G.R. No. 231459 - Heirs of Fabillar vs. Paller

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution affirming earlier rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
The dispute centers on a 3.1003-hectare parcel of agricultural coconut land located in Sitio Cabotjo-an, Brgy. Parina, Giporlos, Eastern Samar (hereinafter, the “subject land”), with an assessed value of P950.00.
Respondents Miguel M. Paller, Florentina P. Abayan, and Demetria P. Sagales (collectively “respondents”) asserted that the subject land originally belonged to their grandfather, Marcelino Paller, and that its partition among his heirs resulted in their acquiring lawful ownership.

After Marcelino Paller’s death (around 1929 or 1932), his properties were orally partitioned among his children, with different portions allocated to Ambrosio Paller, Isidra Paller, Ignacia Paller, and others.
Respondents argued that from Marcelino’s estate, their father Ambrosio acquired approximately one (1) hectare of the subject land, while other portions were allocated to different siblings.
Isidra’s share, later sold to Sabina Macawile (respondents’ mother), further supports the claim of property transmission through succession.

Respondents adduced Ambrosio’s baptismal certificate purportedly showing that his father was Marcelino Paller, despite discrepancies in the mother’s name (recorded as “Talampona” instead of “Susana”).
They also presented an unnotarized deed of sale dated May 3, 1959 in the Waray dialect, designated “Documento Hin Pag Guibotongan Hin Cadayunan,” which allegedly covered a two-hectare portion of the land—but noted discrepancies existed (e.g., the deed described Sabina as married to “Marcos Paller” instead of Ambrosio).
The Custodios, as petitioners and heirs of Paula C. Fabillar, claimed to be the legitimate heirs of Marcelino, contending that Ambrosio was not his child and asserting common ownership of the unpartitioned property.

The case was initially filed as an Amended Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession, and Damages before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Giporlos-Quinapondan, Eastern Samar in Civil Case No. 273.
The MCTC ruled in favor of the respondents in a decision dated November 12, 2012, declaring the respondents as the lawful owners of the subject land, ordering the surrender of possession by the Custodios, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees.
This ruling was later affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in its January 17, 2014 Decision on Appeal.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) further affirmed the RTC’s decision on August 31, 2016, including a holding that Ambrosio Paller was indeed a child of Marcelino, and rejected the petitioners’ defense of a lack of cause of action for failure to declare heirship prior to filing the complaint.

The Custodios filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that respondents failed to prove the filiation of Ambrosio to Marcelino, citing discrepancies in documentary evidence and the insufficiency of the baptismal certificate on its own.
The MCTC denied the Demurrer and allowed further evidence presentation, which later included testimonies regarding boundaries, tax declarations, and accompanying receipts that were inconsistent with one another.
The Municipal Assessor’s evidence highlighted that the subject land was covered by a series of tax declarations (TD Nos. 6618, 2191, 2192, among others) whose revised boundaries did not align with the boundaries shown in the unnotarized deed of sale.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Ambrosio is a child of Marcelino and thus entitled to inherit the subject land.

The primary issue is the sufficiency of evidence establishing Ambrosio’s filiation to Marcelino, particularly in light of discrepancies in the baptismal certificate.
Whether a baptismal certificate alone, without the support of additional corroborative evidence, can be deemed competent proof of filiation.

Whether a separate special proceeding for declaration of heirship was necessary before the trial court could resolve the ownership dispute.

Petitioners argued that without a declared heirship established through a special proceeding, respondents could not rightfully claim ownership of the subject land.
The issue revolves around the procedural requirements for establishing heirship when parties voluntarily submit the issue in the main action.

Whether respondents have sufficiently proved the identity of the land they seek to recover.

The evidence presented by respondents regarding the land boundaries—primarily the unnotarized deed of sale and subsequent tax declaration discrepancies—was challenged by petitioners.
The failure to reconcile the differences between the cited tax declarations and the boundaries defined in the deed of sale is a pivotal issue regarding the recovery claim.