Decision: Regional Trial Court Branch 60
Decision: Regional Trial Court Branch 60
Decision: Regional Trial Court Branch 60
DECISION
“Law is the most historically oriented, or if you like the most
backward-looking, the most ‘past-dependent,’ of the professions. It
venerates tradition, precedent, pedigree, ritual, custom, ancient
practices, ancient texts, archaic terminology, maturity, wisdom,
seniority, gerontocracy, and interpretation conceived of as a method of
recovering history. It is suspicious of innovation, discontinuities,
‘paradigm shifts,’ and the energy and brashness of youth. These
ingrained attitudes are obstacles to anyone who wants to re-orient law
in a more pragmatic direction. But, by the same token, pragmatic
jurisprudence must come to terms with history” -Friedrich Nietzsche.
Preliminary Statements:
The Antecedents:
1 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
Summons was then served to the defendants requiring them to answer
the complaint. DEFENDANTS filed their ANSWER thereto on 10 February
2017, alleging therein special and affirmative defenses.
The case was originally raffled with the RTC Branch 5 which issued
the Order dated 9 December 2016 stating that the application for the
issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction are
deemed withdrawn because of the undertaking by the defendant to maintain
status quo.
There being no settlement of the case reached by the parties during the
proceedings before the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) and Judicial
Dispute Resolution, the case was re-raffled before this court.
The pre-trial conference was scheduled and on October 04, 2017 after
which, the court issued the Pre-trial Order stating the issues for resolution.
2 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
In her answer in the forcible entry case, Bayeng countered that now
defendant Akia have no cause of action against her considering that the
property that she is occupying is outside the area claimed by Rufito. She has
applied for Recognition of Ancestral claim over the premises that she is
occupying and such application was given due course per DENR Baguio
City Resolution No. BC-021F. Furthermore, there is no forcible entry to
speak of as her occupation of the subject land began a long time ago and
with Rufito’s knowledge.
The forcible entry case was then referred to the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC). There, the parties agreed to conduct a joint relocation survey,
but the said survey was not completed within the timeframe for the court
annexed-mediation. Thus, the PMC reported that the mediation failed and it
was only on August 7, 2008 that the DENR submitted to the court the joint
relocation survey result. The result showed that a portion of the vegetable
garden of Bayeng is inside the land claimed by the defendant. Said survey
was signed by Aliver E. Mangonon, Geodetic Engineer Akia and Davis L.
Siao, CENRO-Baguio City Representative. However, plaintiff’s
representative, Geodetic Engineer Agustin N. Pisilen, refused to sign the
survey result. After hearing the case for forcible entry, Branch 2 of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
1
MTCC Decision, Case Record
3 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
On March 24, 2009, the RTC affirmed in toto the MTCC’s decision in
the forcible entry case. After the scrutiny of the records, the RTC said it
finds no reason to depart from the factual finding of the MTCC stating that
the DENR would not have issued to Rufito said certificate of ancestral land
claim if he was not in physical possession of the subject lot since time
immemorial.
The decision in the forcible entry case was further elevated to the
Court of Appeals, but on March 08, 2011, the Court of Appeals denied Ms.
Bayeng’s petition for review. The RTC’s decision was hereby affirmed. On
December 14, 2012, MTCC - Branch 2 presided by Hon. Judge Glenda T.
Soriano issued a Writ of Execution commanding the sheriff (herein
defendant Andrew Putiyon) to cause the execution of the aforesaid decision
and collect his fees for the service of the writ and to likewise submit a report
of the proceedings taken. Due to financial constraint, Marcial Akia, herein
defendant was able to have the said Writ of Execution be implemented only
on November 7, 2016. However, plaintiff resisted the lawful implementation
of the said Writ of Execution in Civil Case no. 13067.
The Trial
Documentary evidence:
1. Approved Survey Plan Swo-131102-000352 in the of Lourdes Bayeng
(Exhibit “B”);
2. Tax Declaration ARP No. 01-03001-008520 in the name of Lourdes
Bayeng (Exhibit “C”); and
3. Agreement dated September 27, 1995 (Exhibit “H”).
Testimonial Evidence:
4 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
1. Testimony of Steve Bayeng; and
2. Engr. Armando Banagen.
1.
Whether or not the Writ of Execution may be enforced
Marcial Akia, herein defendant, was able to have the said Writ of
Execution be implemented only on November 7, 2016.However, plaintiff
resisted the lawful implementation of the said Writ of Execution in Civil
Case no. 13067. The lifetime of the writ shall continue in effect during the
5 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion, hence the
writ is enforceable within the five- year period from entry of judgment as
provided for in Sec. 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court because within that
period, the writ may be enforced by motion.
In the instant case, the Decision in the ejectment case (Civil Case
No. 13067) became final and executory with the finality of the Court of
Appeals Decision affirming the same on March 08, 2011. Marcial Akia
moved for the issuance of a Writ of Execution, which was heard on
December 03, 2012 and granted on December 14, 2012. So there was
already a Writ of Execution as early as December 14, 2012. The pivotal
issue therein is whether the decision is implemented and executed only
after the five-year period.
