ELEVENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. CV No. 45287.  November 29, 1995.]

FRUCTUOSO SAMSON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FIDELA LUBIANO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

D E C I S I O N

GONZAGA-REYES, J p:

On February 6, 1991, Fructuoso Samson filed this "action to quiet title, real properties, damages and attorney's fees", on the following allegations:

"2.     That the plaintiff is the present owner and possessor of the following described parcels of land, to wit:

A)     A coconut parcel of land, situated at barangay Masaba, Municipality of Matag-ob, Leyte, bounded on the North by Esteban Apicat; on the East by Bruna Evangelista; on the South by Andrea Clitar; and on the West by Pedro Guillerma; containing an area of (,0850) (sic) Hectares more or less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 2588 of the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Matagob, Leyte, and is assessed at P150.00; and that a copy of the Tax Declaration is hereto attached, marked as Annex "A" hereof and made a part of this complaint;

B)     A parcel of an unirrigated riceland, situated at barangay Masaba, Municipality of Matagob, Leyte, bounded on the North by Cesario Lubiano; on the East by Rufino Evangelio; on the South by Pedro Guillerma and on the West by Binaguiohan Brook; containing an area of (1.0000) hectares more or less. Covered by Tax Declaration No. 2589, of the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Matag-ob, Leyte, and is assessed at P1,180.00 pesos; That a certified xerox copy of the Tax Declaration is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B" hereof and made a part of this complaint;

C)     A coconut land, situated at barangay Masaba, Matagob, Leyte, bounded on the North by Rufino Evangelista; on the East by Hipolito Potoy; on the South by Santiago Eletan and on the West by Pedro Quintina; containing an area of (.5000) Hectares more or less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 2590 of the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Matagob, Leyte and assessed at P610.00; That a copy of the Tax Declaration is hereto attached, marked as Annex "C" hereof and made a part of this complaint;

3.      That the plaintiff acquired possession and ownership over the parcels of land above-described, by virtue of purchase as hereunder alleged:

a)      That parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 2588, as Described under Paragraph 2-A, was bought by plaintiff from Pacual Evangelio, Et. Al., as evidenced by a public Document, executed on February 10, 1965, a certified xerox copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex "D" hereof and made a part of this complaint;

b)      That parcel of land, covered by Tax Declaration No. 259, as described in paragraph 2-B, of this complaint, was bought by the plaintiff from Teodorico Pugado, Et. Al., as evidenced by a, public document, executed on October 2, 1965, per Document No. 126, Page 27, Book II, Series of 1965 of the Notarial Register of Nemesio M. Buot of Palompon, Leyte, a certified xerox copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex "E" and made a part of this complaint;

c)      That parcel of land, covered by Tax Declaration No. 2590, as described in paragraph 2-B of this complaint, was bought by plaintiff from Ignacio Demeterio, Et. Al, as evidenced by a public Document, executed on the 26th day of October, 1964, per Document No. 149; Page No. 43; Book No. III, Series of 1964 of the Notarial Register of Camilo P. Esmero of Palompon, Leyte, a certified xerox copy of the document is hereto attached, marked as Annex "F" hereof and made a part of this complaint;" (Record, pp. 1-2)

Plaintiff claimed that they have been in possession of the above parcels of land for many years and that on October 20, 1989, and in the months of November, 1989, January 1990 and May 1990, defendants entered the premises of the land in question under pretense of ownership. Plaintiff alleged that the third parcel of land described in the complaint (par. 2-C) had already been litigated in a case for forcible entry and decided in favor of plaintiff in a judgment of the Court of Appeals which became final and executory in 1975.

The defendants denied having made incursions on plaintiff's property. By way of affirmative and special defenses, defendants alleged that plaintiff has no cause of action as they have been in possession of their lands which they inherited from their grandparents, and which the latter had owned since 1914 and 1915, and paid taxes thereon. Defendants point out that the tax declarations submitted by plaintiff as part of his complaint show that plaintiff owns about ten hectares of land whereas plaintiff purchased only almost two hectares.

On August 19, 1991, the court a quo promulgated a pre-trial order, stating that the parties came to an agreement that the plaintiff's ownership of the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 2588 consisting of 850 sq. m. is not disputed by the defendants; the only dispute is the question of ownership as to the lots covered by Tax Declarations Nos. 2589 and 2390 consisting of an area of one hectare and 5000 sq. m. respectively. Because of the "very strong possibility that the actual dispute is only boundary dispute", the Count appointed a Court Commissioner to "undertake the relocation of the respective properties of the plaintiff and the defendants".

