Monteroso v. Morado

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247534. June 28, 2021.]

JOEL MONTEROSO and LUKAS ANEMUS, *petitioners,vs. ANTONIO MORADO, substituted by MARY ROSE MORADO, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 June 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247534 (Joel Monteroso and Lukas Anemus v. Antonio Morado, substituted by Mary Rose Morado, et al.). — The petition 1 utterly lacks merit.

Foremost, Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover ownership of real property, the person claiming a better right must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land being claimed; and second, his title thereto. 2 In an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area, and boundaries thereof. Anent the second requisite, i.e., the claimant's title over the disputed area, the rule is that a party can claim a right of ownership only over the parcel of land that was the object of the deed. 3

Here, the Court of Appeals aptly found that petitioners Joel Monteroso and Lukas Anemus (petitioners) already made judicial admissions that the lot being claimed by respondent Antonio C. Morado (Antonio) and his children and the lot they are occupying are one and the same.

In his Complaint 4 dated April 4, 2014, under paragraph 2, Item I, Antonio indicated petitioners' circumstances, including their address, viz.:

2. Defendants are both of legal age, Filipinos, civil status unknown, and with residence at 5157 San Gregorio St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela City, where they may be served with summonses and other legal processes. 5

Petitioners admitted this allegation in their answer 6 dated May 2, 2014, thus:

1. Defendants admit paragraphs 1 and 2, Item I of the complaint save that with respect to the residence of Defendant Joel Monteroso, the truth of the matter being that said Defendant is not residing in the therein stated address. 7

Verily, petitioners admitted that except for Joel Monteroso, they reside on the property located at 5157 San Gregorio St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela City, or at least petitioner Lukas Anemus does.

Notably, in his complaint, under paragraph 1, Item II, Antonio averred that he is the successor-in-interest of the petitioners' property located at 5157 San Gregorio St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela City, to wit:

1. Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of Porfirio S. Tolentino, registered owner of a parcel of land, together with all the existing improvements thereon, located at 5157 San Gregorio St., Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela City, x x x 8

It is clear from the parties' respective allegations and admission, therefore, that the property Antonio and his children is claiming ownership to is the same property that is being occupied by petitioners.

It bears stress too, that in opposing Antonio's complaint, petitioners never contested the identity of the property, they merely argued that the sale to Antonio was purportedly unenforceable for being allegedly undated and not properly notarized, viz.:

19. Thus, not having acquired valid title over the subject property by virtue of the spurious Deed of Absolute Sale and Certificate of Absolute Sale, Plaintiff and his family could not be considered as the lawful owners of the same and could not validly dispossess the herein Defendants who have been in open, public, adverse, and continuous possession of the same for several years already x x x.

20. Defendants have been occupying and in possession of the subject property in an open, continuous, and adverse manner since 2005 when they had been allowed to occupy the property by the previous occupants of the same x x x. Thus, under the principle of tacking of adverse possession, Defendants continued the previous occupants' uninterrupted possession of the subject property in the concept of an owner. 9 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In sum, according to them, there was no valid basis for Antonio's claim of ownership. Nowhere in their answer did petitioners deny the identity of the property. In effect, petitioners already admitted the identity of the property. As the Court of Appeals keenly observed, petitioners never showed that their admission was made inadvertently or under some mistake of fact. 10

As ordained in Constantino v. Heirs of Constantino, Jr., a party who judicially admits a fact cannot later challenge the fact as judicial admissions are a waiver of proof; production of evidence is dispensed with. A judicial admission also removes an admitted fact from the field of controversy. Consequently, an admission made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to such party, and all proofs to the contrary or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by the party or not. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot subsequently take a position contrary of or inconsistent with what was pleaded. 11

More important, the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-013-2015000583 on February 17, 2015 in favor of Antonio and his children is a constructive notice to petitioners and the whole world that Antonio and his children are the owners of the subject lot.

All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that Antonio had successfully identified the subject property, and in consequently remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Though petitioners are deemed to have waived their right to present evidence before the trial court for having filed a demurrer to evidence pursuant to Section 1, Rule 33 12 of the Rules of Court, the trial court is not precluded from rendering a judgment on the merits pursuant to the Court's pronouncement in Claudio v. Sps. Saraza. 13

Nevertheless, considering that the complaint filed by Antonio is one for accion reinvindicatoria in which the assessed value of the subject lot is only P21,600.00, jurisdiction lies with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and not with the Regional Trial Court under Section 33 14 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, 15 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. 16 As such, this case should be remanded to MeTC-Branch 81, Valenzuela City.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 17, 2018 and Resolution dated May 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150789 are AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION. The case is REMANDED to the Metropolitan Trial Court-Branch 81, Valenzuela City for further proceedings with utmost dispatch.

SOORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* Lukas Anemos in some parts of the rollo.

1.Rollo, pp. 13-31.

2.VSD Realty & Development Corp. v. Uniwide Sales, Inc., 715 Phil. 578, 587 (2013), citing Spouses Hutchison v. Buscas, 498 Phil. 257, 262 (2005).

3.Del Fierro v. Seguiran, 670 Phil. 577, 589 (2011).

4.Rollo, pp. 62-65.

5.Id. at 62.

6.Id. at 79-90.

7.Id. at 79.

8.Id. at 62.

9.Id. at 85.

10.Rollo, p. 43.

11. 718 Phil. 575, 592 (2013), citing Alfelor v. Halasan, 520 Phil. 982, 991 (2006).

12. Section 1. Demurrer to Evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.

13. 767 Phil. 857, 873 (2015).

14. Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. — 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 in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

15. Otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980."

16. "AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980.'"