458 Phil. 929
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The complaint alleged that, inter alia, petitioners are the nieces and legal heirs of the late Tomasa Cabsag; that during the existence of the marriage of Eugenio Nadonga to his second wife-herein respondent, the couple, without the knowledge of petitioners, surreptitiously managed to have the above-described parcels of land declared in the name of respondent which fraudulent act came only to their recent knowledge; that petitioners, being the nieces of Eugenio Nadonga's first wife Tomasa Cabsag, have the right to demand the partition of the properties among the legal heirs; and that respondent's refusal to divide the properties constrained petitioners to litigate and incur expenses.
- An agricultural land situated at Bulajo, Mayana, Guiuan, E. Samar declared previously in the name of Tomasa Cabsag under Tax Declaration No. 29824 and at present declared under Tax Declaration No. 45509 in the name of Rosario Opana; bounded on the North by the land of Nicolas Calumpiano; on the East bounded by the land of Benito Lacro; on the South bounded by the land of Sabino Lacro and on the West bounded by the land of Catalina Naing with a total area of 24,715 sq. m. and is assessed at P1,460.
- An agricultural land situated at Brgy. Surok, Guiuan, E. Samar presently declared under Tax Declaration No. 38210 in the name of Rosario Opana; bounded on the North by the land of Ricardo Abrera; on the East bounded by the land of Alejandro Abrera; on the South bounded by the land of Federico Yodico and Pascual Yodico and on the West bounded by the land of Estefa Odang.
Maintaining that the property located in Mayana is theirs, petitioners presented Tax Declaration No. 29824 showing that it was originally declared in 1948 in the name of the late Tomasa Cabsag;[11] Tax Declaration No. 40509 issued for the year 1974 in the name of the late Eugenio Nadonga;[12] and Tax Declaration No. 45509 for the year 1977 in the name of herein respondent Rosario Opana.[13]x x x
ATTY. CABLAO [lawyer for the defense]:From plaintiff (sic) document even in their complaint the land situated at Brgy. Mayana the boundaries are different because in the North the boundary is Nicolas Calumpiano whereas in the boundary of the defendant in the north is Teresa Naing.
COURT:Yes, so there is a disparity.
x x x x[10] (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the Defendant, Rosa Opana, and against the Plaintiffs, Clara C. de la Cruz and Claudia C. Manadong, DISMISSING the complaint with costs against the plaintiffs and DECLARING the Defendant the true, absolute and exclusive owner of the two (2) parcels of land described in the complaint and in the Original Certificate of Titles issued in the name of the Defendant. (Underscoring supplied)Dissatisfied, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 46524.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The appellate court, by the decision on review, affirmed the trial court's decision, it ratiocinating as follows:
(A) THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SIMPLY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BY CLAIMING THAT IT IS PURELY OF PARTITION, WITHOUT DETERMINING HEIRSHIP;(B) THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT DECLARED THAT ROSA OPANA IS THE TRUE, ABSOLUTE AND EXCLUSIVE OWNER OF THE TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT;(C) THE COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CLAIMING THAT APPELLANTS ARE BARRED BY LACHES IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT APPLIED THE CASE OF "RODRIGUEZ VS. RAVILAN, 17 PHIL 63."
As shown by the record, the late Eugenio Nadonga executed a Deed of Donation dated June 4, 1965 in favor of the defendant Rosario Opana over two (2) parcels of land, one of which he inherited from his late father Miguel Nadonga, and the other he bought before he got married to his first wife Tomasa Cabsag. The Deed of Donation was acknowledged before a notary public and transmitted all his rights to the donee who accepted the donation.Petitioners' motion for reconsideration[31] having been denied by the appellate court by Resolution of December 5, 1996,[32] the present petition was filed posing the following question:
As a matter of fact, the defendant Opana had said parcels of land registered in her name and as early as 1974 obtained original certificate of titles over the same.
In the instant case, even assuming that Tomasa Cabsag owned the disputed parcel of land as claimed by the plaintiffs upon her death, her surviving spouse Eugenio Nadonga became the owner of the property by law of intestate succession (Art. 995, Civil Code). When the said surviving spouse executed a Deed of Donation in favor of the defendant Rosario Opana, he had the right to donate the properties and ownership passed to the latter. x x x
IS IT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RULE ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PARCELS OF LAND IN QUESTION IN TH[ESE] PROCEEDINGS?Petitioners insist that what they filed before the trial court was one for probate — the settlement of the estate of Tomasa Cabsag, the complaint's denomination as one for partition notwithstanding; that the declaration by the trial court that respondent is the "true, absolute and exclusive owner of the two (2) parcels of land described in the complaint and in the Original Certificate of Titles issued in the name of the Defendant," which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, for as the case is one for probate, it necessitated the initial determination and identification of the heirs of Tomasa Cabsag which the trial court failed to do.
Atty. Cablao [defense counsel]:In Gesmundo v. Court of Appeals,[35] this Court held:
But your Honor our claim is different, the property the one situated at Brgy. Mayana is a property that was inherited by Eugenio Nadonga from his father so it has nothing to do with the property of Tomasa Cabsag. The property situated at Brgy. Surok is a property he purchased when he was still single before marriage to Tomasa Cabsag.
Court:
That is your evidence already. That is why when you asked [the defendant] the question is the property being claimed by the plaintiff different property that is now in your owner's certificate of title.
Atty. Cablao:
Yes, your Honor.
Court:
The Court observes that it is misleading because according to her it is different.
Atty. Chua [the plaintiffs' counsel]:
No, your Honor please her testimony awhile ago says that the property donated to her by Eugenio Nadonga at Brgy. Mayana is at present covered by owner's certificate of title no. 8859.
Court:
Yes, it is correct, but she also stated that is not the property of Tomasa Cabsag. x x x[34]
A person who claims ownership of real property is duty bound to clearly identify the land being claimed in accordance with the document on which he anchors his right of ownership. When the record does not show that the land subject matter of the action has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper. Proof of ownership together with identity of the land is the basic rule. (Citations omitted, underscoring supplied)Petitioners failed to come up with a clear description of the land sought or claimed. On that score alone, their case fails.
x x xA notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[36] It enjoys the presumption of validity.[37] To overcome it, the evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to its falsity.[38] Petitioners, however, proffered no such evidence.
That the DONOR is the owner in fee simple of that certain real property with coconuts planted thereon situated in Bo. Mayana and Surok, Guiuan, Samar, Philippines, with both parcels of land described hereunder, to wit:North - bounded by Teresa Naing;
South - bounded by Miguel Nadonga;
East - bounded by Hilario Parcela; and
West - bounded by Pascual Ecleo and Dominga Hamihan
And the land situated in Bo. Surok,Guiuan,Samar, Philippines,has the following boundaries, to wit:North - bounded by Ricardo Abrera;
South - bounded by Alejandro Abrera;
East - bounded by Federico Yodico and Pascual Yodico, and on the West- bounded by Estefa Odang
That the abovementioned properties are my personal properties which I inherited from my father (Miguel Nadonga) and the other parcel was purchased by me personally before I married my first wife Tomasa Cabsag.
That for and in consideration of the love and affection which the DONOR has for the DONEE, the said DONOR, by these presents transfers and conveys, by way of DONATION, unto said DONEE, her heirs and assigns, the above-described real property with all the plants and improvements thereon, x x x.x x x
That the DONEE does hereby accept this donation of the above-described real property, and does hereby express her gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the DONOR.x x x (Underscoring supplied)
Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by observance of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert his right either has abandoned or declined to assert it.[40]" (Underscoring supplied)WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is, in light of the foregoing reasons, hereby AFFIRMED.