SPECIAL FIRST
DIVISION
SPOUSES
LEON
CASIMIRO
AND PILAR PASCUAL, DOING BUSINESS
UNDER THE NAME AND
STYLE CASIMIRO VILLAGE SUBDIVISION”,SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR
HEIRS: EMILIO, TEOFILO AND GABRIEL,
ALL
SURNAMED
CASIMIRO,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
136911
February 11, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS,
FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION, NILDA A. PAULIN,MANOLITO A. PAULIN,
SUSAN P. MARTIN, SYLVIA P. FARRES,CYNTHIA P. LAZATIN,
CELESTINO P. PAULIN ANDUNIWIDE SALES REALTY
AND RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Respondents. |
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This resolves the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, seeking to set aside our
Decision
dated July 3, 2002, which affirmed the assailed decision of the Court
of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 16165.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts as set forth
in the Decision are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents were the
registered owners of a 25,000 square meter parcel of land situated in
Pamplona,
Las Piñas City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
S-74375.
Adjoining their property on the northern side was petitioners’ land,
covered
by Original Certificate of Title No. 5975.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in 1979, during
a relocation survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Emilio Paz at the
instance
of respondents, it was discovered that the Casimiro Village
Subdivision,
owned by petitioners, encroached by 3,110 square meters into
respondents’
land. Respondents notified petitioners and demanded that they desist
from
making further development in the area. Subsequently, on March 13,
1980,
respondents demanded that petitioners remove all constructions in the
area.cralaw:red
Failing in their efforts
to regain possession of the disputed premises, respondents filed with
the
Court of First Instance of Pasay City an action for recovery of
possession
with damages against petitioners and the latter’s lot buyers, docketed
as Civil Case No. LP-8840-P. Respondents alleged that 3,110 square
meters
of their property, which has a market value of P640,000.00, computed at
the then prevailing price of P200.00 per square meter, have been
encroached
upon and fenced in by petitioners as part of the Casimiro Village
Subdivision,
and subdivided and sold to lot buyers. In support of their contention,
respondents presented the geodetic engineer who conducted the actual
ground
relocation survey. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their defense, petitioners
denied that there was an encroachment in respondents’ land. They
presented
Geodetic Engineers Lino C. Reyes and Felipe Venezuela from the Bureau
of
Lands. Meanwhile, defendant-lot buyers interposed a cross-claim against
petitioners spouses Casimiro, averring that they were innocent
purchasers
in good faith and for value of their respective lots.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 29, 1982,
the Court of First Instance, Branch XXVIII, Pasay City, rendered a
decision
in favor of respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants
Casimiros sentencing the latter to pay the former the sum of
P640,000.00
with interest thereon at the legal rate from March 13, 1980 until the
same
is fully paid and to pay attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the total
amount due and the costs. On the cross-claim, cross defendants
Casimiros
are ordered to pay cross plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney’s
fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ruling on petitioners
motion for reconsideration, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch
CXI, set aside its earlier decision, and held that the report of the
engineers
from the Bureau of Lands were more credible and accurate, and enjoy the
presumption of regularity and accuracy. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 15, 1987, respondents
moved for reconsideration of the above Order, but the same was denied
on
January 19, 1988.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondents appealed
to the Court of Appeals on the sole question of the proper location of
the common boundary separating the adjoining lots of petitioners and
respondents.
The Court of Appeals ordered that a relocation survey be conducted by a
team of surveyors composed of a surveyor designated by the respondents,
a surveyor designated by the petitioners, and a third member-surveyor
chosen
by the said two surveyors. Petitioners designated Engr. Nicolas
Bernardo,
while respondents designated Engr. Manuel P. Lopez. Upon agreement of
the
parties that the third member shall be from the Land Registration
Commission,
Engr. Felino Cortez, Chief, Ordinary and Cadastral Division, Land
Registration
Commission, was designated third member and chairman of the relocation
survey.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners complained
of irregularities in the conduct of the relocation survey, namely, (a)
the actual field work was conducted by a separate survey team composed
of employees of the LRC without the knowledge and presence of Engr.
Bernardo;
(b) the relocation plan and computations were done without consultation
and coordination among the members of the survey team; and (c) the
relocation
plan that was prepared by Engr. Cortez did not conform to the
verification
plan earlier approved by the Bureau of Lands in January 1982.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the Court of
Appeals found nothing irregular in the conduct of the relocation
survey.
Petitioners’ representative, Engr. Bernardo, admitted that he was
furnished
copies of the field notes and data gathered by the LRA team, but did
not
enter any objection thereto. If at all, Engr. Bernardo’s exclusion from
the actual field work was rectified by the opportunity given him to
comment
on the final report prepared by Engr. Cortez, which Engr. Bernardo did
not do.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the survey, the
Court of Appeals found that the final relocation survey report yielded
the "indisputable and inevitable conclusion" that petitioners
encroached
on a portion of the respondents’ property comprising an area of 3,235
square
meters. On November 11, 1996, a judgment was rendered as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The foregoing considered,
We hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the order of the trial court dated June
25 1987 and REINSTATE the decision dated December 29, 1982 as prayed
for
by the Appellants (spouses Paulin).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant
petition
for review.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In denying the petition
for review, we upheld the factual findings of the Court of Appeals,
citing
the rule that we are not a trier of facts,[2]
and that factual findings of the Court of Appeals, when supported by
substantial
evidence, are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not
reviewable
by this Court.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Motion for
Reconsideration, petitioners argue that this case falls within the
exceptions
when review of the factual findings of the Court of Appeals is proper.
According to them, the findings of fact of the appellate court were
contrary
to those of the trial court. Moreover, it was alleged that there was
grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals when it
approved
the Report of the Relocation Survey Team without the signature of
petitioner’s
representative therein, Engr. Nicolas Bernardo. Likewise, the inference
of the Court of Appeals as to the conclusiveness of the survey report
was
manifestly mistaken because the same were arrived at without the
participation
and conformity of Engr. Bernardo. Finally, the assailed Decision was
based
on the assumption that Engr. Bernardo was furnished copies of the field
notes and data gathered by the team of surveyors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their Comment, respondents
countered that this Court is not tasked with the duty to review
findings
of fact; that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and the
Regional
Trial Court are not contrary to each other; and that the Court of
Appeals
did not commit grave abuse of discretion.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering the seriousness
of the allegation of irregularity in the manner of the resurvey, we
resolved
to take a second look at the evidence on record of this case,
particularly
those before the Court of Appeals pertaining to the composition of the
resurvey team and the conduct of the resurvey field work.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As narrated above, the
Court of Appeals, upon agreement of both parties, ordered that a
relocation
survey on the questioned properties be conducted by a team of
surveyors.
The Court of Appeals’ Resolution reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finding the proposal
well-taken as the only issue in this controversy is the correctness of
the relocation survey to determine the true location of the common
boundary
between the lot of the plaintiffs and the lot of the defendants, the
Court
pursuant to Section 9 (3) of B.P. 129, hereby directs that a relocation
survey of the strip of land in question in this case, be conducted by a
team of surveyors composed of (1) a surveyor designated by the
appellants,
(2) a surveyor designated by the appellees and (3) a surveyor to be
chosen
by the said two surveyors. The resurvey shall be conducted in the
presence
of both parties or their authorized representatives. In view of the
manifestation
of defendants-appellees that they are willing to advance the cost of
said
relocation survey, reimbursable to them contingently as part of the
costs
of this action, should they win, the costs of such relocation survey
shall
be advanced by the defendants appellees.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, the Court
of Appeals designated the following as members of the survey team:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) Engr.
Manuel P. Lopez (for respondents);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Engr.
Nicolas R. Bernardo (for petitioners);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Engr.
Felino M. Cortez of the Land Registration Commission.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 10, 1992, Engr.
Cortez submitted a report stating, among others, that the members of
the
resurvey team have agreed that the actual field work will be undertaken
by five technical personnel, three of whom shall come from the Land
Registration
Authority and the remaining two shall be Engrs. Lopez and Bernardo or
their
respective representatives.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By February 9, 1993,
the field work had already been completed, pursuant to the Report of
Engr.
Cortez to the Court of Appeals.[8]
On May 10, 1993, petitioners filed a "Motion to Require Engineer Cortez
to Comply with the Terms and Conditions of this Honorable Court’s
Resolution
of March 21, 1990,"[9]
wherein they complained that the actual survey field work was done
without
the knowledge and presence of their representative, Engr. Bernardo, in
contravention of the appellate court’s directive that the resurvey
shall
be conducted in the presence of both parties or their authorized
representatives.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, Engr.
