HEIRS OF FRANCISCO NABONG, NAMELY: ROSALINO, CECILIO, PURIFICACION, MARCIANO, LEONIDES AND REALINA, ALL SURNAMED NABONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PUREZA AÑAR, ERNITA AÑAR, PURISIMA A. C…

Nabong versus Añar

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 brought by the heirs of Francisco Nabong against the heirs of Apolonio Añar. The action began as a complaint for quieting of title with damages over a parcel of coconut land in Santa Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental. The case matters because it shows what the Supreme Court does when the records simply cannot establish the identity of the land in litigation: rather than guess, it sets aside the rulings below and remands for a resurvey. It is a lesson in the importance of proving the identity of the property before asking a court to quiet title to it.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their complaint for quieting of title with damages in the Court of First Instance, later the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 23, in June 1973. The proceedings dragged on for more than twenty years; the original parties were substituted by their heirs, pleadings were amended, counsel changed, and the case passed from one judge to another. On May 10, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment for the petitioners, declaring them owners and possessors of the property and awarding attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages.

The respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's decision and entered a new one, declaring the petitioners owners of 1,780 hectares on the eastern portion of Lot 21 and the respondents owners of the remaining 2,000 hectares on the western side. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

The petitioners claimed to be co-owners of a coconut land in Santa Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, with an area of 1.4892 hectares, planted with 204 coconut trees. They anchored their claim on several tax declarations issued in the name of their deceased father, Francisco Nabong, covering the years 1948, 1963, 1967, 1973, and 1974, coupled with open, adverse, and continuous possession for almost thirty years. They alleged that the respondents, despite knowledge of their ownership, filed a malicious complaint with the Office of the Provincial Commander of Cagayan de Oro City asserting an adverse interest. The respondents answered that they owned the property and that the petitioners were mere squatters, relying on tax declarations in the name of the late Apolonio Añar covering a coconut land of 2 hectares.

Because the identity of the litigated property was in doubt, the trial court appointed the Provincial Assessor of Misamis Oriental as commissioner. In her report, the commissioner found that the property described in the petitioners' Tax Declaration Number 19831 pertained to Lot 21 of the cadastral survey, containing 37,800 square meters, and that the property pinpointed by the respondents' heirs was the very same property pinpointed by Leonides Nabong. She concluded that the tax declarations of both sides referred to one and the same property.

The trial court nonetheless awarded to the petitioners the parcel described in their complaint, measuring 1.4892 hectares. The Court of Appeals modified this, splitting Lot 21 between the parties so as to give each side the portion it claimed. The Supreme Court noted that the tax declarations of both parties do not conform to the boundaries of Lot 21, and that the commissioner, an assessor rather than a geodetic engineer, made only an ocular inspection and never accounted for her conclusion.

Issues

• Whether or not the identity of the property in litigation was sufficiently established to support a judgment quieting title in favor of either party.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dividing Lot 21 between the petitioners and the respondents instead of resolving the case on the evidence presented.
• Whether or not the case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory text; it applies the settled requirements of an action to quiet title, which the Court treats as requiring that the property in dispute be identified with certainty. The governing principle may be stated thus:

An action to quiet title requires that the plaintiff establish ownership of the property described in the complaint, and ownership cannot be established unless the identity of the property is first determined with certainty.

This principle bears on the case because the conflicting tax declarations and the inconclusive commissioner's report left the Court unable to determine which land was actually in dispute.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the identity of the property was not established. The tax declarations of the petitioners and the respondents carried different boundaries and areas, and the commissioner's report, based on an inspection made in 1989, contained no finding that the property then inspected had the same boundaries as those originally described. The Court observed that the case would have been clearly resolved had the trial court appointed a geodetic engineer, rather than the municipal assessor, to ascertain the identity of the property and its history.

On the second issue, the Court found itself in a quandary and declined to reconcile the boundaries, location, and exact measurement of the subject property. It held that it would be futile to do so, since no amount of effort would identify the property with certainty against the tax declarations of the parties. The appellate court's Solomonic division of Lot 21 could not stand.

On the third issue, the Court held that, although the matter was already fait accompli — a thing already done — it was constrained, in order to decide the case equitably, to remand to the trial court. The trial court was ordered to cause the resurvey of the boundaries of the property claimed by the parties based on their respective tax declarations, by a team of surveyors to be appointed by it, and thereafter to decide the case accordingly.

Doctrine

A bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must prove not only ownership but the identity of the property; a judgment cannot rest on tax declarations whose boundaries and areas conflict and which are not reconciled with the actual land. Second, when the identity of the litigated property is uncertain, the courts should not arbitrarily divide the land between the parties; equity does not authorize a court to award portions neither party has proven. Third, the Supreme Court may remand a case for a resurvey by a team of surveyors, since a geodetic engineer is better qualified than a municipal assessor to ascertain the identity and history of the property.

Disposition

The petition was granted in effect: the decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City for a resurvey of the boundaries of the property claimed by the parties, after which the trial court is to decide the case accordingly, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in a quieting of title, the identity of the property must be established with certainty, and where it is not, the Supreme Court will remand for a resurvey rather than divide the land. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of an action to quiet title and the limits of a court's equitable power to split property between conflicting claimants.