THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224810. July 26, 2021.]
LYDIA N. LEVY, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES MARLON MIGUEL AND RAINELDA MIGUEL, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 26, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224810 (LYDIA N. LEVY, petitionerv. SPOUSES MARLON MIGUEL and RAINELDA MIGUEL,respondents). — The party alleging encroachment on their property has the burden to prove it with preponderance of evidence.
This Petition for Review 1 assails the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal of Lydia N. Levy's (Levy) complaint for recovery of possession of property.
Levy is the registered owner of two parcels of land. 4 Marlon and Rainelda Miguel (Spouses Miguel) own the lot adjacent to Levy's properties. 5
On May 6, 2010, Levy filed before the Municipal Trial Court a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Spouses Miguel. She alleged that Spouses Miguel encroached upon a portion of her properties when they constructed a bamboo fence. 6 Her claim was based on the relocation survey of Engineer Libreto Patromo (Engineer Patromo). 7
On their part, Spouses Miguel explained that they acted in good faith and the construction of the bamboo fence was in accordance with a relocation survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Ronilo Lingayo (Engineer Lingayo). 8
The Municipal Trial Court called the parties to a joint relocation survey of their respective properties to determine whether there was encroachment. 9
After the joint relocation survey, Engineer Patromo submitted a narrative report on October 15, 2010, discussing his findings. However, he did not make any conclusion on whether there was an encroachment. 10
The Municipal Trial Court thus directed both Engineer Lingayo and Engineer Patromo to submit a joint report indicating their findings of encroachment. 11 However, after manifesting that Engineer Patromo made conflicting findings, Levy moved to engage the services of a geodetic engineer from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 12 The Municipal Trial Court granted the motion and directed the conduct of a relocation survey in the presence of Engineer Lingayo. 13
Engineer Jovencio P. Abcede (Engineer Abcede) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources conducted the relocation survey, submitted a complete and comprehensive explanation of its result, and attached a sketch plan. He concluded that it was Levy's property that encroached upon Spouses Miguel's property. 14
Again, Levy objected to these findings and moved for another survey at her expense. 15 On October 10, 2011, the Municipal Trial Court, upon agreement of the parties, appointed a new set of commissioners to conduct a verification and relocation survey on the properties, namely, (a) Engineer Edgar G. Barroca (Engineer Barroca), chief of the Surveys Division of Land Management Service of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region IV-A, (b) Engineer Abcede, and (c) Engineer Lingayo. 16 cSEDTC
On July 12, 2012, a relocation survey report noted by Engineer Barroca was submitted by Engineer Rodolfo I. Macalino (Engineer Macalino). 17 Engineer Macalino found there was an encroachment on Levy's property. 18
Engineer Macalino's findings were the result of two relocation surveys. The first survey was conducted in the presence of Levy, Spouses Miguel, Engineer Abcede, Engineer Lingayo, and the survey team. The second one was conducted with another survey team and with another engineer. Engineers Abcede and Lingayo were not notified of the second survey. Engineer Macalino explained that the second survey was conducted because the head of the team in the first survey submitted an incomplete report of the verification result. 19
In its Decision, 20 the Municipal Trial Court compared the findings of the three geodetic engineers and ruled that Levy failed to prove the encroachment.
