Case Digest (G.R. No. 212656-57)
Facts:
Moldex Realty, Inc. and Rey Ignacio Diaz v. Spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu, G.R. No. 246826, March 4, 2024, Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Ong Yu (Spouses Yu) filed a complaint for prohibitory injunction with temporary restraining order, removal of perimeter fence, and damages against Moldex Realty, Inc. (Moldex) and Rey Ignacio Diaz, alleging that Moldex had encroached upon a 3,159-square-meter portion of their Lot No. 3869-N-1-A (TCT No. T-280169) by constructing a concrete perimeter fence. The Yu property consists of two adjoining titled parcels (TCT Nos. T-280169 and T-280170) totaling about 8,123 sq.m.; Moldex owns an adjacent Lot No. 3870 (TCT No. T-317603) of some 201,246 sq.m. Both tracts originated from the Imus Friar Estate.To resolve a boundary dispute, the parties filed a Joint Motion (March 21, 1995) asking the RTC to order the DENR Land Management Bureau to relocate the parcels on the ground; Engr. Danilo A. Arellano of the DENR conducted relocation surveys with the parties’ representatives. After motions for summary judgment, the RTC initially dismissed Spouses Yu’s complaint on December 27, 1999 for lack of merit, finding no overlap based on technical descriptions in the Torrens titles. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed on October 15, 2002 and remanded for further proceedings, noting discrepancies in the technical descriptions and directing the trial court to determine the cause and apply appropriate surveying principles.
Following remand and additional hearings, Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Imus City, dismissed the complaint again in a Decision dated July 26, 2016, and awarded P30,000 as attorney’s fees to Moldex for expenses incurred in lifting a TRO; the RTC held Moldex’s perimeter fence lay within its titled boundaries and emphasized that Torrens technical descriptions are binding and not alterable in a collateral proceeding. The CA, however, on November 6, 2018, reversed and set aside the RTC, credited Engr. Arellano’s testimony that the 1991 Moldex survey should conform to the 1957 resurvey of the Yu property, ordered Moldex to remove constructions within the Yu property, and awarded Spouses Yu P100,000 moral damages and P50,000 attorney’s fees. The CA denied reco...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May Moldex raise on appeal that the CA’s ruling effectively permits a collateral attack on Torrens titles, or is such a defense barred by estoppel or laches?
- Did Spouses Yu establish the clear and unquestioned right in esse required to obtain a final writ of prohibitory injunction against Moldex’s construction?
- Did the CA properly award moral damages and attorney’s fees to Spouses Yu, and did the RTC err in...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)