G.R. No. 107930 October 7, 1994 HEIRS OF GEORGE BOFILL, IGNACIO BOFILL, VICTORIA B. ANASTACIO, REGINA FRANCISCA B.

CHUACHINGCO, EVEL N B. SERRA, !ANUELITA B. VI"CON#E, LAGRI!AS B. #ULLANO, LOUR#ES B. #ASAL, !ANUEL BOFILL, $R., HEIRS OF %LARI#EL BOFILL, E#UAR#O BOFILL, !ARIA LUISA BOFILL, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF A%%EALS, S%S. ENRI&UE BEGALAN '() FLOR#ELI"A BEGALAN, S%S. $OSE CATALAN '() BERNAR#ITA CATALAN, '() HEIRS OF !ANUEL BARRE#O, ('*e+,, NOR!A B. ALE$AGA, LEON BARRE#O, !AGIL N BARRE#O, !ARIA BARRE#O, RA! BARRE#O, RELL BARRE#O, ENRI&UETA B. SARTORIO, re-re.e(te) b, VIL!A BARRE#O BALATA O, respondents. F'ct./ Petitioners filed an action for declaration of ownership over lot No.2954-A of the Panay Cadastre situated in Bo. inatiran, Panay, Capi!, covered "y #ransfer Certificate of #itle No.#-$9%94 a&ainst the 'ps.(nri)ue and *lordeli!a Be&alan and 'ps.+ose and Bernardita Catalan. +oinin& their cause, the heirs of ,anuel Barredo also filed a co-plaint in intervention a&ainst petitioners, clai-in& ownership of the said lot in liti&ation. #he .e&ional #rial Court declared petitioners as the owner of the lot in )uestion and they are also entitled to the possession of the said lot and ordered respondents to vacate pre-ises. #he counterclai- and the co-plaint in intervention was dis-issed. .espondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. #he CA reversed the decision and directed the .e&ister of /eeds of Capi! to divide the #C# No. $9%94 into two titles0one in the na-e of the plaintiffs without iincludin& the portion covered "y ot No. 2954-A and the other title coverin& ot No.2954-A in the na-e of the heirs of ,anuel Barredo1herein intervenor appellants2, after py-ent of the re)uired ta3es and fees. I..0e/

4hether or not petitioners "e declared as the owners of the said lot in )uestion. 4hether or not the torrens certificate of title issued to ,anuel Bofill "e considered as proof of ownership

R0+1(2/ e.. #he rationale for the fore&oin& disposition of the trial court is that 5 . . . the clai- of the plaintiff-intervenors and defendants over this land -ainly anchored on the supposed /eed of (3chan&e of ,arch %, $994, e3ecuted "etween ,anuel Bofill and Cornelio Barriatos, was a -ere e3chan&e of collateral1s2 fro- ot 526 to ot 2954-A for a loan of P457.77 o"tained "y ,anuel Bofill. #he said loan havin& "een paid one year thereafter, said deed of e3chan&e as collateral for said loan was rendered without le&al force and effect, hence no entry in the title coverin& the lot was -ade re&ardin& said loan, nor was the title in the na-e of ,anuel Bofill transferred to any"ody else up to the present ti-e. #he case filed "y +uana Brillo a&ainst 'otera Bofill . . . on Nove-"er $8, $985 for the re&istration of the /eed of (3chan&e of $944 and for the surrender of the ori&inal title was done thirty-one 19$2 years after its e3ecution, considerin& laches and prescription, is also without force and effect . . . . ,oreover, the order in said case has "eco-e -oot and acade-ic upon the death of 'otera Bofill and the surrender of .:-$456 "y her heirs and the cancellation of the sa-e upon the e3ecution of an (3tra-+udicial Partition "y the heirs of ,anuel Bofill and 'otera Bofill and the issuance of the present Certificate of #itle No. $9%94 in the na-e of the plaintiffs.

#he 'upre-e Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the ;ud&-ent of the court a quo for the followin& reasons. 1. #he Court of Appeals erred when it re;ected the testi-onial evidence provin& that the Casugot involves an e3chan&e of collaterals securin& the P457-loan of Bofill to a certain Cornelio Barriatos without citin& any contrary proof nor e3plainin& why such factual findin& should "e thrown out or i&nored. <n the sa-e fashion, it casually "rushed aside the factual findin& of the trial court that the loan of Bofill was paid one year after the e3ecution of the Casugot there"y renderin& it without further effect. 3 #he court further note that the Casugot written in Hiligaynon is a-"i&uous as the e3chan&e can refer to ownership, possession, collateral, etc. <t does not necessarily apply to ownership alone as understood "y the Court of Appeals. Apparently, the error of the appellate court lies in the interpretation of the Casugot when it stated in its decision that the docu-ent =spea>s elo)uently of ,anuel Bofill?s intention to transfer= ot 2954-A to Barriatos and concluded that it was an e3chan&e of ownership of two 122 lots. #his error is not surprisin& as the appellate court not only adopted the (n&lish translation of the Casugot offered "y private respondents, which was o"viously tailored to suit their purpose, "ut also "ecause it omitted a material phrase stipulating that Barriatos was returning Lot 526 to Bofill . 4ithout that phrase on the return of ot 526 it would appear, as it does, that Bofill donated ot 2954-A to Barriatos which, in effect, would render the deed of e3chan&e an a"surdity. @ad the Court of Appeals "een -ore accurate and precise in )uotin& data fro- the records, perhaps it would have arrived at the ri&ht conclusion.

2. #he Casugot clearly reflects the a&ree-ent of Bofill and Barriatos with re&ard to the ownership of ot 2954, now
co-prisin& ot 2954-A, which is the lot in controversy, and ot 2954-B.<t is clear clear in this a&ree-ent that =,ANA( *. B:*< is the real and a"solute owner of two 122 parcels of land, ot 2954 and ot 526.= #his declaration is decisive in the disposition of this case as it contains an e3press stipulation "y the si&natories thereto on the ownership of Bofill of the lot in )uestion "indin& upon the- and their successors in interest. Private respondents atte-pt to crush this overwhel-in& evidence "y &ivin& certain portions of the Casugot a connotation contrary to the a&ree-ent and intention of the parties. Private respondents alle&e that the $999 plan su"dividin& ot 2954 into ot 2954-A in the na-e of Barriatos and ot 2954-B in the na-e of Bofill reveals the e3tent of ownership of the parties over ot 2954. :n this issue, the 'upre-e Court held that reflectin& this su"division is not conclusive as to ownership as it -ay refer only to the delineation of their possession. Accordin& to the 'upre-e Court, the "est proof of the ownership of ,anuel Bofill is the certificate of title in his na-e. ,oreover, the parties to the a&ree-ent apparently did not consider the placin& of ot 2954-A in the na-e of Barriatos as a transfer of ownership "ecause when they e3ecuted the Casugot in $944 they still ac>nowled&ed Bofill as the real and absolute owner of the entire ot 2954. *urther, the court held that the e3chan&e of lots as used in the Casugot can refer to e3chan&e of ownership, of possession, of collaterals, or of any other attri"ute of ownership. /efinitely, e3chan&e of lands does not necessarily refer to e3chan&e of ownership. Besides, possession is not a definitive proof of ownership, nor is non-possession inconsistent therewith. @ence, the clai- that Barriatos was the possessor of ot 2954-A is not inco-pati"le with Bofill?s clai- of ownership. Private respondents ne3t point us to the cru3 of the Casugot where"y Barriatos returns his interest in ot 526 to Bofill in e3chan&e for ot 2954-A. @owever, it is not clear fro- the provision what interest was "ein& traded "y the parties. Conse)uently, we are constrained to lean on the pre-ise they the-selves esta"lished in the first part of the Casugot, i.e., that Bofill is the real and a"solute owner of ot 526 and ot 2954. Barriatos not "ein& the owner of either lot, there could not have "een a transfer of ownership "etween the-.