The Commissioner's report stated inter alia:

"Plaintiff Fructouso Samson did the pointing to the boundary of his claim, while the defendants were observing in the sideline, but with complete knowledge of the progress of the work, interposing no objection in the survey. The defendants were not required to point to the boundary of their claim as the claim of the Plaintiff Fructouso Samson is identical to their claim, except a small portion of the claim of the plaintiff almost situated in the middle of the whole parcel which the defendants acknowledged to be owned by Fructouso Samson, therefore not part of the disputed area.

On the plan of land which is prepared for the purpose, and which formed part of the report, the honorable court is invited to make note that there are three (3) lots formed out of the survey. Lot 1, having an area of 33,937 square meters, or 3,3937 hectares is contested in regards to ownership between Fructouso Samson and Fifila Lubiano et al. The claims of ownership for both parties are identical to each other. So do Lot 3 on the plan having an area of 27,994 square meters, or 2.7994 hectares, is also a disputed lot, separated from Lot 1 by Lot 2, having an area 6,269 square meters or 0.6269 hectare which lot is not contested by the defendants, and which the defendants have been recognizing it as owned by Fructouso Samson.

The total area of the land under litigation comprising of Lot 1 and Lot 2 is therefore, 61,931 square meters or 6.1931 hectares." (Record, p. 145)

The Commissioner's Report was approved and made part of the evidence on April 21, 1992. After the reception of the evidence of both parties, the court rendered judgment as follows:

. . .. As reported by the Commissioner, the lots pointed to by the plaintiff and the defendants as the lots subject of the dispute are those indicated as Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the sketch plan submitted by the court-appointed Commissioner as part of his report. Lot 1 has an actual area of 33,937 square meters. The ownership of the same lot is contested by the parties. Both the plaintiff and the defendants insist that they own the same parcel of land. Lot 3 has an area of 27,994 square meters. This portion is also disputed by the parties. Both claim ownership thereof. In-between lots 1 and 3 is lot 2 which has an area of 6,269 square meters. This area is not contested by the defendants. Defendants in fact recognize the plaintiff as the owner of the same portion. Who actually owns lots 1 and 3?

Plaintiff claims that lots 1 and 3 are parts of that land he acquired from Pascual Evangelio, Teodorico Pugado, Carlos Pugado, Mateo Pugado and Galicana Pugado, and from Ignacio Demetrio, Demetria Demetrio and Alejandro Demetrio. He submitted in evidence Exh. "A," which is a copy of Tax Decl. No. 2588; Exh. "B," a copy of Tax Decl. No. 2590; Exh. "C," a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the plaintiff; Exh. "D," copy of Tax Decl. No. 2589; Exh. "E," copy of a Deed of Sale. Among the mass of evidence presented, this Court takes particular attention with Exh. "C" and Exh. "E." Both exhibits indicate that a certain parcel of land was indeed conveyed to plaintiff sometime in October of 1965 (Exh. "C"), and sometime in October, 1964 (Exh. "E"). Significant in these exhibits is the description of the parcel of land conveyed. Exh. "C" shows that what was conveyed to plaintiff by vendors therein, Teodorico, Carlos, Mateo and Galicana, all surnamed Pugado, "is a parcel of land under Tax Declaration No. 2754 in the name of Segundo Pugado, deceased father of the herein vendors; assessed at P80.00; area, more or less one hectare (Exh. "C-4") and bounded on the North by Cesario Lubiano; East, Rufino Evangelio; South, Pedro Gillema; and West, Binagiohan brook."

The parcel of land conveyed to the plaintiff in Exh. "E" is a parcel of land "suited to corn, under Tax Decl. No. 1595 in the name of Andrea Clitar, containing an area of 4,708 square meters, more or less, with an assessed value of P30.00, and bounded as follows: North, Rufino Evangelio; East, Hipolito Pitoy; South, Santiago Clitar; and West, Pedro Quilima."

Appreciating the evidence, the Court finds that lots 1 and 3 as pointed to by the plaintiff himself as the same land which were conveyed to him on the strength of Exhibits "C" and "E", do not actually fit the description contained in the deeds of conveyance (Exhs. "C" and "E"). Lot 1, as determined by the court-appointed Commissioner, has an area of 33,937 square meters. It adjoins the Masaba river to the west traversing towards the north. Practically, the northern and western.

