Case Digest: Hrs. of Extremadura vs Extremadura

CASE TITLE:  Hrs. of Extremadura vs Extremadura
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 211065, July 7, 2016
PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe, J.
CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: RTC - Quieting of title with recovery of possession CA - Appeal
FACTS: Jose Extremadura claimed he purchased three parcels of agricultural land in Sitio Ponong, Barrio Rizal, Casiguran, Sorsogon from his aunt, Corazon S. Extremadura, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 18, 1984. Since Jose lived in Manila, he placed one parcel (3.4945 square meters) in Manuel Extremadura’s care, who, along with his son, Marlon Extremadura, delivered the land’s produce to Jose from 1984 until 1995. Manuel and Marlon refused to continue delivering the produce or vacate the land despite Jose’s demands. Jose filed an action for quieting of title with recovery of possession, rendition of accounting, and damages against his brother, Manuel, and his nephew, Marlon. RTC: Ruled in favor of Jose, declaring him the owner of the subject land and ordering Manuel and Marlon to relinquish possession. Jose had a better right due to the notarized deed of absolute sale, which presumed regularity. Manuel and Marlon failed to prove possession in the concept of an owner. CA: Reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the case. Jose failed to establish legal and equitable title over the land because the notarized deed of sale did not transfer ownership as he was never in possession. The land was not in Corazon's possession, making Jose not a buyer in good faith, as he failed to investigate the rights of the actual possessors.
ISSUE: Whether the CA correctly dismissed the case filed by Jose. NO
ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES
PETITIONER	RESPONDENTS
-	Manuel and Marlon claimed they possessed the land openly, continuously, peacefully, adversely, and uninterruptedly for almost 50 years, making Jose's action barred by prescription or laches. They argued that giving portions of the produce to Jose was a cultural practice of sharing blessings, and that the deed of absolute sale was not the legal or beneficial title as required by Article 476 of the Civil Code.
PREVAILING PARTY:  Hrs of Jose Extremadura
DECISION/DOCTRINE: The petition is impressed with merit. In order for an action for quieting of title to prosper, it is essential that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the subject matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the case of Mananquil v. Moico, the Court expounded that: An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best.  But for an action to quiet tide to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) 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. Contrary to the position taken by the CA, the Court finds that Jose satisfactorily established his equitable title over the subject land entitling him - and now, petitioners as his successors-in-interest - to the removal of the cloud or doubt thereon, particularly, the claim of respondents that they are the owners thereof. Based on jurisprudence, equitable title has been defined as "[a] title derived through a valid contract or relation, and based on. recognized equitable principles; the right in the party, to whom it belongs, to have the legal title transferred to him. x x x. In order that a plaintiff may draw to himself an equitable title, he must show that the one from whom he derives his right had himself a right to transfer. x x x."  In this case, Jose's title to the subject land was derived through a contract of sale, as evidenced by a notarized document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 18, 1984, whereby the previous owner/s, Corazon, the widow of Alfredo, transferred the subject land and two (2) other adjoining parcels to Jose for and in consideration of ₱6,000.00, for which Jose duly paid  the required capital gains tax. That Corazon had the right to transfer the land by virtue of her ownership thereof was clearly established during the trial. As Manuel himself admitted: Q: You say, you were borne (sic) on that land. When you grew up who were the persons the one occupying that iand to be considered you as owner (sic)? A: My uncle and auntie. Q: Can you name them? A: Alfredo Extremadura and Trinidad  [Corazon] Extremadura.  x x x x Q: Now, as the former owners of that property were your uncle and aunts (sic), Alfredo Extremadura and his wife, Trinidad [Corazon] Extremadura, what did they do or in what mode did they transferred (sic) that property to you? x x x x A: I lived in that property. x x x x Q:  And, you were saying that they did not sell to you, donate it to you or that they executed any document to transfer ownership of that property to you? x x x x A: None, Your Honor x x x x Q:  You said, your uncle and aunt are the owners of that property, despite that, did you pay the taxes thereto? A: Yes, sir. Q: In whose name was the taxes named? A: In the name of Alfredo Extremadura and his wife, Trinidad [Corazon] Extremadura. x x x x Q: Why was it in the name of Alfredo Extremadura? A: The payment of taxes was in the name of Alfredo Extremadura because he is the owner of the property, the husband and wife. x x x x Q: Up to when Alfredo Extremadura was the owner of that property? A: When he was still alive. While the CA did not express any misgivings on the existence and execution of the deed of sale in Jose's favor, it nonetheless found that "despite the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale x x x, this [did] not constitute constructive delivery, as to affect the transfer of ownership from the seller to the buyer."  