Case Digest: CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS et al.

CLARA C. DE LA CRUZ et al. v. COURT OF APPEALS et al.

412 SCRA 282 (2003)

Proof of ownership, together with identity of the land, is the basic rule for an action to prosper.

The case involves two parcels of land, inherited by siblings Esteban, Andrea and Tomasa Dela Cruz. Clara C. De la Cruz (Clara) and Claudia C. Manadong (Claudia) were the daughters of Esteban. On the other hand, Rosario Opana (Rosario) was the second wife of Tomasa‘s husband.

Clara and Claudia filed a complaint for partition of the abovementioned land, alleging that they were the heirs of Tomasa, and therefore entitled to the land presently occupied by Rosario. A tax declaration statement and a deed of absolute sale were presented to support their claim. On the other hand, Rosario alleges that the two properties were hers; the first having been bought by her husband even before his marriage to his first wife, Tomasa, and the second property inherited by him from his father. Rosario also alleges that the complaint is already barred by laches, since the land had been registered in her name since 1974, while the action had only been brought in 1992.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Rosario and declared the same to be the absolute owner of the land in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court‘s Decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action for recovery of property will prosper

HELD:

Contrary to the assertion of Clara and Claudia, since the Rosario alleged exclusive ownership, the action for partition, which assumes that the parties are co-owners, had, as correctly held by the trial court, it citing Rodriguez v. Ravilan, become one for recovery of property.

Clara and Clauidia harp on Tax Declaration No. 29824 covering the property in Mayana, but the boundaries set forth therein do not jibe with those of the property in Mayana in the possession of and registered in the name of respondent.

In Gesmundo v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held a person who claims ownership of real property is duty bound to clearly identify the land being claimed in accordance with the document on which he anchors his right of ownership. When the record does not show that the land subject matter of the action has been exactly determined, such action cannot prosper. Proof of ownership together with identity of the land is the basic rule. Clara and Claudia failed to come up with a clear description of the land sought or claimed. On that score alone, their case fails.