The dispositive part of the judgment reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the defendants and against the plaintiff. Defendants, Fidela Lubiano, Estanislao Lubiano, Crisanto Lubiano, Regino Lubiano, Anastacia Lubiano, Roger Lubiano, Senon Delima, Francisco Delima, Alberto Delima, Felix Delima, Maximo Billotes and Federico Billotes, are declared by preponderance of evidence as the owners of Lots 1 and 3 described in the Commissioner's Report submitted on January 14, 1992, found on pages 144, 145 and 146 of the records, costs against the plaintiff." (Records, p. 275)

The plaintiff has appealed to this Court submitting the sole issue: whether or not the lower court was correct when it rendered a decision holding that by preponderance of evidence the defendants-appellees are the owners of Lots 1 and 3. The plaintiff-appellant claims that the court erred:

"First Assigned Error

IN HOLDING THAT LOTS 1 AND 3 ARE NOT THE SAME LAND BOUGHT AND THEREAFTER OWNED, POSSESSED AND OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

Second Assigned Error

IN HOLDING THAT BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ARE THE OWNERS OF LOTS 1 AND 3" (Rollo, pp. 37 and 42)

No appellees' brief was filed.

Plaintiff-appellant alleges that defendant has not presented evidences to contradict or refute his testimony and his documentary evidence that Lot 1 has been declared under Tax Declaration No. 2589 and Lot No. 3 under Tax Declaration No. 2590 both in his name, and he had pointed to the boundaries of those lots which he bought in 1965 and 1964, respectively, during the commissioner's survey, as the lots actually occupied by him. Plaintiff-appellant contends that the fact that the boundaries and the areas of the lots bought by him are not the same as the boundaries as found in the sketch plan prepared by the Commissioner, is not important; what is controlling is that these are the very lots plaintiff-appellant bought and occupied until his occupancy and dominion over said lots were disturbed by defendants-appellees in 1989 and 1990. Plaintiff-appellant points out that it is common knowledge that until there is a cadastral survey and in the absence of a torrens title describing the areas and boundaries of lots, the areas and boundaries reflected in the tax declarations are not same as the actual area and boundaries if actually surveyed.

Plaintiff-appellant further questions that portion of the dispositive portion of the judgment declaring defendants "by preponderance of evidence as the owners of Lots 1 and 3 described in the Commissioner's Report" considering that the only exhibits presented by defendants in evidence, i.e. Exhibits "1", "2", "3", "4" and "5", are all receipts of payments of taxes and do not show which lots are covered by the tax declarations and under whose names the property is declared. It is claimed that defendants-appellants have failed to offer evidence to show that they have declared for taxation Lots 1 and 3 in their names or that they own the said lots.

The first assigned error lacks merit.

The subject of plaintiff's complaint are three lots covered by Tax Declarations Nos. 2588, 2589 and 2590, respectively covering an area of 850 sq. m., one hectare and 5,000 sq. m. The ownership of the first parcel, covered by Tax Declaration No. 2588, comprising 850 sq. m. is not contested; defendants agree that it belongs to the plaintiff.

The Commissioner's Report however shows that during the relocation survey conducted by the Commissioner, the lots subject of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, and which both parties insist that they own are the areas denominated in the sketch plan submitted by the Commissioner as Lot No. 1, consisting of 33,937 sq. m. and Lot No. 3 consisting of 27,994 sq. m. Plaintiff's claim is based on two deeds of conveyances, marked as Exhs. "C" and "E" executed sometime in October, 1965 and October 1964, respectively.

An examination of the two deeds of sale will show that what was conveyed under Exh. "C" is an area of one hectare more or less, and under Exhibit "E", an area of 4,708 sq. m. more or less. Clearly, it would be pretentious to claim that the area purchased under the two deeds of sale could be the basis of ownership of Lots 1 and 3, with an area totaling 61,931 sq. m. or more than six hectares.

