THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238712, May 12, 2021
SEVERINO P. BALMACEDA, CARMEN M. BATOON, MARK RONAN B. BALMACEDA, ISIDRO U. MONTILLA, ADORACION B. DIAZ, MARISOL B. DIAZ, PEDRO B. PASARE, ROSA B. DIAZ, RIZALINA B. DIAZ, DOMINADOR GIBA, JULME BASE, FERNANDO FUENTES, ARNOLD PORMIOS, RODNEY FUENTES, ERNESTO LALOG, AMOR SUAREZ, REY JASPE, JOAN FELICIANO, RANDY D. FUENTES, LIZALYN FUENTES, EDUARDO DACION, MERLY L. RELLON, NELLY ANDOG, NELINDA MORIZOM BULATAO, LEONARIE SAPANZA, ARCIA J. HASHIM, MARIA NAZARITA AVILA, RONILO AGUILAR, REY M. JUGADO, MARIO G. BAVIERA, ALFRAN V. LUMAJEN, MARGIELYN DE PAZ, MILAGROS L. DAQUIGAN, MARY ANN RELLOSA, VILIAMORA F. ANOS, EDWIN B. OCABAN, JR., ELENA T. AQUIJO, BEN M. MALTU, RAUL O. CAECIDO, ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JACOBINA T. ALCANTARA, WHO ALSO REPRESENTS HERSELF AS PETITIONER, Petitioners, v. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, MARCELO M. SERPA JUAN AND JOHN DOES, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
INTING, J.:
The Petition for Review1 assails the Decision2 dated October 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140092. In the assailed Decision, the CA sustained the Decision dated October 10, 2014 of Branch 57, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City affirming the Decision3 dated June 17, 2013 of Branch 64, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City. The MeTC dismissed petitioners'4 complaint for forcible entry and damages.
Likewise being challenged is the CA Resolution5 dated March 27, 2018 denying the Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated October 11, 2017).6
2. [Petitioners] are legitimate occupants of the property described as Lot 3-A and Lot 3-B of [S]ubd. [P]lan, Psd-74138 being a portion of Parcel 3 PSU 2031 (GLRO) (LRC Rec No. 2484), situated in the Municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal x x x containing all area of 68,232 square meters and 71,749 square meters[,] respectively[,] or [a] total area of 139,981 square meters;The BCDA, on its end, countered10 that Jacobina's claim of ownership was fraudulent because the subject property is a military reservation since the 1950s as decreed by then President Carlos P. Garcia under Proclamation No. 423.11 It also stressed that it is the lawful owner of the disputed property under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 00412 highlighting that:
3. [Petitioners] occupied the afore-described property for more than thirty [30] years or less upon the consent of the registered owner, Agustina Huerva Alfabeto [Agustina], the grandmother of [petitioner Jacobina T. Alcantara] [Jacobina];
4. Upon the execution of the Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Rights by the grandmother of [Jacobina] in her favor, she likevv1se allowed her [co-petitioners] to occupy it and continue occupying it if they have been previously occupying the subject property;
5. The possession of [Jacobina] over the afore-described property was and is under [the] claim of ownership as the rights, interests and participation of her grandmother over the same was transferred to her via a Deed of Waiver and Transfer of Rights which was inscribed and annotated in her grandmother's Transfer Certificate of Title x x x;
6. While the [petitioners] were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the subject property for more than three [3] decades x x x, sometime in April 2012[, BCDA,] in connivance with [the other respondents) and their cohorts forcibly entered/invaded the portion of the subject property [through] force, intimidation, threat, stealth or strategy by first sending notices to all [petitioners] therein denominated as "Patalastas Ukol sa Paglikas [Tatlumpong (30) Araw Na Abiso]" requiring them to vacate and demolish their structures otherwise, [respondents] will take legal step to demolish their structures in accordance with RA 7279[, otherwise] known as Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 x x x;
7. x x x To show force of their influence, power and authority, [respondents] again without any Court order bulldozed the road of the subject property over the objection and against the will of (petitioners] and prevent them from getting in and out of the portion of the subject property which were already bulldozed and fenced x x x
8. x x x [Jacobina] requested [respondents] to refrain from threatening and sending notices of ejectment to [petitioners but respondents] disregarded said letter and continued to forcibly enter/invade the other portion of the subject property thru intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to the latter's great damage and prejudice. x x x9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the decretal portion of the decision of the same case, the Court specified that "[OCT] No. 291 is declared duly cancelled"33 which only means that no further and subsequent conveyance can be made on the basis of said title.I
Is OCT No. 291 still valid and subsisting?
