THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228056. April 17, 2017.]
HEIRS OF BENIGNO TIAD AND EXALTACION TIAD, NAMELY: MANUELITO TIAD, FELICITAS T. GOLEN, HEMIN TIAD, ET AL., REP. BY MELLIE-TIAD-NACIONAL, complainants,vs. SPOUSES SALI MENALIN AND TANUSAN MENALIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 17, 2017, which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 228056 (Heirs of Benigno Tiad and Exaltacion Tiad, namely: Manuelito Tiad, Felicitas T. Golen, Hemin Tiad, et al., rep. by Mellie-Tiad-Nacional vs. Spouses Sali Menalin and Tanusan Menalin). — This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated October 14, 2016, which assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03315-MIN, promulgated on June 14, 2016, 1 as well as its subsequent Resolution dated September 14, 2016. The assailed Decision affirmed with modification the March 30, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, ordering herein petitioners to vacate the subject property. The assailed Resolution, meanwhile, denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
The Facts
The facts attendant to the present controversy, as culled by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: respondent Spouses Sali and Tanusan Menalin filed a complaint on May 30, 1994 for accion publiciana against Benigno Tiad before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato. They alleged that Sali Menalin (Sali) is the eldest child of Menalin Senomagot (Senomagot) and Babai Ameon (Ameon), who resided in Barrio 12, Surallah, South Cotabato. During their lifetime, Sali's parents acquired two parcels of land known as Lot No. 4182 and Lot 4183-Pls-214-D-9, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. (V-18227) P-0867. Sometime in November 9, 1964, they sold a portion of the property consisting of six hectares to one Apolonio Faba. Sali and his parents continued occupying the other half of the property until 1972, when they transferred to Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, because of the peace and order situation in Surallah. In 1980, they returned to Surallah, and they discovered that the six hectares of Lot 4182 Pls-214-D-9 was already in the possession of Benigno Tiad (Benigno). Benigno was requested to vacate the property, but he refused to do so. Subsequently, Senomagot died on October 30, 1988, and Ameon died on November 5, 1982. 2
Benigno, in his Answer, countered that on November 9, 1964, Senomagot and Ameon sold to him the whole of Lot No. 4182, Pls-214-D-9, which is one of the two lots covered by OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067, for a consideration of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00). A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and acknowledged before a notary public. He then began occupying the lot sold to him. During the trial, Benigno died, and was substituted by his surviving heirs: Exaltacion Placio Vda. de Tiad, Ruby Tiad, Benny Tiad, Jesus Tiad, Manuelito Tiad, Felicitas Tiad, Hemin Tiad, Rosemarie Tiad, Mellie Tiad, and Mergie Tiad. 3
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC promulgated its Decision on March 30, 2012, and ordered the defendants, herein petitioners, to vacate the subject property. The dispositive portion of the RTC ruling reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, and discussed, decision is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067 4183 insofar as Lot No. 4183 is concerned, registered in the name of Menalin Senomagot as cancelled;
2. Declaring OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067 insofar as Lot No. 4182 is concerned, as still existing and owned by the late Menalin Senomagot married to Babai Ameon;
3. Ordering the defendants, Heirs of Benigno Tiad, to vacate Lot No. 4182, Pls-214-D consisting of six (6) hectares and return to plaintiffs the possession thereof; and
4. Ordering the defendants to pay Plaintiffs actual damages and attorney's fees in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (PH20,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 4
Ruling of the CA
Aggrieved by the ruling of the RTC, petitioners appealed to the CA. In its presently assailed Decision, however, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC insofar as it ordered the petitioners to vacate the subject property. The CA noted that the petitioners' defense rested on the purported Deed of Absolute Sale, which was not formally offered as evidence. It also took note that the petitioners failed to adduce evidence to refute the OCT bearing Menalin Senomagot's name. 5 cSEDTC
The CA then ruled that "the trial court aptly decided to give more probative weight to plaintiffs-appellees' OCT vis-à-vis the contested unregistered deed of sale of the defendants-appellants and declared that the certificate of title bearing the name of Menalin Senomagot as the registered owner gives them the better right to possess [the] subject parcel of land." 6
Moreover, the CA pointed out that the subject property being a titled land, there is justifiable reason to uphold the indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of the OCT in Menalin Senomagot's name. Finally, the CA did not give credence to the claim of laches, and held that the defense of laches is evidentiary in nature, and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.