Plaintiff is obviously confused with respect to the area of the parcels of land acquired by him. He testified that the area of the land that he owns in Masaba, Matag-ob, Leyte, which is evidenced by documents of purchase is seven (7) hectares/five (5) hectares, and that the three tax declarations in his name, namely Tax Declarations Nos. 2588, 2589, and 2590, cover five (5) hectares, three hectares, and five hectares, respectively, or a total of thirteen hectares. Asked to explain the difference between the area covered by the documents of sale and that covered by the tax declaration, plaintiff stated that:

"At that time, I purchase (sic) the land there was no title to this land only tax declaration and at that time people are just basing their measurement or estimate so that sometimes even if the price of the land is two (10) hectares (sic) they will say three (3) hectares because they are paying the realty tax." (at p. 33, tsn., May 25, 1992)

It is clear that plaintiff is of the wrong impression that a land owner may simply increase the area purchased by him by declaring a bigger area in the tax declaration and paying the realty tax on the bigger area. Accordingly, his testimony, which is quoted in the appellant's brief to show that plaintiff "could not have been mistaken" when he pointed to his landholdings as he was acquainted with the same, having possessed the parcels of land for a long time, cannot be given credence. His uncorroborated testimony that he bought and occupied the contested lots until his possession was disturbed by defendants-appellees in 1989 and 1990 could have been based on a misapprehension of the actual boundaries of the area subject of the conveyances in his favor. Moreover, as testified to by the Assistant Provincial Assessor, the only property declared in the name of the plaintiff located in Masaba, Matag-ob, Leyte are the three parcels of land covered by Tax Declarations Nos. 2588, 2589 and 2590, with a combined area of 15,850 sq. m. (tsn., December 17, 1992, pp. 4-5). Thus, neither the deeds of sale in his favor nor the tax declarations in his name could be a credible basis for his claim of ownership of Lots 1 and 3. The discrepancy in the area or actual size of the property bought and that claimed to be under his possession is too gross to be ignored (see Heirs of Juan Oclarit vs. CA, 233 SCRA 239).

We find no reason to disturb the trial court's reliance on the boundaries of the parcels of land subject of the deed of sale, and in ruling that the description in the deeds of conveyance do not coincide with the area pointed to by him as having been sold to him. The conspicuous absence in the deeds of sale of any mention of the "Masaba River", which is the boundary of Lot No. 1 to the west traversing towards the North, and of Lot No. 3 on the West demolishes plaintiff's claim. What defines a piece of land are the boundaries laid down as enclosing the land and indicating its limits (Dichoso vs. CA, 192 SCRA 169; Vda. de Tan vs. I.A.C., 213 SCRA 95; Erico vs. Chigas, 98 SCRA 575)). As correctly observed by the court a quo, while the names of the adjoining owners may be controvertible because of changes in ownership over time, a natural boundary, like the Masaba River, is a credible factor in determining the identity of the land bought by the plaintiff.

With respect to the second assignment of error, We find merit in the appellant's contestation that the court should not have declared that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the defendants. Although We affirm the finding that the plaintiff, who had the burden of proof to establish his affirmative allegation that he owns the disputed parcels of land, was not able to satisfy said burden because of the inadequacy of his evidence, We agree that the evidence adduced by the defendants does not preponderate in favor of their claim of ownership to Lots "1" and "3". The defendants rely on their claim of ownership upon the testimony of their sole witness, Fidela Lubiano, who testified that the areas being claimed by plaintiff and pointed to by the latter during the commissioner's survey belong to the defendants by inheritance from their grandfathers. Defendants presented tax receipts in the name of Fidela Lubiano for the years 1980, 1985 and 1986 (Exhs. "1", "1-A", "1-B") for the year 1971 (Exhs. "1-E" and "1-F") in the name of Fidela Delima, for the year 1976 (Exh. "1-C") and in the name of Estanislao Lubiano for the year 1961 (Exh. "1-G"). However, the tax receipts contain no indication that the land covered by said taxes are the areas disputed in the instant case; there is no description either of the area or boundaries of the parcels of land referred to. Although there is mention of the location as "Masaba", and of tax declaration numbers 1603 (Exh. "1", "1-A", "1-B") and of tax declaration numbers 798 and 2913 (Exh. "1-C") No. 1243 (Exhs. "1-D" and "1-E") No. 1113 (Exh. "1-F") No. 11108 (Exh. "1-G") and No. 1699 (Exh. "4"), no tax declarations were presented that would give some indication of the boundaries of the parcels of land subject thereof or the names of the declared owners. A cursory examination of the documentary and of the testimonial evidence convinces Us that said evidence is as inconclusive as that presented by the plaintiff and does not preponderate in favor of defendants' claim of ownership.

Accordingly, it is believed that the Court erred in declaring the defendants the owners of Lots 1 and 3.

WHEREFORE, the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it dismisses plaintiff's complaint and is modified to delete the portion declaring defendants as the owners of Lots 1 and 3 described in the Commissioner's Report submitted on January 14, 1992.

SO ORDERED.

Guererro and Brawner, JJ., concur.