G.R. No. 158002 - Spouses De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp.

Petitioners Aurora N. De Pedro and Elpidio De Pedro filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a preliminary injunction against respondents Romasan Development Corporation and Manuel Ko on December 1, 1997.
The complaint involved ownership and possession disputes over a parcel of land in Barangay San Isidro (now Barangay Inarawan), Antipolo, Rizal, originally covered by OCT No. P-691 issued on March 26, 1992.
Petitioners alleged continuous payment of real estate taxes and that respondents, by erecting a barbed-wire fence and undertaking construction works, destroyed their farmhouse and removed trees, claiming that the improvements were on the respondents’ adjacent property.

Petitioners claimed that the respondents wrongfully occupied a portion of the land, with threats to further clear trees and demolish structures, causing them actual damages and incurring expenses.
The respondents, in their answer filed on June 16, 1998, asserted ownership of the disputed land based on TCT No. 236044 issued on March 5, 1993.
Respondents maintained that their act of fencing was merely an exercise of their rights and they counterclaimed for damages.

On September 18, 1998, the trial court ordered a relocation survey to verify the boundaries, and a survey team composed of representatives from the DENR and both parties was appointed.
The report, issued on January 30, 1999, revealed overlapping titles between OCT No. P-691 and TCT No. 236044.

The team found that petitioners’ described property in OCT No. P-691 did not match the actual area occupied by them.
It was determined that the proper occupied parcel was part of Lot 10454/H-164008, not Lot 10455-G as indicated by the defective technical description in OCT No. P-691.

TCT No. 236044 originated from an OCT (No. 438) based on a survey plan from 1935–1937.
OCT No. P-691 was based on a subdivision survey of Lot 10455.
The subject property was ultimately identified as part of a different lot (Lot 10454/H-164008) originally registered under OCT No. 468.

Based on the survey report, respondents filed a Manifestation/Motion to Dismiss, arguing that there was no legal or factual basis for the petitioners’ complaint.
The petitioners did not oppose the Motion to Dismiss, and the trial court, on December 22, 1999, granted the dismissal on the ground that the petitioners had no cause of action.
A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed by the petitioners, raising issues about the reliability of the survey report, the conduct of the survey team (notably the chairman’s pending cases), and allegations of deprivation of their right to due process.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on November 29, 2002, affirmed the dismissal noting:

The relocation survey report enjoys a presumption of regularity.
Petitioners had an opportunity to object to the survey team’s composition initially and could not raise new objections on appeal.

The CA further held that respondents could not be liable for damages since their exercise of ownership was valid and justified, leaving petitioners the option to pursue rectification of titles through a separate action.
The petitioners raised multiple grounds in their petition for review including:

Allegations that the CA erred in treating the case as one for simple damages.
Contentions that their title (OCT No. P-691) was valid and conclusive while the respondents’ title was defective.
Claims of deprivation of their constitutional right to counsel and that the relocation survey report was tainted by the involvement of a chairman facing criminal and administrative issues.

Whether the petitioners’ complaint for damages and/or recovery of possession amounted to a collateral attack on the certificates of title.
Whether the trial court and CA had the jurisdiction to decide on the disputed technical descriptions inherent in OCT No. P-691 and TCT No. 236044.

Whether the survey report, which offered findings on overlapping titles and defective technical descriptions, should be accorded presumption of regularity.
Whether objections to the composition and potential bias of the survey team (specifically regarding the chairman’s pending cases) could undermine the credibility of the report.

Whether the certificate of title (OCT No. P-691) is conclusive and indefeasible regarding ownership, notwithstanding the survey report’s findings.
Whether the respondents’ title (TCT No. 236044) is defective due to inconsistencies such as missing survey plan verification and discrepancies in records.

Whether the petitioners were denied their constitutional right to adequate counsel in light of alleged negligence by former counsel affecting their case.