Fayloga v. Benemerito

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212758. January 31, 2018.]

ADELAIDA FAYLOGA, IRENE FAYLOGA, FLORA FAYLOGA, JOSEFINA F. TABIOS, JOSEFA F. MANEGDEG, ALBERTO FAYLOGA, FLORENTINA FAYLOGA, NAZARENA FAYLOGA, BENITO FAYLOGA, EUFRONIA FAYLOGA, ESTHER FAYLOGA, AGUSTIN FAYLOGA, RICARDO FAYLOGA, JUAN FAYLOGA, SERAFINA FAYLOGA, ELENA FAYLOGA, FLORITA FAYLOGA, CORAZON FAYLOGA, FLORIDA FAYLOGA, DELFINA AGULLANA, MARIANO AGULLANA, AURORA AGULLANA, CORAZON AGULLANA, FILIPINAS AGULLANA, REGIDOR AGULLANA, MANUEL AGULLANA, ANCIETA AGULLANA, SALOME AGULLANA, NORMA AGULLANA, FILOMENO JAMIAS, ELIGIO JAMIAS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO JAMIAS (DECEASED), LORENZO JAMIAS, ROSALINA JAMIAS, LEONARDO JAMIAS AND CORAZON JAMIAS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VINCENT ALAN E. CALUYA, petitioners, vs. ROGELIO BENEMERITO, REX C. BENEMERITO, ROLAND CURRAMENG, HEIRS OF HENRY BENEMERITO AND ELIZER SAMIANO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 31, 2018which reads as follows: DETACa

"G.R. No. 212758 (Adelaida Fayloga, Irene Fayloga, Flora Fayloga, Josefina F. Tabios, Josefa F. Manegdeg, Alberto Fayloga, Florentina Fayloga, Nazarena Fayloga, Benito Fayloga, Eufronia Fayloga, Esther Fayloga, Agustin Fayloga, Ricardo Fayloga, Juan Fayloga, Serafina Fayloga, Elena Fayloga, Florita Fayloga, Corazon Fayloga, Florida Fayloga, Delfina Agullana, Mariano Agullana, Aurora Agullana, Corazon Agullana, Filipinas Agullana, Regidor Agullana, Manuel Agullana, Ancieta Agullana, Salome Agullana, Norma Agullana, Filomeno Jamias, Eligio Jamias, Heirs of Pacifico Jamias (Deceased), Lorenzo Jamias, Rosalina Jamias, Leonardo Jamias and Corazon Jamias, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, Vincent Alan E. Caluya, Petitioners, v. Rogelio Benemerito, Rex C. Benemerito, Roland Currameng, Heirs of Henry Benemerito and Elizer Samiano, Respondents).

We resolve this petition 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the December 12, 2013 Decision2 and the May 28, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 99943, which set aside the August 14, 2012 Joint Resolution4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte (I.N.), in LRC Case No. 127-19, LRA Record No. N-39943, for Petition for Review of Decree of Registration.

The antecedent facts are as follow:

In the late nineteenth (19th) century or on June 6, 1876, Don Valeriano Fayloga (Don Valeriano) applied to own a parcel of land in Barrio Caparispisan, then a village of the Municipality of Bangui, I.N., but now a part of the municipality of Pagudpud. After due notice and hearing, the land was adjudicated to Don Valeriano. He was issued a Spanish title, "Compocision Con El Estado" on January 24, 1877. 5 Upon the death of Don Valeriano, his heirs, herein petitioners succeeded in his rights.

On December 22, 1970, petitioners filed an Application for Registration of Title, with the Court of First of Instance (CFI) of Laoag City, which covered ten lots with a total area of 2,151,023 sq. m. located in Barrio Caparispisan, Pagudpud, I.N. Petitioners claimed that they have been in possession of the land since time immemorial tacking their occupation onto their predecessor, Don Valeriano. The venue of the proceedings was later moved to the CFI of Bangui, I.N. After the oppositors have filed their respective oppositions to the application, the CFI issued an Order of general default on July 25, 1973. 6 CAIHTE

On June 14, 1977, the CFI rendered its decision 7 in LRC No. N-127, LRC Record No. N-39943, partly granting the petitioners' application. The CFI adjudicated the ten lots applied for by the petitioners, but ordered them to submit a re-amended plan duly approved by the Director of Lands, before the same could be registered.

In compliance with the CFI's decision, the petitioners submitted a re-amended survey plan, Psu 45960 Amd.-I but the same was disapproved because it was overtaken by a cadastral survey of Pagudpud, I.N. Petitioners submitted another re-amended survey plan, Psu 45960 Amd.-II, which appears to have been allegedly approved by the DENR-Land Management Service (LMS) RO1 on October 27, 2009. 8 Thus, on November 22, 2010, the following Original Certificates of Title (OCT) were issued in petitioners' favor and were registered with the Registry of Deeds, I.N., to wit: (1) OCT No. 2010000436 covering Lot 2-B; (2) OCT No. 2010000431 covering Lot 3-B; (3) OCT No. 2010000435 covering Lot 1-B; and (4) OCT No. 2010000445 covering Lot 1-C. The lots subject of this case are the parcels of land covered by OCT No. 2010000435 covering Lot 1-B; and OCT No. 2010000445 covering Lot 1-C. 9

On June 10, 2011, respondents filed a Petition for Review of Decree of Registration10 with the RTC, seeking the cancellation of the titles pertaining to the subject lots. Respondents made the following allegations, among others: (1) they learned about the CFI's June 14, 1977 decision only around June 2010; (2) the titles over the subject lots rightfully belongs to them; (3) even before the proceedings for the December 22, 1970 Application for Registration were ongoing (without respondents' knowledge), their predecessors-in-interest, particularly respondent Rogelio Benemerito (Rogelio), discovered the subject lots which were then uninhabited, and thus, occupied the same in 1974 without any opposition from anyone; (4) in 1982, or eight (8) years from Rogelio's occupation, the Department of Agriculture and Environment and Natural Resources (DAENR) now referred to as Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) conducted a Cadastral Survey over several lands located in Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, which included the subject lots; and (5) being the possessor/occupant during the survey, Rogelio was considered the "survey claimant" over the subject lots which were designated as Cadastral Lot No. 18050 under CAD 738-D. 11

In sum, the following are the parcels of land possessed and occupied by the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest since 1974, which were erroneously included in the OCTs issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) in petitioners' favor: DETACa

 

Declared Owner	Cadastral Lot No.	OCT No./Decree of Registration issued by the LRA in favor of the petitioners
Rogelio R. Benemerito	No. 18050	OCT No. 2010000445/No. N-231910
Rex C. Benemerito	Nos. 14248-A, 14248-B, and 14248-D	OCT No. 2010000435/No. 231908
Roland Curammeng	Nos. 14248-K, 14248-H, and 14248-P	OCT No. 2010000435/No. 231908
Henry Benemerito	No. 14248-G	OCT No. 2010000435/No. 231908
Elizer Samiano	No. 14248-I	OCT No. 2010000435/No. 231908 12

 

Respondents likewise alleged that the petitioners committed fraudulent acts when they misrepresented that they have been in continuous possession and occupation of the subject lots; and, that they were denied due process when they were not given the opportunity to present their evidence to protect their interests over the subject lots. Respondents attached several pieces of evidence showing prior proof of their possession of the subject lots: (1) photographs of improvements made by them on the subject lots; (2) numerous tax declarations and official receipts for the payment of tax in their names, and (3) documents dated 1971 and 1972 originating from the (former) DAENR — Bureau of Lands suggesting that the petitioners have not been occupying the subject lots for 30 years. 13

On August 10, 2011, petitioners filed their Comment and Opposition, 14 disputing respondents' allegation of fraud and argued that respondents have no valid interest over the subject lots. To refute respondents' claim of prior occupation, the petitioners submitted the following documents: (1) a report apparently issued by the Bureau of Lands (BLR) stating that a portion of the subject lots was already cultivated, contrary to the claims of petitioner Rogelio; (2) the subject lots were surveyed as early as 1967 by the Office of the Director of Lands per plan Psu-45960 Amd.; (3) various notices were seemingly published and posted in public places pending the hearing of LRC Case No. 127-19; (4) a Certification dated December 19, 1983 issued by then Mayor Atty. Rafael R. Benemerito (Atty. Benemerito) stating that a barangay road traverses lands claimed by respondent Flora Fayloga; and (5) another Certification dated November 23, 1984, issued by the Ministry of Public Works and Highways, which corroborates Atty. Benemerito's statement in his Certification. 15

On February 16, 2012, respondents caused the annotation of Lis Pendens on the titles of the petitioners, through the Register of Deeds of Laoag, I.N. aDSIHc

On May 28, 2012, petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (and the Lifting of Notice of Lis Pendens) 16 under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court (the Rules) with the RTC, praying for the prompt disposition of the controversy on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts. Respondents filed their Comment/Opposition17 thereto, and argued among others, that the motion should be dismissed for failure to strictly comply with the ten (10)-day notice rule required under the Sec. 3, Rule 35 of the Rules.

