AUREA ESQUEJO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CERAPIO FORTALEZA AND DANIEL FORTALEZA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an action for the
recovery of property consisting of a residential land situated in Sta. Maria,
Binalonan, Pangasinan. It was originally filed in the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan by Aurea Esquejo against Cerapio and Daniel Fortaleza.

The trial court found that this
residential lot (together with three parcels of riceland situated in barrio Manguzmana of the same town and province) had been donated
by Pablo Fortaleza to Aurea
Esquejo in consideration of the latter’s marriage to
the donor’s son, Cresenciano. Nevertheless, the court
denied recovery of the residential land on the ground that Pablo Fortaleza, the supposed donor, did not own this land, the
same being the registered property of Pedro Fortaleza
whose ownership is evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 4322.
According to the lower court, Cerapio Fortaleza acquired this land from the heirs of Pedro Fortaleza as shown by a deed of sale (Exh. “2”).

Aurea Esquejo excepts to these findings
of the trial court. She contends that the lot donated to her is different from
the lot covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4322 which the court found
had been sold to Cerapio Fortaleza by the heirs of Pedro Fortaleza, the registered owner. Her version is that after
donating the residential lot to her Pablo Fortaleza
subsequently conveyed the same property to Cerapio
Fortaleza by means of a deed of sale marked Exh. “F”. According to her, when this action was filed and
Cerapio Fortaleza realized
that he could not rely on the deed of sale (Exh. “F”),
Cerapio Fortaleza procured
the execution of another deed of sale (Exh. “2”). She
contends that this deed of sale (Exh.”2″) is simulated and refers to a different
land registered in the name of Pedro Fortaleza,
whereas the land donated to her and subsequently sold to Cerapio Fortaleza is unregistered
and was formerly the property of Pablo Fortaleza. She
goes on to say that-

“En el dia de la vista de la causa, Cerapio Fortaleza presento como prueba a su favor esta escritura ficticia de compraventa, EXHIBITO
“2”, para justiflcar su propiedad, y ahora Cerapio Fortaleza sostiene que el terreno en litigio es el torreno cubierto por el Certificado Original de
Titulo No. 4322; siendo
que el terreno que realmente as el objeto del litigio es aquel terreno que Cerapio Fortaleza compro de su padre Pablo Fortaleza, mediante escritura publica, EXHIBITO “F”,
en el año
de 1948, en donde el vendedor Pablo Fortaleza declaro o hizo constar que el terreno que vendio no esta registrado bajo la Ley 496.”

As stated in the beginning, this
action was originally filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The appeal in this case was taken directly to
this Court] on the ground that only questions of law would be raised. But, as
shown above, the findings of the lower court are disputed and questions of fact
are actually raised.

Aurea Esquejo’s statement in her notice of appeal that she would
raise only questions of law should be construed as a waiver of all questions of
fact. (Rule 42, Sec. 2, Rev. Rules of Court; 2 Moran 394-395 1963) Therefore,
she can not now dispute the factual finding of the lower court that the
residential land purportedly given to her under the deed of donation propter nuptias is
the same land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4322. On this point,
the lower court found:

” * * * After examining both
documents, the Court is convinced that they refer to the same land in question
notwithstanding some discrepancies in their boundaries on the north, south and
east but their areas are practically the same. The reason for these
discrepancies may be attributable to the change of owners adjacent thereto. This
is shown by tax declaration No. 14363, marked Exhibit ‘3’. Besides, the
defendant Cerapio Fortaleza
did not dispute the identity of the residential land in question described in
paragraph 5 (No. 1) of the amended complaint in relation to
Lot 700. * *
*”

The facts being so, We agree with the following conclusion of the lower court:

“Under these circumstances, if
the residential land was the registered property of Pedro Fortaleza, how did Pablo Fortaleza
acquire the same? The plaintiff failed to adduce evidence to show how her donor
acquired it from the registered owner. Such being the case, Pablo Fortaleza has no right, title or interest in this Lot 700
which he would lawfully convey to the donee under the
deed of donation, because it is a principle of law that nobody can dispose of
that which does not belong to him. * * *.”

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court
is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.