The Laluans, Laguits, and Sorianos filed with the CFI of
Pangasinan a complaint against Apolinario Malpaya, Melecio Tambot, and Bernardino Jasmin for recovery of ownership and possession of two parcels of land, basing it on their alleged right to inherit from Marciana Laluan through legal succession.
The first parcel of land was alleged to be a paraphernal
property of the late Marciana Laluan and was claimed to be sold to respondent Tambot by respondent Malpaya as evidenced by a “Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property”. The second parcel of land was alleged to be a conjugal property of Sps. Malpaya and Laluan and that respondent Malpaya sold the whole property to respondents Tambot and Jasmin as evidenced by an “Absolute Deed of Sale”, even though the right to sell was only for one-half of the said land.
The respondents answered, denying the allegations and
claiming that the parcels of land belonged to respondent Malpaya as his exclusive property. Further averred was that respondent Malpaya had the “perfect legal right” dispose of the lands and that they bought the properties in good faith.
To expedite proceedings, the parties entered into a
partial stipulation of facts at the hearings. Thereafter, several postponements followed.
At the hearing scheduled on August 1, 1957, neither
respondents nor their counsels appeared. Even so, petitioners moved for leave to continue with the presentation of their evidence, which the court a quo granted.
When judgement was rendered, the “Deed of Absolute
Sale of Real Property” and “Absolute Deed of Sale” were declared null and void, except for the one-half portion of the land described in the latter document which belonged to respondent Malpaya; petitioners were declared owners pro indiviso of the entirety of the land subject matter of “Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property” and respondent Tambot was ordered to not only deliver the possession of said land, but also pay for damages; and lastly, petitioners were also declared owners pro indiviso of one-half of the land subject matter of the “Absolute Deed of Sale” and respondents Tambot and Jasmin were ordered to deliver the possession of the said half-portion to the petitioners, as well as pay for damages. The respondents, thereafter, filed for a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.
Above mentioned respondents later appealed to the
Court of Appeals. When judgment was rendered, the appealed Decision was set aside and the case was remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. On the other hand, through a motion for reconsideration, the petitioners asked the CA to re-examine its decision, which the latter denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari.
Issue:
WON the parcel of land subject of the “Deed of Absolute
Sale of Real Property” is the paraphernal property of the deceased Marciana Laluan.
Ruling:
The invariable applicable rule is to the effect that in order
to maintain an action to recover 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 he claims. And where doubt and uncertainty exist as to the identity of the land claimed, a court should resolve the question by recourse to the pleadings and the record as well as to the extrinsic evidence, oral or written.
Absent, therefore, any indicium in the record to show
and identify with the absolute certainty any of the three parcels of land included in the deed of donation propter nuptias as the land described in the “Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property”, the prudent course open consists in an investigation by the court a quo, either in the form of a hearing or an ocular inspection, or both, to enable it to know positively the land in litigation. There exists sufficient ground to remand the case to the court a quo for a new trial on the matter.
Accordingly, the judgment of the CA and its resolution
are set aside; the judgment of the court a quo in so far as it pertains to the “Absolute Deed of Sale” is affirmed; the judgment of the same in so far as it related to the “Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property” is set aside; and the case is remanded to the court a quo for a new trial, to the end that the identities of the parcels of land in dispute may be specifically established.
Eugene and John Jilka v. Saline County, Kansas, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee, Its Review Committee, and United States of America, 330 F.2d 73, 10th Cir. (1964)