SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234148. November 29, 2017.]
ERNESTO MEMBRERE, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS: ELISEA MEMBRERE, ALEXANDER MEMBRERE, SHALITA MEMBRERE-GONZALES, ROBERT MEMBRERE, AND JONATHAN MEMBRERE, petitioners,vs. ALFONSO GUANZON,*REPRESENTED BY ESMENIA SALAZAR AND MELY GUANZON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2017which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 234148 (Ernesto Membrere, substituted by his heirs: Elisea Membrere, Alexander Membrere, Shalita Membrere-Gonzales, Robert Membrere, and Jonathan Membrere v. Alfonso Guanzon, represented by Esmenia Salazar and Mely Guanzon)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the April 20, 2017 Decision 1 and August 3, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136089 for failure of petitioners Ernesto Membrere, substituted by his heirs: Elisea Membrere, Alexander Membrere, Shalita Membrere-Gonzales, Robert Membrere, and Jonathan Membrere (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that respondent Alfonso Guanzon (respondent) has the better right of possession over the subject lot.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent has the better right of possession over the subject lot — which identity was competently established during trial — considering that: (a) the certificate of title covering the subject lot unmistakably shows that respondent is the registered owner thereof; 3 and (b) he has been paying realty taxes for the said lot, which is a good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. 4 Moreover, laches has not set in since respondent continuously made efforts to recover the subject lot following the discovery of its dispossession sometime in 2007. Besides, it is settled that a registered owner, such as respondent, possesses the right to eject any person illegally occupying his property, a right which does not prescribe and can never be barred by laches. 5 Finally, the CA correctly upheld the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Umingan, Pangasinan over respondent's complaint for accion publiciana, since the assessed value of the subject lot (i.e., P4,200.00) 6 can be gleaned from Tax Declaration No. 00485 which was appended to the amended complaint.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as "Alfonso Salazar."
1.Rollo, pp. 19-32. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 17-18.
3.Spouses Orencia v. Vda. De Ranin, G.R. No. 190143, August 10, 2016, 800 SCRA 65, 74.
4. See Heirs of Spouses De Guzman v. Heirs of Bandong, G.R. No. 215454, August 9, 2017.
5.Department of Education v. Casibang, G.R. No. 192268, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 326, 336.
6. Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides that Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots. (Emphasis supplied)