CAMBRIDGE REALTY AND G.R. No. 152445
RESOURCES CORP.,
Petitioner, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
ERIDANUS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
and CHITON REALTY CORP., Promulgated:
Respondents.
July 4, 2008
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
Petition for Review on Certiorari[1]
assails the October 17, 2001 Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51967 reversing and setting aside the
October 10, 1995 Decision[3] of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 in Civil Case Nos. Q-89-2636
and Q-89-2750, which dismissed the complaints filed by respondents Eridanus
Development Inc. (ERIDANUS) and
Chiton Realty Corporation (CHITON)
against petitioner Cambridge Realty and Resources Corporation (CAMBRIDGE). Also assailed is the March 1, 2002 Resolution[4]
denying the Motion for Reconsideration.[5]
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner
CAMBRIDGE is the registered owner of a 9,992-square meter lot, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 367213 (the CAMBRIDGE
title/property),[6] in
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.
Respondent
ERIDANUS is the registered owner of a 2,794 square meter parcel of land covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) RT-38481 (the ERIDANUS
title/property),[7] in
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. A
portion of the covering title thereof partially reads, as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally
registered on the ___23rd__ day of ______________,
in the year nineteen hundred and ____Veinte____ in the
Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of ___Rizal___,
Volume ___T-27___, page ___, as Original
Certificate of Title No. __________, pursuant to Decree No. __Case no.
917__, issued in L.R.C. ___________ Record No. ____________, in the name
of ______________.
This certificate is a transfer from __Trans.__
Certificate of Title No. __346380/T-1736__ which is cancelled by
virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
On the
other hand, respondent CHITON is the registered owner of a 2,563 square
meter lot, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 12667 (the
CHITON title/property),[8] in
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. A
portion of the covering title thereof reads in part, as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally
registered on the ___23rd__ day of _____Sept._____,
in the year nineteen hundred and ____veinte____ in the
Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of ___Rizal___,
Volume ___T-27___, page _6__, as
Original Certificate of Title No. __________, pursuant to Decree No. __Case
no. 917__, issued in L.R.C. ___________ Record No. ____________, in the
name of ______________.
This certificate is a transfer from __Trans.__
Certificate of Title No. __346381/T-1736__ which is cancelled by
virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
The
CAMBRIDGE title has a covering title that reads in part, thus –
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally
registered on the ___21st__ day of ___August___, in the year
nineteen hundred and ____seven____ in the Registration Book of the
Office of the Register of Deeds of ___RIZAL___, Volume ___A-4___,
page __56_, as Original (sic) of Title No. _____355____, pursuant
to Decree No. __1425__, issued in L.R.C. Rec. No. ____917___.
This certificate is a transfer from __Trans.__
Certificate of Title No. __363717/T-1823__ which is cancelled by virtue
hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.[9]
The
foregoing properties are adjoining lots located in Barangay Valencia, Quezon
City, and constitute the subject matter of the present controversy.
Original
Certificate of Title No. (OCT) 362[10] was issued under Act 496 (The Land
Registration Act) by virtue of Decree of Registration 1425, GLRO No. 917, based
on the original survey conducted on November 17, 1906. It was subdivided into three portions: Lots
27-A, 27-B and 27-C. Lot 27-C was titled in the name of Rafael Reyes,
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 5506[11]
issued on September 23, 1920. TCT 5506, in turn, appears to have been
transferred in the name of Susana Realty, Inc. (SUSANA) under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 18250.[12]
TCT 18250 was then subdivided into eight
(8) lots, of which the ERIDANUS lot is claimed to be Lot 3 thereof and
CHITON’s is Lot 4.
The
subdivision of TCT 18250 (or Lot 27-C) was claimed to have been made by
geodetic surveyor Jaime V. Nerit (Nerit). Nerit said he began computing the boundaries
based on the SUSANA title. He noticed
that the tie point[13]
of the property was not fixed and there were no fixed or permanent markers, so
he conducted research and obtained from the Bureau of Lands the approved consolidated
subdivision plan of an adjoining property, Gilmore Townhouses[14] –
located on the western side and owned by Ayala Investments and Development
Corporation (the AYALA property) – which had fixed monuments to which Nerit could
establish and connect with those of TCT 18250. He found a fixed tie point therein, BLLM 1,
Marikina[15] (“S.
68’19 W. Pt. 6785 from BLLM Marikina I, Marikina, Rizal”), and from there he next
computed the relation between corner 1 as described in the technical
description of TCT 18250, and corner 1 as described in that of the Ayala
property. In this manner, Nerit said he was
able to establish the position of respondents’ property and prepare the
subdivision plan of TCT 18250, which was subsequently approved by the Land
Registration Commission.[16]
Original
Certificate of Title No. (OCT) 355[17] was registered under Act 496 on
August 21, 1907, based on the original survey conducted on June 16 to August
16, 1907. It was registered in the name
of La Compania Agricola de Ultramar (AGRICOLA). Lot 21 thereof was subdivided and a portion
thereof – Lot 21-A – was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT)
578,[18] from
which TCT 367213, the CAMBRIDGE title, was allegedly derived.
