Bonanza Restaurants, Inc. v. Omolida

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 208577. March 7, 2018.]

BONANZA RESTAURANTS, INC., petitioner,vs. FEDERICO OMOLIDA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2018, which reads as follows: TIADCc

"G.R. No. 208577 (BONANZA RESTAURANTS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERICO OMOLIDA, Respondent.) — In dispute is the possession of a parcel of land that adjoins the property of the petitioner but has been in the possession of the respondent, who has claimed that the land was part of the public domain and not within the coverage of the Torrens title of the petitioner.

The respondent lost in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 87, in Quezon City under the judgment dated January 20, 2010 that ordered him to vacate the parcel of land and to pay the petitioner P200,000.00 representing the natural and industrial fruits for the use of the land, 1 but won a reversal on appeal when the Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the adverse judgment of the RTC through the assailed decision promulgated on March 7, 2013. 2

Antecedents

The petitioner is the owner of the parcel of land with an area of 9,404 square meters situated along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue in Balintawak, Quezon City registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-65703 by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. It erected a concrete hollow block fence to enclose the property, but excluded from the enclosure a portion with an area of around 500 square meters because of erroneous boundaries. The area actually enclosed by the concrete hollow block fence was less than the area specified in the technical description of TCT No. RT-65703.

In 1982, the respondent occupied the portion of the property excluded from the enclosure (including the portion of the accretion by the action of the river), and constructed his three-bedroom residential house and a restaurant without the consent of the petitioner. His portion of the property is the subject matter of their dispute, with the petitioner demanding that he surrender possession, but he refused.

In this suit, the petitioner demands the possession and asserts ownership of the disputed portion being occupied by the respondent.

In his answer, the respondent has contended that his portion pertained to the public domain and was not part of the petitioner's property; that prior to his occupying the portion, the Geodetic Engineer he hired verified and ultimately certified that the portion with an area of 1,707 square meters was not a part of the petitioner's property; that he could thus occupy the disputed portion, and consequently filed his Miscellaneous Lease Application with the Bureau of Lands; that his application was indorsed to the Department of Public Works and Highways, and was undergoing processing; that to support his contention, he cited the decision of the RTC, Branch 86, in Quezon City that had acquitted him of squatting in violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 initiated by the petitioner; and that the RTC (Branch 86) declared that the portion occupied by him was not a part of the latter's registered property.

On January 20, 2010, the RTC rendered judgment after trial in favour of the petitioner, 3 disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, Bonanza Restaurant, Inc., as against defendant Federico Omolida awarding the possession of the lot in question to plaintiff being the owner thereof. Defendant Federico Omolida is directed as follows:

1. To surrender to plaintiff Bonanza Restaurant, Inc., the possession of the portion of the subject property situated at Lot 281-B-1 or No. 1077-1079 Edsa, Balintawak, Quezon City, bearing TCT No. RT-65703 (79992) covering 9,904 sqm;

2. To pay plaintiff the sum of P200,000.00 as industrial and natural fruits for the use of the subject property;

3. To pay plaintiff the attorney's fees in the sum of P75,000.00 plus appearance fee in the sum of P2,500.00 per hearing; and

4. To pay plaintiff the duly receipted filing fees in the sum of P2,590.00 and cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

The respondent appealed upon the following issues, namely:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAS A BETTER RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT CASE;

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE IS PART OF TCT NO. RT-65703 OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY;

III.

WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RULED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION THAT THE PROPERTY BEING CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE IS NOT THE PROPERTY BEING POSSESSED BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES. 4

As mentioned, the CA promulgated the assailed decision, 5 disposing: aScITE

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 20 January 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87 in Civil Case No. Q-03-50251, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, the case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.6

Hence, this appeal.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

The CA reviewed and correctly reversed the decision of the RTC for being contrary to the facts and the pertinent law and jurisprudence on possession.

