G.R. No. L-73491 May 23, 1988
CONCEPCION B. TUPUE, petitioner, vs. JOSE URGEL, JESUS URGEL, JUANA URGEL and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Concepcion B. Tupue filed an action to quiet title over a parcel of land. She claimed ownership through inheritance from her sister, Aurelia Boribor. Her evidence included multiple mortgages executed by her predecessors over the land from 1927 to 1967, all subsequently redeemed; an affidavit of confirmation of sale/donation and quitclaim signed by respondents Jose and Jesus Urgel in favor of Aurelia in 1973; tax declarations and payments by Aurelia; and possession where the landowner’s share of harvests was delivered to Aurelia until her death. Respondents, the Urgels, countered that the land was owned by their mother, Luciana Toyorsa Urgel, who merely allowed petitioner’s mother, Damiana Boribor, to use it conditionally. They asserted that the 1973 quitclaim was signed only to save Aurelia from embarrassment in a separate transaction and was not intended to transfer ownership. They also presented older tax receipts in their family’s name and relied on testimony from petitioner’s own sister, Socorro, who stated that Luciana was the true owner.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing the trial court and adjudicating ownership of the disputed property to the respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment in favor of the petitioner. The High Court found that the appellate court’s decision was grounded on speculation and conjecture, an exception to the general rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding. The Intermediate Appellate Court presumed that petitioner’s father “might have taken advantage” of possession to mortgage the land and speculated that the 1973 affidavit was signed merely to avoid embarrassment, despite its clear terms. The Supreme Court held these were insufficient bases to overturn the trial court’s assessment of preponderant evidence. The Court gave weight to the series of mortgages and redemptions by petitioner’s family, which were acts of ownership, and the 1973 affidavit of confirmation signed by the respondents themselves. It also accepted petitioner’s explanation for the older tax payments being in the Toyorsa name, as the land was part of a larger parcel declared under their common ancestor, with heirs sharing payments pro rata until Aurelia began separate declarations. The totality of petitioner’s evidence established a better right to ownership, thereby entitling her to the remedy of quieting title.