G.R. No. 163927 - Gaviola vs. People

In 1954, Elias Gaviola filed a complaint against Eusebio Mejarito in the Court of First Instance of Carigara, Leyte, seeking quieting of title and injunctive relief over a 40,500‑square‑meter parcel of coconut land (Cadastral Lot 1301, covered by TD No. 743).
Eusebio Mejarito claimed ownership of the same property. The trial court dismissed Elias’s complaint on July 29, 1955, declaring Eusebio the lawful and absolute owner of the land and ordering the dissolution of the preliminary injunction previously granted by the court.
The judgment became final and executory, with the sheriff executing possession of the property for Eusebio on December 19, 1958.

Following the deaths of both Elias Gaviola and Eusebio Mejarito (each dying intestate), their respective sons, Alfonso and Cleto, became their heirs.
Around October 1985, Cleto filed a recovery of possession and execution of judgment complaint (Civil Case No. B‑0600) against Alfonso and four others, asserting that the houses of the defendants were located on a parcel adjacent to Lot 1301, specifically a property covered by TD No. 1546.
Due to disputes over the identification, metes and bounds of the properties, the court appointed a commissioner who prepared a sketch and a report. The report clarified that the property adjudicated to Eusebio (and thus to the private complainant’s interest) was Cadastral Lot 1301, while the property of Elias was identified as Cadastral Lot 1311, where the defendant Alfonso Gaviola’s one‑storey house was located.

On May 4, 1990, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the defendants in Civil Case No. B‑0600, dismissing Cleto’s claim by establishing that Lot 1311 (occupied by the defendants) was distinct from Lot 1301 adjudicated to Eusebio Mejarito.
The decision was appealed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals on September 18, 1992, with all relevant judicial admissions confirming the clear demarcation of the two parcels.
The execution of the appellate decision was carried out by the sheriff on August 5, 1993.

On September 6, 1997, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Jovencio Mejarito (a nephew of Cleto and a barangay councilman) observed individuals—including Gavino Gaviola, Rodrigo Gaviola, and Domingo Caingcoy—climbing coconut trees in Lot 1301.
Under the supervision of spouses Alfonso and Leticia Gaviola, these individuals harvested 1,500 coconuts valued at ₱3,000.
A criminal complaint for qualified theft was filed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Maripipi Police Station, and an Information was subsequently filed on February 6, 1998, at the RTC of Naval, Biliran.
The accusatory portion detailed that the accused, in concert and with intent to gain, unlawfully gathered the coconuts from the disputed Lot 1301 without the consent of Cleto Mejarito, who was the private complainant and recognized owner by virtue of the earlier civil decision.

During trial, Alfonso Gaviola admitted that the coconut harvesting was done on his instruction but contended that the trees were on Lot 1311, the lot he inherited from his father Elias Gaviola, while asserting that the plaintiff’s Lot 1301 was adjacent.
The trial court, however, found that the evidence—including the commissioner's sketch, tax declarations, and prior judicial admissions—clearly established that the coconut trees from which the coconuts were taken were on Lot 1301, not on Alfonso’s Lot 1311.
On April 13, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment convicting Alfonso Gaviola for qualified theft, imposing an indeterminate penalty imprisonment and awarding ₱20,000.00 as exemplary damages plus ₱3,000.00 as liquidated damages.
The appellate court (CA) affirmed the judgment on October 1, 2003, and both the motion for reconsideration and subsequent petitions were denied, culminating in the petitioner’s appeal reaching the Supreme Court.

Alfonso Gaviola (the petitioner) contended that he acted under an honest belief that he owned the coconut trees located on Lot 1311 and that he had historically gathered coconuts without interruption or protest since being placed in possession by the sheriff on August 5, 1993.
He argued that the prosecution failed to prove "animus lucrandi" (intent to gain) beyond reasonable doubt, asserting that his repeated conduct in broad daylight established an honest and good faith belief in his ownership.
Despite these claims, the evidence indicated that judicial determinations from Civil Case No. 111 and Civil Case No. B‑0600 had conclusively identified Lot 1301 as the property of the private complainant, leaving no room for a mistaken belief defense.

Did the evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that Alfonso Gaviola had the requisite intent (animus lucrandi) in taking the coconuts, thereby satisfying an essential element of theft?
How credible and substantial was the petitioner’s claim that his act of harvesting was done under an honest belief of ownership?

Based on the established facts and judicial admissions regarding the true ownership of Lot 1301, should Alfonso be held liable not only for the crime of qualified theft but also for the imposition of exemplary and liquidated damages?
Does the nature of the offense, compounded by aggravating circumstances, warrant the additional penalty in the form of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code?