G.R. No. 4384

EN BANC

August 27, 1908

SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MAGNO ABINEZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Lucas Alconaba formerly owned a house in Borongan, Samar. In 1885, the house was destroyed by government order because it stood upon a public street. The entire lot occupied by Lucas Alconaba was 8 brazas deep, but the house itself was 5 brazas deep. This left a remnant of approximately 3 brazas of land adjoining the street, which was apparently Lucas Alconaba’s property.

In 1891, Juan Florentino Abinez, father of the defendant Magno Abinez, purchased an adjoining property. A survey of this adjoining property was conducted under the direction of Lucas Alconaba, acting as first judge. The survey and the resulting plan showed the property extending to the street, thereby including the 3-braza remnant of Lucas Alconaba’s original lot. Lucas Alconaba not only directed the survey but also signed the document transferring title from the former owners to Abinez as a witness.

After the death of Lucas Alconaba, his heirs (Simeon Alconaba, et al., the plaintiffs-appellants) claimed continuous occupation of the remnant, stating they had fenced and kept it clean. However, the defendant Magno Abinez claimed the land had been unoccupied and abandoned by the former owner. In 1905, Magno Abinez included the disputed remnant with his property and placed a house upon it.

Simeon Alconaba, et al. brought an action to recover the lot remnant. The Court of First Instance affirmed the defendant’s ownership.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs-appellants, as heirs of Lucas Alconaba, are entitled to recover the disputed land, considering Lucas Alconaba’s actions in directing the survey and signing the deed of transfer of the adjoining property that included the subject land.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ruling against the plaintiffs-appellants.

The Court found that Lucas Alconaba, in his lifetime, made no further claim to the disputed land after the destruction of his house in 1885. His active participation as a judge in directing the 1891 survey of the adjoining property, which led to the inclusion of the 3-braza remnant within the land sold to Juan Florentino Abinez, and his act of signing the transfer document as a witness, were “entirely inconsistent with any claim on his part to a portion of the land thus described and conveyed.” These actions were deemed to counterbalance the uncertain evidence presented by the plaintiffs regarding their continuous claim and occupation of the property.

The Court held that Lucas Alconaba’s actions amounted to a disavowal of his claim, on which the other party (Abinez) relied and incurred expense. Such actions, in some jurisdictions, are sufficient to constitute a strict estoppel, even in relation to real estate. Therefore, the heirs of Lucas Alconaba cannot now claim the land that their predecessor-in-interest effectively disavowed by his official and witnessed actions.