Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Calma

Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Calma

G.R. 160832

Facts

Case Background

o    The Governor General granted a homestead patent over a 20.9740-hectare parcel of land located in Tarlac.  On the basis of said patent, an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) was issued by the Register of Deeds. OCT was cancelled by a new TCT. Then, the new TCT was again cancelled by TCT under the names of the heirs of Calma. 

o    Fabian Calma died intestate. Lucia Calma was appointed as administratrix of the estate. The heirs executed a Deed of Partition over the property. 

o    Meanwhile, in 1967, said parcel of land located in Tarlac was declared for taxation purposes under the name of Emilio Santioque. However, the declaration did not bear the name and signature of the declarant.

o    Santioque died intestate.  His children filed a complaint in the RTC of Tarlac for declaration of nullity of title, reconveyance, with damages, over a piece of land situated in Tibag, Tarlac City.

o    The heirs claimed that Emilio was awarded Homestead Patent No. 18577 by virtue of Homestead Application No. 132104.OCT No. 1112 was issued to Emilio on April 21, 1932, and from then had enjoyed full ownership and dominion over the said lot.

o    The heirs of Calma filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging that (a) the action had prescribed and was barred by laches; (b) the claim has been abandoned, and (c) the complaint stated no cause of action. The court denied the motion.  The heirs of Calma filed their answer, reiterating the grounds and allegations in their motion to dismiss by way of special and affirmative defenses.

o    Felimon admitted that Amando Bangayan,  Chief, Records Management Division of the LMB certified that, based on the survey records of Cadastral Survey and as indicated in the Area Sheet Emilio Santioque was the claimant of the lot. However, the Bureau had no available records of Homestead Application No. 132104 and Homestead Patent.

o    The Register of Deeds issued a certification stating that despite diligent efforts, he could not locate OCT No. 1112 or any document showing how it was cancelled.

o    After the heirs of Santioque rested their case, the defendants, heirs of Calma, demurred to plaintiffs’ evidence and sought its dismissal on the ground that the latter failed to establish a preponderance of evidence to support their ownership over the property

Lower Court Rulings

·         RTC: issued an Order granting the demurrer and dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish their case.

·         The heirs of Santioque appealed said order to the CA. They likewise wrote to the Director of NBI to investigate the disappearance of the copy of the Registrar of Deeds of Tarlac of OCT and TCT.

o    Without waiting for the report of the NBI on their request, the heirs of Santioque filed a motion with the CA for the early resolution of the case.

·         CA: affirmed the appealed decision. It did not give probative weight to the certifications and other documents submitted by the heirs of Santioque, as their authenticity had not been established and the signatories therein were not presented for cross-examination. It noted that none of the “crucial documents” were presented in the trial court.  

 Issues:

Procedural Issue:

·         Whether the trial court erred in granting the demurrer to evidence of respondents.

Substantial Issue

·         Whether petitioners’ claim is barred by prescription and laches.

Held and Ratio

Procedural Issue

·         No, the Court holds that CA ruling which affirmed that of the RTC granting the demurrer is correct.

o    Demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part as he would ordinarily have to do, if it is shown by plaintiff’s evidence that the latter is not entitled to the relief sought.

o    The demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which a court or tribunal may either grant or deny.

o    A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Where the plaintiff’s evidence together with such inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn therefrom does not warrant recovery against the defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained. 

o    A demurrer to evidence is likewise sustainable when, admitting every proven fact favorable to the plaintiff and indulging in his favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make out one or more of the material elements of his case, or when there is no evidence to support an allegation necessary to his claim. It should be sustained where the plaintiff’s evidence is prima facie insufficient for a recovery.

o    In the present case, petitioners failed to prove the material allegations in their complaint that Emilio Santioque applied for and was granted Patent No. 18577 and that OCT No. 1112 was issued on the basis thereof.

§  Petitioners rely on the tax documents to substantiate their claim over the subject property. However, it is axiomatic that tax receipts and tax declarations of ownership for taxation purposes do not constitute sufficient proof of ownership. They must be supported by other effective proofs.

Substantial Issue

·         Yes, the Court agrees with the appellate court that petitioners’ complaint is barred by prescription and laches.

o     An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.

o     Even if we reckon the prescription period from TCT No. 19181 issued on November 27, 1953, the only title verified to be in the name of respondents, more than ten years have already elapsed since then until the time the petitioners filed their complaint on February 29, 1998.

o     An action for reconveyance is imprescriptible only when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property. In the present case, there is no showing that petitioners were in actual possession of the subject property.

o     In any event, petitioners’ cause of action is likewise barred by laches. The essence of laches or “stale demands” is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus giving rise to the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.