On May 30,
1989, ERIDANUS filed Civil Case No. Q-89-2636 to enjoin CAMBRIDGE from pursuing
the planned subdivision and development of its property, which ERIDANUS claims
encroached upon its own. The Complaint
prays for a writ of injunction; the removal of an alleged encroaching wall
CAMBRIDGE constructed; that the encroached portion be vacated and surrendered
to it; that it be paid P3,500.00 per month, from the time of filing of the
complaint to surrender of possession, as reasonable value for the use and
occupation by CAMBRIDGE of the encroached portion; and litigation expenses,
attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
On June
15, 1989, CHITON instituted Civil Case No. Q-89-2750, with a similar prayer for
relief as in Civil Case No. Q-89-2636, except that CHITON seeks a lower monthly
charge of P1,700.00 for the use and occupation of the alleged encroached
portion, and a lesser amount for attorney’s fees.
Both
complaints were subsequently consolidated in Civil Case No. Q-89-2636 upon
motion of CHITON.
The civil
complaints were triggered by a previous verification survey conducted on respondents’
respective properties, where the results allegedly showed that the CAMBRIDGE
property encroached or overlapped upon respondents’ lots, to the extent of 357
square meters for ERIDANUS and 177 square meters for CHITON.
Upon
motion of the respondents, surveyors from the Survey Division of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Lands Management Services conducted
a relocation survey of the subject properties, pursuant to an Order of the
trial court dated May 8, 1992. On
February 10, 1993, they prepared a two-page Report,[19]
finding in part thus –
1. That the
Verification/Relocation Survey has been conducted on October 1, 2 and November
5, 1992.
2. At the
outset, corresponding Technical Descriptions along the two (2) properties TCT
18250 and TCT 367213, supposedly common to both has already a difference of 3
degrees 10 minutes (3-0-00) as described on their respective titles inspite of
the deficiency of TCT No. 18250 (Susana Realty Inc.) for not having any tie
line.
3. That a
subdivision of the lot covered by TCT No. 18250 under (LRC) Psd-335633 had been
approved, June 19, 1986 referring to Lot 27-C, Psd -13458 as the source which
records when researched could not be made available at hand, has established
its tie line.
4. That the
lot covered by TCT No. 367213 (Cambridge Realty and Resource Corporation) has
also been subdivided under Psd-13-005784 approved by the Lands Management
Services of this Region last May 3, 1988.
5. That the
Technical Descriptions of TCT No. 367213 under Psd-13-005784 boundary referred
from Lot 1, Sub-Block 1-A, Psd-225 was also researched and could not be made
available at hand.
x x x x
8. Party
litigants has not paid corresponding survey deposit in the amount of ONE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P1,600.00).
x x x x
(signed)
ELPIDIO
T. DE LARA
Chief,
Technical Services Section
The trial
court received the evidence of both parties, which in the main consisted of the
expert testimonies of practicing private geodetic surveyors. Thus, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo,
presented Nerit, who claimed to have conducted a survey of the respondents’
properties, as well as a study of the CAMBRIDGE property and its alleged predecessor
title (TCT 578). He testified that in
the course of his work, he found out that the CAMBRIDGE property overlapped that
of ERIDANUS at the north with a distance of eight (8) linear meters;[20]
that although the CAMBRIDGE property was formerly a portion of TCT 578, the
former does not conform to the latter;[21]
that when it was segregated from TCT 578, the bearings on the side abutting the
respondents’ property were altered;[22]
that TCT 578 was issued in 1907, yet the original survey of the property
covered by the CAMBRIDGE title was made in 1920;[23]
that there is no record of the subdivision plan of the CAMBRIDGE lot;[24] and
that it does not appear that the CAMBRIDGE lot came from TCT 578 (despite
stating previously that the former used to be a portion of the latter).[25]
On
cross-examination, Nerit stated that there is no basis for him to say that the
CAMBRIDGE lot came from TCT 578,[26]
because there is nothing in the title thereof that indicates that it was
derived from the latter;[27] that
when he first surveyed the SUSANA property (TCT 18250) in 1960, he did not
discover any overlapping, and he did so only in 1990;[28] that
he found out that there was a discrepancy between the tie point in the
respondents’ titles and their predecessor’s, the SUSANA title;[29] that
the tie point of the SUSANA property was just a PLS monument (i.e.,
technically, there is no tie point – meaning that the property’s geographical
position could not be found, such that there could be no starting point for the
conduct of a survey), which he could not rely on for the survey;[30] so,
he had to find a solution by creating a new one, BLLM 1 Marikina.[31]
Likewise,
Nerit testified on cross-examination that there is no evidence to show that the
CAMBRIDGE property was derived from OCT 355 (the AGRICOLA property, or the
mother title);[32] that
the CAMBRIDGE property came from TCT 578 but the common azimuth of the two
titles do not conform to each other;[33]
that the overlapping of titles could have occurred during the original survey
of the CAMBRIDGE property on November 10, 1920;[34] that
when he conducted the subdivision survey of the SUSANA property (TCT 18250), he
certified that he did not find any overlapping;[35]
that the blank spaces in the SUSANA title[36]
were mere typographical errors or inadvertent mistakes;[37] that,
knowing that these blank spaces existed, he did not endeavor to determine the
reasons or causes thereof.[38]
On
re-direct examination, Nerit testified that as to the respondents’ properties,
notwithstanding that they have no tie points, the boundaries thereof may still
be determined and identified.[39]
Nerit made a sketch of how he went about
changing the floating (or “not fixed”) tie point to a fixed one.[40]
Respondents
next presented Engineer Oliver A. Morales, a licensed appraiser of real estate
properties, for the purpose of establishing the fair market value of the
ERIDANUS and CHITON properties in connection with the prayer for
indemnification of fair rental value for the use of the alleged encroached
property.
Respondents
thereafter presented Ernesto Vidal, Clerk III of the Registry of Deeds of
Rizal, who testified that he was specifically sent to testify in court by the
Register of Deeds of Rizal, and he brought with him the original copies of OCTs
362 and 355 on file with the Registry. Said
titles, however, have been rendered, by the passage of time, incapable of being
read and deciphered for the most part.
Another witness,
Elpidio T. De Lara, geodetic engineer and Chief (Engineer IV) of the Technical
Services Sector of the Land Management Services, DENR, has been with the office
since 1960 and had served as chief of the Technical Services Sector for five
(5) years at the time of the taking of his testimony. He testified that he conducted an actual verification
survey of the CAMBRIDGE, ERIDANUS and CHITON properties on October 1, 2, and
November 5, 1992;[41]
in connection therewith, he prepared a relocation/verification plan[42]
which was duly approved by his superiors; he found out that there is an
overlapping of the boundaries of the petitioner and respondents’ properties.[43]
De Lara likewise
testified that in the preparation of the relocation plan, he used as basis the
SUSANA title for the respondents’ properties, and for the petitioner, the
CAMBRIDGE title;[44] but
that with regard to the SUSANA title, there is no tie point;[45]
there being no tie point, it would be difficult and impossible to make a
relocation plan;[46] being
so, respondents’ properties were plotted on the basis of the technical
descriptions in the title of an adjoining property, the AYALA property;[47] that
if he plotted the respondents’ properties on the basis of the common boundary
(lines 1 to 2) between the adjacent AYALA and SUSANA properties as stated in
the technical description of the SUSANA title, there would be no overlapping of
boundaries between petitioner and respondents’ titles;[48]
on the other hand, if the survey were conducted based on the respondents’
respective titles which do not have a tie line or tie point, there would be an
overlap;[49]
interestingly, he claims that he discovered an overlapping but that it is a
“technical overlapping.” Thus:
Atty. Bilog:
Did you
research on the title of the plaintiffs and defendant, have you examined this
title TCT No. 18250?
A Yes, your
honor.
x x x x
Q This TCT
No. 18250, showing to you this copy of TCT No. 18250 which has been previously
marked as Exhibit “O” for the plaintiffs and as Exhibit “1” for the defendant,
will you look at this title and point to us, what is the reference point of the
property described on this title?
x x x x
Q Is there a
reference point or tie point?
A Well,
actually, there is no reference point…
Q So, if you
had used this title, Exhibit “O”, for the plaintiff in the plotting of this
relocation plan, marked as Exhibit “11” for the defendant, you would not be
able to plot on this Exhibit “11”, the property of the plaintiff because the
title of the plaintiff has no reference point or tie point?
Witness:
A But you can
do this through its adjoining properties, on the basis of this title.
Q Witness did
not answer my question, your honor…
Court What
is the purpose of having reference or tie point?...Is it essential?
Atty. Bilog:
Very
essential, your honor.
Court (to the witness)
Q Without
it, as the Court gathers from your answer, it would be difficult and impossible
for you to make the relocation plan?
A Yes,
sir.
Q When
you make a relocation plan, as you did in this Exhibit “11”, you used the
technical description of other properties?
A Yes,
your honor.
Q Is
that an accepted alternative?
A Yes,
your honor, this determine the corresponding relations…
Atty. Bilog
Q Without
thinking of the question of overlapping, when you are supposed to plot in the
relocation plan the property of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s property is not
connected to any tie line or tie point in the description of the title?
A I
cannot use the common point, this is connected with the corresponding tie line,
sir.
Q The
technical descriptions which you narrated belong to other surveys?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
that survey which is now in your possession, the plaintiff’s property is
adjacent to other property?
A It
is not actually adjacent to this property except this portion, sir.
Court:
Witness
pointing to lines between 1 and 2 on Exhibit “Y” and “11” within the plan of
plaintiff’s property.
Q Now,
these lines between 1 and 2, representing perimeter or boundary, that is
adjacent to the boundary of an adjoining property and this survey was used for
plotting this relocation plan?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Now,
is this line between 1 and 2 of plaintiff’s property, in any way described in
the technical description of the property, this survey is also used in this
relocation plan?
A It
is prescribed, sir.
Q Now,
you are talking about common boundary line, what do you mean by common boundary
line, will you point in this plan, what is this common boundary line?
A The
two surveys coincide with each other or tangent with each other, sir.
Q Can
you point out to this plan, what is the common boundary?
A 1
and 2 of the plaintiff’s technical description and 16 and 15, sir.
(Witness
pointing to the figure on the plan…)
Q Why
do you say it is a common boundary?