The rule is that the court could issue a writ of execution by motion
within five years from finality of the decision. A writ of execution issued
after the expiration of that period is null and void. There is a need for the
interested party to file an independent action for revival of judgment.
The reason is that after the lapse of the five-year period, the judgment is
reduced to a mere right of action, which judgment must be enforced, as
all ordinary action by institution of a complaint in the regular form. Such
action must be filed within 10 years from the date the judgment became
final2. There was already a Writ of Execution issued by the MTCC-2 as
early as December 14, 2012 so the only thing left is to implement said
Decision. Defendant Akia tried to have the Writ of Execution actually
enforced only on November 07, 2016 or after four years from issuance of
said writ.
2
Terry vs. People, G.R. No. 136203, 314 SCRA 669
6 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
It was held that if the writ of execution was issued and the levy
made within five years from entry of the judgment, the auction sale may
be made even after five (5) years3.
It has been held that in computing the time limit for enforcing a
final judgment, the time during which the execution is stayed should be
excluded, and the said time will be extended by any delay occasioned by
the debtor as when the writ of execution cannot be enforced within the
five year period because the debtor filed petitions in the Court of Appeal
and in the Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s judgment as well
as the writ of execution. Such petition suspended or interrupted the
further enforcement of a writ.6
3
Vda. De Quiambao vs. Manila Motor Co. G.R. No. L-17384, (SCRA 444, 450)
4
Camacho vs. CA, GR. NO 118339 ( 287 SCRA 611)
5
Republic vs. CA,G.R. No. 110020 (260 SCRA 344)
6
Yau vs. Silverio and Macapagal vs. Gako, GR NO. 158848 ( 543 SCRA 520, 529)
7 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
caused or occasioned by action of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred
for his benefit or advantage. 7
The life of the law is to render justice, so the Hon. Supreme Court
said. After defendant failed to get justice after failure of the Court Sheriff to
fully implement the Writ of Execution dated December 14, 2012, this court,
abiding with the principle that courts are courts of equity, justice and
7
(Republic vs. Court of Appeals,; Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Serra, G.R. No. 203241 July 10, 2013)
8 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
fairness, and taking the extra mile to exercise equity jurisdiction, will give
him one in this case. To allow this case and await another legal action by
defendant Akia, or for him to file separate action to revive the judgment
which is aimed to get the same result, is injustice, plain and simple.
“xxx. It is, thus, sad to note that until now, the decision in this case
which become final way back on June 24, 1985, is yet to be properly
executed even as the original prevailing parties had already passed to
the great beyond without seeing the dawn of their toils and efforts, all
because of petitioners frivolous maneuvers, fair or foul. x x x”
2.
The issue of ownership and possession of the subject land.
The matter of prior possession was already settled with finality in the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 08, 2011.
9 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
CENRO and Chairman, CSTFAL of the DENR states that there is no
overlapping. xxx.8
“xxx. The court does not see error on the lower court in relying in the
assailed DENR report. The purpose of having a committee of surveyor
is to see to it that each of the parties is represented. The respective
parties are entitled to give their own choice of surveyor to ensure that
their rights are better protected by those who are experts and well-
learned in the field of surveying. The court does not see any prejudice
created against the defendant by the substitution of Engr. Begano.
Whether or not Engr. Begano or Engr. Mangonon or any other
geodetic engineer will represent the plaintiff, the surveyor appointed
will always act for the interest of the plaintiffs. Stated in another
manner, the engineer representing the plaintiff will always act in their
favor and against the interest of the defendant. The choice on who will
represent the plaintiffs in the survey belongs to the plaintiff alone. It is
their discretion to change their engineer as they deem it fit to protect
their interest. The same applies to the defendant. In fact one of the
reason why Engr. Pisilen did not sign the survey report is because
portion of the vegetable garden of Lourdes Bayeng will fall within the
claim of Rufito Akia, therefore detrimental to his client’s interest. Even
if it was Engr. Begano who represented the plaintiff, his suggestion
would not differ from that of Engr. Mangonon, since both Engr.
Begano and Mangonon surveyed the Akia properties in September
1999 as stated in letter of the former (Annex “B” of the plaintiff
memorandum), there is a great probability of using the same common
point-Corner 2 of PSU-34151 rather than the battle grass (Corner 17
of Bayeng).”10
10 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
“xxx. What affirms the validity of the contested survey report is the
approval of Engr. Davis L. Siao, the committee chairman and
representative from the DENR-CAR, CENRO. The purpose of having a
surveyor from the government as a Survey Committee chairman is to
ensure that the survey would be conducted in accordance with
established laws, rules, and regulation. Likewise, the government
surveyors’ presence in committee would ensure that one member would
not be unbiased to the respective interest of the opposing parties. By
attaching his signature to the said survey report, he attests and affirms
the truthfulness and correctness of the survey conducted. Absent any
clear and convincing evidence that Engr. Siao acted with bias and
prejudice towards one party, the prima facie presumption is that he
performed his governmental function with regularity xxx”. 11
Very clear are the foregoing discussions that herein plaintiff are in bad
faith in her possession of subject Lots 2 and 3, SWO 131102-00451, from
the time they were made very aware of the finality of the 08 March 2011
DECISION in the FORCIBLE ENTRY case. The plaintiff cannot now
invoke prescription to convert her possession in bad faith to good faith,
especially so that defendant Akia never stopped availing of legal remedies to
oust her from their possession in bad faith.
