June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012]
ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE
G.R. No. 175228 (Alfredo M. Abiertas v. Jose C. Latorre)
RESOLUTION
This Petition[1] for review on certiorari assails the March 24, 2006 Decision[2] and October 10, 2006 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 67711, which reversed and set aside the Decision[4] dated May 10, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, and rendered a new judgment directing the respondent, as owner of the encroached portion, to exercise his options under Article 448 of the Civil Code within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision.
The Factual Antecedents
The parties are adjoining lot owners at Block 17, Kalachuchi St., Mu�oz Estate, Catbalogan, Samar. Respondent Jose C. Latorre (Latorre) is the owner of Lot 3 covered by TCT No. T-3511 while petitioner Alfredo M. Abiertas (Abiertas) owns Lot 2 covered by TCT No. T-6503. Lot 1 is allegedly owned by Arsenio Labagala while Lot 4 is purportedly owned by a certain Cabigon.
On October 6, 1992, respondent Latorre filed before the RTC a complaint to recover possession of about 80 square meter (sq.m.) portion of land allegedly encroached upon by petitioner Abiertas through strategy or stealth when he constructed a house extension in 1987. He initially protested such encroachment which was ignored. Subsequently, after confirming the same through a relocation survey,[5] he made demands to vacate which were refused.
On the other hand, petitioner Abiertas claimed to have built the improvements on his Lot 2. Its boundaries, prior to the purchase, were pointed out by respondent Latorre and by a representative of the National Housing Authority (NHA). He likewise averred that he acquired Lot 2 on the prodding of respondent and his wife, Antonia, who even signed as a witness to the deed assigning to him the right to purchase the said lot from the NHA. Hence, the instant action is barred by estoppel, laches and prescription.
Petitioner Abiertas subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the NHA which prayed for its dismissal grounded on the pendency of a case involving the same issues between them. He likewise sought to implead Arsenio Labagala (Labagala), the owner of the adjoining Lot 1, who he claimed would have similarly encroached a portion of his Lot 2 and be accordingly held liable, should respondent Latorre's survey plan be found correct.
The RTC Ruling
After due proceedings, the RTC rendered the Decision[6] dated May 10, 2000 finding petitioner Abiertas to have encroached upon a 76 sq.m. portion of respondent Latorre's land based on the Relocation Sketch Plan[7] executed by the latter's geodetic engineer. While the court found the encroachment to have arisen from his "honest belief� that he erected his improvements on the area covered by his title, it ordered him to vacate and remove all his improvements therefrom, and to pay monthly rentals from receipt of the summons on October 12, 1992 until he shall have complied with the court's directive. On the other hand, the third-party complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit.
The CA Ruling[8]
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the above Decision. It rejected petitioner Abiertas' claim that respondent Latorre was guilty of estoppel in pais, finding the latter to be unaware of their respective boundaries and of Abiertas' encroachment until after he had his land resurveyed. Abiertas' attempt to belatedly include Cabigon, the owner of Lot 4 adjoining Latorre's Lot 3, as party to the case was likewise rejected. With respect to the summons against third-party defendant Labagala, the CA found it to be defective for failing to specify who was served therewith. Lastly, while the CA acknowledged Abiertas' right to retain possession of the land as a builder in good faith, it declared that the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity or to oblige the builder to pay for the land rests with the owner of the land, respondent Latorre.
In the instant petition for review, petitioner contends that respondent's alleged representation of the boundaries of their respective lots and his failure to object to the introduction of improvements over the encroached portion of his lot renders him guilty of estoppel in pais; that third-party defendant Labagala, the adjoining owner of Lot 1 who similarly encroached a portion of his Lot 2, is an indispensable party and was validly served with summons contrary to the CA's finding; that Cabigon, the owner of Lot 4 who similarly encroached respondent's Lot 3, is likewise an indispensable party whose inclusion in the suit is necessary in order to afford effective, complete or equitable relief to the parties already before the court.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful review of the records of the case, We find no reversible error in the assailed CA Decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly held by the CA, estoppel cannot be invoked against respondent Latorre for his alleged representation of the boundaries of the subject two (2) lots as well as his failure to object to the introduction of improvements over the encroached portion of his lot, having become aware of the actual metes and bounds of his property and of petitioner Abiertas' encroachment only when he had his land resurveyed. Settled is the rule that unless one is knowledgeable in the science of surveying, "no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title."[9]
However, contrary to the CA's finding, jurisdiction over the person of third-party defendant Labagala was acquired. We have reviewed the Officer's Return of Service[10] and found it sufficient to establish that he had been duly served with summons. The said return of service expressly states:
"Respectfully returned to the Honorable Court, Regional Trial Court Branch 27, Catbalogan, Samar, the herein Summons (for Arsenio Labagala) in Civil Case No. 6595, entitled "DR. JOSE LATORRE versus ENGR. ALFREDO ABIERTAS and ENGR. ALFREDO ABIERTAS versus NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ARSENIO LABAGALA, with the information that the same has been duly served on January 15, 1997, whose signature appears below."[11] (parenthetical notation ours)
On the bottom of the page of the return appears the signature of Labagala. It bears stressing that a process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence of the facts set out therein based on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed which stands in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,[12] as in this case.
Nonetheless, the dismissal of the third-party complaint was in order for failure of petitioner Abiertas to sufficiently show that he is entitled to a right of contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or other substantive right from Labagala in respect of respondent Latorre's claim.[13] An action for contribution essentially entails a common liability for the payment of damage suffered. On the other hand, the claim for indemnity arises from the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim is based or from one connected therewith although arising from different transaction. In short, there must be a causal connection between plaintiffs claim in his complaint and defendant's claim for contribution, indemnity or other relief against the third-party defendant.[14]
In the present case, the averred liability of third-party defendant Labagala to petitioner Abiertas is not dependent on the outcome of the case between the latter and respondent Latorre, which may be completely resolved without impleading third parties. Corollarily, the Court cannot sustain petitioner's claim that Labagala and Cabigon, owners of adjoining Lots 1 and 4, respectively, should be impleaded as indispensable parties.
Finally, considering the concurring findings of the RTC and the CA that petitioner was a builder in good faith, the records of the case must accordingly be remanded to the court a quo for the exercise of the rights and obligations of the parties under Article 448[15] of the Civil Code in relation to Article 546[16] of the same Code. cralaw
WHEREFORE, the assailed March 24, 2006 Decision and October 10, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 67711 are hereby AFFIRMED. The records of the case are hereby remanded to the court a quo for the proper application of Article 448 in relation to Article 546 of the Civil Code. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] SC Rollo, pp. 10-27.[2] Id. at 28-36. Penned by Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred by Justices Enrico A. Lanzanas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
[3] Id. at 42-43.
[4] CA Rollo, pp. 21-26.
[5] RTC Folder of Exhibits, p. 9.
[6] Supra at note 4.
[7] Supra at note 5.
[8] Decision dated March 24, 2006: Supra at note 2.
[9] Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (Former Special Seventeenth Division), G.R. No. 108894, February 10, 1997, 268 SCRA 5, 15.
[10] RTC Records, reverse portion of page 82.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Vide Sansio Philippines, Inc. v. Mogol, Jr., G.R. No. 177007, July 14, 2009, 592 SCRA 652; Velayo-Fong v. Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 320.
[13] Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy Chim, G.R. Nos. 174168 & 179438, March 30, 2009, 582 SCRA 517, 543.
[14] Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160242. May 17, 2005, 458 SCRA 750.
[15] ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
[16] ART. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.