G.R. No. 98182. March 01, 1993
PASTOR FERRER, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE C. VINLUAN, ROSARIO FERRER, RAYMUNDO VINLUAN, EMILIA ZARATE, ANGELES LOPEZ, GAVINO VINLUAN, MARIO ZARATE, CRISPULO…
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
annul: a) the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated February 20, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 20042 entitled, “Jose
C. Vinluan, et. al. vs. Pastor Ferrer” which set aside the decision dated
September 5, 1988, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
which dismissed plaintiffs’ (private respondents herein) action (Civil Case No.
16461) to recover the ownership and possession of a parcel of land with damages.
The petitioner, a co-owner of a fishpond covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 54061, has been in possession for more than twenty
(20) years of a 330-square-meter residential lot (hereinafter referred to as
the LAND IN DISPUTE) described in his Tax Declaration No. 409 as:
“A parcel of land (residential) situated at Biec West,
Binmaley, Pangasinan, containing an area of 330 sq. meters, more or less. Bounded on the North by Carolina Ferrer; on
the East by River; on the South by River; on the West by Marcelino Ferrer. Declared under Tax Declaration No. 653 (as
new) and is assessed at P690.00. Said
Tax Dec. No. 653 was in turn cancelled on January 3, 1985 by Tax Dec. No. 409 with an assessed value of P1,000.00 (par.
6, Complaint).” (p. 17, Rollo.)
On January 19, 1987, the private respondents who are the heirs of
the late Crispulo Vinluan, filed a complaint for recovery of the ownership and
possession of the LAND IN DISPUTE on the ground that it allegedly forms part of
their ten-hectare fishpond in Barangay Biec, West Binmaley, Pangasinan. Said fishpond is particularly described as
follows:
“A parcel of fishpond containing an area of 108,616 sq.
meters, more or less. Bounded on the
North by Luis Floro, Juan Lopez, Isidro Bautista & Eleuterio Perez; on the
East by Cirilo Zamora; on the South by Juan Rosario, Eugenia de Leon, Isidro
Fernandez, and Mauro Rosario; and on the West by Fausto Meneses, Pedro Ferrer
and Agno River (Agdao River). Declared
under Tax Dec. No. 77 and is assessed in the amount of P55,090.00 for the
current year. It is covered by Plan Psu-26666
duly approved by the Bureau of Lands in the name of the Heirs of Crispulo Vinluan. (par. 2, complaint).” (pp. 17-18, Rollo.)
The private respondents alleged in their complaint that on
January 2, 1982, Pastor Ferrer, son of Pedro Ferrer, without their knowledge
and in evident bad faith, declared a portion of their property in his name for
taxation under Tax Declaration No. 409; that in March, 1983, he filled up a part
of their fishpond with earth and built his house thereon; that despite repeated
demands, he failed and refused to move out of the land; and that his occupancy
of the DISPUTED LAND obstructs the steady flow of water and unhampered supply
of “sari-sari” fishes from the Agdao River into their fishpond.
By way of special and affirmative defenses, Ferrer alleged that
he had been in actual, adverse, public and continuous possession of the
DISPUTED LAND since 1956 until the present; that he is the owner of the land by
accretion; and that private respondents’ right of action has prescribed.
During the pendency of the case and with leave of court, the
private respondents caused a relocation/resurvey to be made of their property
under Plan Psu-26666.
On July 14, 1987, Geodetic Engineer Leonardo de Vera submitted
his Report (Exh. “P”) which states that petitioner’s house is within
the boundaries of private respondents’ property as described in Plan Psu-26666
and stands on the southwestern part of the same; that petitioner placed a
concrete monument between corner 44 and 45 of Exhibit “B”, claiming
that the same marks the boundaries of his 1,276-sq.-meter portion covered by
TCT No. 54061. The court concluded that
petitioner encroached upon 1,328 square meters of private respondents’
property under Plan Psu-26666.
On September 5, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision in
favor of the petitioner, the decretal portion of which states:
“Thus, the Court has arrived at its conclusion and so holds
that plaintiffs’ evidence is bereft of any evidence supporting their prayer
that they are the owners of the land described under paragraph 6 of their
complaint as part of the land described under paragraph 2 of said complaint.
“In fine, plaintiffs failed to establish the cause of action
against defendant.
“ACCORDINGLY, the complaint filed by plaintiffs against the
defendant is hereby DISMISSED with costs against the plaintiffs.
“Defendant’s counterclaim and claim for damages, for
insufficiency of evidence, are hereby DISMISSED.” (p. 15, Rollo.)
On February 20, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the trial court. The dispositive
portion of the judgment reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is
reversed and set aside, and a new judgment is hereby rendered ordering appellee
within thirty (30) days from the finality of this decision (1) to vacate and
restore to the appellants the possession of the land in question with an area
of 330 square meters, described in paragraph 6 of the complaint, and also the
increased area of 1,071 square meters,
more or less, claimed by him; (2) to remove his house from appellants’ land;
and (3) to pay the costs.” (pp. 26-27, Rollo.)
On April 8, 1991, respondent appellate court denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition for review alleging that the appellate court erred in:
1. finding that the
petitioner’s claim over the DISPUTED LAND is not only erroneous but an
encroachment of private respondents’ property;
2. holding that private respondents’ action is
not barred by laches; and
3. holding that petitioner
could not have acquired title to the DISPUTED LAND by acquisitive prescription.
