THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 149118 February 16, 2006
FLAVIANA LIM CAJAYON and CARMELITA LIM CONSTANTINO, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES SANTIAGO and FORTUNATA BATUYONG, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari challenges the two rulings of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP. No. 50952. The first decision dated 27 November 20001 upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirming the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) order for ejectment, while the Resolution dated 5 July 20012 denied the motion for reconsideration.
First, the factual background of the case.
Flaviana Lim Cajayon and Carmelita Lim Constantino (petitioners) and Isagani P. Candelaria (Candelaria) were co-owners of a 260-square meter lot, then covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. C-10870. On 1 February 1995, a partition agreement3 was entered into by petitioners and Candelaria, wherein Lot 6-A, Psd 00-034294, containing an area of 100 square meters, more or less, was adjudicated to Candelaria, while Lot 6-B, Psd 00-034294, containing an area of 160 square meters, more or less, was given to petitioners. TCT No. C-10870 was cancelled and TCT No. 288500 was issued in the name of petitioners.
On 30 May 1995, Candelaria sold his property, including the improvements thereon, to Spouses Santiago and Fortunata Batuyong (respondents). TCT No. 294743 was issued in their names over the said parcel of land.4
On 21 May 1996, petitioners started the construction of a seven (7)-door bungalow-type building that allegedly intruded into the lot of Respondents. At the instance of respondents, petitioners were summoned by barangay officials to a meeting on the matter. It was then agreed upon that petitioners would defer the construction work pending the result of a relocation survey to be conducted by a government surveyor.
A verification survey was conducted by Geodetic Engineer Florentina C. Valencia. She submitted a report dated 12 November 1996 which yielded the findings that Lot 6-A (Candelaria’s) and Lot 6-B (petitioners’) were not correctly positioned geographically on the ground with respect to TCT No. 294743. Thus, as per survey, sub-lot B with an area of 10.43 square meters serves as right of way of Lot 6-B (petitioners’ lot) while sub-lot C with an area of 10.18 square meters was the portion of Lot 6-A (respondents’ lot) presently occupied by petitioners.5
Despite the delineation of said boundaries, petitioners proceeded with the forestalled construction, allegedly occupying at least 20.61 square meters of respondents’ lot, including the portion being used as right of way for petitioners’ tenants.
After respondents secured a permit from the barangay and the Caloocan City Building Official to fence their lot, they made demands to petitioners to vacate the encroached portion but to no avail. Respondents brought the matter to the barangay but no amicable settlement was reached. A Certificate to File Action was issued to them by the Barangay Lupon Tagapayapa. A final demand was made through a letter dated 20 May 1997 upon petitioners to vacate the encroached premises. Petitioners, however, vehemently refused to vacate and surrender the premises.
On 14 April 1997, respondents filed an ejectment case against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court6 (MeTC) of Caloocan City, docketed as Civil Case No. 23359. In a Decision7 dated 2 July 1998, the MeTC ordered petitioners to vacate and surrender possession of a portion of respondents’ lot and to pay ₱500.00 per month as fair rental value from May 1996 until the premises is finally vacated, plus ₱5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of the suit.8
On appeal, the RTC9 affirmed the judgment of the MeTC.10 In doing so, the RTC debunked the three (3) arguments posed by petitioners. First, contrary to petitioners’ submission, the RTC ruled that the MeTC had jurisdiction over the instant complaint. The RTC noted that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised in the court a quo while on the other hand, petitioners actively participated in the proceedings therein by filing their Answer and Position Paper. Evidently, petitioners raised the question of jurisdiction as a mere afterthought as he did so only after he obtained an adverse judgment. Second, the allegations of the complaint sufficiently averred a case for ejectment which the RTC found to be within the jurisdiction of the court a quo. Third, the trial court ruled that petitioners categorically recognized the validity of the verification survey done by Engineer Valencia, as shown by the presence of petitioner Flaviana Cajayon during the verification survey and setting of monuments per survey report.11
Petitioners filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration but it was denied in an Order12 dated 12 January 1999 of the RTC. They elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. On 27 November 2000, the appellate court rendered a Decision13 dismissing the petition. Holding that the exclusive jurisdiction to try unlawful detainer cases is vested with the MeTC, the appellate court ratiocinated, thus:
