Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
SPOUSES ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, SR., and Petitioners, -
versus
- SPOUSES MARTINES
CO and ERLINDA CO, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 167390 Present:
CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, nachura, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of
the Decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals dated
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Dagupan City, Branch 44, and reinstated the Decision of the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Calasiao, Pangasinan, finding respondents entitled to possession of the property
involved in this case, but deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages
for lack of legal basis.
The facts are as follows:
The property involved in
this case is
Respondents’
predecessor-in-interest, Emilio Torres, married to Pilar Torres, applied for,
and was granted, a free patent over the subject property, described as
The adverse claim was eventually cancelled
when Emilio Torres filed an Affidavit of
Cancellation of Adverse Claim[6]
with the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, alleging, among others,
that adverse claimant Adolfo Fernandez failed to pursue his claim in court, and
that he executed an Affidavit[7]
dated March 20, 1996, wherein he
admitted that Emilio Torres is the actual owner in possession of the subject property. The Affidavit of
petitioner Adolfo Fernandez reads:
I, ADOLFO FERNANDEZ, of legal age,
married, Filipino citizen, and resident of Lasip, Calasiao, Pangasinan, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and say:
That I know personally EMILIO L. TORRES,
of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and resident of Lasip, Calasiao,
Pangasinan as the legal and true owner of a parcel of land described as Lot No.
978, Cad. 439-D situated at Nalsian, Calasiao, Pangasinan;
That I am one and the same person who was
listed as survey claimant over Lot No. 978, Cad. 439-D situated at Nalsian,
Calasiao, Pangasinan; and that Rodolfo Fernandez and Adolfo Fernandez are one
and the same person which refers to me;
That during the execution of the Cadastral Survey of Calasiao,
Pangasinan, the surveyor who executed the survey made a mistake or an error in
putting my name as survey claimant over Lot No. 978, Cad. 439-D, while in truth
and in fact the actual owner of said lot is Emilio L. Torres who is in actual
possession and cultivation of said land;
That I execute this Affidavit freely and
voluntarily and have read and understood the contents hereof.[8]
Thereafter,
Emilio Torres executed an Affidavit of
Request for Issuance of New Transfer Certificate of Title[9]
dated
On
On P8,000,000.00, and mortgaged the subject property
to secure the loan.[14]
Subsequently, a portion of the property,
denominated as Lot 978-B, was segregated and made part of the
On
In
order to protect their interest, respondents filed a Complaint for quieting of
title and injunction with damages before the RTC of Dagupan City, but the complaint was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On
In their Answer to the
Complaint and, later, Position Paper, petitioners alleged that respondents had no
cause of action against them as the subject property belonged to them.
Petitioners claimed to have long been in actual possession of Lot No. 978 when
the said lot, including Lot No. 661-A and Lot No. 661-B originally formed part of
an unirrigated riceland with an area of 3,904 square meters, originally
recorded as Cadastral Lot No. 661 under Tax Declaration No. 16357[17]
issued in the names of petitioners in 1973.
Tax Declaration No. 16357 was cancelled and Tax Declaration No. 455[18]
was issued in 1980 by the Calasiao Municipal Assessor’s Office. Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. 455 was
cancelled and Tax Declaration No. 494[19]
was issued in 1982 in the names of petitioners.
Petitioners further
alleged that when Cadastral Lot No. 661
was traversed by the Judge Jose de Venecia, Sr. Highway, the said lot was subdivided into Cadastral Lot No. 661-A, Cadastral
Lot 661-B, and Cadastral Lot No. 978. Tax Declaration No. 13162,[20]
covering Cadastral Lot No. 661-A, was
issued in the name of the Republic of the
Petitioners averred that
sometime in 1996, they learned that Lot No. 978, Cad. 439-D was covered by
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-35620 by virtue of the issuance of a Free Patent in
the name of Emilio Torres. Hence, petitioners
executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, which adverse claim was annotated on the
original title of Emilio Torres.
Petitioners claimed that
they had the subject lot fenced, and the lot was leased on
Petitioners alleged that respondents’ reliance
on TCT No. 216709, which was fraudulently issued in the name of Emilio Torres, who
is respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, cannot be maintained as the subject
property is private land belonging to petitioners; hence, it cannot be the subject
of a free patent.
Respondents’ prayer for the issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied by the trial court for lack of merit.
On
WHEREFORE, premises duly considered,
judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the defendants and any and all persons
acting for and [in] their behalf to vacate and surrender possession of
1.