In this connection, we adopt with approval the following findings and observations of the CA, and the CA's fitting citation of the pertinent statutory and jurisprudential bases for its observations in favor of the respondent, to wit:

After a careful examination of the records of this case, including the pieces of evidence presented by the opposing parties before the RTC, We find that there is sufficient basis to grant the appeal of Omolida. Significant factual circumstances appearing on records especially called the attention of this Court giving us reasonable ground to doubt the veracity of Bonanza's claim.

At the outset, this Court is wondering why under TCT No. 1500, which is the mother title of Bonanza's property, the land area of Lot 281-B-1 is only 8,744 square meters whereas upon issuance of TCT No. RT-65703, the same Lot 281-B-1 already covers an area of 9,404 square meters. We have scrupulously examined the records and We found that Bonanza offered no sufficient explanation as to why an additional 660 square meters suddenly appeared on the new title other than its strenuous asseveration that the title of its property could not be the subject of collateral attack. The evasiveness of Bonanza to squarely address the issue rendered their position wobbling. Evidently, it was not able to prove that its claim on the subject property was anchored on solid grounds. Serious doubt was created by its failure to trace the origin of its title, including every square foot of the land area that was included therein, to its mother title. Neither was it able to establish that the expansion was authorized. It must be underscored that this is an accion reinvindicatoria and Bonanza, as the plaintiff, must prove by preponderance of evidence its right to ownership and to possession of the subject property.

While We concede that a collateral attack on the torrens certificate of title is prohibited under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, and such title may be impugned only in a direct proceeding assailing its validity, this rule, however, admits exception. In Juanita Naval v. Court of Appeals the Supreme Court made a distinction between the attack on the certificate of title from the question of title or ownership itself in this wise:

"What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title or ownership which is represented by such certificate. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The fact that petitioner was able to secure a title in her name did not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land. Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner." [Emphasis supplied]

In Spouses Aurora and Elipidio De Pedro v. RamasanDevelopment Corporation, the Supreme Court casts the burden to the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled to the subject property and their failure to do so warrants the dismissal on the suit, viz.:

"The petitioners anchor their claim of lawful possession of the subject property on their allegation that said property is a portion of the property covered by OCT No. P-691 in the name of petitioner Aurora de Pedro. The petitioners were burdened to prove not only their ownership over the property covered by OCT No. P-691 but also that the subject property is a portion of the property covered by the said title and, if they fail to do so, the complaint must be dismissed.

We agree with the petitioners that, generally, a certificate of title shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein and conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. However, it bears stressing that while certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world, including the government itself, they do not create or vest title. They merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others."

The certificate of title under the name of Bonanza notwithstanding, this Court cannot reasonably confirm the title and possession of Bonanza on the property in dispute in light of the glaring fact that this portion is not originally included in the mother title of Bonanza's property and no expansion was authorized. With the risk of being redundant, it must be stressed that the mother title only contains an area of 8,744 square meters while the new title already bears an area of 9,404 square meters. To Our bewilderment, an additional land area of 660 square meters just appeared on the new title from nowhere. Reason and equity dictate that this portion could not rightfully belong to Bonanza. The discrepancy is not only too stark to escape the attention of this Court but too significant as well that it seriously casts doubt on the veracity of Bonanza's cause of action.

What further tramples upon Bonanza's claim is the fact that the fence it built to supposedly protect its property did not include the land in dispute. Bonanza's explanation that the fence was based on erroneous boundaries is too lame and too absurd to be believed by this Court. No reasonable man on his right mind would build a concrete fence and not enclose therein the entirety of his landholdings, opening such possession to possible usurpers.

Bonanza failed to discharge the burden of proof as the plaintiff in this case. It failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that its right over the property in question is superior over that of Omolida. It vigorously relied on its certificate of title, the particulars of which is in itself doubtful. A certificate of title cannot be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. 7

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 7, 2013; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit. HEITAD

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 38.

2.Id. at 38-45.

3.Id. at 40.

4.Id. at 41.

5.Id. at 38-45.

6.Id. at 44.

7.Id. at 41-43.