SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241920. November 7, 2018.]
HEIRS OF JOSE SAGUM, petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF FERNANDO LAGMAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241920 (Heirs of Jose Sagum vs. the Heirs of Fernando Lagman). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 27, 2018 Decision 1 and the August 29, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138442. The challenged rulings affirmed the May 30, 2014 and October 30, 2014 Orders 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46 of San Fernando City, Pampanga, denying petitioners' motions to expunge the surveyor's manifestation and disqualify surveyor. The said motions were interposed by petitioners in connection with the execution of a case for recovery of possession decided in favor of herein private respondents.
The Facts
This case stemmed from a complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land filed by Fernando Lagman (Fernando) against Jose Sagum (Jose). The subject of the dispute is a portion of the land registered under the name of Fernando, with an area of 1,634 square meters (sq ms), and covered by TCT No. 162833-R situated at Barangay Dulong Ilog, Candaba, Pampanga (the subject property).
On July 20, 1999, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering Jose to vacate the portion of the subject property he occupies and surrender the peaceful possession thereof to Fernando. 4 Jose appealed to the CA, and subsequently, to this Court, but both tribunals upheld the RTC's ruling. Thus, having attained finality, the RTC decision was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments on August 17, 2009 and the corresponding writ of execution was thereafter issued. 5
On June 20, 2012, the heirs of Fernando filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition which the RTC granted. 6
On the other hand, on July 26, 2012, the heirs of Jose filed a motion for joint survey to determine the exact metes and bounds of the subject property which the heirs of Fernando did not oppose. The RTC granted the said motion and directed the parties to coordinate and submit all documents necessary for the conduct of the survey to the Bureau of Lands, Pampanga and ordered the latter to submit to the court a report within five (5) days from completion of the survey. 7 CScaDH
In compliance with the RTC's order, the Bureau of Lands, Pampanga assigned Engineer Joel R. Atienzo (Engr. Atienzo) to conduct a survey on January 25, 2013. In his Surveyor's Report (with Sketch Plan) dated July 29, 2013, Engr. Atienzo stated that the ancestral house and office of the heirs of Jose are outside the subject property but a portion of the lot with an area of 993 sq ms is being occupied by the heirs of Jose. 8
The unfavorable result of the survey led the heirs of Fernando to file a motion for resurvey alleging that the earlier survey is not accurate and conclusive as it was plotted based solely on the technical description embodied in TCT No. 162833-R without reference to the adjacent titles. 9
On November 8, 2013, the RTC issued an Order directing the heirs of Fernando to submit additional documents to be used as reference for a more accurate plotting of the metes and bounds of the subject property. The RTC also ordered Engr. Atienzo to submit his detailed surveyor's report specifying the method used in arriving at his findings in the Surveyor's Report dated July 29, 2013.
On November 25, 2013, the RTC gave Engr. Atienzo five (5) days to submit a written manifestation as to whether or not the documents submitted will suffice for the conduct of the resurvey to arrive at a more accurate plotting of the subject property. 10
On February 4, 2014, Engr. Atienzo submitted to the RTC a Manifestation (with Sketch Plan) stating that the final result of the survey indicates that the heirs of Jose are occupying an area of 1,062 sq ms of the subject property. 11
Feeling aggrieved, the heirs of Jose filed on February 20, 2014 a Motion to Expunge Manifestation Including Attached Sketch Plan. 12 They subsequently filed a Motion to Disqualify Surveyor dated March 21, 2014. 13
RTC Ruling
In its May 30, 2014 Order, the RTC denied petitioners' motions, ruling as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motions: (1) to Expunge the Manifestation Including Attached Sketched (sic) Plan, and (2) Motion to Disqualify Surveyor are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was denied by the RTC in its October 30, 2014 Order. 15
Alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their motions, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
CA Ruling
In its February 27, 2018 Decision, 16 the CA upheld the RTC's ruling, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 17
The CA found that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motions. It highlighted the fact that the Surveyor's Report (with Sketch Plan) dated July 29, 2013 initially submitted by Engr. Atienzo was found to be erroneous as it failed to accurately determine the exact metes and bounds of the subject property. It was only after the resurvey was conducted when Engr. Atienzo was able to make a final determination of the exact portion of the subject property being occupied by petitioners.
Thus, the CA held that Engr. Atienzo's Manifestation (with Sketch Plan) submitted to the RTC on February 4, 2014 is controlling, and as such, cannot be disregarded. 18
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its August 29, 2018 Resolution. 19
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issue
The principal issue before this Court is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motions to expunge the surveyor's manifestation and disqualify surveyor.
