TERESITA VILLALUZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND MARTIN SANCIEGO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

Petition for review of the decision* of the Court
of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC of Trece Martires City
ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises and to pay attorney’s fees.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

On October 6, 1986, the petitioner Teresita Villaluz filed a
forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 295) against private respondent Martin
Sanciego, Jr., the owner of Rio Azul Beach Resort, alleging that a resurvey of
her adjacent property showed that 3,320 square meters thereof on the
northwestern portion was occupied by the Rio Azul Beach Resort. After trial, the MTC decided the case in
petitioner’s favor. A writ of execution
was issued pending appeal and Deputy Sheriff Joaquin Espeneli delivered the
physical possession of the contested area to the petitioner.

Sometime in March, 1989, however, by means of force,
intimidation, strategy and stealth, the petitioner took possession of another
161,791 square meter area of the Rio Azul Beach Resort, together with 287
shades, 2 units of comfort rooms, a 5,000 gallon water tank, 256 coconut trees
and 68 talisay trees planted by the private respondent. Thus, private respondent also filed a
forcible entry case against the petitioner (Civil Case No. 310). The MTC dismissed said complaint. On appeal, however, the RTC rendered a
decision ejecting the petitioner from the premises. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, thus:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, (1) the decision of the Municipal Trial
Court appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; (2) the defendant is
ordered: (a) to vacate the premises of
the remaining uncontested area of 16,791 square meters more or less of Phase I
of Rio Azul Beach Resort situated at Sitio Postema, Barangay Sahud-Ulan,
Municipality of Tanza, province of Cavite together with any and all persons claiming
any right under her; (b) to pay the plaintiff the sum of P4,000,000.00 by way
of reimbursement for the improvements of the plaintiff, destroyed by the
defendant in the process of forcible entry; (c) to pay the plaintiff the amount
of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00), a day from March 1989 until defendant
vacates the premises and the possession thereof is fully restored to the
plaintiff; (d) to pay the sum of P3,000.00 for attorney’s fees; and (e) to pay
the costs.

SO ORDERED.” (p. 8, Rollo)

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the decision of the RTC but deleted the damages awarded in the amounts of
P4,000,000.00 and P2,000.00 a day from March, 1989, finding no basis therefor.

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the reversal of that
portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering her to vacate the
premises and to pay attorney’s fees, alleging that the same is not supported by
substantial evidence and is contrary to law and applicable jurisprudence.

In a previous case decided by the Court of Appeals (Francisca
Trias, et al., vs. Martin Sanciego, et al., CA-G.R. CV No. 13801), said Court
ruled that other areas of the Rio Azul Beach Resort encroached on titled
properties of the Triases. On that
basis, the petitioner contends that private respondent has no right to operate
the beach resort on the 16,791 square meter – area subject of the case below as
the same is not foreshore land (as claimed by private respondent) but private
land of the Triases.

We find no merit in the petition.

Whether or not private respondent has the right to operate a
beach resort is not a relevant issue in the instant case for the purpose of an
action of forcible entry and detainer is that regardless of the actual
condition of the title of the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession
shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror. In affording this remedy of restitution, the
object of the statutes is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal
disorder which would ensue from the withdrawal of the remedy x x x Thus, persons believing themselves entitled
to the possession of the property should not take the law into their own hands
to gain possession, rather should seek from the proper authorities, legal
remedies established therefor. (Drilon
vs. Gaurana, et al., 149 SCRA 342, Batioco vs. Quintero, et al., 59 Phil. 312;
Pitargue vs. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5).

Records disclosed that the property subject of the case below is
foreshore land, hence part of the public domain. The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated January 30, 1991,
stated thus:

“It is not disputed that the property in litigation is a
foreshore beachland and part of the Manila Bay and hence classified as public
land. The said property was duly
investigated by the District Land Officer, Jose C. Apostol, who issued the
following certification:

‘That there has been no incursion into nor encroachment upon the
alleged private property of the deceased Fabian Jamias, herein petitioner’s
predecessor-in-­interest (Lot No. 1 532, S.C. Malabon Estate) that could be
directed against applicant Sanciego for what is actually bulldozed and proposed
to be developed into a beach resort is not the said property of Jamias
but its adjacent foreshore?beachland.’” x x x (p. 42, Rollo)

Preponderance of evidence also showed that private respondent has
been in open, continuous, peaceful, exclusive and adverse possession of the
subject land since 1980; that he has introduced improvements therein; that he
applied for a permit to occupy subject property (believed to be foreshore land)
to operate the same as a beach resort; and that he is a bona fide
holder of Revocable Permit Application No. (IV-2)74 issued by the Bureau of
Lands. (Decision, p. 7)

The petitioner, on the other hand, does not appear to have any
interest on the subject property, having been awarded the physical possession
of the 3,320 square meter area of that portion of the Rio Azul Beach Resort
claimed by her as her own in another forcible entry case. Moreover, in her partial motion for
reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals (p. 54, Rollo)
and in her petition for review of the same before this Court, (p. 14, Rollo),
the petitioner asserted that said 16,791 square meter area of the Rio Azul
Beach Resort belongs to the Triases.

In view of the foregoing, private respondent, who is in actual
occupation and peaceful possession of said property subject of the case below,
including the improvements thereon, has a better and superior right to the
possession thereof and is entitled to protection under the law. As held by the Supreme Court in Pitargue vs.
Soulla, supra:

“A bona fide applicant of public land, who is in
occupation and in peaceful possession thereof and who has introduced
improvements can file an action for forcible entry against one who deprives him
of the possession thereof, though plaintiff’s application is still under
investigation and has not yet been granted.” (p. 43, Rollo)

Finally, it is a cardinal rule that save for certain exceptions,
findings of facts of the appellate tribunal are binding on Us. Not one of said exceptions can apply to this
case. (Cathay Insurance Co. vs. CA, 151
SCRA 711)

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed
decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Nocon, J., on leave.

* Penned by Associate Justice
Nicolas P. Lapena, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Consuelo Y.
Santiago and Cancio C. Garcia.