FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 200204, April 25, 2017
SPOUSES ELVIRA ALCANTARA AND EDWIN ALCANTARA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FLORANTE BELEN AND ZENAIDA ANANIAS, THE PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, AND THE CITY ASSESSOR OF SAN PABLO CITY, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
Before this Court is a Rule 45 Petition1 assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution,2 which reversed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the entreaty of petitioner spouses Elvira and Edwin Alcantara for the quieting of title and reconveyance of possession of Lot No. 16932 occupied by respondent spouses Florante Belen and Zenaida Ananias.
There is clear evidence that what the plaintiffs are claiming based on their title is Lot No. 16932, and what the defendants are claiming to have bought from their predecessors-in-interest, is a different lot with different boundaries and technical descriptions to that of Lot No. 16932. The land covered by the plaintiffs title has an area of 3,887 square meters only and its boundaries consist of the following "NW-by Lot 1691 6; NE & SE-by Lot 16934; S-by Lot 16930; and SW-by Lot 16931." On the other hand, the lot bought by the defendants has 4,368 square meters with the following boundaries: "N-Paulino Velasco; E-by Felix Velasco; South-Cipriano Dayo and Crisanto Delos Reyes; and W-by Casiano Meraña." The difference is made more manifest by the survey plan (Exhibit "E''; Records, p. 213) prepared by Geodetic Engineer Augusto C. Rivera which is part of the Cadastral Lot survey for San Pablo City, showing that the defendants' propet1y which they bought is Lot No. 16931, not Lot 16932, covered by the title of the plaintiffs. x x xSpouses Belen successfully appealed before the CA. The appellate court found that respondents had presented their claims of ownership over Lot No. 16932, and not Lot No. 16931.
x x x x
The evidence of the defendants consisting of tax declarations (Exhibit "4"; Records, p. 278) show that what is tax declared in their names is Lot No. 16931, not Lot No. 16932.
x x x. The evidence also shows that while the lot purchased by the defendants from their predecessors-in-interest has been tax declared since 1948, Lot No. 16932 covered by plaintiffs title was only tax declared in 1983 in the name of the plaintiffs mother Asuncion Alimon. This simply goes to show that if indeed what was purchased by the defendants is Lot No. 16932, the said lot should have been covered by the tax declarations issued to their predecessors-in-interest as early as 1948. Yet it clearly appears that Lot 16932 was declared only in 1983. (Emphasis supplied)
The distinction between a "question of law" and a "question of fact" is settled. x x x. In Republic v. Vega, the Court held that when petitioner asks for a review of the decision made by a lower court based on the evidence presented, without delving into their probative value but simply on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then a question of law is raised.
In the present case, there seems to be no dispute as to the facts, and the question presented before us calls for a review of the CA's conclusion that the documents and evidence presented by petitioner are insufficient to support her application for registration of title. Hence, the petition is properly filed.
Beginning at a point marked "1" of lot 16932, Cad-438-D, being N. 46-17 W., 5367.86 m. from BLLM No. 1, Cad-438-D, San Pablo City Cad.; thence N. 65-45 E., 63.74 m. to point 2 S. 20-56 E., 68.88 m. to point 3; S. 76-30 W. 28.67 m. to point 4; S. 76-47 W., 31.59 m. to point 5; N. 24-50 W., 57.36 m. to point 1; point of beginning. Containing an area of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN (3,887) SQUARE METERS. x x x.On the other hand, the Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa pertains to the following:23
Isang (1) lagay na lupang niyugan na natatayo sa Nayon ng San Marcos, Lungsod ng San Pablo. Ang kabalantay sa HILAGA ay Paulino Velasco; sa SILANGAN ay, Felix Velasco; sa TIMOG ay Cipriano Dayo at Crisanto Meraña Reyes; at sa KANLURAN - ay Casiano Meraña; may lawak na 4,368 metros parisukat, humigit-kumulang, x x x ayon sa Boja Declaratoria Blg. 23949. x x x.A cursory reading of the above excerpts clearly shows that the lot claimed by petitioners is not the property conveyed in the deed of sale presented by respondents. Aside from their difference in size, the two properties have distinctive boundaries. Therefore, on the face of the documents, the CA incorrectly ruled that these pertained to Lot No. 16932.
[A]s against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax receipts which are not conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the area covered therein, an original certificate of title indicates true and legal ownership by the registered owners over the disputed premises. Petitioners' OCT No. P-19093 should be accorded greater weight as against the tax declarations x x x offered by private respondents in support of their claim x x x.Aside from presenting a certificate of title to the claimed property, petitioners submit as evidence the Tax Declarations registered to them and to their predecessors-in-interest. The earliest Tax Declaration on record is No. 5876038 registered to Asuncion Alimon in 1983. Subsequent to that issuance are the following Tax Declarations: (1) No. 59-992;39 (2) ARP No. 91-48014;40 (3) ARP No. 94-059-0019;41 and (4) the present Tax Declaration, 99-059-00795.42 The back pages of all these Tax Declarations exhibited by petitioners uniformly refer to Lot No. 16932, having an area of 3,887 square meters with boundaries as described in TCT No. T-36252.
