SECOND DIVISION
ROMEO RANOLA AND
NELSON RANOLA,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
123951
January 10, 2000 -versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
FERMIN B. ALFORQUE, MARCELINA
A. LALUNA,
MARIA B.
ALFORQUE,
ALBERTO ALFORQUE,
BERNARDO ALFORQUE, JR.,MARCELO ALFORQUE,
NICOLAS
ALFORQUE, MARINA ALFORQUE ANDCESARIO ALFORQUE,[*]
Respondents. D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
ROMEO RANOLA and NELSON
RANOLA, petitioners, seek a review and to reverse and/or nullify the 10
October 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 23, Cebu City, declaring respondents
as
the true owners of the parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No.
029785
with an area of 495 square meters, more or less, as well as its
Resolution
of 8 February 1996 denying a reconsideration.
Respondents Fermin B.
Alforque, Marcelina A. Laluna, Maria B. Alforque, Alberto Alforque,
Bernardo
Alforque Jr., Marcelo Alforque, Nicolas Alforque, Marina Alforque and
Cesario
Alforque are the descendants and heirs of one Cesario Alforque, a
resident
of Barrio Tuyan, Naga, Cebu, who owned several parcels of land in his
barrio.
In December 1960 his children herein named executed a document known as
"Affidavit (Declaration of Heirs)" where they agreed for sentimental
reasons
and convenience to hold pro indiviso as their community property the
following
two (2) parcels of land belonging to their father, the deceased Cesario
Alforque, located in Barrio Tuyan, Naga, Cebu, and described as -
(a) A parcel of cocoland
declared in the name of the deceased Cesario Alforque covered by Tax
Declaration
No. 10829, covering an area of 285 square meters, with seven (7)
fruit-bearing
coconut tress as permanent improvement and a two (2) storey house with
G.I. roofing and lumber walling and flooring, bounded on the North by
land
of Gregorio Repolido, on the East by land of Gregorio Repolido, on the
south by national road, and on the West by land of Eulogio Alforo and
in
the possession of private respondents, with an assessed value of
P120.00
at least as of December 1960; and (b) A parcel of cocoland declared in
the name of the deceased Cesario Alforque, covered by Tax Declaration
No.
11023, with an area of 4,090 square meters with twenty (20)
fruit-bearing
coconut trees as permanent improvement, bounded on the North by land of
Florencio Lapayag, on the East by seashore, on the south by land of
Gregorio
Navales, and on the West by the national road, with an assessed value
of
P440.00, which is presently in the possession of private
respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In 1967 respondents
as heirs of Cesario Alforque mortgaged the two (2) parcels of land
above-described
to the Rural Bank of Talisay to secure a loan, and upon their failure
to
pay the loan the bank foreclosed the mortgaged property. On 29 December
1979 the Rural Bank of Talisay sold the foreclosed property to
defendant
Nelson Ranola for P5,000.00.cralaw:red
Nelson Ranola however
could not take possession of the 285-square meter cocoland, the first
parcel
of land herein above-described in par. (a), in view of the claim of
Fermin
B. Alforque, one of the heirs of Cesario Alforque, that the wooden
house
situated on the land as well as part of the rear portion was not among
the property sold by the Rural Bank of Talisay to Nelson Ranola.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In December 1982 Nelson
Ranola filed a complaint for ejectment against Angeles Alforque,
occupant
of the house and said to be a sister-in-law of the Alforques, with the
Municipal Trial Court of Naga, Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. R-164.
In his amended complaint dated 22 December 1982 Nelson Ranola alleged
that
he was the absolute and registered owner of a 285-square meter lot in
Tuyan,
Naga, Cebu covered by Tax Declaration No. 17354.[1]
Subsequently, Nelson Ranola and Angeles Alforque entered into a
compromise
agreement now embodied in the 28 February 1984 decision of the lower
court
declaring that the latter should vacate the premises and that the
residential
house found on the land should be given to her.cralaw:red
Thereupon the house
was transferred to a site not far from its former location, on a lot
claimed
by the heirs of Cesario Alforque as among their inherited properties
and
which was separate and distinct from the lot bought by Nelson Ranola
from
the rural bank. The latter thereafter filed a motion to declare Angeles
Alforque and six (6) of the heirs of Cesario Alforque in contempt of
court.
The trial court however denied the motion but declared that there
should
be no contempt until the ownership or identity of the specific site on
which the constructions were built was conclusively determined.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the pendency
of the ejectment case, the lands in Naga, Cebu, were cadastrally
surveyed.
