LUCIANO GALACE, CARMEN TERREN, CECILIA SINGSON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. FELICIDAD M. BAGTAS, EMMA M. BAGTAS, ET AL., AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

This petition for certiorari is interposed to review and reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Court of
First Instance in Civil Case No. 717.

Originally, in 1949, Jose V. Bagtas and his wife, Felicidad, brought
an action in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan against Luciano
Galace, Juan Singson and others, alleging that the latter were
illegally occupying portions of their land, known as Hacienda Intal, in
Santor, Baggao, Cagayan. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 282.

The defendants denied the charge and contended that the portions
claimed by the Bagtases were in fact parts of their land holdings of
which they had been in continuous possession for more than 40 years.

Thereafter, the parties submitted to the court a stipulation of
facts in which they agreed to have the monuments and boundaries of
Hacienda Intal relocated “with a view to determining whether or not the
holdings of the herein defendants are within or without the boundaries
of the said ‘hacienda’ of the plaintiffs.” Should it be found that
defendants were occupying portions of the hacienda, the defendants
agreed to recognize the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and
immediately vacate the premises. On the other hand, should the
defendants’ land holding be found to be outside the boundaries of the
hacienda, then the plaintiffs agreed to recognize their possessory
rights and leave them in the peaceful possession of the lands. For this
purpose, the parties asked the court to name a land surveyor to make
the relocation.

A surveyor from the Bureau of Lands was then appointed. In his report, he stated among other things that—

“4. A portion of 2.9262 hectares of survey H-80093,
covered by patent No. 22148 of Juan Singson, overlaps survey Pc-79,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 204 of J. V. Bagtas, et al;

“5.
The whole area covered by Homestead Applicant No. 191959 of Donate
Bebangco (now deceased), and a portion of about 7 hectares of land
covered by Homestead Application No. 50589-A of Luciano Galace are
inside Pc-79. According to our records, both applications are still
without patents.”

It appears, however, that the day after the
parties had signed the stipulation of facts, Jose V. Bagtas wrote the
following letter to Atty. Jose Abalos, counsel for the defendants:

April 21, 1949

 

“Atty. Jose It. Abalos
Tuguegarao, Cagayan

 

My dear Companero:

Referring
to to agreement regarding the land belonging to Messrs. Luciano Galace
and Juan Singson overlapping my land known as ‘Hacienda Intal’ having
an area of 7.16 Has. approximately for Juan Singson, please be informed
that I will execute a quit claim in their favor after one year of the
receipt of the favorable decision of the Court. It must be clearly
understood that Messrs. Galace, and Singson will extend to me their
full cooperation so that I will enjoy the peaceful possession of
my property. This period way be .shortened depending on the attitude
that I may observe in their behavior.

Very sincerely yours,

(Sgd.) J. V. BAGTAS”

Accordingly, in its decision of September 29, 1949, the court ordered:

“En meritos de tedo lo expuesto, del Juzgado dicla
sentencia declarando que los demaudantes son los duenos de toda la
parcela de terreno descrila en la demanda y tienen derecho a la
posesion immediata de todas las perciones del mismo que estan ocupadas
por los demandados; pero los dciunndantcs cstaran obligation a ceder y
traspasar a favor dc Luciano Galace la porcton de su homestead que esta
encluida en el ertificado de titulo de los demandantes y tambien
estaran obligados a ceder y traspaiar a favor de Juan Singson la
porcion del home de este y que esta incluida en el titulo de los
demandantes depues de un año, a contar desde la fecha decision si los
demandades Galace y Singson ‘will extend to me (Mr. J. V. Bagtas) their
full cooperation that I (J. V. Bagtas) will enjoy the peaceful
possession of my property (J. V. Bagtas’ property.'”

Luciano Galace nnd the heirs of Juan Singson brought Civil Case No.
717 in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan to compel Fclicidad
Bagtas and the heirs of Jose V. Bagtas to execute the quit claim deed
pursuant to the decision of the court in the aforementioned Case No.
282. In thoir rnswer, the defendants contended, among other things,
that they were not bound by the agreement of Jose V. Bagtas because the
plaintiffs and their predecessor had violated the condition of the
obligation, namely, that the plaintiffs would not disturb them in the
cultivation, possession and enjoyment of their property.

The trial court sustained defendants’ contention and dismissed the
complaint. Its decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Hence this appeal by Galace and the heirs of Singson, who for
purposes of this decision will be called the petitioners. The Bagtases
will be referred to as the respondents.

It is contended that the Court of Appeals erred “in declaring that
the mere filing of the expropriation petition with the office of the
President created discontent and unrest in the hacienda and, in holding
herein petitioners guilty of the alleged acts of depredations in
violation of the agreement between J. V. Bagtas and petitioners.”

As stated earlier, Jose V. Bagtas agreed to give to the petitioners,
one year after the decision in Civil Case No. 282, the portions of the
hacienda which they might be found occupying on condition that they
would “extend to (Jose V. Bagtas) their full cooperation so that (he)
will enjoy the peaceful possession of (his) property.”

With respect to this condition, both the trial court and the Court
of Appeals found that sometime in December, 1949, that is, three months
after the court had rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 282, Juan
Singson went to see Jose V. Bagtas in the hacienda and asked him to
execute the quit claim deed which the latter had promised to sign.
Bagtas answered that the request was premature, because the period of
one year had not yet expired and Galace and Singson had not so far
complied with their promise to cooperate with the hacienda owners by
cultivating the portions occupied by them and by helping them get other
tenants to work on the land. Whereupon, Singson, the spokesman for the
group, promised Bagtas that “after this Christmas, I can help cultivate
the land and I can bring some tenants.”

