SECOND DIVISION

[ ​G​.​R​. ​No​. ​211849​, December 03, 2018 ]

THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES SANTIAGO C. SOTES AND MAXIMA M. SOTES,

NAMELY: GODOFREDO M. SOTES, ET AL. VS. CESARIA PERNIA ESTACA AND
SPOUSE, ET AL.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated ​03
December 2018​ ​which reads as follows:

"​G​.​R​. ​No​. ​211849 ​(The Heirs of Spouses Santiago C. Sotes and Maxima M.
Sotes, namely: Godofredo M. Sotes, et al. vs. Cesaria Pernia Estaca and
spouse, et al.). - This treats of the petition for review on ​certiorari[1]
​ under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision​[2] dated July 31, 2013, and
Resolution​[3] dated March 7, 2014 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-​G​.​R​. CV ​No​.
02004-MIN, which dismissed the Complaint for Specific Performance, Cancellation of Title,
Damages and Attorney's Fees filed by the Spouses Santiago C. Sotes (Santiago) and Maxima
M. Sotes (Spouses Sotes).

The Antecedents

Atanacio Pernia (Atanacio) was the owner of a parcel of land measuring 22.6379 hectares,
denominated as Lot H-131880, previously covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) ​No​.
(1648) B-214, and registered in his name. Atanacio is the ascendant of herein co-respondents
Reynaldo, Cesaria and Fructosa (collectively, the respondents).​[4]

On March 23, 1965, Santiago purchased from Atanacio, 2 has of land in Lot H-131880. The
sale was covered by a Deed of Absolute Sale.​[5]

On May 30, 1978, Santiago claims that he purchased another 2 has of land (disputed
property) in Lot H-131880, this time from Arsenio -Atanacio's son. The sale was evidenced,
by a Deed of Sale of even date (1978 Deed of Sale).​[6]

On June 13, 1996, the respondents executed a Deed of Sale (1996 Deed of Sale) in favor of
Santiago,​[7] confirming the previous sale made to him by their brother Arsenio under the
1978 Deed of Sale.​[8]

On December 16, 1997, the Heirs of Atanacio executed an Extra-Judicial Partition,​[9]

adjudicating the disputed property in favor of the respondents. Accordingly, a new title,
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) ​No​. T-165794,​[10] was issued awarding ownership of the
disputed property in favor of the respondents.​[11]

Claiming that they had already purchased the disputed property, the Spouses Sotes
demanded from the respondents the execution of a proper deed of conveyance for the
transfer in their name, pursuant to the 1978 and 1996 Deeds of Sale. However, their demand
was unheeded. Consequently, the Spouses Sotes filed a Complaint for Specific Performance,
Cancellation of Title, Damages and Attorney's Fees.​[12]

In their Complaint, the Spouses Sotes prayed for the execution of a proper deed of
conveyance. They likewise sought the cancellation of TCT ​No​. T-165794, and the consequent
issuance of a new title in their name. The Spouses Sotes claimed that they are the rightful
owners of the disputed property. In fact, they asserted that they have been religiously paying
realty taxes since 1965, for the first two hectares they purchased, and in 1970, for the
disputed property. They pointed out that they even planted coconuts, mangoes, and other
trees in the disputed property, and have been occupying the same( property for almost half a
century, from the time they were tenants up to the present.​[13]

On the other hand, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint, as well as for
the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 16, 1997, and the
Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition. The respondents explained that Santiago occupied the
disputed property only as a tenant thereof. Although they admitted the authenticity of the
1965 Deed of Sale executed by their father Atanacio in favor of the Spouses Sotes, however,
they asserted that the 1978 and 1996 Deeds of Absolute Sale were forged. Cesaria contended
that the signature appearing thereon is not her signature, nor that of her siblings. Moreover,
the Extra-Judicial Partition contained insertions, particularly, the portion supposedly
confirming the transfer of the disputed property to Santiago.​[14]

Ruling of the Trial Court

On May 29, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision, ruling in favor of the
respondents. Although the RTC affirmed the validity of the 1978 and 1996 Deeds of Sale, it
however noted that at the time of the sale, the respondents were not yet the owners of the
property, thereby rendering the Deeds of Sale ineffective.​[15]

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Spouses Sotes filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing
that the 1978 and 1996 Deeds of Sale were effective, because Atanacio died in 1972. As such,
the respondents have already inherited the disputed property when they executed the subject
Deeds of Sale.​[16]

Finding merit in the Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC of Panabo City, Davao del Norte,
Branch 4, reversed its earlier pronouncement. In the Order​[17] dated August 28, 2009, the
RTC agreed with the Spouses Sotes' explanation that the questioned Deeds should be
honored, considering that the respondents have already inherited the disputed property at
the time they executed the subject Deeds of Sale. Thus, the RTC ordered the execution of the
proper deed of conveyance on the disputed property, and the cancellation of the previous
title, and the consequent issuance of a new one in the name of the Spouses Sotes.

Aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On July 31, 2013, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,​[18] reversing the RTC's judgment,
The CA refused to recognize the Spouses Sotes as the legal owners of the disputed property.
The CA noted that being the plaintiffs in an action for recovery of ownership, the Spouses
Sotes had the burden to establish the identity of the property they sought, as well as their
ownership thereof, which, they failed in this regard. The CA stressed that in an ​accion
reivindicatoria​, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix
the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and the boundaries
thereof.​[19]

The dispositive portion of the assailed CA ruling reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Order dated
August 28, 2009 of the [RTC] of Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Branch 4, in Civil
Case ​No​. 56-2003 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Complaint in
Civil Case ​No​. 56-2003 is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.​[20]
Aggrieved, the Heirs of Sotes filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA
in its Resolution​[21]​ dated March 7, 2014.

The Issue

Undeterred, the Heirs of Sotes filed the instant petition for review on ​certiorari​, seeking the
reversal of the assailed CA decision, on the ground that the CA erred in not awarding
ownership of the disputed property to them.

The pivotal issue for the Court's resolution rests on who as between the Spouses Sotes, as
against the respondents' are entitled to the disputed property.

The Heirs of Spouses Sotes claim that the CA erred in treating the subject case as an ​accion
reivindicatoria​, instead of an action for reconveyance or quieting of title. The Spouses Sotes
claim that the Heirs of Atanacio are holding the disputed property in trust for the Heirs of
Spouses Sotes. And thus, when the Spouses Sotes (the original plaintiffs) filed the case, they
were effectively enforcing the trust in their favor.​[22]

On the other hand, the respondents simply maintain that the ruling of the CA is in
accordance with existing laws and jurisprudence.​[23]

Ruling of the Court

At the outset, it must be noted that in petitions for review on ​certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue. Questions of fact cannot
be entertained. The factual findings of the CA bind this court. Although jurisprudence has
provided several exceptions to this rule, exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and
proven by the parties, before this Court may review and evaluate the facts of the case.​[24]

In the case at bar, the issue of who as between the Spouses Sotes and the respondents own
the disputed property involves a review of the evidence, which lies beyond the province of a
petition for review on ​certiorari​.

Be that as it may, even on the merits, the instant petition must be dismissed due to the
failure of the Spouses Sotes to establish that the CA committed a reversible error that would
warrant this Court's review.

The Spouses Sotes Failed to Prove

by Preponderance of Evidence the
Identity of the Land Claimed and
Their Title Thereto

Essentially, it is an elementary rule in civil cases that the party making the allegations has the
burden of proving his contentions by a preponderance of evidence. Parties must always rely
on the strength of their own evidence, and not upon the weakness of their opponent's
defense.​[25]

Particularly, in an action to recover ownership, the person who claims a better right to the
disputed property must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and
second, his title thereto."​[26] This means that the claimant must "first ​fix the identity of the
land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.​"[27]​ After having
sufficiently identified the property subject of the case, the claimant must then prove his title
over the disputed area.​[28] "[T]he rule is that ​a party can claim a right of ownership only
over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed​"[29]
​

Similarly, the plaintiff, in proving his/her ownership over the disputed property, must rely
on the strength of his/her title, and not on the weakness of the defendant's title. This is borne
of the fact that, first, for obvious reasons, the burden of proof lies on the party who
substantially asserts the affirmative of an issue for he who relies upon the existence of a fact
should be called upon to prove that fact. Likewise, this rule serves as a safeguard for the
possibility that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of the property in
dispute.​[30]

In the case at bar, the Spouses Sotes premise their ownership over the disputed property on
the 1978 Deed of Sale, as well as the 1996 Deed of Sale, purportedly executed between the
Spouses Sotes, as buyers, and Arsenio, and the respondents, respectively, as sellers.

However, a perusal of the records shows that both the 1978 and 1996 Deeds of Sale failed to
indicate with sufficient clarity the identity of the land purportedly conveyed to the Spouses
Sotes. Neither was there an indication of the metes and bounds or the exact location of the
disputed property.

