ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 170864 : February 16, 2010 NELSON LAGAZO, Petitioner, v. GERALD B. SORIANO and GALILEO B. SORIANO, Respondents. D E C I S I O N PERALTA, J.: This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision1cralaw 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 Resolution2cralaw 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 On November 23, 2001, the MTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
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:
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:
The Court finds the petition unmeritorious. Prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases.6cralaw 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.7cralaw Such circumstance exists in this case, hence, the Court is compelled to take a closer look at the records. In Sudaria v. Quiambao ,8cralaw the Court held that:
Moreover, in De Grano v. Lacaba ,10cralaw it was explained that:
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. 12cralaw 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:
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.14cralaw 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 WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA 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. RENATO C. CORONA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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. REYNATO S. PUNO Endnotes:
|
|