FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 163398. September 16, 2015.]
MANUELA, FELIMON, PILAR, RAMON, HONORIO, all surnamed FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. SUSANA FERIA VDA. DE EDILLOR, AMPARO, WILHELMINA, HERMES, NEMIA, AVELINA, JOSE and CLARO, SR., all surnamed EDILLOR and MUNICIPALITY OF MASINLOC, PROVINCE OF ZAMBALES represented by its Municipal Mayor JESSU EDORA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 163398 — MANUELA, FELIMON, PILAR, RAMON, HONORIO, all surnamed FERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. SUSANA FERIA VDA. DE EDILLOR, AMPARO, WILHELMINA, HERMES, NEMIA, AVELINA, JOSE and CLARO, SR., all surnamed EDILLOR and MUNICIPALITY OF MASINLOC, PROVINCE OF ZAMBALES represented by its Municipal Mayor JESSU EDORA, Respondents.
The petitioners seek the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on February 12, 2003, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Iba, Zambales granting the application for the registration of their respective parcels of land and their improvements of respondents Heirs of Pedro Edillor and the Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales.
The CA recited in its assailed decision the following factual and procedural antecedents, to wit:
On October 3, 1984, appellants Manuela, Felimon, Pilar, Ramon, and Honorio, all surnamed Fernandez, filed an application for registration of three parcels of residential and agricultural land, situated at Barangay Poblacion, Masinloc, Zambales, more particularly described as follows:
"Lot-1
"A parcel of land (Lot-1, as shown on plan Psu-127584, L.R.C. Rec No.), situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales, Bounded on the SW., along line 1-2 by Mun. Gov't of Masinloc, (II-13174), on the NW., along line 2-3 by Masinloc Bay on the NE., along line 3-4 by Lot 2, PSU-127584, on the SE., along line 4-1 by Calle Iglesia. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan, being N. 36 deg 10 'W., 67.25 m. from BLIM. 2, Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales.
thence N. 71 deg. 25'W., 27.00 m. to point 2;
containing an area of SIX HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN (647) Square Meters. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground as follows: point 4 by Acacia Tree, and the rest by PLS. cyl. conc. mons. Bearings true: Date of survey, June 12, 1950 and was approved on July 1, 1952".
"Lot-2
"A parcel of land (lot-2), as shown on plan PSU-127584, L.R.C. Rec. No.), situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. Bounded on the NE., along line 1-2 by Pedro Edillor, on the SE., along line 2-3 by Calle Iglesia, on the W., along line 3-4 by Lot-1 Psu-127684, on the NW., along line 4-1 by Masinloc Bay. Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan being, N. 28 deg. 26'W., 107.84 m. from BLLM, 2, Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales. DHITCc
thence S. 73 deg. 34'E., 22.95 m. to point 2;
beginning; containing an area of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY TWO (222) Square Meters. All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground as follows: point 3 by Acacia tree, and the rest by PLS. cyl. conc. mons. Bearing true; date of survey, June 12, 1950 and was approved on July 1, 1952."
"Lot-3
"A parcel of land (lot-3 of cadastral survey of Masinloc as shown on plan Psu-161826, L.R.C. Rec. No.), situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Masinloc, Province of Zambales. Bounded on the E., along line 1-2 by Calle Iglesia (Lot 7, Psu-161826), on the S. along line 2-3 by Calle Escuela (Lot-7), Psu-161826), on the W., along line 3-4 by Masinloc Bay, on the N., along line 4-1 by Heirs of Bruno Fernandez (Psu-127584), Lot-1). Beginning at a point marked "1" on plan being, No. 36 deg. 10 W., 67.25m., from BLLM, 2, Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales.
thence S. 16 deg. 42'W., 31.12 m. to point 2;
Appellants marked and offered in evidence the following exhibits in compliance with the jurisdictional requirements: Exhibit "A" Order of Initial Hearing; Exhibit "B". Letter Transmission to the Solicitor General, Remission; Exhibit "B-1". Notice of Presentation of Application for the Registration of title under Commonwealth Act No. 141; Exhibit "B-2-A". Letter to the Commissioner (National Land Titles and Deeds), return card from the Commissioner; Exhibit "C" Notice of Initial Hearing, registry receipt to the Bureau of Lands; Exhibit "E", Certificate of posting; Exhibit "F", Technical Description of Lot 1 of Psu-127584; Exhibit "F-1", Technical Description of Lot 3 of Psu-161826; Exhibit "G", Surveyor's Certificate of Lot 1 of Psu-127584; Exhibit "G-1", Surveyor's Certificate of Lot 3 of Psu-161826; Exhibit "H", Survey Plan for Psu-127584; Exhibit "I", Survey Plan for Psu-161826; Exhibit "I-1", Lot 3 of Psu-161826; Exhibit "X", Affidavit of Publication; Exhibit "X-1", Issues of the Olongapo News, a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Olongapo and the province of Zambales.
