SECOND
DIVISION
|
SPOUSES RICARDO IMBAT and LILIA IMBAT, Petitioners, - versus - SPOUSES MEDARDO SOLIVEN and FLORENTINA
NARVASA and VINEZ HORTALEZA, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 171756 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: March
27, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
In an action for forcible entry filed by
herein respondents Spouses Medardo Soliven and Florentina Narvasa against
herein petitioner Ricardo Imbat and his brother Federico Imbat, which was docketed
as Civil Case No. 700 (SF-94), the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San
Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan rendered judgment, by Decision of March 29, 1995,[1] in favor of respondents, ordering the brothers
Imbat to, among other things, vacate the therein subject two parcels of riceland,
one with an area of 9.521 sq.m., and the other with an area of 4,653 sq.m.,
“located [in] Barangay Anonang, San
Fabian, Pangasinan.”
On appeal, Branch 40 of the Dagupan Regional Trial Court (RTC), noting
that herein petitioners “merely denied all the allegations in the complaint
with counterclaim for damages” without proffering any affirmative defenses, and
that “[d]uring the pre-trial conference before the MCTC, both parties agreed on, inter alia, the “identities
of . . . the land[s]” subject of the case, affirmed the MCTC’s decision.[2]
The MCTC decision became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued and enforced, but
the Imbat brothers re-occupied the questioned premises, drawing the trial court
to declare them in contempt. An alias
writ of execution was issued and the two eventually vacated the premises.
On
3. That the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in actual possession from the time it was donated by their parents, the following described real property to the exclusion of anyone including the defendants-spouses herein, to wit:
“A parcel of irrigated Riceland at [B]arangay
Anonang, San Fabian,
Pangasinan containing an area of TEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY NINE (10,439)
square meters, more or less. Bounded on
the North by Zanja; on the South by Francisco Agsaoay; on the East by J.
Corabat; and on the West by Lorenza Ferdamil.
It is declared under Tax Declaration No. 0868 and assessed at P3,230.00
as per the land records of San Fabian, Pangasinan. The said property is not registered under Act
496 as amended nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law but registerable under Act
3344, as amended.”
x x x x
6. That the defendants are disturbing the plaintiffs in their peaceful possession and absolute ownership over the land in question by attempting to implement a writ of execution issued pursuant to a decision issued which is already become final and executory in an ejectment case over a certain land, which is different land herein described; the land defendants bought from spouses Alejandro Suratos and Rufo Gatchalian is located at [B]arangay Binday, San Fabian, Pangasinan;
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)[3]
After trial, Branch 41 of the Dagupan RTC found that respondents’ claim
of ownership of the subject property is anchored on an Absolute Sale of Unregistered
Land dated December 22, 1975[4] executed by the Spouses Rufo
Gatchalian and Alejandra Suratos in their favor, possession of which property
was taken by respondents until they were dispossessed by the brothers Imbat sometime
in May 1994; and that petitioners’ claim is anchored on a Deed of Donation[5]
executed by the brothers Imbat’s father, Florentino Imbat, in favor of herein
petitioner Ricardo Imbat only on January
25, 1995 during the pendency of the forcible entry case.
The trial court thus rendered judgment in respondents’ favor by Decision
of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants Sps. Medardo Soliven and Florentina Narvasa and against the plaintiffs as follows:
1). Dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action.
2). Declaring defendants Sps. Medardo Soliven and Florentina Narvasa [sic] the land in question, and quieting their title over the same and removing all clouds thereon.
3). Dismissing all other claims of the plaintiffs for lack of basis.
4). Ordering
the plaintiffs to pay to the defendants the amounts of P20,000.00 as and
attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses, and to pay the
cost of suit.[7] (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising the issue of
WHETHER
OR NOT THE HONOURABLE COURT A QUO’S DECISION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CASE CONSIDERING THE QUESTIONED PROPERTY WHICH
WAS CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES WAS LOCATED AT BARRIO BINDAY, SAN FABIAN, PANGASINAN NOT [AT] BARRIO ANONANG, SAN FABIAN, PANGASINAN,
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE.[8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Before the appellate court, petitioners argued in the main that the land claimed
to be owned by respondents is located at Barrio Binday, and not at Barrio
Anonang, which is where the land subject of the case and which was donated to petitioner
Ricardo Imbat by his father Florentino Imbat is located; and that the land located
in Anonang was purchased by Florentino Imbat in 1949, taxes for which were religiously
paid.
The appellate court found that the documentary evidence showed that the land
in question is the same land subject of the forcible entry case,
and that respondents are the owners thereof.
Explained the appellate court:
. . . [T]he Absolute
After receipt on
On
By Resolution of
On
Hence, the present Petition for Review,[14] petitioners
faulting the appellate court for
1. . . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY SPOUSES RUFO GA[T]CHALIAN AND ALEJANDRA SURATOS IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY AND NOT THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THIS CASE.
2.
. . . AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT DISREGARDING THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE
Petitioners are glaringly silent on the procedural faux pas they committed before the
appellate court. They merely focus on
their above-quoted assigned errors.
The records of the case before the Court of Appeals show that
in petitioners’ August 20, 2004 motion for reconsideration of the appellate
court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration of its decision affirming
that of the trial court, which August 20, 2004 motion partakes of the nature of
a proscribed second motion for reconsideration,[16] they
proffered that “there was no way for their new counsel to file a motion for
reconsideration [of the decision] on time except to file the motion for
extension of time to file motion for reconsideration to go over the whole
records of the several cases filed in court by both parties against each
other,”[17]
hence, the filing of the motion for extension.
The proffered ground is a patent lie, however. Petitioners-appellants’ brief[18] filed
on March 5, 2003 before the appellate court is exhaustive, reflecting that
their counsel had had ample opportunity to go over all pertinent records of related
cases.
Technicality aside, on the merits, petitioners’ petition
miserably fails.
In its decision in the forcible entry case, the MCTC noted as
follows:
During the scheduled preliminary
conference held on
1. Identities of the parties and of the land subject of this case;
2. The plaintiffs have been in prior possession of said land and it was only sometime in May 1994 that the defendants took over its possession.[19]
On appeal, the RTC noted that “[d]uring the pre-trial [sic] conference,” both parties
stipulated on the two above-mentioned facts.[20]
Petitioners nevertheless insist that the land being claimed
by respondents is a different one, that which is located at Barangay Binday. In
support of this position, petitioners rely on a December 8, 1975 Recibo
Ti Panangawat Ti Cuarta Nga Ingatang Ti Daga executed by above-mentioned Spouses Gatchalian from whom
respondents acquired the property in question.
This Recibo was not offered in evidence during the
trial of the case, however.[21] Nonetheless, respondents creditably explain
that there was a mistake in indicating the location of the subject land, the
vendors being residents of Binday, a neighboring barangay of Anonang.
As for the Deed of Absolute Sale ─ Exhibit “C” which
appears to cover the subject land purportedly executed on May 28, 1949 in favor
of petitioner Ricardo Imbat’s father, respondents objected to its admission on
the ground that, among other things, it was not properly identified and, in any event,
it refers to another parcel of
land.[22] While petitioners presented the Joint
Affidavit dated
Florentino Imbat, the affiants were not presented in court, hence, the statements
in the affidavit remain hearsay.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Exhibit “11,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 24-29.
[2] Exhibit “12,” id. at 30-31.
[3] Records, pp. 1-2.
[4] Exhibit “2,” Folder of Exhibits, p. 14.
[5] Exhibit “A,” id. at 1.
[6] Records, pp. 156-162.
[7]
[8] CA rollo,
p. 17.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Records, pp. 89-93.
[13] Suarez
v. Villarama, Jr., G.R. No. 124512,
[14] Rollo, pp. 7-19.
[15]
[16] Vide
Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
138526,
SEC. 2. Second
motion for reconsideration. ─ No second motion for reconsideration of
a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
[17] Reply (to the Stiff Opposition to Motion for
Reconsideration), CA rollo, pp.
98-100.
[18]
[19] Exhibit “1,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 24-25.
[20] Exhibit “2,” id. at 31.
[21] Vide Plaintiff’s Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, records, pp. 85-87.
[22] Records, p. 89.
[23] In the TSN,
[24] Exhibit “H,” Folder of Exhibits, p. 10.