ERNESTO DICHOSO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND TEODOLFO RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition
for certiorari of the July 8, 1980 decision*
of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the November 3, 1975 decision**
of the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, the dispositive portion of
which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
plaintiff owner of the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint; and ordering the
defendants, Ernesto Dichoso and Marcelino Enciso, to
restitute the possession of the land to the plaintiff and to deliver to the plaintiff 40 cavans
of palay for every year from 1964 until the land in
question is returned to the latter or their equivalent value of P15.00 per cavan of palay.  With costs against the said defendants.

SO ORDERED.”

(CA Decision, Rollo,
p. 14)

The facts of the case are as follows:

The spouses Gaspar Prila
and Maria Beldad, owned a 16.8716 hectare parcel of
land at Cagmanaba, Ocampo, Camarines Sur, surveyed in the
name of Gaspar Prila under
Plan Psu-61453 (Exhibit “2”).  Upon the
death of Maria Beldad in 1925, the eastern half
thereof was given to Vivencia Prila,
their only daughter, and when Gaspar Prila died in 1943, the
1/2 portion pertaining to him was divided into three:  one third to Vivencia
Prila, one third to Asuncion Pacamara
and the other one-third to Custodia Parcia, as reflected in the Extra-judicial Settlement of
Estate executed on November 22, 1945. 
Under the terms of said settlement, 4/6 of the entire land or 11.2477
hectares was adjudicated to Vivencia Prila, 1/6 or 2.8119 hectares to Asuncion Pacamara and another 1/6 or 2.8119 hectares to Custodio Parcia.  This stipulation was reiterated by both Vivencia Prila and Asuncion Pacamara in an agreement dated March 29, 1947 duly registered with the Register
of Deeds on June 22, 1947
and was furthermore confirmed judicially by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, in Civil Cases
Nos. 3370 and 4468.

In 1955, Vivencia Prila
sold her 4/6 portion with an area of 11.2477 hectares to the petitioner Ernesto
Dichoso who had been, ever since, in actual physical
possession thereof, exercising various acts of ownership thereon.

On the other hand, in a Deed of Sale dated June 17, 1948,
Asuncion Pacamara sold to the wife of private
respondent Teodolfo Ramos her 1/6 share, but the deed
mentions  the area of the lot sold as
4.1250 hectares; obviously in excess of Pacamara’s
1/6 share in the property of 2.8119 hectares. 
Hence, aforesaid 4.1250 hectares which Ramos claims to have possessed,
is now the land in question.

As described in Ramos Deed of Sale dated June 17, 1948, the land bought by his wife is as follows:

“Cogon land situated in the barrio of Cagmanaba,
Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines
Sur, with an area of approximately 4 hectares, 12 ares, and 50 centares, and is
bounded on the North by a dam, limited by the same dam, measuring 120 meters;
on the East, Cagmanaba River, limited by the same
river, measuring 200 meters; on the South,
heirs of Gaspar Prila and
Mariano Rodriguez, limited by an irrigation ditch, measuring 200 meters; on the
West, heirs of Gaspar Prila
and limited by a big stone, measuring 350 meters.” (Exhibit “A”,
Original Records)

The said Deed of Absolute
Sale was notarized and registered with the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur on August 2, 1948. 
Realty taxes for the years 1956-1960 were paid on July 22, 1960 and for the years
1961-1962 on November 18, 1964
(CA Decision, Rollo, p. 15)

Herein respondent Teodolfo Ramos took possession of the contested rice land
upon its purchase.  It yielded an average
harvest of 20 sacks of palay per planting which was
twice a year.  One-third of the harvest
went to Ramos and the remaining two-thirds was the tenant’s share (Rollo, pp. 15-16).

On the other hand, petitioner Ernesto Dichoso
claims that the disputed land is inside his property of 11.2477 hectares which
he acquired from Vivencia Prila
for P2,000.00 and evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 9, 1955, which was more
particularly described as follows:

“BEING the eastern portion of Plan PSU?61453 BOUNDED on the
North by Joaquin Interino before, now Mariano
Rodriguez; on the East by Cagdaga Creek, on the other
side of which is Mariano Rodriguez, before heirs of Mariano Fuentebella; on the South by heirs of Mariano Fuentebella
before, now Mariano Rodriguez; on the West by the rest of Plan PSU-61453,
namely Asuncion Pacamara before, now Rodolfo Ramos.  CONTAINING an area exactly ELEVEN (11)
hectares, TWENTY-FOUR (24) ares, and SEVENTY-SEVEN
(77) centares. 
DECLARED under Tax Declaration No. 1648 in the name of Alejandro Casin and assessed at P3,450.00.  All boundaries are marked and delimited by
B.L. and P.L.S. concrete cylindrical monuments. 
The foregoing property is not registered under Act No. 496 nor under the
Spanish Mortgage Law; wherefore, the parties herein have agreed to register
this instrument under the provisions of Act No. 3344, as amended.” (Exhibit
“1”, Original Records)

Sometime in 1962, Teodolfo Ramos, in
the company of a constabulary soldier
and two policemen from Ocampo, allegedly
seized the produce of the land consisting of 50 cavans
of palay from the tenant of herein petitioner.

In retaliation, petitioner Dichoso also
brought along with him in 1963, a constabulary soldier and appropriated 6 cavans of the produce (CA Decision, Rollo, p. 17).

On December 12, 1967,
respondent Ramos filed a complaint for quieting of title over the 4.1250 hectare
riceland before the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur which was docketed
as Civil Case No. P-20.  A commissioner was appointed by the Court on March 17, 1970 to determine the area
and boundaries of the respective
claims of the parties in accordance with their monuments of title.  He submitted his report on March 31, 1970 which was approved by
the Court in its Order dated April 13,
1970.

As aforestated, the trial court   rendered its decision on November 3, 1975 in favor of Ramos and against Dichoso (Rollo, pp. 14-15).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, on July 8, 1980, affirmed the decision of the trial court (CA
Decision, Rollo, p. 14).

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner assigned two (2) errors, namely:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT TEODOLFO RAMOS IS THE OWNER OF THE 4.1250 HECTARE LAND IN QUESTION.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO
DELIVER FORTY (40) CAVANS ANNUALLY TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT DESPITE ITS FINDING
THAT ONLY ONE-THIRD (1/3) OF THE PRODUCE “WENT TO” THE PLAINTIFF
(RAMOS), TWO-THIRDS (2/3) BEING FOR HIS TENANT.

The petition is impressed
with merit.

It is undisputed that the land in question is part of the bigger mass
of land measuring 16.8716 hectares originally owned by the spouses Gaspar Prila and Maria Beldad, and that this mass of land was adjudicated among
the heirs in the proportion
aforementioned.  And that Dichoso derived his title
from Vivencia Prila while Ramos acquired his title from Asuncion Pacamara.

Dichoso contends that his claim is limited to 11.2477
hectares portion sold to him by Vivencia Prila which is exactly
four-sixth (4/6) of the 16.8716 hectares originally owned by their common
predecessor-in-interest.  Ramos acquired his title from Asuncion Pacamara, who inherited one-sixth (1/6) of the 16.8716
hectares mass of land.  Inasmuch as the
share of Asuncion Pacamara is limited to one sixth
(1/6) of the 16.8716 hectares, or 2.8119 hectares, she cannot legally transmit
to Ramos an area in excess thereof.

Ramos, on the other hand, argues that while it is true that Asuncion Pacamara’s
share is one-sixth (1/6) pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Settlement Agreement,
but on a subsequent agreement (Exhibit “13”), Vivencia
Prila ceded to Asuncion Pacamara
one hectare more located on the
northern portion of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
1176.  In effect, Asuncion Pacamara owns at least six (6) hectares of land. 
Furthermore, the Deed of Conveyance was registered on August 2, 1948 and the property has
been declared for tax purposes in the name of Ramos’ wife.  Above all these, the question raised by Dichoso is purely a question of fact.

The records show, however, that the one hectare ceded by Vivencia Prila to Asuncion Pacamara on the northern portion of the land supposed to be
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1176, is not the same land covered
by said Original Certificate of Title (Original Exhibits, Exhibit
“3”, p. 1).  Therefore, while it may be true that Asuncion Pacamara may have been
adjudicated a total of six
(6) hectares of land, but what is covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
1176 pursuant to the Extra–Judicial
Settlement Agreement and the agreement subsequent thereto insofar as Vivencia Prila’s share is
concerned, remains to be one-sixth (1/6) or 2.8119 hectares (Original Exhibits,
Exhibit 3″, p. 4).

