SPS. RONALD HUTCHISON AND VALENTINE NAVALLE-HUTCHISON, PETITIONERS, VS. ENRIQUE M. BUSCAS, RESPONDENT.

Hutchison versus Buscas

The Case

This is a boundary dispute over 6,471 square meters of land in San Juan, Lubao, Pampanga. The spouses Ronald and Valentine Hutchison, registered owners of a large lot, are sued by Enrique M. Buscas, who claims that a portion of his adjacent land was encroached upon by the spouses. The action is one for accion reinvindicatoria — a suit to recover ownership and possession of real property. The case matters because it restates, with precision, the two things a plaintiff in a recovery of property case must prove, and because it shows how a plaintiff who relies on the weakness of the defendant's title rather than the strength of his own must fail.

Procedural History

Buscas first filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court of Lubao, Pampanga. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in his favor. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, holding that the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the matter is a boundary dispute, and that the proper action should have been an accion reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court.

Buscas then filed a case for accion reinvindicatoria with the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga. After trial, that court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It ruled that the Quitclaim Deed was not sufficient proof of ownership, that Buscas failed to clearly identify the property claimed because it was marked only with an "X" sign, and that the Hutchison spouses, as registered owners, are entitled to possession of the disputed lot.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. It ruled that Buscas is entitled to possession of the disputed area because he was able to prove his claim of ownership and the identity of the subject land. Hence, this appeal by the spouses to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the Court of Appeals' conclusions on the identity of the property, on the Quitclaim Deed as title, on the surveys, on the sufficiency of evidence, and on the declaration of ownership in favor of Buscas.

Facts

On October 1, 1987, the Hutchison spouses purchased from V.A. Development Enterprises, Inc. a parcel of land of 76,207 square meters, designated as Lot Number 7216, in San Juan, Lubao, Pampanga. They occupied the land after a title was issued in their names.

On August 22, 1989, Juanita Arrastia, the owner of a lot adjacent to that of the spouses, sold a portion of her land to Buscas. The transaction covered 7,581 square meters, designated as Lot Number 7047-A, and was evidenced by a Quitclaim Deed in favor of Buscas. Buscas occupied 1,100 square meters of his land. However, he failed to register the portion in his name, and title to the property remained in Arrastia's name.

On January 10, 1995, Buscas commissioned geodetic engineer Narciso Manansala to survey his property. The survey revealed that 6,471 square meters thereof was occupied by the Hutchison spouses. Buscas sent a demand letter to the spouses to vacate the encroached area. The spouses refused and insisted that it was part of their land. This led to the unlawful detainer case, then to the accion reinvindicatoria, and eventually to this appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not Buscas sufficiently identified the property he seeks to recover.
• Whether or not the Quitclaim Deed over a portion of land is sufficient title in favor of Buscas.
• Whether or not the surveys caused to be prepared by Buscas can prove the identity of the contested land and his ownership thereof.
• Whether or not Buscas proved by a preponderance of evidence that his property was encroached upon by the spouses.
• Whether or not Buscas is entitled to a declaration of ownership over the 6,471 square meters and to an order for the spouses to vacate the same.

Applicable Provisions

Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides:

In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

This is the core provision the Court applies: it lays down the two requisites of identity of the land and title thereto, and the rule that the plaintiff must stand on his own title.

Section 5 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.

This bears on the case because Buscas failed to present Annex "A" of the Quitclaim Deed and likewise failed to lay the basis for secondary evidence of its contents.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Buscas failed to establish the identity of the land. In an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims a better right must first fix the identity of the land by describing its location, area, and boundaries. The Quitclaim Deed specified only the extent of the area sold, that is, 7,581 square meters, and referred to an attached plan marked as Annex "A" where the portion sold was marked with an "X" sign. But Annex "A" was not presented at the trial. As the Deed itself failed to mention the metes and bounds of the land, it cannot be used to identify the area claimed. The Court stressed that what defines a piece of land is not the size mentioned in the instrument but the boundaries thereof which enclose the land and indicate its exact limits.

On the second issue, the Court held that a party can claim a right of ownership only over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed. Since the Deed did not describe the metes and bounds, it could not prove Buscas' title over the disputed area.

On the third issue, the Court held that the surveys of the geodetic engineers could not prove the identity of the contested area or Buscas' ownership. The engineers merely relied on Buscas' self-serving statement that he owns the portion adjacent to the spouses; they were not shown the Quitclaim Deed and its Annex "A" or any other document of title describing the specific portion conveyed.

On the fourth issue, the Court applied the best evidence rule. Where the contents of a document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the instrument itself. Here the identity of the land and Buscas' ownership are the very facts in issue, and the best evidence is the Quitclaim Deed and its Annex "A." Buscas' failure to adduce Annex "A," or to produce secondary evidence after proof of its loss, destruction, or unavailability, is fatal to his cause.

On the fifth issue, the Court reiterated that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's title. Since Buscas failed to prove his title to and the identity of the contested land, there exists no legal ground upon which to turn over possession of the disputed area to him.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in an action to recover ownership of real property, the plaintiff must prove two things: the identity of the land claimed, and his title thereto. Second, identity is fixed by describing the location, area, and boundaries of the land; what defines a piece of land is not the size stated in the instrument but its boundaries. Third, a party can claim a right of ownership only over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed. Fourth, where the contents of a document are the facts in issue, the best evidence is the instrument itself, and failure to present it, or to lay the basis for secondary evidence, is fatal. Fifth, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, dismissing the complaint for accion reinvindicatoria, was reinstated, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in an action to recover real property, the plaintiff must prove the identity of the land and his title thereto, and must rely on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's. Examiners use this case to test Article 434 of the New Civil Code, the metes and bounds rule, and the best evidence rule in land disputes.