However, instead of helping Bagtas get tenants to help cultivate the
land, Galace and Singson prevented other persons from entering and
working in the hacienda. The trial court and the Court of Appeals also
found that even before April, 1950 and without consulting Bagtas,
Galace and Singson called the people in the community to a meeting “for
the purpose of making an agreement or petition to Mr. Quirino, the
President, requesting him that the government should buy the land of
Mr. Bagtas.” Among these who signed the petition sent to Malacañang
were Galace and Singson.

According to the trial court and the appellate court, the petition
for expropriation created discontent and social unrest among the
tenants in the hacienda, thus compelling the owners to employ security
guards in the middle part of 1950 to protect their property. The amount
of P4.000 was spent for this purpose alone. As a matter of fact, some
of the petitioners, who are relatives of Singson, were caught stealing
bamboos, wood and palay from the hacienda. Among those caught were
Singson’s children, Teofilo and Cresencio. Cresencio even signed a
written confession which was never denied nor contradicted (Exhs. 6 and
6-A).

This is the reason why on April 1, 1950, Bagtas wrote Atty. Jose
Abalos, counsel for Galace and Singson another letter, advising him
that “I am constrained not to return to Juan Singson the area squatted
in accordance with our agreement.”

On the basis of these findings, both the trial court and the
appellate court concluded that petitioners did not comply with their
obligation and therefore were not entitled to invoke the obligation of
the late Jose V. Bagtas. We are not inclined to review these findings,
as petitioners would want us to, in view of the rule that the judgment
of the Court of Appeals in conclusive as to the facts. (Moran, 2
Comments on the Rules of Court 413 [1963], Caladiao, et al. vs.
Santos Vda. de Blas, G. R. No. L-19063 April 29, 1964). Indeed, on the
basis of these findings alone the dismissal of this appeal can be
justified.

In their first and fourth assignments of error, petitioners contend
that the Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the Land Tenure
Administration to be made a party defendant in this case. It appears
that while this case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the
appellants moved for the substitution of the Land Tenure Administration
in place of the heirs of Jose V. Bagtas on the basis of a supposed
letter (dated Jan. 24, 1958) of the Land Tenure Administration,
advising petitioners’ counsel that the land involved in this case had
been bought by the government on October 25, 1957.

Section 20 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court stales:

“Transfer of interest.—In cases of transfer
of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original
party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the
interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with
the original party.”

Under this provision, it is not usually essential for the transferee
to be substituted; nor can the opposite party insist on such
substitution, it being ordinarily permissible to continue the action in
the name of the original party (National Rice & Corn Corp. vs.
Fojas, et al., G. R. No. L-11517, April 30, 1958). Whether or not the
transferee should be substituted for, or should be joined with, the
original party is largely a matter of discretion. This Court is not
inclined to review acts done by inferior courts in the exercise of that
discretion unless the same are shown to be arbitrary.

At any rate, there seems to be no notice made in the Office of the
Register of  Deeds of Cagayan of the pendency of the action. Even
assuming then that there has been a transfer of interest, the Land
Tenure Administration, as transferee, is not bound by the obligation of
Jose V. Bagtas to cede and transfer to the petitioners the portions of
the hacienda occupied by them.

Nor may the inclusion of the Land Tenure Administration in this case
be justified on the ground that the Land Tenure Administration is bound
to resell the land at cost to the tenants because this is not an action
to compel any government agency to resell any lot it had purchased.
This is an action for specific performance pursuant to the agreement of
the parties in Civil Case No. 282.

We now come to petitioners’ second point. The rule is settled that
in order that an action for recovery of possession may prosper, it is
indispensable that he who brings the action fully prove not only his
ownership but also the identity of the property claimed, by describing
its location, area and boundaries, (Tie la Cruz vs. Niño, 18 Phil., 284; Marcelo vs. Maniques and De la Cruz, 35 Phil., 134).

Contrary to petitioners’ claim, there is nothing in the simulation
of facts which the parties submitted in the former case (Case No. 282)
that identifies the portions claimed by the appellants. Neither the
report of the land surveyor nor the decision of the lower court in that
former case adequately identifies these portions beyond stating that
about 2,9262 hectares of Singson’s landholding and about 7 hectares of
Galace’s landholding overlap Hacienda Intal. Nothing at all is said
about the boundaries of these portions.

Now it is no excuse for petitioners to say that these portions,
being parts of the hacienda and not having been surveyed and
segregated, cannot, with accuracy, be technically be described, to be
sure, it is not required that a detailed technical description must be
given. All that is required is an adequate identification of the
portions involved.

Indeed, in all transactions, a statement of the boundaries of the
properly involved is required. Thus, Article 1542 of the Civil Code
states that in every conveyance of real estate a statement, of the
boundaries is indispensable. Deeds relating to an unregistered land
must describe the land by giving its situation, boundaries and area.
(Sec. 194, Act No. 3341) The boundaries are usually indicated by means
of creeks, trees and other visible means. And even in cases of sale of
a portion of a registered land pending the approval of a subdivision
plan under Section 58 of the Land Registration Act, a temporary
description of the unsegregated lot being sold is required.

Petitioners failed to give an adequate description of the portions they are claiming.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

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