GR 42952; (August, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42952 ; August 28, 1936
VALENTIN PACIA and TORIBIA LAGMAN, petitioners-appellants, vs. ISIDORO LAGMAN, oppositor-appellee. ANACLETA LAGMAN, FELISA LAGMAN, GAUDENCIO SANTOS, EMILIANA SANTOS, CARMEN SANTOS, and JUAN GARCIA, oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Petitioners Valentin Pacia and Toribia Lagman filed an application for land registration covering several parcels. The application was opposed by multiple parties. The trial court granted registration to the petitioners over most of the lands, except for a strip claimed by oppositor Isidoro Lagman, and sustained another opposition regarding a parcel the petitioners agreed to exclude. The petitioners appealed the loss of the strip to Isidoro Lagman. The group of oppositors headed by Anacleta Lagman also appealed, arguing that the petitioners only purchased a portion (five balitas) of the lands described in the deeds, not the entire areas applied for.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petitioners acquired ownership over the entire lands described within the boundaries of the deeds of sale, or only over five balitas as claimed by the oppositors (Anacleta Lagman group).
2. Whether the trial court correctly awarded the disputed strip of land to oppositor Isidoro Lagman.
RULING
1. On the appeal of the Anacleta Lagman group: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. The deeds of sale (Exhibits E and F) conveyed the lands within their specified boundaries for a lump sum. In such sales, the boundaries stated control over any stated area. The statement of area as “approximately” three and two balitas indicated the parties’ intention to sell the lands in their entirety according to their true boundaries, not by precise area. The petitioners’ possession, tax declarations, and payments since 1902 supported their claim of ownership over the full parcels. The opposition was unfounded.
2. On the petitioners’ appeal regarding the strip claimed by Isidoro Lagman: The Supreme Court, deferring to the trial court’s factual findings and assessment of witness credibility, affirmed the award of the strip to Isidoro Lagman. Evidence showed the strip originally belonged to his father, and Isidoro had possessed, cultivated, and declared it for taxation since 1916.
The appealed judgment was affirmed in its entirety.
AI Generated by Armztrong.