G.R. No. 163876 - ROSALINA CLADO-REYES, ALICIA REYES-POTENCIANO, ANTONIO C. REYES, BERNARDO C. REYES, JOVITO C. REYES, MARIA REYES-DIZON, BERNARDA REYES-LLANZA, DECEASED REPRESENTED BY BONG R. LLANZA AND REYNALDO C. REYES (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY NINO R. REYES, VS. SPOUSES JULIUS AND LILY LIMPE.DE

Ruling

Accordingly, the trial court ordered petitioners to reconvey the disputed lot to respondents. On February 20, 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling and held that petitioners have no title whatsoever upon which respondents' title could cast a cloud, as they were the ones casting doubt on respondents' title. [15] It held that the documents allegedly executed by Simeon I. Garcia showed no indicia that the alleged owner, Felipe Garcia, donated the disputed lot to them. It further held that Simeon I. Garcia was not the real owner of the lot; thus, he could not make an effective conveyance thereof. Consequently, it upheld respondents' title over the disputed lot. The decretal portion of the decision reads, WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 81, dated January 9, 2001 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED . [16] Petitioners now before this Court raise the sole issue of: WHETHER THE [PETITIONERS] HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE, RECONVEYANCE AND DAMAGES AGAINST RESPONDENTS. [17] Petitioners cite Section 4 [18] of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2 [19] of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and state that their title was founded upon those provisions, which were enacted for the benefit of farmers, majority of whom are educationally deficient, if not uneducated. Next, they contend that respondents are not purchasers in good faith because they were fully aware of petitioners' actual possession of the lot when they purchased the same. Conformably, according to petitioners, respondents are liable for damages under Article 19 [20] of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Respondents counter that they are the true and lawful owners of the disputed lot as evidenced by TCT No. RT-32498 (T-199627), Tax Declaration Nos. 15172 and 9529 and realty tax receipts, all registered and declared in their names. They claim that they are buyers in good faith when they purchased the lot from Farm-Tech Industries, Incorporated, free from all liens and encumbrances. They aver that they are not obliged to go beyond the face of a TCT in the absence of any cloud therein. Respondents also argue that petitioners' cause of action must fail because they failed to prove (1) that their predecessor-in-interest, Mamerto B. Reyes, was a farmer; (2) that the lot was agricultural and not a commercial lot; and (3) that they are qualified beneficiaries under the agrarian reform law. They point out that Simeon I. Garcia, who allegedly executed the Certification and " Pagpapatunay ," was not presented in court to prove the veracity of the contents of those two documents. They also aver that the property mentioned in the document " Pagpapatunay " was not specifically described as the property litigated herein. Thus, according to respondents, those documents have no binding effect on third persons, are hearsay, and have no probative value. After considering the submissions of the parties and