ALBERTO LUCAS, SR., PETER LUCAS, MARINA LUCAS-NAGUN, VIOLETA LUCAS-LARA CRUZ, AND AMPARO LUCAS-TAPAOAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEE, VS. HEIRS OF DOMINGO LUCAS, DULY REPRESENTED BY FLOR…
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
THE FACTS
The facts are as follows: Alberto Lucas Sr., Peter Lucas, Marina Lucas-Nagun, Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz, and Amparo Lucas-Tapaoan (collectively, “plaintiffs-appellees”) filed the Complaint[2] for judicial partition against the Heirs of Domingo Lucas represented by Flora Piso-Lucas, Loly Lucas-Piso, Ferdinand Lucas, Daisy Lucas, Noradel Lucas, and Matilda Lucas (collectively, “defendants-appellants”).
The Complaint alleged: Eugenio Lucas (father of the plaintiffs-appellees and Domingo Lucas) died a widower, intestate, and without obligation in favor of any person or entity, and left the 3,774 square meter parcel of land situated in Barrio Domanpot, Asingan, Pangasinan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (“TCT”) No. T-1439 (“subject property”); after the death of their father, the plaintiffs-appellees decided to end their co-ownership over the subject property, and to partition the subject property equally among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas; the defendants-appellants refused to partition the subject property, claimed that they were the tenants, and insisted on working on the subject property; the plaintiffs-appellees took earnest efforts to settle the matter with the defendants-appellants, and brought the matter before the Sangguniang Barangay, Domanpot, Asingan, Pangasinan, but the parties did not reach a settlement; the plaintiffs-appellees were compelled to engage the services of counsel, and agreed to pay Php20,000.00 (acceptance fee), and Php2,000.00 for every scheduled hearing (appearance fee), and would incur litigation expenses because of the defendants-appellants’ unjustified refusal to terminate their co-ownership and to partition the subject property in accordance with their corresponding shares.
The Complaint prayed that the RTC render judgment: 1) ordering the termination of the co-ownership of the parties over the subject property, and the subdivision and partition of the subject property among the children/heirs of the late Eugenio Lucas with 1/6 portion to each of the plaintiffs-appellees, and 1/6 portion to the defendants-appellants (as heirs of Domingo Lucas); 2) ordering the defendants-appellants to pay the plaintiffs-appellees Php20,000.00 (acceptance fee), Php2,000.00 per scheduled hearing (appearance fee), and not less than Php20,000.00 (litigation expenses); and 3) ordering the defendants-appellants to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.
In the Answer and Motion to Dismiss,[3] the defendants-appellants prayed that the RTC dismiss the Complaint, and alleged: Eugenio Lucas became a citizen of, permanentyly resided in, and died in, the United States of America (“U.S.”), and did not have the chance to possess or cultivate the subject property; Domingo Lucas (father and husband of the defendants-appellants) was the actual tenant of the subject property, and the defendants-appellants acquired Domingo Lucas’ tenancy and cultivation of the subject property; the subject property was an agricultural land, and was devoted to rice production; the Department of Agrarian Reform (“DAR”) committed a mistake in awarding the property to Eugenio Lucas because Eugenio Lucas was permanently living in the U.S., and the DAR should have awarded the subject property to Domingo Lucas who was in actual possession of the subject property; the defendants-appellants were not able to oppose or correct the erroneous registration of the subject property because of their poor financial status; the defendants-appellants paid the real property tax on the subject property.
Trial on the merits proceeded.
The plaintiffs-appellees presented the following persons as witnesses: plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr.; plaintiff-appellee Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz.
The plaintiffs-appellees’ evidence is summarized thus: Eugenio Lucas was the registered owner of the subject property;[4] in 2003, Eugenio Lucas died and was survived by his six children (namely, plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr., Peter Lucas, Marina Lucas-Nagun, Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz, Amparo Lucas-Tapaoan, and Domingo Lucas); in 1994 Domingo Lucas died, and was survived by the defendants-appellants (namely, Domingo Lucas’ wife defendant-appellant Flora Piso-Lucas, and Domingo Lucas’ four children [defendant-appellant Loly Lucas, defendant-appellant Matilda Lucas, defendant-appellant Ferdinand Lucas, and defendant-appellant Daisy Lucas]); the plaintiffs-appellees went to the office of the Sangguniang Barangay in Domanpot because they wanted to partition the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas, but the defendants-appellants did not agree, thus the Sangguniang Barangay of Domanpot issued the Certification to File Action;[5] the plaintiffs-appellees were constrained to secure the services of counsel, whom they agreed to pay Php20,000.00 (acceptance fee) and Php2,000.00 for every attended hearing (appearance fee), and incurred Php20,000.00 in expenses for filing the Complaint; plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr., and plaintiff-appellee Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz, suffered sleepless nights because of the adamant refusal of the defendants-appellants to subdivide and partition the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
The defendants-appellants presented the following persons as witnesses: defendant-appellant Flora Piso Lucas (mother of the defendants-appellants); defendant-appellant Ferdinand Lucas; Clarita Jover (Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer [“MARO”], Asingan, Pangasinan).
