Hutchison v. Buscas, GR 158554, 26 May 2005
FACTS: The spouses purchased a land. They
occupied the land after a title was issued in their names. Arrastia, the owner
of a lot adjacent, sold a portion of her land to Buscas which was evidenced by
a Quitclaim Deed in favor of Buscas. Buscas occupied his land but he failed to
register the portion of the lot in his name and title to the property remained
in Arrastia’s name.
A geodetic engineer surveyed his property
which revealed that some land was occupied by spouses. Spouses refused to
vacate. Respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. MTC ruled in favor
of respondent. RTC dismissed the case. It ruled that MTC had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter as it is a boundary dispute and the proper action
should have been an accion reinvindicatoria before the RTC.
A case for accion
reinvindicatoria was filed against petitioner. At the trial,
respondent adduced in evidence the Quitclaim Deed to prove his title over the
disputed area. He likewise testified on the survey conducted by the geodetic
engineer. Another geodetic engineer, Nicdao, in compliance with the order of
MTC, he surveyed the 2 lots using the title of the spouses and the records of
the Bureau of Lands.2 His survey revealed that petitioner
spouses encroached on the adjacent land. Respondent offered in evidence the
verification plan and report of Nicdao relative to his survey.
RTC ruled that respondent’s Quitclaim
Deed was not sufficient proof of ownership; that respondent failed to clearly
identify the property claimed as it was only marked with an "X" sign,
and; that petitioner spouses, as registered owners, are entitled to possession
of the disputed lot.
CA reversed the decision of RTC. It
ruled that respondent is entitled to possession of the disputed area as he was
able to prove his claim of ownership and the identity of the subject land.
ISSUE: WON the Quitclaim deed sufficient to prove Buscas
ownership of the disputed area
HELD: NO. The Quitclaim Deed specified only the
extent of the area sold. Annex "A" of the Deed, where the
entire lot of Arrastia was particularly described and where the specific
portion of the property sold to respondent was marked, was not presented by
respondent at the trial. As the Deed itself failed to mention the metes and
bounds of the land subject of the sale, it cannot be successfully used by
respondent to identify the area he was claiming and prove his ownership
thereof. Indeed, the presentation of the Annex "A" is essential as what
defines a piece of land is not the size mentioned in the instrument but the
boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicate its exact limits.10
Neither can the surveys of the lots of
petitioner spouses and respondent prove the identity of the contested area and
respondent’s ownership thereof. The records show that when geodetic engineers
Manansala and Nicdao surveyed the lands, they merely relied on the self-serving
statement of respondent that he owns the portion of the lot adjacent to petitioner
spouses. They were not shown the Deed of Quitclaim and its Annex "A"
or any other document of title which described the specific portion of the land
allegedly conveyed to respondent.11 Thus, the surveys cannot be given
evidentiary weight to prove the identity of the land sold to respondent and his
ownership thereof.
The rules on evidence provide that where
the contents of the document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the
instrument itself. In the case at bar, the identity of the land claimed
and respondent’s ownership thereof are the very facts in issue. The best
evidence to prove these facts is the Quitclaim Deed and its Annex "A"
where respondent derives his title and where the land from which he purchased a
part was described with particularity, indicating the metes and bounds thereof.
Respondent’s failure to adduce in evidence Annex "A" of the Quitclaim
Deed or produce secondary evidence, after proof of its loss, destruction or
unavailability, is fatal to his cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment