IRENE CALIP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELEUTERIO RILLERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
COSICO, J.:
On appeal is the Decision, dated November 7, 2003, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3, rendered in Civil Case No. 5155-R, entitled “Irene Calip, Plaintiff v. Eleuterio Rillera, Defendant”.
In an action for Recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages, filed by Irene Calip against defendant Eleuterio Rillera, the trial court found merit in the plaintiff’s complaint, and accordingly awarded possession of the disputed parcel of land to her, and ordered the defendant to vacate the same, and to pay various damages to the plaintiff.
The dispositive portion of the appealed decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court rules in favor of plaintiff Irenea Calip dela Cruz. Defendant Eleuterio Rillera or his agents are hereby ordered to vacate the subject lot immediately and to cause the demolition of his illegal structure and other improvements on the same, unless plaintiff is willing to buy the said structure and other improvements. The right to possession over the said lot is given to the plaintiff. Defendant is hereby further ordered to pay Actual Damages in rentals from 1989 to present until defendant vacates the subject lot at Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) Monthly rental; Moral Damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), and Attorney’s Fees of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), plus costs of suit.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.” (p. 507, Records)
The Facts
Records show that plaintiff Calip filed her Complaint with the lower court on February 5, 2002, alleging, inter alia, that she is the owner of a 283 square meter portion of residential land, situated at Engineer’s Hill, Section C, Baguio City, specifically, Lot 24 SWO-1-01039. The same is covered by a Tax Declaration in her name, and was purchased by her from a certain Eduardo Acquien on January 9, 1990. Previously, the land was awarded to Acquien by the Building Services and Real Property Management, under RA No. 1361, as amended by RA No. 5941, pursuant to a letter of award, dated August 25, 1981. Plaintiff claims to have enjoyed actual, open, continuous, adverse, exclusive and notorious possession of the said land, religiously paying realty taxes thereon. Sometime in 1998, plaintiff discovered a residential structure made of concrete hollow blocks and G.I. sheets built on the subject property, which upon investigation, was constructed by the defendant. She also discovered that the defendant neither obtained nor applied for a building permit for the said structure. Upon application with the Office of the City Mayor, plaintiff obtained a Notice of Demolition of the defendant’s structure, but the same was not implemented, and defendant continues to maintain his illegal structure on the land. Thus, plaintiff is being deprived of beneficial use of the property, and of rentals amounting to P3,000.00 a month.
In his Answer, defendant Rillera denied the material allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, and alleged that he is the real owner of the land in dispute, and that he purchased the same from the lawful owner/transferee of the same, and had always been in legal possession thereof. Defendant recounted that on July 16, 1985, Eduardo Acquien, the original owner of the property, executed a Deed of Transfer of the parcel of land and all improvements thereon to Eladio Cosalan. Acquien also issued a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Cosalan for the latter to introduce improvements on the land such as fences. Thus, Cosalan proceeded to take possession and improve the land. In 1987, Cosalan executed a Deed of Transer of the land in favor of Juanito Rabanillo, but the transfer was eventually cancelled in 1991. At the time of the said cancellation of transfer, Cosalan executed another Deed of Transfer, this time in favor of Eufemia R. Tamo. In 1996, Tamo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the defendant, who was already occupying the said property as caretaker thereof since 1990. Since the property was sold by Acquien to Cosalan, there has always been a building standing on the property, which building was occupied by Cosalan, and by the defendant as caretaker. Contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, it was the defendant who has always been in possession of the property, even as early as 1982. Plaintiff is not the owner of the property, as the original owner, Acquien, had already sold the property to Cosalan in 1985, and therefore, had no authority to further sell the property to the plaintiff in 1990. Defendant also posed a counterclaim for damages against the plaintiff.
After issues were joined, the parties attended the pre-trial conference, where the parties proffered their respective witnesses and documentary evidence, although no compromise settlement was reached. The Court also set the dates for the trial of the case. (p. 143, Records).
Trial of the case proceeded, with the plaintiff presenting her witnesses, including herself, (TSN, November 14, 2002, March 26, 2003, March 27, 2003, April 2, 2003, April 15, 2003 and April 28, 2003), Rosa Fonacier, (TSN, April 28, 2003) and Weddie Pacio Acquien, (TSN, April 29, 2003). Plaintiff offered documentary exhibits from Exhibits “A” to “N”, with sub-markings.
According to plaintiff’s evidence, there was a Memorandum of Agreement in 1989 between Eduardo Acquien and plaintiff Calip, under which the latter engaged to purchase the subject property at Engineer’s Hill, Baguio city from Acquien. This was followed the next year by a Deed of sale between the spouses Eduardo and Lita Acquien and the plaintiff, documenting the sale of the subject property to plaintiff, who thus obtained ownership and right of possession over the subject property. At the time of the sale, the subject property was vacant, although it was fenced by the former owner Acquien. In 1996, plaintiff had delivered to the property 2 to 4 truck loads of gravel and sand, apparently attempting to construct a building thereat. However, defendant removed the said building aggregates from the property and proceeded to build his own building thereon. Plaintiff, on the other hand, made no move to resist the defendant’s encroachment, for fear that she may be shot, and for lack of resources to continue her plans.
