Avelardo Cue died intestate with no surviving descendants or ascendants. He was survived by his brother and nieces and nephews from his deceased brother and sisters.
Upon his death, Cue left two properties – a parcel of land and a commercial building. However, the land was registered in the name of Demetria Pagulayan – the alleged paramour of Cue who also happened to be his salesgirl.
The heirs of Cue, including petitioner Arjonillo, instituted an accion reivindicatoria with the Regional Trial Court for the property in question while Pagulayan insists that she acquired the property from the Chua spouses in consideration of PHP 20,000 which was acknowledged to have been received in full by the vendors as evidenced by the deed of absolute sale in her name.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Pagulayan was not the rightful owner of the subject property based mainly on the testimony of Dr. Benito Valdepanas, a nephew of the Chua spouses.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court and dismissed the case. It ruled that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that the subject property forms part of the estate of Cue. It also dismissed the testimony of Dr. Valdepanas as mere hearsay for he did not have the personal knowledge of the circumstances attending the sale of the land by the Chua spouses to the issuance of the certificate of title to Pagulayan.
Issues:
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it reversed or set aside the trial court’s decision and dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 4778 abandoning the factual findings of the court a quo;
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it rules on the indefeasibility of respondent Demetria Pagulayan’s title and categorically declared that the ownership of the disputed properties belong to her;
- Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave error when it considered witness Dr. Benito Valdepanas’ testimony as hearsay
Ruling:
1. No,
the Court of Appeals did not commit grave discretion in reversing and setting
aside the decision of the trial court.
The Supreme Court held that to successfully maintain actions for recovery of ownership of a real property, the complainants must prove the identity of the land and their title thereto as provided under Article 434 of the New Civil Code. The petitioners had the burden of proof to establish averments in complaint by preponderance of evidence and should rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent’s evidence.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave discretion
in ruling that the title of Pagulayan to the subject property is indefeasible.
According to the Court, the certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property.
