GR 82514; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82514 December 11, 1992
PAZ A. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERLINDA ESTRADA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Paz A. Cruz filed an amended application for registration of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 2040 AP-1-01056 in Domalandan, Lingayen, Pangasinan, with an area of 25,722 square meters. Private respondent Erlinda Estrada filed an opposition, claiming ownership of two specific parcels of land that were encroached upon by the petitioner’s application: (a) a 2,063 sq. m. unirrigated riceland, and (b) a 4,620 sq. m. parcel of land, which she acquired from her grandmother Fortunata Aviles, who in turn acquired them from Gregorio Aviles, the father and predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. During the trial, the private respondent presented a proposed Subdivision Plan (Exhibit “9”) identifying a portion as Lot No. 2040-A, which she claimed as the residential portion of her property. The trial court granted the petitioner’s application but excluded Lot No. 2040-A, adjudicating that portion in favor of the private respondent. Only the private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. In her appeal, she assigned errors and prayed for modification of the trial court’s decision to grant her registration of the disputed portions (the residential, fishpond, and nipa land portions) and to deny the petitioner’s application for the said disputed portions, while affirming the award of the residential portion (Lot 2040-A) to her. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and awarded the entire Lot No. 2040 to the private respondent.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in awarding the entire Lot No. 2040 to the private respondent when, in her opposition and appeal, she claimed only specific portions thereof (the residential, fishpond, and nipa land portions) and not the whole lot.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The private respondent, in her opposition before the trial court and in her appeal, claimed only specific portions of Lot No. 2040 (the residential portion, Lot 2040-A, and the fishpond and nipa land portions) and not the entire lot. Her prayer in her appellate brief was to modify the trial court’s decision by denying the petitioner’s application for the “disputed portions” and granting her opposition for the registration of those same “disputed portions,” while affirming the award of the residential portion. Therefore, the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by awarding the entire lot to her. The Supreme Court found the trial court’s findings of fact—that the land was originally owned by Gregorio Aviles, assigned to the petitioner, and that she and her father had possessed it openly and exclusively—to be fully supported by the evidence. The Court also found the Court of Appeals’ conclusions regarding accretion and the evidentiary value of the Escritura de Compraventa and its use as a mortgage to be conjectural and erroneous.