The heirs of Cesario Alforque received a survey notification card dated
16 December 1982 showing at the back thereof a sketch of the property
being
claimed, denominated as Lot No. 2015, marked "Heirs of Cesario
Alforque,"
and declaring as one of the adjoining property owners Nelson Ranola for
that 285-square meter parcel of land which he bought from the Rural
Bank
of Talisay.[2]
] Later, a survey notification card dated 28 April 1983 was issued to
petitioner
Nelson Ranola by another member of the survey team.[3]
However, the sketch of the property found at the back thereof included
the property being claimed by the Heirs of Cesario Alforque. At his
instance,
a sketch plan of the land, denominated as Lot No. 1102, was prepared
patterned
after the sketch found at the back of the card and describing his
property
as containing 531 square meters.[4]
Consequently, on 4 September
1984 an action for quieting of title and damages was filed by the Heirs
of Cesario Alforque led by Fermin Alforque against Romeo Ranola[5]
Romeo was sued in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Nelson. The
complaint
filed by the Heirs of Cesario Alforque was later amended to include
Nelson
Ranola as the real party in interest.] praying that they be declared
the
true and legal owners of Lot No. 2015 situated in Tuyan, Naga, Cebu,
containing
an area of approximately 495 square meters, covered by Tax Declaration
No. 029785, and bounded on the north by the property of Catalino
Repolido,
on the east by the property of Cesario Alforque, on the south by the
property
of Pio Navales, and on the west by the property of Rufo Navales. The
Heirs
of Cesario Alforque further claimed that the lot was among several
parcels
inherited by them from Cesario Alforque, separate and distinct from the
285-square meter property purchased by petitioner Nelson Ranola from
the
Rural Bank of Talisay but which petitioners had been trying to usurp
through
threats and intimidation. The Heirs likewise claimed that their
predecessor-in-interest
was in continuous possession of Lot No. 2015 in the concept of owner
since
1946 and had declared it in his name under Tax Declaration No. 00578,[6]
and that they continued such possession from the death of Cesario
Alforque
and had it declared in their names under Tax Declarations Nos. 016107
in
1967,[7]
[8]
and
029785 in 1980.[9]
On 13 March 1985 Nelson
Ranola filed his answer with counterclaim stating that the property he
bought from the Rural Bank of Talisay and covered by Tax Declaration
No.
17354 had a total area of 531 square meters which included the portion
being claimed by the Heirs of Cesario Alforque and identified as Lot
No.
1102, Cadastral Survey No. 747-FD, Case No. 7, and that his ownership
over
the property had already been fully established in the ejectment case,
docketed as Civil Case No. R-164, hence barred by res judicata. Nelson
Ranola likewise contended that the Heirs of Cesario Alforque perjured
themselves
when they claimed ownership over Lot No. 2015 of Cadastral Survey No.
747-D
since the property actually belonged to one Porferio Sasan, situated in
Inayagan, Naga, Cebu, with an area of 4,780 square meters, with
different
boundaries.cralaw:red
On 16 November 1989
private respondents herein filed a second amended complaint alleging
that
Lot No. 2015 of Cadastral Survey No. 747-D had been mysteriously erased
from the tracing cloth plan, merged with the lot of Nelson Ranola and
then
designated as Lot 1102 in his name. Fortunately, the error was
discovered
and recorded at the Bureau of Lands as "Nelson Ranola v. Hrs. of
Cesario
Alforque," as evidenced by Bureau of Lands Form No. 70 C V-4, Exh.
"00-2."
On 18 June 1991 the
trial court ruled in favor of respondents finding that there were
noticeable
erasures of the line separating the property of Nelson Ranola from the
property of the Heirs of Cesario Alforque on the original tracing cloth
plan, which resulted in the considerable increase of the area of Nelson
Ranola's property from 285 square meters to 531 square meters. Hence,
the
trial court declared respondents as the true owners of the disputed
property;
directed the Bureau of Lands to revise the survey of Lot No. 1102 by
segregating
therefrom, from points 5 to 9, the portion belonging to the latter, and
to assign a new lot number to the portion adjudicated to respondents.
The
claim of Nelson Ranola over the disputed land was declared invalid and
petitioners were ordered to pay jointly and severally to respondents
P20,000.00
as moral damages and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and to pay costs.[10]
On 10 October 1995 respondent
Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court,[11]
and on 8 February 1996 the motion to reconsider the Decision was denied.cralaw:red
Petitioners now pray
this Court to determine who has a better right over the disputed
property.
