A.M. No. P-24-140 - Gonzales vs. Geronimo

Petitioner spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu (spouses Yu) were sued by respondent Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr. (Topacio) in an Amended Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Reconveyance, and Damages.
Topacio sought to nullify Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-490552 and T-289604 held by spouses Yu and others, to recover possession of the properties covered by these titles, and to obtain compensation for use and occupation.
Topacio claimed ownership over Lot 7402-E in Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarinas, Cavite (9,878 sqm) covered by TCT No. T-348422. He alleged that spouses Yu’s title, TCT No. T-490552 covering 606 sqm, was spurious, illegal, null, and void, and that it casts a cloud over his title.

Spouses Yu claimed ownership of the land under TCT No. T-490552 based on purchase from spouses Asislo Martinez and Norma Linatoc via an Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 10, 1994.
The property was originally acquired by spouses Martinez from the Bureau of Lands on June 9, 1989 through Sales Certificate No. 1793.
Spouses Yu contended they lawfully registered their ownership after carrying out a relocation survey before purchase, and took possession by fencing and constructing a house with required permits in November 1994.
No one disturbed their possession nor claimed ownership at that time.

Topacio filed a Motion for Joint Survey, granted by the RTC in aid of early disposition.
A verification survey was conducted on April 22, 2009 by a team led by Geodetic Engineer Ramoncito TaAola (Engr. TaAola) of the DENR-CENRO, attended by parties, their counsel, and private engineers.
The Survey Report of February 25, 2010 found that while both lots shared a common tie point (Monument 79), the lots fell apart with an approximate distance of 1,526 meters apart, and that the property with the existing structure held by spouses Yu (450 sqm) was inside Topacio’s larger lot.

The RTC rendered a Decision dated December 28, 2011 dismissing Topacio’s complaint for lack of sufficient proof that spouses Yu’s titles were obtained by fraud or that there was a cloud on his title. The counterclaims by spouses Yu were also dismissed.
Topacio moved for reconsideration, denied by the RTC.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s Decision, ordering spouses Yu to vacate and transfer possession of the disputed portion to Topacio, remove improvements at their expense, pay reasonable compensation for use from date of judicial demand until vacation, and pay attorney’s fees and costs.
Spouses Yu moved for reconsideration before the CA, which was denied in a Resolution dated December 22, 2014.
Spouses Yu filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the location or boundary of Topacio’s purported property in an action for quieting of title.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed error in relying on the verification survey conducted by Engr. TaAola of the DENR-CENRO.
Whether the title of spouses Yu was valid and not clouding Topacio’s title.
Whether Topacio had a better right to recover possession of the disputed land physically occupied by spouses Yu.
Whether Topacio was entitled to damages including reasonable compensation for use and attorney’s fees.