SECOND DIVISION
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO
NABONG, NAMELY: ROSALINO,
CECILIO,
PURIFICACION,
MARCIANO, LEONIDES AND
REALINA, ALL
SURNAMED
NABONG,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
134989
August 31, 2004
-versus-
PUREZA AÑAR,
ERNITA AÑAR, PURISIMA A. CABANDAY
AND REMEDIOS
AÑAR,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Assailed in this Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51819,[2]
with the following disposition:
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing circumstances, the Decision dated May 10,
1995 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring plaintiffs
possessors
and owners of 1,780 hectares on the eastern portion of the 3,780
hectares
of land described as Lot 21, PLS 799 of the Tagaloan Public Land
Subdivision
and quieting their title thereto and declaring the defendants owners
and
possessors of the remaining portion of 2,000 hectares on the western
side
of Lot 21, PLS 799 of the Tagaloan Public Land Subdivision.
No award for
attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and exemplary damages is made.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
This case began with a
complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages filed by petitioners
against
respondents on June 26, 1973. In their complaint, petitioners
alleged
that they are the co-owners of a parcel of coconut land located in Sta.
Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, described as follows:
A parcel of Coconut
Land, situated at Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, bounded on the
North by Mr. Juan Llenares, on the East by Rosito Mabayo; on the South
by Francisco Nabong, and on the West by Rosito Juan Llenares, with an
area
of 1.4892 hectares, planted with 204 coconut trees, and assessed in the
amount of P2,130.00 per lates (sic) Tax Declaration No. 19831, for the
current year.[3]
(Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners base their
claim of ownership over the property on several tax declarations issued
in the name of their father, the deceased Francisco Nabong, coupled
with
open, adverse and continuous possession thereof for almost thirty
years. They alleged that respondents,
despite
knowledge of petitioners’ ownership, filed a malicious complaint
with the Office of the Provincial Commander of Cagayan de Oro City,
asserting
an adverse interest on their property. Thus, petitioners prayed
that
they be declared as the true and absolute owners of the property.[4]
In their Answer with
Counterclaim, respondents claimed ownership of the disputed property
and
alleged that petitioners are mere squatters thereon.[5]
During the proceedings
before the trial court, it was brought out that there is a discrepancy
with regard to the identity of the litigated property.
Petitioners
rely on Tax Declaration Nos. 2675 for the year 1948, 12913 for the year
1963, 15028 for the year 1967, 19831 for the year 1973 and 24122 for
the
year 1974, in the name of the late Francisco Nabong, covering a coco
land
with an area of 1.4892 hectares.[6]
On the other hand, as proof of ownership, respondents rely on Tax
Declaration
Nos. 339 for the year 1948 and 5559 for the year 1952, in the name of
the
late Apolonio Añar, covering a coco land with an area of 2
hectares.[7]
Hence, the Provincial
Assessor of Misamis Oriental was appointed as Commissioner to determine
the identity, size, age, and nature of existing improvements and actual
occupants of the land in litigation.[8]
In her report dated March 7, 1989, Commissioner Corazon V. Beltran made
the following findings:
4. That during
the inspection it was verified that the property described under tax
declaration
No. 19831 pertains to Lot No. 21, PLS 799, Case No. 1 of the Cadastral
Survey of the Bureau of Lands, .cralaw:red
5. That the area
covered by the said survey was 37,800 square meters, more or less;
x x
x
8. That on March
2, 1989, the second inspection was conducted to ascertain tax
declaration
No. 339 declared in the name of Apolonio Añar and this time
guided
by the Heirs of Apolonio Añar;
x
x
x
10. That after
touring around the property, it was ascertained that the property, or
the
lot for that matter, pinpointed by their heirs of Apolonio Añar
was the very exact property pinpointed by Mr. Leonides Nabong during
the
first inspection;[9]
Based on these findings,
Commissioner Beltran concluded that “Tax Declaration No. 19831 in the
name
of late Francisco Nabong, and Tax Declaration No. 339 in the name of
the
late Apolonio Añar are one and the same property as actually
verified
in the field and as described in this report.”[10]
For one reason or another,
the proceedings in the trial court dragged on for more than twenty
years.