Cortez submitted his Report which states that the actual field work was
undertaken by a survey team created by the Administrator of the LRA
composed
of Engrs. Cortez, Ildefonso Padigos, Jr., Porfirio Encisa, Jr., and
Alexander
Montemayor. The team found that petitioners’ property encroached on
respondents’
property by 3,235 square meters. The Report was signed by Engrs. Cortez
and Lopez. Engr. Bernardo did not sign above his typewritten name.[10]
Engr. Bernardo filed
a Comment, setting forth the alleged irregularities in the relocation
survey.
According to him, he never received notice of the time and exact date
of
the field survey, as agreed upon by the team; that the designation of
the
LRA engineers who undertook the field work was not authorized by the
court;
and that the official survey team appointed by the Court of Appeals
never
met to perform the survey.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 17, 1994,
the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion to require the chairman
of the relocation survey team to comply with the resolution of the
court
dated March 20, 1990.[12]
Subsequently, it rendered judgment in favor of respondents, finding
that
the Report submitted by the Relocation Survey Team was arrived at after
a careful and deliberate process of survey, computation and assessment
of its technical findings. Hence, it sustained the finding that
petitioners’
property encroached on respondents’ property by 3,235 square meters.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The reason for the requirement
of representation of both parties in the resurvey team is to ensure
that
the interests of both sides are protected. If this requirement is
breached,
then serious prejudice can result. This is especially true in this case
where the purpose of the resurvey is to determine the boundaries of the
parties’ adjacent lots. The placing of boundary lines and demarcation
points
on the soil must be precise, and the smallest error in alignment may
result
in the loss of a large portion of one’s property. Hence, it is crucial
that each party must have a representative present to ensure that the
fixing
of the metes and bounds on the soil is accurately performed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, the requirement
of notice and representation in the proceedings is an essential part of
due process of law. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[14]
we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent DAR, on the
other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles
were
conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied
participation
therein. The results of the survey and the land valuation summary
report,
however, do not indicate whether notices to attend the same were
actually
sent to and received by petitioner or its duly authorized
representative.
To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating
procedure,
much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is accepted by
respondent
DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is
part of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to
enable
the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right of
retention
guaranteed under the CARL.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Poring over the records
of the Court of Appeals regarding the resurvey of the subject
properties,
it appears that the actual field work was performed by engineers from
LRA,
without the representatives of petitioners and respondents being
present.
There was no clear showing that notices of the field work were sent to
petitioners and respondents. Worse, the actual field work was
undertaken
by only four engineers, all of whom were designated from the LRA. This
is in violation of the agreement of the parties that the actual field
work
should be done by five technical personnel, three of whom shall come
from
the Land Registration Authority and the remaining two shall be Engrs.
Lopez
and Bernardo or their respective representatives.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As stated above, the
representatives of petitioners and respondents were not notified of and
thus failed to participate in the survey. This is evident from the
Report
submitted by Engr. Cortez himself, stating that the actual field work
was
undertaken by a survey team created by the Administrator of the LRA
composed
of Engrs. Cortez, Ildefonso Padigos, Jr., Porfirio Encisa, Jr., and
Alexander
Montemayor.[17]
It is clear that Engrs. Lopez and Bernardo were not present at the
field
survey.cralaw:red
The failure of Engr.
Cortez, as chairman of the resurvey team, to notify Engr. Bernardo of
the
actual field work to enable him to participate therein constituted as
serious
violation of petitioners’ right to due process, especially considering
that it resulted in a deprivation of their property to the extent of
3,235
square meters. The actual survey proceedings must, therefore, be
conducted
anew, ensuring this time that the interests of both parties are
adequately
protected. Hence, this case must be remanded to the Court of Appeals
for
the retaking of the survey of the boundaries on the parties’ respective
properties.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, based on
the foregoing, the Decision dated July 3, 2002 in G.R. No. 136911 is
SET
ASIDE. The instant petition is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals, which
is ordered to forthwith cause the resurvey the boundaries on the
parties’
respective properties by the team of surveyors agreed upon by the
parties,
and thereafter to decide the case accordingly.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Decision, pp. 1-4; Rollo, pp. 476-479; citations omitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Spouses Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109197, June 21, 2001, citing
Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 278 [1999].chan
robles virtual
[3]
Atillo v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 546 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 501-510.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Resolution dated September 1, 1989; CA Record, p. 54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Resolution dated May 4, 1990; Ibid., p. 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., p. 117.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 131.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., pp. 139-142.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 144-147.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 173-180.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., pp. 186-190.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[13]
Id., pp. 264-275.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
312 SCRA 106 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Ibid., at p. 149.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Op. cit., note 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Op. cit., note 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |