G.R. No. 176020 - Heirs of Julao vs. Spouses De Jesus

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176020)

Factual Background — Townsite Sales Applications and Heirship

In the 1960s, Telesforo Julao filed two Townsite Sales Applications (TSAs) with the DENR, identified as TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667. Upon Telesforo’s death (June 1, 1971), those applications purportedly passed to his heirs. In 1979 Solito Julao executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights, transferring his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to the respondent spouses. Respondent spouses constructed a house on the parcel they claimed in 1983. Solito later went missing in 1986.

Administrative Action and Title Issuance

On March 15, 1996, the DENR issued an order rejecting TSA No. V-6667 from the records and transferring TSA No. V-2132 in the name of Telesforo Julao to his heirs, represented by petitioner Anita Vda. de Enriquez; the records were directed to be consolidated accordingly. Consequent to DENR action, on December 21, 1998 an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2446 covering a 641-square meter parcel was issued in favor of the heirs of Telesforo.

Trial Complaint and Claims

On March 2, 1999 the petitioners filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession (Civil Case No. 4308-R, RTC, Baguio City) alleging ownership of the 641-square meter lot covered by OCT No. P-2446 (originating from TSA No. V-2132) and claiming respondents had encroached upon approximately 70 square meters. Petitioners asserted demand for return and alleged that respondents’ asserted title derived from Solito’s transfer of his hereditary share in TSA No. V-6667, a different application which the DENR had rejected. Respondents answered asserting ownership and possession derived from Solito and contending both TSAs referred to the same property.

Trial Evidence, Interventions and Procedural Motions

At trial petitioners sought to show two distinct TSAs and asserted Solito was not a biological heir (being a stepson) and thus had no hereditary share to transfer. Respondents presented DENR letters indicating TSA Nos. V-2132 and V-6667 referred to the same lot (including a renumbering indorsement) and affidavits from petitioners acknowledging Solito as a co-heir. Respondents’ motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence was denied by the RTC. Heirs of Solito moved to intervene, asserting Solito’s legitimacy and the validity of his transfer to respondents.

RTC Decision

On August 10, 2001 the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. Although the RTC found petitioners did not prove Solito was not an heir, it concluded petitioners had convincingly shown that Telesforo had filed two separate applications covering distinct parcels and that OCT No. P-2446 derived from the first application (TSA No. V-2132). Because respondents’ claimed right emanated from TSA No. V-6667, the RTC held respondents acquired no right over the parcel covered by OCT No. P-2446. The RTC ordered restoration of possession of the 70-square meter portion, removal of improvements, and vacation of the parcel by respondents.

Court of Appeals Reversal and Grounds for Dismissal

The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint on two principal grounds: (1) failure of petitioners to identify the property sought to be recovered and (2) lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. The CA emphasized petitioners did not present a survey plan or sufficient description (location, area, boundaries) to establish the exact portion allegedly encroached upon. The CA also found the contention that the two TSAs covered separate parcels was not conclusively established in light of DENR evidence presented by respondents indicating a single application/renumbering. Finally, the CA held petitioners had not alleged the assessed value of the property in the complaint, a necessary allegation to invoke the RTC’s original jurisdiction under BP 129.

Issues Raised on Supreme Court Review

Petitioners advanced two principal errors for the Supreme Court’s review: (I) the CA erred in ruling petitioners failed to prove the identity of the property in question; and (II) the CA erred in ruling that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint.

Supreme Court Legal Analysis — Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the material allegations of the complaint; it cannot be acquired, waived, or cured by acts or omissions of the parties. The Court relied on Sections 19(2) and 33(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended by R.A. No. 7691) which allocate original jurisdiction according to the assessed value of real property in actions involving title or possession. The Court held that in an action for recovery of possession the assessed value of the property determines which trial court has jurisdiction; for the RTC to exercise jurisdiction th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176020)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision dated December 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 72845.
The case originated as a Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, docketed as Civil Case No. 4308-R (raffled to Branch 60).
Petitioners filed the instant Petition after the CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the Complaint.
The Supreme Court required respondents to file a Comment (Resolution dated March 19, 2007); respondents did not comply, and the Court dispensed with their filing by Resolution dated March 11, 2013.
Petitioners were required to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the pleadings; petitioners have not done so to date.

