G.R. No. L-23050 September 18, 1975
FEDERICO QUERUBIN, petitioner, vs. VICTORIO ALCONCEL, PLACIDA QUICIO, MAURICIA ALCONCEL, BRIGIDO ALCONCEL, ANACLETO ALCONCEL, GERVACIO ALCONCEL, MANUEL QUIANI, TIBURCIO QUIANI and GUADALUPE QUIANI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Federico Querubin filed a reinvindicatory action in 1945 to recover approximately 11 hectares of land in Ilocos Sur from the respondents. His claim was based on an 1895 informacion posesoria (possessory information title) inherited from his father, describing the property with a perimeter of “1001 brazas de circumbalacion.” The land was used for pasture until a 1905 flood submerged it. After the river shifted westward, the land re-emerged, stony and sandy. Respondents later entered, cleared, and cultivated portions of it. The trial court ruled for Querubin, finding his evidence of ownership superior and noting respondents’ tax declarations only dated back to 1939, whereas Querubin’s dated to 1934. The court attributed the land’s increased area to accretion and river abandonment.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Querubin failed to prove both ownership and the identity of the land. It erroneously computed the “1001 brazas” perimeter as covering only about 2,140 square meters (roughly 1/5 hectare), a drastic mismatch with the claimed 11 hectares. This discrepancy led the appellate court to conclude Querubin’s title could not cover the disputed land, favoring respondents’ possession since the late 1930s.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its computation of the land area from the informacion posesoria and in consequently ruling that Querubin failed to prove ownership and identity of the property for his recovery action.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the correct interpretation of the informacion posesoria and the burden of proof in a recovery action. First, the appellate court’s computation was fundamentally flawed. “1001 brazas de circumbalacion” refers to the perimeter, not the area. Using proper geometric formulas (for a square, rectangle, or circle), this perimeter translates to an area between approximately 17 to 22 hectares, easily encompassing the claimed 11 hectares. This corrected computation validates Querubin’s title description.
Second, under Article 434 of the Civil Code, a plaintiff must prove ownership and the identity of the land. Querubin met this burden with his informacion posesoria, recorded in 1895, and tax declarations from 1934 onward. The respondents’ claim of possession since time immemorial was undermined by their earliest tax declarations only from 1939, failing to overcome Querubin’s earlier documented claim. The trial court correctly found their evidence pertained to other lands or was insufficient. Therefore, Querubin’s ownership was established, and the identity of the property was confirmed through the corrected area calculation from the possessory title. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision in favor of Querubin.