FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 162992. March 24, 2014.]
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES OSCAR AND HAYDEE BADILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, BRANCH 11, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 162992 — NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES OSCAR AND HAYDEE BADILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, BRANCH 11, and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
Under review is the decision promulgated on August 29, 2003, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on October 23, 2000 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11 (RTC), in Malolos, Bulacan, 2 but deleted the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses awarded to the Spouses Oscar and Haydee Badillo (Spouses Badillo). The action was for forcible entry that the Spouses Badillo had brought in the Municipal Trial Court in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan (MTC) against the National Housing Authority (NHA) and Triad Construction and Development Corporation (Triad Construction).
The CA summarized the antecedents as follows:
In their complaint for "Forcible Entry with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction," private respondents, spouses Badillo, as plaintiffs, alleged that they are the owners and exclusive possessors of a parcel of land situated at Brgy. Gaya-Gaya, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The lot is registered in their name under TCT No. T-141809 (M) of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, Meycauayan Branch, particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 433-B-2-B of the subd. Plan Psd-03-046016 being a portion of Lot 433-B-2 LRC Psd-196244 LRC Psd-196244 Rec. No. ) situated in the Bo. of Gaya-Gaya, San Jose del Monte, Prov. of Bulacan. Bounded on the SW along line 1-2-3 by Lot 433-B-2-A of the subd. Plan on the NW along line 3-4 by Lot 433-B-1 LRC Psd-196244 on the NE along line 4-5 by Feeder Road on the SE along line 5 to 7-1 by Lot 433 Cad. 352 San Jose del Monte Cad., . . . containing an area of FIFTEEN THOUSAND (15,000) SQ.M. more or less . . .
They purchased the lot from spouses Leon and Eulalia Guilalas on August 23, 1991. After the registration of the corresponding deed of sale on November 21, 1991, they took possession of the land and constructed [a] barbed wire fence along its perimeter. For the purpose of constructing a residential subdivision, they filed with the Housing and band Use Regulatory Board an application for developmental and building permits. Immediately thereafter, the development of the site and road construction ensued. aTcHIC
On October 1994, petitioner NHA and co-defendant TCDC together forcibly dispossessed plaintiffs of the land by entering the same, destroying the barbed wire fence and the subdivision road.
Petitioner NHA, on the other hand, essentially maintained that subject property is part of the Tala Estate, Kalookan City, which the Government acquired in 1938 primarily for [use as a] leprosarium. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, dated April 26, 1971, a 538-hectare portion of the Tala Estate which included Lot Nos. 841, 921 and 922 have been reserved for housing, resettlement sites and related purposes under the control and administration of the then PHHC, now National Housing Authority. Lot Nos. 841, 921 and 922 of the Tala Estate, Kalookan were registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 843 pursuant to Decree No. 4974, G.L.R.O. Record No. 6563 issued on July 23, 1913 in the province of Rizal. Pursuant to its mandate, NHA bidded out the development of certain portions of Lots 921 and 922 of the Tala Estate and defendant Triad Construction was awarded to contract work for the development of Phase VIII, Package 13, Bagong Silang Resettlement Project (also known as Tala Resettlement Project). Plaintiffs allegedly based their cause of action on their belief that [the] lot where the construction works [sic] is being undertaken by defendant Triad Construction is covered by their certificate of title. 3
On February 1, 2000, the MTC rendered its judgment, 4 declaring that the Spouses Badillo had the right to possess the lot in question, holding and ruling as follows:
The land subject matter of this case which is Lot 433-B-2-B of the subdivision plan Psd-03-046016 was originally registered on April 4, 1973, in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan as Original Certificate of Title No. O-6105. From this original title, several transfer certificates of title ensued, such as TCT No. 194289 in the name of Leon Guilalas, plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest; and the latest transfer covered by TCT No. T0141809(M) in the name of Oscar and Haydee Badillo, the plaintiffs in this case.
The several documents presented in evidence by the defendants [NHA and Triad Construction and Development Corporation] to support their claim of ownership cover several lots but none of them refer to Lot 433-B-2-B. Significantly, on page 3 of defendants' Position Paper it is alleged that "a meticulous investigation of the lots surrounding Lot 433-B-2-B, particularly lots 433-B-1-B and 432-B-2 and 433-A-2-A, have all been subject of a court case. The same cannot be said, however, in the case of Lot 433-B-2-B which incidentally, is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title. It is a well-known doctrine that a Torrens title, as a rule, is irrevocable and indefeasible, and the duty of the court is to see to it that this title is maintained and respected unless challenged in a direct proceeding (Domingo v. Santos, Ongsiako, etc., 55 Phil. 361).
