JUAN ENDOZO AND SPOUSES JOSE AND DOROTHY NGO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HEIRS OF JULIA BUCK, RESPONDENTS.

Under consideration is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision^[1] dated July 31, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as reiterated in its Resolution^[2] of July 20, 2001, in CA-G.R. CV No. 57785, an appeal thereto taken by the herein petitioners from an adverse decision^[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, in its
Civil Case No. TG-1220, an action for reconveyance with damages,
thereat commenced by the petitioners against one Julia Buck,
predecessor-in-interest of the herein respondents.

The assailed CA decision affirmed with minor modification that of the
trial court, while the equally challenged resolution denied the
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

At the core of the controversy is a parcel of land identified as Lot
4863, Cad. 355 of the Tagaytay Cadastre (Lot 4863, for brevity) with an
area of 27,742 square meters, more or less.

The decision under review recites the facts, as follows:

 

xxx Juan Endozo claims to be the owner of a parcel of land
identified as Lot 4863, Cad. 355 of the Tagaytay Cadastre …. The land
is described as formerly within the Municipality of Talisay, Batangas
situated in Barangay Calabuso, but which is allegedly now within
Tagaytay City due to a change in the boundary line dividing Tagaytay
City and Talisay, Batangas. Endozo claims that the lot was part of a
family-owned 16-hectare property lot with the flat portion found in
Tranka, Talisay, Batangas; that the 16-hectare property was the subject
of an extrajudicial partition among the heirs of his parents Carlos
Endozo and Maria Perez Endozo who had five children; that on 19 July
1991, he sold the subject lot to co-plaintiffs-appellants spouses Mr.
Jose Ngo and Mrs. Dorothy Ngo in whose name Cadastral Plan No.
Ap-04-006312 was approved; that the portion he sold to the Ngos is
level and near the property which used to belong to Hammond Buck, …
[Julia’s] father; that the spouses Jose and Dorothy Ngo were not able
to transfer the tax declaration from Talisay, Batangas Assessor’s
Office to Tagaytay City as the said parcel of land had been already
declared for taxation purposes in the name of … Julia Buck.

xxx  Julia Buck claims ownership of the [disputed] property as
successor to the rights and interest of her father, Mr. Hammond Buck,
once owner … of 100 hectares located in Tagaytay City. Julia Buck
applied for, and was granted, Free Patent No. (IV-2) 017534, and was
thereafter issued Original Certificate of Title No 0-602 over the
property which was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Tagaytay City in her  name on 23 November 1982.

Juan Endozo’s complaint was initially dismissed …. The order of
dismissal was reconsidered and the case ordered reinstated upon the
filing of an amended complaint [docketed as Civil Case No. TG 1220 of
the RTC of Tagaytay City] on 27 January 1992 impleading the spouses Ngo
as additional plaintiffs.

After the parties presented evidence, the lower court ruled that …
Julia Buck had the better right to the land in question; that her title
was now indefeasible against mere tax declarations presented by
plaintiff-appellant Juan Endozo for properties which are located not in
Tagaytay but in Talisay, Batangas. The lower court also noted that …
Juan Endozo failed to present the extrajudicial partition which he
claimed had been executed by his parents over their alleged 16-hectare
landholding.^[4] (Words in brackets added.)

The fallo of the decision^[5] dated June 13, 1997 of the RTC of Tagaytay City, finding for Julia Buck, as defendant thereat, reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders
judgment dismissing the complaint filed by plaintiffs and ordering the
plaintiffs to pay defendant moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00
and to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P200,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Therefrom, herein petitioners, as plaintiffs in the court of origin,
 appealed to the CA whereat their appellate recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57785.  Meanwhile,  Julia Buck died and was substituted by the herein respondent  heirs.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its herein assailed Decision^[6] dated July 31, 2000, affirmed with slight modification that of the trial court, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is accordingly
MODIFIED by deleting the awards of P100,000.00 for moral damages and
P200,000.00 for attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the appealed
decision is AFFIRMED.

With their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the CA in its equally challenged Resolution^[7] of July 20, 2001, petitioners are now with this Court via the instant recourse, claiming that the CA erred –

I

XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED BY BOTH THE PETITIONERS
AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT EVEN PROXIMATE, AND THAT PETITIONER JUAN
ENDOZO FAILED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF THE
16-HECTARE PROPERTY WHICH ALLEGEDLY INCLUDED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

II

XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMTION THAT THE GRANT OF FREE PATENT AND
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE BY VIRTUE THEREOF WERE REGULAR AND
MADE AFTER ALL THE REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPLICANT
JULIA BUCK, HAD NOT BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS SPOUSES NGO HAD PRESENTED COMPETENT
AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM OVER DISPUTED PROPERTY.

