G.R. No. 134989. August 31, 2004.
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO NABONG, petitioners, vs. PUREZA AÑAR, ERNITA AÑAR, PURISIMA A. CABANDAY and REMEDIOS AÑAR, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Francisco Nabong, filed a complaint for Quieting of Title in 1973 over a 1.4892-hectare coconut land in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. They anchored their claim on tax declarations in their father’s name and alleged open, adverse, and continuous possession for nearly thirty years. The respondents, heirs of Apolonio Añar, countered by asserting their own ownership through different tax declarations covering a 2-hectare property and alleged the petitioners were mere squatters.
During trial, a critical discrepancy emerged regarding the identity of the litigated property. To resolve this, the trial court appointed the Provincial Assessor as Commissioner. In her 1989 report, the Commissioner concluded that the properties described in the conflicting tax declarations of both parties were, in fact, one and the same parcel, identified as Lot 21, PLS-799. After protracted proceedings, the Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them the owners.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court’s decision and partitioning the property between the parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court. The core legal issue was the failure to establish with certainty the identity of the property subject of litigation, which is a fundamental prerequisite in any action for quieting of title. The Court found the Commissioner’s report insufficient and procedurally flawed. The Provincial Assessor, while a commissioner, was not a geodetic engineer, and her report, based on a 1989 ocular inspection, did not adequately reconcile the boundaries stated in the parties’ older tax declarations (from 1948-1974) with the cadastral survey of Lot 21. The report merely concluded the properties were the same without a technical survey tracing the historical metes and bounds.
Consequently, the appellate court’s decision to partition the property was based on an unverified and ambiguous identity. The legal logic is clear: ownership cannot be adjudicated, nor can title be quieted, over a property that has not been definitively identified. A judgment rendered without first determining the specific land in dispute is void for lack of a determinate subject matter. Thus, to resolve the case equitably, a remand was necessary for a proper technical survey by qualified geodetic engineers to ascertain the exact boundaries of the claims based on the evidence presented by both parties.