Defendant, on the other hand, also testified for himself, (TSN May 7, 2003, May 8, 2003, May 15, 2003, May 23, 2003, May 26, 2003 and May 27, 2003). Defendant’s other witnesses were Juanito Rabanillo, (TSN June 4, 2003, June 5, 2003, June 6, 2003, June 10, 2003 and June 12, 2003) and Daniel Caoili, (TSN June 12, 2003). Defendant also offered documentary exhibits from Exhibits “1” to “10”, with sub-markings.
Defendant insisted that the property was sold by Eduardo Acquien to Eladio Cosalan in 1985, at which time, defendant was taken by the latter as a caretaker, together with Juanito Rabanillo. Juanito Rabanillo aspired to purchase the property from Cosalan under a Deed of Transfer, but the transaction was cancelled when Rabanillo failed to make complete payments. He gave way to Eufemia Tamo, who purchased the property from Cosalan. Although the property was sold by Cosalan to Eufemia Tamo, defendant Rillera was allowed to stay on the property. In 1996, Tamo sold the property to the defendant for P200,000.00, which the latter was able to raise with the help of his wife who worked abroad. Since the property was sold to Cosalan, there has always been a 3 x 3 meter building standing thereon, which building was owned by Cosalan, and occupied by defendant as caretaker of the property. Thus, it was the defendant who is the real owner and constant occupant of the property, and not the plaintiff.
A rebuttal witness in the person of Barangay Captain Cecilio Sales was supposed to appear for the plaintiff, but he failed to do so. Therefore, the case was submitted for decision based on the evidence already submitted.
The RTC’s Decision
Eventually, the lower court rendered its Decision on November 7, 2003. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan, who heard and received all the evidence and arguments for both parties, ruled in favor of the plaintiff Irene Calip, who presented the more preponderant claim of ownership and rightful possession of the land in dispute.
The RTC found that evidence presented by the plaintiff sustained the claim that the property was validly sold by the spouses Eduardo and Lita Acquien to the former. The credible testimonies of the plaintiff herself and Weddie Acquien, son of the spouses Acquien who was present when the Memorandum of Agreement was executed, identified and supported the genuineness and binding force of the deeds in favor of the plaintiff. Also, Eduardo Acquien had previously sued Eladio Cosalan, defendant’s predecessor, for forgery, although the case was dismissed on a technicality. The act of Acquien in suing Cosalan would indicate that he was repudiating the alleged transfer of the subject property to Cosalan. Furthermore, it was the plaintiff who continuously paid realty taxes on the subject property, while the defendant was not recognized by City Hall as owner or occupant. In fact, plaintiff was even able to secure a demolition order against the defendant, although for some reason, the same was not implemented.
But most importantly, the lower court was able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses of both parties, and it was convinced that the plaintiff’s witnesses were telling the truth. Plaintiff’s evidence was more credible, and her witnesses more believable, not only in their delivery, but in the inherent credibility of their testimonies as well. Defendant’s account as to how he acquired the property, on the other hand, does not inspire belief, and even point to the fact that defendant’s building was constructed only in 1996, upon purchasing the same despite the fact that he knew that the property was already sold to the plaintiff. Defendant, therefore, not being the rightful possessor, nor a possessor in good faith, must vacate the property in favor of the plaintiff, and remove his structure thereon, unless plaintiff wishes to buy it from him.
Defendant was also ordered to pay actual damages in the form of unpaid rentals at P5,000.00 a month, starting 1989 to the plaintiff. He was also ordered to pay Moral Damages at P100,000.00 and Attorney’s Fees worth P40,000.00 to the plaintiff.
The Appeal
Before us now, defendant Eleuterio Rillera ascribes error on the lower court. It is advanced that:
- THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACTS BROUGHT FORTH BEFORE IT;
- THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE APPROPRIATE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE GOVERNING THE PRESENT CASE.
Assailing the findings of the lower court, defendant-appellant reiterates that Eladio Cosalan, appellant’s predecessor, purchased the property from Eduardo Acquien in 1985, predating the sale to the plaintiff. At about this time, Cosalan asked appellant and Juanito Rabanillo to be his caretakers, and they proceeded to make improvements on the property. Plaintiff never performed any act that could show her possession of the property.
Nitpicking on the observations of the trial court, appellant tried to chip away at the veracity of its findings of facts and conclusions.
In sum, appellant maintained his position that he is the rightful owner and possessor of the subject property, having purchased the same from Eufemia Tamo, who is the transferee of the rights of Eladio Cosalan, who, in turn, purchased the property in 1985 from Eduardo Acquien. Plaintiff, is a mere pretender, and has no right in law and in fact to wrest ownership or possession of the subject property from the defendant.
The lower court’s assessment of the credibility of the parties’ witnesses and the weight it accorded to the parties’ evidence, are therefore being impeached by the appellant, and the Court’s task is to determine whether or not the appellant is correct in doing so.
