Heirs
of Teodora Loyola, presented herein by Zosimo L. Mendoza, Sr., vs Court Of
Appeals and Alicia R. Loyola
G.R.
No. 188658
January
11, 2017
FACTS
This case involves a 4,419-square meter parcel of land located in Lingatin , Morong, Bataan. The land is formerly a public agricultural land planted with nipa and coconut
On May 19, 2003, the Heirs of Teodora Loyola (Heirs), represented by Zosimo Mendoza, Sr. (Zosimo), files a complaint for annulment of free patent and original certificate of title, reconveyance of ownership and possession, and damages against respondent Alicia Loyola
The Heirs claimed that the property belonged to their grandparents (Teodora), who had been in possession of the property since time immemorial
The Heirs insisted that they since maintained open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession until the present. However, Alicia was allegedly able to obtain the free patent and original certificate of title over the property through fraud and misrepresentation. Alicia was the wife of their deceased cousin Gabriel Loyola (Gabriel), who was given permission to use part of Teodora’s property
Alicia denied such allegations against her and that the free patent and certificate of title was registered as early as December 1985.
Trial on the case proceeded.
The Heirs relied on testimonial evidence to prove their claim over the property. Upon, testimony and cross-examination of their neighbour Jose Perez, he admitted that Teodora had a brother, Jose Loyola, Gabriel’s father and Alicia’s father-in-law. He also admitted that he did not know if Teodora and her brother co-owned the property.
The Heirs could only present a tax declaration as documentary evidence to prove their claim over the property. Although they maintained that they had paid the real estate taxes, they could not present any receipts because these were allegedly lost.
Alicia denied all allegations against her and maintained that she and Gabriel legally and regularly obtained the free patent and original certificate of title.
The RTC did not rule on the Merits. Instead, it dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to implead an indispensable party.
Motion for reconsideration was denied and then the Heirs filed an appeal before the CA questioning the dismissal.
The CA upheld the RTC’s dismissal of the case. They found that the RTC erred in finding that there was a failure to implead an indispensable party. Nevertheless, it found that the evidence presented by the Heirs was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of the free patent and original certificate of title issued to Alicia.
The Heirs elevated the case to the Court in a petition for certiorari.
This case involves a 4,419-square meter parcel of land located in Lingatin , Morong, Bataan. The land is formerly a public agricultural land planted with nipa and coconut
On May 19, 2003, the Heirs of Teodora Loyola (Heirs), represented by Zosimo Mendoza, Sr. (Zosimo), files a complaint for annulment of free patent and original certificate of title, reconveyance of ownership and possession, and damages against respondent Alicia Loyola
The Heirs claimed that the property belonged to their grandparents (Teodora), who had been in possession of the property since time immemorial
The Heirs insisted that they since maintained open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession until the present. However, Alicia was allegedly able to obtain the free patent and original certificate of title over the property through fraud and misrepresentation. Alicia was the wife of their deceased cousin Gabriel Loyola (Gabriel), who was given permission to use part of Teodora’s property
Alicia denied such allegations against her and that the free patent and certificate of title was registered as early as December 1985.
Trial on the case proceeded.
The Heirs relied on testimonial evidence to prove their claim over the property. Upon, testimony and cross-examination of their neighbour Jose Perez, he admitted that Teodora had a brother, Jose Loyola, Gabriel’s father and Alicia’s father-in-law. He also admitted that he did not know if Teodora and her brother co-owned the property.
The Heirs could only present a tax declaration as documentary evidence to prove their claim over the property. Although they maintained that they had paid the real estate taxes, they could not present any receipts because these were allegedly lost.
Alicia denied all allegations against her and maintained that she and Gabriel legally and regularly obtained the free patent and original certificate of title.
The RTC did not rule on the Merits. Instead, it dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to implead an indispensable party.
Motion for reconsideration was denied and then the Heirs filed an appeal before the CA questioning the dismissal.
The CA upheld the RTC’s dismissal of the case. They found that the RTC erred in finding that there was a failure to implead an indispensable party. Nevertheless, it found that the evidence presented by the Heirs was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of the free patent and original certificate of title issued to Alicia.
The Heirs elevated the case to the Court in a petition for certiorari.
ISSUES
1. WON the CA gravely
abused its discretion when it went beyond the issue of dismissal and ruled on
the sufficiency of petitioners’ evidence before the RTC; and,
2.
WON the petitioners were able to sufficiently establish their title or ownership over the property.
WON the petitioners were able to sufficiently establish their title or ownership over the property.
HELD
The court dismissed the petition.
The court dismissed the petition.
Petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy. They should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ complaint. It had jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the case, and there is no showing that it whimsically or capriciously exercised this jurisdiction. At most, it may have committed an error of procedure, as petitioners question its ruling on the merits of the case and not just on the issue of dismissal for failure to implead indispensable parties.
As petitioners fail to avail themselves of the proper remedy, the petition ought to be dismissed. Nonetheless, so as not to further delay the disposition of this case, the court resolves the issue of whether the CA erred in ruling on the merits of the case and not just on the issue of dismissal for failure to implead indispensable parties.
Rule 51, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides that the CA may review errors that are not assigned but are closely related to or dependent on an assigned error. The CA is allowed discretion if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case.
The Court sustains the CA’s finding that petitioners failed to adequately prove their claim over the property against respondent. The testimonies of their witnesses and the tax declaration without tax receipts are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties of the government offices responsible for the issuance.
There is no evidence of any anomaly or irregularity in the proceedings that led to the registration of the land. Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess the land.
Petitioners failed to show that only Teodora Loyola is the only heir to the property. Testimonies revealed that she has a brother. Likewise, petitioners failed to show that they are the only heirs of Teodora Loyola.
Failing to prove their title over the property, petitioners cannot rightfully claim that they have been fraudulently deprived of the property.
Petition is dismissed and the CA’s resolution and decision are affirmed.
JLD
No comments:
Post a Comment