Case Digest (G.R. No. 31087)
Facts:
Gregoria Yambao et al. applied for registration of land described in Exhibit B and shown on plan Exhibit A, asserting they owned fractions of five parcels through their claimed predecessors. Pio Tolentino et al. and others opposed, alleging ownership in fee simple and adverse possession of their respective portions for over thirty years. The court below denied registration, finding a preponderance of evidence for the opponents and denying the applicants’ motion for new trial.On appeal, the applicants pointed to documentary and parol evidence establishing, among others, bamboo and mango land transactions (including documents Exhibits E, I, J, K, L, and M), and their continued cultivation and sale of crops, while the opponents’ evidence of tax payment and possession conflicted. The Court found that the trial court failed to consider material documentary evidence and that, at the earliest, the opponents’ adverse possession began only in 1918, making prescription unavailable giv
Case Digest (G.R. No. 31087)
Facts:
- Application for land registration
- Applicants Gregoria Yambao and her children claimed that one-half of the five parcels of land described in Exhibit B and indicated on plan Exhibit A belonged to them.
- Applicants Josefa and Vicenta Nabong claimed that two-fifths of the other half of the five parcels belonged to them.
- Applicant Gabino de Jesus claimed another two-fifths of the other half.
- Applicants Domingo Fajardo and brothers claimed the remaining one-fifth of the said half of the five lots in litigation.
- Opposition by persons claiming fee simple ownership
- The application was opposed by forty persons.
- The oppositors alleged that they were owners in fee simple of their respective portions within the five parcels solicited.
- The oppositors alleged that they and their predecessors had been in possession of their respective portions openly, peacefully, and adversely against the whole world for over thirty years.
- Opposition by the municipality of Calumpit, Bulacan
- The municipality of Calumpit, Bulacan filed an opposition to parcel A-1 of the plan Exhibit A.
- Parcel A-1 had the barrio schoolhouse situated thereon.
- The trial court excluded parcel A-1 from the application upon motion of the applicants.
- Proceedings and judgment of the court below
- After the publications required by law and the taking of evidence by all parties, the court below analyzed the evidence.
- The court below upheld the opponents’ contention that each and every one of them was the owner of his respective parcel.
- The court below found no merit in the application.
- The court below denied the registration.
- Appeal and assigned errors
- The applicants appealed after duly excepting and filing a motion for a new trial, which the court below denied.
- In their brief, the applicants assigned these errors:
- Failure to give due weight to the applicants’ evidence.
- Holding that the applicants failed to prove that they had a conclusive right to the lands described.
- Finding that the opponents held in fee simple the respective portions claimed in their opposition.
- Finding that the lands had been declared for the payment of land tax by each and every one of the opponents now in possession.
- Admitting evidence upon lot 1-a, which had been excluded from the application.
- Holding, in view of the evidence adduced by all parties, that there was a preponderance in favor of the opponents.
- Denying the registration applied for and sustaining the opponents’ opposition.
- Issues framed by the Court
- Two questions were raised: one of fact and one of law.
- On the factual question, the trial court ruled that the preponderance of evidence favored the opponents.
- Findings of fact challenged as overlooked or misconstrued
- The Court stated the doctrine that findings of fact in appealed judgments are not disturbed unless the lower court overlooked or misconstrued facts that would change the result.
- The Court found that certain important facts had escaped the attention of the court below.
- Applicants’ documentary evidence overlooked by the court below
- The applicants presented Exhibits E, I, J, K, L, and M to prove title.
- The Court noted their dates:
- Exhibit E dated 1888.
- Exhibits I, J, and K dated 1904.
- Exhibit L dated 1914.
- Exhibit M dated 1886.
- The signers were Damaso Adriano, Agustin Adriano, Tomas Parole, Agustin Adriano, Julian Manuel, and Damaso Adriano (in the order appearing in the record).
- The Court summarized the contents as follows:
- The signers testified that each planted bamboo trees on the land belonging to Laureano de Jesus and Melchor Fajardo on the condition that they would be entitled to the first crop.