The defendants-appellants’ evidence is summarized thus: Eugenio Lucas cultivated the subject property (which was previously owned by Maria Altre) until 1983, when Eugenio Lucas left the Philippines to reside in Hawaii;[6] after Eugenio Lucas left the Philippines in 1983, Eugenio Lucas’ son, Domingo Lucas, cultivated the subject property, and Domingo Lucas became the tenant of the subject property during Domingo’s lifetime; in 1993, the subject property was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (“CARP”) of the government, and the government required Domingo Lucas, as tenant-beneficiary, to pay the price of the subject property so that Domingo Lucas could become the owner of the subject property; Domingo Lucas and his wife, defendant-appellant Flora Piso-Lucas, went to the MARO, Asingan, Pangasinan, and paid Php10,000.00 (as partial payment) for the subject property,[7] and TCT T-1439 was issued bearing the name of Eugenio Lucas;[8] Domingo Lucas and his wife inquired with the MARO as to why the certificate of title was in the name of Eugenio Lucas (and not in the name of Domingo Lucas), but the MARO informed them that the subject property would belong to Domingo Lucas in the future because Eugenio Lucas was the father of Domingo Lucas; Domingo Lucas cultivated the subject property from 1983 until Domingo’s death in 1994, and on instructions from Eugenio Lucas, Domingo Lucas gave Maria Altre, and Raul de Mesa a share in the harvest; after Domingo Lucas died, Ferdinand Lucas (son of Domingo Lucas) succeeded his father in cultivating the subject property, and Ferdinand Lucas gave plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr. a share in the harvest;[9] after TCT No. T-1439 was issued, the defendants-appellants stopped giving shares from the produce of the subject property to anyone, and paid the realty tax on the subject property;[10] in 2000, Eugenio Lucas went back to the Philippines, and stayed in the country until his death in 2003; plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr. did not cultivate the subject property; the defendants-appellants paid their first lawyer Php10,000.00, and also paid their second lawyer Php10,000.00, plus Php1,500.00 for every court appearance, and incurred litigation expenses estimated at Php40,000.00;[11] the title of the subject property should be registered under the name of the defendants-appellants because they were the ones who had been in possession of, and had been cultivating, the subject property.
On 24 April 2012, the RTC issued the assailed Decision,[12] which ruled in favor of plaintiffs-appellees. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Ordering the partition of the property covered by TCT No. T-1439 in six (6) equal parts with the heirs getting their shares as follows:
a) Alberto Lucas, Sr. – one-sixth (1/6) portion;
b) Peter Lucas – one-sixth (1/6) portion;
c) Marina Lucas-Nagun – one-sixth (1/6) portion;
d) Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz – one-sixth (1/6) portion;
e) Amparo Lucas-Tapaoan – one-sixth (1/6) portion;
f) Heirs of Domingo Lucas – one-sixth (1/6) portion; and2. Denying plaintiffs’ claim for damages and attorney’s fees.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, defendants-appellants filed the Notice of Appeal.[13]
In the Appellants’ Brief,[14] the defendants-appellants make the following assignment of errors:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
- IN FAILING TO RULE THAT THE DAR/MARO COMMITTED AN ERRONEOUS ISSUANCE OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-1439 IN THE NAME OF EUGENIO LUCAS.
- IN FAILING TO RULE THAT EUGENIO LUCAS WAS NOT QUALIFIED AS TENANT BENEFICIARY OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING.
- IN FAILING TO RULE THAT DOMINGO LUCAS WAS THE QUALIFIED BENEFICIARY OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING.
- IN FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 1439 WAS OWNED BY THE LATE EUGENIO LUCAS.
- IN ORDERING THE PARTITION OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING AMONG THE HEIRS OF EUGENIO LUCAS.
