Case No. 62 Sps. Azana v.

Lumbo

FACTS

-Respondents fled an action or quieting o title in the RTC o Kalibo, Aklan o a real
property designated as ot !" during the national reser#ation sur#ey o $oracay

-Respondents alleged that they %ere o%ners o ot !", ho%e#er, Sps &'ilio and
&stela (regorio sold the sa'e to the petitioners

Respondents) lot !" %as part o a *+"**-ha land bought in a public auction by
their parents, %c they inherited. lot %as separately designated during the nat/l
reser#ation sur#ey only because it %as also clai'ed by the Sps+ (regorio. i ots !0
and !" %ere co'bined, the boundaries coincided %ith the lot purchased under the
fnal bill o sale

1etitioners) a deed o absolute sale %as e2ecuted in a#or o &stela (regorio,

transerring to her a 0+"3!*-ha land taken ro' three contiguous parcels o land
o%ned by 4gnacio $andiola. petitioners purchased ot !" 5allegedly part o the
0+"3!*-ha6 ro' Sps (regorio in good aith

RTC) Respondents ailed to establish the identity o the lot sold under the fnal bill o 
sale+ Thus, their clai' o title o#er ot !" also had to ail+TC ruled in a#or o the
petitioners and upheld the #alidity o the sale o ot !" to the'

CA - declared respondents as o%ners o the lot and nullifed the sale by sps
(regorio to petitioners. %as satisfed that the boundaries o the lot resulting ro'
the 'erger o lots !0 and !" coincided %ith the *+7"**-ha property 5total area
clai'ed by the respondents6

-8R o sps (regorio denied. 8R o sps A9ana granted 5(R) fndings o TC and CA are
binding to SC, e2cept %here there is di#ergence in the fndings and conclusions o
the lo%er and appellate court6

1etitioners)
1etitioners) dis'issal o (regorio/s petition bars the institution o a si'ilar petition

SC: 4ncorrect+ First requisite o Res judicata 5fnal

judicata  5fnal :udge'ent or order6 is absent+
 There %as no fnal :udg'ent
:udg'ent to settle the contro#er
contro#ersysy because sps
sps A9ana/s appeal
appeal
%as still pending

-The allegations o the petitioner as to the boundary o the lots o%ned by 4gnacio as
%ell as that o ot !" %ere belied by the ta2 declarations they presented+
presented+ ;one o
the ta2 declarations re<ected southern andor eastern boundaries si'ilar to those o 
ot !" 5;ote) in the deed o sale to the petitioners, the ;orth and &ast boundaries o 
ot !" %as described to be the =isayan sea but in all the ta2 declarations, each o
$andiola/s lots %as bound in the east by a particular land 'ass6

-1etitioner underscores see'ing irregularities in the description o the property

under the fnal bill o sale anchored on by the respondent 5>this %as clarifed by the
SC6, a deed o sale co#ering the ot !" but %ith di?erent land area than that under
the fnal bill o sale 5>>this %as reconciled by the CA6 and the ta2 declarations in the
na'es o respondents %c co#ered ot !0 only 5>>>Acc+ to SC, ta2 declarations are
not conclusi#e e#idence o o%nership o properties stated therein+ At best, they are
indicia o possession in the concept o an o%ner+ ;on-declaration o a property or
ta2 purposes does not necessarily negate o%nership6

- Petitioner posit that the abovementioned irreguarities negate

respondents! "aim o# ega or e$uitabe tite and utimate% &usti#% the
resoution o# the "ase in their #avor

SC: 'e disagree. Cear%( respondents have been abe to estabish b%

preponderan"e o# eviden"e that are right#u o)ners o# Lot 6*.

An o%ner o real property disturbed in his rights o#er the property by the unounded
clai' o others, 'ay bring an action or quieting o title+ The purpose o the action is
to re'o#e the cloud on his title created by any instru'ent, record, encu'brance or
proceeding %hich is apparently #alid or e?ecti#e but is in truth and in act in#alid
and pre:udicial to his title+

 The deeds o sale e2ecuted in a#or o petitioners and the spouses (regorio %ere
pri'a acie #alid and enorceable+ @o%e#er, urther scrutiny and in#estigation
established that petitioners predecessor-in-interest, 4gnacio $andiola, could not
ha#e o%ned the disputed lot+ Consequently, the subsequent con#eyances o ot !"
to the spouses (regorio and thereater, to petitioners, %ere null and #oid+
Respondents( as the ad&udged o)ners o# Lot 6*( are entited to have the
a#orementioned deeds o# sae nui+ed to remove an% doubt regarding
their o)nership o# the ot.

B@&R&FR&, the petition is hereby D&;4&D+ The decision and resolution o the
Court o Appeals are AFF4R8&D %ith the 8D4F4CAT4; that the deed o absolute
sale, in so ar as it co#ers ot !", and the deed o absolute sale are hereby declared
null and #oid+

S RD&R&D+