Petitioners insist that the appellate court erred in relying on the
survey
notification card presented by respondents as basis for its
adjudication
as the same is fake and does not exist in the records of the Bureau of
Lands. Petitioners invite our attention to the certification of 11
February
1990 issued by Surveyor Enrique G. Fuentes, allegedly a signatory on
the
card, that the same was null and void,[12]
and the admission of Pilar Cabahug, Chief of the Survey Section, Bureau
of Lands, that the card was not issued by the Bureau of Lands.[13]
Petitioners furthermore
assert that Lot No. 2015, per existing cadastral survey of Naga, Cebu,
on file with the Bureau of Lands, actually belongs to Porfirio Sasan
with
an area of 4,780 square meters and situated in Inayagan, Naga, Cebu,
two
(2) kilometers away from Lot. No. 1102, contrary to the representations
made by respondents. Hence, it should be concluded that the survey
notification
card held by respondents showing them as owners of Lot No. 2015, with
an
area of 495 square meters, is fake and cannot be the basis of the
division
of the genuine survey of Lot No. 1102 into two (2) lots.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sustaining the claim
of respondents over subject property, the appellate court did not
commit
any reversible error. That the lot claimed by respondents is separate
and
distinct from the parcel of land bought by Nelson Ranola from the Rural
Bank of Talisay is clearly shown by the series of Tax Declarations
covering
the lot, from year 1950 and by subsequent revisions thereof in 1967,
1974
and 1980. Cesario Alforque had been in continuous possession in the
concept
of owner of the property since 1950 and declared it in his name in the
same year under Tax Declaration No. 00578. Upon his death, his heirs
took
possession of the property and declared the land in their names under
Tax
Declarations Nos. 016107, 008605 and 029785. All these tax declarations
consistently show that a parcel of land situated in Tuyan, Naga, Cebu,
with an area of 495 square meters, bounded on the north by Catalina
Repolido,
on the south by Pio Navales, on the east by Cesario Alforque or his
heirs,
and on the west by Rufo Navales or his heirs, was formerly owned by
Cesario
Alforque and later by his heirs. While it is true that tax receipts and
tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they
constitute
credible proof of a claim of title over the property.[14]
Coupled with the Alforques' actual possession of the property since
1946,
the tax declarations become strong evidence of ownership.[15]
On the other hand, it
remains indisputable that one of the properties mortgaged by the
Alforques
in favor of the Rural Bank of Talisay was the lot containing an area of
285 square meters and it was the same parcel of land which that bank
ultimately
foreclosed and sold at public auction to petitioner Nelson Ranola. The
29 December 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the bank to Nelson
Ranola
also shows that the property subject of the sale contained an area of
285
square meters only. This lot was originally declared in the name of
Cesario
Alforque under Tax Declaration No. 10829 in 1958.[16]
It was later cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 12271 in 1961,[17]
then by Tax Declaration No. 016086 in 1967[18]
and by Tax Declaration No. 008598 in 1974,09[19]
all declared in the names of respondents Bernardo, Marcelina, Maria and
Fermin Alforque. When the property was transferred to the Rural Bank of
Talisay in 1975 it was covered by Tax Declaration No. 013732,[20]
and was thereafter transferred anew to petitioner Nelson Ranola under
Tax
Declaration No. 17354.[21]
In all these tax declarations, the property was invariably described as
containing an area of 285 square meters, situated in Barrio Tuyan,
Naga,
Cebu, and bounded on the north and east by property of Gregorio
Repolido,
on the south by the highway, and on the west by Eulogio Alforo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, Nelson Ranola
acknowledged the expanse of the property which he bought from the Rural
Bank of Talisay as only 285 square meters in the ejectment case which
he
filed against Angeles Alforque. Such judicial admission is conclusive
upon
him; he is precluded from denying it.cralaw:red
With the series of tax
declarations and the deed of absolute sale, combined with the judicial
admission of petitioner Nelson Ranola in this regard, it becomes
certain
that the area of Lot No. 1102 is confined only to 285 square meters.
That
the cadastral survey notification card of Lot No. 1102 issued to Nelson
Ranola allegedly reflected an actual area of 531 square meters is of no
moment as the deed of sale reveals that the subject of the sale is
limited
only to 285 square meters, no more no less. It was that expanse which
was
sold; it was the same expanse that was bought.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, an examination
by the trial court of the sketch plan of Lot No. 1102 revealed an
alteration
in its preparation. There was a noticeable erasure of the line
separating
the property of petitioner Nelson Ranola from the property claimed by
the
Heirs of Cesario Alforque, particularly referring to the line
connecting
points 5 and 9, as was discerned from an analysis of the original
tracing
cloth plan, thereby resulting in the increase in the area of Nelson
Ranola's
property and his encroachment on the 495-square meter property of
respondents.
