Title
Tandog vs. Macapagal
Case
G.R. No. 144208
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2007
Petitioners claimed ancestral land ownership but failed to prove legal title or cloud on title; Supreme Court denied petition due to insufficient evidence and inadmissible documents.
land dispute
legal title
equitable title
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144208)

Factual Background

The dispute concerned a parcel of land of 147,991 square meters at Sitio Inarawan, Barangay Inuman, San Isidro, Antipolo City. The petitioners asserted continuous, exclusive, open, and notorious possession of the land since time immemorial through descent from one Casimiro Policarpio, allegedly deceased in 1945, and through his heirs. They maintained that they and their predecessors cultivated and possessed the property. Portions of the tract, however, were in the possession of spouses Alfonso and Marina Calderon and of Renato Macapagal. The Calderons allegedly relied on falsified papers to justify possession of 20,116 square meters, which they sold to the government. Macapagal secured Free Patent No. 045802-1165 and was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-665 covering 18,787 square meters.

Trial Proceedings

The petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City, docketed as Civil Case No. 92-2418. In her answer, respondent Marina Calderon denied the allegations, averred that she and her husband purchased their portion in 1958, had possessed and improved the land, and had paid realty taxes, and denied knowledge of the petitioners. Prior to full trial, the petitioners and Macapagal executed a Compromise Agreement dated July 20, 1993, in which the petitioners acknowledged Macapagal’s ownership of the area covered by OCT No. P-665; the trial court approved that agreement. After the petitioners presented evidence, the Calderons moved for a demurrer to evidence. The trial court granted the demurrer and dismissed the complaint by Order dated March 20, 1995.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in its Decision dated July 31, 2000. The appellate court analyzed the action under Art. 476, Civil Code, and held that a suit to quiet title requires demonstration of a cloud created by an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding. The CA applied the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius to conclude that only the enumerated grounds warrant relief. It found that the petitioners failed to present any instrument or proceeding that would constitute a removable cloud; the most they produced were a marked Deed of Absolute Sale and a Special Power of Attorney allegedly falsified, but these documents were never formally offered in evidence. Citing Section 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court and authority, the CA held that marking an exhibit without formally offering it did not admit it into evidence. The CA also found the testimony as to the existence and hereditary link of Casimiro Policarpio to be largely hearsay and thus insufficient under Section 39, Revised Rules of Evidence to prove pedigree. Finally, the CA noted that the petitioners had not established legal or equitable title as required by Art. 477, Civil Code.

Petitioners' Contentions to the Supreme Court

The petitioners advanced to the Supreme Court that the Calderons’ averred purchase and Macapagal’s application for a Free Patent constituted judicial admissions that in themselves created a cloud on the petitioners’ interest in the disputed property and therefore justified the quieting action.

Issues Presented

The principal issues were whether the factual assertions and documentary material relied upon by respondents constituted a removable cloud under Art. 476, Civil Code, whether marked but unoffered documents could be treated as evidence of a cloud, and whether the petitioners proved legal or equitable title or pedigree sufficient to sustain an action to quiet title.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision. The Court imposed costs against the petitioners. The opinion was delivered by Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Justices Puno, Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia concurred.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that under Art. 476, Civil Code, an action to quiet title lies where a cloud upon title arises from an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid but is in truth invalid or ineffective. As a general rule, mere verbal or parol assertions of ownership do not create a removable cloud, absent a written or factual basis for the asserted right; nevertheless, claims of acquisitive prescription or adverse possession have in some cases been held to constitute removable clouds when supported by evidence. The Court agreed with the CA that the petitioners failed to prove that respondents’ assertions and documents amounted to such a removable cloud. The Court stressed that documents marked but not formally offered were inadmissible, invoking Section 34, Rule 132, Rules of Court and precedent that identified marking without offering as insufficient to give evidentiary value to a paper. The Court further held that the testimonies offered to establish descent from Casimiro Policarpio were largely hearsay and did not satisfy the requisites of Section 39, Revised Rules of Evidence for proving pedigree; those requisites include the declarant’s death or inability to testify, proof of relationship by independent evidence, and that the act or declaration was made ante litem motam. The Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms