372 Phil. 383; 97 OG No. 4, 550 (January 22, 2001)
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
“On June 1, 1981, plaintiff Aurora Directo, defendant Rodolfo Noceda, and Maria Arbizo, the daughter, grandson, and widow, respectively, of the late Celestino Arbizo, who died in 1956, extrajudicially settled a parcel of land, Lot 1121, located at Bitaog, San Isidro, Cabangan, Zambales, which was said to have an area of 66,530 square meters. Plaintiff Directo’s share was 11,426 square meters, defendant Noceda got 13,294 square meters, and the remaining 41,810 square meters went to Maria Arbizo (Exhibit G). On the same date, plaintiff Directo donated 625 square meters of her share to defendant Noceda, who is her nephew being the son of her deceased sister, Carolina (Exhibit D). However, on August 17, 1981, another extrajudicial settlement-partition of Lot 1121 was executed by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda, and Maria Arbizo. Three fifths of the said land went to Maria Arbizo while plaintiff Directo and defendant Noceda got only one-fifth each. In said extrajudicial settlement-partition as well as in the Tax Declaration 16-0032 over Lot 1121 in the name of the late Celestino Arbizo, the said parcel of land was said to have an area of only 29,845 square meters (Exhibit C). Sometime in 1981, defendant Noceda constructed his house on the land donated to him by plaintiff Directo. Plaintiff Directo fenced the portion allotted to her in the extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion, and constructed thereon three huts. But in 1985, defendant Noceda removed the fence earlier constructed by plaintiff Directo, occupied the three huts (3) and fenced the entire land of plaintiff Directo without her consent. Plaintiff Directo demanded from defendant Noceda to vacate her land, but the latter refused. Hence, plaintiff Directo filed the present suit, a complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation, against defendant Noceda before the lower court. During the trial, the lower court ordered that a relocation survey of Lot 1121 be conducted by Engr. Edilberto Quejada of the Bureau of Lands. After the survey of Lot 1121 in the presence of both parties, Engr. Edilberto Quejada reported that the area of Lot 1121 stated in the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981 was smaller than the actual area of Lot 1121 which is 127,298 square meters. Engr. Quejada subdivided Lot 1121, excluding the portions occupied by third persons, known as Lot 8, the salvage zone and the road lot, on the basis of the actual occupancy of Lot 1121 by the heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo and the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981. The portion denominated as Lot A, with an area of 12,957 square meters was the share of defendant Noceda; Lot C, with the same area as that of Lot A, was the share of plaintiff Directo, a portion of which was donated to defendant Noceda; and Lot B, with an area of 38,872 square meters, went to Maria Arbizo (Exhibit E).”On November 6, 1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, of Iba, Zambales rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:[4]
(a) Declaring the Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition dated August 19, 1981, valid;Rodolfo Nocedo appealed to the respondent Court which affirmed the trial court as follows:[5]
(b) Declaring the Deed of Donation dated June 1, 1981, revoked;
(c) Ordering the defendant to vacate and reconvey that donated portion of Lot 2, Lot 1121 subject of the Deed of Donation dated June 1, 1981 to the plaintiff or her heirs or assigns;
(d) Ordering the defendant to remove the house built inside the donated portion at the defendant’s expense or pay a monthly rental of P300.00 Philippine Currency;
(e) Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P5,000.00; and
(f) To pay the cost.”
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ORDERING defendant Rodolfo Noceda to VACATE the portion known as Lot “C” of Lot 1121 per Exhibit E, which was allotted to plaintiff Aurora Arbizo Directo. Except for this modification, the Decision, dated November 6, 1991, of the RTC-Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, in Civil Case No. RTC-354-I, is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. Costs against defendant Rodolfo Noceda.”Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with the following assignment of errors:[6]
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS LOT 1121 CONTAINS AN AREA IN EXCESS OF THAT STATED IN ITS TAX DECLARATION.The first issue raised refers to the actual area of the subject lot known as Lot 1121, which was registered under Tax Declaration No. 16-0032 under the name of the late Celestino Arbizo. Petitioner claims that Tax Declaration No. 16-0032 contains only an area of 29,845 sq. meter; thus the respondent Court exceeded its judicial authority when it sustained the lower court’s findings that the subject property actually contains an area of 127,289 square meters.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LOT 1121 SHOULD BE PARTITIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT DATED 17 AUGUST 1981.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING AND ALLOTING LOT “C” AS APPEARING IN THE SURVEY PLAN PREPARED BY GEODETIC ENGINEER EDILBERTO QUEJADA TO THE RESPONDENT.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER USURPED AN AREA ADJUDICATED TO THE RESPONDENT.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVOKING THE DEED OF DONATION DATED 1 JUNE 1981.
“The fact that Cecilia Obispo has tax declarations in her name over Lot 1121 and several persons occupied a portion thereof did not make them indispensable parties in the present case. Defendant Noceda merely presented the tax declarations in the name of Cecilia Obispo without the alleged free patent in her name. Moreover, no evidence was presented showing that Cecilia Obispo possessed or claimed possession of Lot 1121. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are not conclusive evidence of ownership of property (Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 224 SCRA 285).Notably, defendant’s counsel requested for the appearance of Cecilia Obispo and despite notice to her to appear in court and bring with her the alleged free patent in her name,[19] she failed to appear and even failed to intervene to protect whatever interest and right she has over the subject lot. As to the other possessors of residential houses in Lot 8 of Lot 1121, they are not considered as indispensable parties to this case. A party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court.[20] Private respondent is not claiming the entire area of Lot 1121 but only a portion thereof which was adjudicated to her based on the August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement and which was denominated in the survey plan as Lot C of Lot 1121; thus there was no need to implead the occupants of Lot 8.
It was not necessary that the occupants of a portion of Lot 1121, designated as Lot 8, be impleaded in the present case. Lot 8, though part of Lot 1121, was excluded by Engr. Quejada in determining the respective portions of Lot 1121 occupied by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda and Maria Arbizo pursuant to the extrajudicial settlement which they executed on August 17, 1981. The result of the present suit shall not in any way affect the occupants of Lot 8, since the issues involved in the present case are the usurpation by defendant Noceda of the land adjudicated to plaintiff Directo and the propriety of the cancellation of the deed of donation in favor of defendant Noceda due to his ingratitude to plaintiff Directo.”
The discrepancies between the extrajudicial settlements executed by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda and Maria Arbizo on June 1, 1981 and August 17, 1981 only meant that the latter was intended to supersede the former. The signature of defendant Noceda in the extrajudicial settlement of August 17, 1981 would show his conformity to the new apportionment of Lot 1121 among the heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo. The fact that defendant Noceda occupied the portion allotted to him in the extrajudicial settlement, as well as the donated portion of the share of plaintiff Directo, presupposes his knowledge of the extent of boundaries of the portion of Lot 1121 allotted to him. Moreover, the statement in the extrajudicial settlement of August 17, 1981 with respect to the area of Lot 1121, which was 29,845 square meters, is not conclusive because it was found out, after the relocation survey was conducted on Lot 1121, that the parties therein occupied an area larger than what they were supposed to possess per the extrajudicial settlement- partition of August 17, 1981.Although in the extrajudicial settlement dated August 17, 1981 the heirs of Celestino Arbizo partitioned only a 29,845 square meter lot to conform with the area declared under tax declaration 16-0032 yet the heirs were each actually occupying a bigger portion the total area of which exceeded 29,845 square meters. This was confirmed by Geodetic Engineer Quejada in his report submitted to the trial court where he stated among other things:[22]
7. that upon computation of actual survey, it is informed (sic) that the area dated (sic) as per extrajudicial settlement-partition in the name of Celestino Arbizo was smaller than the computed lots of their actual occupancy as per survey on the ground;The survey conducted on Lot 1121 was only a confirmation of the actual areas being occupied by the heirs taking into account the percentage proportion adjudicated to each heir on the basis of their August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement.