Those issues involve the boundaries or identity of the respective
properties of the parties, and the duration of their possession.
We find merit in the petition for review.
While this Court is not a trier of facts, still when the findings
of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial court,
or when the inference drawn by the Court of Appeals from the facts is
manifestly mistaken, this Court, in the interest of justice, may review the
evidence in order to arrive at the correct factual conclusion based on the
record (Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 191 SCRA 411).
After a careful review of the entire records of this case, we
find the trial court’s findings to be supported by substantial evidence.
A review of the evidence reveals that the DISPUTED LAND is admittedly
separated from the fishpond of the Vinluans by the Agno or Agdao River, which
is the Western boundary of said fishpond, hence, the DISPUTED LAND is not a
part of the fishpond of the Vinluans. The following observations of the trial court are pertinent:
“It is worthwhile to note that Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 54061 in the name of Pastor Ferrer, et al., covering a parcel of fishpond
is bounded on the SE by a creek, known as Sisilien River. The 330 square meters in litigation is
southeast of said fishpond covered by TCT No. 54061, and a part of the
creek. This was affirmed by plaintiff’s
witness, Surveyor Leonardo de Vera in his testimony on August 17, 1987, Pages
5, 26 and 27.
“’Atty. Vinluan
Question: You stated last time that you traversed from
corner 43 to point 44 immediately west of the
said corner, what did you find there?
Leonardo de Vera
Answer: Water, sir.
Q: What is that water about?
A: Water going to the fishpond of Mr. Vinluan,
sir.
Q: What I mean is, what is the boundary on the west
A: Water sir.
Q: What is the name of that water?
A
: Sisilien River, that is according to
the people but what is actually placed
in the plan is Agno River.
Atty. Palma
Question: From point 43 to 44 there is no dike, according to your testimony
in direct, is that correct?
Engr. Leonardo de Vera
Answer: There is no dike sir.
Question: You said the body of water adjoins the Agdao River, is that
correct?
Answer: Yes sir.
Question: In other words, that body of water from point 43 to 44 is on the same level of that water of Agdao River,
is that what you mean?
Answer: Yes sir, the same water.
Question: And it is the very portion where the defendant Pastor Ferrer
occupies, is that correct?
Answer: Between 42 and 43 where the house of the defendant is located sir.
Question: But his possession extend up to point 44 as
shown by your shaded portion?
Answer: Yes sir.
Question: According to the title which you made as
reference in your relocation survey, the TCT No. 50461 in the name of Pastor
Ferrer et al., southeast of this title is a creek which is 6 meters wide and
this refers to body of water from point 43 to 44 as you mentioned a while ago?
Answer: Yes, sir, body of water.
“It is therefore clear that the claim of plaintiff Jose
Vinluan that 300 sq. meters is within their plan is not only erroneous but an
encroachment, the very reason why their land is not yet titled up to the present.
“Moreover, the testimonies of plaintiffs and their witnesses are
contradictory and mere illusions.
“Furthermore, considering the testimony of defendant Pastor
Ferrer, his possession over the land in question is for almost 30 years.” (pp. 13-14, Rollo.)
The fact that the DISPUTED LAND is not a part of the fishpond of
the late Crispulo Vinluan, is established not only by testimonial but also
documentary evidence of the petitioner. The description of the DISPUTED LAND in Ferrer’s tax declaration and the
description of Vinluan’s fishpond in their tax declaration show that the Agno
or Agdao River is the Western boundary of Vinluan’s fishpond and it is
the Eastern boundary of the 330-square-meter lot claimed by Ferrer. In other words, the DISPUTED LAND is
separated from Vinluan’s fishpond by the Agdao or Agno river. Furthermore, the claim of the Vinluans was
eroded by Jose Vinluan’s inability to recall the exact year when Pastor Ferrer
commenced his usurpation of the DISPUTED LAND by constructing his house
thereon. In contrast, the petitioner testified in a straightforward manner
that he has possessed the DISPUTED LAND for almost 30 years.
The factual conclusion and finding of the trial court that
the DISPUTED LAND belongs to Ferrer, not to the Vinluans, is entitled to great
weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless for strong and cogent
reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine real
evidence as well as to observe the demeanor of witnesses who testify in the
case (Macua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 155 SCRA 29).
Finally, the trial court observed that the private respondents
and their predecessors-in-interest had never possessed the DISPUTED LAND, much
less asserted their claim thereto for a considerable length of time. The petitioner and his father, Pedro Ferrer,
before him had been in continuous possession for more than 30 years in the
concept of an owner, before the property was registered on March 15,
1965. When the private respondents
filed their complaint on January 19, 1987, another 22 years had elapsed. Whatever rights the private respondents may
have had in the DISPUTED LAND, were lost through laches and prescription. In Caragay-Layno vs. Court of Appeals, 133
SCRA 718, this Court ruled that the failure of the deceased or his
predecessors-in-interest to take steps to assert any rights over the DISPUTED
LAND for 20 years from the date of registration of the title was fatal to their
cause of action on the ground of laches. The trial court therefore correctly dismissed the private respondents’
complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 20042 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the decision dated
September 5, 1988 of the trial court, is REINSTATED. This decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.