Indubitably, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land and put stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title.In the same assailed ruling, the CA went beyond the contents of the TCT and concluded that its issuance was a nullity. It went on to declare the Free Patent issued to Asuncion Alimon void and ruled that Elvira Alcantara was not a lawful heir of Asuncion Alimon.
A Free Patent cannot be issued to Alimon because it cannot be issued to a person who is not a possessor or cultivator of the land or is not paying taxes that will justify segregation from the public land of the land applied for. Alimon intentionally applied for a Free Patent absent the foregoing requirements.Noticeably, the CA failed to cite any specific exhibit on record showing that Asuncion Alimon did not possess the land when she applied for the patent. In effect, it jumped to conclusions without any sufficient basis for its premise. This form of adjudication is flawed, as no less than the Constitution mandates that a court decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.47
On the other hand, appellee Elvira Alcantara is just a "Palake" of Alimon who had transferred the land to themselves. Appellee is not a legal heir of Alimon. Margarito Belarmino, who testified for the appellees, admitted in court during cross-examination that appellee Elvira Alcantara is just a "Palake" or adopted.In Bagayas v. Bagayas,49 this Court reiterated that courts must refrain from making a declaration of heirship in an ordinary civil action because "matters relating to the rights of filiation and heirship must be ventilated in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of determining such rights."50 Straightforwardly, the CA is precluded from determining the issue of filiation in a proceeding for the quieting of title and accion reivindicatoria.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 8-21; Petition for Review By Certiorari filed on 9 March 2012.
2 Id. at 23-30, 32-33; the CA Decision dated 26 August 2011 and Resolution dated 12 January 2012 in CAG.R. CV No. 94638 were penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Fiorito S. Macalino concurring.
3 Records, pp. 191-198; the Decision dated 9 February 2009 in Civil Case No. SP-6207 was penned by Presiding Judge Agripino G. Morga, RTC, San Pablo City, Branch 32.
4 Id. at 3-8; Complaint filed on 22 June 2005.
5 Id. at 9 (with back page).
6 Records (Folder of Exhibits), p. 23.
7 Id. at 22-23 (with back page).
8 Id. at 24-30.
9 Id. at 34.
10 Id. at 40-41.
11 Id. at 39.
12 Id. at 36-38.
13 Records, pp. 196-197.
14Rollo, pp. 63-72; Motion for Reconsideration filed on 23 September 2011.
15 Id. at 93-95; Comment on the Petition for Review filed on 22 June 2012.
16 Id. at 93. Respondents specifically wrote in their Comment: Whether or not Lot 16932 is different from Lot 16931 is obvious for a person can own a number of lots; x x x.
17Heirs of Castillejos v. La Tondeña Incorporada, G.R. No. 190158, 20 July 2016. "For the action to prosper, two requisites must concur, viz.: (1) the p1aintiff or complainant must have a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged as a cloud on plaintiffs title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy."
18Capacete v. Baroro, 453 Phil. 392 (2003).
19 Id.
20 729 Phil. 418, 432 (2014).
21 Id. at 29.
22 Records (Folder of Exhibits), p. 2.
23 Id. at 40.
24 Id. at 49.
25 Id. at 50.
26 Id. at 51 (with back page).
27 Id. at 46.
28 Id. at 45 (with back page).
29 Id. at 53.
30 Id. at 55.
31 Id. at 8 (with back page).
32 Id. at 7 (with back page).
33 The Tax Declarations indicate various sizes (in square meters) of the lot: 4,368, 4,428.56, and 4,428.
34Rollo. p. 80.
35Spouses Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio, 744 Phil. 716 (2014); Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp. v. Heirs of Coronado, 612 Phil. 573 (2009); Vda. de Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 721 (2001).
36Castillo v. Escutin, 600 Phil. 303-336 (2009); Heirs of Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 815 (1998).
37 258 Phil. 104, 110 (1989), citing Ferrer-Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 234 Phil. 388 (1987).
38 Records (Folder of Exhibits), p. 48 (with back page).
39 Id. at 20 (with back page).
40 Id. at 19 (with back page).
41 Id. at 18 (with back page).
42 Id. at 17 (with back page).
43Valdez-Tallorin v. Heirs of Tarona, 620 Phil. 268 (2009).
44Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel, 554 Phil. 351 (2007).
45 612 Phil. 573, 581 (2009).
46Rollo, p. 28.
47 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 14.
48Rollo, p. 28.
49 718 Phil. 91 (2013).
50 Id. at 103.
51Heirs of Ypon v. Ricaforte, 713 Phil. 570, 576-577 (2013). This Court ruled that:
By way of exception, the need to institute a separate special proceeding for the determination of heirship may be dispensed with for the sake of practicality, as when the parties in the civil case had voluntanly subrnitted the issue to the trial court and already presented their evidence regarding the issue of heirship, and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment thereon, or when a special proceeding had been instituted but had been finally closed and terminated, and hence, cannot be re-opened.
In this case, none of the foregoing exceptions or those of similar nature, appear to exist. Hence, there lies the need to institute the proper special proceeding in order to determine the heirship of the parties involved, ultimately resulting to the dismissal of Civil Case No. T-2246.