Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v.

Court of Appeals

Facts

The subject matter of this case are two parcels of lands which according to appellees belong to
their grandfather Anastascio Fabela big tract of land (the mother lot). By virtue of an Escritura
de transaccion, a notarized document, Simeona Balhon and appellees entrusted to Neri the
possession of the parcels of land which shall be restored to the former without need of
redemption after 14 years. Afterwards, a barrio road was constructed which divided the mother
lot into two, lot 870 and lot 868. In 1980 Philippine Veterans Industrial Development Corporation
negotiated with Neri for the purchase of one of the lots (LOT 870). The appellees protested and
consequently Neri executed a waiver of rights over said lot and the proceeds of the sale was
given to the heirs. As to the other lot (868), Neri ignored the demand of the plaintiffs for the
return of said lot.

A case filed before the trial court who later submitted the same for decision on the basis of
appellees evidence since all defendants were in default. Judgement was rendered in favor of
the appellees.
The CA reversed the decision because the appellees did not successfully adduced the required
preponderance of evidence on their claim of absolute ownership.

The following are the problems of appellees claim

1.The Escritura de Transaccion which appellees heavily relied was not presented before the
court. Its probative value remains doubtful since (a) it does not prove appellees absolute
ownership and (b) lot 868 was not explicitly referred to as the property being entrusted to the
vendee-a-retro.
2. The waiver made by Neri referred only to Lot 870.
3. The old tax declarations presented as evidence did not specify the lot number.
4. There was no evidence presented that the original parcel of land contained 18 hectares.
5. No evidence of extrajudicial partition.
6. The 14 years had already lapsed a long time ago. And since then there has been no
evidence that appellees continued paying realty taxes on said land prior to the PHIVIDEC.
7. Failure to explain on the part of appellees why they have not registered their claim over the
property with the Bureau of Lands. On the otherhand, Neri had registered it and have payed
taxes.

Issue: WON appellees were able to prove their claim over the parcel of land.

Held:
No. The invariable applicable rule is to the effect that in order to maintain an action for
recovery of ownership, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must
prove not only his ownership of the property claimed but also the identity thereof.The party who
desires to recover must fix the identity of the land claimed by describing the location, area and
boundaries thereof. In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by
preponderance of evidence. If he claims a right granted or created by law, he must prove his
claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon
the weakness of that of his opponent. When the record does not show that the land which is the
subject matter of the action for recovery of ownership has been exactly determined, such action
cannot prosper, inasmuch as the petitioners' ownership rights in the land claimed do not appear
satisfactorily and conclusively proven at the trial.
 In this case, the appellees relied on the the Escritura de Transaccion of which only the
photocopy was presented. That photocopy was lost when the original records were elevated to
the Supreme Court. This could have established petitioners ownership.

Nonetheless, the narration of facts by the trial court did not contain the boundaries of the
parcel of land indicated with particularity, nor the parcel of land referring to as lot 868. What
really defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries
therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. Apparently, the trial court ruled
in favor of appellees on the ground that upon the lapse of the 14 year period, Neri had the
obligation to restore the property and that obligation had been fulfilled by Neri.

Moreover, the Escritura de Transaccion’s description of the eighteen (18) hectare land
which should had been read and incorporated into the transcript for purposes of record, was
omitted in the quoted portion, to establish the exact location, area and boundary of the 18
hectare lot in relation to lot 868. This omission created serious doubts as to the specific identity
of the lot. Moreover, even in the petitioners' complaint filed before the trial court, there was no
allegation of the metes and bounds of the subject lot.

As regards to the payment of tax, Lot 868 was declared by Neri for taxation purposes and
registered under his name. Although a tax declaration is not considered as conclusive proof of
ownership the same is admissible in evidence to show the nature of the possession of the
claimant of the property for which taxes have been paid. Since appellees, despite claim of
ownership, were not able to pay taxes, while defendant has done so for many years, that
payment should be taken into consideration Being the exclusive possessors of the subject
property who have declared the same for tax purposes through the years, defendants-
appellants are entitled to such favorable presumption of ownership which so far had not been
overturned by plaintiffs-appellees.