ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141016. June 14, 2000]
HEIRS OF PUBLIO PUSING vs. PILAR RABINO VDA. DE ZARAGOZA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.
G.R. No. 141016 (Heirs of Publio Pursing vs. Pilar Rabino Vda. De Zaragoza, et al.)
Petitioners claim that their predecessors-in-interest, Publio Pusing, was in possession of the subject lot since 1965, until he was dispossessed of the same by respondents in 1969, through stealth, strategy, force and intimidation. To prove that they have the right of ownership and possession of the property covering 5.7 hectares, petitioners presented as evidence Original Certificate of Title No. P- 6382 issued in 1973 and Tax Declaration for the year 1974.
On May 11, 1977, Publio Pusing filed a complaint against Domingo Zaragoza, who is now deceased and represented by his heirs, Ludecia Zaragoza, Felix Zaragoza and Oscar Zepeda for "recovery of possession of real estate with damages." Denying the charge, respondent Ludecia Zaragoza claimed that the 4.7025-hectare coconut land she is occupying forms part of the land first occupied in 1927 by the late Isidro Fernandez, father of her mother Presentacion, who planted coconut trees and in fact obtained Certificate of Title No. 11 (Free Patent No. 165) thereon that her uncle, brother of her mother Luis Fernandez later conveyed his share of the land to Jose Cabarles, by Escritura de Compra Venta de Un Bien Immueblo, dated October 11, 1938; and that Cabarles' heirs subsequently executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of his estate and conveyed to her in 1971their father Luis' share of the land to her, which forms part of the land which she has been occupying, the remaining part being what she inherited from her mother Presentacion.
Ludecia further claimed that she occupied any land owned by Publio Pusing and that her possession of the land which is bounded on the North by the property of Publio Pusing, on the East by the property of Ludecia Zaragoza, on the South by the seashore, and on the West by the property of Pedro Rodellas was undisturbed until Publio Pusing's filing of the complaint on May 11, 1977.
Pilar Zaragoza, the wife of respondent Domingo Zaragoza who in the meantime died, claimed that her husband inherited a parcel of land part of the land they are occupying from his parents, and that respondent Ludecia and Oscar Zepeda are owners of the lands adjacent to that of her husband's.
It is well to note that Tax Declaration Nos. 3699 and 6828 in Publio Pusing's name were issued only in 1974, whereas respondents submitted the following documents:
1. Notarized Escritura de Compra De Un Bien Immueblo (Exh. 1) executed by Luis Fernandez in favor of Jose Cabarse, dated October 11, 1938.
2. Notarized and registered Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estae of jose Cabarse (Exhibit 2) executed by the heirs of Jose Cabarse dated December 31, 1971 in favor of Ludecia Zaragoza.
3. Notarized Discharge of Mortgage dated February 11, 1972 (Exh. 3).
4. Tax Declaration (TD) No. 649 (Exh. 3) under the name of Jose Cabarse covering an area of 4,9025 hectares of coconut land for 1971 and TD No. 4076 for 1973 in thename of Ludecia.
5. Notarized Sale of Residential House executed by Evelino Ompad, common-law husband of Jose Cabarse's widow and by Josefa Vda. de Cabarse dated December 31, 1971.
6. Tax Declarations and Receipts to wit:
Tax Declaration No. 4959 fro 1979
Tax Declaration No. 3290 for 1974
Tax Declaration No. 4958 covering 3.8025 of coconut land canceling TD 3299
7. Official Tax Receipts in the name of Presentacion Fernandes:
|
OR No. |
Date |
Tax Declaration No. |
|
4710534 |
April 29, 1957 |
for TD No. 2637 Exh. 15-C |
|
8800864 |
April 21 1958 |
for TD No. 2637 Exh. 15-D |
|
1983316 |
1965 |
Exh. 15-K |
|
6759013 |
March 20, 1966 |
for TD No. 2443 Exh. 15-L |
|
6759519 |
March 16, 1967 |
for TD No. 2440 Exh. 15-M |
|
3261626 |
November 11, 1963 |
for TD No. 2637 Exh. 15-N |
|
3242230 |
December 5, 1968 |
for TD 2637 Exh. 15-0 |
8. Official receipts in the name of Ciriaco Fernandes
|
O.R. No. |
Date |
Tax Declaration No. |
|
A2131205 |
May 25, 1956 |
for TD 848 (Exh. 15-A) |
|
J62052 |
June 9, 1950 |
for TD 1780 (Exh. 15) |
9. Deed of Absolute Sate of a Parcel of land (Exh. 17) executed by Juanita Zaragoza, heir of Fortunato in favor of Elsa Bello, wife of Oscar Zepeda dated June 25, 1973, Notarized by Municipal Judge Vicente Lim Yu.
