Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > February 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25874 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL C. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25874. February 28, 1969.]

MANUEL C. CASTAÑEDA, as Chairman of the Land Tenure Administration, Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Et Al., Respondents.

P. C . Inopiquez for petitioner Manuel C . Castañeda.

Maximiano C . Asuncion for other petitioners.

Jose C . Colayco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; LAND TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION; FINDINGS OF FACT OF LAND TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION BINDING ON COURTS. — Findings of fact in a regular executive decision of the Land Tenure Administration affirmed by the Office of the President of the Philippines are binding on the courts, and may not be ignored or varied, in the absence of fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in the appreciation of evidence.

2. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; POSSESSION; GOOD FAITH ALWAYS PRESUMED; ACTUAL OCCUPANCY WITH TOLERANCE NOT BAD FAITH. — Good faith is always presumed. That Almando’s actual occupancy of Lot 13-A was tolerated by Mariano Vizcarra does not render it bad faith for the purposes of the law on landed estates (Commonwealth Act No. 539).

3. POLITICAL LAW; COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 539; SALE OF LANDED ESTATES TO OCCUPANTS; ACTUAL OCCUPANTS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN PURCHASE THEREOF. — Lot 13-A, the contested lot, was not the lot leased to Mariano Vizcarra, hence his daughter Juanita, the appellee herein, and Almando were, at most, on equal footing as to said lot. As Almando was the actual occupant, he is entitled to priority in its purchase from the Land Tenure Administration, the officer-in-charge of resale of private estates acquired by the government.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF FORMER TENANT’S CHILDREN TO ACQUIRE GREATER AREAS UNDER LAND TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION REGULATION SUBJECT TO BETTER RIGHT OF ACTUAL OCCUPANTS. — The right of former tenants, if they had children, to acquire greater areas under the LTA regulations must be understood to be without prejudice to better right of actual occupants. The latter could not be thrown out just to accommodate the families of others. Besides, Mariano Vizcarra never applied for the purchase of Lot 13-A; the one who did so was only his daughter Juanita, and as she was not a former lessee of the Baclaran Estate, nor the actual occupant of Lot 13-A she had no right to avail of the LTA regulation.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Petition to review the 3-2 decision of a Special Division of the Court of Appeals, in Case CA-G.R. No. 21861-R, declaring Juanita Vizcarra as entitled to preference over the late Simplicio Almando in the purchase of Lot 13-A of the Baclaran Homesite, acquired by the Government under Commonwealth Act No. 539. pred

The essential facts are thus stated by the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In 1947 the Baclaran Estate in Parañaque, Rizal, was acquired and subdivided into home lots by the government pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 539. Among the tenants on the estate was Mariano Vizcarra who was occupying Lot 21-B, measuring about 773 sq. m., which was subdivided into smaller lots among which is Lot 13-A (Block 62) with an area of 148 sq. m. It was applied for in the name of Mariano’s daughter Juanita Vizcarra and on April 23, 1948 the Rural Progress Administration executed in her favor an agreement to sell said lot. On May 3, 1948 the lot was paid in full; however, the RPA had failed to execute a final deed of sale as provided in the agreement to sell.

On July 6, 1954 Simplicio Almando, now deceased and substituted by his heirs, wrote a letter to the Bureau of Lands to which office the administration of the homesite was transferred, alleging that he, and not Juanita, was the occupant of Lot 13-A and in effect protesting the sale thereof to her. Almando requested for an investigation which was conducted, the parties presenting their respective evidence. Before the protest could be decided, the Land Tenure Administration was created to which were transferred the functions, powers and duties of the Bureau of Lands with regard to the private estates acquired by the government for resale. The protest was docketed in the new office as LTA Case No. 124. On the basis of the record forwarded to the LTA, its Chairman, Manuel E. Castañeda, rendered a decision wherein it was held that Juanita never occupied Lot 13-A and that it was Almando who was actually occupying the house standing thereon and therefore had the preferential right to purchase the lot. The agreement to sell in favor of Juanita was ordered cancelled and the amount she paid thereunder refunded and Almando was required to file his application for the lot. The decision was affirmed on appeal to the Office of the President.

Juanita, assisted by her husband, brought this action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch VII, Pasay City) to set aside the decision of the LTA Chairman and to compel him, or any other official with capacity to act in the premises, to execute in her favor an absolute deed of sale of the disputed lot. The parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the evidence they adduced during the investigation held in the Bureau of Lands and the court on the basis thereof likewise held that Almando (or his heirs) being the actual occupant, should be preferred in the purchase of the lot and accordingly entered judgment dismissing the action. Hence, this appeal by Juanita."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court of Appeals declared Juanita Vizcarra entitled to priority in the purchase of the disputed Lot 13-A, and reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, primarily on the basis that Almando was not an occupant in good faith. His motions for reconsideration having been rejected, Almando petitioned this Court for a review. We granted certiorari.

At the outset, it is well to note that the proceedings below were in the nature of a judicial review of a regular executive decision of the Land Tenure Administration affirmed by the Office of the President of the Philippines. They declared that Almando should be preferred in the purchase of the lot in question, on the basis of the following findings: (1) that Almando is the actual occupant of the lot; (2) that in 1945 he declared in his name for taxation purposes the house erected on the contested lot; (3) that Juanita Vizcarra never occupied the lot; (4) that the Vizcarras already purchased from the government other lots in the Baclaran Estate with a total area of 508 square meters, (5) that while Mariano Vizcarra (Juanita’s father) was formerly the lessee, and later the purchaser, of Lot No. 21-B of the Baclaran estate, "it does not appear that Lot 13-A (now contested), was formerly a part of Lot 21-B" (See Appendix, Appellant’s brief, pages XL-XLI).

The foregoing findings of fact are binding on the courts, and may not be ignored or varied, in the absence of fraud, imposition or mistake other than error of judgment in the appreciation of the evidence. 1 None are here shown.

Undoubtedly aware of such basic principle, the Court of Appeals sought to evade the effect of the administrative adjudication by declaring that, although an actual occupant, Almando was not a bona fide one because (a) he was not unaware of the superior right of another, as Mariano Vizcarra had also asserted ownership over the house that Almando declared for taxation purposes in 1945; (b) his house was placed on Lot 13-A with the consent and tolerance of Mariano, and (c) Almando had not objected to Juanita’s application for the purchase of the lot.

We do not find the conclusion of the Court of Appeals to be warranted by the record. Good faith is always presumed. That Almando’s actual occupancy of Lot 13-A was tolerated by Mariano Vizcarra, as averred, does not render it in bad faith for the purposes of the law on landed estates (Commonwealth Act No. 539); in fact, Mariano’s alleged tolerance is rendered doubtful by the fact that Lot 13-A was not a part of Lot 21-B leased to Vizcarra, as found by the executive authorities. As to the allegedly delayed action against the original award in favor of appellee Juanita Vizcarra, there is no showing on record when he learned of it for the first time.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The inescapable fact is that Lot 13-A, now contested, was not the lot leased to Mariano Vizcarra. Hence, Vizcarra and Almando were, at most, on equal footing as to said lot, and Vizcarra could not assert a better right thereon. As Almando was the actual occupant, he is entitled to priority in its purchase, and it was thus correctly decided by the executive officials. Furthermore, Vizcarra already had Lot 21-B in the Baclaran Estate and was not entitled to buy another.

Stress is laid on the right of former tenants, if they had children, to acquire greater areas under the LTA regulations. In the first place, any such right must be understood without prejudice to better right of actual occupants. The latter could not be thrown out just to accommodate the families of others. In the second place, Mariano Vizcarra never applied for the purchase of Lot 13-A; the one who did so was only his daughter, Juanita, and as she was not a former lessee of the Baclaran Estate, nor the actual occupant of Lot 13-A, she had no right to avail of the above-mentioned regulation. pred

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, and that of the Court of First Instance affirmed, declaring Simplicio Almando entitled to priority in the purchase of Lot 13-A of the Baclaran Estate. Costs against appellee, Juanita Vizcarra.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Ortua v. Singson, 59 Phil 440; Alfafara v. Mapa, 95 Phil. 125; De Guzman, 104 Phil. 24; Denopol v. Director of Lands, 106 Phil. 666; Sanchez v. Vda. de Tamsi (1962) 58 OG (No. 48) 7859; Abig v. Constantino, 58 OG (No. 51) 8404; Ganitano v. Secretary of Agriculture (1966) 16 SCRA 544.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20351 February 27, 1969 - MAXIMINO VICENTE v. BENITO DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20700 February 27, 1969 - FIDEL TEODORO v. FELIX MACARAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20913 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO VACAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22228 February 27, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22333 February 27, 1969 - LUCIANO AZUR, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22726 February 27, 1969 - CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23076 February 27, 1969 - NICANOR M. BALTAZAR v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23515 February 27, 1969 - CHOA HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25732 February 27, 1969 - VARGAS PLOW FACTORY INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-25805 February 27, 1969 - VICTOR NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26522 February 27, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SABANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26575 February 27, 1969 - PEDRO DIMASACAT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26868 February 27, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO ESTEBIA

  • G.R. No. L-29333 February 27, 1969 - MARIANO LL. BADELLES v. CAMILO P. CABILI

  • G.R. No. L-29658 February 27, 1969 - ENRIQUE V. MORALES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-22586 February 27, 1969 - JULIANA B. BRILLANTES v. MARIANO R. GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. L-25532 February 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. WILLIAM J. SUTER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27451 February 28, 1969 - PAZ ONGSIACO, ET AL. v. ROMAN D. DALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29864 February 28, 1969 - CHAMBER OF FILIPINO RETAILERS, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 481 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: VIRGINIA C. ALMIREZ v. ARTURO P. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. L-21286 February 28, 1969 - FILEMON CRUZ v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-23470 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: SY SUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25874 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL C. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27345 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO CATAIN v. HERMINIO RIOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29058 February 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS LACANDAZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21267 February 28, 1969 - FILOMENO ANCIANO v. MOISES G. OTADOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29865 February 28, 1969 - WENCESLAO DESCUATAN v. SANCHO M. BALAYON

  • G.R. No. L-21062 February 28, 1969 - FLORENCIO CABONITALLA, ET AL. v. AMADO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26894-96 February 28, 1969 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28652 February 28, 1969 - ALFREDO B. BARAÑGAN v. VICENTE HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29553 February 28, 1969 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES

  • G.R. Nos. L-17504 and L-17506 February 28, 1969 - RAMON DE LA RAMA, ET AL. v. MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20895 February 28, 1969 - IN RE: RAMON HONG CHIONG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21676 February 28, 1969 - VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22506 February 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION M. SIAYNGCO, ET AL. v. MARTIN COSTIBOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23248 February 28, 1969 - MANUEL UY v. ENRICO PALOMAR

  • G.R. No. L-23289 February 28, 1969 - JOVENCIO LUANSING v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24170 February 28, 1969 - ILLUH ASAALI, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24615 February 28, 1969 - LEONARDO AVILA v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-25913 February 28, 1969 - RAYMUNDO CASTRO v. APOLONIO BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. L-26100 February 28, 1969 - CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL. v. PIO R. MARCOS, ET AL.