Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages against petitioners, claiming ownership over a parcel of land (the "motherland") and its accretion. They alleged that their predecessors-in-interest, Francisco Gerardo and his son Domingo Gerardo, had been in possession of the "motherland" since before July 26, 1894. They claimed to have verbally sold this land to co-respondent Domingo Apostol in 1979, which was later reduced to writing via an Extra-Judicial Partition with Voluntary Reconveyance. They also claimed that the "motherland" had accreted about three hectares due to the northward movement of the Cagayan River. Petitioners, heirs of Antonio Carniyan, claimed ownership of a parcel of land bounded on the north by the Cagayan River, asserting that the "subject land" was an accretion to their registered land and that they had been in possession and cultivation of this accretion for many years. They presented Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-19093 in the name of Antonio Carniyan, issued pursuant to a Free Patent. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the application for a preliminary injunction, noting that the defendants (petitioners) were in actual possession prior to September 1982. However, the RTC later rendered judgment declaring Domingo Apostol the absolute owner, ordering the issuance of a permanent injunction against petitioners, and awarding attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek reversal of the IAC decision, arguing that the subject land (accretion) belongs to them as their registered land is bounded by the Cagayan River, as stated in their OCT. They contend that the tax declarations of their predecessor-in-interest were wrongly construed against them, and that the finding of non-possession by the appellate court was contrary to evidence. They also question the award of the accretion to private respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondents have established ownership over the "motherland" and its accretion. Whether the petitioners' Original Certificate of Title (OCT) prevails over the private respondents' tax declarations. Whether the petitioners have been in possession of the "subject land".
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is reversed and set aside, and Civil Case No. Br. III-373 for quieting of title and damages is dismissed. Costs are against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the private respondents have established ownership over the "motherland" and its accretion: The Court ruled that the private respondents' claim of ownership over their alleged "motherland" was anchored mainly on four tax declarations. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that tax declarations are not sufficient evidence to prove ownership. Furthermore, the tax declarations in the name of Francisco Gerardo, the alleged predecessor-in-interest, were found to be questionable as they appeared to have been subscribed after the last war, when it was established that Francisco Gerardo died long before the outbreak of the last war. The Court found that the alleged "motherland" claimed by private respondents is nonexistent. The "subject land" is an alluvial deposit left by the northward movement of the Cagayan River. Pursuant to Article 457 of the New Civil Code, to the owners of land adjoining the banks of a river belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. However, the private respondents failed to prove their possession of the "motherland" through substantial evidence, relying instead on the testimony of an interested and biased witness and a presumption based on the existence of the "motherland". On whether the petitioners' Original Certificate of Title (OCT) prevails over the private respondents' tax declarations: The Court held that as against an array of proofs consisting of tax declarations, which are not conclusive evidence of ownership, an original certificate of title indicates true and legal ownership. Petitioners' OCT No. P-19093, dated November 25, 1968, issued pursuant to a Free Patent, clearly showed that the boundary of petitioners' land on the north is the Cagayan River. This registered land was bought by the late Antonio Carniyan from his father-in-law, Marcos Cureg, on October 5, 1956, and the deed of sale also stated that the land is bounded on the north by the Cagayan River. The Court accorded greater weight to the OCT over the tax declarations offered by private respondents. The Court also noted that Tax Declaration No. 13131 in the name of Antonio Carniyan, which the IAC considered as an admission that his land was bounded by Domingo Gerardo's land, was of an earlier date and could not defeat the later-dated OCT. Moreover, subsequent tax declarations of Antonio Carniyan after the issuance of OCT P-19093 already stated that its northern boundary is the Cagayan River, effectively repudiating any previous acknowledgment of the existence of Francisco Gerardo's land. It is an elemental rule that a decree of registration bars all claims and rights which arose or may have existed prior to the decree of registration. On whether the petitioners have been in possession of the "subject land": The Court found that the trial court's conclusion that petitioners had never been in possession of the "subject land" was contradicted by the evidence. The RTC itself, in denying the preliminary injunction, stated that the defendants (petitioners) were in actual possession of the land in litigation prior to September 1982. Witness testimony and documentary evidence, including an order from the Director of Lands regarding a homestead application for an accretion, indicated that Antonio Carniyan (petitioners' predecessor-in-interest) occupied and cultivated the accretion, and none of the private respondents or their predecessors-in-interest appeared as occupants. The Court noted that the increase in the area of petitioners' land, being an accretion, does not automatically become registered land just because the lot receiving it is covered by a Torrens title; it must also be placed under the operation of the Torrens System.
Main Doctrine
An Original Certificate of Title, being a stronger evidence of ownership than tax declarations, prevails over claims based solely on the latter, especially when the tax declarations are questionable as to their execution and authenticity. Furthermore, claims of accretion must be established through substantial evidence and must also be subjected to the Torrens System.