Viloria vs. Heirs of Pablo Gaetos

A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 may raise only questions of law, and an action for quieting of title requires the plaintiff to establish legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the subject real property by preponderance of evidence; tax declarations and unsubstantiated claims of possession are insufficient.

The controversy concerns a 10,000-square meter lot in Taboc, San Juan, La Union. The petitioners are heirs of the Quejado family; the respondents are heirs of the Gaetos family, and the heirs of Eudoxia Gaetos and Galiciano Gaetos intervened in the case. The action for quieting of title is governed by Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, which require the plaintiff to have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property.

Josefina Quejado-Viloria, Remedios Quejado-Gaerlan, Benjamin F. Quejado, Demetrio F. Quejado, and Felicitas F. Quejado filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages over a 10,000-square meter lot in Taboc, San Juan, La Union. They claimed ownership by inheritance from a predecessor-in-interest who had openly, publicly, continuously, and peacefully possessed the property without interruption for more than 30 years in the concept of an owner. According to them, the heirs of Segunda Gaetos, Pablo and Salome Gaetos, and Justiniano Gaetos, and the children of Francisco Gaetos surreptitiously and without their knowledge and consent caused the property to be surveyed for the purpose of claiming ownership, thereby disturbing and casting a cloud on their ownership, possession, and title. Efforts at amicable settlement before the barangay council failed.

The Gaetos heirs denied the allegations and insisted that the Quejados were not owners. They maintained that the Gaetos family owned the property by succession from a common ancestor several years before World War II. The property was later surveyed through the cadastral survey of San Juan, La Union and partitioned as Lot No. 1429, with an area of 1,678 square meters, to Constantino Gaetos; Lot No. 1430, with an area of 1,112 square meters, to Juan Aman; Lot No. 1431, with an area of 1,844 square meters, to Pablo Gaetos; and Lot No. 1432, with an area of 2,824 square meters, to Salome Gaetos. The heirs of Eudoxia Gaetos and Galiciano Gaetos, represented by Mildred Madayag, intervened, alleging that they were co-owners of the property in issue. Trial ensued.

The Quejado heirs presented testimonial and documentary evidence. Demetrio and Remedios testified that upon their parents' demise, they took over possession of the property, which was bounded on the North by the Chan Family, on the South by Adelina Paredes, on the East by Segundo Gaetos, and on the West by the China Sea. They averred that their mother had mortgaged the property on several occasions with various banks. Eulogia Catbagan, a tenant, and Vicente Laurea, Sr., a neighbor, both acknowledged the Quejados' ownership; Eulogia attested to the property's sandy state, while Vicente claimed that his brother was a tenant of the property. The Quejados also presented mortgages and their cancellations, as well as Tax Declaration Nos. 13457 and 15859 under the name of Demetrio and Remedios' mother.

The Gaetos heirs adduced the testimony of Isabelo Laurea, who testified that the property was near his place and that its original owner was the grandfather of Francisco Gaetos. The first tenant was Teodoro Laurea, Isabelo's grandfather, who was succeeded by Cosme Laurea and then by Laureano Laurea, and the tenancy was later passed to Isabelo. He described the property as bounded on the North by a brother of Francisco Gaetos, on the South by a daughter of Edis Agbunag, on the East by the national road, and on the West by the sea. He also knew that the husband of Carmen Fernandez bought land previously owned by Mariano Padua located east of the national road, and that Carmen Fernandez's house was about 100 meters from his own place but not within the subject property. Teresita Ganaden, granddaughter of Francisco Gaetos, testified that the property was originally owned by Leon Gaetos and Praxedes Pascua, who had six children—Eudoxia, Galiciano, Francisco, Francisca, Feliza, and Raymunda—all deceased when the case was instituted. She presented San Juan, La Union Cadastre Cad 739-D to show that the property was partitioned among the six children: Eudoxia acquired the northern portion, Lot 1434; Galicano received the middle portion, Lot 1433; Francisco was given Lot 1432; Feliza received Lot 1431; Raymunda had Lot 1430; and Francisca got the southern portion, Lot 1429. Teresita also presented receipts of expropriation payments for properties ordered expropriated by the Court of First Instance of La Union, including the decision in the case involving the subject property, and current tax declarations in the names of individual transferees.

The trial court found that the Quejados' evidence did not convincingly establish that they possessed the property publicly, exclusively, and peacefully in the concept of owners, and that they did not have the requisite title to pursue an action for quieting of title. The Court of Appeals likewise found that petitioners failed to prove their title over the subject property and that the tax declarations under the name of their deceased mother, coupled with their allegations of possession, did not suffice to substantiate their claims.