- By virtue of these documents, each signer sold the first crop to the very owners of the land for the price mentioned in the documents.
- The Court held that this documentary evidence formed part of the record and was not considered by the court below.
- Relationship of parties and effect on title
- The Court noted that Agustin Adriano, who signed Exhibits I and K, was one of the opponents.
- The Court also noted that the rest of the signers, according to the appellants, were relatives or predecessors of the other opponents.
- The Court held that the evidence tended to strengthen the applicants’ title shown by other exhibits: Exhibits C, D, and N.
- Applicants’ documentary chain and landholdings
- Exhibit C: a deed of title authorized by the Juez mayor de policia on August 6, 1856.
- It covered bamboo land and mango trees in the barrio of Malindig, within the boundaries of Calumpit.
- The land was held by Jacinto Sablan Lapira with metes and bounds set forth in the document.
- Buenaventura Sablan Lapira sold the land subject to repurchase to the spouses Martin Pineda and Quintina Octavo de la Cruz for 75 pesos and 2 reales.
- The sale conveyed to the purchasers the possession and management of the bamboo land and mango trees.
- Exhibit D: a deed of transfer and conveyance of bamboo grove and mango trees.
- It was made in 1874 by Martin Pineda to Melchor Fajardo and Laureano de Jesus.
- The purchasers bought the bamboo land and mango trees with pacto de retro for 402 pesos and 2 reales.
- Exhibit N: a copy taken from agricultural land statistics of private individuals in Calumpit in 1897, certified by the chief of the bureau of archives.
- It showed that Melchor Fajardo owned 11 hectares, 2 ares, and 2 centares of bamboo land in the barrio of Maisulao, Calumpit town, Province of Bulacan.
- Evidence of cultivation, cutting, and occupation
- In 1917, Gregoria Yambao, widow of Laureano de Jesus, sold some bamboo trees to Roman Aguilar.
- In cutting the cane, Aguilar employed several cutters who were residents and lived in houses built on the land:
- Celestino and Eulalio surnamed Garcia.
- Crispulo or Telesforo Valderama.
- Pedro Talavera.
- Carpio Tolentino.
- Estanislao Manuel and others.
- The Court held that Aguilar’s testimony was not contradicted by contrary evidence.
- The Court found it doubtful that the persons employed by Aguilar would have offered to do the work if they had truly claimed ownership of the land.
- Applicants’ parol evidence of possession and sales
- The applicants presented parol evidence that each year they picked mangoes and every six or seven years they cut ripe bamboo.
- They sold the bamboo to the trade.
- The Court noted that these acts were done during the lifetime of Laureano de Jesus and Melchor Fajardo and after their death by their heirs, the applicants herein.
- Before the insurrection against Spain, the applicants sold bamboo to Catalino Reyes for P1,400.
- On another occasion, they sold bamboo to the cabeza de barangay Tomas de Leon and to Agustin Pineda for P1,300.
- Again in 1917, they sold bamboo to Roman Aguilar of Hagonoy for P1,300.
- Disturbance of possession by opponents and related criminal and civil cases
- In 1918, the Court found that the applicants’ possession was openly disturbed by the opponents.
- In 1918, the applicants instituted criminal proceedings for usurpation against the opponents for cutting 2,000 bamboo trees planted on the land.
- The case was dismissed on petition of the prosecuting attorney by an order dated August 29, 1918, on the ground that it should have been prosecuted civilly.
- In January 1919, the applicants filed a civil complaint against the same opponents for ownership and possession of the lands.
- A preliminary injunction was issued against the defendants.
- The defendants, despite the injunction, continued to disturb plaintiffs’ possession, requiring the plaintiffs to seek punishment for contempt.
- At that stage, it became impossible to determine individually which defendants had disobeyed the injunction.
- The plaintiffs moved for dismissal so they could institute registration proceedings for the lands....(Subscriber-Only)