Heirs of Teresita Villanueva, substituted by her legal heirs, namely: Elsa Ana Villanueva, et al. Vs. Heirs of Petronila Syquia Mendoza, represented by Milagros Pacis, et al.
G.R. No. 209132
June 5, 2017
FACTS:
On September 7, 2001, the heirs of Syquia filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of free patent, re-conveyance, and damages against Teresita Villanueva (Villanueva). They claimed that they are co-owners of Lot No. 5667 in Tamag, Vigan City, supposedly with an area of around 5,913 square meters. They likewise alleged that their title originated from their predecessors-in-interest, Gregorio and Concepcion Syquia, through a partition in 1950, and that they have been in open, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of said parcel of land in the concept of an owner for more than thirty (30) years. However, sometime in 1992, Villanueva caused the survey and subdivision of the property into Lot Nos. 5667-A and 5667-B.
Then in 1994, Villanueva obtained a Free Patent over Lot No. 5667-B and later, was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P- 38444.
The heirs of Syquia asserted that Villanueva had no registrable right over Lot No. 5667-B and that she obtained the free patent through fraud and misrepresentation. The heirs of Syquia elevated the case to the CA. On November 29, 2011, the appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the" December 14, 2006 RTC Decision. Consequently, the heirs of Syquia filed a Motion for Reconsideration. And, on August 29, 2013, they finally obtained a favorable decision when the CA reversed itself and ruled against the heirs of Villanueva.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the heirs of Syquia are entitled to validly recover the subject property from the heirs of Villanueva.
HELD:
No. The heirs of Syquia never adduced evidence tending to prove that Lot No. 5663 refers to Maria Angco, that Lot No. 5666 or that Lot No. 5667-A pertains to the heirs of Esperanza Florentino, that Quirino Boulevard is Provincial Road, and that Lot No. 6167 is Colun Americano.
The CA, in its Amended Decision, tried to justify its new ruling by explaining that since Lot No. 5667 had already been subdivided into two (2) lots, the boundaries and size of the property, as reflected in the tax declaration, would no longer match the boundaries and size of the lot covered by the free patent, which is Lot No. 5667-B, to wit; resultantly, with the subdivision of plaintiffs-appellants' Lot No. 5667 into two (2) lots, the boundaries and area as stated in plaintiffs-appellants' Tax Declaration would no longer match with the boundaries and area as stated in the Free Patent No. 38444 subsequently issued in favor of defendant-appellee Villanueva.
The heirs of Syquia failed to adequately prove that the area of their property in the tax declaration coincides with the area of either Lot 5667-B which is 4,497 square meters or Lot 5667 which is 9,483 square meters. They likewise failed to show, based on the boundaries that the lot they claim to have inherited is actually either Lot 5667-B, the property in dispute, or Lot 5667, the cadastral survey of which lists the Syquias as claimants. Certainly, the Syquias were not able to identify their land with that degree of certainty required to support their affirmative allegation of ownership.
Simply put, the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.
Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by law. In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
Section 1. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.
The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.
As the rule indicates, preponderant evidence refers to evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than the evidence offered in opposition to it. It is proof that leads the trier of facts to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its non-existence.
In the instant case, aside from the tax declarations covering an unirrigated riceland in Tamag, Vigan, the Syquia heirs failed to present any other proof of either ownership or actual possession of the lot in question, or even a mere indication that they exercised any act of dominion over the property.
In fact, they were not able to show that they have been in actual possession of the property since they allegedly inherited the same in 1992. The Syquias' own evidence would reveal that several houses have been constructed on the lot and third persons have actually been occupying the subject property, despite the presence of their supposed caretaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment