Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
FLORENCIA BULAY-OG, G.R. No. 148795
LEONILO
BULAY-OG,
DOLORES
BULAY-OG,
ROBERTO
BULAY-OG,
PRIMITIVO
BULAY-OG,
ARSENIO
BULAY-OG,
LENITH
BULAY-OG,
ROSEVILLA
BULAY-OG,
ROSEMARIE
BULAY-OG,
JEOFFREY
BULAY-OG and
CANDELARIO
BULAY-OG,
Petitioners,
Present:
PANGANIBAN,
C.J.
(Chairperson)
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
REBECCA
BACALSO, Promulgated:
Respondent.
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before us is a petition for review on
certiorari filed by the heirs (petitioners) of Matias
and Purita Bulay-og[1] seeking to annul the Decision[2]
dated September 29, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 42816, which
reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga
del Norte, Branch 11, dismissing the complaint for recovery of possession and
damages filed by Rebecca Bacalso (respondent) against
petitioners’ parents, Matias and Purita
Bulay-og (predecessors). Also assailed is the CA
Resolution[3]
dated
The
facts of the case are as follows:
On
A parcel of land known as Lot No. 4027 Pls-65 Liloy Public Lands Subdivision, situated at Barrio Tampilisan, Liloy Zamboanga del Norte, containing an area of 24.0000 hectares more or less. All corners are visible by Pls-65 survey monuments. x x x[5]
On
Subsequently, Pangilayan
contested Matias’s homestead application,[8] docketed
as B.L. Claim No. 1302, B.L. Claim No.
That
Lot No. 4027, Pls-65, shall be designated into two portions otherwise known as
Portion “A” and Portion “B”, as shown on the sketch drawn at the back of this
agreement;
That
portion “A” is formed to start from Corner 3 to old original Corners 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8; and from Corner 8 thence to line 2-3 which shall fall one hundred
seventy-five (175) meters from Corner 3 going back to Corner 2, which shall be
indicated in red ink at the back of this amicable settlement, which shall pertain
to the claim of Matias
Bulay-og and now to be covered by H.A. No. 18-9008
(E-18-8187), which application shall be made amended and to conform with this
agreement;
That
portion “B” is formed to start from Corner 1 to Corner 2 and from there to
extend about a distance of 111 meters which shall exactly fall on the common
established and agreed corner by the parties herein drawn from there to old
Corner 8 thence to close at Corner 1, which portion shall now pertain to the
share of Enrique Pangilayan, which portion “B” is
enclosed in blue ink as also shown in the sketch drawn at the back hereof.[10]
On
In the meantime, Balili
who shared ownership over Lot No. 4027-A also filed
a protest against Matias, docketed as B.L. Claim No.
2194.[12] Balili and Matias entered into an Amicable Settlement dated
That
Lot No. 4027-A, Pls-65 should be divided among us and the northern portion
containing an area of six (6.0000) hectares more or less, identified as Lot No. 4027-A-2, Pls– 65, shall pertain to Aurelio Balili
and the remaining portion on the southern side otherwise identified as Lot No.
4027-A-1, Pls-65, shall pertain to Matias Bulay-og, the segregation of the said portions is being
shown and indicated on the sketch drawn at the back hereof.[13]
On
On
Sometime in 1985, Matias
encroached and cultivated a portion of about four hectares of the eastern part of respondent’s lot and
despite effort to persuade Matias to refrain from
working on the encroached portion and vacate the same, Matias
did not heed and even filed a case for forcible entry against her with the
Municipal Trial Court of Tampilisan, docketed as
Civil Case No. 3.
On
After trial, the RTC, in a Decision[18]
dated
The
RTC found that: petitioners’ predecessors have been in actual possession
of the subject lot since 1957 and declared the same for taxation purposes in
1962; their homestead application had been approved on June 29, 1957, thus they
acquired vested right over the subject lot; in filing the instant case, respondent
admitted that she was dispossessed while petitioners’ predecessors are the
possessors, thus the burden was on respondent to show by preponderance of
evidence that she has a better right to possess the property; there is a legal
presumption that petitioners’ predecessors have a just title and cannot be
obliged to show or prove it which respondent failed to rebut; the sketch which appeared
in the Amicable Settlement between Pangilayan and Matias was not admissible in evidence not being approved by
the Bureau of Lands.
Respondent appealed the RTC decision
to the CA which rendered a Decision dated
WHREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the plaintiff-appellant is declared the sole owner of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65.
SO ORDERED.[19]
The CA found that respondent has a
better right over the subject lot since petitioners’ predecessors acquired only
the ½ portion of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65 from Pangilayan;
that Pangilayan’s signature as a witness in the
homestead application of Matias should not be taken
as a waiver of the former’s right over the other half
of Lot No. 4027 but only an oversight since he
even filed a claim with the Bureau of
Lands which led to their execution of an Amicable Settlement; that Matias’s asseveration that the Amicable Settlement was
entered into without his consent was not proven during trial and he failed to
deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the amicable settlement,
thus it was deemed admitted.
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated
Hence, the instant petition for
review on certiorari filed by petitioners on the sole ground that the CA
erred in awarding the whole Lot No. 4027, Pls- 65, in
favor of respondent.
In their Memorandum, petitioners
asked for the following reliefs, to wit:
1. That judgment be rendered limiting the rights and interests of respondent over Lot No. 4027, Pls-65 to an area of about 12 hectares, more or less;
2. Awarding
to the herein petitioners a portion of about sixty six thousand four hundred
fifty five square meters, more or less;
3.
