DOCTRINE 1: Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides for the modes of

appeal. The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and
resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal, the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the
CA from the RTC, acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, the
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme
Court and resolves only questions of law.

DOCTRINE 2: An action for reconveyance is a remedy available to the rightful owner

of land which has been wrongly or erroneously registered in the name of another for
the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.  In an
action for reconveyance, there are two crucial facts that must be alleged in the
complaint: (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land; and (2) that the defendant
had illegally dispossessed him of the same. The complainant has the burden of proving
ownership over the registered sought to be reconveyed.

Heirs of Nicanor Garcia vs. Spouses Dominador J. Burgos and Primitiva I.

Burgos | G.R. No. 236173, March 04, 2020

FACTS:
In June 1980, landowner Francia, with the conformity of the previous tenant Juan De
Armas, designated Garcia as the legal transferee or legitimate tenant (kasama) to
possess, own, and cultivate a parcel of land, with an area of 8,115 square meters (sq.
m.), situated in Brgy. Daungan, Guiguinto, Bulacan. Dominador was one of Garcia’s
agricultural workers. Garcia commenced actual possession and cultivation of the land
from 1980 until his death on June 23, 2010. Garcia shouldered all the expenses in
farming the land. In turn, Dominador would give the harvest from the land to Garcia
and his wife Priscila.
On November 24, 2008, Garcia discovered that about one-third of the land, or 2,705
sq. m., was unlawfully assigned to Dominador. The land assigned to Dominador was
further subdivided into six small lots with their respective issued titles.

On the date of his discovery of the subdivision of the land, Garcia executed a letter-
authority in favor of his nephew, Basilio C. Ignacio and Jose V. Doblada to administer
and fix the land. Garcia likewise filed a complaint against Dominador for illegal titling,
selling, and reconveyance before the barangay chairman of Brgy. Daungan, Guiguinto,
Bulacan. Dominador promised to reconvey, at his expense, to Garcia the four lots he
has not yet sold to another person.
Petitioners sought the help of the barangay captain of Daungan for the return of the
lots, but Dominador failed to comply with his promise to Garcia. They sent Dominador a
demand letter for reconveyance of the lots. When Dominador still failed to reconvey
the lots, petitioners filed the complaint. Petitioners alleged that Dominador committed
fraud, falsification of document, and misrepresentation when he acquired the titles to
the six parcels of land.

In their Answer to the Complaint as well as their Supplemental Answer with Special and
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, the Spouses Dominador and Primitiva alleged
that the case filed by petitioners is an agrarian dispute over which the RTC has no
jurisdiction; that petitioners have no cause of actions against them; and that the
complaint was filed without a certificate to file action from the  barangay. They further
alleged that Dominador acquired the land, with an area of 2,705 sq. m., through a
Deed of Absolute Sale, dated February 8, 1999, executed by Francia in Dominador’s
favor.

In the Order dated January 20, 2017, the RTC ruled out tenancy relationship between
Garcia and Dominador. The RTC held that Garcia was not the owner of the land, but
only a substitute tenant of Francia. Dominador, on the other hand, was Garcia’s
agricultural worker. Since there was no tenancy relationship between Dominador and
Garcia, the case is not an agrarian dispute.

The RTC further ruled that the parties reside in different   barangays  and municipalities.
As such, a  barangay  certification is not necessary for the filing of the complaint. As
regards the lack of cause of action, the RTC ruled that the issue can be properly
threshed out in a full-blown trial.

The Spouses Dominador and Primitiva and the Spouses Filip and Marites filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order dated January 20, 2017 on the ground that petitioners
have no cause of action against them. They alleged that since Garcia was not the
owner of the land, he had nothing to transfer or transmit to his heirs. They also
insisted that even if the parties reside in different  barangays , the certification should
be issued by the  barangay  where the land is located. They maintained that the case
should be referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) because it is an
agrarian dispute.

In an Order dated June 7, 2017, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action,
lack of personality on the part of petitioners to sue, and prescription. The RTC ruled
that Garcia was only a tenant and not an heir of Francia. As such, petitioners have no
personality to file an action for reconveyance because their predecessor-in-interest was
not the owner of the land they sought to be reconveyed. The RTC also ruled that since
the titles to the lots were registered in 1999, the heirs of Francia, not the heirs of
Garcia, only had ten years or until 2009 within which to file the action for
reconveyance. The RTC further ruled that the action had already prescribed.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification (Re: Order dated June
7, 2017)  Ex Abundante Cautela . In the assailed Order dated November 23, 2017, the
RTC denied the motion. The RTC ruled that the grounds raised by petitioners in their
motion for reconsideration were already considered and discussed in its Order dated
June 7, 2017.