Petitioners argue, in the main, that the Surveyor's Report (with Sketch Plan) dated July 29, 2013 should be the proper basis for the execution of the July 20, 1999 Decision. They insist that the Manifestation (with Sketch Plan) dated February 4, 2014 is completely bereft of basis.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the July 20, 1999 Decision had long attained finality after the entry of judgment was made on August 17, 2009. In the said decision, the RTC ruled that Fernando is the owner of the subject property containing an area of 1,634 square meters and covered by TCT No. 162833-R. Thus, the RTC ordered Jose to vacate the premises of the subject property and surrender the possession of the same to Fernando. cDEHIC
It is well-settled that once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may not be changed, altered or modified in any way even if the modification were for the purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. This is referred to as the doctrine of finality of judgments, which the Court explained in this wise:
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. 20
In the instant case, despite the finality of the RTC July 20, 1999 Decision, records reveal that petitioners still filed numerous pleadings, including a second motion for reconsideration before this Court, a case for cancellation of TCT No. 162833-R before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, and even an opposition to private respondents' motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. 21 Clearly, petitioners have a propensity for delaying the execution of the July 20, 1999 Decision; and the instant petition is yet another delaying tactic on their part. Such antics cannot be countenanced.
Private respondents' right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of this case, by the execution and satisfaction thereof, should not be frustrated by petitioners' dilatory schemes.
The Court finds no justification to invalidate the Manifestation (with Sketch Plan) dated February 4, 2014 submitted by the Bureau of Lands' assigned surveyor, Engr. Atienzo, in accordance with the RTC's November 25, 2013 Order.
It bears stressing that the Manifestation is in compliance with the November 25, 2013 Order 22 of the RTC directing Engr. Atienzo to determine whether the documents submitted by the heirs of Fernando would suffice in order to arrive at a more accurate plotting of the subject property. Basing on the contents of the Manifestation, Engr. Atienzo, after reviewing and plotting the plan and titles submitted, found that "the tie line of Lot 12, Block 20, Psd-39093 is erroneous, instead of N 58 deg. 16' W, 2464.50 meters, it should be N 58 deg. 05', 2480.24 meters."23 From this, Engr. Atienzo came up with the final result of the survey that the heirs of Jose are occupying an area of 1,062 sq ms and not 993 sq ms as reported earlier. Thus, petitioners' contention that the said Manifestation lacks basis is unmeritorious.
As determined by the surveyor designated by the Bureau of Lands, petitioners are occupying an area of 1,062 sq ms of the subject property. On this point, We reiterate that courts generally accord great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. 24 The findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands' surveyor is conclusive absent any showing that the same was rendered in consequence of fraud, imposition or mistake. 25
Petitioners' allegations that the surveyor had been "overzealous" and exceeded the bounds of his authority when he conducted the resurvey of the subject property 26 are nothing but mere surmises and general allegations which deserve scant consideration. As correctly noted by the RTC, both parties agreed that Engr. Atienzo will conduct the survey of the subject property and petitioners did not have a problem with him when the initial survey worked in their favor. However, when Engr. Atienzo made the necessary corrections in order to submit an accurate survey to the trial court — which is adverse to petitioners, the latter sought to expunge the said survey and disqualify Engr. Atienzo. 27DEBET ESSE FINIS LITIUM — There should be an end to litigation. A law suit cannot continue in an infinite manner.
All told, the CA committed no reversible error in holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motions to expunge the surveyor's manifestation and disqualify surveyor. ISCDEA
Verily, this Court sees no reason to overturn the ruling of the CA. Petitioners failed to show that the RTC's orders were arbitrarily made or that it committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138442 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Reyes, J., Jr.,J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; rollo, pp. 38-46.
2.Id. at 48-49.
3.Id. at 54-61.
4.Id. at 84-91.
5.Id. at 119-121.
6.Id. at 140-142.
7.Id. at 152.
8.Id. at 155-156.
9.Id. at 157-159.
10.Id. at 166.
11.Id. at 167-168.
12.Id. at 169-173.
13. Not attached to the petition.
14.Rollo, p. 215.
15.Id. at 216-219.
16.Id. at 38-46.
17.Id. at 45.
18.Id. at 43.
19.Id. at 48-49.
20.Government Service Insurance System v. Group Management Corporation, 666 Phil. 277, 305 (2011).
21.Rollo, p. 39.
22.Id. at 166.
23.Id. at 167.
24.Tabino v. Tabino, 740 Phil. 158, 171 (2014).
25.Id.
26.Rollo, p. 26.
27.Id. at 213-215.