The striking similarities in the boundaries between the parcel of
land in dispute and the property of Ramos’ wife, particularly the boundaries on
the North, which is the dam, and on the East, which is the Cagmanaba
River, and the fact that the deed of sale in favor of Ramos’ wife was executed
and registered ahead of that of Dichoso’s deed of
sale, led the trial court to conclude that the property in dispute
tallies with the land bought by Ramos’ wife. 
It must be pointed out, however, that the deed of sale in favor of
Ramos’ wife explicitly described the property as being bounded “on the
South (by) heirs of Gaspar Prila
and Mariano Rodriguez, limited by an irrigation ditch, measuring 200 meters; on
the West (by) heirs of Gaspar Prila,
limited by a big stone, measuring 350 meters.” The commissioner’s report
(Exhibit “11”) identified the land claimed by Ramos and indicated in
the sketch as the portion surrounded by a red line inside Lot-3, the portion
pertaining to Dichoso.  As indicated in the said sketch the land
of Dischoso
is labelled as Lots-1 and 3 and the portion labelled as Lot-2 is the land
of Ramos.  A further scrutiny of Exhibit “11”
shows that the area being claimed by Ramos, which was enclosed by a red line,
went beyond the irrigation ditch.  This
is contrary to the technical description in the deed of sale in favor of Ramos’
wife as to the boundary on the southern portion of the property (Original
Exhibits, Exhibit “11”).

While the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought from the
Court of Appeals is limited to the review of errors of law, said appellate
court’s finding of facts being conclusive, there are exceptions, among which
are:  (1) when the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the
inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or impossible; (3) x x x; (4) when the judgment is
premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) x x x.  (Rizal Cement, Co., Inc. vs. Villareal,
135 SCRA 15, February 28, 1985).

This Court has held that in cases of conflict between areas and
boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail.  What really defines a piece of ground is not
the area, calculated with more or less certainty, mentioned in its description,
but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
limits (Erico v. Chigas, 98
SCRA 575, July 16, 1980).  In a contract
of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries
stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to the area
contained within its boundaries.  It is
not of vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose
the area with mathematical accuracy.  It
is sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision
o enable one to identify it.  An error as
to the superficial area is immaterial (Loyola v. Bartolome,
39 Phil. 544, January 24, 1919
reiterated in Erico v. Chigas,
supra).

With reference to the
second error, petitioner alleged that since respondent’s share of the harvest
is only one-third (1/3), the remaining two-thirds (2/3) representing his
tenant’s share, only the one-third (1/3) of the annual harvest must be awarded
to Ramos.

Ramos, on the other hand,
argues that his tenant will be deprived of his share if only one-third (1/3) of
the harvest will be awarded to him.

Actual or compensatory
damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly proved, and proved with reasonable
degree of certainty.  A court cannot rely
on speculation, conjecture or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages,
but must depend upon competent proof that they have suffered and on evidence of
the actual amount thereof (Dee Hua Liong Electrical Corporation v. Reyes, 145 SCRA 713,
November 25, 1986).

It is undisputed that the
land in question yields an average of twenty (20) sacks of palay
per planting and that it is planted to palay twice a
year.  Ramos’ share of the harvest is
only one-third (1/3).  In view of his dispossession from 1964 and
the fact that his tenant has vacated the land that same year (TSN; Hearing of
February 10, 1971, pp. 2-3), he cannot allege that his tenant is entitled to his
two-thirds (2/3) share.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby
SET ASIDE and the area of the land awarded to herein respondent Ramos is hereby
LIMITED to 2.8119 hectares in accordance with the boundaries indicated in the
deed of sale in favor of his wife, and the award of actual damages is hereby
REDUCED in proportion to the area that may be awarded to Ramos and to his
one-third (1/3) participation in the harvests, from 1964 up to the time the
land appurtenant thereto is returned to the respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman),
Padilla, Sarmiento,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

*
Penned by Associate Justice Onofre A. Villaluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Venicio Escolin and Guillermo P. Villasor.

**
Penned by Judge Miguel Navarro.