III

XXX IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE APPLICANT JULIA BUCK IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE
THE BENEFICIARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PUBLIC LAND LAW ON FREE PATENT.

IV

XXX IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PETITIONERS HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.

V

XXX IN NOT GRANTING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AND CONSIDERING THAT THE SUPPOSED CLASSIFICATION
OF SUBJECT LAND AS FOREST LAND AND THE INCIPIENT REVERSION  PROCEEDINGS
 TO  BE  INSTITUTED, WOULD HAVE NO BEARING AND WOULD BE ADVERSED TO
PETITIONERS’ CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT LAND.

VI

XXX IN FAILING TO RESOLVE SQUARELY THE ISSUE THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED
IN ADOPTING THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE APPLICANT-DEFENDANT JULIA BUCK.

We DENY.

The
main and decisive issue tendered by the petitioners is factual,
revolving as it were around the identity and location of the disputed
 Lot 4863.

For sure,  the  lot  claimed  by  the  petitioners  as  theirs  had
been determined  by  the  trial  court  to  be  different  from  Lot
 4863  over  which  Free  Patent  No. (IV-2) 017534  and later Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-602 were issued to Julia Buck.   The Court
finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, it
being axiomatic that such findings, especially when affirmed by the CA,
as here, are binding on this Court. It is not the function of this
Court to re-examine the trial court’s findings of facts. ^[8]  

Here, the trial court found:

x x x evidence before this court actually shows that Juan
Endozo’s family owns properties within Talisay, Batangas boundary below
the smaller lot of defendant Julia A. Buck. It is not even near or
adjacent to the lot now being claimed by plaintiffs which is a bigger
lot with an area of 27,742 sq, m. If the claim is on the smaller lot
adjacent to the Endozo property in Talisay, the claim would be more
credible since as claimed by Endozo in their tax declaration (Exh.
“5”), one of the boundaries of the claimed Endozo property is a land
owned by Hammond Buck, the defendant’s father. But for Endozo to claim
ownership on a distant property not adjacent to theirs which could not
possibly be part of the Talisay land and segregated merely because of
the fact that such portion of his property became part of Tagaytay
City, taxes one’s credibility. There is clearly a mistake in Endozo
claiming defendant’s bigger lot which is farther away and not smaller
(OCT 601) lot which is adjacent to Endozo property still found in
Talisay, Batangas and which in fact adjoins the same on its northern
portion.^[9]

The CA was more specific with respect to the difference of the lot thus
claimed by the petitioners and that covered by the free patent of the
respondent heirs’ predecessor-in-interest, Julia Buck. Wrote the CA:

The common surveyor of the parties, …, who testified for
the defense, averred that what he surveyed for … Mariano Endozo
(Exhibit “11”, Record p. 284) is a parcel of land containing an area of
38,869 square meters, specifically marked on the Sketch Plan (Record,
p. 286) as Exhibit “11-C”, located at Barangay Tranca, Municipality of
Talisay, Province of Batangas …. In Exhibit “11”,  it is shown that the
land in dispute  Lot  4863  and Lot 4862 pertain to Julia Buck.  This
is affirmed by the Sketch Plan marked Exhibit “2” (Record p. 268) where
it is shown that both the disputed Lot 4863 (marked Exhibit “2-A” and
Lot 4862 (marked Exhibit “2-D”)  belong  to  Julia  Buck.  In  the
 Sketch Plan of the LRA (Record p. 268) apparently identified as
Exhibit “12” and also marked as Exhibit “J” (evidently a common exhibit
of both parties), it appears  that  the  disputed Lot 4863 is opposite
the lot of Mariano Endozo. In Exhibits “2”, “11”, “12” and “15”
(Boundary Index Map), what appears as contiguous to Endozo’s lot is Lot
4862 which is not the disputed lot.

As observed by the trial court, the area surveyed for the Endozos
situated in Tranca, Talisay, Batangas and the one now being claimed by
them in Tagaytay are not even proximate. Moreover, although Juan Endozo
claims that there had been an extrajudicial partition of the 16-hectare
property which allegedly includes the subject lot, he was unable to
present a copy of the same.

In their attempt at a reversal, petitioners, citing
Section 44 of the Public Land Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 6940,
alleged that Julia Buck was not qualified to be a beneficiary or to
acquire Lot 4863.

