SPS. VICTORIANO DEGUITO, SR. AND CORAZON A. DEGUITO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS, VS. CLARA NABABLIT, MAGDALINO ABARRACOSO, PEDRO ABARRACOSO, PAULINO ABARRACOSO AND MIGUEL ABARRACOSO, …

Deguito versus Nabablit

The Case

This is an appeal by spouses Victoriano and Corazon Deguito against Clara Nabablit and the Abarracoso heirs, seeking to nullify the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calbiga, Samar in a civil case for recovery of possession, ownership, and damages with preliminary injunction. The Deguitos claim to be owners of a large agricultural lot in Hinabangan, Samar, and accuse the defendants of wresting it from them by force and intimidation. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of the two things a plaintiff in a real action must always prove, and of how the Supreme Court treats a pre-trial order, tax declarations, and the burden of proof.

Procedural History

The Deguitos filed a verified complaint for recovery of possession, ownership, and damages with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar. The defendants answered, claiming ownership by inheritance and long, open, and adverse possession. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and denied the claim for damages and attorney's fees, with costs de oficio. The Deguitos appealed to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal on the records and affirmed the trial court in full.

Facts

The Deguitos alleged that they own a parcel of agricultural land known as Lot 280 of the Hinabangan Cadastre, containing about 54,025 square meters, covered by a tax declaration in the name of Victoriano Deguito. They claimed that the defendants, through force, threats, strategy, and intimidation, entered a portion of the lot in 1985 and eventually the whole lot in 2002.

The defendants denied any forcible ouster. They claimed to be owners of the property by inheritance from their grandfather and to have occupied it openly and adversely for a long time.

During pre-trial, the Deguitos disclosed that their claim of ownership rested on an extrajudicial settlement and sale executed in their favor by one Guillermo Nabual in March 1982. That document, however, described a different parcel: located in Malangsa, bounded by Juancho Abanag on the north and west, Malangsa Creek on the east, and Ponciano Paracale on the south, with an area of four hectares, fifty-five ares, and fifty centares. The trial court found that this description did not match Lot 280, and dismissed the complaint. The Deguitos appealed, arguing that the identity of the land was not an issue in the pre-trial order, that the discrepancies were ordinary in early tax declarations, and that the defendants had used force against them.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in comparing the description of the Nabual property with Lot 280 even though that matter was not expressly listed as an issue in the pre-trial order.
• Whether or not the Deguitos proved their title to Lot 280, so as to entitle them to recover ownership and possession.
• Whether or not the defendants used force and violence in taking the property, making them liable for damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 434 of the Civil Code provides:

In an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and second, his title thereto.

This is the provision on which the entire ruling turns, because the Court measures the Deguitos' evidence against its two requisites.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. A pre-trial order is not a detailed catalogue of every issue to be taken during trial, and issues impliedly included or inferable by necessary implication are as much part of it as those expressly listed. Since the main issue was who had the better right to own and possess Lot 280, the trial court necessarily had to look into the identity of the land the Deguitos were claiming.

On the second issue, the Court applied Article 434 and found that the Deguitos met the first requisite but failed the second. They described Lot 280 so definitely that it could be located on the ground, and the Court did not doubt that the land they claimed and the land the defendants claimed were one and the same. But they failed to prove title. The extrajudicial settlement and sale on which they anchored their ownership pertained to a different property, with a different location, area, and set of boundaries. The Court rejected the argument that the discrepancies were ordinary in early tax declarations. In the case the Deguitos cited, such discrepancies must be logically explained, and here they were not: no evidence showed that Malangsa Creek is now the Hinabangan River, or that the land of Ponciano Paracale is now Barangay Binobucalan. The municipal assessor's certification did not even mention Sitio Malangsa, and it was offered only to prove payment of taxes, which does not conclusively prove ownership, especially since the defendants also paid taxes on the same lot.

On the third issue, the Court found the claim of force unsubstantiated. The Deguitos' witnesses failed to describe with particularity how and when violence was employed, and the Court noted that Victoriano was then the Chief of Police, who at the very least should have secured a police blotter. The Court closed with the maxim that upon the plaintiff in a civil case lies the burden of proof, and that failure to establish the case by preponderance of evidence results in defeat.

Doctrine

To recover ownership of real property, the plaintiff must prove two things: the identity of the land claimed, and title thereto. Identity is fixed by describing the location, area, and boundaries; title is proved by showing that the parcel was the object of a deed. A person who claims ownership is duty bound to clearly identify the land in accordance with the document on which he anchors his right, and proof of ownership together with identity of the land is the basic rule.

A pre-trial order is not a detailed catalogue of every issue; matters impliedly included or inferable by necessary implication are integral parts of it. Discrepancies in tax declarations may be excused only if logically explained. Payment of real estate taxes does not conclusively prove ownership. And upon the plaintiff in a civil case lies the burden of proof, which is discharged only by preponderance of evidence.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the trial court's decision was affirmed in its entirety, so the defendants prevailed and the complaint for recovery of ownership and possession was dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize the two requisites of Article 434: identity of the land and title thereto, both proved by the plaintiff. Examiners use this case to test the effect of a pre-trial order, the weight of tax declarations and tax payments, and the burden of proof in real actions.