The Municipal Trial Court ruled it cannot lend any credence to Engineer Macalino's findings, considering the survey on which he based his conclusion was done without the presence of the other geodetic engineers representing the parties. The survey was thus "highly irregular" and contrary to its order. 21 The Municipal Trial Court also noted that Engineer Macalino's findings were "ridiculous" because while the total area of the property of Spouses Miguel is only 240 square meters, he claimed that the total encroached area is 309 square meters. It thus ruled that his findings should be disregarded as they would disrupt the integrity of the Torrens system. 22 Instead, it lent more credence to the report of Engineer Abcede:
Finally, the Court noted that there is nothing wrong with the technical descriptions of either the Levy or Miguel's properties. In truth and in fact, they reflected the correct metes and bounds of their respective properties. Plaintiff's lot 46-C and defendants Lot 46-D are both covered by the same subdivision survey plan (LRC) Psd-256060. Geodetic Engineer II Jovencio Abcede [. . .] made a more believable report on his Actual ground relocation survey than Geodetic Engineer II Rodolfo Macalino . . . because the Abcede report respected the integrity of the Torrens system of land registration. Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to discharge her burden of proving overlapping or encroachment by defendants, and it has no other option except to dismiss this case. Defendants' claim for damages cannot be granted, for lack of proof.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 23
The Regional Trial Court 24 affirmed the court a quo. 25
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the April 6, 2015 Decision and the July 13, 2015 Resolution of Gumaca, Quezon Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, in Civil Case No. 3292-G for recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.26
Levy moved for reconsideration, but her motion was denied. 27
Thus, Levy filed this Petition for Review, insisting her property was encroached upon. 28 Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals should have lent credence to the findings of Engineer Macalino whose survey was noted by Engineer Barroca. 29 She claims that Engineer Macalino was provided with all the necessary and appropriate documents regarding the properties, and no objections were raised by the two other accompanying engineers on the manner and conduct of the survey. 30 She claims that they substantially finished reviewing and confirming the exact location on the first day of the survey. The second day was only for double checking. However, the two engineers did not give a valid explanation as to why they were absent on the second day. She suggests that they were possibly absent because their findings opposed that of Engineer Macalino. 31
In their Comment, 32 respondent Spouses Miguel maintain that they sufficiently established there was no encroachment on their part, thus, the case was properly dismissed. They contend that the survey conducted by Engineer Macalino, who was not even one of the engineers appointed by the Municipal Trial Court, was irregular and without probative value. It was made without the presence of the two other geodetic engineers of the parties. They allege he was even withdrawn as a witness because he did not have any field notes. 33 They also assert that they and their geodetic engineer could not have objected to Engineer Macalino's survey because they were neither notified nor present at the time of its conduct. 34 Thus, they claim that they were deprived of due process of law and that, as such, the presumption of regularity cannot apply. 35
Respondents also argue that the report on the surveys participated in by Engineers Lingayo and Abcede, which found that there was no encroachment, forms part of the records of the case in the Municipal Trial Court. They insist that petitioner did not protest against it, making it a judicial admission justifying dismissal of the case. 36 SDAaTC
Moreover, they argue that the petition is frivolous and dilatory. 37 They likewise point out that it is defective as it fails to provide a statement of facts and case. They claim it does not also contain pertinent records material and relevant to the case. 38
In her Reply, 39 petitioner reiterates that Engineer Macalino's findings should be accorded weight and credence because it was noted by Engineer Barroca, who would have rejected the report or had it corrected had he found any irregularities or impropriety. There is no showing it is erroneous or inaccurate. Neither is there any report from them of any flaws on the report or recommendation. 40
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether petitioner was able to prove the encroachment on her property.
We deny the Petition. Petitioner was unable to prove the encroachment on her property.
Petitioner failed to show any cogent reason why the actions of the three courts, which have passed upon the same issues, should be reversed. Petitioner failed to show that the factual findings of the three courts are not based on substantial evidence or that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence.
The determination of whether there is any encroachment on petitioner's property involves a question of fact, which is not within the scope of a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 41 An appeal under Rule 45 must raise only questions of law, unless the factual findings are not supported by evidence or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. 42 Absent these exceptions, the factual findings of the lower courts are accorded respect and are beyond the review of this Court. 43
Secondly, petitioner failed to prove the encroachment upon her property. The party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. In Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi, 44 this Court held:
It is procedurally required for each party in a case to prove [their] own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases such as this one, the degree of evidence required of a party in order to support [their] claim is preponderance of evidence, or that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party. It is therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff who is claiming a right to prove [their] case. Corollarily, the defendant must likewise prove [their] own allegations to buttress [their] claim that [they are] not liable.
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. The burden of proof may be on the plaintiff or the defendant. It is on the defendant if [they allege] an affirmative defense which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff's cause of action, but is one which, if established, will be a good defense — i.e., an "avoidance" of the claim. 45 (Citations omitted).