The CA is mistaken. Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497 of the same Code which provides that "[t]he thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee."  Article 1498 of the Civil Code lays down the general rule that the execution of a public instrument "shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred." However, the execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery, which is negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold. A person who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public instrument.  In this case, the prima facie presumption of constructive delivery to Jose was not successfully negated by proof that the subject land was not actually placed in the latter's control and possession. Primarily, it should be stressed that "[possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right."  Jose exercised possession of the subject land through Manuel (and eventually, his son, Marlon) whom he allowed to stay and care for the land in exchange for the delivery of the produce thereof. Article 524 of the Civil Code states: Art. 524. Possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another. In this relation, case law teaches that "[i]t is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the property as someone in his name may perform the act. In other words, the owner of real estate has possession, either when he himself is physically in occupation of the property, or when another person who recognizes his rights as owner is in such occupancy," as the parties in this case. Notably, the fact that respondents delivered the produce of the land to Jose, which Manuel admitted in open court, can only be construed as his recognition of Jose's ownership of the land despite his tenuous claim that he merely did so because Jose is his brother, thus: ATTY. DE ALBAN: Q: According to the plaintiff, he owns this land and that you were delivering products to him since 1984 to 1995? A: I was giving him products being my brother, sir. x x x x Q: And you said that you have been giving him products because he is your brother. How many times, if you can recall, that you have been giving him? A: Whenever he comes home from Manila, I gave him products, sir. Q: What did you give him? A: Products and sometimes, chicken. COURT: Q: In kind? A: Yes, Your Honor. x x x x ATTY. DE ALBAN: x x x x Q: Were there instances while your brother was in Manila that you also send him some products? A: Yes, sir. Q: Through whom? A: I gave him personally. Q: What I mean, where did you give him? A: Here in Ponong, sir. Q: When he comes here? A: Yes, sir because I never went to Manila. Q: There were instances that you sent him products through other people? A: Yes, sir. Not only did Jose exercise his right as owner of the subject land by receiving the fruits thereof, he likewise performed his duties by paying taxes therefor, evidence of which he presented in court during trial. "Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession. They constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property and announces his adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties, but also the intention to contribute needed revenues to the Government. Such an act strengthens one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership."  On the other hand, Manuel merely claimed that he paid taxes on the land but he never presented proof of the alleged payments. In addition, the weakness of his case is further exposed by his faulty supposition that he has become the owner of the land only because he was born on the same and had lived thereon. Q: You said, you are a brother of Jose Extremadura, is that correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: You also stated, that you are the owner of the subject property, is that also correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: How did you acquire that property? A: Because I lived in that property and I was borned (sic) in that property. Q: Now, by living in that property and by being borne (sic) in that property, you believed you can (sic) acquired the ownership of that land? A: Yes, sir.  x x x x COURT: Q: You said, you were the owner after the death of Alfredo Extremadura, what would you show to the Court to prove that the land was transferred to you or that you inherited the land or it was donated to you or was given to you by the spouses, Alfredo and Trinidad [Corazon] Extremadura? Q: That is a very simple question? A: Because I live there, Your Honor.  Thus, by sheer preponderance of evidence, the Court concludes that Jose - not only through the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in his favor, but also as evinced by his exercise of the rights and obligations as owner thereof- was able to prove his title over the subject land. Therefore, the action for quieting of title in Civil Case No. 2005-7552 should prosper to the benefit of his heirs, herein petitioners. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 24, 2013 and the Resolution dated December 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99082 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 23, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 52 in Civil Case No. 2005-7552 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.