8. The Lot A, Lot B, and Lot C as appearing on prepared plan for ready reference was subdivided, base (sic) on stated sharing as per EXTRA JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT-PARTITION base (sic) on actual occupancy.
In effect, the defendant denies the allegation of the plaintiff that Maria Arbizo was the third wife of Celestino Arbizo and Agripina is her half sister with a common father. On this point, the Court believes the version of the plaintiff. The Court observes that in the “Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition”(Exhibit “C”), Maria Arbizo is named one of the co-heirs of the defendant, being the widow of his grandfather, Celestino Arbizo. The names of Anacleto and Agripina do not also appear in the Extra-judicial Settlement and Partition because according to the plaintiff, they had sold their shares to Maria Arbizo. And the defendant is one of the signatories to the said Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement-Partition acknowledged before Notary Public Artemio Maranon. Under the circumstances, the Court is convinced that the defendant knew that Maria Arbizo was the widow of Celestino Arbizo and he knew of the sale of the share of Anacleto Arbizo his share, as well as that of Agripina. When the defendant signed the Extra-Judicial Settlement, he was already an adult since when he testified in 1989, he gave his age as 50 years old. So that in 1981, he was already 41 years old. If he did not know all of these, the defendant would have not agreed to the sharing and signed this document and acknowledged it before the Notary Public. And who could have a better knowledge of the relationship of Agripina and Maria Arbizo to Celestino Arbizo than the latter’s daughter? Besides, at the time of the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition by the plaintiff and defendant, they were still in good terms. There was no reason for the plaintiff to favor Maria Arbizo and Agripina Arbizo over the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to support his allegation that when his grandfather died he had no wife and child.We likewise find unmeritorious petitioner’s claim that there exist no factual and legal basis for the adjudication of Lot C of Lot 1121 to private respondent Aurora Directo. It bears stress that the relocation survey plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Quejada was based on the extrajudicial settlement dated August 17, 1981, and the actual possession by the parties and the technical description of Lot 1121. It was established by the survey plan that based on the actual possession of the parties, and the extrajudicial settlement among the heirs the portion denominated as Lot C of Lot 1121 of the survey plan was being occupied by private respondent Aurora Directo and it was also shown that it is in Lot C where the 625 square meter area donated by private respondent Directo to petitioner is located. There is no obstacle to adjudicate Lot C to private respondent as her rightful share allotted to her in the extrajudicial settlement.
Lot A; the area is 2,957 sq.m.- goes to Rodolfo A. Noceda (1/5)Thus, the areas allotted to each heir are now specifically delineated in the survey plan. There is no co-ownership where portion owned is concretely determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners.[29] A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him.[30]
Lot B; 38,872 sq.m Maria Arbizo (3/5)
Lot C 12,957 sq.m. Aurora Arbizo (1/5)
“Article 769 of the New Civil Code states that: “The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one year to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action.” As expressly stated, the donor must file the action to revoke his donation within one year from the time he had knowledge of the ingratitude of the donee. Also, it must be shown that it was possible for the donor to institute the said action within the same period. The concurrence of these two requisites must be shown by defendant Noceda in order to bar the present action. Defendant Noceda failed to do so. He reckoned the one year prescriptive period from the occurrence of the usurpation of the property of plaintiff Directo in the first week of September, 1985, and not from the time the latter had the knowledge of the usurpation. Moreover, defendant Noceda failed to prove that at the time plaintiff Directo acquired knowledge of his usurpation, it was possible for plaintiff Directo to institute an action for revocation of her donation.”The action to revoke by reason of ingratitude prescribes within one (1) year to be counted from the time (a) the donor had knowledge of the fact; (b) provided that it was possible for him to bring the action. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show proof of the concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one (1) year period for bringing the action be considered to have already prescribed. No competent proof was adduced by petitioner to prove his allegation. In Civil Cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.[33] He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[34]