On August 14, 2012, the RTC issued its Joint Resolution, 18 granting the petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby dismissing respondents' Petition for Review of Decree of Registration.

Respondents appealed 19 from the RTC's ruling. The CA, on December 12, 2013, rendered its Decision, reversing the RTC's judgment. The CA, ruled among others, that there exist genuine issues which underscore the need for trial on the merits. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The challenged Joint Resolution dated 14 August 2012 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte is SET ASIDE.

ACCORDINGLY, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 of Bangui, Ilocos Norte, for trial on the merits and to resolve the same with dispatch.

SO ORDERED. 20

Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the decision, but the same was denied in the CA's Resolution dated May 28, 2014. Hence, this petition.

Essentially, the issue for our resolution is whether the CA erred in reversing the trial court's decision. Petitioners maintain that the RTC correctly dismissed respondents' Petition for Review of Decree of Registration, since the issues alleged therein were sham, fictitious, contrived or consisted of false claims.

We do not agree.

Summary judgment is a procedural technique that is proper under Sec. 3, Rule 35 of the Rules only if there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 21 As elucidated in Spouses Rolando D. Soller and Nenita T. Soller v. Heirs of Jeremias Ulayao, et al.: 22 ETHIDa

Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial.

x x x [R]elief by summary judgment can only be allowed after compliance with the minimum requirement of vigilance by the court in a summary hearing considering that this remedy is in derogation of a party's right to a plenary trial of his case. At any rate, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant. [Emphasis Supplied.]

Here, both pleadings filed by the parties in the trial court, were aimed at establishing who between them is the rightful owner over the subject lots. As can be gleaned from the facts, respondents in their Petition for Review of Decree of Registration, attached pieces of documentary evidence to prove their ownership through acquisitive prescription. But this was refuted by the petitioners in their Comment and Opposition, through the submission of several documents to corroborate their claim that they are the owners of the subject lots. A perusal of petitioners' Comment and Opposition would likewise reveal that they propounded issues, such as whether or not respondents and their predecessors-in-interest were in actual possession of the subject lots when they applied for registration, and whether or not respondents have knowledge of the application for registration filed by the petitioners when they occupied the properties in 1974, among others. Undeniably, the existence of these issues vis-a-vis the pieces of evidence to support each party's allegations, generate a genuine issue, as defined by jurisprudence. 23

Thus, under these circumstances, the presentation of competent and relevant evidence is necessary in the course of a full-blown trial, and not merely by way of a summary judgment. After all, the court a quo, cannot merely assume that either parties would not be able to prove their factual allegations and respective defenses without first giving them an opportunity to do so.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the December 12, 2013 Decision and the May 28, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99943, are hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-47.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Zenaida T. Galapate-LaguiIles, Id. at 48-61.

3.Id. at 62-65.

4. Penned by Judge Rosemarie V. Ramos, Id. at 282-319.

5.Id. at 134-135.

6.Id. at 282-283.

7. Penned by Judge Jose A. Salomon; Rollo, pp. 115-130.

8.Id. at 149.

9.Id. at 153.

10.Id. at 66-114.

11.Rollo, p. 54.

12.Id. at 373-374.

13.Id. at 58.

14.Id. at 131-180.

15.Rollo, pp. 59-60.

16.Id. at 195-248.

17.Id. at 249-281.

18.Supra note 6.

19.Rollo, pp. 344-411.

20.Rollo, p. 61.

21.Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc., et al., G.R. No. 202597, February 8, 2017, citing Solid Manila Corp. v. Bio Hong Trading Co., Inc., 273 Phil. 115, 123 (1991); Arradaza v. Court of Appeals, 252 Phil. 14, 22 (1989); De Leon v. Faustino, 110 Phil. 249, 253 (1960).

22. 691 Phil. 348, 351-352 (2012), citing Viajar v. Judge Estenzo, 178 Phil. 561, 572-573 (1979).

23. "A genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial." Ley Construction and Development Corporation v. Union Bank, 389 Phil. 788, 798 (2000).