Title
Supreme Court
Moldex Realty, Inc. vs. Spouses Yu
Case
G.R. No. 246826
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2021
Spouses Yu alleged Moldex encroached on their property via a perimeter fence. Survey revealed title discrepancies; SC ruled no encroachment, reinstating RTC's dismissal, citing Torrens title's conclusiveness and prohibiting collateral attack on boundaries.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246826)

Background

Spouses Yu initiated a case for prohibitory injunction, temporary restraining order, removal of a perimeter fence, and damages against Moldex Realty, Inc. and Rey Ignacio Diaz after alleging that Moldex had encroached on their property. The Yu property consists of two adjacent lots totaling approximately 8,123 square meters, as registered in their name under relevant Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT). Moldex, on the other hand, owns an adjacent property measuring over 200,000 square meters.

Initial Proceedings

The spouses contended that Moldex unlawfully constructed a fence, intruding onto a portion of their property described in TCT No. 280169. Moldex contested these claims, asserting that their construction did not encroach on any part of the Yu property and suggested that the disagreement was due to discrepancies in the technical descriptions of the property titles involved.

Joint Motion and Survey

To resolve the boundary dispute, both parties filed a joint motion in 1995 requesting the trial court to have the parcels surveyed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The RTC issued an order for a ground survey, which revealed discrepancies between the actual location of the Yu property and that indicated by their titles.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court

After hearing the evidence, the RTC dismissed the Yu's complaint in 2016, ruling that there was no encroachment since Moldex's fence fell within its property boundaries as per its title. The RTC emphasized that the technical descriptions of the respective properties should be respected and could not be altered in a collateral proceeding.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA reversed the RTC decision on appeal in November 2018, ordering Moldex to remove the fence and awarding moral damages and attorney’s fees to the Spouses Yu. The CA noted that the RTC had overlooked the necessity to properly apply surveying principles to resolve the boundary discrepancy compounded by the complexities inherent in the technical descriptions of the properties.

Issues Raised

Moldex raised various arguments, citing public policy implications relating to stability in registered land ownership, the necessity of referring to issues around its title, and disputing the assessment of damages awarded against it. They also suggested that the CA had erred in not considering previous surveys presented during the trial.

Contentions of the Spouses Yu

In response, the Spouses Yu maintained that the discrepancies cited were poorly interpreted and emphasized that their titles should reflect the legal boundaries as stated. They argued that Moldex was barred from asserting a collateral attack on their title due to their prior agreements and motions in court.

Court’s Analysis and Final Ruling

The Supreme Court noted that Spouses Yu had not established their right to the disputed portion of the property on firm grounds. Even with their certificates of title on record

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.