The amount of P12,000.00 per month
as the reasonable rental for the use and occupation of the premises commencing
from
2.
P100,000.00 as moral damages;
3.
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4.
P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and other
expenses of litigation, and
5.
The costs of suit.[24]
The trial court found
that the evidence adduced by respondents showed that they and their
predecessors-in-interest were the ones in actual, continuous physical possession of the
subject lot for thirty (30) years being the registered owners thereof.
Moreover, the trial court pointed out that
the adverse claim of petitioners, which was annotated on the original title of Emilio
Torres, respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, was cancelled by reason of the
Affidavit dated
Further, the trial court held that
petitioners’ allegation that Lot 978 is part of Lot 661, which they owned, is
belied by the approved cadastral survey
of Calasiao, Pangasinan, showing that Lot 978 and Lot 661 are two distinct
lots. According to the trial court, the claim of petitioners that they are in
prior possession of Lot 978 is based on the false assumption that Lot 978 is
part of
The trial court also held that respondents
cannot just be unlawfully deprived of peaceful possession of their property by
petitioners under Article 536 of the Civil Code of the
Petitioners appealed the trial court’s
decision to the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 44.
In a Decision[25]
dated
WHEREFORE,
the appeal is given due course and the Decision appealed from is REVERSED. In
this connection, the ejectment case is DISMISSED.
The
plaintiffs-appellees are ordered to pay P100,000.00 to the
defendants-appellants by way of moral damages, and P25,000.00 by way of
exemplary damages. The
plaintiffs-appellees are also ordered to pay the amount of P40,000.00
for the services of counsel and P1,000.00 per appearance.[26]
The RTC stated that although a Deed of
Absolute Sale was executed by the spouses Emilio and Pilar Torres in favor of respondents,
the title of respondents is void on two grounds: (1) the property is a private
unirrigated riceland owned by petitioners; hence, it cannot be the subject of a
free patent; and (2) even assuming for the sake of argument that the property
could be the subject of a free patent, the same was disposed within the
prohibitory period.
Respondents appealed the RTC’s Decision to
the Court of Appeals via a petition for review.
On
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated
The Court of Appeals
held that the Affidavit of petitioner Adolfo Fernandez, dated
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
was denied in a Resolution dated
Hence,
petitioners filed this petition, raising the following issues:
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
INQUIRE ON THE VALIDITY OF TITLE OF RESPONDENTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM
OF POSSESSION BY THE RESPONDENTS IS ANCHORED ON THEIR ALLEGED OWNERSHIP OF THE
SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN [IT DECIDED] CA-G.R. SP NO. 85994 ON
THE ISSUE [OF] DE FACTO POSSESSION
DESPITE RULING THAT THE ISSUES IN SAID CASE SHOULD HAVE ULTIMATELY BEEN
RESOLVED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER ADOLFO FERNANDEZ WHICH INVOLVES A
QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO RULE THAT PETITIONERS
HAVE BEEN IN JURIDICAL AND MATERIAL POSSESSION AS PROVEN BY OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A
QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT DID NOT RULE ON THE PROCEDURAL MISSTEPS COMMITTED BY
RESPONDENTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE MERITED THE DISMISSAL OF CA-G.R. SP NO. 85994.
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A
QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT HASTILY DECIDED CA-G.R. SP NO. 85994 WITHOUT INFORMING
PETITIONERS THAT SAID CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DECISION.
VI.
THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW WHEN IT DECIDED CA-G.R.
SP NO. 85994 BASED ON A DOCUMENT WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE IN THE
The main issue in this case is who between
the parties is entitled to the possession of
The Court upholds the Decision of the
Court of Appeals, reinstating the decision of the trial court that respondents
are entitled to the possession of
In unlawful detainer and forcible
entry cases, the only issue to be determined is who between the contending
parties has the better right to possess the contested property, independent of
any claim of ownership.[29]
However, where the issue of ownership is so intertwined with the issue of
possession, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership if only to
determine who has the better right to possess the property.[30]
The evidence on record
shows that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest have been in
continuous and actual physical possession of the subject property, and are the
registered owners thereof.
