Noceda v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 1, 1981, Aurora Directo (plaintiff-respondent), Rodolfo Noceda (defendant-petitioner), and Maria Arbizo executed an extrajudicial settlement of Lot 1121, with Directo receiving 11,426 sq. m., Noceda 13,294 sq. m., and Maria Arbizo 41,810 sq. m. On the same date, Directo donated 625 sq. m. of her share to Noceda. On August 17, 1981, another extrajudicial settlement-partition was executed, allotting three-fifths of Lot 1121 to Maria Arbizo and one-fifth each to Directo and Noceda. The area stated in this second settlement was 29,845 sq. m. Noceda constructed his house on the donated land. In 1985, Noceda removed Directo's fence, occupied her huts, and fenced Directo's entire land without her consent. Directo filed a suit for recovery of possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation. Procedural History: A relocation survey revealed Lot 1121 has an actual area of 127,298 sq. m. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the August 17, 1981 settlement valid, revoked the deed of donation, ordered Noceda to vacate and reconvey the donated portion to Directo, and to remove his house or pay rental. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, ordering Noceda to vacate the portion known as Lot C of Lot 1121, which was allotted to Directo. The Petition: Noceda filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the CA's findings on the actual area of Lot 1121, the validity of the August 17, 1981 settlement, the adjudication of Lot C to Directo, the charge of usurpation, and the revocation of the deed of donation.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court erred in holding that Lot 1121 contains an area in excess of that stated in its tax declaration. Whether the respondent Court erred in holding that Lot 1121 should be partitioned in accordance with the extra-judicial settlement dated August 17, 1981. Whether the respondent Court erred in adjudicating and allotting Lot "C" as appearing in the survey plan to the respondent. Whether the respondent Court erred in finding that the petitioner usurped an area adjudicated to the respondent. Whether the respondent Court erred in revoking the deed of donation dated June 1, 1981.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the actual area of Lot 1121: The Court held that the respondent Court did not err in sustaining the trial court's findings that the actual area of Lot 1121 is 127,289 square meters. The trial court ordered a relocation survey, which was conducted by Engr. Edilberto Quejada in the presence of both parties. The survey report and plan were approved by the trial court. The Court noted that differences between tax declarations and actual land areas are not uncommon, as early tax declarations are often based on approximations. The survey was conducted with the conformity of both parties, thus its findings are reliable. On the partition based on the August 17, 1981 settlement: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the respondent Court. The discrepancies between the June 1, 1981 and August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlements indicated that the latter was intended to supersede the former. Noceda's signature on the August 17, 1981 settlement showed his conformity to the new apportionment. The fact that Noceda occupied his allotted portion and the donated portion presupposes his knowledge of the boundaries. The Court also noted that the stated area in the August 17, 1981 settlement was not conclusive, as the relocation survey revealed a larger actual area occupied by the heirs. On the adjudication of Lot C to Aurora Directo: The Court found no factual or legal basis for the petitioner's claim that there was no basis for the adjudication of Lot C to Directo. The relocation survey plan was based on the August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement, the actual possession by the parties, and the technical description of Lot 1121. The survey plan established that Lot C was occupied by Directo and contained the donated area. There was no obstacle to adjudicating Lot C to Directo as her rightful share. On the charge of usurpation: The Court disagreed with the petitioner's argument that there was no effective partition and thus no basis for usurpation. The heirs of Celestino Arbizo entered into an extrajudicial settlement on August 17, 1981, specifically adjudicating portions of the property. The survey plan by Engineer Quejada delineated these portions based on the settlement and actual occupancy. The Court stated that a partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him. The petitioner's act of occupying Directo's portion without consent constituted usurpation, an offense against the property of the donor and an act of ingratitude. On the revocation of the deed of donation: The Court found the petitioner's argument that the right to enforce revocation had prescribed to be unmeritorious. Article 769 of the Civil Code states that the action for revocation due to ingratitude prescribes within one year from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action. The petitioner failed to prove the concurrence of these two requisites. He reckoned the prescriptive period from the occurrence of the usurpation, not from the time Directo had knowledge of it. Furthermore, he failed to prove that it was possible for Directo to institute the action within the same period. The burden of proof to establish prescription lies with the petitioner, and he failed to discharge this burden.
Main Doctrine
The revocation of a donation due to ingratitude prescribes within one year from the time the donor had knowledge of the act of ingratitude and it was possible for the donor to bring the action. The burden of proof to show prescription lies with the defendant.