Case Digest (G.R. No. 150887)
Facts:
Francisco Madrid and Edgardo Bernardo v. Spouses Bonifacio Mapoy and Felicidad Martinez, G.R. No. 150887, August 14, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
The respondents-plaintiffs, Spouses Bonifacio Mapoy and Felicidad Martinez, are the registered owners of Lot Nos. 79 and 80, Block No. 27, Rizal Park Subdivision (combined area 270 sq. m.), evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 130064 and 130065. On April 4, 1988 they filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. 88-44149, RTC Manila, Branch 3) to recover possession against Gregorio Miranda and family (the Mirandas) and two unnamed defendants who were later identified as the present petitioners-defendants, Francisco Madrid and Edgardo Bernardo.
The plaintiffs alleged acquisition of the properties by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1978 from spouses Procopio and Encarnacion Castelo and that the petitioners-defendants occupied the land only by tolerance until demands to vacate were made; they sought possession, P1,000.00 monthly rental from January 1987 until vacation, P50,000.00 moral and exemplary damages, and P30,000.00 attorney’s fees. The Mirandas countered that Gregorio Miranda acquired the property by an oral sale from the original owner, Vivencio Antonio, and that Gregorio and his successors had developed and occupied the land since 1948. Bernardo claimed ownership over his portion by an oral promise from Antonio; Madrid alleged occupation since 1974 and acknowledged paying rent to Miranda.
The RTC, in a decision dated July 21, 1994, awarded possession to the plaintiffs, ordered the defendants to vacate, granted P10,000.00 attorney’s fees and P1,000.00 reasonable rental from filing until vacation, and rejected the petitioners-defendants’ oral-sale claims and PD 1517 defenses as unsupported. The petitioners-defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 41. The CA, in a Decision dated July 16, 2001 (CA-G.R. CV No. 47691), affirmed the RTC: it relied on the TCTs as evidence of indefeasible title, found no proof of ownership by the petitioners-defendants, held their possession to be by tolerance and thus outside Presidential Decree No. 1517 protection, and ruled that they waived pre-trial objections by failing to move for a separate pre-trial when belatedly served. A motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied on November 19, 2001.
The petitioners-defendants filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking reversal of the CA decision, rei...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s award of possession to the plaintiffs based on their Torrens titles and in rejecting the petitioners-defendants’ oral-sale and long-occupancy claims?
- May the petitioners-defendants collaterally attack the plaintiffs’ Torrens titles by alleging fraud in the title acquisition during an accion publiciana?
- Are the petitioners-defendants entitled to protection and rights under Presidential Decree No. 1517 as legitimate tenants?
- Was the RTC’s award of attorney’s fees proper where the dispositive portion contains the award without findings or justification?
- Did the trial court’s application of the pre-trial order...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)