GR 27488; (June, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27488 June 30, 1970
ELIGIO B. CHAN, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and CENENCIA CABEGUIN OMAHOY, DOLORES CABEGUIN ESCALERA, FELINA CABEGUIN BARRIENTOS, ROSARIO CABEGUIN BORROMEO, CESAR CABEGUIN, FAUSTINO CABEGUIN, VICENTE CABEGUIN, SOLEDAD CABEGUIN HENSON, MANUEL CABEGUIN & SOFIA HENSON, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents (the Cabeguin heirs) filed an action for quieting of title and damages against petitioner Eligio B. Chan. The land in dispute, located in Mambajao, Misamis Oriental, originally belonged to their deceased father, Estanislao Cabeguin, who had tax declarations for it. In 1924, Estanislao permitted a Chinese named Make Lim to build a house on the land without paying rent. After three years, Make Lim sold the house to Leon Chan, who was given the same permission to stay free of charge. After Leon Chan’s death, his son, the petitioner Eligio Chan, built a new house on the lot and declared the portion he occupied (about 300 square meters, designated as Lot 2) in his own tax declaration. After Estanislao’s death in 1960, the heirs demanded that Eligio Chan recognize their ownership, but he refused, leading to the lawsuit. The petitioner was declared in default in the lower court. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the plaintiffs’ testimonial evidence “too tangential” and their tax declarations and survey plan insufficient to conclusively prove ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal and ruling in favor of the private respondents based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition was dismissed, and the appealed decision was affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s arguments were primarily factual in nature and thus beyond its power of review, as the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the decision was harsh, unjust, or a violation of due process, as the Court of Appeals had carefully and objectively appraised the evidence. The evidence presented by the private respondents, including testimonies and ante-litem motam tax declarations, was sufficient to establish preponderance of proof for a quieting of title action. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the legal presumption that the possession of Estanislao Cabeguin and his heirs was that of an owner, and that the entry of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest by permission recognized the validity of that possession.