• Legal and Equitable Title: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals seriously erred in declaring that they had not proven legal or beneficial title to institute the action to quiet title despite the evidence they presented; the uncontroverted tax declarations under the name of their deceased mother supported their claim of ownership, and their failure to declare the property in their own names for taxation purposes did not destroy their title.
• Mortgages as Evidence of Ownership: Petitioners maintained that the mortgages executed by their predecessors-in-interest in favor of several banks proved their ownership, because banks customarily investigate the identity of the owner of real property offered as collateral, and the banks' approval of the mortgages under their predecessors' names confirmed the veracity of their claim.
• Respondents' Evidence: Petitioners contended that respondents' evidence did not show actual possession of the subject property, which belied their claim of ownership; the Gaetoses' testimonial evidence on the location, identity, and description of the property negated their claim, and the cadastral plan and tax declarations presented by respondents were not conclusive proof of ownership.
• Verification and Certification: Petitioners argued that the defective verification and certification against forum shopping was not fatal or jurisdictional and did not affect their appeal.

• Defective Verification and Certification: Respondents urged outright dismissal of the petition because not all petitioners signed the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Purely Factual Questions: Respondents pointed out that the petition raised purely factual matters already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.
• Failure to Prove Superior Right: Respondents averred that even if technical infirmities were disregarded, the appeal should be denied because petitioners failed to establish by preponderance of evidence their superior, legal, and substantive right over the property in dispute; the evidence they presented, including tax declarations under their mother's name, did not prove ownership and title.
• Concurrent Findings: Respondents stressed that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals arrived at the same conclusion, which should no longer be disturbed.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the petition should be dismissed for defective verification and certification against forum shopping because not all petitioners signed it.
• Questions of Law and Fact: Whether the petition for review on certiorari may be entertained notwithstanding that it raises purely factual questions already resolved by the lower courts.
• Quieting of Title — Legal or Equitable Title: Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law in holding that petitioners failed to prove legal or beneficial title to institute the action to quiet title against respondents.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: No. The defect did not warrant dismissal at the inception of the appeal; substantial compliance was present because petitioners shared a common interest and cause of action, allowing one signatory with ample knowledge to sign the verification and certification.
• Questions of Law and Fact: No. A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1 may raise only questions of law; petitioners' allegations required a re-evaluation of facts and evidence, and no exception was fully explained.
• Quieting of Title — Legal or Equitable Title: No. An action for quieting of title requires the plaintiff to establish legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property; petitioners failed to establish either, so there was no cloud to be prevented or removed.

• Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping: The Court applied the guidelines in Altres vs. Empleo. It distinguished noncompliance with verification from noncompliance with certification against forum shopping. Verification noncompliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective; the court may order correction or act on the pleading if strict compliance may be dispensed with to serve the ends of justice. Verification is substantially complied with when one with ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs it and the matters alleged are made in good faith or are true and correct. Certification against forum shopping, by contrast, must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners; those who do not sign are dropped as parties. However, under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, such as when all plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the Rule. Here, petitioners shared a common interest and similar claims in the subject property, and any one of them could be considered as having ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations. Their common cause of action or defense empowered any one of them to sign the certification. The rules on verification and certification are designed to promote the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with absolute literalness so as to subvert their objectives; strict compliance underscores their mandatory nature but does not prohibit substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. Thus, the appeal could not be dismissed at its inception on this formal ground.
• Questions of Law and Fact: A Petition for Review on Certiorari is confined to questions of law. Rule 45, Section 1 provides that the petition shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. Republic vs. Malabanan distinguished a question of law from a question of fact: a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of undisputed facts, while a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of alleged facts. A question of fact also exists when the issue is the correctness of the lower court's appreciation of the evidence or the probative value of the evidence presented. The Court's function is not to analyze or weigh evidence already considered below; factual findings of the lower courts are received with respect. Exceptions exist, such as when the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion; when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; when findings of fact are conflicting; when there is no citation of specific evidence; when findings of absence of fact are contradicted by evidence on record; when the CA's findings are contrary to the trial court's; when the CA overlooked relevant and undisputed facts; when the CA's findings are beyond the issues; and when such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. Petitioners, however, must not merely allege the presence of exceptions but must fully explain why an exception applies. Here, petitioners alleged that the trial court erred in declaring they lacked the requisite title despite their predecessors' possession, mortgages, and tax declarations; that the trial court failed to appreciate their evidence, witnesses, and documents; and that the trial court erred in dismissing their case. These allegations entailed a review of factual circumstances already determined and similarly concluded by the lower courts. They questioned the lower courts' appreciation of evidence and asked the Court to weigh the evidence anew, which is not allowed under Rule 45. The invocation of factual review was also bereft of a full explanation why an exception should be exercised. Thus, the petition failed on this ground.
• Quieting of Title — Legal or Equitable Title: Even if the rules on review were relaxed, the petition would still fail for lack of merit. In an action for quieting of title, the plaintiff bears the burden to show by preponderance of evidence legal and equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject of the action. Spouses Basa vs. Loy reiterated that for an action to quiet title to prosper, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. Absent such legal or equitable title or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed. The action is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity, and two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. These requirements are based on Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code. Article 476 allows an action to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable and may be prejudicial to the title; an action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast. Article 477 provides that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject matter of the action, and need not be in possession. Here, petitioners did not have legal title: there were no certificates of title in their respective names. Based on the findings of the lower courts, they also failed to substantiate their claim of equitable title. The tax declarations under the names of their predecessor-in-interests, documentation alluding to mortgages, and testimonial evidence did not convincingly establish equitable title over the subject property. Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by other evidence. Mere allegation of open, continuous, and exclusive possession without substantiation does not meet the requirements of law. Because petitioners failed at the outset to establish the first requirement of legal or equitable title, their cause of action for quieting of title could not prosper. In view of their lack of title, there was no cloud to be prevented or removed and no case of quieting of title to speak of.