Likewise awarding a portion of about twenty one thousand three hundred eighty
nine square meters in favor of Pedro Amistoso and a
portion of about twenty nine thousand five hundred square meters, more or less
in favor of Erlinda Amistoso.
We find
merit in the petition.
The issue of whether or
not respondent is entitled to the whole of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65, Tampilisan, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, is a question of fact. As a rule, the
jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to the
review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate
court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.[20]
This Court is not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence
already considered in the proceedings below. This rule, however, admit certain exceptions such as (a)
where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made
is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the CA was
based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual
findings are conflicting; (f) when the CA, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when
the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties
and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and,
(h) where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to those of the trial
court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where
the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the CA are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record.[21] Exceptions (d) and (g) apply to the present
case and therefore we shall review the findings of facts of the CA.
Notably, petitioners no longer
dispute the fact that respondent is entitled to Lot No. 4027-B, Pls-65, consisting
of about 12 hectares, thus respondent’s ownership and possession of the same is
not in issue anymore.
However, petitioners’ main contention
is that only a portion of about 12 hectares was the subject of the case filed
by respondent in the RTC, thus there
still remains a portion of about 6 hectares which corresponds to the share of
petitioners’ predecessors.
We agree with petitioners that the CA
erred in awarding the whole of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65 to respondent as such
conclusion is contradicted by the evidence on record. The complaint for recovery of possession filed
by respondent against petitioners’ predecessors equivocally declared that she
was the owner and lawful possessor of a parcel of land identified as Lot No.
4027-B situated at Tampilisan , Zamboanga
del Norte with an area of about 12
hectares. In fact, the evidence on record, which petitioners do not dispute in
the present petition, shows that Pangilayan, the
original owner of the whole of Lot No. 4027, consisting of 24 hectares, more or
less, had sold the ½ portion of his lot to Matias and
Balili, thus retaining the other half of Lot No. 4027
which was denominated as Lot No. 4027-B, containing an area of 12 hectares,
more or less. Pangilayan
sold
Petitioners’ prayer to declare in
their favor a portion of about sixty six thousand four hundred fifty five
square meters, more or less, of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65, is meritorious.
Records show that based on the Amicable
Settlement dated August 26, 1968,
between Matias and Balili, the
one half portion of Lot No. 4027 which was denominated as Lot No. 4027-A, containing
twelve hectares, was divided between them as Lot No. 4027-A-1 and 4027-A-2,
respectively. It has been established by the testimony of Matias
that Balili sold his Lot No. 4027-A-2 to Pedro and Erlinda Amistoso[22]
and to get their share of the lot, a subdivision plan,[23]
duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, was made for Erlinda
Amistoso covering whole Lot No. 4027, Pls-65, Liloy Public Land Subdivision containing an area of 237,844
square meters on
Matias admitted that Lot No. 4027-B under
the Amicable Settlement pertaining to respondent is also covered by “Lot No.
4027-A” with an area of 186,455 square meters in the existing subdivision plan
for Erlinda Amistoso. Since
petitioners no longer dispute that respondent is the owner of the 12 hectares thereof,
petitioners are entitled to the remaining
six (6) hectares or 66,455 square meters as it appears in the subdivision plan,
Exhibit “1”.
However, we cannot grant petitioners’
prayer to award certain portions of
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September
29, 2000 and the Resolution dated May 24, 2001 of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that respondent is declared the
owner of Lot No. 4027-B as denominated in the Amicable Settlement dated March
1, 1967 (Exhibits “U” and “U-3”) consisting of 12 hectares, more or less, while
petitioners are declared owners of Lot
No. 4027-A as denominated in the same Amicable Settlement, consisting of 66,455
square meters of Lot No. 4027, Pls-65, Tampilisan, Liloy, Zamboanga, del Norte.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Sometimes spelled as Bolay-og.
[2] Penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola (deceased) and concurred in by Justices Marina L. Buzon and Edgardo P. Cruz; rollo, pp. 12-16.
[3] CA rollo, p. 103.
[4] Exhibit “5,” records, p. 96.
[5]
[6] Exhibit “A,” records, p. 97.
[7] Exhibit “2,” records, p. 93.
[8] Entitled
“Enrique Pangilayan, Claimant-Contestant vs. H.A. No.
18-9008 (E-18-8187) Matias Bulay-og,
Applicant-Respondent,” records, p. 79.
[9] Exhibit “U,” records, p.79; Subscribed before the Acting District Land Officer of the Bureau of Lands, District Land Office VIII-14, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte.
[10] Exhibit “U-3,” records, p. 79.
[11] Exhibit
“C,” records, p. 61; Subscribed before
Land Investigator Rizalino dela
Flor.
[12] Entitled, “Aurelio Balili, Claimant-Protestant vs. H.A. No. 18-9008 (E-18-8187) Matias Bulay-og, Applicant –respondent.”
[13] Exhibits “I” and “I-3,” records, p. 67.
[14] Exhibit “B,” records, p. 60.
[15] Exhibit “A,” records, p. 59.
[16] Exhibit “V,” records, p. 80.
[17] Records, p. 17.
[18] Penned by Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena; records, pp. 111-131.
[19] CA rollo,
p. 97.
[20] Public Estates Authority v.
[21] Supra at 501-502.
[22] TSN,
[23] Exhibit “1”, rollo, p.92.
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] Casimina
v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 147530,