Parties

Petitioners: Heirs of Telesforo Julao, namely Anita Vda. de Enriquez, Sonia J. Tolentino, and Roderick Julao (Roderick is the son of Rogelio Julao, one of the children of Telesforo and Maria Consolacion Serrano Julao).
Respondents: Spouses Alejandro and Morenita De Jesus.
Intervenors: Heirs of Solito (filed Answer-In-Intervention asserting Solito as legitimate son of Telesforo and asserting transfer to respondents).

Factual Background

In the 1960s, Telesforo Julao filed two Townsite Sales Applications (TSA) before DENR, Baguio City: TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667.
Telesforo died on June 1, 1971; his applications were transferred to his heirs.
On April 30, 1979 (erroneously dated April 3, 1979 in the Complaint), Solito Julao executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights transferring his hereditary share in the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to respondents.
Respondents constructed a house on the property they acquired from Solito in 1983.
Solito went missing in 1986.
On March 15, 1996, DENR issued an Order: Rejection and Transfer of Sales Rights, ordering TSA V-6667 dropped from the records and ordering TSA 2132 in the name of TELESFORO JULAO transferred to the heirs of TELESFORO JULAO represented by ANITA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ; pertinent records to be consolidated in the name of the latter.
On December 21, 1998, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2446, covering a 641-square meter property, was issued in favor of the heirs of Telesforo.
On August 4, 1998, petitioners sent a demand letter to respondents asking them to return the subject property; respondents refused, relying on Solito’s Deed of Transfer of Rights.
On March 2, 1999, petitioners filed the Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property alleging ownership of the 641-square meter parcel covered by OCT No. P-2446, that respondents encroached on 70 square meters of the subject property, and that respondents have no valid claim because TSA No. V-6667 had been rejected and the subject property originated from TSA No. V-2132.

Claims and Defenses Raised in Trial Court

Petitioners’ core claims:
- They are the true and lawful owners of the 641-square meter parcel at Naguilian Road, Baguio City, covered by OCT No. P-2446.
- The property originated from TSA No. V-2132, while TSA No. V-6667 was dropped from the records by DENR.
- Respondents encroached on about 70 square meters.
- Solito transferred rights in TSA No. V-6667, not in TSA No. V-2132; therefore respondents have no right to the parcel covered by OCT No. P-2446.
- Petitioners disputed the validity of Solito’s Deed of Transfer and presented evidence asserting Solito was not a biological son of Telesforo (rather his stepson) and that Solito’s real name was Francisco Bognot.
Respondents’ defenses and contentions:
- They are the true and lawful owners and possessors, having acquired the property from Solito.
- TSA No. V-6667 and TSA No. V-2132 pertain to the same property.
- They submitted two DENR letters to show a single application and renumbering: (1) April 27, 1999 letter by Amando I. Francisco (Officer-In-Charge of CENRO-Baguio City) concluding TSA No. V-2132 and TSA No. V-6667 referred to one and the same application/lot; and (2) September 30, 1998 DENR letter stating that TSA No. V-2132 was renumbered as TSA No. V-6667 per 2nd Indorsement dated November 20, 1957.
- Respondents also presented two affidavits dated August 31, 1994 executed by petitioners Sonia Tolentino and Roderick Julao acknowledging Solito as co-heir and eldest son of Telesforo.

Pretrial and Motion Practice in the RTC

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of prescription; RTC denied the Motion for lack of merit.
After petitioners rested, respondents filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File a Demurrer to Evidence; the RTC denied the Motion.
The heirs of Solito moved to intervene and filed an Answer-In-Intervention asserting Solito’s legitimacy and the Deed of Transfer of Rights to respondents.

Evidence Presented at Trial

Petitioners presented evidence to show Telesforo submitted two TSAs (V-2132 and V-6667), that TSA V-2132 resulted in OCT No. P-2446 while TSA V-