The CA, however, found that the RTC erred in declaring that OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067, insofar as Lot No. 4183 is concerned, is cancelled, and that the same OCT, insofar as Lot No. 4182 is concerned, still exists in the name of Menalin Senomagot. The CA ruled that such rulings are beyond the ambit of an accion publiciana, thus rendering the Decision, insofar as these rulings on ownership are concerned, ultra vires. Thus, the CA dispositively held:
Accordingly, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated March 30, 2012 of the trial court is AFFIRMED, only insofar as defendants-appellants are ordered to vacate Lot No. 4192, Pls-214-D-9 and return its possession to plaintiffs-appellees, and MODIFIED in that the following are SET ASIDE:
(1) Declaring OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067, insofar as Lot No. 4183 is concerned, registered in the name of Menalin Senomagot as cancelled;
(2) Declaring OCT No. (V-18227) P-8067, insofar as Lot No. 4182 is concerned, as still existing, registered and owned by the late Menalin Senomagot married to Babai Ameron; and
(3) Ordering the defendants to pay Plaintiffs actual damages and attorney's fees in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos.
SO ORDERED. 7
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied in its assailed September 14, 2016 Resolution. Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Petitioners reiterate that they had been in open and continuous possession of the subject property since November 9, 1964, or for a period of twenty-nine years before the present action was commenced. Hence, they claim, the action for recovery of possession had already prescribed. 8
The Court's Ruling
The petition must fail.
First, petitioners argue that they had been in open and continuous possession as owners of the subject property since 1964. They reiterate that the subject property had been sold to their predecessor-in-interest, Benigno Tiad, through a Deed of Absolute of Sale dated November 9, 1964. This is contrary to the ruling of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of the purported sale, because the Deed of Absolute Sale was not formally offered in evidence.
The Court finds no reversible error in the finding of the RTC and the CA that the fact of sale was not sufficiently proven. It is a long-settled rule that appeals before this court are not a matter of right, but are matters of sound judicial discretion. Moreover, the Court had consistently ruled that questions of fact are not proper subjects of a Rule 45 petition. The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions under Rule 45. 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 this Court. Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this Court. 9 In the case at bar, the existence and due execution of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale are questions of fact, and the resolution of such issue is beyond the ambit of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. SDAaTC
Second, the petitioners insist that the action for recovery of possession had already prescribed. They claim to have been in open, actual, and uninterrupted possession of the subject property for 29 years before the present accion publiciana was filed. However, the CA had already correctly addressed this issue when, citing Supapo v. Sps. De Jesus, 10 it ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. This is aptly based on Section 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which provides:
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. — No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
There is no controversy that the subject land is titled property. The only issue that petitioners raise is whether prescription and laches have set in to bar the present accion publiciana. Petitioners argue that they have.
The title being registered in the name of respondents' predecessor-in-interest, it serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in their favor. As the registered owners, respondents have the right to evict any person occupying their property, and such right to evict illegal occupants is imprescriptible. Even if they were aware of the petitioners' occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time. This right is never barred by laches. 11
Thus, the CA did not commit reversible error in upholding the RTC's order for petitioners to vacate the subject property.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03315-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles.
2.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
3.Id. at 24.
4.Id. at 22-23.
5.Id. at 26.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 30.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Remedios Pascual v. Benito Burgos, et al., G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016.
10. G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015.
11.George S. Tolentino, et al. v. Pacifico S. Laurel, et al., G.R. No. 181368, February 22, 2012.