THIRD DIVISION
HEIRS OF FLORENTINO G.R. No. 132357
REMETIO,
represented by
PEPITO REMETIO SIOCO, Present:
Petitioners,
QUISUMBING, J. Chairperson,
-
versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR.
JULIAN VILLARUEL and
DIANITO VILLARUEL,
Respondents. Promulgated:
May 31, 2006
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
The Heirs of Florentino
Remetio, represented by Pepito
Remetio Sioco, have challenged
the Court of Appeals’ Decision[1]
dated
The trial court and the Court of
Appeals agree on the following facts lifted from the assailed Decision:
The case commenced below on July 21, 1992 with the filing by the Heirs of Florentino Remetio, represented by Pepito Remetio Sioco of a Complaint for Quieting of Title, alleging inter alia that their late grandfather left a 6,076 square meter land in Magpag-ong, Batan, Aklan, declared in his name under Tax Declaration No. 4706; that during the cadastral survey in the Municipality of Batan, Aklan, the said parcel of land was surveyed in the name of appellees’ mother, Basilisa Remetio Villaruel, and on the basis of such cadastral survey, appellees have asserted rights over subject land, casting a cloud over their (appellants) title of the same. Appellants then prayed that they be adjudged as the rightful owners of subject land, that appellees be ordered to execute the necessary document for the cancellation of their mother’s name in the Bureau of Lands, as claimant over said land, and appellees be further ordered to pay P5,000.00, as and for attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses.
On
September 14, 1992, the appellees sent in their
Answer with Counterclaims and Motion to Dismiss, averring that the parcel of
land surveyed in the name of their late mother is Lot No. 4862, with an area of
9,896 square meters; that the parcel of land described by appellants in their
Complaint is not Lot No. 4864, as therein alleged, but Lot No. 4863; that the
appellants have no cause of action against them as they are claiming neither
Lot No. 4863 in the name of appellants’ late grandafather
nor Lot No. 4864; that Pepito Sioco
has not been authorized by appellants to file the present Complaint and in fact,
has no Special Power of Attorney for the purpose; and that they are owners of
Lot No. 4862 with an area of 9,896 square meters, which lot is separate and
distinct from the land claimed by appellants as Lot No. 4863, with an area of
2,494 square meters. Appellees therefore prayed for
the dismissal of the Complaint, with costs against appellants; that they be
declared the lawful owners of Lot No. 4862; and that appellants be made to pay P10,000.00,
as attorney’s fees, together with litigation expenses and appearance fees of
counsel at P500.00 per actual day of trial.
On
On
On
In
its Pre-Trial Order of
“1) Who between the parties is in actual possession of the land in question, Lot No. 4862, and its lawful owner;
2) Whether or not the cause of action of plaintiff has prescribed;
3) Whether plaintiffs are in estoppel on their
claim of
4) Whether or not the parties are entitled to damages prayed for in their respective pleadings.”
(Pre-Trial Order, Civil Case No. 4506, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 78-79)
On
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the preponderance of evidence tilts in favor of the defendants and hereby holds that:
1) the defendants are the lawful owners of and possessors of Lot No. 4862 containing an area of 9,896 sq. m., more or less, situated at Barangay Mapag-ong, Batan, Aklan, together with all the improvements existing thereon, except the houses of Mauricia Pelonio, Fidelina Sioco and Fausta Remetio, which were built in good faith;
2) the plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay defendants the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation; and to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
(Decision, Civil Case No. 4506, p. 5; Rollo, p. 153)
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Decision, appellants have come before this Court with their Appeal; theorizing that the lower court erred in declaring the appellees as lawful owners and possessors of the land in question.[2]
The Court of Appeals found for
private respondents, ruling that petitioners’ own witness testified that
private respondents’ parents peacefully possessed the subject property in their
lifetime. This possession, enjoyed by
private respondents upon their parents’ death, was only disturbed when
petitioners filed the complaint in the instant case. Moreover, the appellate court deemed the tax
declarations presented by private respondents to be more reliable proof of
ownership compared to the documentary evidence in support of petitioners’
claims which consisted of tax declarations pertaining to different
properties. It also held that
petitioners were able to build structures on the property by the tolerance of
private respondents.
