G.R. No. 240482 , May 05, 2021
ELSIE N. BELMONTE, PETITIONER, VS. ROLANDO MAGAS, SPOUSES OSCAR TORIO AND PERLA MAGAS-TORIO, AND SPOUSES AVELINO GALIT AND MILA MAGAS-GALIT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Elsie N. Belmonte filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Land with Damages against respondents before the MCTC of Aroroy-Baleno, Masbate. She claimed ownership of an unregistered parcel of land of around three hectares in Brgy. Concepcion, Aroroy, Masbate, acquired by her father through a 1965 Deed of Absolute Sale and later quitclaimed to her by her mother in 1987. She alleged she was in continuous, open, and exclusive possession until May 2006, when respondents, through force, intimidation, and threat, drove her away. Respondents countered that the property they possess is owned by their mother, Maura Magas, with an area of 4.2118 hectares under a different Tax Declaration, and that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession since the 1950s. The MCTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint, finding the land described in her documents (3 hectares with specific boundaries) substantially different from the subject property (4.155 hectares with different boundaries) based on a court-commissioned survey. The RTC reversed the MCTC, declaring petitioner the lawful owner. The CA reinstated the MCTC’s dismissal, ruling petitioner failed to prove the identity of the land claimed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in effectively ruling that petitioner was not able to establish her title to the subject property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held that in an action to recover ownership and possession under Article 434 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the identity of the land claimed by describing its location, area, and boundaries; and (2) his or her title thereto. Petitioner failed to prove the first requisite. The technical description of the property in her Tax Declaration No. 2802 (3 hectares, bounded by Lumangaya and Ortenero on the North; G. Magas on the South and East; Rodolfo Belmonte on the West) differed from the property in respondents’ Tax Declaration No. 013-0017 (4.2118 hectares, bounded by P. Raza on the North; Creek on the East and South; Elsie Belmonte on the West). The court-commissioned geodetic engineer’s verification survey confirmed the land claimed by petitioner had an area of 4.155 hectares, a significant discrepancy from the 3 hectares in her documents. Since petitioner failed to establish the identity of the property, there was no need to discuss the strength of her title. The CA correctly deleted the awards of attorney’s fees and litigation costs, as no sufficient showing of bad faith justified such awards.