interest Rufino, and the subsequent TDs 3556 and 2244, both in his name, these tax declarations were not appended to the complaint nor presented as evidence during the hearing proper. Too, while petitioner claimed that he had the subject lot surveyed, no such plan was presented in court. 28
The Court of Appeals further ruled that there was no way for it to ascertain whether the subject property and the property being claimed by petitioner are one and the same. For while petitioner is claiming ownership and possession of a parcel of land covered by TD 381 (subsequently cancelled by TDs 3556 and 2244) as described and identified in the two deeds of absolute sale; respondents, on the other hand, are claiming possession of a parcel of land covered by TD 1020 (subsequently cancelled by TDs 3380, 0176, 00177, 05-04085, 05-04086). 29
Since petitioner failed to prove his title to and the identity of the lot he is claiming, there is no cogent reason to turn over its possession and ownership to him. 30
By Resolution 31 dated September 29, 2020, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Present Petition
Petitioner now prays that the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals be reversed and a new one rendered declaring him to be the rightful owner of the subject lot.
He asserts that contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, he in fact appended to his complaint and subsequently presented in court TD 381 covering the entire residential lot from which the portions he bought from the children of Rufino, and the subsequent TDs 3554, 3556, and 2244 issued thereon. 32 This was precisely the reason why both the MCTC and the RTC ordained that these TDs together with the twin deeds of sale in favor of petitioner constituted sufficient evidence of his ownership and possession of the portions in question.
His witnesses also testified on the identity of the property. His mother Julita and aunt Ocita identified the tax declarations in court and testified that the bigger lot was originally owned by the late Rufino since 1945 and that he (petitioner) bought portions of the lot from them and the other children of Rufino. 33
The Court of Appeals misapplied the law on accionreinvidicatoria. It also disregarded factual findings of the MCTC, concurred in full by the RTC. 34
While respondents themselves testified that they were in possession of the property by authority of the alleged owner, Juan, their testimonies were never corroborated by the alleged owner himself.
Finally, the MCTC, as affirmed by the RTC observed that even respondents' own witness OIC Municipal Assessor of San Roque Marilyn Siervo testified that the tax declarations respondents presented pertain to a lot situated elsewhere. 35
Respondents, for their part, riposte that they are not intruders. While they do not claim ownership of the subject property, their right of possession was derived from its rightful owners — the Abalons. They and their predecessors have been in possession of the land for more than seventy (70) years now, too way ahead of petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest. Although none of the Abalons testified for respondents, no one contradicted their claims either. 36
Except for the twin deeds of sale and the tax declarations, no other evidence was presented by petitioner to show the identity between the land being claimed by him and the land subject of the present case. There was no specific technical description presented, nor was there any identification or ocular inspection on the ground or a relocation of the land to identify that indeed it was the portion illegally occupied by respondents. 37
Even if the land was properly identified, albeit unregistered, it is required that the buyer be in good faith. Either respondents or their predecessors-in-interest were already in possession of the land when petitioner allegedly bought the same. It would have served as constructive notice to him that the property belongs to another. For more than seventy (70) years, no one ever disturbed their possession except when herein petitioner filed this case which was also years after he allegedly purchased the property. 38
Issue
Was petitioner able to prove through preponderance of evidence his ownership of the lot in question so as to entitle him the right to oust respondents therefrom?
Ruling
We reverse.
Accion reivindicatoria or accionde reivindicacion is an action where the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. The basic question in such an action is whether the plaintiff, petitioner herein, has presented sufficient evidence to prove his or her ownership of the property in question. 39 TCAScE
As in all civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his or her case by preponderance of evidence. "Preponderance of evidence" is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. If the plaintiff claims a right granted or created by law, he or she must prove his or her claim by competent evidence. He or she must rely on the strength of his or her own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his or her opponent. 40
Also, in order that an action for recovery of title may prosper, it is indispensable that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not only his or her ownership of the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same. But while the identity of the thing that a party desires to recover must be established, if the plaintiff has already proved his or her right of ownership over a tract of land, and the defendant is occupying without right any part of such tract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to establish the precise location and extent of the portions occupied by the defendant within the plaintiff's property. 41
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to establish the identity of the property claimed on ground that the latter did not present in evidence TD 381 and the metes and bounds of this larger property from which petitioner's portions (TDs 3554, 3556 and 2244) which he bought from Rufino's children were derived from.
