THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256412. November 10, 2021.]
IMELDA VENTUCILLO, petitioner,vs. LARRY A. RAMOS, REPRESENTED BY LUISITA R. CASABUENA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256412 (Imelda Ventucillo v. Larry A. Ramos, represented by Luisita R. Casabuena). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and
(2) NOTE respondent's Comment/Opposition dated July 22, 2021 to the petition.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated October 26, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 114347, which denied petitioner's appeal and the Resolution 3 dated March 11, 2021 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Facts of the Case
This case originated from a complaint 4 for Accion Publiciana and/or Accion Reivindicatoria with Damages filed by respondent against petitioner Imelda Ventucillo, together with Angelita Ramos, Isidro Briones, and Ben and Violate Calma (collectively, Ventucillo, et al.) and all other persons claiming under them and/or acting for or in their behalf before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 32, in Civil Case No. 17137610.
Respondent Larry A. Ramos is the registered owner of four parcels of land located at 438 Francisco St., Tondo, Manila covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844, with a total area of 201.20 square meters. 5
The subject properties were once covered by a single title — TCT No. 270378 — registered in the name of Spouses Proceso and Cristobal San Jose (Spouses San Jose). Spouses San Jose mortgaged their property to Alma Subrabas (Alma) as a security for their obligation of P600,000.00 which they incurred from Alma. This mortgage was annotated at the back of TCT No. 270378 under Entry No. 6180. Spouses San Jose failed to pay their obligation to Alma upon its maturity.
On April 6, 2010, Alma assigned her rights through a Deed of Assignment of Rights, 6 including her right to foreclose the property, to respondent for a consideration of P2,800,000.00. On even date, Alma and respondent executed a Deed of Absolute Sale 7 over the property. When Spouses San Jose failed to pay their obligation, Alma, through Luisita R. Casabuena (Luisita), extra judicially foreclosed the property and she was declared the highest bidder. Spouses San Jose failed to redeem the property. Alma, through Luisita, consolidated her title over the property. TCT No. 270378 in the name of Spouses San Jose was cancelled and a new title, TCT No. 002-2015000317, was issued in the name of Alma. Respondent thereafter caused the annotation of the Deed of Sale between him and Alma at the back of TCT No. 002-2015000317. Said TCT was thereafter cancelled by TCT No. 002-2015001114 in the name of respondent. CAIHTE
Respondent subsequently caused the subdivision of the property into four lots, causing the issuance of TCT Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 in his name on November 28, 2016.
Respondent thereafter discovered that petitioner (and the other defendants in the complaint) are residing and in possession of the property by mere tolerance of the previous owner, without any legal right or juridical title. Despite demands, petitioner failed and refused to vacate the subject properties. Settlement before the barangay failed. A Certificate to File Action was issued by the Lupon in favor of respondent.
In their Answer, 8 Ventucillo, et al., denied that the respondent is the registered owner of the property. They, however, admit ownership thereof by Spouses San Jose. They claim that they are tenants of the property since 1950s and religiously paid their monthly rentals to Spouses San Jose.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
After trial on the merits, the RTC issued a Decision 9 dated August 19, 2019, the dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Finding the plaintiff (herein respondent) to be the lawful owner of the subdivided lots covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Numbers 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844;
2. Ordering the defendants to vacate the property located at 440 Francisco Street, Tondo, Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Numbers 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 and surrender peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff;
3. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) as and by way of attorney's fees and the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED. 10 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC found the testimonial and documentary evidence of respondent sufficient, clear and competent in establishing absolute ownership of the land where the houses of Ventucillo, et al., stand. The survey plans, prepared upon respondent's request and approved by the Director of Lands, respondent's tax declarations over the four properties registered under his name, are overwhelming evidence of his ownership over these properties. The physical possession of Ventucillo, et al., was neither under the claim of ownership nor with juridical title. Thus, they are mere usurpers of the land without any right of possession to be protected by law. Ventucillo, et al., failed to prove their right of possession to the land. At most, what they have proven is their ownership over the house which was built on the land previously owned by Spouses San Jose.
Ventucillo, et al., moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Order dated October 10, 2019. Respondent's motion for partial execution pending appeal was likewise denied for insufficiency of its grounds.
Ventucillo, et al., filed an appeal to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 11 dated October 26, 2020, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. It affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC by deleting the award of attorney's fees. The CA held that respondent was able to sufficiently establish the identity of the subject properties by the presentation of pertinent titles and deeds describing the area and boundaries of the subject properties, transfer of titles from Spouses San Jose to respondent as evident on the face of the titles, and that the subject properties refer to the same property covered by TCT No. 270378 originally owned by Spouses San Jose, which was admitted by petitioner to be the very same property presently occupied by them. Violeta Calma testified that the property they are presently occupying is the same property mortgaged by Spouses San Jose to Alma, which was later acquired by respondent.
With respect to the house built on the property previously covered by TCT No. 270378, the CA ruled that Ventucillo, et al., cannot be considered as builders in good faith who are entitled to the reimbursement for the value of the structures. A tenant cannot be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no pretension to be owner. Besides, the contention of Ventucillo, et al., that they are builders in good faith was only raised for the first time of appeal.
According to the CA, from the time Spouses San Jose lost their ownership over said property, Ventucillo, et al., are considered mere usurpers of the land without any right of possession to be protected by law as against the new owners who acquired said property. It cannot be said that their occupation of the said property was by mere tolerance of the new owners who successively acquired the same from Spouses San Jose.