The declaration of real property and the payment of real property tax since 1991 by the plaintiffs; the fencing of the lot in question; the act of securing Development Permit and Building Permit from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board; the payment of the corresponding fees therefor; the subdivision survey of the lot and the preparation of the subdivision plan duly approved by the agencies concerned; the bulldozing, levelling of the land and laying out of subdivision roads and construction of foundations of residential units begun in 1991 until the first act of spoliation sometime in 1994, are indubitable acts of actual possession. In Republic v. CA, 261 SCRA 128, it was ruled, "although tax declarations on realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless they are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession." ISTECA
If at all, possession of the defendants may cover the lots surrounding Lot 433-8-2-B as faintly suggested in their Position Paper but does not cover the lot subject matter of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
From all the foregoing considerations and the court having satisfied itself that the statutory requirements had been complied with as to jurisdiction and the one year period for filing case [sic] of this nature, the Court is persuaded by preponderant evidence to rule and render judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs:
1. Ordering defendants to vacate plaintiffs' property and return possession thereof to the latter;
2. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the reasonable rental for their use and occupation of the premises in question in the amount of P10.00 per square meter per month beginning October 1994 until they finally vacate and turn over its possession to the plaintiffs[;]
3. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, P20,000 for attorney's fees and P20,000 for litigation expenses, considering that plaintiffs have been put to unnecessary expense and trouble to protect their interest, and under the circumstances, this award finds sanction in Article 2208[; and]
4. Ordering the defendants to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 5
The NHA filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2000. However, on May 23, 2000, the MTC issued its order for execution against the NHA and Triad Construction, 6 stating that the NHA did not pay the appellate docket fee pursuant to Section 5, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and that the NHA did not also file its supersedeas bond as required by Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The MTC issued another order on June 23, 2000 denying the NHA's motion to set aside the writ of execution and the notice of garnishment.
The NHA then filed in the RTC in Malolos, Bulacan a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus seeking the nullification of the May 23, 2000 and June 23, 2000 orders of the MTC, as well as the writ of execution (P-410-M-2000).
On July 19, 2000, the RTC, Branch 79, granted the petition of the NHA in P-410-M-2000, disposing as follows: 7
WHEREFORE, the order of the Trial Court dated May 23, 2000 is hereby annulled.
The writ of execution issued by the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan is also annulled.
Prohibiting the [Municipal] Trial Court from enforcing the writ, and commanding the Municipal Trial Court to transmit the records of the case to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan together with the Money Order of Two Hundred Pesos . . . as appellate docket fee and the alleged Supersedeas Bond . . . filed by petitioner NHA [and] received by the court on July 17, 2000 although dated July 14, 2000.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC finally received the records of the case from the MTC on August 17, 2000, and the appeal of the NHA was assigned to Branch 11 of the RTC (Civil Case No. 512-M-2000).
On October 23, 2000, the RTC (Branch 11) rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 512-M-2000, 9 viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as defendants are ordered to vacate plaintiffs' property and return the possession thereof to the latter and to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally P20,000.00 for attorney's fees and P20,000.00 for litigation expenses and to pay the costs are concerned.
SO ORDERED. 10
The Spouses Badillo appealed by petition for review in this Court to set aside the July 19, 2000 order of Branch 79 of the RTC. The Spouses Badillo filed another petition for review also in this Court to seek the review of the October 23, 2000 order of Branch 11 of the RTC. The petitions were respectively docketed as G.R. No. 143976 and G.R. No. 145846. The Court consolidated the petitions on October 17, 2001.
In the decision promulgated on April 3, 2003, 11 the Court denied the petitions, ruling that the NHA's failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the 15-day reglementary period was not a ground to dismiss its appeal because the Spouses Badillo had sued the NHA in the performance of its governmental function to provide mass housing; that in appeals from the MTC to the RTC, failure to pay the appellate docket fee within the 15-day reglementary period bestowed upon the RTC a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal; that the NHA had perfected its appeal upon its filing of the notice of appeal on February 22, 2000; that the MTC had thus acted without jurisdiction in issuing the May 23, 2000 order and the May 30, 2000 writ of execution; that despite its belated payment of the supersedeas bond, the NHA did not need to file the bond because it had been acting in the interest of the State, which was always presumed to be solvent; and that the RTC had correctly deleted the award of rent because there had been no evidence to support the award.
On the other hand, the NHA appealed by petition for review to the CA the decision rendered on October 23, 2000 by Branch 11 of the RTC (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 61981).
In its decision promulgated on August 29, 2003, 12 the CA denied the NHA's petition, but deleted the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses to the Spouses Badillo. It ruled that the property in litis was not situated in Tala Estate, Caloocan City, but in "Bo. of Gaya-Gaya, Municipality of San Jose del Monte, Province of Bulacan;" hence, the MTC had correctly exercised its jurisdiction. It declared that the Spouses Badillo had proven their prior actual possession of the property in litis; and that the NHA had no right in the property that had been registered in the names of the Spouses Badillo.
Issues
Hence, the NHA appealed, submitting the following issues, to wit:
A. Whether or not the subject property is found in Kalookan City to merit the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction or improper venue.
