Friday, July 24, 2009

Ito ang HTML na salin ng http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/cardis/CV75585.pdf.
Kusang gumagawa ng mga html na salin ang G o o g l e para sa mga dokumento na nahanap namin sa web.
Page 1
Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
SIXTH DIVISION
PATRIA A. MARQUEZ and
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
the HEIRS OF THE LATE
ROSAURO MARQUEZ,
Members:
represented by their co-heir
ROMAN KENNETH A.
REYES, R. T., Chairman,
MARQUEZ,
TRIA-TIRONA, P. J. and
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
REYES, JR., J. C., JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
VICTORIA CALAYCAY and
her SPOUSE,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
REYES, R. T., J.:
A title once registered under the Torrens System cannot be defeated even by
adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription.
It is notice to the whole world. Hence, all persons are bound by it and no one can
plead ignorance of the registration.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 2
We hark back to this precepts in this appeal from the Decision
1
of the
Regional Trial Court in an action for recovery of possession and damages
involving a parcel of residential land located at Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon
City.
The Facts
Plaintiffs-appellees Patria Marquez and her late husband Rosauro Marquez
are the registered owners of a parcel of residential land located at Road 2, Lot 148.
Villar Maloles (Vilma) Subdivision, Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City. It is
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-92388 of the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City. They purchased the lot from the subdivision developer, Vilma
Subdivision and Co. in May 1970.
2
Since then, they have been dutifully paying
realty taxes accruing on the residential lot.
Sometime in 1982, plaintiffs-appellees discovered that a residential
structure was erected on the lot by defendants-appellants Victoria Calaycay and
her spouse. Subsequently, appellees sought the intervention of the Quezon City
Task Force on the Resettlement of Squatters under then Quezon City Mayor
Adelina Rodriguez.
3
The efforts of the said agency, however, proved futile. In
1
Penned by Judge Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, Quezon City,
Original Records (O.R.), pp. 268-275; Rollo, pp. 25-32.
2
TSN, Patria Marquez, February 11, 2000, pp. 4-7.
3
Ibid., pp. 8-9
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 3
1985, appellees brought the matter to the attention of the Quezon City Chief of
Police.
4
Again, nothing happened.
On December 9, 1996, appellees formally demanded that the appellants
vacate the subject property. As the demand to vacate was left unheeded, appellees
were constrained to institute this present action for recovery of possession with
damages before the Regional Trial Court. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-
98-35818, was raffled to Branch 93 of the said court presided by Judge Apolinario
D. Bruselas, Jr.
In their defense, defendants-appellants Victoria Calaycay and her spouse
argued that the subject parcel of land is covered by a landholding belonging to the
World War II Veterans Association, Inc., of which she is a member. According to
Victoria Calaycay, the ownership of the said property has been the subject of Civil
Case No. 35672 before Branch 83 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City. The RTC, in a partial judgment, ruled in their favor and held that certificate
of titles issued in the name of the Villar Maloles Subdivision and Co. were null
and void.
5
They argued that although the said judgment was reversed by the Court
of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the trial Court holding that the title transferred
by the subdivision developer to appellees are null and void still holds.
4
Ibid.
5
TSN, Victoria Calaycay, August 17, 2000, pp. 5-6.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 4
Defendants-appellants contended they have been in possession of the
subject parcel of land since 1980. At the inception of their occupation, the area
was thickly forested and almost uninhabited.
6
They further argued that the property
is alienable public land and that they have a better right over the property as
opposed to the appellees.
They likewise presented a Certificate of Occupancy issued by a certain
Wilfredo S. Torres, chairman of the Pinagcamaligan Indo-Agro Development
Corporation (PIADECO). The said permit granted appellant the right to occupy the
subject lot.
RTC Disposition
On June 18, 2002, the trial Court gave judgment in favor of plaintiffs-
appellees with the following disposition:
“WHEREFORE,
the
foregoing
premises
considered, the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs,
who being the registered owners of the property, are
rightfully entitled to its possession. The defendant and
all persons claiming under them are ordered to vacate
the property in question, removed the structures
thereon and surrender possession thereof to the
plaintiffs.
“Defendants are ordered to pay the sum of
P1,000.00 per month by way of damages for the illegal
6
Ibid., pp. 3-4.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 5
use and occupancy of the land, computed from January
1982 plus legal interest.
“The defendants are also ordered to pay costs.
“The counterclaim is accordingly dismissed.
“SO ORDERED.”
7
The Issues
Unperturbed, defendants-appellants interposed the present recourse, with a
twin assignment of error, viz:
I.
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT APPELLEES
DID NOT ACTUALLY POSSESS THE PREMISES
IN ISSUE;
II.
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
DISALLOWED THE TESTIMONY OF WILFREDO
S. TORRES, A WITNESS FOR THE APPELLANTS.
8
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
7
Decision, p. 8; O.R., p. 275; Rollo, p. 32.
8
Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 21, underscoring Ours.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 6
Torrens Title Cannot Be Defeated
By Adverse, Open And Notorious
Possession; RTC Decision On
Which Appellants’ Anchor Their
Claim Of Ownership Has Long
Been Annulled
Appellants score the trial Court for its failure to recognize that they, and not
the appellees, are the rightful owners of the property. It is argued that they have a
better right over the property on account of their twenty-year possession.
We are unconvinced. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. A title once registered under the Torrens System cannot be
defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be
defeated by prescription. It is notice to the whole world and as such all persons are
bound by it and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.
9
In Evelyn Ong, et al. vs. Court Of Appeals,
10
the Supreme Court aptly
elucidated:
“Petitioners' alleged possession of subject
property since 1972 cannot render nugatory the right of
respondents as holders of a certificate of title.
Prescription does not run against registered land. A
title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by
9
Heirs of Mariano, Juan, Tarcela and Josefa Brusas vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 176, 183 (1999)
citing: Sec. 47, P.D. 1529 and Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189 (1993).
10
356 SCRA 768 (2001).
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 7
adverse, open and notorious possession. The subject
property was previously titled in the name of spouses
Pedro and Josefa Quiamco, then transferred to
Trinidad, and later to respondents. Moreover, in
asserting ownership by donation, petitioners were in
effect assailing the title of respondents. The Court of
Appeals correctly brushed aside this argument of
petitioners by invoking our ruling that a Torrens title
cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on its validity
can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for
that purpose.
11
Appellants impugn appellees’ title over the subject parcel of land.
According to appellant’s, TCT No. RT-92388 issued in the name of the appellees
emanated from TCT No. T-3548 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
The RTC, in a decision dated March 21, 1988, invalidated TCT No. 3548 and all
titles issued therefrom.
The RTC decision on which appellants’ anchor their claim of ownership has
long been invalidated by the Court of Appeals. This Court’s Fifth Division, in a
Decision penned by former Associate Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, annulled and
set aside the Partial Decision of the Regional Trial Court in favor of the World
War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines.
12
The association elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for
review on certiorari. The petition, was however, dismissed with finality in a
11
Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 768 (2001).
12
Decision dated November 15, 1989, O.R., pp. 171-181.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 8
Resolution dated March 19, 1990.
13
Evidently, the attack against appellee’s title
has no more leg to stand on.
We quote with approval the observations of the Court a quo on this
pertinent point:
“The defendants can neither rely on a trial court
decision which had been annulled by the appellate
court. Having attained finality, the Court of Appeals'
Decision is beyond review or modification even by the
Supreme Court. The right or fact established therein is
conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with
them and effectively foreclose any further inquiry. To
reiterate for the sake of clarity, the Court of Appeals
annulled the Partial Decision rendered by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 83, Quezon City in favor of World
War II veterans.”
14
The Trial Court Committed No
Error In Disallowing Testimony Of
Appellant’s Witness
Anent the second assignment of error, We find no error nor grave abuse of
discretion in the trial Court holding disallowing the testimony of Wilfredo Torres,
a witness for the appellants. The Court a quo was correct in sustaining appellees’
objection to his testimony on the ground that the subject of the proposed testimony
13
Resolution dated March 19, 1990, O.R., p. 191.
14
Decision, p. 6; O.R., p. 273; Rollo, p. 30.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 9
was not raised in the pleadings. Torres' proposed testimony, clearly, is immaterial
and irrelevant.
Truth to tell, counsel for the appellants, Atty. Rous, admitted in open court
that the said witness was about to testify on matters not raised in the answer.
“COURT:
The purpose for which this witness will be
testifying is to:
ATTY. ROUS:
First, Your Honor, is to testify on the certificate
of occupancy.
COURT:
Why he issued the certificate of occupancy to the
defendant.
ATTY. ROUS:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
What else?
ATTY. ROUS:
And also to testify on certain circumstances
regarding the premises in issue.
COURT:
Those matters have been raised in your answer.
ATTY. ROUS:
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 10
No. Your Honor.
COURT:
If those have not been raised in your answer, the
court will not allow his testimony.
ATTY. ROUS:
If Your Honor please.
COURT:
Do you want to reconsider the court's order?
ATTY. ROUS:
Your Honor, we beg the liberality of this court,
Your Honor. In fact, we have already presented the
certificate of occupancy which was already duly marked
by this Court.
ATTY. LEE:
Then, the reason, Your Honor, why I did not
object to the certificate of occupancy is because, it has
not yet been formally offered.
COURT:
Other purposes. The court has already ruled. Do
you want to reconsider the court's order.
ATTY. ROUS:
Yes. Your Honor, may we ask for a
reconsideration of the court's order.
COURT:
The court denies the same, there being no valid
ground therefore unless there are other purposes.
15
15
TSN, September 21, 2000, pp. 3-5, underscoring Ours.
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 11
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PERLITA J. TRIA TIRONA
JOSE C. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
Chairman, Sixth Division
*RTR/bvdr
DECISION
CA-G.R. CV NO. 75585
PAGE 12
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)