G.R. No. 155508 - Heirs of Clemena y Zurbano vs. Heirs of Bien

Petitioners: The heirs of Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano.
Respondents: The heirs of Irene B. Bien.
Disputed Property: A tract of riceland in Bolo, Municipality of Tiwi, Albay described in Tax Declaration (TD) No. 5299, with an approximate area of 20,644 square meters.
Context: The land is one of three parcels involved in consolidated cases from the 1940s concerning recovery of possession and ownership initiated by Irene Bien (through her attorney-in-fact, Gregorio ClemeAa) against Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano.

The complaint filed by Irene Bien alleged that she was the absolute owner, having acquired the land through a deed of sale traced back through successive transactions from the estate of Pedro ClemeAa y Conde.
The defendant (Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano) claimed ownership and exclusive possession in his answer.

Irene Bien died in 1953 and was substituted by her heirs (respondents).
Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano died in 1955 and was succeeded by his heirs (petitioners).

The case spanned decades with numerous proceedings and modifications.
In November 1994, the case was re-raffled to Branch II of the RTC of Legaspi City.
On August 10, 1995, the RTC declared petitioners as the absolute owners of the land described in TD 5299 and ordered respondents to respect their possession.
Subsequently, the RTC reconsidered its findings concerning ownership, determining that neither party proved its respective claim, which resulted in the ruling that TD 5299 remained part of the original estate of Pedro ClemeAa y Conde.

Respondents appealed the RTC’s modified ruling to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 50912.
On April 4, 2002, the CA reversed the RTC ruling with respect to the ownership of TD 5299 and awarded respondents compensatory damages amounting to P118,000.
The damages computation was based on testimonies regarding the deprivation of the owner’s share of the harvest from 1943 to 2001, incorporating variations in the price of palay over distinct periods.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the CA’s award of damages.
Their main arguments were that they never actually took possession of the property covered by TD 5299 and that the CA’s reliance on evidence (particularly, testimony by Gregorio ClemeAa) was flawed because it was self-serving.

Detailed that the land is riceland approximately two hectares in size and that its owner’s average share was about fifty cavans of palay per harvest (with two harvests annually).
Provided a timeline of the harvest yields and the corresponding price changes for palay from 1943 to 2001.
The testimony formed the basis for the CA’s computation of damages: P1,500.00 per year for 27 years (when the price was approximately P15 per cavan) and P2,700.00 per year for 31 years (when the price was approximately P25 per cavan).

In his answer, Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano admitted that the land in TD 5299 was in his exclusive possession.
This admission was later deemed a judicial admission under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, binding petitioners and precluding any subsequent contradiction.

Whether petitioners, the heirs of Pedro ClemeAa y Zurbano, should be held liable to pay compensatory damages to respondents for depriving them of the owner’s share of the harvest from the disputed parcel of riceland (TD 5299).
Whether the judicial admission by petitioners’ predecessor regarding exclusive possession of the land precludes petitioners from claiming they never took possession.
Whether evidence, such as the testimony of Gregorio ClemeAa – even if arguably self-serving – can properly form the basis for awarding damages in this case.
Whether factual issues concerning possession, which are inherently questions of fact, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari that is limited to questions of law.