B. Whether or not [the] NHA has prior possession of the subject property under the doctrine of constructive possession.
C. Whether or not NHA has better title over the subject property for purposes of resolving the issue on possession. 13 AScHCD
Ruling
We deny due course to the petition for review on certiorari.
Anent whether the property in litis was situated in Caloocan City or not, we refer to the decision in Republic v. Guilalas. 14
Republic v. Guilalas is relevant. The February 1, 2000 decision of the MTC recognized Leon and Eulalia Guilalas (Spouses Guilalas) as the predecessors-in-interest of the Spouses Badillo. In its petition, the NHA pointed out that "the ownership or title over the subject property is still being litigated before the Court of Appeals under Civil Case No. C-12726." 15 Civil Case No. C-12726 concerned the complaint for cancellation of title brought by the Government against the Spouses Guilalas in the RTC in Caloocan City (RTC Caloocan), alleging that the Spouses Guilalas were "the registered owners of a 30,000 square meter parcel of land under TCT No. T-194289 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, designated as Lot 433-B-2 of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-196244, located at Barrio Gaya-Gaya, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan." 16 The RTC Caloocan dismissed the complaint on July 14, 1999. The Republic appealed to the CA (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 64867), which affirmed the RTC Caloocan's decision on August 14, 2003. The CA and the RTC both concluded that "based on the evidence submitted by the respective parties, it is apparent that [the spouses Guilalas'] lot is beyond the boundaries of the Tala Estate. Thus, outside the boundaries of the RTC Caloocan City." 17
The Republic then appealed to the Court, which affirmed the CA, stating thusly:
In the case at bar, [the' spouses Guilalas] sufficiently established from the evidence submitted that indeed, their property lies within the boundaries of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. Moreover, the pieces of evidence submitted by the [Republic] could not be made basis to determine their claim that [the spouses Guilalas'] property is within the boundaries of the Tala Estate, which is in Caloocan City, considering that even TCT No. T-34629 and T-34599 contain insufficient technical description to make it as bases of any sketch or plan of the said lot. Not even Proclamation No. 843, which is [the Republic's] basis for maintaining that the Marilao River is the northern boundary of its parcels of land, lacked the technical description of the area covered by it.
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the findings of fact of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, the property of the [spouses Guilalas] does not encroach the Tala Estate and correctly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, and not Caloocan City. This factual finding binds this Court and is no longer subject to review. Thus, absent a showing of an error of law committed by the court below, or of whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, or a demonstrable lack of basis for its conclusions, this Court may not disturb its factual findings. Moreover, well-established is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court. 18
Conformably with the foregoing, we hold that the MTC had jurisdiction over the action for forcible entry because the property in litis was located within the territorial jurisdiction of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, not Caloocan City.
The issue of possession raised by the NHA involves a question of fact that is not the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Hence, we decline to review the issue.
At any rate, the NHA admitted in its petition that the issue of possession was dependent upon the question of ownership. It claimed that the property in litis was part of the Tala Estate. However, the CA and the RTC already found and declared that the property in litis was not a part of the Tala Estate. Their findings were identical to those made by the Court in Republic v. Guilalas, supra. Clearly, the Tala Estate and the property in litis were separate and distinct from each other, rendering the NHA's constructive possession since 1938 irrelevant to the Spouses Badillo's physical possession of the property in litis since 1991. Accordingly, the Spouses Badillo had the better right to possess the property in litis.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 29, 2003; and ORDERS the National Housing Authority to vacate the lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-141809 (M) and to return the possession of the lot to the Spouses Oscar and Haydee Badillo.
No pronouncement on costs of suit. aSHAIC
SO ORDERED." REYES, J., took no part; ABAD, J., additional member per raffle dated May 8, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 41-54; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (later Presiding Justice, and Member of the Court, since retired), with Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente (retired) concurring.
2. Id. at 99-101; penned by Judge Basilio Gabo, Jr.
3. Id. at 42-44.
4. Id. at 71-81; penned by Judge Aznar D. Lindayag.
5. Id. at 79-81; bold underscoring added for emphasis; underline in the original.
6. Id. at 82.
7. Id. at 83-98; penned by Judge Arturo G. Tayag (later CA Associate Justice).
8. Id. at 98.
9. Id. at 99-101.
10. Id. at 101.
11. Badillo v. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976 & G.R. No. 145846, April 3, 2003, 400 SCRA 494; penned by Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Artemio V. Panganiban, with Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puno, Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Renato C. Corona concurring.
12. Supra note 1.
13. Rollo, p. 16.
14. G.R. No. 159564, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 221. On July 27, 2012, the Court remanded the records to the court of origin for execution of judgment.
15. Rollo, p, 28.
16. Republic v. Guilalas, supra note 15, at 223.
17. Id. at 226.
18. Id. at 230-234.