Divinagracia v. Cometa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership and partition of two parcels of land, Lots 3116 and 3108 of the Bogo Cadastre. The petitioners claim ownership based on an extra-judicial partition of the estate of the original owner, Agustin Nuñez, conducted in 1928, and subsequent acquisitions from heirs and third parties. They assert continuous and peaceful possession for over 60 years. The respondents, who are heirs of some parties to the 1928 partition, executed their own extra-judicial declaration and partition of the estate in 1992-1993, leading to the issuance of new transfer certificates of title. Intervenors later purchased several lots from the respondents. Procedural History: The petitioners initiated a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61 of Bogo, Cebu, seeking to quiet title, declare the 1992-1993 extra-judicial partition, and the resulting transfer certificates of title and tax declarations null and void. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the subsequent partition and titles void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the case. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition. The Petition: The petitioners seek review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. They argue that the appellate court erred in not affirming the RTC's findings that the 1992-1993 extra-judicial declaration and partition were null and void, and that the intervenors were purchasers in bad faith. They also contend the Court of Appeals erred in holding that they failed to present proof of legal and equitable interest in the properties. The core of their argument rests on the superiority of the earlier 1928 partition over the later 1992-1993 partition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the finding of the trial court that the extrajudicial declaration of heirs and confirmation of a previous oral partition, and the extrajudicial partition of the estate of deceased person among heirs, were null and void. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the finding of the lower court that the respondents (intervenors) were purchasers in bad faith and that the deeds of sale executed in their favor were null and void. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioners have not presented any proof that they have legal and equitable interest in the properties in litigation.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated 21 May 2003 and 28 July 2003, respectively, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the finding of the trial court that the extrajudicial declaration of heirs and confirmation of a previous oral partition, and the extrajudicial partition of the estate of deceased person among heirs, were null and void: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that petitioners failed to prove their legal or equitable title or interest in the properties. The action to quiet title requires the plaintiff to have legal or equitable title or interest in the property. While petitioners claimed equitable ownership through acquisition from Agustin Nuñez's heirs and third persons, only one of the twelve petitioners testified. This lone witness, Epifania Masong-Cuambot, failed to establish that the properties she claimed were the same ones partitioned by the respondents in 1992-1993. Her testimony and documents primarily pertained to Lot 3176, which was not part of the subject lots, or other properties whose identity remained unclear. The Court emphasized that courts cannot consider evidence not formally offered, and Cuambot's testimony was offered to prove her own title, not that of her co-petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners failed to prove their cause of action. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the finding of the lower court that the respondents (intervenors) were purchasers in bad faith and that the deeds of sale executed in their favor were null and void: Since the petitioners failed to establish their legal or equitable title or interest in the properties, the Supreme Court found no necessity to resolve the issue of whether the intervenors were purchasers in bad faith. The primary requirement for the petitioners to succeed in their action was to prove their own right to the property, which they failed to do. Consequently, the validity of the subsequent partition and the titles derived therefrom, as well as the good faith of the intervenors, became moot issues in the absence of a proven claim by the petitioners. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioners have not presented any proof that they have legal and equitable interest in the properties in litigation: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed to prove their legal or equitable title or interest by a preponderance of evidence. The Court reiterated that in an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must possess legal or equitable title or interest. Although Epifania Masong-Cuambot presented a deed of sale tracing her claimed properties to Roman Nuñez, a party to the 1928 partition, she failed to prove that these specific properties were among those adjudicated by the respondents in the 1992-1993 partition. The descriptions of the properties in the two partitions did not coincide, and the petitioners did not identify the exact locations of their claimed properties. The Court stressed the fundamental rule that the plaintiff must prove the identity of the land they are claiming, a duty that Cuambot and the other petitioners miserably failed to discharge. This failure was fatal to their claim.
Main Doctrine
In an action to quiet title or remove a cloud thereon, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. The plaintiff must satisfactorily prove not only ownership but also the identity of the property claimed.