Petitioners are seeking 1) the reversal of the decision of the
respondent Court of Appeals^[1]
dated December 29, 1978, 2) the dismissal of the private res­pondents’
complaint in the case below 3) the reconveyance to
the petitioners of 2.6486 hectares or 26,486 sq. m. covered by O.C.T. #13505, Register of Deeds of Pangasinan
which lot is at present in the name of private respondents
and 4) the re-survey of subject lot actually purchased from Damasa Catalan
by private respondents based on the actual “pilapil”
and coconut trees boundaries as shown in the after ocular inspection report of
the trial court’s duly appointed commissioner and that of his rectified sketch.

Petitioners are the children of the late Dominga
Velasco who inherited Lot 12509 of the Cadastral Survey
of Malasiqui, Pangasinan.  Petitioners contend that the area of said
property was originally 54 hectares but 10 hectares were sold by their mother
so that what they inherited by way of testamentary succession are the remaining
44 hectares.  Petitioners maintain that
private respondents are encroaching on the portion of the land which belongs to
them, that what the father of private respondents bought from Damasa Catalan in 1935 was the adjoining western portion of
the land with only a total of 25,704 sq. m. or 2.5704 hectares and not a total
area of 52,908 sq. m. as applied for by respondents in the registration of the
land in 1957.  Petitioners allege that at
the time of the Bureau of Lands Cadastral Survey in the year 1935 and 1936,
Ramon Puzon was then representing (2) two conflicting
interests; namely, as overseer of Dominga Velasco over her 54-hectare land and as
overseer of his children in the land bought by them from Damasa
Catalan.  Petitioners surmise that Ramon Puzon pointed to the sur­veyor the boundary between the lot
bought by his children, and that of Dominga Velasco
as well as the places where the monuments would be placed.  They contend that the ocular inspection
report and sketch of the Court’s Commissioner clearly and patently show the intentional deviation of the boundary
line from the barrio road to the lower portion going towards the North which is
more than one kilometer in length and that the deviation is definitely against
the land of Dominga Velasco from whom the peti­tioners
inherited.  Petitioners claim that
private respondents were never in actual possession of the land in question and
it was only sometime in February 1967 or a total of more than 32 years that
private respond­ents first attempted to claim ownership over the alleged
encroached portion of more than 2 1/2 hectares, which portion is part and
parcel of the 44 hectares owned by Dominga
Velasco.  Petitioners maintain that they
have been in successive, continuous, public, peaceful and uninterrupted
possession of said 44 hectares including the questioned
portion of more than 2 1/2 hectares, in the concept of absolute owners, with
just and valid title to the exclusion
of all other persons for more than 60 years and up to the commencement of the
litigation.

On October 16, 1967,
private respondents filed the
complaint in the Court below docketed as Civil Case No. D-­2089 of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan against petitioner
herein and anchored their claim principally on the allegation that –
“sometime in 1965 defendants and her tenants entered, encroached and took
possession of a portion of around 2 1/2 hectares more or less on the
southwestern part of the afore-described parcel of land, cultivating and/or
tenanting, the same since then up to the present under the claim of void and
ineffective title or ownership.”
(p. 3, Record on Appeal).

Private respondents maintain that
the total area of petitioners’ land is only 518,113 sq. m. or 51.8113 hectares;
that when the Cadastral Survey of Lot 12509 was made, petitioners’ mother was
still living and that she herself
caused the subdivision of Cadastral Lot 12509, into Lots 12509-A, 12509-B,
12509-C, 12509-D, 12509-E and 12509-F and thereafter obtained in the same cadastral pro­ceeding, original
certificates of titles (Exhs. G, G-1, G-2, G-3, &
G-4) which she delivered in 1960 to the peti­tioners in whose names the lot was
registered, to wit:

