Remulla v. Mupas

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246228. August 5, 2019.]

CARMELITO REMULLA AND HONORATA F. REMULLA, petitioners, vs.JESUS MUPAS, LORINDA MUPAS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 5, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 246228 (Carmelito Remulla and Honorata F. Remulla vs. Jesus Mupas, Lorinda Mupas, and all other persons claiming rights under them)

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated March 18, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147055.

On January 3, 2014, Carmelito Remulla and Honorata F. Remulla (Sps. Remulla) filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Jesus Mupas and Lorinda Mupas (Lorinda; collectively, Sps. Mupas). 4 They also alleged that they are the registered owners and possessors of a parcel of land located in Barangay San Jose, Tagaytay City, measuring approximately 548 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-13235. 5 In their Complaint, Sps. Remulla alleged that they are the actual possessors and occupants of the disputed property since 1994, when they were granted Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OT-904 pursuant to a free patent. 6 Further, Sps. Remulla maintained that Sps. Mupas sold a portion of the land covered by OCT No. OT-904 which caused the issuance of TCT No. T-13235 under their name. 7 They claimed to have continuously occupied the subject parcel of land and have regularly paid the real estate taxes thereon. On June 12, 2013, Sps. Mupas purportedly disturbed their possession by intruding into a portion of their property. 8 The fence Sps. Mupas constructed is allegedly located inside the perimeter of the property of Sps. Remulla and encroached the same, reducing the latter property by more than 200 square meters. 9 Sps. Mupas refused to vacate the subject property despite demand. 10

In their Answer, 11 Sps. Mupas claimed that the parents of Lorinda are awardees of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. OP-569 12 issued on October 24, 1980, and that before the grant of Free Patent No. 16746, Lorinda's parents had been in possession of the property, tilling and planting different crops since 1945. 13 When the property was subdivided among the siblings of Lorinda in May 2013, Lorinda was assigned Lot 3249-B-6 which adjoins the property of Sps. Remulla. 14 On June 12, 2013, they started fencing off the lot following the technical description indicated in their title. By December 2013, the lot was fenced off with hollow blocks. 15 Sps. Mupas argued that they merely exercised their possessory right over the property when it was fenced off, in accordance with the boundary limits delineated in the technical descriptions appearing in their title. 16 They also maintained that neither the parents of Lorinda nor Sps. Mupas sold any portion of their property to Sps. Remulla. They also pointed out that Sps. Remulla's TCT No. T-13235 was derived from OCT No. OP-904 while the title of Sps. Mupas was derived from OCT No. OP-569. 17

In a Decision 18 dated October 7, 2014, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tagaytay City, Branch 1 (MTCC) directed Sps. Mupas to vacate the premises, to restore possession thereof to Sps. Remulla, and to pay Sps. Remulla reasonable compensation in the amount of P500.00 monthly for the use and occupation of the subject premises until the same is vacated. 19

In ruling in favor of Sps. Remulla, the MTCC held that while Lorinda may hold a valid title over the property (OCT No. OP-569), she only had possession of the same on June 21, 2013. 20 The MTCC held that the twin elements of forcible entry were sufficiently alleged and proven because it was established that Sps. Remulla were in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and prior possession of the subject premises in the concept of bona fide owners since 1994 until such possession was interrupted on June 12, 2013, when Sps. Mupas built their fence. 21 The MTCC also gave credence to the tax declarations and the judicial affidavit of Geodetic Engineer Joel J. Hubac offered to prove prior physical possession of Sps. Remulla. 22

In an Order 23 dated January 26, 2016, the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 (RTC) rendered its decision declaring that the issue involved in the case is not recovery of possession but the overlapping of boundaries between the properties belonging to Sps. Remulla and Sps. Mupas. Instead of dismissing the case, the RTC took cognizance pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court. 24

Sps. Remulla filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 25 arguing that the case is one of forcible entry and not a boundary dispute. In an Order 26 dated July 13, 2016, the RTC denied Sps. Remulla's Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that the case involves a boundary dispute which must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria. Pre-trial was ordered to be scheduled. 27

