07 Sps Azana v Lumbo

SPS. ALBERTO AND JOCELY AZANA v. CRISTOPHER LUMBO AND ELIZABETH LUMBO-JIMENEZ 22 March 2007 G.R. No. 157593 J. Corona Doctrine

Summary

Facts

(1) When an owner of real property is disturbed in any way in his rights over the property by the unfounded claim of others, he may bring an action for quieting of title. The purpose of the action is to remove the cloud on his title created by any instrument, record, encumbrance, or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid and prejudicial to his title. (2) Non-declaration of a property for tax purposes does not necessarily negate ownership. Respondents filed an action for quieting of title when they discovered that a deed of absolute sale was issued to petitioners for Lot 64, their property in Boracay. To prove ownership, petitioners presented their absolute deed of sale from the Sps. Gregrorio as well as tax declarations covering Lot 64. The Court scrutinized the evidence and found that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Ignacio Bandiola, could not have owned the disputed lot. Consequently, the subsequent conveyances of Lot 64 to the Sps. Gregorio and thereafter, to petitioners, were null and void. Therefore, respondents, as the adjudged owners of Lot 64, are entitled to have the aforementioned deeds of sale nullified to remove any doubt regarding their ownership of the lot. 











Ratio/Issues

I.

Action for quieting of title – Respondents filed an action for quieting of title in the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan for Lot 64, a piece of real property in Boracay. They alleged that a cloud over their title was cast when a deed of absolute sale was issued conveying Lot 64 from Sps. Gregorio to Sps. Azana. Respondent’s proof of ownership – (1) Lot 64 was part of the 8-hectare land their parents bought in a public auction which they inherited entirely. (2) The public auction was evidenced by a final bill of sale. Petitioner’s proof of ownership – (1) They purchased Lot 64 from the Sps. Gregorio in good faith as evidenced by an absolute deed of sale. (2) Their predecessor-in-interest, the Sps. Gregorio, were the lawful owners of the property as evidenced by an absolute deed of sale executed by Ignacio Bandiola. (3) Tax declarations covering Lot 64. RTC – Ruled in favor of petitioners. It held that respondents failed to establish that Lot 64 was part of the final bill of sale. CA – Ruled in favor of respondents. It found that Lot 64 was part of the property described in the final bill of sale. Failed to categorically declare that petitioner’s deeds of sale as null and void in its dispositive portion. Present petition – Petitioners underscore the seeming irregularities in the description of the property under the final bill of sale, a deed of sale dated May 20, 1939 and the tax declarations for the years 1991 and 1993 in the names of respondents. They also assert that the tax declarations filed by respondents did not cover Lot 64 but only a certain Lot 63. Petitioners contend that, unlike them, respondents never actually declared Lot 64 as theirs and cannot therefore claim ownership of the property. They posit that these irregularities negate respondent’s claim of legal or equitable title and ultimately justify the resolution of the case in their favor. Whether petitioner ’s evidence established their ownership (NO, they failed to establish the exact perimeters of the land they claim to own.) (1) Petitioners tried to strengthen their case by tracing the supposed srcin of the property. (Ignacio Bandiola’s 3 lots  portion thereof sold to Sps. Gregorio  portion thereof sold to petitioners, allegedly including 64)64. According to them, Ignacio Bandiola’s lots extended to the Visayan Sea in the east and roped Lot in Lot (2) However, all their own tax declarations state that Lot 64 was bound in the east by a particular land mass. It is highly unlikely that the portion of the mother property would not have similar boundaries as those of the latter on at least two sides. (3) The Court is not inclined to pronounce which of the documents presented by petitioners is true and correct. It is enough to say that the evidence they presented cast doubt on the validity of their claim. Petitioners have clearly failed to establish, by preponderance of evidence, the exact perimeters of the land which they claim as their own.

II.

Whether irregularities in the respondent’s documents describing the property negate claim of legal/equitable title (NO, discrepancies were sufficiently explained.) (1) 1st Deed of Sale = “Deed of Sale between Pantaleon Maming and respondent’s parents” = covered 5 hectares (2) 2nd Deed of Sale = “Final bill of sale” = covered 8 hectares (3) Petitioners: This discrepancy blurred the identification of the property claimed by respondents. (4) The Court disagrees with the petitioners and adopts the explanation of the CA. CA: It may be asked why there were two deeds of sale covering the same property. We find credence in [respondents] explanation. The public auction was held on 13 September 1938 

and therefore Pantaleon Maming had up to 13 September 1939 to redeem the property. Before the expiration of the period of redemption, Lorenzo Lumbo bought [five] hectares of the [eight]-hectare property in an attempt, as [respondents] put it, to persuade Maming not to redeem the property. This can be inferred from the price of P500.00 he paid for the [five] hectares while in the auction sale held, he bought the entire 8.0488 hectares for only P56.78. III. Whether respondent’s non-declaration of Lot 64 for tax purposes negated ownership (NO, the fi nal bill of sale was sufficient to prove that they are the rightful owners.) (1) In the absence of contrary evidence, tax declarations, being official documents, enjoy a presumption of truth as to their contents. However, jurisprudence is consistent that tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership of the properties stated therein. A disclaimer is even printed on their face that they are issued only in connection with real property taxation [and] should not be considered as title to the property. At best, tax declarations are an indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. Non-declaration of a property for tax purposes does not necessarily negate ownership. (2) The fact that both tax declarations in the names of respondents covered Lot 63 only did not necessarily mean they did not own Lot 64 as they were in fact able to present a document evidencing ownership of both properties ― the final bill of sale. Clearly, respondents have been able to establish by preponderance of evidence that they are the rightful owners of Lot 64. (3) When an owner of real property is disturbed in any way in his rights over the property by the unfounded claim of others, he may bring an action for quieting of title. The purpose of the action is to remove the cloud on his title created by any instrument, record, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid and prejudicial to his title. IV. Whether the deeds of sale executed in favor of petitioners deserve credence (NO, they must be nullified.) (1) The deeds of sale executed in favor of petitioners and the spouses Gregorio were prima facie valid and enforceable. However, further scrutiny and investigation established that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Ignacio not Gregorio have owned disputedtolot. Consequently, the subsequent conveyances of Lot Bandiola, 64 to the could spouses and the thereafter, petitioners, were null and void. (2) Therefore, respondents, as the adjudged owners of Lot 64, are entitled to have the aforementioned deeds of sale nullified to remove any doubt regarding their ownership of the lot. Held

CA affirmed with the modification that Sps. Azana’s deed of absolute sal e insofar as it covers Lot 64 is declared null and void.

Prepared by: Andrea Alcancia