G.R. No. 208586 - Heirs of Magayoong vs. Heirs of Mama

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208586)

Factual Background

The disputed land was described by the CA as a portion of Cadastral Lot No. 38 of the Dansalan Cadastre, located at its southeast corner, with approximate boundary measurements and an area of about 510 square meters, and described as covered by TCT No. [T-]254. In 1963, Muslim Ayo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the disputed property to Datu Mamalinding Magayoong for P800.00. Some three years later, OCT No. P-189 dated 18 November 1966 was issued to Mamalinding Magayoong.

Mamalinding Magayoong died intestate on 4 September 1985. Before his death, he allegedly declared that the property should be preserved for his daughters, petitioners Dr. Maimona and Dr. Anisha, who occupied the land and built their homes thereon. They likewise established and ran the Mamalinding Memorial Specialist Clinic on the premises. Petitioners claimed that they and their predecessors exercised rights of ownership over the property since 1963, including fencing, declaring the property for taxation, paying realty taxes, and even mortgaging the land with the Calawi-Bacolod Rural Bank for a loan to develop the clinic.

Respondents sent a demand letter on 17 September 1993 asking petitioners to vacate and pay accrued rent. The letter was attached to an Alias Writ of Execution dated 4 September 1979 in Civil Case No. 1953, a partition proceeding before the court then having jurisdiction, involving Maroki Asar Ayo Munder versus Muslim Ayo. Petitioners responded by filing Civil Case No. 1073-93 on 24 September 1993 with the RTC, Branch 9, seeking quieting of title and damages.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the pre-trial terminated without stipulation of facts, and after respondents admitted material facts in their answer, petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings. The RTC issued an order dated 14 November 1994 granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and later denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on 20 March 1995.

On 25 March 2009, the RTC rendered judgment for petitioners. It found that petitioners’ evidence showed ownership of the subject land by preponderance of evidence. The RTC gave weight to petitioners’ showing that the property covered by OCT No. P-189 was acquired by purchase from Muslim Ayo as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale of 19 November 1963, and that the deed’s technical descriptions and sketch plan delineated the portion sold. The RTC also treated petitioners’ long and undisturbed possession as corroborative proof of ownership, noting acts such as improvements, tax declarations, payment of realty taxes, and a mortgage with the bank.

The RTC addressed the discrepancy between the land described in the deed of sale and the land reflected in TCT No. T-254. It held that the facial issuance dates and the respective areas indicated that TCT No. T-254 could not have been in the contemplation of the parties when the deed was executed on 19 November 1963, because the title was issued on 12 October 1967, and it reflected an area different from the deed’s description.

The RTC further rejected respondents’ use of the alias writ of execution. It noted that respondents did not register and annotate the writ on OCT No. P-189, and that respondents allegedly failed to file an action for reconveyance within the period that would have been available from the registration of the deed and issuance of title. The RTC also awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Respondents elevated the case to the CA, arguing in substance that the complaint failed and that petitioners did not have the requisite title to maintain an action for quieting of title. The CA emphasized that petitioners’ complaint did not adequately allege the statutory elements required for quieting of title, particularly the existence of an “instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding” that beclouds the petitioners’ title. The CA characterized petitioners’ allegations as revolving around respondents’ alleged acts of ejecting or demanding possession and payment, which the CA treated not as clouds on title but as matters that, at most, might found other remedial actions.

On the substantive issue, the CA ruled that petitioners lacked the requisite legal or equitable title. It pointed to irregularities and inconsistencies involving the land descriptions and titles. The CA noted that the deed of sale referred to the land as covered by TCT No. T-254, yet petitioners’ predecessor had the property issued as OCT No. P-189. The CA also found disparities between the boundaries in the deed of sale and those in OCT No. P-189. It doubted the validity of the free patent and the resulting title by arguing that, based on the deed’s description and the nature of the underlying land claims, the property was not shown to have been public land susceptible to free patent acquisition.

Finally, the CA held that petitioners’ payment of realty taxes for more than thirty years did not, by itself, establish ownership. It concluded that petitioners did not meet the elements for quieting of title and that the RTC erred in sustaining the complaint.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its decision dated 25 September 2012, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC judgment. The CA dismissed petitioners’ complaint for lack of cause of action. The CA ruled that the complaint failed to allege a cloud on title contemplated by law. It also held that petitioners had not established the identity of the land sought to be quieted and had not shown the title required to maintain quieting of title.

The CA’s resolution dated 10 July 2013 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the CA decision and its resolution. It did not definitively decide ownership or title. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the RTC, Branch 9, for the conduct of a relocation survey to determine the identity of the land claimed by petitioners and respondents.

The Court instructed the RTC to conduct the survey to identify the property referred to by petitioners as the lot covered by TCT No. T-254 and previously registered as OCT No. P-189, and by respondents as a portion of Lot No. 38-C or as “a portion of Lot 38 covered by OCT No. RO-918[N.A.].”

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court anchored its remand on the finding that the real property subject of the action “was never identified with certainty.” The Court observed that petitioners’ evidence did not clearly identify the land being claimed. The Court compared the land descriptions from the deed of sale and from OCT No. P-189. The deed described the property in terms of a portion of Cadastral Lot No. 38, with approximate boundaries and an area of about 510 square meters, and stated coverage under TCT No. [T-]254. OCT No. P-189, in contrast, described the property as Lot No. 38-C, Csd-9914, with a technical beginning point and bearings, and stated an area of five hundred three (503) square meters, and it referenced survey and approvals by a named public land surveyor, as well as an identity note that Lot 38-C was identical to Lot 5005 Dansalan Cadastre, Q-124, covered by a specified free patent.

The Court treated these discrepancies and the uncertainty regarding the exact metes and bounds as requiring a reliable verification procedure. It explained that survey is the process by which a parcel of land is measured and its boundaries and contents ascertained. It further recognized that disputes involving overlapping boundaries or encroachment depend on a reliable verification survey.

The Court noted that the parties had agreed to the conduct of a rel

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 208586)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were the Heirs of Datu Mamalinding Magayoong, represented by Dr. Maimona Magayoong-Pangarungan with her spouse Datu Sa Marawi Rasid Pangarungan, and by Dr. Anisha Magayoong-Macabato with her spouse Datu Khaliquzzaman Macabato.
Respondents were the Heirs of Catamanan Mama, represented by Hasan Mama.
The case began as Civil Case No. 1073-93 for quieting of title filed by petitioners before Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City.
The RTC rendered a 25 March 2009 Decision granting petitioners’ complaint, quieting title, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondents appealed.
The Court of Appeals rendered a 25 September 2012 Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC ruling and dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in a 10 July 2013 Resolution.
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition for review assailing the CA rulings.
The Supreme Court set aside the CA Decisions and remanded the case to the RTC for a relocation survey and subsequent adjudication.

Key Factual Allegations

The disputed property was a portion of Cadastral Lot No. 38 of the Dansalan Cadastre in Lilod-Madaya, Marawi City, and was assessed at P800.00, with coverage asserted under T.C.T. No. [T-]254.
In 1963, Datu Muslim Ayo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the disputed property to Datu Mamalinding Magayoong for P800.00.
An OCT was later issued in the name of Mamalinding Magayoong, described as OCT No. P-189 dated 18 November 1966.
Datu Mamalinding Magayoong died intestate on 4 September 1985.
Petitioners asserted that, before his death, he declared that the disputed property must be preserved and reserved for his daughters, Maimona and Anisah, who both occupied the property and built their homes.
Petitioners stated that in 1980, Maimona and her husband started a clinic on the lot, called the Mamalinding Memorial Specialist Clinic.
Respondents sent a demand on 17 September 1993 for petitioners to vacate and pay accrued rent, attaching an Alias Writ of Execution dated 4 September 1979 in Civil Case No. 1953 for partition titled Maroki Asar Ayo Munder versus Muslim Ayo.
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 1073-93 on 24 September 1993, averring that they were the actual possessors since 1963.
Petitioners asserted further that in 1981, they mortgaged the property with the Calawi-Bacolod Rural Bank for P10,000.00 to develop the medical clinic.
Respondents denied petitioners’ asserted root of title and claimed the property was a portion of Lot 38 covered by OCT No. RO-918[N.A.] in the name of Muslim Ayo.
Respondents claimed that petitioners’ predecessor purchased a residential property from Muslim Ayo, registered under TCT No. [T-]254, and obtained title under OCT No. RO-918[N.A.].
Respondents claimed that a partition proceeding in Civil Case No. 1953 partitioned Lot 38 into Lot 38-A, Lot 38-B, and Lot 38-C, and that the land in dispute was a portion of Lot 38-C, with petitioners’ possession allegedly by tolerance.
Petitioners alleged no stipulation of facts and no request for admissions occurred, which led to trial after pre-trial termination.

RTC Proceedings and RTC Ruling

The RTC issued an order on 25 November 1993 declaring pre-trial terminated due to the absence of a stipulation of facts and a request for admissions.
Petitioners moved for judgment on the pleadings on 28 February 1994 in view of respondents’ admission of material facts in their Answer.
The RTC granted the motion and rendered a Decision dated 25 March 2009.
The RTC ruled that petitioners had preponderantly, if not overwhelmingly, shown ownership of a parcel covered by OCT No. P-189 issued on 18 November 1966 in the name of Mamalinding F. Magayoong.
The RTC found that petitioners’ predecessor acquired ownership by purchase from Muslim Ayo, evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 19 November 1963.
The RTC stressed that the deed of sale and its sketch plan allegedly delineated the technical description and boundaries with particularity.
The RTC considered petitioners’ predecessor’s acts as indicia of ownership and possession, including immediate possession in 1963, open and adverse occupation, construction of a house used to house the clinic, declarations for taxation, and payment of realty taxes and tax clearance.
The RTC credited a mortgage of the property with the Calawi-Bacolod Rural Bank as security for a P10,000.00 loan obtained around 1981 or 1982.
The RTC cited burial of petitioners’ predecessor and their parents on the same parcel as additional circumstantial evidence.
The RTC found that no disturbance of possession occurred for more than 30 years.
The RTC addressed a claimed discrepancy involving TCT No. T-254, reasoning that the issuance date and area reflected on the face of the TCT indicated it was not yet existing when the 1963 deed of sale was executed.
The RTC rejected respondents’ indirect attack on OCT No. P-189, and discounted respondents’ use of the Alias Writ of Execution because it was not registered or annotated on OCT No. P-189.
The RTC observed that respondents did not file an action for reconveyance within 10 years from registration of the deed of sale and issuance of the title to petitioners’ predecessor.
The RTC awarded petitioners moral damages of P100,000.00, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of P50,000.00, and exemplary damages of P20,000.00.
The RTC’s dispositive portion quieted petitioners’ title and removed clouds cast upon it.

CA Appellate Rulings

The Court of