A Well,
the technical description of the plaintiff’s title and the adjacent property
which is the Ayala property are the same…
Q You
are saying that they are common?
A Yes,
common sir.
x x x x
A It
is a common boundary as the survey stated, sir.
x x x x
Q Can
you say, in a reasonable certainty that the boundaries, which you are referring
to point 1 and 2 of plaintiff’s TCT No. 18250 is a common boundary with that of
Ayala property that you are stating?
A It
is a common boundary otherwise, you will not…
Q Now,
Mr. Witness, if you will only plotted (sic) the plaintiff’s property on the
basis of the technical description of TCT 18250, in this relocation plan, there
would be no overlapping of boundaries between plaintiff’s and defendant’s
properties?
Atty. Barcelona
Objection,
your honor.
Atty. Bilog
Assuming,
your honor, he is an expert…
Court
Yes,
he is an expert, he knows that…
Atty. Bilog
There
would be no overlapping, is it not?
A As
stated in the survey, the overlapping of the property has already been
discovered but it is a technical overlapping, sir.
Atty. Bilog
I
move that the testimony be strickened off the record, your honor, it is not
responsive…
Court
Just
answer yes or no?
A Yes,
sir.
Q When
the intention is to determine the degrees of overlapping of the two adjoining
properties, can you not use the technical descriptions contained in their
respective TCT’s for that purpose?
A If
we use it…
Court
They
will overlap, is that what you want to say?
A They
will overlap, your honor because the plaintiff’s property does not carry the
tie line or tie point, your honor.[50]
Another
geodetic engineer, William G. Lim, was presented by the respondents. He stated that he performed a verification
survey of the respondents’ properties, using as basis the SUSANA title, TCT
578, and the technical description of the CAMBRIDGE property.[51] He likewise testified that, for the survey of
respondents’ properties, he used as tie point “1 Marikina Rizal.”[52] He prepared a verification survey plan (Exh.
“BB”) duly approved by the proper government authority.[53]
On
cross-examination, Lim testified that the reference point for the respondents’
properties for purposes of survey was “N. 60 gds. 23’30’E., 23.69 m.s. de un
mojon de concreto marcado PLS yes mismo punto 86 de la parcela No. 21”;[54]
that said reference point was located “in the intersection of the road” and
could no longer be located, or it could have been lost or destroyed, and
because the BLLM reference point already exists;[55] that
in surveying the respondents’ properties, he used instead as reference point BLLM
1, not the PLS monument, because the government has been requiring that all
subdivisions or surveys now should be tied with approved tie lines of the BLLM;[56] that
if the property has no tie point or reference point, the surveyor may tie the
same to the nearest reference point of other adjoining lots that have a tie
point;[57] that
even if the property has no reference point, its exact location could be
determined in a survey;[58] that
even if there is no reference point or BLLM monument, an overlapping of
properties could still be detected on the basis of the title alone.[59]
On re-direct
examination, Lim testified that he conducted at least two surveys on the
ERIDANUS and CHITON properties, and for the first survey he found a difference
in the overlap by the CAMBRIDGE lot of about 21 or 22 square meters compared to
the 552 square meter overlap found by De Lara;[60]
that with regard to the tie line, a change thereof does not affect the location
of the surveyed property;[61]
that when the reference point or tie point is changed, the azimuth lines and
azimuth tie lines of the property are likewise changed, but not the location
thereof.[62] In his written report, however, Lim computes
the CAMBRIDGE overlap at 541 sq. m.[63]
The
petitioner, as defendant a quo, presented geodetic engineer Emilia
Rivera Sison, who testified that the ERIDANUS and CHITON titles lack material
data in their covering titles, such that it appears that they did not undergo proper
registration proceedings and that they do not have a mother title;[64] the
CAMBRIDGE title, on the other hand, has a complete covering title, showing that
it has a mother title (OCT 355) and that it underwent registration proceedings;[65] that
it is impossible to plot the relative position of the ERIDANUS and CHITON
properties using the SUSANA title because the tie point appearing in the latter
title is a PLS which has no known geographic position, or is “floating”, which
means that the property could not be located in a fixed place;[66]
that Engr. Lim’s verification survey plan (Exh. “BB”) did not use tie points,
nor did it indicate what titles were plotted therein as to show the fact of
overlapping, since the said plan could not be compared with the titles plotted
therein.[67]
Sison
further testified that when she conducted a fixed survey of the properties in
question, she found CAMBRIDGE to be in possession of the alleged overlapping
portion, and that there was an existing adobe stone wall, which appeared to be
old, within the claimed overlapping portion. She also saw townhouse units
belonging to CAMBRIDGE on said portion.[68]
On
cross-examination, Sison testified that as a surveyor, she would tie the
properties she surveys to a BLLM reference (tie) point by computing the same to
the nearest property that already has a reference (tie) point, in cases where
the property she is surveying has no tie (reference) point;[69]
but that when a tie point is changed, an overlapping is caused;[70]
that it was error for the respondents’ surveyors to have conducted their
respective surveys without thorough research and without securing the titles to
adjoining properties, as well as following certain processes of computation;[71]
that she conducted these processes of computation on the SUSANA title, and she
found that the technical description thereof contains an error, such that its
actual area is either smaller or bigger, making reference to the said SUSANA