• Quieting of Title — Legal or Equitable Title and Two Requisites — In an action for quieting of title, the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership; equitable title means beneficial ownership. Two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on the title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Absent such title or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed. The Court applied this doctrine in denying the petition because petitioners had no certificates of title in their names and failed to substantiate equitable title.
• Tax Declarations as Evidence of Ownership — Tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported by other evidence. The Court applied this principle in holding that the tax declarations under the names of petitioners' predecessor-in-interests, documentation alluding to mortgages, and testimonial evidence did not convincingly establish equitable title over the subject property.
• Substantial Compliance with Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping — Noncompliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective; the court may order correction or act on the pleading if strict compliance may be dispensed with to serve the ends of justice. Verification is substantially complied with when one with ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs it and the matters alleged are made in good faith or are true and correct. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners; those who do not sign are dropped as parties. However, under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, such as when all plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the Rule. The Court applied this to hold that the defective verification and certification did not warrant dismissal at the inception of the appeal.
• Rule 45 — Questions of Law Only — A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1 shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of undisputed facts; a question of fact arises when the doubt concerns the truth or falsity of alleged facts, the probative value of evidence, or the correctness of the lower court's appreciation of evidence. The Court applied this rule in holding that petitioners' allegations required a factual review and that the petition failed on this ground.
• Exceptions to the Rule Against Factual Review — Although factual findings of lower courts are generally respected, the Court may take exceptions when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. A party must not merely allege the presence of exceptions but must fully explain why an exception applies. In this case, petitioners failed to provide such explanation, so the factual findings were not reviewed.

• "In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, it is essential that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the subject-matter of the action. Legal title denotes registered ownership, while equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed." — This passage states the controlling requisites for quieting of title and was the basis for denying the petition because petitioners failed to establish legal or equitable title.
• "The tax declarations under the names of their predecessor-in-interests, documentation alluding to mortgages, and the testimonial evidence they have presented did not convincingly establish their equitable title over the subject property." — This passage applies the evidentiary standard to the facts and explains why petitioners' documentary and testimonial evidence failed to prove equitable title.
• "A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of [undisputed] facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts." — This passage distinguishes questions of law from questions of fact and supports the denial of the petition under Rule 45 for raising factual issues.
• "Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule." — This passage states the substantial-compliance exception applied to the defective certification against forum shopping.

• Altres vs. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246 (2008) — Laid down the guidelines on noncompliance with verification and certification against forum shopping; applied to find substantial compliance and to avoid dismissal at the inception of the appeal.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Malabanan, 646 Phil. 631, 637 (2010) — Distinguished a question of law from a question of fact; cited for the Rule 45 limitation that only questions of law may be raised.
• Spouses Basa vs. Loy, G.R. No. 204131, June 4, 2018 — Reiterated the requirements for an action to quiet title; cited as the basis for denying the petition for failure to prove legal or equitable title.
• Bernas vs. The Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, Mejia, G.R. Nos. 195908, 195910, August 15, 2018 — Cited for the exceptions to the rule limiting review to questions of law; petitioners failed to explain why any exception applied.
• Ignacio vs. Ragasa, G.R. No. 227896, January 29, 2020 — Cited for the proposition that a question of fact includes the assessment of the probative value of the evidence presented.
• Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760, 769 (2013) — Cited for the respect accorded to the factual findings of the lower courts.
• Fernandez vs. Villegas, 741 Phil. 689, 699-701 (2014) — Cited in relation to the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping.

• Article 476, Civil Code — Allows an action to remove a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable and may be prejudicial to the title; an action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast. Applied as the statutory basis for quieting of title, but absent legal or equitable title, no cloud exists to be prevented or removed.
• Article 477, Civil Code — Provides that the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real property subject matter of the action, and need not be in possession. Applied in denying the petition because petitioners failed to establish legal or equitable title.
• Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — A Petition for Review on Certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. Applied in denying the petition because petitioners raised factual questions requiring a re-evaluation of evidence.
• Rule 45, Section 5, Rules of Court — Failure to comply with the requirements for the petition is a sufficient ground for dismissal; the Supreme Court may deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is without merit, is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration. Cited in support of the denial of the petition.

Leonen (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, Delos Santos, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.