The complaint in the instant case establishes jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain the action for unlawful detainer and the remedy it seeks is merely to obtain possession of the controverted lot from Respondents. Specifically, it alleges that sometime on May 21, 1996, petitioners started construction works in the area which intruded into a portion of respondents’ property; that the parties eventually agreed to stop the construction subject to the result of a survey to be conducted thereon; that a survey was conducted in the presence of the parties and a report was submitted by Engr. Valencia on November 12, 1996, showing an encroachment of about 20.61 square meters of respondents’ lot including that portion being used as a right of way for petitioners’ tenants; that even after the boundaries had been verified, petitioners resumed the construction on the area; that despite verbal and written demands, the last of which was made on March 20, 1999, petitioners refused to vacate and surrender the encroached area. Surely, respondents’ resort to unlawful detainer when petitioners failed to leave the controverted premises upon demand is in order.14
The appellate court also held that the fact that petitioners’ houses already stood on the controverted lot long before the purchase of the land by respondents failed to negate the case for ejectment.15 The appellate court emphasized that prior physical possession is not a condition sine qua non in unlawful detainer cases. The court likewise sustained the RTC findings on the validity of the verification survey conducted by Engineer Valencia that petitioners have encroached on a 20.61 square meter portion of respondents’ lot.
On 5 July 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution16 denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioners now come to us via the present petition, submitting as issues the question of jurisdiction and the weight to be accorded to the verification survey results.17
Petitioners anchor their petition on the court a quo’s lack of jurisdiction over the instant suit. The averments in the complaint do not make out a case for ejectment, they claim, as their entry into the disputed lot was not made by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. Neither was their possession of the disputed property by virtue of the tolerance of respondents or the latter’s predecessor-in-interest.
Respondents counter that the jurisdictional elements necessary to maintain an action for unlawful detainer clearly obtain in the case at bar, namely: (a) after the parties agreed to the conduct of a survey by a government surveyor and after the survey, it was determined that the structures introduced by herein petitioners have encroached a portion of herein respondents’ lot; (b) notices to vacate and surrender of possession of the encroached portion were made to petitioners, the last being on March 20, 1997; and (c) the suit was instituted on April 11, 1997 or within one (1) year from date of last demand.18
Respondents also stress that possession of the premises by petitioners took place more than one year before the filing of the complaint and the absence of an allegation in the complaint that such possession of the disputed portion was merely by virtue of respondents’ tolerance does not deprive the lower court of its original and exclusive jurisdiction nor will it negate respondents’ action for unlawful detainer.19
It is settled that jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.20
The Complaint21 filed by respondents (plaintiffs therein) alleged these material facts:1avvphil.net
2. That defendants and Isagani P. Candelaria were the former co-owners of a certain piece of land located in Maypajo, Caloocan City containing an area of 260 square meters, more or less, under TCT No. C-10870 issued by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City;
3. That on February 1, 1995, said co-owners subdivided this parcel of land by virtue of a Partition Agreement wherein Lot 6-A, Psd 00-034294, containing an area of 100 square meters, more or less, was given to Isagani P. Candelaria, while Lot 6-B, Psd 00-034294, containing an area of 160 square meters, more or less, was given to defendants. A copy of said Partition Agreement is hereto attached as Annex "A";
xxx xxx xxx
5. That on May 30, 1995, Isagani P. Candelaria sold his share to the herein plaintiffs, including the improvements thereon, in the sum of ₱100,000.00, under a Deed of Absolute Sale x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
7. That sometime in May 21, 1996, defendants started construction works in the area and intruded into the lot owned by the plaintiffs causing the latter to protest and report the matter to the barangay authorities;
8. That on the same day, the parties were summoned to appear before the Barangay Chairman wherein defendants agreed to stop the construction works, and in a subsequent conference on June 7, 1996, they agreed to defer the matter pending the result of a survey to be conducted by a government surveyor;
xxx xxx xxx
11. That the following day, September 5, 1996, Geodetic Engineer Florentina C. Valencia conducted a survey of the aforesaid property and placed the concrete monuments thereon in the presence of plaintiffs and defendants;
12. That on November 12, 1996, a verification survey report was submitted by Geodetic Engineer Florentina C. Valencia together with the survey verification plan xxx;
13. That despite defendants’ knowledge of the property boundary, and despite repeated serious objections from plaintiffs, defendants proceeded to construct a seven-door bungalow-type semi-concrete building, occupying at least 10.18 square meters and another 10.43 square meters for the right of way, thus encroaching upon at least 20.61 square meters of plaintiffs’ lot, and further demolishing plaintiff’s wall.