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the hectarage embraced by TCT No. 192 (OCT No. 291) consists of Government property. Three things persuade the Court: (1) the decrees of Proclamations Nos. 192 and 435; (2) the incontrovertible fact that OCT No. 291 has been duly cancelled; and (3) the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R CV No. 00293, affirming the decision of Hon. Gregorio. Pineda, Judge of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXI, in LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. 2484, Case No. R-1467 thereof, entitled "In Re: Issuance of Owner's Duplicate of Certificate of Title No. 291," as well as our own Resolution, in G.R. No. 69834, entitled "Domingo Palomares, et al., v. Intermediate Appellate Court."32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It is likewise worth noting that the BCDA, though not required under [RA] 7279, still extended the courtesy to notify petitioners of the impending demolition, but they refused to receive such notification. The BCDA even went to the extent of offering relocation and financial aid to those who will be affected by the said demolition. There can thus be no shortcoming, procedural or substantive, that may be attributed to the BCDA in effecting the demolition on the subject property as it was merely exercising its rights as the registered owner of the subject property.38chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAll told, the CA properly affirmed the ruling of the RTC, which sustained the MeTC Decision dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 5-35.
2Id at 42-58; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3Id. at 126-135; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Dennis J. Rafa.
4 The following are the petitioners in this case: Severino P. Balmaceda, Carmen M. Batoon, Mark Ronan B. Balmaceda, Isidro U. Mantilla, Adoracion B. Diaz, Marisol B. Diaz, Pedro B. Pasare, Rosa B. Diaz, Rizalina B. Diaz, Dominador Giba, Julme Base, Fernando Fuentes, Arnold Pormios, Rodney Fuentes, Ernesto Lalog, Amor Suarez, Rey Jaspe, Joan Feliciano, Randy D. Fuentes, Lizalyn Fuentes, Eduardo Dacion, Merly L. Rellon, Nelly Andog, Nelinda Morizom Bulatao, Leonarie Sapanza, Arcia J. Hashim, Maria Nazarita Avila, Ronilo Aguilar, Rey M. Jugado, Mario G. Baviera, Alfran V. Lumajen, Margielyn De Paz, Milagros Daquigan, Mary Ann Rellosa, Villamora F. Anos, Edwin B. Ocaban, Jr., Elena T. Aquijo, Ben M. Maltu, Raul O. Caecido, all are represented by their Attorney-In-Fact, Jacobina T. Alcantara, who also represents herself, as petitioner.
5Id. at 79-88.
6Id. at 59-78.
7Id. at 157-166.
8Id. at 158-159.
9Id. at 159-161.
10 See Answer with Opposition to the Temporary Restraining Order Application, id. at 187-211.
11 Reserving for Military Purposes of Certain Parcels of Public Domain in Pasig, Taguig, ParaƱaque in Rizal and Pasay City, approved on July 12, 1957.
12Rollo, pp. 298-299.
13Id. at 294-295.
14Id. at 296-297.
15 As culled from the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated October 11, 2017; id. at 44-45.
16Id. at 300-301.
17Id. at 198.
18 Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, approved on March 13, 1992.
19 See Decision dated June 17, 2013 of Branch 64, Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City, rollo, pp. 126-135.
20Id. at 130-131.
21Id. at 133.
22Id. at 133-135.
23Id. at 46.
24Id. at 42-58.
25Id. at 47-48.
26Id. at 51-52.
27Id. at 53-56.
28Id. at 157-166.
29 See Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 185 (2016).
30 See Baleares, et al. v. Espanto, 832 Phil. 963, 970 (2018).
31 263 Phil. 568 (1990).
32Id. at 576.
33Id. at 584.
34 See Rep. of the Phils. v. Southside Homeowners Ass'n., Inc., 534 Phil. 8, 22-23 (2006).
35Id.
36 542 Phil. 86 (2007).
37 Section 28(b) of Republic Act No. 7279 provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrarySection 28. Eviction and Demolition. - Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:38Rollo, p. 56.cralawredlibrary
x x x
(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented;
x x x