G.R. No. 146259 - Ochoa vs. Apeta

Since 1910, the petitioners – Florentino, Troadio, and Pedro, all surnamed Ochoa – and their predecessors-in-interest occupied Lot No. 1580, comprising 886 square meters in Malaban, BiAan, Laguna.
The lot was documented under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-40624, upon which the petitioners built their respective houses and an apartment building.
On May 10, 1982, respondents Mauro Apeta and Apolonia Almazan claimed to be the true owners of Lot No. 1580.
On January 22, 1988, respondents initiated a complaint for recovery of possession and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, BiAan, Laguna (Civil Case No. B-2777), alleging that their Certificate of Title No. RT-599 (10731) established their ownership of Lot No. 1580.

During the RTC proceedings, both parties agreed to a resurvey of the disputed property, which was conducted by Engr. Romulo Unciano of the Bureau of Lands, Region IV.
The resurvey, subsequently approved by the Bureau of Lands, revealed that the lot occupied by the petitioners – Lot No. 1580 – was registered in the name of Margarita Almada, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents.
It further indicated that TCT No. T-40624 corresponded not to Lot No. 1580 but to Lot No. 1581, which was registered in the name of Servillano Ochoa, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, and currently occupied by Isidro Jasmin.

On March 24, 1995, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents, declaring them the true and lawful owners of Lot No. 1580; it ordered the petitioners to vacate the lot and to remove their structures, and further ordered payment of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on September 8, 2000.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners but was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated November 20, 2000.
Subsequently, the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

The petitioners contended that they were the rightful owners of Lot No. 1580 based on their possession and ownership evidenced by TCT No. T-40624.
They argued that the respondents’ action for possession should be barred by prescription.
The petitioners further questioned whether the improvements (houses and apartment building) constructed on the lot should be removed given their claim of good faith in building on that property.

Whether the Supreme Court is permitted on a petition for review on certiorari to re-evaluate factual findings, particularly the resurvey evidence, or whether it is limited solely to questions of law.
Whether petitioners can properly claim ownership of Lot No. 1580, given the conflicting evidence regarding the property boundaries and the titles presented.
Whether the respondents’ action is barred by prescription, and if prescription is applicable against the registered owner or his hereditary successors.
Whether the petitioners, having built structures on the lot in good faith, are entitled to retain their improvements or should be required to remove them, and what remedy (indemnity versus purchase price) is proper under the circumstances.