Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32531)
Facts:
Jose O. Barrios (Deceased) (Substituted by Son Joselito Barrios) v. Court of Appeals, Heracleo B. Villacin, Jr. and Vicente B. Villacin, G.R. No. L-32531, August 31, 1977, the Supreme Court First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.This case arises from two consolidated ejectment actions tried jointly in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Occidental: Civil Case No. 223 (CA-G.R. No. 38138-R) and Civil Case No. 229 (CA-G.R. No. 38142-R). The proceedings at trial resulted in a decision dated May 12, 1966 (modified June 16, 1966) finding the defendants in both suits to be possessors in bad faith, ordering them to vacate and awarding damages (in Civil Case No. 229 the trial court fixed damages at P18,000 per year beginning 1964).
On appeal the Court of Appeals’ Special Third Division (CA-G.R. No. 38142‑R, penned by Justice Jose B. Rodriguez, concurring Justices Nicasio A. Yatco and Manuel P. Barcelona) affirmed the CFI in Civil Case No. 223 but reversed in Civil Case No. 229, holding the Villacins to be purchasers and possessors in good faith and directing petitioner to exercise remedies under Article 448 of the New Civil Code (either appropriate improvements upon payment of P22,000 or compel respondents to pay the reasonable price of the area). Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari to contest only the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA‑G.R. No. 38142‑R (Civil Case No. 229).
The contested facts: Lot described in Free Patent V‑4415 and originally registered in the name of Lorenza Montano (Original Certificate of Title No. F‑1670) was partly within the forestal zone until its release on March 25, 1960; a portion (referred to as portion B) had been occupied by Graciano Lamis for many years. Montano sold to petitioner on September 6, 1962 (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T‑33012). Lamis sold to Virgilio Butaz on March 27, 1963, repurchased on March 5, 1964 and on the same day sold his rights and improvements to respondents Heracleo B. Villacin, Jr. and Vicente B. Villacin, without producing any title. Petitioner, learning of alleged sales and forcible entry, sent letters dated March 31, 1964 and April 15, 1964 to Mayor Heracleo Villacin, Sr. notifying him of petitioner’s registered title; despite this, mayor’s men entered and occupied about nine hectares on April 7, 1964 using tractors bearing the mayor’s initials. Petitioner initially filed forcible entry in municipal court (dismissed by agreement) and thereafter filed Civil Case No. 229 in the CFI (filed July 16, 1965 and later amended to add the Villacin sons).
Petitioner assigned errors asserting that the Court of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals’ finding that the Villacins were possessors in good faith a binding factual determination that precludes Supreme Court review?
- Were the respondents Villacins possessors (and purchasers) in good faith under Article 526 of the New Civil Code, or wer...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)