G.R. No. 112381 - Apa vs. Ferdez

The petitioners are Isabelo Apa, Manuel Apa, and Leonilo Jacalan.
The respondents include Hon. Rumoldo R. Fernandez, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City), Hon. Celso V. Espinosa, and the spouses of Felixberto Tigol, Jr. and Rosita Taghoy Tigol.

The criminal case (No. 012489) involves a prosecution for violation of P.D. 772, commonly known as the Anti-Squatting Law.
The criminal information alleges that, around February 1990 (or earlier) in Agus, Lapu-Lapu City, the petitioners conspired, confederated, and mutually aided each other in unlawfully occupying or possessing a particular portion of real property without the owner's consent.
Specifically, the petitioners are accused of constructing their respective residential houses on a portion of Lot No. 3635-B (as covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13250) belonging to Rosita Tigol, thereby depriving her of the use of her property.

The petitioners moved for the suspension of their arraignment on the grounds that a prejudicial question was pending resolution in a related civil case.
They also filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s earlier decision. Both motions were denied.
As a result, on August 25, 1993, the trial court proceeded with the arraignment, where the petitioners entered a plea of not guilty.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on September 2, 1993, was denied on September 21, 1993.

The civil case involved is Civil Case No. 2247-L, entitled Anselmo Taghoy and Vicente Apa versus Felixberto Tigol, Jr. and Rosita T. Tigol, et al.
The civil action seeks to declare nullity of TCT No. 13250 (belonging to Rosita Tigol) and to partition Lot No. 3635-B among the petitioners and Rosita Tigol as heirs of Filomeno and Rita Taghoy.
The civil case was filed in 1990, three years before the criminal case was initiated (May 27, 1993).
On February 23, 1994, a decision in the civil case rendered the Transfer Certificate of Title null and declared the lot to be owned in common by the petitioners and the spouses (respondents) as an inheritance.

Whether the pending civil case (Civil Case No. 2247-L), which challenges the ownership of Lot No. 3635-B, presents a prejudicial question that justifies the suspension of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 012489.

Whether the resolution of the land ownership dispute in the civil case is determinative of the petitioners’ guilt or innocence in the criminal prosecution for squatting.

Whether the petitioners, if found to be co-owners of the property, can be held criminally liable for squatting, given that the alleged wrongful possession would be negated by a substantiated claim of ownership.