G.R. No. 142546 ; August 9, 2001
HEIRS OF ANASTACIO FABELA, namely; Teodula Fabela Paguidopon, Ricardo Fabela, Irenita Fabela Zea(d), Carolina Fabela Arazo Donglas, and Ampiloquio Fabela, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF ROQUE NERI, namely: Roque Neri, Jr. Filomeno, Sherlina, Emeterio, Antonio, Nelcar and Claudia, all surnamed Neri, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Anastacio Fabela, filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against respondents, heirs of Roque Neri, Sr., over Lot 868. They alleged that the lot, along with Lot 870, originally formed part of their grandfather’s land. In 1924, a case between Carmelino Neri and the heirs of Anastacio Fabela was settled via an “Escritura de transaccion,” a notarized document stating Carmelino Neri, as vendee-a-retro, would possess the land for 14 years from May 10, 1924, after which possession would be restored to the Fabela heirs without need of redemption. A cadastral survey in 1977/1978, due to road construction, divided the land into Lots 868 and 870. Roque Neri, Sr. declared both lots in his name. In 1980, regarding the sale of Lot 870 to PHIVIDEC, Roque Neri, Sr. executed a waiver for a portion, acknowledging it was erroneously included in his name, and the Fabela heirs received the proceeds. For Lot 868, Roque Neri, Sr. ignored demands for its return. All defendants were declared in default for failure to answer or appear at pre-trial. The trial court, based on petitioners’ ex-parte evidence, ruled in their favor, declaring them co-owners of Lot 868. It applied a disputable presumption under the Rules of Court that Carmelino Neri fulfilled his duty to convey the property after the 14-year period. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint. It found petitioners failed to prove their ownership by preponderance of evidence, noting the “Escritura” did not prove absolute ownership or specifically refer to Lot 868, tax declarations and survey plans named Roque Neri, Sr. as claimant, and petitioners were not diligent in asserting their rights after the lapse of the 14-year period.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment by default and dismissing the complaint for reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that a judgment by default does not automatically result in a favorable judgment for the plaintiff, who must still prove his case by preponderance of evidence. The trial court’s reliance on the disputable presumption that the trustee conveyed the property was misplaced, as such a presumption cannot prevail against the specific facts established by the evidence. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ assessment of the evidence: the “Escritura de transaccion” was not the original, did not prove absolute ownership, and did not specifically identify Lot 868; the waiver executed by Roque Neri, Sr. referred only to a portion of Lot 870, not Lot 868; and the tax declarations and survey plans from the Bureau of Lands identified Roque Neri, Sr. as the claimant. Petitioners failed to establish the identity of the property and the strength of their own title, as required in an action for reconveyance.