Their heirs substituted the original plaintiffs and defendants,
pleadings
were amended, counsels changed, and the case passed on from one judge
to
another. Until finally, on May 10, 1995, the Regional Trial Court
of Cagayan de Oro City (Branch 23), rendered its decision awarding the
property to petitioners. The decretal portion of the
decision
reads:
WHEREFORE,
by clear preponderance of evidence, plaintiffs have proven not only
their
possession of the property subject matter of the litigation but
ownership
as well and are therefore entitled to the removal of any cloud of doubt
existing over their ownership of property. The defendants are
therefore
precluded from making any claim or possession of ownership over the
subject
matter as the same is the ownership of the plaintiffs who are entitled
to possess the same.
Defendants are
likewise
ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees,
P5,000.00 for reasonable litigation expenses, and exemplary damages in
the amount of P5,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[11]
On appeal by
respondents,
the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court’s decision and entered a
new one declaring petitioners as owners of 1,780 hectares on the
eastern
portion of the 3,780 hectares of land described as Lot 21, PLS 799 of
the
Tagalog Public Land Subdivision, while respondents were declared owners
of the remaining portion of 2,000 hectares on the western side of Lot
21,
PLS
799.[12]
Hence, this petition
by the heirs of the late Francisco Nabong.cralaw:red
The fundamental matter
that needs to be clarified in this case is the actual identity of the
property
in dispute.cralaw:red
In their complaint filed
in 1973, petitioners claim that they own the property described as a
parcel
of coconut land, situated at Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental,
with
an area of 1.4892 hectares.[13]
As proof of ownership, petitioners presented Tax Declaration Nos. 2675
for the year 1948, 12913 for the year 1963, 15028 for the year 1967,
19831
for the year 1973 and 24122 for the year 1974, in the name of the late
Francisco Nabong.[14]
The boundaries set forth in Tax Declaration No. 19831 and later on, in
Tax Declaration No. 24122, are as follows:
North
: Juan
Llenares
East
: Rosito
Mabayo
South
:
Francisco Nabong
West
: Juan
Llanares
Meanwhile, respondents
claim ownership over said property by virtue of Tax Declaration Nos.
339
for the year 1948 and 5559 for the year 1952, in the name of the late
Apolonio
Añar, covering a coco land with an area of 2 hectares.[15]
The boundaries laid therein are:
North
: Juan
Llenares
East
: Francisco
Nabong
South
:
Francisco Nabong
West
: Tagoloan
River
Due to these
conflicting
claims, the trial court appointed a commissioner to determine the
identity
of the property. However, instead of shedding light, the
commissioner’s
report brought further addle to the conflict when it declared that the
property in dispute actually pertains to Lot 21, PLS 799, Case No. 1 of
the Cadastral Survey of the Bureau of Lands, containing 3.780 hectares,
and bounded as follows:
North
: Cad Lot
18
of Heirs of Juan Llenares
Cad Lot 29 of Carmen Casiño
East
: Cad Lot
28
of Heirs of Juan Llenares
Cad Lot 26 of Renita Nabong
Cad Lot 25 of Rosalino Nabong
Cad Lot 22 of Evagrio Nabong
Cad Lot 737 of certain Casiño
South
:
Tagoloan River and National Highway
West
: Dried-up
portion of Tagoloan River
The trial court
apparently
disregarded the findings of the commissioner with regard to the
identity
and size of the land, and awarded to petitioners that portion of
property
as described in their complaint, i.e., the parcel of coconut land
measuring
1.4892 hectares.