The issue is whether the RTC erred in ordering the partition of the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
The defendants-appellants answer in the affirmative. The RTC erred in ordering the partition of the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
The Appellants’ Brief[15] thrusts: Domingo Lucas was the qualified beneficiary of the subject property because he cultivated it from 1983 until his death in 1994; the MARO erred in awarding the subject property in favor of Eugenio Lucas because Eugenio Lucas was not qualified as tenant-beneficiary of the subject property; TCT No. T-1439 was erroneously registered in the name of Eugenio Lucas.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES
The plaintiffs-appellees answer in the negative. The RTC did not err in ordering the partition of the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
The Brief for the Appellees[16] parries: the registered owner of the subject property was Eugenio Lucas; the plaintiffs-appellees and defendants-appellants are the co-owners of the subject property, which they inherited from Eugenio Lucas, thus the the RTC correctly ruled that partition of the subject property was proper; the action for partition was not the proper venue to question the ownership of the registered subject property.
THE COURT’S RULING
We rule in the negative. The RTC did not err in ordering the partition of the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
The subject property belonged to the
estate of Eugenio Lucas. The plaintiffs-
appellees and the defendants-appellants
are the co-owners of the subject
property.
Rule 69, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is relevant. It states:
Section 1. Complaint in action for partition of real estate. — A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. The determination as to the existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution of an action for partition.[17] As such, the settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage in an action for partition.[18]
There is here preponderance of evidence that the subject property belonged to the estate of Eugenio Lucas. Hence, the RTC did not err in ordering the partition of the subject property among the heirs of Eugenio Lucas.
The records show that the subject property is covered by TCT No. T-1439[19] in the name of Eugenio Lucas. It is settled that the certificate of title (TCT No. T-1439 in this case) is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land.[20] It is a fundamental principle in land registration that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears there in.[21]
We agree with the findings of the RTC that the defendants-appellants failed to overcome plaintiffs-appellees’ evidence as to the ownership over the subject property.[22]
There is here is no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the defendants-appellants’ claim that Domingo Lucas, and not Eugenio Lucas, was the owner of the subject property.
The defendants-appellants presented the following documents to prove that Domingo Lucas was the owner of the subject property: the undated Certification[23] which stated that Domingo Lucas, the bona fide tenant-farmer of a 3,774 square meter parcel of land, made a partial payment of Php10,000.00 for the said parcel of land; various official receipts[24] which showed that Domingo Lucas and the defendants-appellants paid the real property tax on the subject property; the testimonies of defendants-appellants Ferdinand P. Lucas and Flora Piso-Lucas that Domingo Lucas became the tenant of the subject property after Eugenio Lucas left for Hawaii in 1983, and became the farmer-beneficiary after the subject property was covered by the CARP in 1993[25].
We are not persuaded.
The undated Certification deserves scant consideration. While the Certificate stated that Domingo Lucas was the tenant-farmer of the subject property, and that Domingo paid Php10,000.00 as partial payment for the subject property, the categorical testimony of Clarita A. Jover (who issued the undated Certification) is that Eugenio Lucas (and not Domingo Lucas) was the one who paid the purchase price for the subject property. Clarita testified:
xxx Q- What is the reason Madam Witness why the title was eventually issued to Eugenio Lucas and not to Domingo Lucas? A. Because at the time of the documentation, Eugenio Lucas was still alive. Q. What other reason aside from the fact that Eugenio Lucas was still alive, was the title issued to Eugenio Lucas and not to Domingo Lucas? A. That is the reason, he was still alive and they are the one paying.[26] xxx
(Emphasis supplied.)
Further, it is unclear whether the property referred to in the Certification pertained to the subject property, there being no adequate description of the land, nor any indication of its metes and bounds. Thus, it is unclear whether Domingo Lucas partially paid the purchase price for the subject property, or for some other property.
Defendants-appellants’ tax receipts showing that Domingo Lucas paid the real estate taxes on the subject property do not prove that Domingo Lucas was the owner of the subject property. Well settled is the rule that receipts of payment of real estate taxes are not conclusive proof of ownership, or of the right to possess land, in the absence of any other strong evidence to support them. At the very least, the tax receipts are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.[27]
Neither do we give credence to the testimonies of defendant-appellant Ferdinand Lucas and Flora Piso-Lucas that Domingo Lucas became the tenant of the subject property, and that as such he became the farmer-beneficiary after the subject property was covered by the CARP in 1993. Other than the testimonies of defendant-appellant Ferdinand Lucas and defendant-appellant Flora Piso-Lucas, defendants-appellants did not present any tenancy agreement between the original owner of the subject property and Domingo Lucas, nor did defendants-appellants submit any evidence to show that Domingo Lucas applied with the DAR to avail of the benefits under the CARP, or at the very least, any evidence that Domingo Lucas opposed Eugenio Lucas’ application.