On December 16, 1985, Susana Feria Vda. de Edillor, Amparo, Wilhelmina, Hermes, Nemia, Avelina, Jose, and Claro Sr., all surnamed Edillor, submitted an opposition to appellant's application for registration. The Edillors, as private oppositors, averred that they are the legal heirs of the late Pedro Edillor, original possessor of Lot 2, Psu-127584; that they have been in continuous, public, adverse and open possession in the concept of an owner, of the subject parcel of land for at least sixty (60) years.
On November 11, 1985, an Order of General Default was issued by the Court against all persons, except those government entities mentioned in the Initial Hearing.
On March 10, 1987, an Order was issued by the Court a quo, upon motion of appellants that they are withdrawing their application insofar as Lot 2, Psu-127584 is concerned.
Filemon Fernandez, one of the appellants, testified that since the time he reached the age of reason, they were already in possession of Lot 1 and Lot 3. According to him, the said property was declared in the name of their predecessor-in-interest. Bruno Fernandez, since 1911 up to the present (Exhibits "J" and "V"); that they have been religiously paying real estate taxes thereon, as evidenced by a certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales, dated April 20, 1987 (Exhibit "W"); that these properties are not within any reservation nor included in any reservation of the government.
Public Oppositor Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales asserted that Lot 3, Psu-161826, is owned and possessed by the Municipality continuously, publicly, adversely, openly and uninterruptedly in the concept of an owner, since 1912; the appellants Fernandezes and private oppositors Edillors and their successors-in-interest were lessees to Lot 3 of Psu-161826 paying rentals on their occupancy of portions of the said lot and they have not in any manner declared their possession for taxation purposes.
The Municipality introduced in evidence lease contracts showing that it is a lessor of Lot 3, Psu-161826, proving that it has been exercising proprietary interest over said parcel of land since 1950 (Exhibits "1" to "6" and "8"). Public oppositor offered evidence of its civil complaints for unlawful detainer against a tenant of the lot, a certain Vicente Estella, predecessor-in-interest of some of the oppositors (Exhibits "9" and "10"). Tax declarations in the name of the Municipality were likewise submitted. 2
Ruling of the RTC
On November 19, 1993, the RTC rendered judgment, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court adjudicates the parcel of land identified as Lot 1, Psu-127584 to herein applicants, Lot 2, Psu-127584 to Heirs of Pedro Edillor, Amparo, Wilhelmina, Hermes, Nemia, Avelina, Jose and Claro, Sr., all surnamed Edillor, and Lot 3, Psu-161826 to the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales together with all the improvements existing thereon and orders and decrees of registration in their respective names in accordance with Act No. 496, Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 1529. This adjudication, however, is subject to the various easements, reservations, provided for under pertinent laws, presidential decrees and/or presidential letter of instructions, which should be annotated/projected on the title to be issued. And once this decision becomes final, let the corresponding decree of registration be immediately issued.
SO ORDERED. 3
On appeal, the petitioners urged that: cEaSHC
I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECLARING THE APPLICANTS WERE NOT IN OPEN, ADVERSE, AND ACTUAL POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER FOR OVER 30 YEARS OVER LOT 3, PSU-161826
II. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPLICATION OF APPLICANTS-APPELLANTS FOR REGISTRATION OVER LOT 3, PSU-161826 AND IN AWARDING THE SAME TO PUBLIC OPPOSITOR MUNICIPALITY OF MASINLOC, ZAMBALES. 4
On February 12, 2003, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, pertinently opining and ruling:
Tax Declarations Become Strong
Appellants maintain that Lot 3 was already contemplated and included in their primitive tax declarations thru their predecessors-in-interest, showing their possession for more than sixty (60) years or since 1911.