The appellate court denied
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in its Resolution[3]
dated
Petitioners filed this petition
insisting that they have been in continuous, open, adverse, public and
uninterrupted possession of the subject property as proven by the fact that
they have constructed structures thereon without objection from private
respondents. The trial court’s ruling that private respondents’ possession of
the property has spanned more than 50 years is allegedly erroneous since the
latter have not presented any tax declaration prior to 1974. Petitioners insist that the fact that the
cadastral survey of the property was in the name of private respondents’ mother
does not warrant the conclusion that the property is owned by the latter.
Private respondents’ Comments[4]
dated
We deny the petition.
Petitioners call upon the Court to
again review the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the parties
and examine their weight and sufficiency. This is a function which the Court
generally does not undertake for it is a settled rule that the assessment of
the credibility of witnesses is a domain best left to the trial court judge
because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and demeanor on
the witness stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals. And when his
findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally
binding and conclusive upon this Court.[7]
The records show that petitioners
presented three (3) witnesses who declared that the subject properly was
previously owned and occupied by Florentino Remetio, was inherited by his children, and ultimately
ended up with petitioners. However, one
witness, a certain Simplicia Abayon,
contradicted the testimonies of her three (3) co-witnesses and testified that
private respondents’ predecessors also occupied the property in question.
On the other hand, private
respondents presented four (4) witnesses who collectively testified that the
subject property was previously owned and possessed by Eleuterio
Remetio, was inherited by Basilisa
Remetio Villaruel, and
finally by private respondents. This
continued possession covered a period of more than 50 years. Interestingly, not one of private
respondents’ witnesses declared that petitioners had at one time been in actual
physical possession and ownership of the subject property.
With these considerations, the trial
court and the Court of Appeals deemed the testimony of Simplicia
Abayon sufficient to cast a cloud of doubt on
petitioners’ claim of exclusive possession and ownership. But this is not
all. The documentary evidence presented
by the parties also supports the legal conclusions drawn by the Court of
Appeals and the trial court.
The tax declarations which
petitioners submitted in evidence were found to pertain to Lot Nos. 4863 and
4864 and not to Lot No. 4862, the property subject of this case. Moreover, as found by the trial court, Lot
No. 4863 appears to be declared in the name of a certain Fausta
Remetio, while Lot No. 4864 is declared in the name
of Florentino Remetio.
However, the sketch plan approved by the parties lists Florentino
Remetio as the claimant of Lot No. 4863, and Fausta Remetio as the claimant of
Lot No. 4864. Further, the tax receipts
presented by petitioners cover only Lot No. 4864. The other tax declarations for which taxes
have allegedly been paid were not presented in court.[8]
In contrast, private respondents’
evidence shows that the subject property was surveyed for Basilisa
Remetio Villaruel in
1962. The tax declarations also
consistently refer to Lot No. 4862 and indicate that taxes have been paid up to
1991. Moreover, the technical
description of Lot No. 4862 shows that it was surveyed for Basilisa
Remetio Villaruel from
The construction by petitioners of
structures in the subject property is insufficient to establish their claim of
ownership. We are persuaded by the trial
court’s finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that private respondents
tolerated the construction of these structures because petitioners are their
relatives. At any rate, there is no
other fact or circumstance to indicate that private respondents relinquished
their possession and ownership of the property in question.
In fine, we are convinced that the
findings of the courts a quo are not tainted by arbitrariness or
oversight and are amply supported by the evidence on record. The challenged Decision should be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated
SO
ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
I attest that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third
Division
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Attestation by the
Division’s Chairperson, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 13-18, penned by Acting Presiding Justice (later Associate Justice of this Court) Fidel P. Purisima and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo P. Galvez and B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz.
[7]