Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
NELSON LAGAZO,
Petitioner, -versus- GERALD
B. SORIANO and GALILEO B. SORIANO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 170864 Present: CORONA,
J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
16, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
This resolves
the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 80709, promulgated on October
28, 2005, granting herein respondents' petition for review, and the CA
Resolution[2]
promulgated on December 20, 2005, denying herein petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.
The undisputed
facts are as follows.
On January 16,
2001, respondents filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga (MTC),
a complaint for Forcible Entry with Application for Termporary Restraining
Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Damages against petitioner. Respondents
claimed they were the owners of a parcel of land covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. P-665, Lot No. 816, Pls-93 with an area of 58,171
square meters. They allegedly acquired
the same by purchase from their grandfather, Arsenio Baac, on September 10,
1998, but even prior thereto, they were already allowed by Arsenio Baac to
cultivate said land. They paid real
property taxes for said property from 1990 to 1998 and had been in actual
possession from that time. However, on
January 6, 2001, herein petitioner allegedly unlawfully entered the property by
means of force, stealth, and strategy and began cultivating the land for
himself.
On the other
hand, petitioner insisted in his Answer that he, together with his mother,
brothers, and sisters, were the lawful owners of the land in question, being
the legal heirs of Alfredo Lagazo, the registered owner thereof. They denied that the subject land was sold
to Arsenio Baac, alleging instead that the agreement between Alfredo Lagazo and
Arsenio Baac was merely one of mortgage.
Petitioner, likewise maintained that he and his co-heirs had always been
in possession of the disputed land. They
allegedly tried several times to redeem the property, but Baac increased the
redemption price from P10,000.00 to P100,000.00. This prompted them to bring the matter before
the Barangay Lupon of Balong, Tabuk, Kalinga, but no agreement was reached.
On November
23, 2001, the MTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads
as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
1.
Dismissing the complaint of Forcible
Entry filed against defendant Nelson Lagazo;
2.
Ordering the plaintiffs, Gerald B.
Soriano and Galileo B. Soriano to surrender Original Certificate of Title No.
P-665 in the name of Alfredo Lagazo to the heirs of Lagazo which was given to
Arsenio Baac by Alfredo Lagazo when the Deed of Mortgage was executed between
them;
3.
Ordering the heirs of Alfredo Lagazo
to execute the deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs covering the one
(1) hectare portion subject of the mortgage between Alfredo Lagazo and Arsenio
Baac and to segregate the same from property covered by OCT P-665;
4.
Plaintiffs to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[3]
The foregoing Decision was appealed
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabuk, Kalinga. Said appellate court ruled that herein
respondents failed to prove prior
physical possession, thus, it reversed the MTC Decision and dismissed
the complaint against herein petitioner.
Respondents then filed with the CA a
Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and on October 28,
2005, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision which disposed thus:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. Physical possession is hereby ordered
returned to the petitioners, without prejudice to the respondent's right to
take recourse to remedies provided for under the law, if he is so inclined. Actual, moral and exemplary damages cannot be
granted because of lack of substantive evidence to prove the same. However, we grant the amount of P10,000.00
in attorney's fees plus P500.00 per appearance of petitioners' counsel,
as well as another P10,000.00 in litigation expenses as prayed for in
their complaint, conformably to par. 11 of Art. 2208 of the Civil Code, i.e. it
is just and equitable under the circumstances, and considering that the award
is well deserved by the petitioners who had shown evident good faith in, and
respect for, the judicial system.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,
but the same was denied per CA Resolution dated December 20, 2005. Hence, this petition where the following
issues are raised:
WHETHER
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS IMPLIED ADMISSION ON
THE PART OF THE PETITIONER THAT RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL
POSSESSION OF THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY SINCE 1979.
WHETHER
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY
PETITIONER SUBSTANTIATING HIS PRIORITY IN POSSESSION OVER THE LOT IN
CONTROVERSY.
WHETHER
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BETTER RIGHT
OF POSSESSION OVER THE LOT IN CONTROVERSY.[5]
The Court finds the petition
unmeritorious.
Prior
physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases.[6] Thus, the ultimate question here is who had
prior physical possession of the disputed land.
Ordinarily,
in a Petition for Review on Certiorari, this Court only considers
questions of law, as it is not a trier of facts. However, there are exceptions to this general
rule, such as, when the findings of fact of the appellate court are contrary to
those of the trial court.[7] Such circumstance exists in this case, hence,
the Court is compelled to take a closer look at the records.
