LALUAN VS.

MALPAYA
G.R. No. L-21231. July 30. 1975

CASTRO,J:

Facts:

The Laluans, Laguits, and Sorianos filed with the CFI of

Pangasinan a complaint against Apolinario Malpaya, Melecio
Tambot, and Bernardino Jasmin for recovery of ownership and
possession of two parcels of land, basing it on their alleged
right to inherit from Marciana Laluan through legal
succession.

The first parcel of land was alleged to be a paraphernal

property of the late Marciana Laluan and was claimed to be
sold to respondent Tambot by respondent Malpaya as
evidenced by a “Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property”. The
second parcel of land was alleged to be a conjugal property
of Sps. Malpaya and Laluan and that respondent Malpaya sold
the whole property to respondents Tambot and Jasmin as
evidenced by an “Absolute Deed of Sale”, even though the
right to sell was only for one-half of the said land.

The respondents answered, denying the allegations and

claiming that the parcels of land belonged to respondent
Malpaya as his exclusive property. Further averred was that
respondent Malpaya had the “perfect legal right” dispose of
the lands and that they bought the properties in good faith.

To expedite proceedings, the parties entered into a

partial stipulation of facts at the hearings. Thereafter, several
postponements followed.

At the hearing scheduled on August 1, 1957, neither

respondents nor their counsels appeared. Even so,
petitioners moved for leave to continue with the presentation
of their evidence, which the court a quo granted.

When judgement was rendered, the “Deed of Absolute

Sale of Real Property” and “Absolute Deed of Sale” were
declared null and void, except for the one-half portion of the
land described in the latter document which belonged to
respondent Malpaya; petitioners were declared owners pro
indiviso of the entirety of the land subject matter of “Deed of
Absolute Sale of Real Property” and respondent Tambot was
ordered to not only deliver the possession of said land, but
also pay for damages; and lastly, petitioners were also
declared owners pro indiviso of one-half of the land subject
matter of the “Absolute Deed of Sale” and respondents
Tambot and Jasmin were ordered to deliver the possession of
the said half-portion to the petitioners, as well as pay for
damages. The respondents, thereafter, filed for a motion for
reconsideration, which the court denied.

Above mentioned respondents later appealed to the

Court of Appeals. When judgment was rendered, the
appealed Decision was set aside and the case was remanded
to the court a quo for further proceedings. On the other hand,
through a motion for reconsideration, the petitioners asked
the CA to re-examine its decision, which the latter denied.
Hence, the petition for certiorari.

Issue:

WON the parcel of land subject of the “Deed of Absolute

Sale of Real Property” is the paraphernal property of the
deceased Marciana Laluan.

Ruling:

The invariable applicable rule is to the effect that in order

to maintain an action to recover ownership, the person who
claims that he has a better right to the property must prove
not only his ownership of the property claimed but also the
identity thereof. The party who desires to recover must fix
the identity of the land he claims. And where doubt and
uncertainty exist as to the identity of the land claimed, a court
should resolve the question by recourse to the pleadings and
the record as well as to the extrinsic evidence, oral or written.

Absent, therefore, any indicium in the record to show

and identify with the absolute certainty any of the three
parcels of land included in the deed of donation propter
nuptias as the land described in the “Deed of Absolute Sale of
Real Property”, the prudent course open consists in an
investigation by the court a quo, either in the form of a
hearing or an ocular inspection, or both, to enable it to know
positively the land in litigation. There exists sufficient ground
to remand the case to the court a quo for a new trial on the
matter.

Accordingly, the judgment of the CA and its resolution

are set aside; the judgment of the court a quo in so far as it
pertains to the “Absolute Deed of Sale” is affirmed; the
judgment of the same in so far as it related to the “Deed of
Absolute Sale of Real Property” is set aside; and the case is
remanded to the court a quo for a new trial, to the end that
the identities of the parcels of land in dispute may be
specifically established.