In answer to the allegation of petitioners in their Statement of Facts
that the property of respondents was only 2 1/2 hectares pointing to the entry
in the nota­rial register of Mariano Caranto (Exh. 1), respondents
stated that petitioners misconstrued the entries therein.  Respondents claim that what was sold to respondents
under Entry No. 185 was 1/2 of the land with an area of 26,704 sq. m. and what
was sold under Entry No. 816 was the other half, with an area of 26,704 sq.m. or a total area of 53,408 sq.m.
or 5.3408 hectares.  Petitioners’
allegation that respondents’ late father represented two (2) conflic­ting
interests when he acted as overseer of the landholding of the petitioners and
acted as administrator of the property acquired from Damasa
Catalan is a brazen lie and an attempt to blacken the memory of their father as there is a total lack of evidence
whatsoever of any con­flict of interests.  As to the claim of an “intentional
deviation of the boundary line from the barrio
road” respondents allege that there is nothing in the reports and
sketches to prove such claim. 
Respondents also main­tain that aside from the aforementioned facts
petitioners failed to include in their Statement of Facts, the follow­ing facts
established by the evidence:

“1)    The subject matter of the present litigation
is a portion of that certain parcel of land situated in the Bo. Gatang, Malasiqui Pangasinan, more particularly described as follows:

‘A parcel of land (Lot No. 12510 of the Cadastral Survey of Malasiqui, Cadastral Case No. 92, L.R.C. Cad. Record No.
1860), situated in the Bo. of Gatang, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, Bounded on
the NE, by Lot Nos. 12511 and 13911; on the S. by Road; on the SW by Lot No.
12509; and on the NW by the Balas Creek, x x x contain­ing an area of Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight (52,908) sq. m. more
or less.’

“2)    That as a consequence of the cadastral pro­ceeding
over the parcel of land in litigation, Lot. No. 12510 of
the Cadastral Survey of Malasiqui, was brought under
the operation of the land Registration Law, the corresponding decree was
entered on December 3, 1956,
and Original Certificate of Title No. 13505 (Exhibit A) was issued to the
private respondents on January 5, 1957.

“3)    That the adjoining parcel of land, Lot
12509 of the Cadastral Survey of Malasiqui, with an
area of 518,113 square meters has also been the object of the same cadastral
proceeding.  Said Lot
12509 originally belonged to petitioners’ mother, the late Dominga Velasco Vda. de Ferrer.  Before the cadastral hearing, Lot. No. 12509 was subdivided into five (5)
lots, and the corresponding decrees were issued, and Original Certificates of
Title Nos. 12509, 12510, 12511, 12512, 12513 were issued for the said subdivided lots in August, 1956 (Exhs. G, G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4), MUCH EARLIER THAN THE DATE of issuance of the
decree of registration of Lot. No.
12510.

“4.)   That in 1965, private respondents informed
the original defendants, now petitioners Juan Lopez and Remedios
Ferrer-Lopez, who own Lot 12509-C which adjoins
respondents’ Lot 12510, that they encroached upon the respondents’ Lot No. 12510. 
They agreed to a relocation survey with the understan­ding that
any portion that may be found to be encroached upon by the petitioners will be
returned to private respondents.

“5)    After the relocation, however, petitioners
refused to give back possession over the portion of Lot
12510, encroached upon, so the private respondents sued the petitioners Remedios Ferrer-Lopez, together
with her hus­band, Juan Lopez.  In the
answer of the ori­ginal defendants, petitioners herein, Reme­dios
Ferrer-Lopez and Juan Lopez, made reference to the other petitioners as additional
defendants, and in an urgent ex-parte motion, moved that the other petitioners be impleaded as additional defendants.” (pp. 7-9, Brief
for the Respondents, p. 120, Rollo).

After trial, the Court a quo decided in favor of
the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) the disposi­tive
portion of the decision reading as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants ordering said defendants:

(a)  to vacate the portion of about 2-1/2 hectares
on the southwest-tern portion of Lot 12510 of the Malasiqui Cadastre covered by original certification of
title No. 13505 of the Registry of Deeds for the province
of Pangasinan,
which portion is indicated by the shaded area in red ink in the sketch plan marked Exh. F;

(b)  to pay plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the sum
of P300.00 and the costs.

SO ORDERED.” (p. 107, Record on Appeal).