title as an “open polygon” in surveying parlance, which means that the
technical description is not correct (i.e., the “polygon” should “close”, and
when it does, the technical description is then presumed to be correct).[72]
On October
10, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96 rendered a
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Dismissing
the complaints;
2. Dismissing
the counterclaim, except that plaintiffs shall pay to defendant attorney’s
fees of P50,000.00; and
3. Ordering
the plaintiffs to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[73]
On appeal,
the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Decision of the trial court,
thus:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises and finding the
appeal to be meritorious, the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The case is remanded to the lower court with the direction to:
(1) allow
the plaintiffs-appellants to elect whether to (a) appropriate as its own the
buildings and improvements on the encroached property, subject to payment of
indemnity or (b) oblige the defendant-appellee to pay the fair market value of
the encroached property, within the time the lower court shall fix;
(2) if
the plaintiffs-appellants shall elect to oblige the defendant-appellee to pay
the fair market value of the encroached property, to refer the matter to a
commissioner who shall be appointed by the lower court to receive evidence on
the fair market value of the encroached property;
(3) if
the value of the land is considerably more than that of the building and
improvements, and the defendant-appellee cannot be obliged to buy the land
pursuant to Article 448 of the New Civil Code, and the plaintiffs-appellants
also do not choose to appropriate the buildings or improvements after proper
indemnity, the lower court shall order the defendant-appellee to pay reasonable
rent as agreed upon by the parties. In
case of disagreement on the terms of the lease, the lower court shall fix the
terms thereof; and
(4) to
render judgment on the basis of the election of the plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[74]
On March
1, 2002, the appellate court denied the Motion for Reconsideration; hence, this
petition based on the following grounds:
I
WHETHER
OR NOT RESPONDENTS WERE ABLE TO PROVE OVERLAP AND ENCROACHMENT OF PETITIONER’S
PROPERTY ON RESPONDENTS’ PROPERTIES.
II
WHETHER
OR NOT THE TIE POINT OF A REGISTERED PROPERTY MAY BE ALTERED WITHOUT NOTICE TO
THE ADJOINING OWNERS AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 389 OF
THE MANUAL OF LAND SURVEYS IN THE PHILIPPINES, SECTION 108 OF P.D. 1529, AND
JURISPRUDENCE.
III
WHETHER
OR NOT THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND/OR THE APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITIES IS SUFFICIENT TO VALIDATE A SURVEY PLAN AND/OR AMENDED TECHICAL
DESCRIPTION WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.
IV
WHETHER
OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF LACHES.
V
WHETHER OR NOT A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE, COMPLETE AND VALID ON ITS FACE MAY BE DEFEATED BY ANOTHER TORRENS
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS IRREGULAR, AND WHICH CONTAINS
DEFECTIVE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION.
A review of
the factual backdrop is proper for the resolution of the issues presented. The
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are ordinarily not subject to review
by this Court as they are deemed conclusive; but not when the findings of fact
of the trial and appellate courts are conflicting.[75]
There is
one serious flaw that the trial court committed: its failure to require the
court-appointed surveyors – considering that there are quite a number of
irregularities in the certificates of title of the parties – to conduct an
extensive investigation of the titles of the parties.
The case of overlapping of titles necessitates the
assistance of experts in the field of geodetic engineering. The
very reason why commissioners were appointed by the trial court, upon agreement
of the parties, was precisely to make an evaluation and analysis of the titles
in conflict with each other. Given their background, expertise and experience,
these commissioners are in a better position to determine which of the titles
is valid. Thus, the trial court may rely on their findings and
conclusions.[76]
It was the
duty of the trial court, considering the magnitude and extent of the issues presented
and the questions that arose from a careful examination of the parties’
respective certificates of title, to have required the appointed surveyors of
the DENR to investigate and trace the parties’ respective titles, conduct a comprehensive
survey, study and analysis of the boundaries, distances and bearings thereof, and
submit an exhaustive report thereon. Given
their expertise and experience, they would have been able to satisfactorily
perform the required task. Yet the court
did not. As a matter of fact, the
services of the government surveyors were not even secured by court initiative;
the trial court even threatened to do away with the testimonies of the state
surveyors when their presence in court could not be guaranteed. It was through
the auspices of the respondents that they were brought to court. To make matters worse, the parties did not
even pay the required fees for the survey; the court did not compel them.
In
overlapping of titles disputes, it has always been the practice for the court
to appoint a surveyor from the government land agencies – the Land Registration
Authority or the DENR – to act as commissioner. Given that the trial court here did not, we
are now left to make do with the two-page report of the state surveyors and decide
the case with what evidence is made available to us by the parties’ respective
expert witnesses as well, which – for the most part – must be received with
caution as their testimonies are understandably self-serving.
