FIRST DIVISION
LIFE HOMES REALTY G.R. No. 120827
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
-
versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS AND
MARVI
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Promulgated:
Respondents.
February
15, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 38409 dismissing the appeal of
petitioner Life Homes Realty Corporation for lack of merit. The CA ruled that the ordinary civil action
for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent Marvi
Development, Inc. (Marvi) is not the proper remedy in this case.
The facts are:
Petitioner
Life Homes Realty Corporation is the registered owner of two parcels of land
located in Barrio Ampid,
In
1979, petitioner discovered, upon a relocation and verification of the
boundaries of its property, that the southern and southwestern portions of its
property were encroached upon, developed and occupied by private respondent for
subdivision purposes. The encroachment of private respondent’s property (plan
Psu-52084) over petitioner’s properties (plan Psu-52080 and Psu-52085)
allegedly covered a total area of 10,365 square meters.
Both parties subsequently
agreed to have an independent relocation survey conducted by a Government
Geodetic Engineer to decide whether there was overlapping of the aforementioned
properties, and that the party found to have an erroneous survey shall shoulder
the expenses of the relocation survey. Marvi
agreed to such proposal in its letter of
Thus,
in a letter[2] dated
After acceding to the request, the
Chief of the Technical Services of the Bureau of Lands, Engr. Felipe R.
Venezuela, submitted his report (Venezuela report) of the verification survey of
Psu-52080, Psu-52084 and Psu-52085, Barrio Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal in a letter dated
April 28, 1983 addressed to the Regional Land Director through the Chief,
Surveys Division of the Bureau of Lands.
The report reads:
x x x
Sir:
In
connection with Office Memorandum dated 26 April 1981 regarding the joint
request of Life Homes Realty Corporation and Marvi Hills Development to verify
the lots covered by plan Psu-52080, Psu-52084 and Psu-52085 as relocated by
their respective surveyors, the undersigned respectfully submit[s] the
following findings based on the verification survey conducted to wit:
1)
Engr. Isabelo Muñoz was hired by Marvi Hills
Development to relocate their properties covered by plan Psu-177242 and plan
Psu-52084. His relocation was conducted
prior to the cadastral survey of
2)
On November 10, 1964 to December 20, 1965, the
municipality of San Mateo, Rizal was cadastrally surveyed by Engr. Regino Rigor
under Cad-375-D, San Mateo, Rizal, plan Psu-52084 becomes identical to lot 3680
and 3031, San Mateo Cadastre. Similarly
plan Psu-52080 and plan Psu-52085 were assigned a cadastral lot number of 3037
and 3031, Cad-375-D, San Mateo Cadastre.
These three lots were accepted by the cadastral survey;
3)
Engr. Regino Natividad is the Geodetic Engineer of Life
Homes Realty Corporation. As such, his
duty is to relocate the boundaries of plan Psu-52080 and plan Psu-52085 for the
development of Life Homes Subdivision.
It was during this relocation survey that he found out plan Psu-52084
encroached plan Psu-52080 and plan Psu-52085 thus the request for verification
survey was referred to this office;
4)
Considering that the request is for us to decide who is
correct between Engr. Isabelo Muñoz and Engr. Regino Natividad relocation
survey, the survey done by Engr. Natividad is correct in the sense that it
adopt[s] the system of Cadastral survey.
Furthermore, during the execution of the cadastral survey, plan
Psu-177242 a titled property was found defective. It was not accepted and as amended, line 9-10
was amended from S.35 deg. 22’E., 108.75 m. to S. 28 deg. 43’E., 129.62 m. Also line 14-15 was amended from N.64 deg.
17’W., 371.91 m. to N.60 deg. 52’W., 382.58 m.
Due to this amendments its area increases by THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
THIRTY NINE (3,539) SQ. METERS.
In
view of the foregoing findings it is recommended that the Relocation survey
executed by Engr. Regino Natividad be followed and that plan Psu-52084 as
relocated by Engr. Isabelo Muñoz be Re-relocated using corner 7 and 8 of plan
Psu-52080 and corner 4 of plan Psu-52085 as starting point and reference.[3]
Thereafter,
petitioner made a demand on private respondent to vacate the alleged encroached
area but private respondent refused.
On July 11, 1984, petitioner filed a complaint[4]
against private respondent with the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal,
Branch 76 (RTC) for recovery of possession and damages, and prayed that private
respondent be directed to move its boundaries common with that of the two
parcels of land owned by it to those points and lines as determined by the
verification and relocation survey included in the Venezuela report dated April
28, 1983; to vacate the encroached area,
and pay the expenses for the relocation survey, attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses.
In its Answer, private respondent alleged
that it is petitioner’s parcels of land that wrongfully overlap its (private respondent’s)
property. By way of affirmative and/or special defenses, private respondent
alleged that the agreement to allow Geodetic Engineer
In its counterclaim, private respondent
alleged that petitioner put up a steep boundary along private respondent’s
property, which posed a grave risk and danger of soil erosion, causing lot
buyers to discontinue paying for the subdivision lots affected, and as a result
deprived private respondent of profits.
Hence, private respondent sought payment of unrealized profits,
attorney’s fees of P50,000, litigation expenses of P10,000 and
the refund of P3,482 which it paid
to the Bureau of Lands.
