G.R. No. 182648 - Medina vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182648)

Charge and Information

Petitioner and Salvador Cases were charged by Information with conspiring and, with intent to gain and by means of force and intimidation, unlawfully usurping and occupying real property owned by Francisco F. Del Monte on or about February 2, 1993 at Sitio Bagacay, Brgy. Potong, Lapinig, Northern Samar. The Information alleged that while on the property the accused gathered 12,000 coconuts, converted them into copra and sold them for P14,580, causing damage and prejudice to the owner in that amount.

Evidentiary Posture and Competing Title Evidence

Both parties relied on tax declarations and testimony asserting ownership. Private complainant offered Tax Declaration No. 1202 in the name of Petre Delmonte (predecessor-in-interest), which cancelled Tax Declaration No. 18612 and corresponded to land adjudicated to the complainant’s predecessors in Civil Case No. 3561. Petitioner offered Tax Declaration No. 1195 in the name of Lorenzo Cases Leoniso (dated January 25, 1993) and asserted hereditary ownership through Lorenzo Cases. Both sides produced witnesses describing boundaries and possession; the dispute turned on whether the parcel claimed by petitioner overlapped the parcel adjudicated in Civil Case No. 3561 and whether the entry onto the land involved force, intimidation and intent to gain.

Trial Testimony and Factual Findings on the Incident

Prosecution witness Bienvenido Delmonte testified that on February 2, 1993 at around 9:00 a.m., while working on land he owned in common with Francisco Del Monte, petitioner and Salvador Cases, accompanied by relatives, suddenly appeared, used force, violence and intimidation to take possession, gathered coconuts and converted them into copra, and forcibly drove complainant out, threatening him with harm should he return. Complainant sought assistance from the Lapinig police. The witness also stated that the primitive owner was Angel Pelison and that the land was later acquired by Petre Delmonte; the parcel’s area and boundaries were described in the testimony.

Trial Court Ruling and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court (Eighth Judicial Region, Branch 21, Laoang, Northern Samar) convicted petitioner and Salvador Cases of usurpation of real property under Article 312, Revised Penal Code, finding the elements of the offense proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court imposed a fine of P174,960 (computed as equivalent to the gain obtained over almost three years, at P14,580 per quarter) and ordered the accused not to intrude upon the property adjudged to belong to Francisco Delmonte, under pain of contempt and with police assistance to ensure possession. No costs were pronounced.

Procedural Developments: Death of Co-Accused and Appeal

A notice of death filed on September 25, 1997 informed the court that co-accused Salvador Cases died on April 9, 1995. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court on January 14, 1999 and denied reconsideration on June 30, 1999. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioner advanced three principal contentions: (I) whether, given petitioner’s advanced age and the purportedly bare allegations of conspiracy, conviction was based on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (II) whether the alleged force and intimidation occurring after entry onto the property could suffice to sustain a conviction for usurpation; and (III) whether an accused who claims ownership of the land can be convicted for usurpation of her own property.

Legal Standard for Usurpation (Article 312, RPC) and Jurisprudential Elements

Article 312, Revised Penal Code, defines occupation or usurpation of real property as taking possession of another’s real property or usurping real rights in property by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, with the offender animated by animo lucrandi (intent to gain). Penal consequences include a fine computed on the gain obtained. Jurisprudence (e.g., Castrodes v. Cubelo) articulates three essential elements: (1) that the property or real right belongs to another; (2) that violence or intimidation was employed to obtain possession or usurp the right; and (3) that the accused acted with intent to gain.

Supreme Court Analysis — Ownership and Preclusive Effect of Civil Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals finding that the ownership issue had been previously resolved in favor of the complainant’s predecessors in Civil Case No. 3561, a judgment adjudicating the parcel to those predecessors. The Trial Court’s factfinder-appointed commissioner (Deputy Sheriff A. Anacta) produced a report and sketch concluding that the area claimed by the accused encroached upon the plaintiffs’ adjudicated area. The appellate court adopted those findings. The Supreme Court agreed that the record sufficiently refuted petitioner’s claim of ownership and that the civil adjudication, together with the commissioner’s report and the trial court’s adoption, established that the disputed parcel belonged to the complainant’s predecessors and that petitioner’s claimed area overlapped that parcel.