xxx xxx xxx
20. That despite repeated and continuous demands made by plaintiffs upon defendants, both oral and written, the last being on March 20, 1997, defendants in manifest bad faith, wanton attitude, and in a malevolent and oppressive manner and in utter disregard of the property rights of plaintiffs, have failed and refused, and still fail and refuse to vacate the same up to the present time x x x.22
From the above-quoted allegations taken in tandem with the textbook distinctions between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, it is clear that the complaint makes out a case for forcible entry, as opposed to unlawful detainer. The distinctions between the two forms of ejectment suits, are: first, in forcible entry, the plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises until he was deprived thereof by the defendant, whereas, in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession; second, in forcible entry, the possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, while in unlawful detainer, the possession of the defendant is inceptively lawful but it becomes illegal by reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the property under his contract with the plaintiff; third, in forcible entry, the law does not require a previous demand for the defendant to vacate the premises, but in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must first make such demand, which is jurisdictional in nature.23
Respondents had been in prior physical possession of the property in the concept of owner prior to petitioners’ intrusion on 21 May 1996. When petitioners encroached upon respondents’ lot and started construction works thereon the latter was dispossessed of the area involved. Despite various demands by respondents to vacate, petitioners obstinately refused to do so. Clearly, petitioners’ entry into the said property was illegal from the beginning, precluding an action for unlawful detainer.
On the other hand, to establish a case of forcible entry, the complaint must allege that one in physical possession of a land or building has been deprived of that possession by another through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.24 It is not essential, however, that the complaint should expressly employ the language of the law. It would be sufficient that facts are set up showing that dispossession took place under said conditions.25
The words "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth" include every situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real property and exclude another, who has had prior possession thereof. To constitute the use of "force" as contemplated in the above-mentioned provision, the trespasser does not have to institute a state of war. Nor is it even necessary that he use violence against the person of the party in possession. The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is necessary.26 In the case at bar, petitioners’ encroachment into respondents’ property in an oppressive and malevolent manner, coupled with their refusal to vacate the premises despite knowledge of the proper boundaries and heedless of respondents’ serious objections, indelibly connotes "force" within the meaning of the law.
Petitioners contend that while they concede they might have intruded on respondents’ property, the action is barred by prescription because it was filed more than one (1) year after the occurrence of the alleged intrusion. The contention is baseless. Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to bring an action in the proper inferior court for forcible entry or unlawful detainer within one (1) year, respectively, after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. In forcible entry, the one-year period is counted from the date of actual entry on the land.27
Records show that the ejectment suit was instituted on 11 April 1997. Petitioners’ actual entry into the property, according to the complaint, took place on 21 May 1996. Thus, the suit was filed well within the one (1)-year period mandated by law.
As a collateral issue, petitioners claim that they are at least entitled to the rights of a builder in good faith on the premise that they are not the owners of the property encroached upon.
This contention is not tenable. Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.28 In the instant case, when the verification survey report came to petitioners’ knowledge their good faith ceased. The survey report is a professional’s field confirmation of petitioners’ encroachment of respondents’ titled property. It is doctrinal in land registration law that possession of titled property adverse to the registered owner is necessarily tainted with bad faith. Thus, proceeding with the construction works on the disputed lot despite knowledge of respondents’ ownership put petitioners in bad faith.
Now, the second issue. Petitioners question the evidentiary weight of the verification survey report. They point out that since the survey was a unilateral act of respondents, done as it was without their consent, they should not be bound by its findings.29
In raising the issue, petitioners are in effect asking this Court to reassess the factual findings of the courts below, a task which is beyond this Court’s domain. Factual matters cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. This Court at this stage is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.30 We find no ample reason to depart from this rule, more so in this case where the Court of Appeals has affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and the MeTC.