On
There is no gainsaying the fact that this case is anchored on the report of Felipe R. Venezuela. Objections interposed to the said report by the defendant are found to be impressed with merit in view of the following considerations: The report contained an admission that Plan Psu-177242, a titled property, was found defective and hence was amended. There is no showing, however, that the amendment of the said Plan was made by virtue of a Court Order nor that notice thereof was given to the owners of the adjoining lots, in violation of law and indeed, of due process. Since Plan Psu-177242 was approved by the Court resulting in the titling of the property, it follows that any amendment or alteration thereof, being mere incidents, would equally have to have judicial sanction.
Under the circumstances therefore, Venezuela’s report, which sustained as correct the survey done by Engineer Natividad (for the plaintiff) based on the aforesaid amendment done violative of law, is necessarily void and of no effect.
Further
compounding the observable inefficacy of Venezuela’s report is the fact that
said report was merely recommendatory, which can only mean that without the approval of the
Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands
to whom it was submitted, it can have no force and effect, and fittingly, can
only be regarded as a mere scrap of paper. Plaintiff offered no proof that
Rejecting
therefore the correctness, validity and efficacy of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is hereby ordered dismissed for lack of basis. No pronouncement as to costs.
Defendant’s counterclaim is likewise dismissed for lack of credible basis, the evidence submitted in support thereof being at the most, self-serving.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Both
petitioner and private respondent appealed from the decision of the trial court
to the CA.
Petitioner questioned the dismissal
of its complaint, while private respondent questioned the dismissal of its
counterclaim.
On
The CA stated
that under Sec. 112 of Act 496, now Sec. 108 of P.D. No. 1529, the
petition for correction shall be filed and entitled in the original case in
which the decree of registration was entered.
Hence, the CA held that the ordinary civil action for recovery of
possession is not the proper remedy of petitioner.
On
Petitioner raised the following
issues:
I.
The respondent Court erred in holding that the
II.
The respondent court erred in holding that the re-relocation
survey recommended by
Petitioner argues that the
CA erred in holding that the
a.
the
engagement of the Government Geodetic Engineer
to conduct an independent survey to determine whether there was overlapping of
the subject lots was based on an
agreement between the parties that they would be bound by the results thereof
and to accordingly make the proper
adjustments to their landholdings;
b.
the objection of private respondent to the
c.
private
respondent is estopped from repudiating the
Petitioner’s argument is without
merit.
The CA correctly ruled that the
First, when the parties agreed to request the Director of the Bureau of Lands to settle the disagreement between their respective surveyors regarding the “common boundary in the actual ground,” there was no express agreement that the verification survey would be deemed final and binding upon the parties, a stipulation which the parties could have easily entered into had they so intended.
Second, when a copy of the Venezuela
report was furnished to private respondent’s counsel, the latter promptly
objected to the report as erroneous on the ground that Geodetic Engineer
Venezuela erred in adopting the relocation survey made by petitioner’s geodetic
engineer because it was based on the illegal amendment of Psu-17742, a titled
property, by the cadastral survey since the amendment was made without court
order. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the objection cannot be
considered an afterthought.
Third, the request[9] of
the parties for a verification survey to be conducted by a Government Geodetic Engineer
was addressed to the Director of the Bureau of Lands, and the report of Geodetic
Engineer
Fourth, petitioner does not dispute
the conclusion of the RTC that the
alleged amendment or alteration of Plan Psu-177242, a property titled before
the cadastral survey of the municipality of San Mateo, Rizal in 1964-1965, was made without notice to the
owners of the adjoining lots. Such an amendment/alteration
effected without notice to affected owners would not be in compliance with law
nor the requirements of due process.
Moreover, the
[D]uring
the execution of the cadastral survey, plan Psu-177242 a titled property was
found defective. It was not accepted and
as amended, line 9-10 was amended from S.35 deg. 22’E., 108.75 m. to S. 28 deg.
43’E., 129.62 m. Also line 14-15 was
amended from N.64 deg. 17’W., 371.91 m. to N.60 deg. 52’W., 382.58 m. Due to this amendments its area increases by
THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE (3,539) SQ. METERS.
The Court agrees with the CA that such
defects in plans prepared in connection with areas adjudicated in ordinary or
voluntary registration proceedings may be corrected after the cadastral survey
in accordance with Sec. 108 of P.D. No.
1529, thus:
SEC.
108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. -- No erasure,
alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the
entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation
of the same by Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First
Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in
registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the
approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to
the court upon the ground that registered interests of any description,
whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate,
have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
certificate have arisen or been created;
or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; x x x or upon any other
reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after
notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a
new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate,
or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or
bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this
section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the
judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered
by the court, which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser
holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns,
without his or their written consent. x x x
All
petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other
provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.[10]
The last paragraph above provides
that a petition for correction shall be filed and entitled in the original case
in which the decree of registration was entered. As stated by the CA, the
jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies with the
Next, petitioner argues that Geodetic
Engineer
The argument is untenable.
Granting that the
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED for lack of merit
and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 38409 is AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 57.
[2]
[3]
[4] Civil Case No. 133.
[5] CA Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[6] The Land Registration Act.
[7] Property Registration Decree.
[8] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[9]
[10] Emphasis supplied.
[11] Noblejas,
Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 190.
[12] Exhs. “7” to “8,” Records, pp. 291-292.