Prepose v. Querrer

 

Prepose v. Querrer

G.R. No. 232594

January 17, 2023

 

FACTS:

                The dispute revolves around a parcel of land located in Barrio Pagdalagan, Municipality of Bauang, La Union. The petitioners, Antonia Prepose and Celedonia Laconsay, are claiming ownership of a portion of this land, alleging that they are the heirs of the registered co-owners, Ciriaco Prepose and Pedro Prepose. The respondents in the case, Benedict Querrer and Noli Querrer, are asserting their ownership of a separate parcel of land adjacent to the disputed property. They claim that they inherited this land from their father, Simeon L. Querrer, and that their construction of a concrete fence on their property was done in compliance with the boundaries established in Tax Declaration No. 10957. Petitioners Prepose and Laconsay argue that the respondents built a concrete fence on a 198-square-meter area that was intended as a right of way for them and other occupants of the land originally covered by a specific title. They assert that this disputed area is their only access to the barangay road leading to the national highway. During the trial, both petitioners and respondents presented their arguments and evidence. Petitioner Antonia Prepose, Celedonia Laconsay, and retired Geodetic Engineer Melecio A. Abenes testified in court, with Abenes presenting a Sketch Plan of the disputed portion. However, the respondents did not testify or present any witnesses during the trial.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the petitioner has no cause of action to recover the disputed property.

 

HELD:

                No, the petitioner has no cause of action to recover the disputed property. Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover real property, the person who claims to have a better right to it must prove the following: first, the identity of the land claimed, and second, his or her title to the same. In civil cases, the burden of proof to establish the cause of action by a preponderance of evidence rests upon the plaintiff or claimant. Preponderance of evidence is "evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in opposition to it" and "does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on the other." Art. 434 of the Civil Code also expressly provides that the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his or her title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. Hence, petitioner must prove the identity of the land claimed, their legal right or title over the disputed property, respondents' obligation not to violate such right or title, and the act of respondents in violation of such right or title. In failing to prove the identity of the disputed property as well as presenting petitioner's title to the same, petitioner's action to recover the disputed property must be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Hence, considering that the courts a quo did not err in dismissing petitioner's Complaint for lack of merit, the present Petition is denied.