ARSENIO UY, PETITIONER, VS. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

Appeal by certiorari taken by petitioner from the decision
of the Court of Appeals in G. R. No. 29691-R affirming
in toto the one rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Rizal (Quezon
City Branch) in Civil Case No. Q-4319, ordering the therein defendant.  Arsenio Uy (peti­tioner herein) and all persons claiming under him
“to vacate the premises in question and to remove his house and other
constructions therefrom” and ordering, him
further “to pay the plaintiff J. M. Tuason and
Co., Inc. (respondent herein) the sum of P30.00 per month from August 1949
until the plaintiff is completely restored to the possession of the land in
question, as well as to pay the costs”.

Respondent is the registered owner of an extensive parcel of land
in Quezon City
covered by T.C.T. No. 42774 of the Register of Deeds of said city, issued on July 24, 1958. On or about August
1949 petitioner, without the consent of respondent, occupied a portion thereof
with an area of about one hundred square meters, the same being indicated as
Exhibit B-1 on the plan PCS-3824 (Exhibit B). 
On May 7, 1959
respondent filed against him an action for recovery of possession of the afore­mentioned
area and for damages.  In his amended
answer to the complaint, petitioner denied respondent’s title to the land in
question and claimed, further, that he was and had been in possession thereof
in good faith.

After due trial upon the issues thus joined, the court of origin
rendered the judgment mentioned here­tofore, later affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

In the Court of Appeals petitioner claimed that the court a quo
had no jurisdiction over the action; the area in question was not a portion of
plaintiff’s land, and (3) he was a possessor and builder in good faith.  All these issues were resolved by the Court
of Appeals against him.

In his petition for certiorari now before us he contends:  (1) that the Court of Appeals erred in
affirming the appealed decision of the court of origin because its decision was
premised on a misapprehension of facts; (2) that the Court of Appeals, in
deciding the case, departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceeding.

Both issues are entirely without merit.

In connection with the first – which raises a question of fact
not supposed to be reviewed by us petitioner’s real contention is that neither
the decision of the Court of First Instance nor that of the Court of Appeals
indicated what particular portion of the land consisting of six hundred square
meters occupied by him belongs to respondent and, therefore, is allegedly being
usurped by him.  Contrary to this
contention, however, the evidence clearly shows that what petitioner had been
occupying was only a portion of one hundred ‘square meters, and that the same
is clearly identified with the mark Exhibit B-1 on the plan PCS-3824 (Exhibit
B).

The second question raised by petitioner is merely a corollary to
the first.  Having arrived at the
conclusion that said first question is without merit, We
see no further need for the consideration of the second.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from being in accordance
with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.