The crux of the matter, however, lies in ascertaining
whether there really is overlapping of boundaries of the properties of the
movants for intervention and that of the private respondent. As We scrutinize
carefully the claim of each party based on survey readings and plottings
appearing on the plans submitted as annexes, We find that the same have not
passed the rigid test of accuracy and authenticity as should be determined by
precision instruments duly verified by accredited surveyors. Indeed, each
claim may appear to be as good and self-serving as the other. And since the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, the veracity and correctness of the
alleged overlapping is better left to those scientifically qualified, trained
and experienced and whose integrity is beyond question and dispute.[77]
(Italics supplied)
The
present petition calls only for the settlement of the overlapping issue,
barring direct and collateral attacks on each of the parties’ respective certificates
of title, which require different proceedings for the ventilation thereof.[78]
The trial
court, in dismissing the case, held primarily that respondents failed to
overcome the burden of establishing their claim of overlapping. It stated that the respondents’ titles – whose
tie points are based on mere PLS monuments (which are not fixed, and are
therefore not in accordance with Sec. 36 of the Manual for Land Surveys in the
Philippines[79]) cannot
prevail as against the petitioner’s, which has a fixed tie or reference point. Simply put, a PLS monument is not one of the reference
points enumerated in Section 36 of the Manual, and cannot be used to defeat
petitioner’s title. Secondly, the trial court held that Nerit, given his
training and expertise as surveyor, should have detected the overlap – if there
was one – in his 1960 survey of TCT 18250, and not suddenly discover it only in
1990. Thirdly, the presence of the old adobe
wall as early as the 1960s and the absence of any protest or objection from
Nerit or the Madrigals (then owner of the SUSANA title) militate against the
present claim of overlap and encroachment.
The
appellate court, however, found that there is an encroachment, and the cause
thereof may be traced to a change in the technical description of the
petitioner’s title (which was derived from TCT 578) when it was subdivided on
November 10, 1920. The appellate court
held that the respective northeastern boundaries of the ERIDANUS, CHITON and
CAMBRIDGE titles should be “S.21’deg.56’55”E” but the CAMBRIDGE title
indicates “N.25 deg. 07’W”. Yet TCT 578 carries the same bearing as the
ERIDANUS and CHITON properties, “S.21’deg.56’55”E”. This change in the technical description,
according to the appellate court, caused the encroachment by the petitioner’s property
on the respondents’ land. The appellate
court ratiocinated that it was precisely for this reason that in 1960, Nerit
found no encroachment during his subdivision survey of the SUSANA lot: because TCT
578 still carried the bearing “S.21’deg.56’55”E”. When he conducted his 1990 survey, which among
others included the petitioner’s title (with the new and different bearing
“N.25 deg. 07’W”) as basis, he naturally found an overlap.
What the
trial and appellate courts overlooked, however, was that out of the four expert
witnesses presented, three of them (the government surveyor De
Lara, respondents’ witness Lim, and petitioner’s witness Sison)
categorically admitted that a change in the tie or reference point results in
an overlap; or, more accurately, that a change in the tie or reference point
has a corresponding effect on the survey.
What has
been made clear by the law and practice is that PLS monuments have given way to
Bureau of Lands Location Monument (BLLM) No. 1, which shall “always be used as
the tie point.”[80] In so doing (disregarding PLS monuments for the
BLLM), such process somehow affects the integrity of the survey.
Thus, De
Lara testified that if he plotted the respondents’ properties on the basis
of the common boundary (lines 1 to 2) between the adjacent AYALA and SUSANA
properties as stated in the technical description of the SUSANA title, there
would be no overlapping of boundaries between petitioner’s and respondents’
titles;[81]
on the other hand, if the survey were conducted based on the respondents’
respective titles which do not have a tie line or tie point, there would be an
overlap.[82] De Lara claims, moreover, that the alleged
encroachment is really a “technical overlapping.”[83] Lim, on the other hand, testified – on
re-direct examination – that when the reference point or tie point is changed,
the azimuth lines and azimuth tie lines of the (respondents’) property are
likewise changed, but not the location thereof.[84] Sison,
witness for the petitioner, testified on cross-examination that when a tie
point is changed, an overlapping is caused.[85]
A case of
overlapping of boundaries or encroachment depends on a reliable, if not
accurate, verification survey; barring one, no overlapping or encroachment may
be proved successfully, for obvious reasons. In the wake of the majority expert opinion
that by changing the tie or reference point from a PLS to a BLLM 1 monument, a
corresponding effect on the survey occurs – which can include a change in
boundaries and, at worst, an overlap – the Court is not prepared to declare
that an accurate survey of the respondents’ properties has been made as to be a
proper basis of the present claim of encroachment or overlap.
Likewise,
we cannot see how a change in the bearings of the CAMBRIDGE property from
“S.21’deg.56’55”E” in TCT 578 to “N.25 deg. 07’W” in the CAMBRIDGE title can
cause an overlap of respondents’ properties. This has not been sufficiently shown by
respondents’ evidence to be the cause of the overlap. Respondents’ key witness
Nerit does not believe that the CAMBRIDGE title was a derivative of TCT
578, because there is nothing in the title thereof which indicates that it was
derived from the latter; he was ambivalent, if not ambiguous, and definitely
far from categorical, in this respect.[86] State surveyor De Lara’s testimony and Report
– inconclusive and incomplete as it is – does not help or indicate any.
Likewise, a thorough examination of TCT 578 shows that it has no similar
boundary and bearings with the CAMBRIDGE title. Finally, the CAMBRIDGE title
explicitly declares that it is derived from TCT No. 363717/T-1823, and not TCT
578.
