ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136964. February 10, 1999]

NEOPITO CARABALLO, et al. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 10, 1999.

G.R. No. 136964 (Neopito Caraballo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Bi�an, Laguna, Branch 25 and Imelda de Castro.)

Petitioners assail the Court of Appeals' decision affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 25, Bi�an, Laguna:

"(1) declaring plaintiff as the true and lawful owner of that parcel of land located at Brgy. Malaban, Bi�an, Laguna, specifically, Lot No. 53 of the subdivision Plan Psd-26937, containing an area of 359 sq. ms., and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-32770 of the Regitry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.

(2) ordering defendants spouse neopito and Nelia Caraballo to immediately vacate said parcel of land and to deliver possession of the same to plaintiff.

(3) ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff:

(a)������� the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages;

(b)������� the sum of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees;

(c)������� the sum of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

(d)������� the cost of there proceedings." 1 [Rollo, pp. 40-41.]

Petitioners question the identity of the land claimed to be owned by private respondent considering that no geodetic survey of the premises has allegedly been conducted and that the certificate of the Geodetic Engineer on the location plan was questionable. They aver that they are the rightful owners since they have been in possession of the land since 1959.

After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds no reversible error with the finding that private respondent is the true and lawful owner of the subject premises as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated October 27, 1964 executed in her favor, TCT No. 32270 issued in the name of private respondents, Tax Declaration on the property and the series of receipts issued thereof and a relocation survey plan of the subject land.2 [Id., at 38.] Except for petitioners' bare-faced claim, no evidence was adduced to show that the land on which petitioners' house were built is owned by them. Petitioners' houses were built is owned by them. Petitioners merely harp on the lack of a relocation survey conducted on the premises but as the respondent court rationalized, "a relocation survey is not the sole determinant as to whether or not the property claimed by another is or is not included in the property described in the torrens title under the name of another."3 [Id., at 34.] The documentary evidence presented (i.e., the transfer certificate of title) clearly proves private respondent's ownership of the land and that petitioners' houses were constructed on her property. Moreover, we agree with the trial court that petitioners are in effect questioning the validity of the title in which case, such collateral attack is barred by Sec. 48 of Act 496.

We find no sufficient reason to deviate from the well-established rule that findings of fact of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative value of the evidence on record are accorded great respect by this Court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE