HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT, NAMELY: FRANCISCA VDA. DE OCLARIT, SOFRONIO OCLARIT, BELACIO OCLARIT, RUFINO OCLARIT, JUANA OCLARIT DE MACALOS, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND HILARIO MACALOS, F…

Petitioners seek the review on certiorari of the decision
of the Court of Appeals promulgated on September 28, 1990, affirming with
modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 2,
Tagbilaran City, dismissing their complaint for quieting of title with damages
and declaring the defendant (private respondent herein) the owner of the
parcels of land subjects of controversy.

In 1953, the late Juan Oclarit, petitioners’
predecessor-in-interest, allegedly purchased from Martin Macalos a parcel of
unregistered land located in Antipolo, Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, with no
permanent landmarks or boundaries in consideration of the sum of one hundred
(P100.00) pesos. The deed of sale
simply described the property as bounded on the north and east by the property
of Herminigildo Baja, on the south by Mariano Gales and on the west by a brook.

In 1956, Oclarit bought five more parcels of land located in
Antipolo and Ulbujan, also in Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, from Dalmacio Gales in
consideration of the sum of six hundred
(P600.00) pesos. Parcel IV thereof is
described as follows:

“A parcel of an
irrigated rice and coconut lands, bounded on the NORTH, by the land of Leon
Macalos; EAST, by the land of Mariano Gales; SOUTH, by the land of Pablo Gales,
and on the WEST, by the land of Saturnino Gales; containing an area of 9 ares
and 28 centares, more or less, without visible landmarks of the boundaries of
the same, covered by Tax Declaration No. R-19915 now transferred and declared
under the name of the herein VENDEE, JUAN OCLARIT, with the total assessed
value of P30.00.”

In 1975, the heirs of Oclarit filed an action for the quieting of
title and damages against respondent Balasabas before the then Court of First
Instance of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 3103. The complaint alleged that in January 1969, private respondent
entered the properties subject of the action. Failing to work on the area planted to palay, private respondent climbed
the coconut trees, replaced the “J.O.” markings on the trees with “F.G.”,
representing Felipa Gales, his mother, and caused to be recorded in the
cadastral survey of the land the name of Felipa Gales as claimant against Juan
Oclarit. The heirs of Oclarit
considered the acts of private respondent as having cast a cloud of doubt over
their title to the property and therefore deprived them of the enjoyment of the
fruits of the coconut trees. Petitioners further alleged that the late Juan Oclarit, from the time of
the acquisition of said properties, had exercised dominion and ownership
thereon openly, peacefully, adversely and uninterruptedly. It was also claimed that the deceased
planted coconut trees and other crops on the property, enjoyed their produce
and paid the realty taxes on the land which was continued by his heirs after
his death.

In his answer, respondent Balasabas claims to have actually and
lawfully possessed the disputed parcels of land “since time immemorial”. According to respondent, the first parcel of
land was owned by his mother, Felipa Gales, by virtue of inheritance, and
declared in her name under Tax Declaration No. D-1120; while the second parcel
of land was acquired by him from his own mother as evidenced by a deed of
absolute sale executed on March 20, 1963 and which he declared in his name
under Tax Declaration No. D-1006. In
addition, respondent likewise alleged possession of the parcels of land openly,
peacefully, adversely and continuously without disturbance from any party until
he was molested by the heirs of Oclarit. It was contended that Oclarit himself surreptitiously declared these
lands for taxation purposes in his own name.

In the course of the proceedings, the trial court appointed
Teotimo Borja, Deputy Provincial Assessor of Bohol, as commissioner for the purpose
of determining whether the lands described in the complaint and covered by Tax
Declarations Nos. D-13935 and D-13926 overlapped with any of the lands
described in the defendant’s affirmative and special defenses and covered by
Tax Declarations Nos. D-1120 and D-1006. In 1978, the court-appointed commissioner conducted a relocation survey
and an ocular inspection of the properties in controversy in the presence of
the heirs of Oclarit, their counsel, respondent Balasabas, a policeman, and
adjoining owners Procopio Oclarit, Galicana J. Pagaran, Maxima Macula, Felipe
Macula and some disinterested persons. In his report dated May 25, 1979, the commissioner made the following
findings and observations:

“When plaintiffs were asked the extent of their land under the tax
declaration No. D-13935, they pointed to the undersigned that figure in Annex
‘A’ which is embraced from corners 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14 back to 1 by a red ball pen broken lines. The area of this is approximately 3,639 square meters (.3639 ha.). The area of the tax declaration No. D-13935
is .0928 ha. This Annex ‘A’, which is
made an integral part of this report has been traced from the file of the
Bureau of Lands Office in Jagna, Bohol. The personnel in that office informed the undersigned that no Lot
numbers have as yet been assigned and that the traverse is not yet computed
because it will be done by IBM. This
land is partly cocal (on the northeastern portion) and party riceland. There are thirty (30) coconut trees mostly
of which are 40 to 50 years old;

“Defendant Zacarias Balasabas pointed the extent of his claim under
the tax declaration No. D-1120 as that area in the cadastral survey. In other words he refer(red) to his claims
as that figure in Annex ‘A’ embraced by corners 1, a, 2, 3, 4, b, c, d, e, 11,
12, f, 13, 14 to 1 and shaded by pencil diagonal lines and which is titled
‘HRS. OF JUAN OCLARIT VS. FELIPA GALES’ in the cadastral survey. This contains an area of 1,420 square meters
(.1420 ha.), more or less. The tax
declaration No. D-1120 has an area of .44010 ha.;

“Plaintiffs and defendants both claimed the same parcel of land on
the western portion of Annex ‘A’ and which is titled ‘FRANCISCA MACALOS VS.
ZACARIAS BALASABAS’ in the cadastral survey as that which is represented by
their tax declaration Nos. D-13926 and D-1006, respectively. This parcel which is embraced by corners A,
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K to A contains an area of 3,098 square meters
(.3098 ha.), more or less. The tax
declaration No. D-13926 in the name of Juan Oclarit contains an area of .0204
ha. and the tax declaration No. D-1006 of defendant has an area of .8147
ha. There are approximately 200 coconut
trees many of which are still non-bearing. The contour of this lot is generally hilly.” (Rollo. p. 39)

In its decision,
the lower court made the following findings: the heirs of Oclarit and Balasabas are laying claim over the same
parcels of land; Dalmacio Gales, who sold to Oclarit the parcel of land covered
by Tax Declaration No. 13935, was an uncle of Balasabas’ mother, Felipa Gales;
Martin Macalos, the vendor of the land covered by Tax Declaration No. 13926,
was the cousin of Balasabas’ grandmother, Guillerma Gales; the area being claimed by the heirs of
Oclarit is, per commissioner’s report, approximately 3,639 square meters (.3639
ha.) while Tax Declaration No. 13935 shows that it is only 928 square meters
(.0928 ha.) and the area of the second parcel per commissioner’s report is
approximately 3,098 square meters (.3098 ha.) while that reflected in Tax
Declaration No. 13926 is only 204 square meters (.0204 ha.).

From these findings, the lower court expressed its surprise as to the size of the
area being claimed by the heirs of Oclarit according to the commissioner’s
report in comparison with the areas shown in Tax Declarations Nos. 13935 and
13926. While recognizing that areas
stated in tax declarations are not “approximately exact,” the lower court
nonetheless considered the discrepancies between the actual areas being claimed
and those shown in the tax declarations as “too obvious to be taken with
excuse.” Moreover, it doubted
the credibility of petitioners for their failure to explain why the adjoining
owners named in their claim are different from the adjoining owners found by
the commissioner. Furthermore, if
petitioners were indeed the real owners of the two parcels of land, they would have taken steps for the
correction of the smaller areas stated in the tax declarations. Concluding that petitioners were claiming much bigger parcels than what their evidence can support under
justifiable circumstances, the trial court thus disposed of the case as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding a preponderance of evidence in favor of the
defendant, judgment is hereby rendered:

“1.     Dismissing the complaint;

“2.     Declaring the defendant as the owner of the
lots covered by Tax Declarations Nos. D-1120 and D-1006 with area of .4010
hectare and .8147 hectare, respectively and ordering the plaintiffs to
recognize such ownership by the defendant; and

“3.     Ordering the plaintiffs to pay the
defendant attorney’s fee of P500.00 and litigation expenses of P400.00 and to
pay the costs of the proceedings.

“SO ORDERED.”

On appeal, respondent court ruled that petitioners failed to
prove either legal or equitable title to the two parcels of land which are
necessary in an action for quieting of
title. Petitioners’ claim of ownership was based principally on tax declarations
which, however, are not conclusive evidence of ownership.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s
declaration that private respondent is the owner of the two parcels of land and
such ownership should be recognized by petitioners. It considered such conclusion of the lower court as “bereft of
any convincing evidence” because tax receipts, tax declarations and survey
plans are not conclusive and indisputable bases of ownership. Accordingly, it disposed of the appeal in
the following tenor:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court a
quo dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby AFFIRMED. The portions thereof declaring the defendant
as the owner of the lots covered by Tax Declarations Nos. D-1120 and D­-1006,
respectively, and ordering the plaintiffs to pay the defendant attorney’s fee
of P=500.00, litigation expenses of P=400.00 and costs of the proceedings are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Without
pronouncement as to cost.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 40)

Their motion for reconsideration of said decision having been
denied, the heirs of Oclarit instituted the instant petition. Private respondent did not appeal the above
disposition.