Tax declarations only become strong evidence of ownership of land acquired by prescription, a mode of acquisition of ownership relied upon by most applicants, when accompanied by proof of actual possession. Absent actual, public and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does no prove ownership.
In the case at bar, appellants' claim of ownership based on adverse possession simply could not be sustained in light of lease contracts executed by the Municipality, as lessor, covering the subject parcel of land.
Further, the declaration of the property for tax purposes by the appellant does not operate to vest in the latter ownership over the said lot.
A mere tax declaration does not vest ownership of the property upon the declarant — neither do tax receipts nor declarations of ownership for taxation purposes constitute adequate evidence of ownership or of the right to possess realty. IAETDc
Municipality of Masinloc was
The Municipality of Masinloc was able to prove by well-nigh incontrovertible evidence its ownership over Lot 3. The Court a quo aptly observed:
"The Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales, therefore, has a better right over Lot 3, Psu-161826, as against the applicants and private oppositors Estella, et al. Identity and ownership of the public oppositors over said parcel of land has been satisfactorily shown to the Court by the evidence adduced by it. Aside from presenting tax declarations over said parcel of land covering the period from 1912 to 1985, contracts of lease over portions of said lot were also presented.
It is axiomatic that findings of facts made by the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality. We find no cogent reason to disturb such findings in this case especially because it is supported by the record.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED, en toto. No Pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 5
Issues
In this appeal, the petitioners contend 6 that the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales did not present testimonial evidence to prove that Exhibits "1" to "28" referred to Lot 3 PSU 161826; 7 and that Lot 3, Psu-161826 should not be awarded in favor of the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales because the evidentiary nature of the public documents presented was seriously challenged by them.
In their comment, 8 respondents Susana Feria Vda. De Edillor, et al. (Edillor, et al.) stated that they had ceased to be parties following the finality of the decision of the RTC as the land registration court granting their application to register Lot 2 by operation of law because of the non-appeal of the decision of the RTC as to Lot 2; and that the petitioners had not included Lot 2 in the petition for review in this Court although Edillor, et al. remained impleaded herein.
On its part, respondent Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales represents that the CA committed no serious error of law or grave abuse of discretion in affirming the decision rendered on November 19, 1993 by the RTC; and that the petitioners have presented no substantial arguments that warranted the reversal or modification of the decision of the CA. 9
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Firstly, the determination and resolution of whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support the award of Lot 3 PSU 161826 in favor of the Municipality of Masinloc, Zambales because the evidentiary nature of the public documents presented was seriously challenged by them obviously require the review of the evidence presented. As such, this appeal should not prosper considering that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court limits the appeal only to questions of law. 10 The limitation is applicable, for the Court is not a trier of facts. In that regard, a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 11 A question, to be one of law, must not examine the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties; 12 otherwise, it is one of fact. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same, but whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, the question is one of law; otherwise, the question is one of fact. 13
Moreover, the factual findings of the lower tribunals are conclusive on the parties and are generally not reviewable by this Court, especially when, as here, the CA affirmed the findings.
Although this Court has, at times, recognized exceptions from the non-reviewability of factual findings of the lower courts, specifically: (a) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the CA or the trial court went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings of the CA are conclusions without citation to specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the CA or the trial court manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 14 Yet, none of the recognized exceptions obtains now.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 12, 2003 in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 44540; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." DcHSEa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 41-53; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (later Presiding Justice, and a Member of the Court/retired), with Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam (retired/deceased) concurring.
2. Id. at 42-47.
3. Id. at 48.
4. Id. at 48-49.
5. Id. at 51-53.
6. Supra note 1.
7. Rollo, p. 24.
8. Id. at 198-200.
9. Id. at 226-243.
10. Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court; see also Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 1, 8-9; Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Balmaceda, G.R. No. 158143, September 21, 2011, 658 SCRA 33, 42-43; Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012, 665 SCRA 38, 46-47; Republic v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 175021, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 101, 113.
11. Republic v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 169067, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 338, 345.
12. Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012, 665 SCRA 38, 46; Heirs of Pacencia Racaza v. Abay-abay, G.R. No. 198402, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 622, 628.
13. Leoncio v. De Vera, G.R. No. 176842, February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 180, 184; Binay v. Odeña, G.R. No. 163683, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 248, 255-256; Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320, 329-330.
14. Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220, 229; The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 85.