ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256390. November 22, 2021.]
GONZALO LUMBIN, petitioner,vs. CHARITA B. BATAAN, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ELEUTERIO B. BATAAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 22, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256390 (Gonzalo Lumbin v. Charita B. Bataan, represented by Attorney-in-Fact, Eleuterio B. Bataan). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated September 11, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated March 3, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 159318, which affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 97. The RTC dismissed the appeal filed by Gonzalo Lumbin (petitioner) and concurred with the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Antipolo City, granting the Complaint for Accion Publiciana filed by Charita Bataan (respondent).
Facts of the Case
In her Complaint for Accion Publiciana filed before the MTCC, respondent alleged that she is the registered and lawful owner of a parcel of land consisting of 50 square meters located at Lot 27, Block 15, Samba Homes, Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City. The said parcel of land is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. R-77896. Respondent alleged that petitioner has been occupying the subject property for free and by her mere tolerance. Hence, in February 2011, respondent verbally demanded from petitioner to vacate the subject property but the latter ignored the demand to vacate. On February 16, 2015, respondent's counsel sent a formal demand letter reiterating her plea for petitioner to vacate the subject property and turn over the same to respondent. Again, petitioner refused to heed respondent's demand. Thus, respondent brought the matter to the Barangay but to no avail. 4
In his Answer, petitioner countered that he has a better right to possess the subject property because he is in physical and actual possession thereof since 1998. Being a member of the Samba Homeowner's Association, he is the original beneficiary of the subject lot. 5
Thereafter, pre-trial and trial ensued.
Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
On February 5, 2018, the MTCC granted the Complaint for Accion Publiciana filed by respondent and ordered petitioner to vacate the subject property and to surrender possession thereof to respondent. 6
The MTCC found that respondent has a better right to possess the subject property. The MTCC took into consideration that the subject property is registered in the name of respondent. Likewise, the MTCC noted that respondent has consistently paid real property taxes for the subject property as evidenced by the tax declaration. in her name and tax receipts. According to the MTCC, although tax declarations are not conclusive proof of possession, they are a good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner for no one in their right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in their actual or constructive possession. Thus, the TCT in the name of respondent and the tax declaration and tax receipts strengthen her claim of possession over the subject property before petitioner entered the same and constructed a fence thereon. 7
Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal to the RTC. CAIHTE
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 15, 2018, the RTC affirmed the ruling of the MTCC. Additionally, the RTC ordered petitioner to pay P10,000.00 and P2,000.00 per appearance as attorney's fees. 8
The RTC first discussed the nature of a complaint for accion publiciana as a plenary action to determine the better right of possession of realty independent of title. In an accion publiciana, the objective is to recover possession and not ownership. If the parties raised the issue of ownership, the court may have a provisional determination of the same but only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. 9
In this case, the RTC found that respondent presented TCT No. R-77896 under her name and tax declaration and tax receipts to prove that she has the better right to possess the subject property. On the other hand, petitioner merely claimed that he has a better right to possess the property because he has been in actual and physical possession thereof since 1998. 10 The RTC concurred with the MTCC that respondent clearly proved that she has better right to possess the property by virtue of the TCT under her name and the tax declaration and tax receipts.
Still aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 42 to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its September 11, 2020 Decision, 11 the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. 12
According to the CA, when a party claiming a better right of possession supports such claim by presenting not only tax declarations and tax receipts but also a certificate of title, these pieces of evidence are sufficient to resolve the issue of who has a better right of possession. Hence, for the CA, respondent's certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership, accompanied by tax declarations and receipts, prevail over petitioner's claim of actual possession since 1998. 13
The CA added that a person who holds Torrens title over a land is also entitled to the possession thereof because the right to possess and occupy the land is an attribute and a logical consequence of ownership. 14
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the decision of the CA. Nevertheless, the motion was denied in a Resolution 15 dated March 3, 2021. Because of this, petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari16 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In his petition, petitioner merely reiterated his arguments before the trial courts and before the CA.
Issue
Whether petitioner has a better right to possess the subject property.
Ruling of the Court
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of petitioner to show that the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the rulings of both the MTCC and RTC in finding that respondent has a better right to possess the subject property.
It is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts. The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not its intended purpose under the law. 17 Here, the issue is essentially factual in nature, the determination of which is best left to the trial courts and the CA. For this reason alone, the petition should be denied.
However, even going into the substantive aspect of the case, it is still without merit. Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the better right of possession (possession de jure), which should be brought in the proper inferior court or RTC (depending upon the value of the property), when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year. 18 The issue in an accion publiciana is the "better right of possession" of real property independently of title. This "better right of possession" may or may not proceed from a Torrens title. 19 However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication is not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership. 20
In this case, respondent presented the Torrens title under her name and the tax declarations and tax receipts to prove that she has better right of possession. The Court agrees with the MTCC, RTC, and CA that between said pieces of evidence and petitioner's sole claim that he was in actual possession of the subject property since 1998, the former prevails. Thus, this petition for review is without merit.
Lastly, it is settled that when the factual findings of the trial court are confirmed by the CA, said facts are final and conclusive on this Court, unless the same are not supported by the evidence on record. 21 Here, the facts, evidence on record, and applicable laws and jurisprudence support the unanimous conclusion of the trial courts and the CA. DETACa
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated September 11, 2020 and the Resolution dated March 3, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 159318 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Perpetua Susan T. Atal-Pano and Alfredo D. Ampuan; id. at 36-44.
3. Id. at 46-47.
4. Id. at 83.
5. Id. at 84.
6. Id. at 93.
7. Id. at 91.
8. Id. at 81.
9. Id. at 78.
10. Id. at 79.
11. Supra note 2.
12. Rollo, p. 42.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 46-47.
16. Id. at 11-27.
17. Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172 (2017).
18. Heirs of Cullado v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212938, July 30, 2019.
19. Id.
20. Supapo v. Sps. de Jesus, 758 Phil. 444, 456 (2015).
21. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 469 (2003).