Petitioner's only evidence of the encroachment is the survey conducted by Engineer Macalino. However, it cannot be lent any credence as it was done irregularly and contrary to the orders of the court. Respondents were able to establish that the survey on which Engineer Macalino based his conclusion was conducted without the presence of the two other engineers designated by the Municipal Trial Court to accompany the survey. 46 Moreover, Engineer Macalino was not even the designated engineer to conduct the survey, as he merely stepped into the shoes of Engineer Barroca. 47
In Spouses Pascual v. Court of Appeals, 48 this Court explained why both parties should be represented in resurveys to determine the boundaries of adjacent lots:
The reason for the requirement of representation of both parties in the resurvey team is to ensure that the interests of both sides are protected. If this requirement is breached, then serious prejudice can result. This is especially true in this case where the purpose of the resurvey is to determine the boundaries of the parties' adjacent lots. The placing of boundary lines and demarcation points on the soil must be precise, and the smallest error in alignment may result in the loss of a large portion of one's property. Hence, it is crucial that each party must have a representative present to ensure that the fixing of the metes and bounds on the soil is accurately performed.
Indeed, the requirement of notice and representation in the proceedings is an essential part of due process of law. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held:
Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied participation therein. The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable the landowner [themselves] to exercise, at the very, least, [their] right of retention guaranteed under the CARL. 49 (Citations omitted)
In this case, Engineer Macalino admitted that Engineers Lingayo and Abcede were not notified of the second survey he conducted. Thus, they were not present when it was conducted, contrary to the orders of the Municipal Trial Court. 50
Thus, Engineer Macalino's conduct of the survey cannot be presumed regular. The presumption of regularity in the conduct of official duties provided for under Section 3 (m) of Rule 131 may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. In Bustillo v. People, 51 this Court stated that "[t]he presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty." 52 acEHCD
On the other hand, there is no showing that the findings of the other geodetic engineers, i.e., there was no encroachment upon the property of Levy, were tainted with any irregularity. Thus, petitioner failed to prove her claim that respondents encroached upon her property.
Finally, this Court notes that petitioner's Petition for Review contained no statement of facts as required under the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The March 2, 2016 Decision and May 20, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141556 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez., J., J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2834)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 31-36. The petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Id. at 37-46. The March 2, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 141556 was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 59-60. The May 20, 2016 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 141556 was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-19027 and T-15740, identified as Lot No. 46-A-3-A and Lot 46-C, respectively.
5.Rollo, p. 69.
6.Id. at 38.
7.Id. at 133. The name of Engineer Patromo is spelled as "Patrono" in other parts of the rollo.
8.Id. at 38, 133.
9.Id. at 133.
10.Id. at 38, 135.
11.Id. at 38-39; pp. 143, 150.
12.Id. at 136.
13.Id. at 39, 136.
14.Id. at 39, 137-139, 152.
15.Id. at 152.
16.Id. at 39.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 41.
19.Id. at 152.
20.Id. at 132-155. The February 3, 2014 Decision in Civil Case No. 1170 was penned by Judge Elizabeth M. San Juan-Mata of the Municipal Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Gumaca, Quezon.
21.Id. at 153.
22.Id. at 154.
23.Id. at 154-155.
24.Id. at 69-99. The April 6, 2015 Decision in Civil Case No. 3292-G was penned by Judge Maria Chona E. Pulgar-Navarro of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon.
25.Id. at 99.
26.Id. at 45.
27.Id. at 60.
28.Id. at 33.
29.Id. at 32.
30.Id. at 32-33.
31.Id. at 33.
32.Id. at 7-29.
33.Id. at 13.
34.Id. at 14.
35.Id. at 14-15.
36.Id. at 16-17.
37.Id. at 24.
38.Id. at 8-10.
39.Id. at 199-201.
40.Id. at 199.
41.Fangonil-Herrera v. Fangonil, 558 Phil. 235, 256-257 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
42. See id.
43.Id. at 257.
44. 512 Phil. 425 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
45.Id. at 456-457.
46.Rollo, p. 153.
47.Id. at 39. On October 10, 2011, the Municipal Trial Court, upon agreement of the parties, appointed (a) Engineer Barroca, (b) Engineer Abcede, and (c) Engineer Lingayo as commissioners to conduct a verification and relocation survey on the properties. Engineer Macalino was not one of the commissioners appointed. His relocation survey report was only noted by Engineer Barroca.
48. 445 Phil. 239 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division].
49.Id. at 248.
50.Rollo, pp. 152-153.
51. 634 Phil. 547 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
52.Id. at 556.