Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 June 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 192904 (Eladia Limbo v. Elizabeth Myrna Agripa-Manegdeg, in her capacity as surviving heir and as substitute for deceased Sps. Marcelo Agripa and Lydia Agripa).

RESOLUTION 

In 1962 petitioner Eladia Limbo and her sisters bought a 256.10 square-meter lot in Barangay Maharlika, San Jose, Quezon City, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 196220 of the register of deeds of that city.^[1] Subsequently, Limbo consolidated the ownership in her name under TCT RT-118503.^[2]

In March 1998 while preparing to build a house on the lot, Limbo caused a nephew, who happened to be a surveyor, to conduct a relocation survey of her property. This resulted in the discovery that the spouses Marcelo and Lydia Agripa (substituted in this action upon their death by their daughter respondent Elizabeth Myrna Agripa-Manegdeg) encroached on Limbo's lot by 14.40 sq m.^[3] Limbo informed the Agripas about this^[4]  and halted her construction. She demanded that the Agripas demolish their fence or pay her P432.00 per sq m or a total of P30,000.00 for the encroached area.

But the Agripas insisted that their land extended up to their perimeter fence.^[5] They commissioned a separate relocation survey and the result was the same.^[6] Still, the Agripas refused to settle the case,^[7] prompting Limbo to file an action for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.^[8] 

Summons was served on the Agripas but, failing to file their answer as required, Limbo filed a motion on December 28, 1999 to have them declared in default^[9] and to receive Limbo's evidence. The RTC granted the motion.^[10] On January 18, 2000 the Agripas filed motions for the lifting of the default order and the admission of their answer.^[11]  They failed, however, to attend the hearing of their motions. Finding the Agripas' delay of four months in filing their answer inexcusable, the RTC denied their motions and allowed Limbo to present evidence ex parte.^[12] 

On June 25, 2001 the RTC rendered judgment, holding that Limbo was entitled to the possession of the disputed 14.40 sq m of land. The RTC gave Limbo two options: (1) appropriate the improvement on the encroached area, paying the Agripas its value; or (2) sell the latter the 14.40 sq m at their current market value. If the Agripas fail to buy the lot, Limbo can have the improvement removed at their expense. If the encroached area is more valuable than the improvement, Limbo shall be entitled to reasonable rent that the parties may agree on. The Agripas are to pay P25,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs.^[13]

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and dismissed the case on the ground that the relocation survey plan that Limbo's nephew prepared lacked the verification and approval by the Bureau of Lands, as required under Section 28(5) of Act 2259, as amended by Act 2271,^[14] thus, rendering it insufficient and with no probative value. Subsequently, Limbo filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied the same.^[15]

In her petition for review before this Court,^[16] Limbo claims that only survey plans pertaining to land registration proceedings need to be verified and approved by the Director of Lands. She complied with the Building Code and commissioned the relocation survey on her land to acquire a building permit for reconstruction.^[17]

The issue in this case is whether or not, to be admissible in evidence for the purpose of settling overlapping claims, a relocation survey needs to be approved and verified by the Director of Lands.

One. Contrary to Limbo's assertions, all survey plans, regardless of the purpose for which they are drawn, are required to be verified and approved by the Director of Lands under Act 2259, as amended by Act 2711.^[18]  These requirements are particularly essential when a private surveyor, rather than a government surveyor from the Land Registration Authority of the LMB-DENR, conducted the survey.^[19] Here, the fact that Limbo commissioned her own nephew to conduct the relocation survey makes the requirements more important.

Absent the proper approval or verification, the survey plan is merely recommendatory^[20] and of no value.^[21] Limbo's failure to submit the relocation survey plan to the Director of Lands for approval renders it inadmissible as evidence^[22] as it remains questionable and ambiguous.^[23] 

Two. It is true, as Limbo asserts, that a defendant may be declared in default if he fails to file his answer within the required period.^[24]  It does not follow, however, that this would result in an automatic judgment in plaintiffs favor since the court must render judgment based only on the evidence that the latter presented.^[25] 

Here, since Limbo's relocation survey plan of the contested area had not been previously approved and verified by the Director of Lands as required by law, the same is unacceptable as proof of the encroachment.^[26]cralaw

WHEREFORE, this Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS  the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 71236 dated May 14 and July 21, 2010, respectively. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., designated Acting Members in lieu of Mendoza and Velasco, Jr., JJ., respectively, per Special Orders 1229 and 1241, dated June 6, 2012 and June 14, 2012, respectively.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Records, p. 6; TSN, January 31, 2000, pp. 3-4.

^[2] TSN, January 31, 2000, p. 5. 

^[3] Relocation Plan, records, p. 7: TSN, January 31, 2000, pp. 8-10. 

^[4] TSN, January 31, 2000, p. 13. 

^[5] Id. at 15. 

^[6] Id. at 39. 

^[7] Records, p. 9. 

^[8] Id. at 1. 

^[9] Id. at 22. 

^[10] Id. at 25. 

^[11] Id. at 27. 

^[12] Id. at 38. 

^[13] Rollo, pp. 95-97. 

^[14] Id. at 55. 

^[15] Id. at 6. 

^[16] Id. at 11. 

^[17] Id. at 22; TSN, January 31, 2000, p. 30. 

^[18] Vda. de Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 374, 385 (1996). 

^[19] Heirs of Margarita Pabaus v. Heirs of Amanda Yutiamco, G.R. No. 164356, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 521, 532-533. 

^[20] Life Homes Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120827, February 15, 2007, 516 SCRA 6, 14. 

^[21] University of the Philippines v. Rosario, 407 Phil. 924, 933 (2001). 

^[22] RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 20. 

^[23] Spouses Carpo v. Ayala Land, Incorporated, G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010, 611 SCRA 436, 453. 

^[24] RULES OF COURT, Rule 9, Section 3. 

^[25] Id., Rule 131, Section 1. 

^[26] Hebron v. Loyola, G.R. No. 168960, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 231, 233.