As correctly observed by the CA," the 1978 Deed of Sale merely pertains to the alleged sale of
a portion of land, vaguely described as "Lot 1, which is part and parcel of OCT ​No​. (1648)
B-214," to wit:
That the VENDOR is the owner and occupant of that certain parcel of land
situated in Barrio of San Miguel, Samal, Davao, which said property has been
acquired by the Vendor thru succession by their deceased parents which form
part of the [OCT] ​No​. (1648) B-214, containing an area of 22.6379 hectares[.]​[31]
Worse, the 1996 Deed was even more ambiguous, simply referring to a sale of a 20,000
square meter parcel of land, ​viz.​ :
That the Vendee is the actual owner of a parcel of land located at San Miguel,
Island Garden City of Samal, containing an area of (20,000) square meters more
or less.

That only a portion of (2) hectares is sold to the said Vendee Santiago Sotes.​[32]
A simple perusal of the afore-mentioned contracts would readily show that they do not
specify a determinate subject matter. Both Deeds do not provide a description of the
property subject of the sale, including their metes and bounds. ​No other useful description
was given to fully indicate or prove which part of the property was actually conveyed to the
Spouses Sotes. Neither was such ambiguity in the Deeds clarified from the evidence
submitted by the Spouses Sotes. As a matter of fact, ​no other evidence was offered to
establish the identity of the disputed property with certainty. Due to the failure of the
Spouses Sotes to prove the identity of the contested land, and their title thereto, there exists
no legal ground upon which to turn over the possession of the disputed area to them. Worse,
no other competent proof was adduced to establish a claim of ownership over the disputed
property.

It bears noting that by the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to
transfer the ownership of, and to deliver, a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a
price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale is a consensual contract and, thus,
is perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The elements
of a contract of sale are the (i) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer
ownership in exchange for the price; (ii) determinate subject matter; and (iii) price certain in
money or its equivalent. The absence of any of the essential elements shall negate the
existence of a perfected contract of sale.​[33]

Accordingly, judging from the Deeds of Sale, there was ​no determinate subject matter that
would render the sale valid and effective. Thus, the Deeds could not serve as proof that there
was indeed an intention on the parties to transfer the disputed property, by way of sale.

The Spouses Sotes Failed to

Establish Their Title Over the
Disputed Property
The second requirement in an action to recover property under Article 434 of the Civil Code
pertains to proof of the claimant's title. In the instant case, aside from the questionable
Deeds of Sale presented, the Spouses Sotes did not submit any evidence proving their title
over the land. Their claim that they have been paying taxes over the disputed property does
not work in their favor, as it is an elementary rule that the payment of taxes does not in itself
prove ownership of the land. Neither does their claim of possession vest ownership unto
them, considering that they merely occupied the property as tenants thereof.

The Spouses Sotes Cannot

Circumvent the Evidentiary
Requirement of Proving the Identity
of the Land and Their Title Thereto
by Belatedly (and Conveniently)
Changing the Nature of their Action

Interestingly, in trying to excuse their failure to establish the identity of the land claimed, the
Spouses Sotes belatedly claim in their petition for review, that their failure to specifically
describe the property sought to be recovered is not a blatant defect, as their case is actually
an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust, and an action to quiet title. As such,
Article 434, which mandates the presentation of proof of the identity of the land should not
apply to their case. This argument, which is evidently a mere afterthought, deserves scant
consideration.

To begin with, it is an elementary rule of evidence that theories cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. "When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided
upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change the same on appeal x
x x."​[34] "[T]o permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party."​[35] Thus, to allow the
Spouses Sotes to change their theory by claiming that their action is one for reconveyance
based on an implied trust, or one for quieting of title, would run counter to the basic
principles of equity and fair play.

In addition, the nature of an action is determined by the ultimate facts alleged in the
complaint. In the case at bar, a perusal of the Spouses Sotes' Amended Complaint reveals
that the title of the action, allegations raised, and the ultimate relief sought, all unerringly
point to an action for recovery of ownership and cancellation of title. The allegations made by
the Spouses Sotes do .not in any way pertain to an action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust or an action for quieting of title.

Notably, the action filed before the lower court was denominated as one for Specific
Performance, Cancellation of Title, Damages and Attorney's Fees. Further, a perusal of the
Amended Complaint​[36]​ reveals the following allegations made by the Spouses Sotes:
4. That plaintiffs [Spouses Sotes] are the absolute, rightful and legal owner[s] of
[the] parcel of land situated in San Miguel, Samal District, IGCS, with an area of
FORTY THOUSAND (40,000) square meters, more or less, covered and
embraced under TCT ​No​. T-165794 xxx;
 5. That plaintiffs acquired the subject property pursuant to the following legal,
binding and valid documents, to wit: ​a) Deed of Sale of a two hectare
portion dated March 23, 1965, duly executed by the original owner
[Atanacio], the late father of the defendants ​CESARIA and
FRUCTOSA in favor of the plaintiffs; b) Another Deed of Sale of a twp
hectare portion dated May 30, 1978, duly executed by the eldest late
brother and father of the instant defendants in favor of the plaintiffs;
c) Another Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 13, 1996 duly executed
by the defendants ​CESARIA and ​FRUCTOSA and their late nephew
Reynaldo Pernia confirming and acknowledging the earlier-
mentioned document dated May 30, 1978 that another two hectare
portion was sold to the plaintiffs, which documents, however are not
registerable.​ xxx;