The certificate of title in the name of Eugenio Lucas is indefeasible. However, the indefeasibility of a certificate of title does not mean that a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name (as claimed by the defendants-appellants) is without remedy in law.
As in this case, the remedy of the defendants-appellants, who claimed that the subject property was wrongfully or erroneously registered in Eugenio Lucas’ name is an action for reconveyance, or an action for damages if the property has passed onto the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[28]
The fact that Domingo Lucas or the defendants-appellants did not avail of any one of these remedies, even though they claimed that the title to the subject property was erroneously registered under the name of Eugenio Lucas, militates against their claim of ownership over the subject property.
As such, TCT No. T-1439, registered in the name of Eugenio Lucas, remains as the best proof of evidence of ownership over the subject property.
Since it is not disputed that plaintiffs-appellees and the defendants-appellants are all heirs of the late Eugenio Lucas, plaintiffs-appellees and the defendants-appellants became the co-owners of the subject property upon the death of Eugenio Lucas. Under Article 494 of the New Civil Code,[29] as co-owners of the subject property, the plaintiffs-appellees are entitled to end their co-ownership and to subdivide and partition the subject property.
The RTC’s division of
shares on the subject
property was proper.
It is undisputed that Eugenio Lucas died a widower, with six children (plaintiff-appellee Alberto Lucas Sr., plaintiff-appellee Peter Lucas, plaintiff-appellee Marina Lucas-Nagun, plaintiff-appellee Violeta Lucas-Lara Cruz, plaintiff-appellee Amparo Lucas-Tapaoan, and Domingo Lucas). It is also undisputed that Domingo Lucas died ahead of his father, Eugenio Lucas. Thus Domingo Lucas’ five children (defendant-appellant Loly Lucas-Piso, defendant-appellant Ferdinand Lucas, defendant-appellant Daisy Lucas, defendant-appellant Noradel Lucas, and defendant-appellant Matilda Lucas) survived Eugenio Lucas by right of representation.
Article 981 of the New Civil Code is applicable. It states:
Article 981. Should children of the deceased and descendants of other children who are dead, survive the former shall inherit in their own right, and the latter by right of representation
The RTC’s division of shares on the subject property, as stated in the dispositive portion of the assailed Decision,[30] is correct.
We DISMISS the appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
De Leon, M.M., Chairperson and Lantion, J.A.C., JJ., concur.
[1] C.A. Rollo, p. 69.
[2] Records, p. 2.
[3] Records, p. 18.
[4] Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 8.
[5] Exhibit “C,” Records, p. 147.
[6] Exhibit “6” (and sub-markings), Records, p. 290.
[7] Exhibit “2” (and sub-markings), Records, p. 279.
[8] Exhibit “1”
[9] Exhibit “3” (and sub-markings), Records, p. 280.
[10] Exhibit “4: (and sub-markings), Records, p. 281.
[11] Exhibit “11” (and sub-markings), Records, p. 299.
[12] Supra, note 1.
[13] Records, p. 322.
[14] C.A. Rollo, p. 29.
[15] Ibid.
[16] C.A. Rollo, p. 79.
[17] Bagayas v. Bagayas, G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517, 18 September 2013, citing Dapar v. Biascan, G.R. No. 141880, 27 September 2004.
[18] Heirs of Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126996, 15 February 2000.
[19] Exhibit “B,” supra, note, 4.
[20] Serrano v. Spouses Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, 10 November 2006.
[21] Spouses Vilbar v. Opinion, G.R. No. 176043, 15 January 2014, citing Vda. de Retuerto v. Barz, G.R. No. 148180, 19 December 2001.
[22] Decision, supra, note 1.
[23] Exhibit “2,” supra note, 7.
[24] Exhibit “4” (and sub-markings), supra, note 10.
[25] Exhibit “12,” Records, p. 301.
[26] TSN, 04 October 2010, p. 21.
[27] Republic of the Philippines vs. Manimtim, G.R. No. 169599, 16 March 2011.
[28] Rodrigo v. Ancilla, G.R. No. 139897, 26 June 2006. 29Article 494 of the Civil Code states:
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
xxx
[30] Supra, note 1.