We cannot agree.
Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, petitioner was able to establish his ownership of the lot in question. Aside from testimonial evidence, petitioner also presented documentary evidence to support his ownership of the subject lot.
As found by the MCTC and the RTC, not only did petitioner offer in evidence TD 318 which was cancelled by TD 3554, which, in turn, was cancelled by TDs 3556 and 2244, he also presented the twin Deeds of Absolute Sale dated March 20, 1980 and May 1, 2005, respectively. 42
More, both Julita and Ocita testified that the subject lot was originally owned by Rufino way back since 1945. When Rufino died on March 10, 1972, his children Felix, Ocita and petitioner's father Pepito succeeded Rufino and "no one else claimed the land." Petitioner bought the lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on March 20, 1980 between petitioner as buyer and Ocita and Percila, as co-sellers. The remaining portion of the land was acquired by petitioner from Julita and Concepcion, wife of Felix through another Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 1, 2005. 43
Ocita also testified that respondents are her grandchildren. Sometime in 1984, her niece Alecia and the latter's spouse Damian asked permission from her brother Felix to build a house on petitioner's lot so that their children may be able to study in the nearby school. 44 She recognized petitioner as the owner of the lot.
Notably, by the time petitioner's uncle Felix permitted respondents to build a house on the lot in 1984, petitioner was already the owner of the property, having bought the same in 1980 from Rufino's children who inherited the lot from their father. In other words, respondents did not derive any right to occupy the lot from Felix who was no longer a co-owner of the lot. Surely, a non-existent right cannot ripen into any vested right, let alone, the right to refuse to vacate and surrender the property upon demand by its real owner, herein petitioner.
In any event, although petitioner pointed to one Juan Abalon as the person who permitted them to occupy the lot, the official documents evidencing ownership of the lot do not bear that name nor his alleged heirs Manuel and Nela Abalon. All respondents had were their self-serving allegations and supposed TDs which according to their own witness Municipal Assessor of San Roque Marilyn Siervo actually pertain to a lot situated elsewhere; TD 3380 which was cancelled by TDs 00176, 00177, 05-04085 and 05-04086 actually cover Brgy. Dale, Brgy. Zone 111 and Brgy. Zone 4 and not Brgy. Zone 1 where the subject lot is situated. In fact, even the boundaries described therein do conform to the boundaries of the lot in question.
All told, petitioner has sufficiently proved his ownership of the property which carries with it the right to assert possession thereof against respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated April 30, 2019 and Resolution dated September 29, 2020 in CA-G.R. SP No. 09741 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated April 28, 2014 of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar and the Decision dated May 13, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, are REINSTATED.
The compliances of counsel for petitioner and Atty. Ronil A. Tan with the Resolution dated February 1, 2021, are both DISPENSED WITH.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 25.
2.Id. at 26.
3.Id. at 24-25.
4. Sometimes spelled as "Osita."
5.Rollo, p. 83.
6.Id. at 82-83.
7.Id. at 103.
8. Sometimes spelled as "Avalon."
9.Rollo, p. 98.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 101.
12.Id. at 103.
13.Id. at 103-104.
14.Id. at 104.
15.Id.
16. Penned by Presiding Judge Emerenciana O. Manook; id. at 130-135.
17.Id. at 104-105.
18.Id. at 105.
19. Penned by Judge Alma Consuelo B. Desales-Esidera; id. at 136-138.
20.Id. at 138.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 22.
24. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap; id. at 206-214.
25.Id. at 214.
26.Id. at 25.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 26.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap; id. at 222-223.
32.Id. at 80.
33.Id. at 81-82.
34.Id. at 79.
35.Id. at 88.
36.Id. at 188.
37.Id. at 189.
38.Id.
39.Martinez v. Heirs of Lim, G.R. No. 234655, September 11, 2019.
40.Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., 552 Phil. 22, 34 (2007).
41.Spouses Cañezo v. Spouses Bautista, 644 Phil. 43, 49 (2010).
42.Rollo, p. 138.
43.Id. at 82-83.
44.Id. at 103.