In a Decision 28 dated August 30, 2018, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the RTC. 29 In affirming the ruling of the RTC, the CA found that Sps. Remulla failed to sufficiently allege and prove that Sps. Mupas employed force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth in allegedly occupying a portion of Sps. Remulla's property. 30 The CA agreed with the RTC that the conflict between the parties is beyond the competence of the MTCC to resolve because it is a boundary dispute affecting the ownership of the alleged encroached portion of the property. 31 The boundary line which separates the adjoining properties of the parties is in question and the correctness of the same is to be determined by evidence aliunde. For the CA, the alleged encroachment makes a case for a boundary dispute as the basis of all rights and claims depends upon where the boundary line lies. 32

The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration 33 of Sps. Remulla in a Resolution dated March 18, 2019. 34

In the present petition, Sps. Remulla maintain that the complaint before the MTCC sufficiently alleged and proved the twin requirements of a forcible entry case 35 and that the issue involved is not a boundary dispute but actual physical possession. 36

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to deny the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of Sps. Remulla to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.

Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by "a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth." 37 In Sarmienta v. Manalite Homeowners Association, 38 the Court ruled that:

In forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint, and prove, that he was in prior physical possession of the property in dispute until he was deprived thereof by the defendant by any of the means provided in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. 39

In this case, Sps. Remulla failed to prove by preponderance of evidence the jurisdictional facts required in a forcible entry case. We have scrutinized the parties' submissions, but found no sufficient evidence to prove their allegation of prior physical possession. Both parties claim to exercise possessory right over the disputed property as registered owners through their respective evidence of ownership. However, at this stage of the proceedings, we cannot determine with certainty whether there has been compliance with the exact metes and bounds of each property, as stated in the technical description of TCT No. T-13235 and OCT No. OP-569.

As correctly observed by the lower courts, the underlying issue that the parties seek to resolve in this case is not mere physical possession over the disputed property. This is a dispute between one who claims possessory right as a registered owner under TCT No. T-13235 and another who claims possession as an incident of ownership pursuant to OCT No. OP-569. Both parties claim to have conformed to the exact metes and bounds delineated in the technical descriptions appearing in their respective titles. Thus, the question to be resolved is whether the property claimed by Sps. Mupas forms part of the property of Sps. Remulla. This issue of encroachment encompasses the issue of legal possession and ownership, a subject matter beyond the scope of the MTCC. Thus, this is not a proper case of ejectment.

After finding that Sps. Remulla failed to make a case for ejectment, the Court finds it proper to remand this case to the RTC pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. Under the said provision:

Section 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. — If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. (n)

Hence, the RTC should take cognizance of the case. The RTC shall no longer try the case on the merits, but shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented in the lower court, without prejudice to the admission of the amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. 40

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The case is hereby ordered to be REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay City, Branch 18 for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-23.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring; id. at 26-34.

3.Id. at 35-36.

4.Id. at 53-56.

5.Id. at 58-59.

6.Id. at 53-54.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 54, 61-67.

9.Id. at 98.

10.Id. at 54.

11.Id. at 68-73.

12.Id. at 74-75.

13.Id. at 48, 69.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 69-70.

16.Id. at 70.

17.Id.

18. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Eduardo Cruz Solangon, Jr.; id. at 94-99.

19.Id. at 99.

20.Id. at 97.

21.Id. at 96-97.

22.Id. at 97-98.

23. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago; id. at 46-49.

24.Id. at 48-49.

25.Id. at 129-132.

26. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago; id. at 50-52.

27.Id.

28.Id. at 26-34.

29.Id. at 33.

30.Id. at 31.

31.Id.

32.Id. at 32.

33.Id. at 37-42.

34.Id. at 35-36.

35.Id. at 19-21.

36.Id. at 21-22.

37. RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Sec. 1.

38. 647 Phil. 53 (2010).

39.Id. at 61.

40.Encarnacion v. Amigo, 533 Phil. 466, 475-476 (2006).