In Sudaria
v. Quiambao,[8]
the Court held that:
Ejectment proceedings are
summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting
actual possession or right to possession of property. Title is not involved. The sole issue to be resolved is who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession
de facto. On this point, the
pronouncements in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals are enlightening, thus:
x x x
x
x x
x Regardless of the actual
condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession
shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of
property allowed. Courts will always
uphold respect for prior possession.
Thus, a party who can
prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner
himself. Whatever may be the
character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior possession in
time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a
person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has
to settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession.[9]
(Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, in De Grano v.
Lacaba,[10]
it was explained that:
x x x the word “possession,” as used in forcible
entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession,
not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law. When the law speaks of possession, the
reference is to prior physical possession
or possession de facto, as
contra-distinguished from possession de
jure. Only prior physical
possession, not title, is the issue. Issues
as to the right of possession or
ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible,
except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[11]
(Emphasis supplied.)
Bearing
the foregoing in mind, a thorough examination of the evidence revealed that,
indeed, the parties in last peaceable quiet possession of the property in
question were herein respondents.
The
most important evidence for respondents was the testimony of Brgy. Capt.
Artemio Fontanilla, who stated that he was born and had continuously resided in
Balong, Tabuk, Kalinga; that the disputed land was only about three kilometers
from his house; that for the longest time, he had always known that it was
Arsenio Baac who was cultivating and occupying said property; and that it was
only sometime in January 2001, when the police asked him to accompany them to the
subject land, that he saw petitioner with some other men working said land. [12]
On
the other hand, what petitioner's evidence sought to establish was that he and
his co-heirs continued to be the owners of the land, as his predecessor never
intended to sell the property to Arsenio Baac, the true agreement being only
one of a mortgage. Petitioner never
established the fact of his physical possession over the disputed land. Ironically, the most telling pieces of evidence
that doomed petitioner's case were the testimonies of petitioner himself and
his sister, Marina Niñalga. Their own
admissions on the witness stand proved that respondents were indeed the ones in
physical possession of the subject property.
Petitioner Lagazo himself testified as follows:
Q: So, at that time that you were at Alicia, Isabela and at that
time that you staying thereat, you have no knowledge to what is happening to
the land which is now the subject of this case, Am I correct?
A: I was only hearing stories from my father and my mother that
they want to regain back the land which was mortgaged, sir.
x x x x
Q: It is when only on January of 2001 that you allegedly claimed
over the parcel of land in question, am I correct Mr. Witness?
A: Was not only during that time but that was only the time we
entered into the land, sir.
Q: So, you are now admitting Mr. Witness, its only on January 6,
2001, you entered the land in question?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And, prior to January 6 of 2001, you never possessed or
cultivated the land in question, Am I correct?
x x x x
Q: Who was an apparent heir of spouses Alfredo Lagaso, you never
personally cultivated or possessed the land in question prior to January 6,
2001, am I correct?
A: No, sir because according to them it was mortgaged, Your
Honor.
Q: But you never personally cultivated the land prior to January
6, 2001?
A: No, sir.[13]
Meanwhile,
Marina Niñalga also recounted that in 1979, they left the subject property out
of fear because Arsenio Baac allegedly wanted to grab the land for
himself. She testified that after they
left in 1979, it was already Arsenio Baac who cultivated said land. Despite such claim that Arsenio Baac took
their land with force and intimidation, Marina said they never reported the
matter to the police, and never filed any criminal action in court against
Arsenio Baac.[14]
Verily,
the foregoing leaves no doubt in our mind that it was only on January 6, 2001
that petitioner, believing himself to be the lawful owner of the disputed land,
entered the same, thereby disturbing respondents' peaceful possession thereof.
IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the instant
petition is dismissed. The Decision and Resolution of the Court
of Appeals dated October 28, 2005 and December 20, 2005, respectively, in CA
G.R. SP No. 80709 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest 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.
RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate
Justice
Third
Division, Chairperson
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring; rollo, pp. 234-291.
[2] Id. at 300.
[3] CA rollo, p. 125
[4] Rollo, p. 291.
[5] Id. at 15.
[6] Acaylar, Jr. v. Harayo, G.R. No. 176995, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 624.
[7] Id. at 641.
[8] G.R. No. 164305, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 689.
[9] Supra note 8, at 697-698.
[10] G.R. No. 158877, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 148.
[11] Id. at 158-159.
[12] TSN, February 26, 2001, pp. 26, 47-52
[13] TSN, June 26, 2001, pp. 220-222.
[14] TSN, July 30, 2001, pp. 274-278.