6. That plaintiffs have been and still are occupying the whole four[-]hectare
subject property since the execution of the first document and even before the
execution of the second document and up to the present as exclusive and
absolute owners of the same, xxx;

7. That in an Extra Judicial Partition, xxx the heirs of the late [Atanacio],
including the instant defendants and the late REYNALDO PERNIA, partitioned
and subdivided the estate of their late father xxx which included the xxx
two[-]hectare portion which had previously been sold and/or transferred to the
instant plaintiffs x x x.​[37]​ (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
Furthermore, based on the recital of facts' appearing on the Complaint, the Spouses Sotes
prayed that they be declared the absolute owners of the property; the Heirs of Atanacio be
divested of the property; and that the Register of Deeds be ordered to issue a new title in
their favor.​[38] Thus, judging from the title, allegations, and prayer raised in the Complaint, it
is all too apparent that the nature of the case is indeed an action for recovery of ownership
and cancellation of title.

Besides, even accepting the Spouses Sotes' new theory that their complaint is one for
reconveyance based on an implied trust, or an action for quieting of title, this sudden change
of action still does not relieve them from the burden of establishing the identity of the
property claimed, as well as their title thereto.

Suffice it to say, in the case of ​Cañezo v. Rojas,​ [39]

​ the Court enumerated the requirements for
proving the existence of a trust, ​viz.​ :
As a rule, however, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party
asserting its existence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the
existence of the trust and its elements. The presence of the following elements
must be proved: (1) a trustor or settlor who executes the instrument creating the
trust; (2) a trustee, who is the person expressly designated to carry out the trust;
(3) the ​trust res,​ consisting of duly identified and definite real
 properties; and (4) the ​cestui que trust, or beneficiaries whose identity must
be clear, x x x.​[40]​ (Citations omitted and emphasis Ours)

This said, even if the action of the Spouses Sotes filed was one for reconveyance of property
based on an implied trust, they are still not relieved of the obligation of proving the identity
of the disputed property.

Further, neither can the Court surmise that a trust relation was established between'the
Spouses Sotes and the respondents. None of the circumstances alleged in the complaint seem
to advert to, much more, prove an intention on the part of the contending parties to create a
trust. It bears stressing that "[a] resulting trust is a species of implied trust that is presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in
the nature of their transaction although not expressed in a deed or instrument of
conveyance."​[41]

In the same vein, "[f]or an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must
be present, namely: ) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or
interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its ​prima facie​ appearance of validity or legal efficacy.'"​[42]

Clearly, even assuming for the sake of argument that the action is one for quieting of title,
this again does not exempt the Spouses Sotes from the obligation of proving their title - legal
or equitable to the disputed property. The Spouses Sotes failed to establish any legal or
equitable title to the disputed property. Evidently, there are ​no certificates of title in their
respective names. All that they cling to as proof of their ownership are the Deeds of Absolute
Sale, which as the Court found, do not prove their ownership of the disputed property.
Neither was it shown that the Title of the respondents was in fact invalid or inoperative.

Moreover, in the case of ​Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr.,​ [43]

​ in an action for quieting of title, the
Court rejected the buyer's claim of ownership considering that the agreement covering the
purported sale failed to satisfy the requirements of a valid contract of sale, as it did not
indicate a determinate subject matter, and failed to indicate the metes and bounds of the
property allegedly sold.

All too well, whether the action is one for recovery of ownership, reconveyance based on
implied trust, or quieting of title, the plaintiff must still prove the identity of the land and his
title thereto by a preponderance of evidence. This the Spouses Sotes failed to do.

In fine, it is all too clear that the CA did not commit any reversible error in dismissing the
complaint of the Spouses Sotes for recovery of ownership. It is worth stressing that in civil
cases, the plaintiff must establish his cause of action by a preponderance of evidence;
otherwise, his suit will not prosper. ​After all​, a claim of ownership may be made with great
facility and ease. This is precisely why the mandate of Article 434, which requires strict
proof,of the identity of the land and the title of the claimant, cannot simply be glossed over.
Considering that the Spouses Sotes failed to prove the identity of the land and their title
thereto, the Court rejects their claim of ownership, and affirms the title of the respondents
over the disputed property.

WHEREFORE​, premises considered, the instant petition is ​DENIED for lack if merit."
(Perlas-Bernabe, ​J​.​, on wellness leave.)