Thus, for
failure of the respondents to prove that the CAMBRIDGE title is a derivative of
TCT 578, the conclusion that a change in the technical description of
the former – as compared to that of the latter – is the reason for the overlap,
simply does not follow. The appellate
court is in clear error.
Finally, we
agree with the trial court’s observation that the continuous presence of the
old adobe wall diminishes the case for the respondents. It was only in 1989 that the wall became an
ungainly sight for respondents. Previous
owners of what now constitutes the respondents’ respective lots did not
complain of its presence. The wall appears to have been built in the 1960s, and
yet the Madrigals (SUSANA title owners) did not complain about it; if they did,
Nerit would have known and testified to the same since he was responsible for
the subdivision of the lot. Only
respondents complain about it now. In one overlapping of boundaries case,[87] the
Court held that a land owner may not now claim that his property has been
encroached upon when his predecessor did not register any objections at the
time the monuments were being placed on the claimed encroached area; nor did
the latter make any move to question the placement of said monuments at the
time.
Courts
exist to dispense justice through the determination of the truth to conflicting
claims. A party comes to court equipped
with the tools that will convince the court that his position is more viable
than the other’s. He may not hesitate to
employ any method, means or artifice of persuasion that will sway the
sympathies of the court in his favor. As
we have said before, indeed, each claim may appear to be as good and
self-serving as the other.[88]
In
the quest for truth, a court often encounters concerns that necessitate not
only the application of the various principles of law, but likewise precepts of
the exact sciences, various disciplines of study or fields of human endeavour about
which the judge may not be knowledgeable or skilled, and which concerns he is
not prepared to resolve, unless with the aid and intervention of or through the
medium of learned and experienced disinterested experts.
An
example lies precisely in the area of land boundary disputes. The first step in the resolution of such cases
is for the court to direct the proper government agency concerned (the Land
Registration Authority,[89]
or LRA, or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, or DENR) to
conduct a verification or relocation survey and submit a report to the court,[90]
or constitute a panel of commissioners for the purpose.[91]
In
every land dispute, the aim of the courts is to protect the integrity of and maintain
inviolate the Torrens system of land registration, as well as to uphold the law;
a resolution of the parties’ dispute is merely a necessary consequence. Taking this to mind, we cannot grant the
respondents’ prayer without violating the very principles of the Torrens system.
They have failed to lay the proper
foundation for their claim of overlap. This
is precisely the reason why the trial court should have officially appointed a commissioner
or panel of commissioners and not leave the initiative to secure one to the
parties: so that a thorough investigation, study and analysis of the parties’
titles could be made in order to provide, in a comprehensive report, the
necessary information that will guide it in resolving the case completely, and
not merely leave the determination of the case to a consideration of the
parties’ more often than not self-serving evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The appealed Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, in Civil Case Nos. Q-89-2636 and Q-89-2750
dismissing the complaints filed by respondents is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII 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] Rollo,
pp. 11-58.
[2] Id. at 63-74; penned by Associate
Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita J.
Tria Tirona and Amelita G. Tolentino.
[3] Id. at 75-93; penned by Judge (now
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals) Lucas P. Bersamin.
[4] Id. at 61.
[5] Id. at 94-117.
[6]
Exhibit “L”, respondents’ Folder of Exhibits, p. 35.
[7]
Exhibit “A”, id. at 20.
[8]
Exhibit “G,” id. at 26.
[9]
Exhibit “L,” id. at 35.
[10]
Exhibit “W”, id. at 106.
[11]
Exhibit “I”, id. at 33-A.
[12] Exhibit
“O”, id. at 39.
[13]
The Manual for Land Surveys in the Philippines, issued under Lands
Administrative Order No. 4 (July 3, 1980) of the Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources, took effect on September 2, 1980. Section 36 thereof
provides:
Land
surveys shall be definitely fixed in position on the surface of the
earth by monuments of permanent nature marking selected points of said
surveys and by azimuths and distances to “points of reference” of known
geographic positions or Philippine Plane Coordinates. These points of reference
shall be as follows:
1.
Bureau of Lands Location Monuments
(BLLM);
2.
Political Boundary Monuments:
a.
Provincial and city boundary monuments,
b.
Municipal boundary monuments,
c.
Barangay boundary monuments;
3.
Triangulation stations of:
a.
The Bureau of Lands,
b.
The Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey,
c.
The United States Army Corp of Engineers,
d.
Other organizations, the work of which is
of acknowledged standard;
4.
Primary stations of cadastral surveys;
5.
Church towers, historical monuments and
other prominent permanent structures of known geographic or Philippine plane
coordinates;
6.
Doppler, Hiran, Loran and other similar
stations of at least third order accuracy. (Emphasis supplied)
[14]
Exhibit “M,” Folder of Exhibits, p. 37.
[15]
Exhibit “L,” id. at 35. The Manual for Land Surveys in the
Philippines. Section 760 thereof states:
The
Bureau of Lands Location Monument No. 1 (BLLM No. 1) of the cadastral survey
shall always be used as the tie point of all cadastral lots in the
project. The grid coordinates of this
tie point shall be placed in the proper column of the lot data computation
sheet. (Emphasis supplied)
[16]
TSN, Nerit, August 2, 1991, pp. 8-18.