The CA deleted the award of attorney's fees for failure of the RTC to show that the circumstances in this case fall under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.
Ventucillo, et al., moved for reconsideration but it was denied in the Resolution 12 dated March 11, 2021.
Proceedings Before This Court
Only petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45). DETACa
Petitioner's arguments
Petitioner argues that respondent failed to establish that Ventucillo, et al., are occupying the subject property. She claims that it was palpable mistake on her part to make an admission that she is occupying the property owned by respondent. She does not have the qualification to determine the metes and bounds of properties. Hence, she is not in a position for certain whether the property she occupies is within the boundaries of the property purportedly owned by the respondent. Petitioner asserts that the failure of the geodetic engineer to testify of the survey plan that he prepared rendered the document mere hearsay and without probative value. Also, respondent failed to establish the identity of the property with certainty. 13
Issue
The issue is whether the CA correctly affirmed the Decision of the RTC declaring respondent as the lawful owner of the subject properties and ordering petitioner to vacate the same.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied. The CA committed no reversible error in affirming the Decision of the RTC granting respondent's complaint and deleting the award of attorney's fees for lack of basis.
Respondent's complaint is an action reivindicatoria as he alleges ownership over the subject property and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is apparent in respondent's complaint that he filed the action to recover possession by virtue of TCT Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 registered in his name.
Accion reivindicatoria is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. 14 To successfully maintain an action to recover ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and second, his title thereto. 15 Both were duly proved by respondent.
Contrary to petitioner's argument, respondent was able to establish the identity of the land. That the property being claimed by respondent is the same property being occupied by petitioner was established not only by petitioner's admission that it is the same property they are occupying, but also by a trace back made upon the TCTs of respondent to its predecessor title, TCT No. 270378, Spouses San Jose's title, the former owner of the property being occupied by petitioner.
The CA painstakingly made a trace back of respondent's TCT Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 to its predecessor title, TCT No. 270378 in the name of Spouses San Jose. From TCT No. 270378 registered in the name of Spouses San Jose, it was cancelled by TCT No. 002-2015000317 in the name of Alma Subrabas. Spouses San Jose mortgaged the property to Alma who extra judicially foreclosed the property after the Spouses' failure to pay their obligation. Alma consolidated the title in her name after the lapse of the redemption period. Alma sold the property to respondent as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. TCT No. 002-2015000317 in the name of Alma was cancelled and TCT No. 002-2015001114 was issued in the name of respondent. To subdivide the property, a survey was conducted by a qualified geodetic engineer. TCT No. 002-2015001114 was subdivided in four lots resulting in the issuance of TCT Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 in the name of respondent. The technical description contained in TCT No. 270378 is the same as that stated in TCT No. 002-2015000317 in the name of Alma and TCT No. 002-2015001114 in the name of respondent.
TCT Nos. 002-2016003841, 002-2016003842, 002-2016003843, and 002-2016003844 all indicate that the property is a portion of Lot 5, PCS-2924; that the certificate is a transfer from TCT No. 002-2015001114; and that the annotation regarding encumbrances has been copied from TCT No. 270378/T-1617.
The issue as to the non-presentation of the geodetic engineer had been addressed by the RTC when it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. As held by the RTC, the Verification Survey Plan, PSO-E2016 004831, contains the approval of the Officer-in-Charge/administrator of the Land Registration Authority which signifies the technical correctness of the land they plotted in the said plan. 16
Petitioner cannot now belatedly claim that she made a palpable mistake when she admitted that she is occupying the same property being claimed by respondent. She need not be qualified to determine the metes and bounds of properties to know that what she is occupying was the land owned by Spouses San Jose.
Further, respondent was able to establish his ownership over the subject properties, presenting his TCTs registered in his name. He presented a Deed of Sale executed by Alma in his favor, which he annotated at the back of Alma's title, leading to the issuance of the four TCTs in his name. He likewise offered as evidence the tax declarations issued in his name and the official receipts of payment of real estate tax issued by the City Treasurer of Manila.
It is well settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. The Torrens title serves as conclusive evidence of ownership of the property described therein. Moreover, the age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. 17 Respondent, being now the registered owner, is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property including the right to possess the same.
Petitioner cannot be considered as a builder in good faith for she was a mere tenant of the land of Spouses San Jose. Moreover, she failed to establish that when she constructed her house it was with the knowledge and consent of Spouses San Jose. She could not have built the house on the subject property in the concept of an owner. 18 ATICcS
The deletion of attorney's fees is maintained for lack of legal basis.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 26, 2020 and the Resolution dated March 11, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 114347 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybanez and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.; id. at 30-64.
3. Id. at 66-72.
4. Id. at 73-81.
5. Id. at 86-97.
6. Id. at 99.
7. Id. at 101.
8. Id. at 120-122.
9. Penned by Presiding Judge Thelma Bunyi Medina; id. at 273-285.
10. Id. at 280.
11. Supra note 2.
12. Supra note 3.
13. Rollo, pp. 17-22.
14. Heirs of Yusingco v. Busilak, 824 Phil. 454, 461 (2018).
15. Spouses Hutchison v. Buscas, 498 Phil. 257, 262 (2005).
16. Rollo, pp. 282-283.
17. Heirs of Cullado v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212933, July 30, 2019.
18. Spouses Belvis, Jr. v. Spouses Erola, G.R. No. 239727, July 24, 2019.