The findings of the lower court being conclusive unless arbitrarily
arrived
at, we see no reason to disturb them in the case before us.cralaw:red
Petitioners assail the
authenticity and due execution of the survey notification card
presented
by the Heirs of Cesario Alforque as an inaccurate basis to subdivide
Lot
No. 1102 into two (2) lots. But we are not persuaded. Surveyor Enrique
G. Fuentes was not presented during the trial to substantiate his
claim;
hence, his certification is of little weight. However we are convinced
by the declaration of Survey Chief Pilar Cabahug that the survey card
was
not issued by the Bureau of Lands. The trial court therefore should not
have relied on the survey card in ordering the segregation of the
portion
marked Exhibit "T-1" in favor of respondents, and assigning the portion
marked Exhibit "T-2" to petitioner Nelson Ranola. Nevertheless,
inasmuch
as the sketch plan indicated the area of Lot No. 1102 to be 531 square
meters, instead of only 285 square meters, we shall order its revision.cralaw:red
Concerning the other
argument of petitioners that per records of the Bureau of Lands Lot No.
2015 refers to a different property which is claimed by another, this
circumstance
should not be taken against respondents since they merely relied on the
sketch plan of the disputed property designating it as such.cralaw:red
However, the trial court
erred in awarding P20,000.00 as moral damages and P10,000.00 as
attorney's
fees without making a finding thereon. Whenever granted, the court must
explicitly state in the body of its decision, and not only in the
dispositive
portion thereof, the legal reason for the award.[22]
The power of the courts to grant damages and attorney's fees demands
factual,
legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to
speculation
or conjecture.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of respondent Court of Appeals of 10
October 1995 affirming the Decision of the trial court, as well as its
Resolution of 8 February 1996 denying reconsideration thereof is
AFFIRMED
subject to the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages and
attorney's
fees is DELETED.cralaw:red
Private respondents
FERMIN B. ALFORQUE, MARCELINA A. LALUNA, MARIA B. ALFORQUE, ALBERTO
ALFORQUE,
BERNARDO ALFORQUE JR., MARCELO ALFORQUE, NICOLAS ALFORQUE, MARINA
ALFORQUE
and CESARIO ALFORQUE, are declared the owners pro-indiviso of the
495-square
meter parcel of land situated in Barrio Tuyan, Naga, Cebu.cralaw:red
The Bureau of Lands
is ordered to revise the survey of Lot No. 1102 as shown in the sketch
plan to conform to its area of 285 square meters and thereafter to
submit
the revised sketch plan to the trial court of origin. The Bureau of
Lands
is directed to assign a new lot number to the portion adjudicated to
respondents
to be reflected in the revised sketch plan.cralaw:red
Petitioners Romeo and
Nelson Ranola are directed henceforth to cease and desist from further
disturbing the ownership and possession of respondents over the
property
in litigation.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Mendoza, Quisumbing,
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
*[An heir and namesake
of the deceased Cesario Alforque.]
[1]
Exhs. "L" and "L-1."
[2]
Exh. "M;" Plaintiffs' Folder of Exhibits, p. 15.
[3]
Exh. "19;" Defendants' Folder of Exhibits, p. 20.
[4]
Exh. "T;" Plaintiffs' Folder of Exhibits, p. 22
[5]
Romeo Ranola is the brother of Nelson Ranola.
[6]
Exh. "A;" id., p. 1.chan
robles virtuallaw library:nad
[7]
Exh. "B;" id., p. 2. 008605 in 1974
[8]
Exh. "C;" id., p. 3. and 029785 in 1980
.[9]
Exh. "D;" id., p. 4.chan
robles virtuallaw library:nad
[10]
Decision penned by Judge Esperanza F. Garcia of RTC-Br. 23, Cebu City;
CA Rollo, pp. 57-58
[11]
Decision penned by Justice Jorge S. Imperial, with the concurrence of
Justices
Eduardo G. Montenegro and Jose C. de la Rama; Rollo, p. 65.
[12]
Exhs. "43" and "43-A;" Defendants' Folder of Exhibits, pp. 43-45.
[13]
TSN, 21 July 1987, pp. 6-8.chan
robles virtuallaw library:nad
[14]
Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 68946, 22 May 1992, 209 SCRA 214.
[15]
Tabuena v. CA, G.R. No. 85423, 6 May 1991, 196 SCRA 650.
[16]
Exh. "E;" Plaintiffs' Folder of Exhibits, p. 5.
[17]
Exh. "F;" id., p. 6.chan
robles virtuallaw library:nad
[18]
Exh. "G;" id., p. 7.
[19]
Exh. "H;" id., p. 8
[20]
Exh. "I;" id., p. 9.
[21]
Exh. "J;" id., p. 10.
[22]
Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corporation, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 112916, 16 March 1995, 242 SCRA 393; People v.
Castro,
G.R. No. 122671, 18 November 1997, 282 SCRA 212.chan
robles virtuallaw library:nad
[23]
Ibid. |