Spouses Azana v Lumbo

Case No. 62

Sps. Azana v. Lumbo

FACTS -Respondents fled an action or quieting o title in the RTC o Kalibo, Aklan o a real property designated as ot !" during the national reser#ation sur#ey o $oracay -Respondents alleged that they %ere o%ners o ot !", ho%e#er, Sps &'ilio and &stela (regorio sold the sa'e to the petitioners Respondents) lot !" %as part o a *+"**-ha land bought in a public auction by their parents, %c they inherited. lot %as separately designated during the nat/l reser#ation sur#ey only because it %as also clai'ed by the Sps+ (regorio. i ots !0 and !" %ere co'bined, the boundaries coincided %ith the lot purchased under the fnal bill o sale 1etitioners) a deed o absolute sale %as e2ecuted in a#or o &stela (regorio, transerring to her a 0+"3!*-ha land taken ro' three contiguous parcels o land o%ned by 4gnacio $andiola. petitioners purchased ot !" 5allegedly part o the 0+"3!*-ha6 ro' Sps (regorio in good aith

RTC) Respondents ailed to establish the identity o the lot sold under the fnal bill o  sale+ Thus, their clai' o title o#er ot !" also had to ail+TC ruled in a#or o the petitioners and upheld the #alidity o the sale o ot !" to the' CA - declared respondents as o%ners o the lot and nullifed the sale by sps (regorio to petitioners. %as satisfed that the boundaries o the lot resulting ro' the 'erger o lots !0 and !" coincided %ith the *+7"**-ha property 5total area clai'ed by the respondents6 -8R o sps (regorio denied. 8R o sps A9ana granted 5(R) fndings o TC and CA are binding to SC, e2cept %here there is di#ergence in the fndings and conclusions o the lo%er and appellate court6 1etitioners) 1etitioners) dis'issal o (regorio/s petition bars the institution o a si'ilar petition

SC: 4ncorrect+ First requisite o Res judicata 5fnal judicata  5fnal :udge'ent or order6 is absent+  There %as no fnal :udg'ent :udg'ent to settle the contro#er contro#ersy sy because sps sps A9ana/s appeal appeal %as still pending -The allegations o the petitioner as to the boundary o the lots o%ned by 4gnacio as %ell as that o ot !" %ere belied by the ta2 declarations they presented+ presented+ ;one o the ta2 declarations re>>Acc+ to SC, ta2 declarations are not conclusi#e e#idence o o%nership o properties stated therein+ At best, they are

indicia o possession in the concept o an o%ner+ ;on-declaration o a property or ta2 purposes does not necessarily negate o%nership6 - Petitioner posit that the abovementioned irreguarities negate respondents! "aim o# ega or e$uitabe tite and utimate% &usti#% the resoution o# the "ase in their #avor

SC: 'e disagree. Cear%( respondents have been abe to estabish b% preponderan"e o# eviden"e that are right#u o)ners o# Lot 6*. An o%ner o real property disturbed in his rights o#er the property by the unounded clai' o others, 'ay bring an action or quieting o title+ The purpose o the action is to re'o#e the cloud on his title created by any instru'ent, record, encu'brance or proceeding %hich is apparently #alid or e?ecti#e but is in truth and in act in#alid and pre:udicial to his title+  The deeds o sale e2ecuted in a#or o petitioners and the spouses (regorio %ere pri'a acie #alid and enorceable+ @o%e#er, urther scrutiny and in#estigation established that petitioners predecessor-in-interest, 4gnacio $andiola, could not ha#e o%ned the disputed lot+ Consequently, the subsequent con#eyances o ot !" to the spouses (regorio and thereater, to petitioners, %ere null and #oid+ Respondents( as the ad&udged o)ners o# Lot 6*( are entited to have the a#orementioned deeds o# sae nui+ed to remove an% doubt regarding their o)nership o# the ot. B@&R&FR&, the petition is hereby D&;4&D+ The decision and resolution o the Court o Appeals are AFF4R8&D %ith the 8D4F4CAT4; that the deed o absolute sale, in so ar as it co#ers ot !", and the deed o absolute sale are hereby declared null and #oid+ S RD&R&D+