Spouses Elegio and Dolia Cañezo (hereafter appellees) are the registered owner[s] of a parcel of land with an area of One Hundred Eighty Six (186) square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 32911.
Spouses Apolinario and Consorcia Bautista (hereafter appellants) are the registered owners of a parcel of land, containing an area of One Hundred Eighty One (181) square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 31727. Both parcels of land are located at Coronado Heights, Barangka Ibaba, Mandaluyong City and registered with the Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong City. Appellants' lot is adjacent to that of appellees [sic].
Sometime in 1995, appellees started the construction of a building on their lot. During the construction, appellees discovered that their lot was encroached upon by the structures built by appellants without appellees' knowledge and consent.
The three (3) surveys conducted confirmed the fact of encroachment. However, despite oral and written demands, appellants failed and refused to remove the structures encroaching appellees' lot.
Attempts were made to settle their dispute with the barangay lupon, but to no avail. Appellees initiated a complaint with the RTC for the issuance of a writ of demolition.
For failure to file an Answer within the extended period granted by the court, appellants were declared in default. Appellees were allowed to present their evidence ex parte before an appointed commissioner. Thereafter the RTC rendered the assailed decision in the terms earlier set forth.4
IN VIEW WHEREOF, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Let a writ of demolition be accordingly issued directing the removal/demolition of the structures built by the defendants upon the portion of land belonging [to] the plaintiffs at the former's expense.
Further,
- the defendant is ordered to pay P50,000.00 (Philippine Currency) as and by way of moral damages[; and]
- [t]he defendant is hereby ordered to pay P30,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The complaint filed by plaintiffs-appellees is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action with the proper forum.
SO ORDERED.6
- Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in granting the petition of the [spouses Bautista] and reversing the Decision of the Court a quo; [and]
- Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in stating that the petitioners should have filed recovery of possession and not writ of demolition.7
Given the efforts made by the spouses Cañezo to settle the present issue prior to the filing of a Complaint, the trial court was justified in ruling that the spouses Bautista were in default and in not admitting their Answer. The Complaint was not the spouses Bautista's first encounter with the present issue. Moreover, the spouses Bautista failed to file their Answer even after the expiry of the motion of extension granted to them.15
Q I am showing you a survey plan of lot 13. Can you please tell us what is this survey plan? A That is the survey plan of the surveyor whom we hired sir. Q Can you please point to us where in this plan is your property indicated? A This is our property, sir. Q The witness, your Honor, is pointing to "Lot 13" indicated in the survey plan. How about the property of the defendants? A The defendants' property is this, sir. Q The witness, your Honor, is pointing to "Lot 14" indicated in the survey plan. Now, Mr. Witness, you said that the defendants wanted you to recover that portion of your property encroached on from the property adjacent to theirs. Please illustrate to us by referring to this survey plan what the defendants meant? A The defendants want us to get the portion they had encroached on from "Lot 15" because, according to them, Lot 15 also encroached on their lot, sir. Q The witness, your Honor, is pointing to "Lot 15" indicated in the plan. What happened next? A We told them that this is not possible because Lot 15 is not adjacent to our property, sir. Q What did the defendants do? A The defendants still refused to remove their structure, sir. Q So, what happened? A We filed a complaint against the defendants before the Office of the Barangay Captain of Barangay Barangka, Ibaba, sir. Q What happened in the Barangay? A The Barangay council tried to settle the matter amicably between us. However, no settlement was reached, sir. Q While in the barangay, did you offer anything to the defendants in order to settle the case? A Yes, sir. Q What was it? A We offered that if the defendants will remove the structures, we are willing to shoulder half of the expenses for the removal. Q What did the defendants say to this? A They refused our offer and insisted on their previous position that we get our portion from Lot 15, sir. Q What did the Barangay do after failing to settle the case? A The Barangay issued a Certification to File Action, sir.14
x x x Considering the length of time when [the spouses Cañezo] were deprived of beneficial use on the subject portion of land owned by them, the [spouses Bautista] are likewise liable to pay P30,000.00 (Philippine Currency) in accordance with Article 451 of the Civil Code.
With respect to the prayer for the award of P50,000.00 (Philippine Currency) as moral damages, the court decides to give due course to it in view of the fact that the [spouses Cañezo] satisfactorily proved the existence of the factual basis of the damages and its causal relation to [the spouses Bautista's] acts. There was bad faith on the part of the [spouses Bautista] when they built the structures upon the land not belonging to them. This wrongful act is the proximate cause which made the [spouses Cañezo] suffer mental anguish, sleepless nights and serious anxiety. The [spouses Cañezo] positively testified about these matters.
As regards the prayer for exemplary x x x damages, no sufficient evidence were adduced which would warrant and justify this court to award the same. The prayer for attorney's fees however, is found meritorious hence, the same is hereby granted.17
Endnotes:
* "Eligio" in some parts of the Records.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 882 dated 31 August 2010.
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 Rollo, pp. 50-54. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring.
3 Id. at 39-41. Penned by Judge Amalia F. Dy.
4 Id. at 51-52.
5 Id. at 41.
6 Id. at 54.
7 Id. at 11.
8 See Javier v. Veridiano II, G.R. No. 48050, 10 October 1994, 237 SCRA 565.
9 Salacup v. Rambac, 17 Phil. 22, 23 (1910).
10 ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, 2 COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 72 (1998). Citations omitted.
11 Records, pp. 14-18.
12 Id. at 9-10.
13 Id. at 11.
14 Id. at 68-71.
15 Id. at 47.
16 Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
17Rollo, p. 40.