G.R. No. 166756 ; October 10, 2008
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Katrina Isabel Samson Yulo, respondent.

FACTS

The spouses Santiago and Maria Samson owned parcels of land in Lingayen, Pangasinan, covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 21671 (1,440 sq. m.) and 10353 (945 sq. m.). After their death, their heirs executed an “extrajudicial settlement and ratification of an absolute deed of sale” on March 24, 1955, describing the property as covered by said tax declarations but stating an area of “six (6) ares and eighty six (86) centares” (approx. 686 sq. m.). Marceliano Samson, one of the heirs, acquired all shares of his co-heirs. Upon Marceliano’s death intestate on May 17, 1965, he left a parcel of land with an area of 1,270 sq. m. On December 31, 1997, Fe Ramona Versoza Samson and respondent Katrina Isabel Samson Yulo (a compulsory heir of Marceliano) executed a “deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate” dividing the 1,270 sq. m. land, with 717 sq. m. (including a house) going to respondent. Respondent then filed an application for registration of title over her share in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Lingayen. The MTC granted the application. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the MTC decision and imposed costs against the Republic. The Republic filed this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the land claimed by respondent is included in the land she inherited from Marceliano.
2. Whether the imposition of costs against the Republic of the Philippines is proper.

RULING

1. On the identity of the land: The Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the MTC and CA that the subject land was a portion of the land inherited by respondent from her predecessor, Marceliano. The Court ruled that the identification of the land is a factual finding supported by evidence (the tax declarations covering a combined area of 2,385 sq. m. and the subsequent survey determining the actual area as 1,270 sq. m.) and cannot be disturbed in a petition for review. The discrepancy in the area description (686 sq. m. in the 1955 agreement) was considered a mistake.
2. On the imposition of costs: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred in imposing costs against the Republic. Citing Section 1, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court, the Court held that costs are not recoverable against the Republic unless otherwise provided by law. No such law was cited by the CA. Therefore, the assessment of costs was deleted.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition was PARTIALLY GRANTED. The imposition of costs against petitioner Republic of the Philippines was DELETED. No costs.