12
Ibid
13
Court of Appeal decision dated March 08, 2011.
11 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
proof ownership of a parcel of land.14Hence, anyone who deals with property
registered under the torrens system may rely on the title and need no go
beyond it. It goes without saying that, absence of proof of title over the
subject land is fatal to the cause of the plaintiff.
Without a title over the subject land, plaintiff cannot claim ownership
over it. Prior ownership belongs to the defendant Akia, thus he can claim
possession and ownership.
3.
Whether or not the monuments set by the defendant were
on the land of the plaintiff.
“x x x -
ATTY TADEO:
Q: Okay, in short, where you placed the monuments is inside your
property.
A: Yes.
14
Federated Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeal, G. R. no 127967”), Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No.
24864),
15
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the testimony of defendant Marcial Akia.
12 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
of Uyano Lucas who is the adjacent property owner of Rufito
Akia.
12.
Q: I am showing you Exhibit “B” and “F” can you tell me what are
these?
A: These are the survey plans of Bayeng (referring to Exhibit “B”)
and of Akia (referring to Exhibit “F”) which was some of the
references I used in surveying the lot of Lourdes Bayeng.
13.
Q: What did you do after you surveyed the property of Lourdes
Bayeng, if any?
A: I prepared a sketch plan showing the boundaries, new concrete
monuments and improvements as seen on the property of Lourdes
Bayeng.
14.
Q: When did you prepare the sketch plan you just mentioned?
A: I prepared it on November 18, 2016.
15.
Q: I am showing you Exhibit “M” is this sketch plan you are referring
to?
A: Yes, sir. That is the sketch plan I prepared for Lourdes Bayeng.
16.
Q: As result of your survey, were there any concrete monuments of
Marcial Akia that sat inside and outside the property of Lourdes
Bayeng, if any?
x xx”
19.
Q: After surveying the property of Lourdes Bayeng what is your
assessment, if any?
A: My assessment based on the two approved survey plan which I
used that resulted to the sketch plan I prepared in 2016 shows
that Marcial Akia encroached and went beyond his actual
property when he placed a six concrete monuments inside
Lourdes Bayeng’s lot.
20.
Q: Where are these concrete monuments seated?
A: They are seated inside the lot of Lourdes Bayeng outside of Lots 2
and 3 of the Survey Plan of Rufito Akia. x xx”
This court notes that the survey plan prepared by Engr. Banagen was
done at the instance of Lourdes Bayeng without informing the Heirs of
Uyano Lucas and Heirs of Rufito Akia.
“ATTY LIMOS:
13 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
Q: So you will agree to me that this was not a relocation survey?
A: No, because relocation survey means there should be a surveyor
of the other.
Q: You did not also inform the heirs of Rufito Akia about the survey?
A: No.
xxx
Q: As a seasoned geodetic engineer, you will agree with me that the
result of your survey cannot bind the heirs of Uyano Lucas?
A: It doesn’t because the boundaries are existing already.
Q: You will agree with me that the result of said survey cannot bind
the Heirs of Rufito Akia, correct?
A: Yes.19 x x x”
4.
On the Award of Damages
17
J Marketing Corporation v. Felicidad Sia, Jr., G.R. No. 127823, January 29, 1998.
14 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
As for exemplary damages, particularly, claimed by the parties,
Article 2229 of the Civil Code thus provides that “exemplary or corrective
damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good,
in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.”
Attorney’s Fees
Both parties in this case now claim for attorney’s fees against the
other, grounded on their being compelled to litigate. In relation thereto, Art.
2208 of the Civil Code pertinently states:
“(11) in any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fee and expenses of litigation should be recovered. x x x”
It has been said by the Hon. Supreme Court that it is not a sound
policy to set a premium on the right to litigate. The court may award
attorney’s fees only in the instances mentioned in Article 2208 of the Civil
Code. The award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule.
18
G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2011
15 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the premises, judgment is hereby
rendered, as follows:
1. Declaring defendant as the true and lawful owner and possessor of Lots
2 and 3, SWO-131102-00451 covered by certificate of Ancestral Land
Claim No. CAR-CALC-0041 situated at Asin, Road, Baguio City, thus
reiterating or affirming the final and executory DECISION of the MCTC,
Branch 2 rendered on September 26, 2008 in Civil Case No.13067, for
Ejectment Case, entitled “ Heirs of Rufito Akia vs. Lourdes Bayeng”;
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12
17 DECISION
Civil Case No. 8812-12