Supreme Court Analysis — Vi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 182648)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 390 Phil. 1092, First Division, G.R. No. 139603, decided July 14, 2000.
Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Conchita Quinao seeking reversal of:
- The Court of Appeals Decision dated January 14, 1999 in CA-G.R. CR No. 19412, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court decision; and
- The Court of Appeals Resolution dated June 30, 1999 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The underlying criminal prosecution charged petitioner and co-accused Salvador Cases with the crime of Usurpation of Real Property under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code.
The petition to the Supreme Court was resolved by Justice Kapunan, with Chief Justice Davide, Jr. (Chairman), and Justices Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago concurring in the disposition to deny the petition for lack of merit.

Information and Criminal Charge

Information filed alleged that on or about February 2, 1993 at about 9:00 a.m., at Sitio Bagacay, Brgy. Potong, Lapinig, Northern Samar, within the trial court's jurisdiction, the accused, "conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent to gain, with the use of force and intimidation," wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously usurped and occupied a real property owned by Francisco F. Del Monte.
The Information alleged that while on the property the accused gathered 12,000 coconuts, converted them into copra, and sold the same for P14,580, to the damage and prejudice of the owner in the amount of P14,580.00, contrary to law.
At arraignment both accused pleaded not guilty.

Facts Adduced at Trial — Overlapping Ownership Claims and Documentary Evidence

Both accused and private complainant claimed ownership of the parcel of land in dispute.
Private complainant Francisco Delmonte offered Tax Declaration No. 1202 (Exh. "D") in the name of Petre Delmonte, described as the predecessor-in-interest of the complainant.
- Tax Declaration No. 1202 cancelled Tax Declaration No. 18612.
- The land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1202 was the same land litigated and adjudicated to the predecessor-in-interest of the complainant in Civil Case No. 3561.
- The decision in Civil Case No. 3561 adjudicated the land to the parents (predecessors-in-interest) of the complainant.
Accused (defense) presented Tax Declaration No. 1195 (Exh. "1") in the name of Lorenzo Cases Leoniso dated January 25, 1993.
- The accused alleged that the land claimed by the complainant in the criminal case was different from the land litigated in Civil Case No. 3561.
- The accused alleged that the land subject of Civil Case No. 3561, which came from Angel Pelison, was then in the possession of the complainant.
The parties presented witnesses to support their claims; material testimony came from Bienvenido Delmonte for the prosecution and from accused Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao for the defense.

Witness Testimony — Prosecution Version (Bienvenido Delmonte)

Bienvenido Delmonte testified that on February 2, 1993 at about 9:00 a.m. while working on agricultural land owned in common with Francisco Delmonte, accused Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, with other close relatives, suddenly appeared.
He testified that the accused, with the use of force, violence and intimidation, usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming it as their inheritance from their ascendants.
He further testified that the accused immediately gathered coconuts and made them into copra.
He said that the complainant (and those working with him) were forcibly driven out by the accused and were threatened that if they returned something would happen to them.
According to his testimony, the complainant sought assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National Police as a result of the alleged forcible eviction.
He stated that the actual primitive owner of the land was Angel Pelison but that the land was purchased by his grandfather Petre Delmonte, and he described the land as situated at Sitio Bagacay, Brgy. Potong, Lapinig, Northern Samar with an area of 9 A12 hectares and specified its boundaries (East: Roman Vernas and Marcelino Delmonte; North: Dimas Moscosa; West: Alcantara; South: Bagacay group). (tsn, pp. 31–32, April 20, 1994)

Defense Testimony — Accused Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao

Accused testified they were grandchildren of Lorenzo Cases and that during Lorenzo Cases's lifetime he acquired the property and declared it under Tax Declaration No. 1195 (Exh. "1").
They testified the land they claimed had an area of 6 hectares, 34 centares and 28 ares and was devoted to rice and coconut.
They asserted actual possession of the land and payment of realty taxes thereon.
Accused testified that the father of accused Conchita Quinao was Pedro Cases, the son of Lorenzo Cases, and described the land location as Brgy. Potong, Lapinig, Northern Samar with boundaries: North — Dimas Moscosa; East — Petre Delmonte; South — Ananias Delmonte; West — Bagacay River.

Trial Court Findings and Dispositive Judgment

The trial court found both accused guilty of Usurpation of Real Rights in Property under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court sentenced both accused jointly and severally to pay a fine of One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Pesos (P174,960.00).
- The fine was described as equivalent to the gain which the accused obtained in a period of almost three years from the time they allegedly took forcible possession of the land, computed at the rate of P14,580.00 per quarter (the proceeds from the produce of the land as alleged in the Information).
The trial court further ordered the accused not to enter or intrude upon the property adjudged to belong to Francisco Delmonte and ordered them under pain of imprisonment for contempt to cease and desist from disturbing or molesting the peaceful and quiet possession and ownership of the p