Moreover, there is a presumption that official duty is regularly performed,31 i.e., government officials who perform them are clothed with the presumption of regularity,32 as the courts below pointed out.33 In this case, the verification survey was conducted by a government functionary.
Even prescinding from the presumption of regularity, what appears on record is that the verification survey was conducted with the agreement of both parties and in their presence. That was the finding made by the courts below and affirmed by the appellate court without any wrinkle.34
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, this Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.1avvphil.net
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Asscociate Justice |
A T T E S T A T I O N
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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Mariano M. Umali.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Bienvenido L. Reyes.
3 Rollo, p. 64.
4 Id. at 68-69.
5 Id. at 127.
6 Presided by Judge Belen B. Ortiz.
7 Rollo, pp. 126-130.
8 Id. at 130.
9 Presided by Acting Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.
10 Rollo, pp. 152-156. Decision dated 9 October 1998.
11 Id. at 72.
12 Id. at 168-169.
13 Id. at 7-16.
14 Id. at 11-12.
15 Id. at 13.
16 Id. at 29-30.
17 Id. at 40-41.
18 Id. at 276.
19 Id. at 237.
20 Ross Rica Sales Center v. Spouses Ong, G.R. No. 132197, 16 August 2005, citing Caniza v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1107 (1997) and Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 151212, 10 September 2003, 410 SCRA 484; Ganila, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150755, 28 June 2005, citing Heirs of Demetrio Melchor v. Melchor, G.R. No. 150633, 12 November 2003, 415 SCRA 726, 732; Tecson v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 152978, 4 March 2005.
21 Rollo, pp. 58-62.
22 Id. at 58-61. Emphasis supplied.
23 Muñoz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102693, 23 September 1992, 214 SCRA 216 citing Dikit v. Icasiano, 89 Phil. 44 (1951); Medel v. Militante, 41 Phil. 44 (1921); Maddamu v. Judge, 74 Phil. 230 (1944); Aguilar v. Cabrera, 74 Phil. 666 (1944); Banayos v. Susana Realty, Inc. L-30336, 30 June 1976, 71 SCRA 557; Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, et al., No. L-53788, 17 October 1980, 100 SCRA 339.
24 Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 1.
25 O. Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. III 406 (1999 ed.).
26 David v. Cordova, G.R. No. 152992, 28 July 2005, citing Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil. 752 (1918); Joven v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80739, 2 August 1992, 212 SCRA 700.
27 Varona v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124148, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 577; Gener v. De Leon, G.R. No. 130730, 19 October 2001, 367 SCRA 631, citing Sps. Pedro Ong and Veronica Ong v. Socorro Parel and Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143173, 28 March 2001; Sarona v. Villegas, 131 Phil. 365 (1968).
28 Evadel Realty and Development Corp. v. Soriano, G.R. No. 14429, 20 April 2001, 357 SCRA 395.
29 Rollo, p. 52.
30 Filinvest Land v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138980, 20 September 2005, citing Alvarez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142843, 6 August 2003, 408 SCRA 419.
31 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3(m).
32 Republic v. Nolasco, G.R. No. 155108, 27 April 2005; People v. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 148730, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 112.
33 Said the MeTC:
As rightly pointed out by the plaintiffs in their position statement, there is no law that prohibits the conduct of a verification survey. Indeed, a survey enjoys the presumption of accuracy until it can be proven otherwise. (Rollo, p. 129)
On appeal, the RTC further elucidated, thus:
Anent the conclusion of the court a quo that indeed the defendants-appellants have encroached upon a portion of the plaintiffs-appellees’ lot, this Court finds no reason to disturb the same.
It must be pointed out that there was already an admission at the barangay level that the defendants-appellants have encroached on the lot of the plaintiffs-appellees as evidenced by Exhibit "R" which was not controverted.
This fact stems from a verification survey conducted by no less than a representative from the DENR, a government entity. The rule is that: "Government officials are presumed to perform their functions with regularity and strong evidence is necessary to rebut this presumption." Moreover, it has been held that: "Absent a strong showing to the contrary, the Court must accept the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty." (Rollo, p. 155, citations omitted).
34 Rollo, p. 14.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
