THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226162. February 6, 2017.]
JUANITO G. DOMINGO, JR., petitioner,vs. EDMUNDO A. AGLIAM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 6, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226162 (Juanito G. Domingo, Jr. vs. Edmundo A. Agliam). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140971, promulgated on July 25, 2016. The assailed Decision affirmed in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija dated April 23, 2015.
Facts
Respondent Edmundo A. Agliam (Agliam) filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Juanito G. Domingo, Jr. (Domingo) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talavera, Nueva Ecija. Agliam alleged that he is the lessee and possessor of a parcel of land measuring 109.50 square meters, situated in Bakal III, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, and owned by the Philippine National Railways (PNR). He had been in actual possession of the land since 1973, by virtue of a Leasehold Contract. On September 6, 2011, petitioner Domingo, along with other persons, made an illegal entry to a portion of the property by force and intimidation. Agliam tried to prevent Domingo from occupying the property, but he was intimidated and threatened. He made several demands to vacate, all of which went unheeded. To support his claim of prior possession, Agliam presented a Certification dated October 6, 2011 coming from the Office of the Barangay Captain, stating that he is a permanent resident of Purok 3 of the said barangay since 1973.
Domingo countered the claim and argued that he did not violate any right of Agliam. He argued that the alleged Leasehold Contract with PNR was only executed on January 24, 2012, while the supposed illegal entry was done on September 6, 2011, clearly indicating that Agliam was never in actual prior possession of the property. He also alleged that Agliam is only occupying a 72 square-meter portion of the property, and not the entire land. An additional 37.44 square meters was occupied by Agliam's brother, Juanito Agliam, Jr. Moreover, on September 11, 1996, his brother sold to petitioner, for a consideration of P23,000.00, the right of possession over a 100 square-meter portion of the lot. In 1998, Agliam tried to buy back the property from petitioner by proposing to return the P23,000.00, but this never materialized. Thus, he claimed, Agliam was in bad faith when he applied for a lease of the whole 109.5 square meters, knowing fully well that Domingo was in possession of a portion of the lot.
Ruling of the MTC
In its Decision promulgated on February 12, 2013, the MTC ruled that Agliam had the better right to enjoy the de facto possession of the property, which is partly owned by the PNR and the Cojuangcos. The MTC noted that Domingo previously filed a Complaint for Injunction against Agliam involving the same property, but the RTC in that case not only denied the injunction, but also found that the right of Domingo over the subject lot is "far from being considered as clear and unmistakeable." Hence, the MTC ruled that Agliam has a better right of possession over the property, and ordered Domingo to vacate the property, as well as pay Agliam the sum of P300.00 as monthly compensation for the use of the property. The fallo of the MTC Decision reads: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders its decision:
1) By declaring plaintiff Edmundo A. Agliam the rightful person who has a right to a de facto possession on the land at the right side of his house which is a portion of Lot 38 situated in Barangay Bacal III, Talavera, Nueva Ecija;
2) By declaring defendant Juanito G. Domingo, Jr., as a mere deforciant on the abovementioned land, hence, he is hereby ordered to vacate the said land including all the trespassers, squatters or his agents, guests or other occupants of the premises with his permission, transferees pendente lite, sublessees, co-lessees, and members of his family, relatives and other privies;
3) By ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff P300.00 monthly compensation for the use of the land in question; and
4) By denying the plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Domingo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
Ruling of the RTC
On April 23, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision and affirmed the Decision of the MTC. The RTC agreed with the ruling of the MTC that the claim of Agliam of prior physical possession was supported by the evidence on record, while purported sale between Domingo and his brother does not prove Domingo's claim, because the document did not properly identify the property subject of the sale, and it does not specifically pertain to the area subject of the controversy. Thus, the RTC affirmed in toto the Decision of the MTC.
Ruling of the CA
In its presently assailed Decision, 1 the CA concurred with the findings of the MTC and the RTC. First, it agreed that Agliam was able to present evidence of prior physical possession. Second, the fact of dispossession was also clearly supported by evidence, a barangay blotter dated September 7, 2011. Third, Domingo's claim is not well-founded, because the document on which he based his claim did not properly identify the property. Thus, the CA ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The April 23, 2015 Decision of the RTC, Branch 37, of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, in Civil Case No. SD(13)-956 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Ruling of the Court
In the petition at bar, the petitioner insists that the courts a quo did not correctly appreciate the evidence he presented, and even refused to consider the evidence that he presented before them. Moreover, he faults the courts a quo for failing to give due consideration to two photographs he attached to his Supplemental Position Paper, which he filed before the MTC before it promulgated its Decision. The said photographs, which, according to him, were taken in 1998 and 2010, would prove that the respondent had not been in prior physical possession of the subject property.
The courts a quo unanimously ruled that respondent Agliam has a better right of possession over the subject property, and that petitioner Domingo failed to prove his allegation that he has a better right to possess the subject property by virtue of a Kasulatan dated August 9, 1998, executed between him and his brother, transferring to him the ownership of the subject property.
After a judicious review of the records of the case and the assailed CA Decision, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in affirming the rulings of the MTC and the RTC.
Settled is the rule that in Rule 45 petitions, such as the one at bar, factual issues are not proper, and that factual findings are generally conclusive on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court. 2 The issue put forth in the petition, i.e., the failure of the trial court to properly give weight to the evidence presented, consisting of the Kasulatan and the two photographs, is squarely a question of fact, and the resolution of such issue rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.
This court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact, as the factual findings of the appellate courts are final, binding, or conclusive on the parties and upon this Court when supported by substantial evidence. Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this Court. 3 While this rule admits of exceptions, the petition dismally failed to show that the present case falls under any of the established exceptions.
Be that as it may, the petitioner harps on the admissibility and credibility of the two photographs that he attached to his Supplemental Position Paper before the MTC. However, he failed to even show that the two photographs have been properly authenticated in accordance with Rule 11, Section 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. 4
Contrary to his claim, therefore, the petitioner failed to support his allegation that the courts a quo "did not consider and turned a blind eye on the evidence." 5 On the contrary, as correctly found by the courts a quo, it is petitioner himself who failed to adequately present evidence to support his claim of prior physical possession.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed July 25, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 140971, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision. Petitioner is ordered to pay treble costs. (Caguioa, J.,designated as Fifth Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017) ATICcS
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan.
2.Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Crisostomo Galabo et al., G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013.
3.Remedios Pascual v. Benito Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016. Citations omitted.
4.Section 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. — Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
5.Rollo, p. 12.