THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 178988. April 3, 2013.]
EXPEDITO TAPUZ, SR. [Deceased], JUANITA TAPUZ [Deceased], EXPEDITO TAPUZ, JR., et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS [Cebu City], et al., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 3, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178988 (Expedito Tapuz, Sr. [Deceased], Juanita Tapuz [Deceased], Expedito Tapuz, Jr., et al. v. Court of Appeals [Cebu City], et al.). — The land subject of this case, located in Barangay Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan, had been part of a 606,798 square-meter lot that had been titled in the name of Ciriaco S. Tirol, Sr. 1 In February 1995 the heirs of Tirol, Sr. executed an unnotarized partition agreement dividing the land among them. One of the heirs was Tirol, Sr.'s son, Roberto, who acquired three lots, Lot 30-G, Lot 30-I, and Lot 30-J. 2 Roberto consolidated his lots into one before eventually subdividing them anew for distribution among his children. He gave Lot 30-I to her daughter, Ruth Tirol Jarantilla. 3
Jarantilla claimed that she commissioned a surveyor to relocate the boundaries of her assigned lot and hired workers to construct a perimeter fence around it. 4 But on January 16, 1997 the spouses Expedito and Juanita Tapuz, Sr., Expedito and Lilibeth Tapuz, Jr., and Ezekiel and Dorotea Tapuz as well as Danilo, Aurora, Suzette, Medina, Salvacion, and Delilah, all surnamed Tapuz (the Tapuzes), 5 prevented the survey and fence construction, using physical force, intimidation, and threats. 6 As a result, the work was unfinished and Jarantilla said she had to pay for the salaries of the surveyor and the workers. 7 Consequently, Jarantilla filed a complaint for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Tapuzes before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan. 8 EcAHDT
The Tapuzes alleged that they legally owned and had been in actual possession of the subject land for more than 50 years, having inherited the same from their father Antonio Tapuz (Antonio). They averred that Antonio, who died intestate in Barangay Balabag, Malay, Aklan during World War II, had been the declared owner of the three lots covered by Tax Declarations 1454, 3014, and 3020. The Tapuzes averred that they were within their rights in using reasonable means to prevent Jarantilla's men from taking possession of the land from them. 9 They also insisted that they belonged to the indigenous people occupying an ancestral land. 10
On February 19, 1997 the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), enjoining the Tapuzes from interfering with Jarantilla's relocation survey and fencing of the subject land. On February 15, 1999 the RTC rendered a Decision, upholding Jarantilla's ownership of the land, but without any award of damages except for the amount of P5,000.00 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.
On May 30, 2007 the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a Decision in CA-G.R. CV 62821 affirming the RTC Decision but further deleting the award of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of suit. 11
The main issue here is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision upholding Jarantilla's ownership over the disputed land and enjoining the Tapuzes from interfering with the survey and fencing of said property.
Mere possession of whatever length cannot defeat the imprescriptible title to the holder of registered Torrens Title to real property, and registered real property under the Torrens system cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription. 12 Here, Jarantilla is a descendant of the late Ciriaco S. Tirol, Sr., the original owner and possessor of Lot 30. The records show that he died intestate leaving Lot 30 to his children who had the land titled in their names as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title RO 2222 (19502)-45, and that they eventually possessed the land and partitioned the same among themselves. On the other hand, the Tapuzes, aside from their bare assertion of possession, did not present any evidence to prove their ownership over the subject property. While they alleged that their predecessor-in-interest had tax declarations in his name, these, however, were not presented in court.
Also, the fact that the partition agreement was not notarized will not affect its validity. Partition among heirs is not exactly a conveyance but rather a confirmation or ratification of title or right to property by the heir renouncing in favor of another heir accepting and receiving the inheritance. The public instrument is necessary only for the registration of the contract, and not for its validity. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV 62821 dated May 30, 2007.
SO ORDERED." aAcHCT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 59; used to be Lot 30 of Plan Psu 5344, covered by reconstituted Original Certificate of Title RO 2222 (19502)-45; see also p. 37.
2.Id., at 37-38.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Spouses Expedito and Juanita Tapuz, Sr., Spouses Expedito and Lilibeth Tapuz, Jr., Spouses Ezekiel and Dorotea Tapuz, Danilo Tapuz, Aurora Tapuz, Suzette Tapuz, Medina Tapuz, Salvacion Tapuz, and Delilah Tapuz; CA Decision, id. at 36.
6.Id. at 38.
7.Id. at 76.
8.Id. at 51.
9.Id. at 39.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 36-45, penned by Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Stephen C. Cruz.
12.J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 181 Phil. 384, 389-390 (1979).
13.Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 851, 866 (1998).