[17]
Exhibit “X”, respondents’ Folder of Exhibits, p. 107.
[18]
Exhibit “J”, id. at 33-C.
[19]
Exhibit “Z”, id. at 111-112.
[20]
TSN, Nerit, September 13, 1991, p. 6.
[21] Id. at 8-9.
[22] Id. at 10.
[23] Id. at 11.
[24] Id. at 11.
[25] Id. at 14.
[26]
TSN, Nerit, March 5, 1992, page 5.
[27] Id. at 7.
[28] Id. at 7-9.
[29] Id. at 10.
[30] Id.
[31] Id. at 12, 22; TSN, Nerit, April 30,
1992, pp. 23-24.
[32] TSN,
Nerit, April 30, 1992, p. 3.
[33] Id. at 6.
[34] Id. at 7.
[35] Id. at 8, 17-18, 22.
[36]
The covering title of TCT 18250 reads in part, as follows:
It
is further certified that said land was originally registered in the _23rd_
day of ___Sept.___, in the year nineteen hundred and __viente__,
in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of RIZAL,
Volume __I-27__ Page __6__, as Original Certificate of Title No.
__________ pursuant to Decree No. __Case
No. 917__, issued in L.R.C. Record No. _____.
This
certificate is a transfer from __Trans.__ Certificate of Title No. __6326/T-35__
which is cancelled by virtue in so far as the above described land is
concerned.
[37]
TSN, Nerit, April 30, 1992, pp. 9-11.
[38] Id. at 11.
[39]
TSN, Nerit, May 22, 1992, p. 9.
[40] Id. at 5-9; Exhibit “U”, respondents’
Folder of Exhibits, p. 81.
[41]
TSN, De Lara, June 11, 1993, p. 6; Exhibit “Z”, respondents’ Folder of
Exhibits, pp. 111-112.
[42]
Exhibit “Y”, respondents’ Folder of Exhibits, p. 110.
[43] TSN, De Lara, June 11, 1993, pp. 10, 12.
[44] TSN, De Lara, September 24, 1993, p. 7.
[45] Id.
at 14.
[46] Id. at 15.
[47] Id. at 14-16, 26.
[48] Id. at 18-19.
[49] Id. at 19.
[50] Id. at 13-19.
[51]
TSN, Lim, November 4, 1993, pp. 13-14, 21.
[52] Id. at 26.
[53] Id. at 11.
[54]
TSN, Lim, December 3, 1993, p. 7.
[55] Id. at 7-8, 11.
[56] Id. at 15, 17.
[57] Id. at 17.
[58] Id. at 26.
[59] Id. at 27.
[60] Id. at 35.
[61] Id. at 36.
[62] Id. at 40.
[63]
Exhibit “CC,” Folder of Exhibits, pp. 115-116.
[64]
TSN, Sison, April 11, 1994, pp. 9-14.
See covering titles of the ERIDANUS and CHITON properties.
[65] Id. at 14-16.
[66] Id. at 22-23.
[67] Id. at 35-38.
[68] Id. at 38-41.
[69]
TSN, Sison, May 13, 1994, pp. 4-5.
[70] Id. at 22.
[71] Id. at 27-28.
[72] Id. at 28-29.
[73] Rollo, pp. 92-93.
[74] Id. at 73-74.
[75] Manila Electric Company v. Hua Kim Peng,
G.R. No. 109389, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 485, 493.
[76] Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty
Development Corp., G.R. No. 123346, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 305,
335-336.
[77] Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA 238, 248-249.
[78]
Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978), Sec. 48:
Certificate not subject to collateral attack. – A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot
be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law.
[79] Supra note 13.
[80]
As required under Section 760, Manual for Land Surveys in the Philippines, supra note 15.
[81] TSN, De Lara, September 24, 1993, pp.
18-19.
[82] Id. at 19.
[83] Id.
[84]
TSN, Lim, December 3, 1993, p. 40.
[85]
TSN, Sison, May 13, 1994, p. 22.
[86] Supra note 21 et seq.
[87] Golloy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
47491, May 4, 1989, 173 SCRA 26.
[88] Director of Lands v. CA, supra note 77.
[89]
Formerly the Land Registration Commission.
The LRA is charged with the task of guaranteeing the integrity of the
Torrens system of land registration, and is the central repository of all
records concerning registered or titled lands.
Part of its mandate is to keep the title history of records of
transactions involving registered or titled lands, and provide legal and
technical assistance to the courts on land registration cases.
[90] Sapida v. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-27673, November 24, 1972, 48 SCRA 19; Sta.Ana v. Suñga, G.R. No. L-32642,
November 26, 1973, 54 SCRA 36; Director
of Lands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45168, September 25, 1979, 93 SCRA
238; Verdant Acres, Inc. v. Hernandez,
G.R. No. L-51352, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 495; De Vera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97761, April 14, 1999, 305
SCRA 624; De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 120004, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 302; De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., G.R. No. 158002, February
28, 2005, 452 SCRA 564; Banaga v.
Majaducon, G.R. No. 149051, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 153.
[91] Angara v. Fedman Development Corp., G.R.
No. 156822, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 467.