G.R. No. 78778 - Coronado vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners: Leonida Coronado, Felix Bueno, Melania Retizos, Bernardino Buenaseda, and Jovita Montefalcon.
Respondent: Juana Bueno Albovias (herein “JUANA”).
Subject Property: A parcel of land situated in Nagcarlan, Laguna, described as containing 277 square meters with specific boundary details, and assessed at P3,320.00.

Asserts that the property is part of a larger lot (Parcel G) identified in the last will and testament of Melecio Artiaga (executed in 1918), wherein she was one of the heirs.
Explains that a municipal project (creation of C. Lirio Street, circa 1925–1926) divided Parcel G, leading to a partition:

The northern portion was adjudicated to the Formentera heirs.
The southern portion was further partitioned between JUANA and her co-heir, Domingo Bueno.

Notes that the portion allotted to Domingo Bueno was later sold to Dalmacio Monterola, with subsequent transactions involving Leonida Coronado, leading eventually to the current possession by petitioners.

Contends that the property was bequeathed to Leonida Coronado through a will executed by Dr. Dalmacio Monterola.
Asserts that the donation deed evidenced a transfer of possession from Monterola to her, despite the fact that Monterola did not expressly claim ownership over the parcel in an adverse manner.
Maintains that she attempted to trace her title even by claiming possession for prescription purposes.

Leonida Coronado had no title over the property.
Sales and subsequent transactions conducted by Coronado were null and void ab initio.
JUANA was declared the true and legal owner.
Petitioners were ordered to vacate and pay attorney’s fees, along with moral and exemplary damages.

Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, CORONADO elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Allegation that the Court of Appeals erroneously arrived at a conclusion contrary to the factual record and misapplied the law.
Claim that there was no evidence showing the land claimed by JUANA was the same property inherited under Melecio Artiaga’s will, noting also that the will was never probated.
Assertion that JUANA is estopped from questioning the petitioner’s title because the issue was not raised in the earlier estate proceedings.
Contention that the respondent court misappreciated the evidence, especially regarding the identification and the boundaries of the property.

Evidence that Dr. Dalmacio Monterola, despite purported long-term possession, never claimed ownership in an adversarial manner (en concepto de dueno), a necessary element for acquisitive prescription.
Findings that one of Monterola’s deeds of donation even acknowledged JUANA as the boundary owner with rights to access and benefit from the property.
Reference to prior decisions and the application of Civil Code provisions on prescription, probate, and the effect of testamentary instruments.

Whether the appellate court erred in upholding the trial court’s decision by finding that:

The claimant (JUANA) had established her title over the disputed property.
Leonida Coronado’s possession was not adverse or in the nature of a claim of ownership (en concepto de dueno) necessary for acquisitive prescription.

Whether the absence of probate of Melecio Artiaga’s will invalidates or undermines JUANA’s claimed title over the property.

Whether JUANA is estopped from contesting the ownership asserted by CORONADO because the issue was not raised during the estate proceedings or on appeal.

Whether the evidence and facts regarding the identification and boundaries of the property were misappreciated, thereby affecting the adjudication of title.