Case Digest (G.R. No. L-74806)
Facts:
On August 29, 2001, Marsella T. Lupena filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession against Pastora Medina, Jovito Pagsisihan, Cenon Patricio, and Bernardo Dionisio in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 155, and after Lupena's death her action was prosecuted by the Heirs of Marsella T. Lupena who alleged respondents encroached on the land covered by TCT No. 18547. The RTC dismissed the complaint on November 4, 2015 for failure to prove encroachment; the Court of Appeals affirmed in its January 13, 2017 Decision and denied reconsideration in its May 11, 2017 Resolution, prompting a Rule 45 petition to the Court.Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals misappreciate the evidence when it found that the Relocation Plan approved by the LMB failed to show that the respondents encroached on the subject property?
Ruling:
The Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petition raised a pure q Case Digest (G.R. No. L-74806)
Facts:
- Pleadings, parties, and procedural posture
- On 29 August 2001, Marsella T. Lupena filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 155.
- The Complaint named as defendants Pastora Medina, Jovito Pagsisihan, Cenon Patricio, and Bernardo Dionisio.
- While the case was pending, Marsella T. Lupena died and was substituted by her heirs (the Heirs of Lupena), represented by Hermogenes L. Jose.
- The action proceeded to trial; the RTC rendered a Decision dated November 4, 2015 dismissing the Complaint; the RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated February 22, 2016.
- The Heirs of Lupena appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106794; the CA rendered the assailed Decision dated January 13, 2017 and denied reconsideration in the assailed Resolution dated May 11, 2017.
- The Heirs of Lupena filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
- Subject property and alleged wrongful possession
- The subject property was a parcel of land of 180 square meters located in Brgy. Bagumbayan, Taguig, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18547 in the name of Marsella T. Lupena.
- The Heirs of Lupena alleged that in or about 1985–1986 the respondents entered the property and unlawfully withheld possession of substantial portions by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth.
- The Heirs of Lupena alleged demands to vacate were refused by the respondents.
- Survey by Engr. Oscar Tenazas and his Relocation Plan and Sketch Plan
- In July 2000, Engr. Oscar Tenazas, a geodetic and civil engineer, was engaged by the Lupena family to conduct a relocation survey for PHP 10,000.00.
- Engr. Tenazas did research at the Land Registration Commission and the Land Management Bureau (LMB), conducted the actual survey, and prepared a Relocation Plan and a Sketch Plan.
- The Relocation Plan was approved by the LMB on 23 August 2000.
- According to the Sketch Plan prepared by Engr. Tenazas, the four occupants occupied the following areas on the Lupena lot: Pastora Medina 34 square meters; Jovito Pagsisihan 61 square meters; Cenon Patricio 8 square meters; Bernardo Dionisio 15 square meters.
- Engr. Tenazas testified that he notified Pastora Medina because her lot was adjacent, but admitted he only notified the four occupants after he had completed the survey; he did not produce written statements confirming notice by the occupants.
- Testimony of Francisco Jose and factual assertions by the Heirs
- Francisco Jose testified that the property was owned by his mother, Marsella T. Lupena, as shown by TCT No. 18547, and that the family only learned of the encroachment after commissioning the survey.
- Francisco Jose admitted he visited the premises daily since 1991 to tend his mother’s store and that the respondents’ houses were already on the property as early as 1991, though he could not recall when they were built.
- Respondents’ defenses and proof of title and possession
- Jovito Pagsisihan and Bernardo Dionisio claimed ownership of the parcel where their houses stood under TCT No. 268143 (241 square meters) in the names of Spouses Bernardo and Delicia Leuterio and Spouses Victor and Carmen Dionisio; they alleged a partition of that lot in 1970 and asserted possession since 1964, supported by Tax Declaration No. FL-001-012264 and long-maintained fences.
- Pastora Medina claimed ownership of the parcel on which her residence was erected, denied encroaching on Lupena’s lot, and alternatively alleged that in September 1988 Marsella T. Lupena ceded and transferred to her an aliquot portion of 100 square meters for PHP 40,000.00, of which she paid PHP 12,000.00 and reserved the right to seek specific performance.
- The respondents asserted, alternatively, that they were builders in good faith and that adjoining areas were public alleys or pathways historically used by the community.
- Verification survey by Engr. Ervin Boado and other technical evidence
- At the request of the Mediation Office, Engr. Ervin Boado, a licensed geodetic engineer, conducted a verification survey on 9 October 2004; all adjoining parties witnessed the survey.
- Engr. Boado used as references several titles and the approved relocation plan of Marsella T. Lupena; in his report dated 12 October 2004 he found that Lot 1 (LRC PSD-56868) of the respondents Dionisio, et al., did not encroach on Lot 4-D PSD-007607-026227-D and Lot 3 LRC PCS-24759, but that Lot 4-B was totally encroached by Pastora Medina.
- Engr. Boado explained his sketch was prepared for the Mediation Office and did not bear LMB approval; he identified discrepancies in tie lines between approved plans and recommended resurvey of Lot 4-B and Lot 3 to check technical errors.
- Engr. Macario Cruz, a tax mapper and consultant of the City Assessor of Taguig, testified that tax maps and assessor’s records showed no overlap between TCT No. 268143 and TCT No. 18547; he admitted he did not perform ground surveying but relied on tax maps.
- Trial court (RTC) findings and disposition
- The RTC found that the Relocation Plan and Sketch Plan submitted by the Heirs of Lupena failed to comply with the notice requirement prescribed by Section 643(e) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines dated 12 March 1998, because there was no written statement proving affected owners were informed.
- The RTC recognized that the Relocation Plan was approved by the LMB and thus prima facie a public document, but held that the presumption of correctness under Section 23, Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Principal issue presented for review
- Whether the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence when it found that the Relocation Plan approved by the LMB failed to show that the respondents encroached on the subject property.
- Subsidiary factual and legal matters raised or implied
- Whether the failure of Engr. Tenazas to notify affected owners as required by the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations undermined the admissibility or probative value of his Relocation Plan.
- Whether the omission of buildings, fences, walls, and other permanent improvements from the Relocation Plan rendered the plan incompetent to prove encroachment und...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)