The Court’s Ruling
After due study, the Court finds no merit in the appeal.
The Court, as reviewer of the findings of the lower court, finds no cogent reason to disturb the same, the same being supported by evidence appearing on record. The fact that the RTC deemed it proper to give due credit to one party’s evidence, more than it did the other party’s, is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the said court. The fact also that such findings clash with the beliefs and sensibilities of the appellant is, in itself, not enough reason to disturb the same, as judicial determinations and findings rise and fall depending on their own merits.
In civil cases, the required quantum of proof for a favorable decision is merely preponderance of evidence, which is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. (Go v. Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 145 [2001]).
The Court’s own review of the evidence on record, in any case, supports a conclusion favorable to the plaintiff’s cause.
It appears that the plaintiff and the spouses Acquien entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on June 20, 1989, (Exhibit “D”, p. 221 Records), wherein the spouses Acquien agreed to sell the subject lot to the plaintiff who wanted to buy the same, at the agreed price of P280,000.00. After the sale was completed, the spouses Acquien executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land (Exhibit “D-2”, p. 223, Records) in favor of the plaintiff on January 9, 1990, finally transferring ownership of the subject property to her. Eduardo Acquien also surrendered to her the building permit issued to him, (Exhibit “J”, p. 225, Rollo), along with a special power of attorney, (Exhibit “K”, p. 228, Rollo), allowing her to build her own house thereon. At the time plaintiff purchased the property, there was no structure standing thereon, (TSN, November 14, 2002, p. 19), although there was a fence that was constructed by Eduardo Acquien. Thereupon, the plaintiff declared the same for taxation purposes, and a tax declaration certificate (ARP No. 96-07036-87252 [1996]) was issued by the city assessor in her name, (Exhibit “B”, p. 218, Records). She also paid realty taxes on the same, to the exclusion of any other person, (Exhibit “C”, p. 220, Records). Tax declaration and payment of realty taxes, though not conclusive evidence of ownership, are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner. (Alcaraz v. Tangga-an, 401 SCRA 84 [2003]).
Plaintiff attempted to build a house on the property in 1996, and even placed building aggregates i.e., gravel and sand, on the property, but the same were taken away by the appellant, who also began constructing a building on the property. She tried to stop the appellant from constructing, but she was unsuccessful, (TSN, March 27, 2003, pp. 8-10). Also, she was prevailed upon by Rosario Fonacier, a friend and neighbor, not to continue with her plans, as she might get hurt. She was also threatened by the appellant, (TSN, March 27, 2003, pp. 5-7), and she was afraid she might get shot, (TSN, November 14, 2002, p. 25).
She went to the Office of the Mayor, for assistance, (TSN, March 27, 2003, p. 7), and the City Engineer’s Office issued a Demolition order, for the removal of the appellant’s structure, (Exhibit “G”, p. 224, Records). However, for some reason, the city government did not implement the order.
Plaintiff’s claim that the property was sold to her is bolstered by the testimony of Weddie Acquien, son of the original owner and vendor of the property, who was consulted by his parents about the sale, and was present when the memorandum of agreement with the plaintiff was being executed, (TSN, April 29, 2003, pp. 5 and 9). His testimony also supported the claim that the property was vacant when it was sold to the plaintiff, (Id., at 12).
The evidence for the plaintiff, particularly the testimony of the plaintiff and Weddie Acquien indeed appear credible and delivered in a straightforward manner.
In contrast, appellant’s testimony is shaky, and difficult to believe. Appellant, at times, does not even know the basis for his claim of title, (TSN, May 8, 2003, p. 3), or of the title of his predecessors, (Id., at 7-8), and finds it hard on occasion to answer the simplest question by counsel, and this was noted by the trial court judge, (TSN, May 7, 2003, p. 20; May 8, 2003, p. 4). This lends credence to the conclusion that the defendant is not telling the truth, as observed by the trial court in its decision.
In this connection, the established rule is that the determination of credibility of witnesses is properly within the domain of the trial court as it is in the best position to observe the witness’ demeanor and bodily movements. (Llanto v. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288 [2005]). The appellate court will not disturb such findings, absent a clear showing that some matter of importance was overlooked by the trial court.
It appears therefore that appellant’s occupation of the subject property is without legal basis. Plaintiff is the more favored possessor in this case, having duly proven by competent and convincing evidence that she is the lawful purchaser of the property from Eduardo Acquien when there was yet no occupant or building appearing thereon. After such purchase, she took action to possess the same by paying realty taxes thereon, and attempting to build her house, but was thwarted by appellant’s lawless occupation of the land, and by building his illegal structure thereon.
In sum, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the lower court, which are supported by matters appearing on record.
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the Decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Sundiam and Librea-Leagogo, JJ., concur.
[1] On cross-examination before the trial court, plaintiff admitted that her real first name is “Irenea”, while “Calip” is her maiden name, and her maiden middle name was “Buen”. The name of her first husband was “Felipe Tan”, while her estranged second husband’s name was “Henry dela Cruz”, (TSN, March 27, 2003, pp. 15-17).