View full case

TERESITA P. BORDALBA v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves Lot No. 1242 (Lot No. 799-C) in Mandaue City, which is part of a larger parcel of land originally owned by Carmeno Jayme and Margarita Espina de Jayme. In 1947, an extra-judicial partition divided the land among the heirs, awarding 1/3 of the land to Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay, 1/3 to Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez, and 1/3 to an unidentified party. Nicanor Jayme's family has occupied the land and built a house there since 1945. In 1964, Elena Jayme Vda. de Perez filed an application for registration of the land, which was dismissed. In 1979, petitioner filed for a Free Patent over the same lot, which was granted in 1980. The lot was subsequently subdivided into 6 lots, with two of them being sold. Private respondents filed a complaint seeking to declare the Free Patent, Original Certificate of Title, and subsequent certificates of title as void, while also claiming ownership of the lot. The trial court declared the Free Patent and Original Certificate of Title as void but upheld the validity of the sale and mortgage of some of the subdivided lots.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the free patent and subsequent certificates of title over Lot No. 1242 are null and void due to fraud and misrepresentation.

  2. Whether the testimonies of witnesses for private respondents violated the Dead Man's Statute.

  3. Whether private respondents are legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay.

  4. Whether there is identity between the disputed lot and the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition.

  5. Whether Lot No. 1242 (799-C) is part of the parcel of land inherited by the private respondents' predecessors-in-interest.

  6. Whether the court can determine the extent to which Lot No. 1242 (799-C) is included in the parcel of land described in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the free patent and subsequent certificates of title over Lot No. 1242 are null and void due to fraud and misrepresentation.

  2. No, the testimonies of witnesses for private respondents did not violate the Dead Man's Statute.

  3. Yes, private respondents are legal heirs of Nicanor Jayme and Asuncion Jayme-Baclay.

  4. No, there is no identity between the disputed lot and the parcel of land adjudicated in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition.

  5. The trial court and the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the right of private respondents as co-owners of Lot No. 1242 (799-C) and ordering the petitioner to reconvey 1/3 of the lot to them.

  6. The court cannot determine the extent to which Lot No. 1242 (799-C) is included in the parcel of land described in the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition due to the lack of evidence. The case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial to determine the exact boundaries of Lot No. 1242 (799-C) in relation to the land adjudicated in the Deed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals upholding those of the trial court are binding, unless the case falls under an exception.

  • The Land Registration Act protects only holders of title in good faith and does not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for fraud.

  • The Dead Man's Statute does not apply when the testimony of a witness is based on documents and not on personal dealings with the deceased.

  • In order to assert one's right as an heir, no previous judicial declaration of heirship is necessary.

  • Disparity in boundaries does not necessarily negate the identity of properties if it can be explained by the fact that the property is only a portion of a larger parcel of land.

  • Under Section 31, Rule 130, of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the act, declaration, or omission of the person holding title to the property is evidence against another who derives title from them.

  • In an action for recovery of possession, the plaintiff must prove not only ownership but also the identity of the property by describing its location, area, and boundaries.

  • When the record does not show that the land subject matter of the action has been exactly determined, the action cannot prosper, and the plaintiff's ownership rights in the land claimed must be satisfactorily and conclusively proven at trial.

  • When the extent of a party's right over a certain property is not fully established, the prudent course of action is to remand the case for a new trial to determine the exact boundaries of the property.