Case No.

62

Sps. Azana v. Lumbo

FACTS
-Respondents filed an action for quieting of title in the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan of a real
property designated as Lot 64 during the national reservation survey of Boracay
-Respondents alleged that they were owners of Lot 64, however, Sps Emilio and
Estela Gregorio sold the same to the petitioners
Respondents: lot 64 was part of a 8.9488-ha land bought in a public auction by
their parents, w/c they inherited; lot was separately designated during the natl
reservation survey only because it was also claimed by the Sps. Gregorio; if Lots 63
and 64 were combined, the boundaries coincided with the lot purchased under the
final bill of sale
Petitioners: a deed of absolute sale was executed in favor of Estela Gregorio,
transferring to her a 3.4768-ha land taken from three contiguous parcels of land
owned by Ignacio Bandiola; petitioners purchased Lot 64 (allegedly part of the
3.4768-ha) from Sps Gregorio in good faith
RTC: Respondents failed to establish the identity of the lot sold under the final bill of
sale. Thus, their claim of title over Lot 64 also had to fail.TC ruled in favor of the
petitioners and upheld the validity of the sale of Lot 64 to them
CA - declared respondents as owners of the lot and nullified the sale by sps
Gregorio to petitioners; was satisfied that the boundaries of the lot resulting from
the merger of lots 63 and 64 coincided with the 8.0488-ha property (total area
claimed by the respondents)
-MR of sps Gregorio denied; MR of sps Azana granted (GR: findings of TC and CA are
binding to SC, except where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of
the lower and appellate court)
Petitioners: dismissal of Gregorios petition bars the institution of a similar petition
SC: Incorrect. First requisite of Res judicata (final judgement or order) is absent.
There was no final judgment to settle the controversy because sps Azanas appeal
was still pending
-The allegations of the petitioner as to the boundary of the lots owned by Ignacio as
well as that of Lot 64 were belied by the tax declarations they presented. None of
the tax declarations reflected southern and/or eastern boundaries similar to those of
Lot 64 (Note: in the deed of sale to the petitioners, the North and East boundaries of
Lot 64 was described to be the Visayan sea but in all the tax declarations, each of
Bandiolas lots was bound in the east by a particular land mass)
-Petitioner underscores seeming irregularities in the description of the property
under the final bill of sale anchored on by the respondent (*this was clarified by the
SC), a deed of sale covering the Lot 64 but with different land area than that under
the final bill of sale (**this was reconciled by the CA) and the tax declarations in the
names of respondents w/c covered Lot 63 only (***Acc. to SC, tax declarations are
not conclusive evidence of ownership of properties stated therein. At best, they are

indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. Non-declaration of a property for

tax purposes does not necessarily negate ownership)
- Petitioner posit that the abovementioned irregularities negate
respondents claim of legal or equitable title and ultimately justify the
resolution of the case in their favor
SC: We disagree. Clearly, respondents have been able to establish by
preponderance of evidence that are rightful owners of Lot 64.
An owner of real property disturbed in his rights over the property by the unfounded
claim of others, may bring an action for quieting of title. The purpose of the action is
to remove the cloud on his title created by any instrument, record, encumbrance or
proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid
and prejudicial to his title.
The deeds of sale executed in favor of petitioners and the spouses Gregorio were
prima facie valid and enforceable. However, further scrutiny and investigation
established that petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Ignacio Bandiola, could not
have owned the disputed lot. Consequently, the subsequent conveyances of Lot 64
to the spouses Gregorio and thereafter, to petitioners, were null and void.
Respondents, as the adjudged owners of Lot 64, are entitled to have the
aforementioned deeds of sale nullified to remove any doubt regarding
their ownership of the lot.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the deed of absolute
sale, in so far as it covers Lot 64, and the deed of absolute sale are hereby declared
null and void.
SO ORDERED.