The petition is moored primarily on the following
contentions: (a) the filing of Civil Case
No. 3103 was the only legal remedy available to petitioners against the
“malicious and unwarranted actuations” of private respondent; (b) Oclarit’s
undisturbed claim of ownership of the two parcels of land which he acquired in
1953 and 1956, had spanned more than ten years until private respondent
disturbed it in 1969; (c) the two parcels of land mentioned by private
respondent in his answer are “foreign and alien” to the two parcels which
Oclarit bought from Dalmacio Gales and Martin Macalos and because these vendors
had been in possession of the property “from time immemorial”, the “waters of
prescription have set in”; (d) the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the
real worth of Exhibits “N” to “P” otherwise it would have noted that
petitioners’ “clear ownership over said two (2) parcels of land in litigation
as the description found therein jibed materially” with the averments in the
complaint, and (e) the lower court, in a decision in another case, cited Ramos
v. Court of Appeals (112 SCRA 543) holding that tax receipts are strong
evidence of possession as no one in his right mind would pay realty taxes year
after year for property not in his actual possession.

From the above submissions, it is at once apparent that
petitioners assail the factual findings of both courts below. However, there is no basis for considering
this case as an exception to the general rule that the factual findings of the
Court of Appeals are binding on and are not reviewable by this Court (Oporto v.
Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 878 [1992]). A careful review of the decisions below do not show that both courts
overlooked essential facts which, if considered, would have changed the outcome
of the case. Moreover, the matter of
giving credence to evidence presented is best addressed by the trial judge who
is in a better position than the appellate court to appreciate the weight and
evidentiary value of the testimonies of witnesses who have appeared before him
(Sapu-an v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 701 [1992]). In civil cases, the lower court must lean towards a party who
successfully presents preponderance of evidence in his favor.

It is thus too late in the day for petitioners to claim that the
parcels of land which Oclarit had bought are “alien” or different from the
parcels which private respondent had allegedly acquired from his mother both by
inheritance and by purchase. This is
clearly a factual issue which is beyond the ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction.

It was precisely for the purpose of pointing out with
particularity the parcels of land involved that the lower court appointed a
commissioner whose findings may be adopted in toto by the trial court
(See: Apurillo v. Garciano, 28 SCRA
1054). Had the petitioners been in
possession of solid evidence that the parcels of land they are claiming are
“alien” or “foreign” to those declared by private respondent as his, they
should have questioned the commissioner’s report which was based on the
relocation survey and ocular inspection which were conducted in their presence. Moreover, petitioners’ claim that their
property is different from those of private respondent’s is indeed antithetical
to their filing of the complaint for quieting of title – there would not have
been any basis for claiming that private respondent cast a cloud of doubt to
their title over their two parcels of land.

More, the deed of sale wherein Martin Macalos conveyed to Oclarit
a parcel of land did not even indicate with particularity the area of the land
covered thereby. This explains why they
indiscriminately pointed at boundaries which are even beyond what could have
been bought by Oclarit. Although it is
true that what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its
description but the boundaries therein laid down (Vda. de Tan v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 213 SCRA 95 [1992]), in controversial cases as in this case where there
appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the property
gains importance. Thus, the lower court
correctly stressed that it would have done petitioners some good had they
correctly specified even in their tax declarations the areas of the land they
were claiming. It is well settled that
anyone who claims that he has a better right to the property, must prove both
ownership and identity of the said property (Beo v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA
574 [1991], citing Flores v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 178 SCRA 717
[1989]). An area delimited by
boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land.

With regard to tax declarations as bases for claim of ownership,
petitioners capitalize on what was obviously an obiter in Ramos
v. Court of Appeals (supra) that no one in his right mind would be continuously
paying taxes for property that is not in his actual possession. On the contrary, any person who claims ownership by virtue of tax
declarations must also prove he is in actual possession of the property. Thus, proof that the property involved had
been declared for taxation purposes from 1908 to 1945, did not constitute proof
of possession, nor is it proof of ownership
in the absence of the claimant’s actual possession of said property (De Luna v.
Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 276 [1992]).

In the same vein, tax receipts and declarations of ownership for
taxation purposes become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription
when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property (Tabuena v.
Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 650 [1991]; Director of Lands v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 214 [1992]).

As earlier stated, private respondent did not appeal from the
adverse decision of the appellate court. Yet, respondent ventures to implore this Court to nullify and reverse
the decretal portion of the decision subject of this petition and to declare
him the owner of the lots covered by his Tax Declaration Nos. D-1120 and
D-1006. This cannot be legally done.

Settled is the rule that a party is barred from assailing the
correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him. An appellee may only make counter statement of errors to sustain
the judgment on other grounds but not to adduce arguments which would otherwise
modify or reverse the same, for in such case, an appeal must have been
seasonably filed (Itogon-Suyoc Mines v. NLRC, 117 SCRA 523 [1982] and cases
cited therein). There being no appeal
taken by private respondent from the adverse judgment of respondent court, the
decision has become final as against him and can no longer be reviewed, much
less reversed, by this Court. That
respondent may have been in possession of the disputed properties since 1965 is
of no moment. This Court is not a
cadastral court before which respondent can seek confirmation of title.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.