G.R. No. 231639 - Heirs of Lupena vs. Medina

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231639)

Factual Background

Marsella T. Lupena was the registered owner of a parcel of land of 180 square meters in Barangay Bagumbayan, Taguig, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18547. The complaint alleged that in or about 1985–1986 the respondents entered and thereafter occupied portions of that land by force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth. Lupena engaged Engineer Oscar Tenazas in July 2000 to conduct a relocation survey. Engr. Tenazas prepared a Relocation Plan and a Sketch Plan and submitted the documents to the Land Management Bureau, which approved the relocation plan on August 23, 2000. Engr. Tenazas reported that the respondents occupied discrete areas: Pastora Medina 34 square meters, Jovito Pagsisihan 61 square meters, Cenon Patricio 8 square meters, and Bernardo Dionisio 15 square meters. The petitioners presented testimony from Engr. Tenazas and from Francisco Jose to prove encroachment. The respondents countered that their residences stood on lots covered by other titles, notably TCT No. 268143, that some lots were partitioned in 1970, and that their possession predated Lupena’s alleged claim. The Philippine Mediation Center commissioned Engr. Ervin Boado to perform a verification survey in October 2004; Engr. Boado reported discrepancies between Tenazas’s relocation plan and other approved plans and concluded that, except for Lot 4‑B which he found encroached by Medina, the lots of the respondents did not overlap Lupena’s titled lots.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC, in a Decision dated November 4, 2015, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The RTC relied on the land surveying regulations and the testimony of Engr. Tenazas. It observed that Section 643(e) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines dated 12 March 1998 requires that a geodetic engineer inform any owner affected by a determination of boundaries and obtain a statement that the owner had been informed. Engr. Tenazas admitted that he notified the occupants only after completing his survey and that no written statement from Pastora Medina or the other occupants evidenced prior notice. The RTC held that this failure undermined the Relocation Plan and Sketch Plan as competent proof. The RTC further explained that although a relocation plan approved by the LMB is a public document entitled to the presumption of regularity under Section 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court, the presumption is disputable and the evidence on record rebutted it. The RTC cited Spouses Casimiro et al. v. Court of Appeals et al. for the proposition that notice and representation in survey proceedings are essential elements of administrative due process. The RTC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on February 22, 2016.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in the assailed Decision dated January 13, 2017, denied the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the RTC. The CA agreed that Tenazas’s failure to notify affected parties did not automatically vitiate his survey, but it found a separate and dispositive flaw. The CA observed that Section 43(d) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines requires a relocation plan to indicate the positions of buildings, fences, walls, and other permanent improvements adversely affected by the determination of boundaries. The CA found that the Relocation Plan submitted by the petitioners contained a statement that there were no such adverse buildings, enclosures or permanent structures on the subject lot. The CA concluded that, because the Relocation Plan did not show the presence of buildings or other permanent improvements, it could not be competent proof of the respondents’ alleged encroachment. The CA also relied on Engr. Boado’s independent verification survey, which showed no overlaps, and it denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 11, 2017.

The Parties’ Contentions

The petitioners urged that the Relocation Plan approved by the LMB constituted competent proof that the respondents encroached on the subject property and that the CA erred in disregarding that document. The petitioners also challenged the weight given to Engr. Boado’s report on the ground that it was not approved by the LMB. The respondents, particularly Pagsisihan and Dionisio, maintained that their houses stood on lots covered by TCT No. 268143 and tax declarations in their names or in the names of relatives, that some lots had been partitioned since 1970, and that their possession dated from the 1960s or early 1970s. Medina asserted that the area in dispute was a public alley or a portion she had purchased from Lupena with partial payment and that she was a builder in good faith.

Issue Presented

The solitary issue the petitioners presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence when it found that the Relocation Plan approved by the LMB failed to show that the respondents encroached on the subject property.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the petition primarily raised a question of fact and thus was not a proper subject for relief under Rule 45, Rules of Court. The Court reiterated the settled rule that it is not a trier of facts and will not reweigh or reassess evidence where credibility and factual resolutions predominate. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the CA’s factual finding that the Relocation Plan did not show any encroachment. The petitioners had themselves admitted that the Relocation Plan indicated no buildings, fences or other permanent structures on the subject property. The petitioners’ later attempt to argue that the encroachment consisted of temporary structures was inconsistent with their pleadings and trial proof, which alleged erection of houses. Given the Relocation Plan’s statement that no permanent improvements existed on the lot, the CA did not err in concluding that the petitioners failed to establish that the respondents occupied portions of TCT No. 18547. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the CA Decision dated January 13, 2017 and Resolution dated May 11, 2017.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its disposition on two principal lines of reasoning. First, it applied appellate principles limiting review of factual determinations. The petition involved a pure factual controversy requiring reassessment of witness credibility and weighing of survey reports; the Court cited Caina v. People, Bautista v.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231639)

Parties and Posture

The Heirs of Marsella T. Lupena filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, Rules of Court from the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106794.
Pastora Medina, Jovito Pagsisihan, Cenon Patricio, and Bernardo Dionisio were the respondents in the ejectment action instituted in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 155.
The original plaintiff, Marsella T. Lupena, commenced the action for recovery of possession and was later substituted by her heirs after her death.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling dismissing the complaint, and the petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court contesting the CA's factual findings.

Key Facts

Marsella T. Lupena was the registered owner of a 180-square-meter lot covered by TCT No. 18547 located in Barangay Bagumbayan, Taguig.
The petition alleged that in or about 1985-1986 the respondents entered and unlawfully occupied portions of the subject property by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth.
A relocation survey by Engr. Oscar Tenazas prepared a Relocation Plan and a Sketch Plan approved by the Land Management Bureau (LMB) on 23 August 2000, which purportedly showed encroachments of 34 sq.m., 61 sq.m., 8 sq.m., and 15 sq.m. by the four respondents respectively.
The petitioners presented testimony from Francisco Jose and Engr. Tenazas to prove encroachment and possession by the heirs.
The respondents asserted ownership or otherwise lawful possession of the lands on which their houses stood and submitted tax declarations and title-related evidence to show non-overlapping parcels.

Evidence Presented

Engr. Oscar Tenazas testified that he conducted the relocation survey, prepared the Relocation Plan and Sketch Plan, and obtained LMB approval, but admitted notifying occupants only after the survey and that his Relocation Plan did not indicate adverse permanent structures.
Engr. Ervin Boado conducted a verification survey commissioned by the Philippine Mediation Center and prepared a report finding discrepancies with Tenazas' tie lines and recommending resurvey of certain lots.
Respondents produced tax declarations, title copies, and testimony from Engr. Macario Cruz asserting that the tax maps and assessor records showed non-overlapping properties.
The Relocation Plan submitted by the petitioners expressly stated that no buildings, fences, walls, or other permanent improvements adversely affected the determination of boundaries appeared on the subject property.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit because the petitioners failed to prove that the portions occupied by the respondents were part of TCT No. 18547.
The RTC found Engr. Tenazas's admitted failure to notify all occupants prior to the relocation survey in violation of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines and held that such failure cast serious doubt on the veracity of his survey results.
The RTC declined to accor