SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233384. November 20, 2017.]
JOSEFINA COSTALES, MARIANO COSTALES, DOMINADOR COSTALES, CONSOLACION COSTALES, ROBERTO COSTALES, LITA COSTALES, RECTO COSTALES, ROMULO COSTALES, FERMALYN COSTALES, AND EDNA TAMAYO, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES CRISANTO AND CONCESA QUINTINITA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 233384 (Josefina Costales, Mariano Costales, Dominador Costales, Consolacion Costales, Roberto Costales, Lita Costales, Recto Costales, Romulo Costales, Fermalyn Costales, and Edna Tamayo v. Spouses Crisanto and Concesa Quintinita)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 10, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106665 for failure of petitioners Josefina Costales, Mariano Costales, Dominador Costales, Consolacion Costales, Roberto Costales, Lita Costales, Recto Costales, Romulo Costales, Fermalyn Costales, and Edna Tamayo (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate power.
An action for reconveyance is governed by Article 434 of the Civil Code, which states that the property must be identified and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners failed to prove their claim to Lot 3302 following their failure to identify the land they are claiming by describing the location, area, and boundaries thereof. 2 Moreover, their claim of possession for 40 years was belied by the tax declarations they presented as it only pertained to 1994, 1995, and 1998. On the other hand, respondents Spouses Crisanto and Concesa Quintinita were able to present a certification from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that their predecessor-in-interest, Wenceslao Javier, was the survey claimant of said lot. 3 Besides, tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they are mere indicia of a claim of ownership. 4 As such, a mere tax declaration cannot defeat a certificate of title. 5
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 66-76. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
2.Sampaco v. Hadji Serad Mingca Lantud, 669 Phil. 304, 322 (2011).
3.Id. at 68.
4.Republic v. Bacas, 721 Phil. 808, 838 (2013).
5.Spouses Magno v. Heirs of Parulan, 686 Phil. 866, 875 (2012).