Defendants (petitioners herein) appealed to the Court of Appeals
which rendered judgment affirming in toto the
assailed decision of the trial court and denied the motion for reconsideration of the same.  Hence this appeal by certiorari by
defendants-appellants assigning the following errors:

I

The respondent Court of Appeals erred in not considering, much less
applying the provisions of Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court.

II

The respondent court overlooked and failed to consider the vital
and proven fact that private respon­dents were never in possession of the more
than 2-1/2 hectares of agri­cultural land in question.

III

The respondent court overlooked and failed to consider the actual
and physical boundary of the petition­ers’ and private respondents’ real
landholding which adjoins, as deter­mined by the trial court’s duly ap­pointed
commissioner in an ocular inspection of the questioned premises.

IV

The respondent court erred in applying in the instant case the
ruling on “implied trust”.

Petitioners’ contentions are devoid of merit.

The records show that the pre-trial proceedings were held on (4)
four different dates, to wit:  March 18,
1968, July 15, 1968 and September 30, 1968 and finally on December 9, 1968.

The request for Admission was made on June 4, 1968 when the pre-trial was already in
progress.  The need of the petitioners to repeat the
request for the admission of the same matters during the continuation of the
pre-trial on September 30 and December
9, 1968 belied their allegations that the matters contained in
their request for admission were already impliedly admit­ted in accordance with
Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court. 
Moreover, during the trial in the court a quo, petitioners
thru counsel attempted to introduce evidence on the same matters or objects of
the Request for Admission.  The conduct
therefore of the petitioners during the pre-trial and trial proper negates
their resort to such procedural technicality in accordance with Rule 26 of the
Rules of Court.

We now come to
petitioners’ documentary evidence:

(1)   Exhibit 1 is a photostat
of a notarial register showing the acknowledgment of
certain deeds of sale (Entries Nos. 185 and 186)YET they do not show the
contents of said Deeds of Sale; hence, they cannot be regarded as evidence of
said contents;

(2)   Exhibit 2 is a verified copy of the minutes
of the court proceedings on November
27, 1953 (re Cadastral Lot No. 15510).  Said minutes show that private respondents
did not present any Deed of Sale, YET this does not indicate that there had been loss of all the copies of
said Deed of Sale.  Neither is this
non-production proof that petitioners are the true owners of the disputed
portion.

(3)   Exhibit
3 is a tax declaration (No. 43111) of the property involved and is, in the name
of Dominga Velasco, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, but as
is well-known, said tax declaration is not conclusive evidence of
ownership.  Besides, it is not proof of
the area covered by said portion.

(4)   Exhibits 4,5 and 6 are realty tax payment
receipts of the lot referred to in the aforementioned Tax Declaration, but
again, it is evident that said receipts cannot in any sense be conclusive of
ownership.

Against this array of “proofs”, We have Original
Certificate of Title No. 13505 in the name of the private respondents.  This Certificate of Title indicates true and
legal ownership by them over the disputed premises.

Petitioners also bewail the fact that the res­pondent Court did
not bother to require the trial court to elevate to the appellate court two
important documents, namely “the court’s duly appointed Commissioner’s
Report together with the sketch duly approved by both parties which shows
vividly the physical and actual boundaries of the lots in controversy.”
The ocular inspection had been ordered by the trial court upon motion of
petitioners thru counsel.  (Pets.’ Brief,
pp. 4-5).

Such contentions hold no water. 
If indeed these reports and sketches were not part of the records
elevated to the Court of Appeals, the petitioners have nobody to blame for
their negligence but themselves.  The petitioners should have included such
“missing” reports and sketches in the Record on Appeal, or they could
have asked for the transmittal of said reports and sketches to the appellate
court.  Moreover, in relation to said
sketches, worth mentioning is the testimony of Engineer Miguel Mamaril who conducted the relocation survey upon request of
his “compadre“, petitioner Juan Lopez.  There is no better evidence of the boundary
line between the two lots than the earth dikes where the cadastral monuments
were located as undisputably established by
petitioners’ own witness, Engineer Mamaril and as
reflected in Exhibit F.

