SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 219558, October 19, 2016
HEIRS OF JOHNNY AOAS, REPRESENTED BY BETTY PUCAY, Petitioners, v. JULIET AS-IL, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners Heirs of Johnny Aoas (Heirs of Aoas), represented by Betty Pucay, question the September 17, 2014 Decision2 and June 8, 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117020, which reversed the October 6, 2010 Resolution4 of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 63 (RTC), in Civil Case No. 06-CV-2275.
In reversing the said resolution, the CA reinstated the August 31, 2010 RTC Decision5 which affirmed in toto the August 9, 2006 Decision6 of the Municipal Trial Court of Itogon, Benguet (MFC), in a forcible entry case, docketed as Civil Case No. 446, filed by respondent Juliet As-il (As-il) against the Heirs of Johnny Aoas. The MTC decision ordered the Heirs of Aoas or their representative and all persons acting under them to vacate and turn over peacefully the actual and material possession of a 42 square meter lot located in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-57645 to respondent As-il.
The Antecedent
As-il filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against the Heirs of Aoas before the MTC, claiming absolute ownership and possessory rights over the 42 square meter portion of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-57645. She alleged that since time immemorial, she, by her predecessors and successors-in-interest, had been in actual, open, physical, and notorious possession of the subject property; that sometime in January 2005, she discovered that the Heirs of Aoas, by stealth and strategy, initiated the preparatory digging, clearing and construction of a house and enclosing the subject land, thus, depriving and dispossessing her of the same; and that when confronted, they asserted ownership of the same property. From the foregoing, As-il asked the MTC to order the Heirs of Aoas to vacate the subject property and that compensation be given to her as well as damages and attorney's fees.
In their Answer, the Heirs of Aoas contended that the area As-il claimed was their property, it being part of a land registered in their names under TCT No. T-32507; that they had been in continuous, public and adverse possession and occupation of it; that they have erected a residential house and undertook activities such as fencing, rip-rapping and other improvements done openly and publicly on the said property; that it was only after completion of the residential house when As-il asserted her claim over the property; and that in the belief of being the true owners, they refused As-il's demands to turn over the property.
At the MTC Level
During trial, the MTC, with the concurrence of both parties, ordered the conduct of a relocation survey over the property. A Survey Commission was agreed to be formed and upon completion of its tasks, a report was issued which, however, failed to address the question on ownership. It merely confirmed that the properties overlapped each other. In other words, conflict in boundaries was acknowledged.
In its August 9, 2006 Decision, the MTC ruled that a portion of the land claimed by the Heirs of Aoas encroached a part of the land registered under As-il's name. It found that As-il had prior physical possession over the subject property, which could not be defeated by the subsequent possession of the Heirs of Aoas. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslawa) Ordering the defendants, their representative and all persons acting under them to vacate and to turn over peacefully the actual and material possession of the 42 square meter lot indicated (PORTION of LOT 4 (ALLEY) occupied by the HRS AOAS, REP. BY PUCAY AREA-42 sq.m.) in the Joint Relocation Survey/Sketch Plan prepared by the Survey Commission and marked as Exh. "D" for the plaintiff and Exh. "4" for the defendants which is part and parcel of the land of the plaintiff covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-57645;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarychanrobleslaw
b) [t]o remove any and all of the improvements found within the 42 square meters within sixty (60) days from the finality of the judgment;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
c) to pay by way of compensation for the reasonable use and occupation of the said 42 square meters fixed at a reasonable amount of P1,000.00 a month from the commencement of the action until the same shall have been fully paid;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
d) to pay by way of attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000; and;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
e) to pay the costs
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. And the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.8
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision rendered by this Court dated August 31, 2010 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. In its stead, another judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the Decision appealed from. The Complaint filed by the appellee is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit.chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution is SET ASIDE. The Decision of August 31, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED.12chanrobleslaw
chanrobleslawSOLE ISSUE
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE COMMITTED FORCIBLE ENTRY.14
The ground verification survey conducted by Survey Commission shows that the theory of the plaintiff is true and correct. A portion of the titled land of the plaintiff on the East is invaded by the titled land of the defendants on the West by 42 square meters. The shaded portion ALLEY 3.00. wide portion of Lot 4-PSU-174581-AMD. is the encroachment or overlapping. The defendants therefore have encroached or invaded or intruded into the 42 suare meters area which is clearly within the metes and bounds of the titled land of the plaintiff. Whatever claim of possession insisted by the defendants must yield to the possession of the plaintiff. The reason is but a conclusion of logic and common sense.chanrobleslaw
In asserting their ownership over the disputed lot, the plaintiff-appellee claimed that the same formed part of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-57645 in her name.chanrobleslaw
On the other hand, the defendants-appellants also maintained that the said disputed portion is situated within the parcel of land covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title No. T-32507 in the names of their late parents Johnny and Jocelyn Aoas,xxxx
And as per said Report of the Survey Commission xxx apart from three (3) others who are separately occupying a portion thereof, an extent of 42 sq. ms., is being occupied by the defendants which is a part and parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-57645 in the name of the plaintiff. Such findings of the Survey Commission readily resolved in the affirmative, the issue agreed upon by the parties in the pre-trial as "whether or not the defendants have unlawfully encroached a portion of the lot of the plaintiff.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-13.
2 Id. at 16-27. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
3 Id. at 29-30. Penned by Associate Justice Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Isaias Dicdican. concurring.
4 Id. at 31-34. Penned by Judge Benigno M. Galacgac.
5 Id. at 35-41, Penned by Judge Benigno M. Galacgac.
6 Id. at 42-47.
7 Id. at 47.
8 Id. at 41.
9 Id. at 31-34. Penned by Judge Benigno M. Galacgac.
10 Id. at 34.
11 Id. at 16-27. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices lsaias P. Dicdican and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes. concurring.
12 Id. at 27.
13 Id. at 29-30. Penned by Associate Justice Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Isaias Dicdican, concurring.
14 Id. at 8.
15 Id. at 46-47.
16 Id. at 51-52.
17Manalang v. Bacani, G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 27.
18 Id. at 37-38.