The parcel of land (Lot No.

216) subject of this dispute is situated inN a s i p i t , A g u s a n d e l

N o r t e , a n d o r i g i n a l l y c o v e r e d b y O r i g i n a l Certificate of Title No. RO-238(555)
issued in the names ApoloniaAbao and her daughter Irenea Tolero. Two cases were
separatelyfi led in the Regional Trial Court, Branch II of Nasipit, Agusan del N o r t e
i n v o l v i n g t h e e n t i r e l o t . B o t h c a s e s w e r e fi l e d b y t h e surviving heirs of
Apolonia Abao and Irene a Tolero.These heirs,children of Irenea Tolero and
grandchildren of Apolonia Abao, arethe respondents in this case. The fi rst case, Civil
Case No. 1672,was an action for quieting of title and recovery of possession of aparcel of
land which originally formed part of the entire property.Said parcel of land was denominated
as Lot 216-B-2-G and coveredby Transfer Certifi cate of Title (TCT) No. RT-899 in the
name of Irenea Tolero. The defendants named therein were spouses Andresa n d A m a n d a
L a c h o . T h e s e c o n d c a s e , C i v i l C a s e N o . 1 8 1 6 , i s similarly an action for quieting
of title and recovery of possession.Unlike the fi rst case, however, Civil Case No. 1816
involved theentire Lot 216. The complaint therein sought the annulment
of several certifi cates of title covering portions of Lot 216 and thereins tatement
of OCT No. RO -238(555). The defendants in the second case were Nico las Jadol,
Beatriz Jadol, Jaco bo Tagorda,Henry Jadol, Aurelio Rotor and herein petitioner.
Initially,
the
twocases were heard independently of each other. It was
discovered,h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e y w e r e i n t i m a t e l y r e l a t e d . A c c o r d i n g l y a court
jointly tried the two cases. After due trial, the trial courtrendered separate decisions, both in
favor of the plaintiffs therein. The defendants in the two cases respectively appealed
theaforesaid decisions to the CA. The CA ordered the consolidation of t h e t w o a p p e a l s .
T h e C A o r d e r e d t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e t w o appeals. The CA affirmed the
decisions of the trial court. Petitioner then filed the instant petition.
III.Theories of the Parties
*Petitioner claim that he bought portions of the Lot 216 in goodfaith as he was made to
believe that all the papers in possession of his vendors were all in order.* Respondents
-that they have the actual legal possession of the land because as surviving heirs
because they have not signed anyd o c u m e n t a g r e e i n g a s t o t h e m a n n e r h o w L o t
2 1 6 w a s t o b e divided, nor have they consented to the partition of the same.
IV.Objectives of theParties
* Pe t i t i o n e r s - s e e k t o re v e r s e a n d s e t a s i d e t h e d e c i s i o n a n d re s o l u t i o n o f
C A a n d t o b e p l a c e d i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d i n question*Respondents
quieting of title and recovery of possession of theland in question.
V.Key Facts
After Apolonia Abao died during the Japanese occupation and Irenea Tolero died in 1945,
they inherited and became owners of Lot216. Plaintiffs questioned the series of cancellation
of the certificateof title starting from OCT No. RO-238 (555) and the Deed of Extra- judicial
Settlement and Confirmation of Sale executed by IgnacioAtupan on August 7, 1957 (Exhibit
D-1) adjudicating one-half (1/2)of the area of Lot 216. Plaintiffs maintain that Ignacio Atupan
is nota s o n o f A p o l o n i a A b a o b u t h e o n l y g r e w u p w h i l e l i v i n g w i t h Apolonia
Abao. That when Lot 216 was subdivided into two (2) lots,Lot 216-A and Lot 216-A (sic)
which was made as one of the basis inthe cancellation of TCT No. 476 and issuance of
TCT No. 553 and TCT No. 554 on February 13, 1959, the plaintiffs or theirpredecessors-ininterest have not signed any document agreeing ast o t h e m a n n e r h o w L o t 2 1 6 w a s
to be divided, nor have they