G.R. No. 159660 - Spouses Divinagracia vs. Cometa

The litigation involves parcels of land in Bogo, Cebu, specifically Lots 3116 and 3108 of the Bogo Cadastre.
Petitioners (spouses Antonio and Solidad Divinagracia, Judith Tulod, Cresencio Tautoan, Vicente Tautoan, Maria Beatriz Pareja, Fabian Masong, Macario Masong, Apolinaria Masong, Epifania Masong-Cuambot, Wenceslao Bercero, Juan Andrino, and Perfecto Dy, Jr.) claim ownership of these lands.
Their claim is based on acquisition from:

The heirs of Agustin NuAez, whose properties were extra-judicially partitioned in 1928 after his death (intestate) and the partition conducted by his surviving spouse Sofia and legal heirs.
Third persons who obtained these lands subsequently from Agustin’s heirs.

The petitioners assert that they have been in actual, peaceful, adverse, and continuous possession of their shares in the properties for over 60 years until such possession was allegedly disturbed by the respondents.

Respondents are the sole living heirs among the parties to the 1928 partition and later executed:

On February 26, 1992, an Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Confirmation of a Previous Oral Partition affecting the two properties.
In 1992-1993, an Extrajudicial Partition of the Estate of the Deceased among Heirs was effected.

An Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. RO-13176/O-13175) was initially issued.
A third deed of partition allocated specific shares among various heirs, leading to the cancellation of the OCT and the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT Nos. T-84670 to T-84676).

Covered by OCT No. RO-13177/O-13173.
The partition allocated shares similarly, resulting in the cancellation of the original title and replacement with TCT Nos. T-84677 to T-84683.

The petitioners challenged these subsequent acts, asserting that the 1928 partition was superior in time and effect (prius in tempore potior in jure).

Prior to pre-trial proceedings, intervenors Alberto and Hilario Tudtud joined the case as purchasers of several lots resulting from the partition.
Transactions involved:

Alberto Tudtud acquired specific lots (e.g., Lot 3116-A, 3116-F, 3116-G) which were later transferred to him under TCT Nos. T-90737, T-90735, and T-90738.
Hilario Tudtud acquired other portions (e.g., Lot 3116-D, portions of Lot 3108) with transfers evidenced by TCT Nos. T-90736 and T-90739.

At the trial level (RTC Branch 22, Bogo, Cebu), the petitioners prevailed. The trial court declared:

The extra-judicial declaration of heirs and confirmation of the oral partition, as well as the subsequent titles (TCT Nos. 84670 to 84683), as null and void.
It ordered respondents and intervenors to pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the petitioners’ case.
The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (Resolution dated 28 July 2003) was also denied.

Among the 12 petitioners, only one, Epifania Masong-Cuambot, testified regarding the acquisition of her rights through documentary evidence.
The remaining petitioners did not present evidence linking their possession or claiming rights to the 1928 partition, thereby weakening their collective claim.

Whether the petitioners have established a legal or equitable title or interest in the disputed properties pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Code.
Whether the extrajudicial declaration of heirs and the subsequent 1992-1993 partition, which led to the issuance of new Transfer Certificates of Title, are void by reason of being inconsistent with the earlier 1928 partition.
Whether the evidence, largely based on the testimony of a single petitioner (Cuambot), sufficiently substantiates the claims of all petitioners.
Whether the intervenors (the Tudtud brothers) acquired the properties in good faith or if their purchases were rendered null and void due to the contested partition.
Whether the petitioners met the requirement to clearly prove the identity and location of the properties they claim, as is necessary for an action to quiet title.