Case Digest (G.R. No. 152006)
Facts:
Montano Pico and Rosita Pico v. Catalina Adalim-Salcedo and Urbano Salcedo, G.R. No. 152006, October 02, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are Montano Pico and Rosita Pico (the Picos); the respondents are the heirs of Catalina Adalim-Salcedo and Urbano Salcedo (the Salcedos). The dispute concerns competing claims over portions of Lot No. 1188, Cad. 392‑D (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 5930) and Lot No. 1192, Cad. 392‑D (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P‑24679) in Barangay Bioto, Municipality of Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
On December 3, 1986 the Salcedos filed an action for recovery of possession and quieting of title in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Tandag, alleging that Catalina had purchased a 17,153‑sq.m. tract from the Vallescas family but that a 1,215‑sq.m. portion (the first lot, later Lot No. 1192) was held by the Picos as tenants, and that another 1,247‑sq.m. portion (the second lot) was being claimed by the Picos as a purchase from Vicente Diaz. The Salcedos alleged that a cadastral survey and the subsequent registration placed only 15,961 sq.m. under OCT No. 5930 in Catalina’s name because the first lot had been included separately as Lot No. 1192 in the name of Jose Pico. The Picos answered, denying tenancy and asserting ownership of the first lot by inheritance and ownership of the second lot by a Deed of Sale from Vicente Diaz (dated March 7, 1977), and they challenged aspects of the survey.
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment on April 3, 1995 declaring the Salcedos owners pro indiviso of the entire Lot No. 1188 (OCT No. 5930) and ordering the Picos to vacate the portion they occupied (the second lot), while declaring the Picos and their co‑heirs owners pro diviso of Lot No. 1192 (OCT No. P‑24679). Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On January 25, 2000 the CA in CA‑G.R. CV No. 50278 dismissed both appeals for lack of merit, finding that both parties were estopped from questioning the regularity of the cadastral survey because of their long lapse of inaction after issuance of their respective certificates of title. The CA denied the Picos’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated January 22, 2002.
The Picos then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (docketed March 10, 2002) before the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that they proved ownership of the second lot by preponderance of evidence (deed of sale, attestations of chain of title) and, inv...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, re‑examine and reverse the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals?
- Did the Picos prove ownership of the second lot or show fraud sufficient to overcome the indefeasibility of Catalina’s Torrens title covering Lot ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)