Petitioners initially filed a Notice of Appeal. Before the expiration of the 15-day period
within which to file the Notice of Appeal, petitioners withdrew the appeal and filed a
Motion for Extension to File Petition for Review before the Court on the ground that
only questions of law are involved in their petition.

The Spouses Dominador and Primitiva and the Spouses Filip and Marites filed their
Comment alleging that petitioners raised both factual and legal issues before the Court
and, as such, the Court should deny the petition.

ISSUE 1: Whether petitioners availed of the proper mode of appeal in filing the
petition before the Supreme Court.

RULING:
Petitioners Availed Themselves of a Wrong Mode of Appeal.

Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides for the modes of appeal. The first
mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, is brought to
the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and resolves questions
of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of appeal, the petition for
review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, acting
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, the appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme Court and resolves only
questions of law.

As to whether the issues involve question of law or question of fact, the Court added:

There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being
admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on
the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or
controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

Petitioners raised the following arguments before the Court:

1. The Kasunduan Ukol sa Salinan ng Pamumuwisan sa Lupang Palayan,
(Complainant’s Annex “H”) albeit[] unnotarized[,] is an exception to the rule;
2. The execution of an Agreement/Undertaking between Dominador Burgos and
Nicanor Garcia amounts to a partial performance of a contract or undertaking;
3. The possession of the two (2) original Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Titles Nos. T-
126119 and T-126120 constitutes constructive possession or resulting trust;
4. Contrary to the claim of the defendants that the plaintiffs have no personality to
sue, the latter being direct descendants of Nicanor Garcia, rights are transmissible
upon the death of the decedent;
5. Action for reconveyance which is equivalent to an action for quieting of title is the
proper action filed at the lower court;
6. The Court a quo committed another misrepresentation of the law by ruling that the
action for reconveyance has prescribed; and
7. The trial court made one more misapplication of the law when it ruled  a quo that
this trial court is not the proper court to resolve breach of agreement at the
Barangay. The arguments do not merely call for the interpretation of the law, but
also the appreciation of the factual matters raised by the parties. The arguments
require the Court to look into the contracts, interpret their contents, and determine
their nature.

In addition, petitioners alleged that Garcia had been in actual cultivation and
possession of the land from 1980, when he became Francia’s legitimate tenant, until
his death on June 23, 2010. Respondents disputed this allegation, pointing out that
Garcia died in California, United States of America (USA). In fact, the death
certificate submitted by petitioners indicated that Garcia had been in the USA for ten
years prior to his death. Clearly, whether Garcia was in actual possession and
cultivation of the land until his death is a question of fact. Further, petitioners are not
only questioning the authenticity of the sale between Francia and Dominador arguing
that it was not a valid deed of sale. Petitioners also alleged that Dominador was guilty
of fraud, falsification of document, and misrepresentation when he subdivided the land
and acquired titles over the subdivided lots. It is a settled rule that questions of
authenticity of documents are questions of fact. When the resolution of issues invites a
review of the evidence presented, the questions posed before the courts are questions
of fact.

Hence, the resolution of the merits of the case involves both questions of fact and law.
Petitioners availed themselves of a wrong mode of appeal in filing the petition directly
to the Court instead of filing a Notice of Appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the
Rules.

ISSUE 2. Whether the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint.

RULING:
RTC Correctly Dismissed the Complaint. Petitioners’ complaint is for Reconveyance of
Ownership, Possession and Property, Breach of Agreement/Undertaking, Cancellation of
Titles, Nullity of Deeds of Sale, and Damages. An action for reconveyance is a remedy
available to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongly or erroneously
registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer
or reconvey the land to him. In an action for reconveyance, there are two crucial facts
that must be alleged in the complaint: (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land;
and (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the same.  The complainant
has the burden of proving ownership over the registered sought to be reconveyed.

In this case, petitioners claim for reconveyance is based on Garcia’s designation as a

tenant or kasama of Francia, the owner of the land. As correctly pointed out by the
RTC, Garcia was not the owner of the land sought to be reconveyed. Garcia, if he were
alive, has no personality to file the action for reconveyance against respondents. As
Garcia’s successors-in-interest, petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of Garcia.
Hence, they also have no personality to file for an action for reconveyance. Only
Francia, or her heirs, are entitled to file an action for reconveyance against
respondents.