We are not persuaded. For, apart from the categorical finding of the
CA, affirmatory of that of the trial court, that Julia Buck was so
qualified, the latter has in her favor the presumptive validity of Free
Patent No. (IV-2) 017534 and the complementing presumption that no
title by virtue thereof shall be secured unless the requirements of
Section 44 of the Public Land Act  had been complied with. We quote
with approval the trial court’s disquisition, as reproduced in the CA’s
assailed Decision, on this regard, thus:

Finally, the claim of plaintiffs that … Julia Buck had
employed fraudulent and clandestine means to obtain for herself the
Free Patent on the subject land have not been proven with sufficient
competent and credible evidence. For instance, the claim that … Julia
Buck is not a farmer and has not been in possession of subject premises
was belied by the surveyor who made the survey in 1981 that said land
was in the possession of … Julia Buck through ‘Mang Tino’ who was
working and planting on the same. On the claim that Julia Buck did not
present any plan or that there is  none existing in the Bureau of Lands
is testified to by only (sic)  plaintiff Jose Ngo from alleged
verification made by him with the personnel of the Bureau of Lands
whose name he does not know. His testimony on this point is hearsay. He
should have subpoenaed the records of the Bureau.

In the absence of any such competent evidence, the regularity of the
performance of official function should apply. As Section 108 of the
Public Land Act provides that ‘no patent shall issue nor shall a
concession nor contract be finally approved unless the land has been
surveyed and an accurate plot made thereof by the Bureau of Lands,’ the
presumption is that there was an approved plan presented by … Julia
Buck. The presentation of evidence showing the issuance of a Free
Patent in favor of … Julia Buck shows that there is an approved plan
for [her] on the lot in question.^[10] (Words in bracket added.)

Given the above perspective, the issue of whether or not the
petitioners’ suit for reconveyance based on fraud had already
prescribed is of little moment and need not detain us long.  Suffice it
to state that the period within which to file a  reconveyance suit
based  on  that ground is four (4) years from the discovery of the
fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance
of the original certificates of title.^[11] Thus, the trial court correctly ruled:

Even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to order
reconveyance, said action … would have already prescribed in this case.
The basis of  [the petitioners’] complaint is that the Free Patent
issued in favor of … Julia Buck had been obtained through fraudulent
means. Such fraud according to [the petitioners] in the presentation of
their evidence would refer to the failure to submit a proper
application, a plan and failure to post notice in the property itself
…. Since such is the claim of [the petitioners], the cause of action
would have accrued from the time of registration of the title and would
prescribe four (4) years therefrom. Since the title was issued in 1982
and the complaint was filed only in 1991, more than four (4) years had
clearly elapsed and that therefore said cause of action had already
prescribed.^[12] (Words in brackets added.)

The  petitioners’ lament that the CA erred in not granting their motion
 for  new trial based on newly-discovered evidence is untenable  since
the supposed newly-discovered evidence consisted of proof that Lot 4863
 falls  under  the  category  of  a  forest  land  and  therefore
 ought to be  reverted to the State. The purported classification of
Lot 4863 as forest, if that be the case, has no bearing on the
 petitioners’ claim. Stated otherwise, should it be proven that Lot
4863 is not a disposable or alienable public land, forming as it does
part of the forest zone, then the petitioners have no business
asserting a claim over it and ask for its reconveyance in their favor. 
 

Lastly, petitioners may not now question the alleged adoption by the
trial court of respondents’ draft decision. The record shows that both
petitioners and respondents agreed to submit their respective draft
decisions to the court.  In fact, in their Manifestation,^[13] petitioners, as plaintiffs, submitted their own draft decision^[14]
“as the same is wide (sic) practice (sic) in the RTC and approved by
the Supreme Court.”  We may add, that in fairness to the trial judge,
his decision of June 13, 1997 is far from a mere reproduction of the
respondents’ draft decision but embodies his own detailed scrutiny and
analysis of the parties’ testimonial and documentary evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 57785 are AFFIRMED.

Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with then Associate Justices Ma.
Alicia Austria-Martinez (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court)
and Elvi-John S. Asuncion (separated from the service ) concurring; 
rollo, pp. 78-90.

^[2] Id. at 92.

^[3] Id. at 135-151.

^[4] Id. at 79-80.

^[5] Id. at 151.

^[6] Supra note 1.

^[7] Supra note 2.

^[8] Yu Bun Guan v. Ong, G.R. No. 144735, October 18, 2001, 367 SCRA 559.

^[9] Rollo, p. 149.

^[10] Id. at  84-85.

^[11] Esconde v. Barlongay, G.R. No. L-67583, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 603.

^[12] Supra note 3 at 150-151.

^[13] Rollo, p. 108.

^[14] Id. at 109-121.