The appellate court,
however, modified the decision of the trial court and divided between
petitioners
and respondents Lot 21 containing 3.780 hectares, with petitioners
getting
1.780 hectares of the eastern portion, and respondents, 2.000 hectares
of the western portion. It was the ruling of the appellate court
that:
It is noted that as
aforestated, the complaint of plaintiffs-appellees for quieting of
title
is only for an area of 1.4892 hectares. Defendants-appellants, on
the other hand, claim only 2,000 hectares of land which is also a
portion
of Lot 21, PLS 799 of the Tagoloan Public Land Subdivision which has a
total area of 3.7800 hectares. Both parties have sufficiently
proven
by preponderance of evidence their respective claims. There is no
justification for the plaintiffs applying for a free patent over the
whole
Lot 21, when they only claim 1.4892 hectares.cralaw:red
This Court has found
merit in defendants-appellants’ contention that the trial court erred
when
it declared plaintiffs to be the sole owners of the subject land.
Considering that Lot 21, PLS 779 of the Tagoloan Public Land
Subdivision
has a total area of 3.7800 hectares which is being claimed by the
parties
herein, in order to afford substantial justice and equity for both
parties,
this Court finds it proper to modify the judgment appealed from, so as
to give both parties the portions they claim.[16]
Because of these findings
by the trial and appellate courts, the Court now is in a quandary as to
the identity of the property in litigation. It would be futile
for
the Court to reconcile the boundaries, location and exact measurement
of
the subject property, as the tax declarations submitted by both parties
do not conform to the boundaries set in Lot 21, and no amount of effort
will facilitate in identifying with certainty the subject property
vis-à-vis
the tax declarations of the parties.cralaw:red
The Court notes that
this case would have been clearly resolved had the trial court
appointed
a geodetic engineer, and not the municipal assessor who is obviously
less
qualified, to ascertain the identity of the property and its
history.
Also, the respective tax declarations of the parties, with its
description
and boundaries, pertain to the years 1948, 1963, 1967, 1973, and 1974,
for petitioners; and 1948 and 1952 for respondents. Meanwhile,
the
commissioner’s report was based on an inspection made on the premises
in
1989. The report did not contain any findings as to whether the
property,
at the time of the ocular inspection, contain the same boundaries as
originally
described in the parties’ tax declarations. The commissioner also
failed to account for her conclusion that the property described under
petitioners’ Tax Declaration No. 19831 pertains to Lot 21, PLS 799,
Case
No. 1 of the Cadastral Survey of the Bureau of Lands, considering that
she merely made an ocular inspection thereon. But it is already
fait
accompli. Nevertheless, in order for this case to be equitably
decided,
the Court is constrained to remand the case to the trial court.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51819 is SET ASIDE.
This
case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City,
which
is ordered to forthwith cause the resurvey of the boundaries on the
property
claimed by the parties based on their respective tax declarations by a
team of surveyors to be appointed by it, and thereafter to decide the
case
accordingly.cralaw:red
No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Callejo, Sr.,
Tinga
and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Salome A. Montoya, with Justices Delilah
Vidallon-Magtolis
and Rodrigo V. Cosico, concurring.
[2]
Entitled, “Heirs of Francisco Nabong, namely: Rosalino Cecilio,
Leonides,
Purification, Marciano and Realina, all surnamed Nabong,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs. Pureza Anar, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
[3]
Records, p. 2.
[4]
Id., pp. 2-4.
[5]
Id., p. 14.
[6]
Id., pp. 82-86, Exhibits “A” to “C.”
[7]
Id., pp. 491-492, Exhibits “1” and “2.”
[8]
Id., pp. 411-412.
[9]
Id., pp. 431-433.
[10]
Id., p. 434.
[11]
Id., p. 559.
[12]
Rollo, p. 41.
[13]
Records, p. 1.
[14]
Id., pp. 82-86, Exhibits “A” to “C.”
[15]
Id., pp. 491-492, Exhibits “1” and “2.”
[16]
CA Rollo, pp. 53-54. |