Facts:

This case revolves around Lot No. 3781 located in Inayawan, Cebu. The primary parties involved include petitioners Rosendo Bacalso, Rodrigo Bacalso, and other family members, and respondents Maximo Padigos, Flaviano Mabuyo, and others who are co-owners of the lot. The case traces back to April 17, 1995, when the respondents filed a complaint against the Bacalsos in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City under Civil Case No. CEB-17326. The respondents lay claim to the property, arguing that they are descendants of the deceased co-owners and that the Bacalsos have been illegally possessing and leasing portions of the property. The respondents stated that their efforts to reclaim the property through demands and conciliatory actions were unsuccessful, prompting them to pursue legal action.

In their response, the Bacalsos claimed residency and ownership of the land, asserting that their father, Alipio Bacalso Sr., had purchased shares of the property through legitimate deeds of

...

Facts:

Disputed Property and Parties

• A parcel of land identified as Lot No. 3781 in Inayawan, Cebu is under dispute.
• The lot is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2649, registered in the names of 13 co-owners with their respective shares, including Fortunata, Felix, Wenceslao, Maximiano, Geronimo, Macaria, Simplicio, Ignacio, Matilde, Marcelo, Rustica, Raymunda, and Antonino Padigos.
• Various heirs of the registered co-owners (respondents) initiated proceedings against petitioners Rosendo Bacalso and Rodrigo Bacalso, alleging that they are not entitled to portions of the lot.

Initiation of the Case and Claims

• On April 17, 1995, respondents filed a complaint before the RTC of Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB-17326) seeking quieting of title, a declaration of nullity of certain documents, recovery of possession, and damages.
• Respondents based their claim on:
• The assertion that they are the lawful heirs of specific registered co-owners.
• Allegations that petitioners, as heirs of Alipio Bacalso, Sr., improperly acquired portions of the lot through tax declarations lacking legal basis.
• The leasing out of parts of the lot and construction of houses thereon by petitioners, with demands to vacate proving futile.

Petitioners’ Defense and Counterclaims

• Petitioners contended in their Answer that:
• Their father, Alipio Bacalso, Sr., purchased shares in the lot via valid deeds of sale from the heirs of Fortunata, Simplicio, Wenceslao, Geronimo, and Felix.
• They acquired other shares by extraordinary acquisitive prescription through continuous, open, peaceful, and adverse possession since 1949.
• In reply to defendants’ counterclaims, respondents alleged:
• The deeds of sale relied upon by petitioners were spurious.
• Even assuming the deeds were genuine, laches barred Alipio Bacalso, Sr.’s claim.
• Some necessary co-owners (indispensable parties) were not joined in the pleadings.

Amended and Expanded Pleadings

• Respondents, with leave of court, filed:
• An Amended Complaint impleading additional defendants (heirs such as Marceliana Doblas, Terolio Bacalso, Alipio Bacalso, Jr., Mario Bacalso, William Bacalso, Alipio Bacalso III, and Christine B. BaAes).
• A Second Amended Complaint adding further plaintiffs (including heirs of Maximiano, such as Timoteo, Perfecto, Frisca Salarda, Flora Quinto/Guinto, Benita Templa, Sotero, Andres, and Emilio Padigos).
• Petitioners objected on the ground that not all indispensable parties were joined, affecting the Court’s jurisdiction.

Trial Court and Appellate Developments

• The RTC Branch 16 ruled in favor of respondents:
• Declaring respondents entitled to the ownership and possession of the lot.
• Declaring the questioned deeds of sale null and void.
• Ordering petitioners to pay actual and compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
• A writ of execution was issued on a motion for execution pending appeal, resulting in the demolition of houses built on the lot.
• The Court of Appeals, by a decision dated September 6, 2005, affirmed the RTC ruling.
• Petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising issues including:
• The validity of the Second Amended Complaint despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties.
• The credibility and sufficiency of evidence regarding continuous possession and prescription.
• The handling and weight of conflicting expert testimony on the authenticity of the disputed documents.

Contested Evidence and Expert Testimonies

• Dispute centered on the authenticity of several exhibits (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) which were the basis of petitioners’ claim.
• Respondents’ expert, Nimrod Bernabe VaAo, opined that:
• Certain signatures and a thumbprint on the questioned documents were spurious.
• In contrast, petitioners’ expert, Wilfredo Espina, supported the genuineness of the signatures by comparing them with established standard specimens.
• The Court noted that:
• Expert opinions are advisory and subject to weighing.
• The methodology and cross-examination procedures followed (or not followed) played a crucial role in assessing the evidentiary value of the expert testimonies.

Underlying Acts of Possession and Laches

• Petitioners demonstrated long and continuous acts of possession:
• Tilling the property since the 1950s.
• Constructing and residing in a house on the lot since about 1985.
• Maintaining tax declarations and payments in the name of Alipio Bacalso, Sr. from as early as 1960 until his death in 1994.
• These acts underscored the claim of adverse possession and prescription over a duration reportedly spanning 46 years.
• Respondents, however, argued that they only discovered the deeds in 1994 and that laches barred petitioners’ adverse possession defense.

Issue:

Joinder of Indispensable Parties

• Whether the failure to implead all indispensable parties in the Second Amended Complaint undermined the jurisdiction of the trial court.
• Whether the joinder requirement, as defined by Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, was met in a quieting of title action.

Authenticity and Validity of the Disputed Documents

• Whether the questioned deeds of sale (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) were valid or spurious.
• Whether the conflicting expert testimonies (VaAo’s findings versus Espina’s analyses) were sufficient to prove forgery or establish authenticity.

Application of Prescription and Laches

• Whether petitioners’ long and uninterrupted acts of possession amounted to sufficient adverse possession and prescription.
• Whether respondents’ delay in asserting their claims amounted to laches, thereby barring their recovery action.

Due Process in the Demolition of Houses

• Whether the execution of the writ leading to the demolition of houses (built on the disputed lot) violated due process, particularly since the lessees were not given an opportunity to be heard.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)