Respondents’
predecessor-in-interest, Emilio Torres, applied for a free patent over the
subject property under Section 44 of Commonwealth Act 141, which provides:
Sec. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who is not the owner of more than twenty-four hectares, and who since July
fourth nineteen hundred and twenty-six or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or
through his predecessor- in-interest, a tract or tract of agricultural public lands subject to disposition, or who
shall have paid the real tax thereon while the same has not been occupied by
any other person shall be entitled, under the provisions of this chapter, to have a free patent issued to him for
such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed twenty-four hectares.[31]
The application was
granted as evidenced by OCT No. P-35620[32]
covering the subject property identified as Lot No. 978, Cad. 439-D of the
Calasiao Cadastre, registered in the name of Emilio Torres on
The Court may presume, absent any evidence to
the contrary, that the free patent over the subject property was issued to Emilio
Torres only after a determination that he had duly complied with all the
requirements, specifically the requirement of continuous occupation and
cultivation of the property.
Moreover, petitioners’ adverse
claim that was annotated on the original title of Emilio Torres was cancelled,
since petitioner Adolfo Fernandez had earlier executed an Affidavit[33]
recognizing Emilio Torres as the true owner of the subject property. The pertinent portion of the Affidavit of
petitioner Adolfo Fernandez states:
x x x x
That during the execution of the Cadastral
Survey of Calasiao, Pangasinan, the surveyor who executed the survey made a
mistake or an error in putting my name as survey claimant over Lot No. 978,
Cad. 439-D, while in truth and in fact
the actual owner of said lot is Emilio L. Torres who is in actual possession
and cultivation of said land.[34]
Petitioner Adolfo Fernandez
is bound by this admission in his Affidavit, which he declared was freely and
voluntarily executed by him. The admission proves that petitioners have not
been in actual physical and material possession of the subject property, but respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, Emilio
Torres, had been in actual possession and cultivation of the property.
Upon the sale of the subject
property by the spouses Emilio and Pilar Torres to respondents, respondents
took possession of the property, and a new transfer certificate of title was
issued in the name of respondents. Hence, respondents had actual, physical
possession of the subject property.
Moreover, the Court agrees
with the finding of the trial court that petitioners’ claim of being in prior
possession of Lot 978 is based on the false assumption that
The Court notes that based on the original
cadastral survey[36] of
Calasiao, Pangasinan,
The tax declarations[37]
issued in the name of petitioners showed that petitioners declared ownership
and paid for real property taxes of Lot No. 661 alone. Lot No. 661 was described in Tax Declarations
Nos. 455, 494 and 457[38]
as a parcel of unirrigated riceland with an area of 3,904 square meters. However, in the survey[39]
made for petitioner Adolfo Fernandez by Geodetic Engineer
Leonardo V. De Vera on
After a part of Lot No. 661 was purchased on
December 11, 1995 by the Republic of the Philippines, petitioners claimed that Lot
No. 661 was subdivided into Lot No. 661-A, Lot No. 661-B and Lot 978.
In 1996, petitioners declared
ownership of
In view of the foregoing,
the Court finds that petitioners’ allegation that that they have long been in
actual possession of the subject property converting it into their private
property has not been substantiated.
Further, petitioners
contend that even if the free patent title
issued to Emilio Torres is valid, the sale of the property by Emilio
Torres to respondents within the five-year prohibitive period renders
respondents’ title null and void; hence, the possession being claimed by
respondents must necessarily fail.
The Court is not
persuaded.
Ejectment proceedings are summary
proceedings only intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual
possession or right to possession of property.[43] The sole issue to be resolved is who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the premises or possession de facto.[44] The Court sustains the Decision of the Court of Appeals that
respondents are entitled to the possession of the subject property as they are
found to be the ones in actual possession of the property after it was sold to
them by the registered owners, Emilio and Pilar Torres. The issue of the
validity of the title of respondents can only be assailed in an action
expressly instituted for that purpose.[45]
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[46]
specifically states that a certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack, and that it cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except
in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
In Mediran v. Villanueva,[47] the Court held:
x
x x In giving recognition to the action of forcible entry and detainer the
purpose of the law is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession;
and in case of controverted right, it requires the parties to preserve the status
quo until one or the other of them sees fit to invoke the decision of a
court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. It is obviously
just that the person who has first acquired possession should remain in
possession pending this decision; and the parties cannot be permitted meanwhile
to engage in a petty warfare over the possession of the property which is the
subject of dispute. To permit this would be highly dangerous to individual
security and disturbing to social order. Therefore, where a person supposes
himself to be the owner of a piece of property and desires to vindicate his
ownership against the party actually in possession, it is incumbent upon him to
institute an action to this end in a court of competent jurisdiction; and he [cannot]
be permitted, by invading the property and excluding the actual possessor, to
place upon the latter the burden of instituting an action to try the property
right.
In addition, petitioners contend that respondents’ petition for review
should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals for failing to state in
their certification of forum shopping that an action to quiet title was filed
by petitioners against respondents which was pending before the RTC of Dagupan
City, Branch 44.
The contention is unmeritorious.
The Court of
Appeals correctly held in its Resolution dated March 10, 2005, denying
petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, that respondents’ non-disclosure of
the action to quiet title cannot be taken against them, because ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of
ownership.[48]
Petitioners also contend that the
Court of Appeals erred in hastily deciding the appeal after the Comment and
Reply were filed, without informing petitioners that the case had already been
submitted for decision, insinuating that they were denied due process.
The contention is without merit.
The Court of Appeals already resolved
the same issue in its Resolution dated
The Court of Appeals is not obliged
to inform the parties that the petition will be given due course based on the
Comment and Reply of the parties. It has
the discretion to resolve the case after the Comment and Reply have been filed, or it may still require the
parties to submit a Memorandum before resolution of the case. Sections
6 and 9 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court state:
SEC. 6. Due Course. — If upon the filing of the comment or such other pleadings as the court may allow or require, or after the expiration of the period for the filing thereof without such comment or pleading having been submitted, the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the appealed decision, it may accordingly give due course to the petition.
SEC. 9. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given due course, the Court of Appeals may set the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the court itself.[49]
In this case, the case was deemed
submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading, which is the Reply,
required by the Court of Appeals.
As regards the other technical
defects raised in issue, We agree with the Court of Appeals that rules of
procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their
strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.[50]
The other technical issues raised by
petitioners to have been committed by the trial court was overlooked by it in
the interest of justice. The trial court correctly held that rules of procedure
are construed liberally in order not to defeat or supplant substantive rights
of the parties, considering that respondents have a cause of action against
petitioners who forcibly deprived respondents’ possession of the subject
property in contravention of Article 536
of the Civil Code, thus:
Art.
536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as
long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that
he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a right, must
invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver
the thing.
As a final
word, the court's adjudication of ownership in an ejectment case is merely
provisional, and affirmance of the trial court’s decision would not prejudice
an action between the same parties involving title to the property.[51] Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
specifically provides:
Sec. 18. x x x The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.[52]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Second
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify 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
Chief Justice
[1] Under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice
Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner and Mariano C.
[3]
[4] Exhibit “11,” records, Vol. 1, p. 129.
[5] Exhibit “11-A,” id. at 130.
[6] Exhibit “M,” id. at 196.
[7] Exhibit “L,” id. at 195.
[8]
[9] Exhibit “N,” records, Vol. 1, p. 197.
[10] Exhibit “O,” id. at 198.
[11] Exhibits
“T,” and “U,” id. at 203-204.
[12] Exhibit “F,” id. at 187.
[13] Exhibit
“A,” id. at 179.
[14] Exhibit “V,” id. at 205.
[15] Exhibit “B,” id. at 180.
[16] Supra note 11.
[17] Exhibit “2,” records, Vol. 1, p. 119.
[18] Exhibit “3,” id. at 120.
[19] Exhibit “4,” id. at 121.
[20] Exhibit “8,” id. at 125.
[21] No
evidence on record.
[22] Exhibit “7,” records, Vol. 1, p. 124.
[23] Rollo, pp. 85-92.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Panganiban
v. Roldan, G.R. No. 163053,
[30]
[31] Emphasis supplied.
[32] Exhibit
“K,” records, Vol. 1, p. 193.
[33] Supra note 7.
[34] Emphasis supplied.
[35] Records, Vol. 1, p. 19 (No. 3).
[36] Exhibit “Y,” id. at 209.
[37] Tax
Declarations
[38] Records,
Vol. 1, pp. 120-122.
[39] Exhibit “Z,” id. at 211.
[40] Exhibit
“7,” supra note 24.
[41] Records,
Vol. 1, p. 122.
[42] Supra note 35.
[43] Lee
v. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 183606,
[44]
[45] Soriente v. Estate of the Late Arsenio E. Concepcion, G.R. No. 160239, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 315, 330.
[46] Known as the Property Registration Decree.
[47] 37 Phil. 752, 757 (1918).
[48] Spouses
[49] Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
[50] Quirao v. Quirao, 460 Phil. 605, 612 (2003).
[51] Soriente v. Estate
of the Late Arsenio E. Concepcion, supra
note 45.
[52] Emphasis and underscoring supplied.