HEIRS OF CELERINA AYING, NAMELY: FLORENCIO A. MALINGIN, ANTERO A. MALINGIN, BERNARDO A. MALINGIN, THE CHILDREN OF MACARIO A. MALINGIN, NAMELY: ALFREDO L. MALINGIN, ORLANDO L. MA…

Heirs of Celerina Aying versus Site Traders and Developers, Incorporated

The Case

This is a case about a parcel of land in Maribago, Lapu-lapu City, and about who must prove what when two families claim it. The Heirs of Celerina Aying, led by Florencio, Antero and Bernardo Malingin and the children of Macario Malingin, sued Site Traders and Developers, Incorporated, Cebu Agri-Business, Incorporated, and several individual defendants for declaration of nullity of instruments, quieting of title, and damages. They say the extra-judicial settlement and deeds of sale that erased Celerina's old certificate of title were void, because the people who signed them as Celerina's heirs were not her heirs at all. The case matters for the bar because it is a clean lesson on the burden of proof in an action to quiet title: the plaintiff who attacks a registered title must first prove his own.

Procedural History

The heirs filed their complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 54. After pre-trial and trial, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, and likewise dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for insufficiency of evidence, with no pronouncement as to costs. The plaintiffs appealed. The appeal went up to the Supreme Court, which resolved it by affirming the trial court's decision in full.

Facts

Celerina Aying was the registered owner of Lot 3959, a parcel of 13,691 square meters in Maribago, Lapu-lapu City, covered by Original Certificate of Title RO-1868. The plaintiffs claim that Celerina died single and without issue, leaving as her heirs the children and grandchildren of her only sister, Tomasa Aying, namely the Malingins. They claim that they and their predecessors have possessed the lot since time immemorial in the concept of owners.

Sometime in June 1995, the plaintiffs discovered that the old certificate of title had been cancelled. An extra-judicial settlement and absolute deed of sale dated December 24, 1986, in favor of Site Traders and Developers, Incorporated, had been the basis for a new transfer certificate of title in that corporation's name. Site Traders then sold the land to Cebu Agri-Business, Incorporated, which obtained its own transfer certificate of title. The plaintiffs say the persons who posed as Celerina's heirs in that instrument, particularly Juan and Eugenia Hiyas, were not heirs, and that their signatures were forged or simulated.

The defendants told a different story. They traced the land to Silvina Aying, whose children were Juan, Eusebio and Eugenia Amistad Hiyas, and they insisted that the name Celerina in the documents referred to Silvina, the same person. They showed a long documentary chain: tax declarations, an affidavit of transfer in favor of Hilarion Malingin and Tomasa Aying, an extra-judicial declaration of heirs with deed of sale in favor of Jose Climaco and others, a waiver of rights in favor of Site Traders, and finally the sale to Cebu Agri-Business. The trial court found this chain convincing and dismissed the complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring that the defendants presented preponderant evidence of ownership over Lot 3959.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in failing to rule categorically on the validity of the extra-judicial settlement of estate and deed of absolute sale.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, on preponderance of evidence, provides:

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

This is the measure the Court applied in weighing the evidence of both sides, and it is the reason the plaintiffs' bare testimonies failed against the defendants' documented chain of title.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. The action is primarily one for quieting of title, and the Court recalled its own definition: quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting title to real property, and the plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the property, but that they have a valid title to it. In civil cases the plaintiff must establish his cause of action by preponderance of evidence, otherwise his suit will not prosper.

The Court stressed the basic evidentiary rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations, expressed in the maxim that proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies. The plaintiffs claimed to be Celerina's nephews and grandnieces and grandnephews, yet they presented no documentary evidence of ownership at all: no tax declarations, no tax receipts, no titles. They also failed to sufficiently establish that they were in possession of the lot. The defendants, by contrast, traced ownership and possession from their predecessors-in-interest to the present, through a continuous series of tax declarations and deeds covering both the larger and the smaller portions of Lot 3959. Preponderance of evidence therefore lay with the defendants.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in declining to rule categorically on the validity of the extra-judicial settlement and deed of sale. A pre-trial order is not meant to be a detailed catalogue of each and every issue that is to be or may be taken up during the trial. Since the plaintiffs utterly failed to substantiate their claims while the defendants proved their ownership, the trial court was correct in disregarding all other collateral issues.

Doctrine

First, in an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must prove two things: that a cloud or contrary interest exists over the property, and that he has a valid title to it. A claim of heirship, standing alone, is not title.

Second, the burden of proof rests on the party who alleges, not on the party who denies, and in civil cases that burden is discharged only by preponderance of evidence as defined in Section 1 of Rule 133. The plaintiff who attacks a Torrens title in the hands of another must first establish his own right by competent evidence.

Third, a pre-trial order is not an exhaustive catalogue of every issue; a court may disregard collateral issues once the decisive issue of ownership is resolved on the evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim, so the defendants kept their titles.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in quieting of title, the plaintiff must show not only the cloud but his own valid title, and he who affirms must prove. Examiners use this case to test burden of proof and preponderance of evidence against a Torrens title, and to test whether a pre-trial order limits the issues a court must rule upon.