Capitalizing on the fact that the late Ramon Puzon,
father of private respondents, was the overseer of the land of Dominga Velasco, and the administrator of private
respondents’ land, petitioners advance the claim that Ramon Puzon pointed to the
boundary and places where the monuments of the Bureau of Lands would be placed
during the Cadastral Survey of the said land of private respondents and that of
Dominga Velasco which adjoin each other.  We cannot surmise however why petitioners
forgot to explain why their mother, who was still alive when the cadastral
survey was made, never questioned the area of 51.8 hectares and instead she
even proceeded to subdivide the land, without any protest or objection as to
the area, among the petitioners and their spouses Pedro Melencio
and Azucena Ungson, (Exh. G., G-1, G-2,
G-3 & G-4) with the technical assistance of Geodetic Engineer Miguel Mamaril and in the process giving to her daughters 10
hectares each, to her son 11.8 hectares, and to the spouses Pedro Melencio and Azucena Ungson 10 hectares, and thereafter causing the issuance of OCTs in their names with a total area less than what the
petitioners claim.  Thus, petitioners’
mother acknowledged by her own acts, the title and possession of private
respondents over Lot 12510. 
Petitioners did not also explain why they accepted the subdivision of Lot 12509 with an area of 51.8 hectares and
accepted their corresponding OCTs without any
objection or protest as to the area of the whole, or of their respective
shares.  Finally, peti­tioners failed to
explain why petitioner Remedios Ferrer-Lopez
who was given only an area of ten (10) hectares which adjoins the private
respondent’s lot, should now enlarge her landholding to 12 1/2 hectares thru an
encroach­ment on the land of the respondents.

Petitioners, to substantiate their claim of possession over the
disputed land even prior to 1967, presented as their witnesses Jose Raceles and Maximo Candelaria.  Their
testimonies have no or scant probative value as the former failed to identify
the portion of the land he was tilling and the latter was a biased witness as
he has been the overseer of petitioners, since the death of Ramon Puzon in 1950 and a former tenant of the land in controversy. 
It is interesting to note that he was evicted as a tenant therefrom barely one agricultural year after the purchase
thereof by the private respondents.

This case having been elevated to Us for appellate review on both
legal and factual issues, We now tackle the legal points raised.

The doctrine of implied trust asserted by petitioners finds no
application in the case at bar, because there are no proven facts to this
effect.  While an implied trust (of real
or personal property) does not require the formalities of an express trust over realty (which as mandated by the law cannot
be proved by oral evidence under Art. 1443 of the Civil Code, still there must
be proof that the trustor wanted to grant one party
only the beneficial ownership of a parcel of land, although said beneficiary
may have legal title in himself.  Implied
trusts are exemplified in Arts. 1447-1456 of the Civil Code.  Private respondents have been in possession
of Lot. No. 12510 as owners since its purchase in
1935 thru their late father Ramon Puzon.  Ramon Puzon was the
overseer of petitioners’ mother over another lot (Lot No. 12509) and not over
the lot in question (Lot No. 12510).  It
is therefore obvious that there could not have been any possible conflict of
interest in the role of private respondents’ father.  And even if indeed he had been the overseer
of both lots, there was also no such conflict of interest.  Both lots had their own marked and natural
boundaries; both had their own separate regis­tered titles of ownership;
dominion over each was exercised by two separate groups of owners.

Petitioners’ claim of acquisitive prescription is unavail­ing
against the conclusive and indefeasible character of OCT 13505 covering Lot No.
12510 in the name of private respondents even if the latter are not in actual
possession of the premises.  It is an
elemental rule that the decree of re­gistration
bars all claims or rights, which arose or may have existed prior to the
decree of registration.

In summary therefore, the evidence of the petitioners is grossly
inadequate to overcome the respondents’ conclu­sive and indefeasible title and
right of ownership and pos­session.  We respect the findings of the trial
court that the controversial piece of land was well within the titled property
of the private respondents as We find no vital facts which have been overlooked
or misappreciated.

WHEREFORE, the petitioners’ appeal by certiorari is
hereby DISMISSED and the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes,
JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., no part;
petitioner’s counsel was at one time an Assistant Attorney in my law office.

^[1] PENNED
by Justice Porfirio V.
Sison (ponente) with
Justices Mariano Serrano & Jorge R. Coquia,
concurring.