G.R. No. 102128 November 6, 1992
ABUNDIA ESPINA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DEMETRIA VILAS VDA. DE PINILI, ALFONSO ARTUS and AGUSTINA DELA RIARTE, respondents.

FACTS

The disputed property is a 744-square meter portion of Lot 2723 of the Dumaguete Cadastre. The lot was originally registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 66-A in the name of Rufina Lazaga on October 27, 1922. On February 16, 1939, Geronimo Pinili (husband of respondent Demetria Vilas Vda. de Pinili) acquired one-half of Lot 2723, evidenced by TCT No. T-5448, while the other half was purchased by Alfonso Artus. The disputed 744-square meter lot is part of the portion now owned by the private respondents. Petitioner Abundia Espina filed an action for reconveyance, alleging that the property was owned by her mother, Maria Lazaga, who had it declared for taxation in 1915, and that they had been in peaceful and public possession. She asserts that through deceit and fraud, the property was included in Lot 2723 and registered under Rufina Lazaga’s name. Petitioner claims she discovered the fraud in 1985 when respondents demanded rentals from her tenants. Private respondents maintain they are the registered owners under TCT No. T-1365 and that Maria Lazaga did not appear as a survey claimant in the 1918 cadastral proceedings for Lot 2723.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of petitioner’s action for reconveyance, particularly in its assessment of the evidence (the tax declarations) and its consideration of issues related to the 1918 cadastral proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and sustained the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that: (1) The 1915 tax declaration (Exh. “F”) pertained to a different parcel of land (320 square meters) from the 744-square meter lot in dispute, as the later tax declarations (Exhs. “A” to “E”) showed different areas and different adjoining owners; (2) Lot 2723 was the subject of cadastral proceedings in 1918, and petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Maria Lazaga, did not file an answer to claim any interest as required by the Cadastral Act ( Act No. 2259 ). Such proceedings being in rem are binding upon the whole world; (3) The Court of Appeals did not err in considering grounds closely related to the errors assigned, as an appellate court may uphold a lower court’s judgment on grounds other than those it relied upon, and may consider issues intimately interwoven with the error properly assigned. The petition raised factual issues not ordinarily reviewable under Rule 45, but the Court examined the records and found no misapprehension of facts by the Court of Appeals.