Heirs of Villafuerte v. Heirs of Dela Cruz

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205534. June 10, 2013.]

HEIRS OF RAFAELA VILLAFUERTE REPRESENTED BY MACTAN D. VILLAFUERTE, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF CONCEPCION DELA CRUZ REPRESENTED BY RICARDO G. JOSE AND/OR ROSALINA JUAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 June 2013 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 205534 (Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte represented by Mactan D. Villafuerte, petitionersv. Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz represented by Ricardo G. Jose and/or Rosalina Juan, respondents.)

This is an appeal via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 dated 18 October 2012 and 4 February 2013, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92945.

The case stemmed from a Complaint for Quieting of Title filed by herein respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz, represented by Ricardo U. Jose and/or Rosalina Juan, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Civil Case No. 137-M-2006.

In the Complaint, respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz stated that they have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of Lot 1553 (subject property) located in Tabe, Guiguinto, Bulacan, since time immemorial by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest. In 1998, however, when the Municipal Government of Guiguinto planned to open a diversion road through Barangay Tabe, respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz found out that the subject property, which forms part of the property they owned, was declared for taxation purposes under the name of herein petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte, represented by Mactan D. Villafuerte. Petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte paid realty taxes on the subject property on 19 November 1998, which covered the years 1971 to 1998, and even applied for Free Patent over the same with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Thus, doubt was created on the title of respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz. 3 SacDIE

Instead of filing an Answer, petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint but it was denied by the trial court. 4 Respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz then filed a motion to declare petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte in default for failure to file an Answer within the prescribed period, which was granted by the trial court. 5 Presentation of evidence ex-parte, thereafter, ensued. Petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte moved to set aside the Order of Default but it was denied. 6 Their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was similarly denied. When the case was re-raffled to another branch, petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte, once again, filed a Motion to Dismiss but the same was also denied on the ground that a party in default is proscribed from actively participating in the trial and is only entitled to be notified of the proceedings. 7

From the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz, the trial court concluded that Lot 4, containing 3,307 square meters, was originally owned by a certain Monica Dela Cruz (Monica). She had the property surveyed on 7 February 1915 and the survey was approved on 9 April 1915. Monica died single and without issue, thus, her sibling Domingo Dela Cruz (Domingo) inherited the property. Domingo had a daughter, Concepcion Dela Cruz (Concepcion), from the first marriage and had four other children from his second marriage. Concepcion inherited the subject lot by virtue of an amicable settlement. 8 Following Concepcion's death, the property passed on to her heirs (herein respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz). The real estate taxes were paid by the predecessors-in-interest of respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz, dating back May 1950, and they have been in possession thereof in the concept of owners. 9

On 14 January 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision 10quieting the title in favor of the respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz, thereby nullifying the tax declarations and real property taxes in the name of petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte. The RTC ordered petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte to pay respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz the amount of P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. The RTC rationalized its ruling in this manner: aESIHT

Against the actual and continuous possession exhibited by the [herein respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] and corroborated by no less than an authoritative official, the [Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)] Chairman of the area, [herein petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte] have never been in actual physical possession of the property.

The settled ruling is, any person who claims ownership by virtue of tax declarations must also prove he is in actual possession of the property. Thus, proof that the property involved had been declared for taxation purposes from 1908 to 1945 did not constitute proof of possession nor is it proof of ownership in the absence of the claimant's actual possession of said property [citation omitted].

In the same vein, tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property [citation omitted].

The notorious and open possession of the [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] over the property for an extensive period and in the concept of an owner have in their favor the legal presumption of a just title. This is in accord to Articles 540 11 and 541 12 of the New Civil Code.

With the continuous and actual possession of the property by the [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz], coupled with the payment of realty taxes as early as 1915 and 1950, respectively, the property has been segregated from the mass of the public domain and transformed into a private property. This was the status of the property when the application for free patent was filed in 1999 casting a cloud on [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz's] title.

The testimonial evidence and the presented documents have preponderantly established [respondent-Heirs Concepcion Dela Cruz's] title to the property. The cloud appearing on their title is, therefore, proper to be removed and [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] must be accorded the peaceful possession of the property. 13 (Emphasis supplied). cSHATC

Aggrieved, petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte appealed the trial court's Decision to the Court of Appeals.

In a Decision dated 18 October 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision. The Court of Appeals elucidated in this wise:

. . . for an action to quiet title to prosper, two requisites are indispensable: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy [citation omitted].

xxx xxx xxx

As correctly appreciated by the trial court, the evidence a quo clearly weighed in [herein respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz's] favor.

[Respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz's] presented the approved survey plan in the name of [Monica] dated [9 April 1915] . . . . They likewise presented a copy of an Amicable Settlement dated [20 February 1964] . . . that was presented before the [then] Court of First Instance of Bulacan in Civil Case No. 2225 stating that the subject property was transferred from Monica to Concepcion as shown by Tax Declarations dated 1947. . . . They likewise presented receipts of real property tax payments in the name of [Concepcion], and later in the name[s] of her heirs, dated 1950, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962, [1964 to 1968], . . ., as well as Declaration of Real Property dated 1967 in the name of [Concepcion] . . . .

[Respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] likewise presented a Tax Declaration of Real Property in the name of Rafaela Villafuerte, dated 2002 . . . and certifications from the Office of the Treasurer of Guiguinto stating that the real property tax payments for the years 1971 to 1986 and the years 1987 to 1998 were paid under OR#392939 and OR#392939-A, respectively, both dated [19 November 1998]. . . . . cHaDIA

[Respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] also offered in evidence a Certification from the BARC Chairman, Jovenciano Narciso stating that Lot No. 1553 is being cultivated by Rolando Lopez under a tenancy agreement with [respondent-]Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz. . . . .

The [herein petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte] for their part rely heavily on the pronouncements made by the DENR Regional Director in his Order dated [3 October 2005], 14 which was subsequently affirmed by the DENR Secretary.

As aptly noted by the RTC . . ., the continuous and actual possession of the property by the [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] and their predecessors-in-interest, coupled with the payment of realty taxes as early as 1915, have rendered the subject property segregated from the mass of public domain and has transformed it into private property.

This is consistent with Robles v. Court of Appeals, 15 which pronounced that in light of the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of land by a petitioner, he is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land is deemed segregated from the public domain, thus the director of lands no longer has authority to issues a free patent thereto in favor of another person.

In this case, [petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte] do not even have a free patent issued in their names. The DENR judgment they invoke merely ordered that their application for free patent be given due course. But even if, granting arguendo, that a free patent was issued in their favor, such would still not produce any legal effect whatsoever, as it has been judicially settled that free patents over private lands are null and void. 16 (Emphasis supplied). HScAEC

The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution dated 4 February 2013.

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte enumerated the following assignment of errors: (1) . . . the honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error when it ruled that the judgment of the DENR giving due course to [petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte's] free patent is null and void; (2) . . . the honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error when it ruled that the [respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz] are the real owners of the [subject property]; and (3) . . . the honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error in not dismissing this case on the grounds that it is already barred by laches, litis pendentia and/or forum shopping. 17

This Court resolves to deny the present Petition.

To begin with, findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may only be disregarded when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record. There is no ground, however, to apply this exception to the instant case. As such, this Court will not assess all over again the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly where, as in this case, the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals completely coincide. 18 DTEcSa

Moreover, as correctly pointed out by both lower courts, petitioner-Heirs of Rafaela Villafuerte do not have a free patent issued in their names. The DENR judgment invoked by them merely ordered that their application for free patent be given due course. And, even if a free patent was issued in their favor, such would still not produce any legal effect whatsoever, as it has been judicially settled that free patents over private lands are null and void. Private ownership of land — as when there is a prima facie proof of ownership like a duly registered possessory information or a clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, by present or previous occupants — is not affected by the issuance of a free patent over the same land, as the Public Land law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands has no authority to grant free patent to lands that have ceased to be public in character and have passed to private ownership. 19

In the case at bench, respondent-Heirs of Concepcion Dela Cruz had convincingly established that they and their predecessors-in-interest are in continuous and actual possession of the subject property. The same is coupled with the payment of realty taxes as early as 1915. These rendered the subject property segregated from the mass of public domain and has transformed it into private property.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Decision and Resolution dated 18 October 2012 and 4 February 2013, respectively, of the Court of Appeals, as well as for insufficient or defective verification under Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED. (Per Special Order No. 1460 dated 29 May 2013, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion is designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is on official leave under the Court Wellness Program. Per Special Order No. 1461 dated 29 May 2013, Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen is designated as additional member).

SO ORDERED. ECaTAI

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring. Rollo, pp. 34-46.

2.Id. at 47.

3.CA Decision dated 18 October 2012. Id. at 35.

4.Per RTC Order dated 18 January 2007. Id. at 105-110.

5.Per RTC Order dated 28 June 2007. Id. at 93.

6.Per RTC Order dated 18 September 2007. Id. 98-99.

7.Id. at 35-36.

8.Id. at 53-58.

9.Id. at 36.

10.Penned by Judge Herminia V. Pasamba. Id. at 85-90.

11.Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion.

12.Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.

13.RTC Decision dated 14 January 2009. Rollo, pp. 88-89.

14.Id. at 79-84.

15.384 Phil. 635 (2000).

16.Rollo, pp. 42-44.

17.Id. at 16-17.

18.Nestle Phils., Inc. v. FY Sons, Incorporated, G.R. No. 150780, 5 May 2006, 489 SCRA 624, 635.

19.Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago, 452 Phil. 238, 248 (2003).