10. Deed of Sale of Real Property (Exh. 27) executed by Teofisto Zaragoza in favor of Domingo and Ludecia Zaragoza which teofisto acquired from Presentacion and Anatolia Fernandez dated January 21, 1971, notarized by Ricardo M. Merdegia, and
11. Notarized Deed of Sale of Real Property, dated August 31, 1970 (Exh. 18) executed by Maria Zaragoza, daughter of Teofisto in favor of Domingo. 1 CA decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 76-77.
The trial court disregarded petitioner's OCT, dismissed his complaint, and rendered judgment in favor of respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, this court renders judgment in favor of the defendants and orders:
1. Dismissing the complaint
2. Declaring the defendants as the owners of the land covered by title
3. Ordering the plaintiff to execute a reconveyance of the property to the defendants, and cancel the title in plaintiff's name pending reconveyance
4. Ordering the plaintiff to deliver the title to the defendants so the claim of the defendants be registered and annotated at the back thereof
5. Dismissing the complaint as against the Bureau of Lands and the Secretary of Natural Resources
6.
Ordering the plaintiff to pay damages in the amount of P10,000.00,
litigation expenses in the amount of P2,000.00; P2,000.00 as attorney's
fees; and to pay the cost of the suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 RTC Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 47.
Petitioner appealed to the court of Appeals. In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that it is axiomatic in an action to recover possession of property, that the identity of the said property must be, first and foremost, established with certainty.3 Article 434, THE NEW CIVIL CODE. Said court further made the finding that Publio Pusing's and respondents' pieces of evidence do not indicate the same property. It reasoned that Publio Pusing submitted a photocopy of an "unsigned" Survey Plan, dated November 22, 1963 (Exhibit "D") prepared by a certain T. Certeza allegedly reflecting the area encroached upon by the respondents; that the respondents objected to the offer of the survey plan and rightly so, because the original was never presented in court for comparison; that respondents, likewise, objected to Leticia Pusing's testimony bearing on the survey plan, she being incompetent to testify thereon; that despite the respondents' objection to the presentation of petitioner's documentary and testimonial evidence mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph, Publio Pusing failed to present the original of the survey plan for comparison purposes, as it, likewise, failed to present T. Certeza, the surveyor in the survey plan, for the purpose of attesting that said plan accurately depicts the area occupied by the respondents which area falls within subject lot; and that there is no concrete basis to hold that the areas allegedly encroached upon by the respondents are within the subject lot.
The Court of Appeals held that Publio Pusing's failure o erase doubts as to the identity of the contested lot is fatal to his case and will lead to dismissal of his complaint. However, said court modified the judgment of the trial court, sustaining the dismissal of the complaint but reversing the judgment in all other respects. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court cannot order reconveyance of the property because of the well-established rule that petitioner's certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked.4 Section 48, P.D. 1529.
This petition is essentially concerned with the factual question of the identity of the lot in question, petitioner's assignment of errors, notwithstanding. This Court is not in a position to resolve such factual issues and receive evidence at this late stage. Moreover, it is well settled that findings of facts by the lower courts are binding upon this Court. While there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, this case does not come under the exception, despite the remonstration of petitioner.
The court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the decision of the trial court, dismissing the complaint bur reversing it in all other respects. The petition is likewise, denied for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show any special and important reason to warrant the exercise by the Supreme Court of its judicial discretion to grant the petition.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
