G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992
RUFINO MISA, ANASTACIO MISA AND ABUNDIA S. MISA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ALBERTO MISA, PANFILA (TEOFILA) MISA and LUIS MISA, respondents.

FACTS

Lorenzo Misa died leaving unregistered lands which his eight children partitioned among themselves. One parcel, located in Malbago, Daan Bantayan, Cebu, was covered by Tax Declaration No. 09478 and partitioned via a sketch (Exhibit A). Crisostomo Misa received a share (Exhibit A-1). Upon Crisostomo’s death in 1972, his share was partitioned among his children, including petitioners Rufino Misa, Anastacio Misa, and Abundia S. Misa (the widow of an unidentified son). The petitioners’ respective portions were covered by separate tax declarations. On January 31, 1983, petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title, ejectment, and damages against private respondents (Alberto, Teofila, and Luis Misa) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu. Petitioners alleged that their father, Crisostomo, had allowed the respondents to occupy portions of his land, but during the 1980 cadastral survey, respondents claimed ownership of these portions. Private respondents answered that the land they occupied was acquired by inheritance and did not belong to Crisostomo. The RTC dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the respondent court overlooked substantive matters.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the complaint, specifically in its factual findings regarding the identity of the land claimed by private respondents and whether it forms part of the property inherited by petitioners from Crisostomo Misa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition essentially asked for a re-examination of evidence, which involves questions of fact. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court found none of the recognized exceptions to this rule applicable. It adopted the findings and reasoning of the Court of Appeals, which held that: (1) Petitioners Rufino Misa himself admitted that respondents Teofila Misa and Luis Misa were not claiming ownership of a portion of the subject land, and the structures they had erected were no longer there. (2) While respondents Teofila and Alberto Misa had laid claim to specific lots (Lot No. 8402 and Lot No. 8403, respectively) during the cadastral survey, petitioners failed to prove that these lots were part of the specific parcel of land (Exhibit A-1) they inherited from their father Crisostomo. (3) In an action to recover property, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title and has the burden of proving his affirmative allegations by preponderance of evidence, which petitioners failed to do. The trial court, therefore, committed no reversible error in dismissing the complaint.