ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. Nos. 137193-94. March 1, 1999]
HEIRS OF ABDON BUSCATO, vs. CA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 1, 1999.
G.R. Nos. 137193-94 (Heirs of Abdon Buscato, represented by Juanita B. Ardon vs. Court of Appeals, Wilson S. Lao, Victoria S. Lao, Sonny S. Lao, and Felix S. Lao.)
Before this Court is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 18, 1998. The assailed Decision affirmed on appeal the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 15) of Ozamis City in two cases jointly tried, Civil Case No. OZ 1048 for recovery of possession with damages and Cadastral Case No. 12, G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 1638.
The two cases involved a portion, consisting of 3,400 square meters, of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 49-G located at Ozamis City. The facts are stated in the Decision of the Court of Appeals, pertinent portions of which are reproduced below:
In April 14, 1941, the Cadastral Court of Misamis Occidental rendered a decision in Cadastral Case No. 12, G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No. 1638 (then entitled Director of Lands vs. Gala Jaca de Abadies, et al.) declaring Lot No. 49-A as public land with preferential rights given to a certain Dionisia Carpio, and adjudicating Lot No. 49-B, located at Catadman Ozamis City, in favor of Dolores Kaamino (pp. 56-57, record of Civil Case No. OZ 1048) Dolores died and was succeeded by Florecto Kaamino, who afterwards on November 29, 1970 succumbed too. On November 14, 1979, the heirs of Florecto sold a portion (18,000 sq. m. more or less) of this Lot No. 49-B to the appellees Wilson, Victoria, Sonny and Felix, all surnamed Lao (or the Laos for brevity; ibid., pp. 270-271).
Consequently, the Laos filed a motion in Cadastral Case No. 12 praying that they be substituted as adjudicatees of the sold portion of Lot No. 49-B. This was granted by the court in the Order dated June 20, 1980, and in said order the portion sold to the Laos was designated anew as Lot No. 49-G (ibid., pp. 58-60). Thereafter Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2105 covering said lot, now designated as Lot No. 8487 in said title, was issued in favor of the Laos. (ibid., pp. 115-116)
The Laos filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Ozamis City for recovery of possession and damages against Abdon Buscato. Buscato filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that he was occupying public land, not the private land titled to the Laos, and thus the trial court had no jurisdiction. Buscato also alleged that the Laos failed to go through the Katarungang Pambarangay system, and thus did not comply with a condition precedent to the filing of the action. The Laos then filed an amended complaint with a prayer for preliminary injunction.
During the trial of the case, the trial court ordered a relocation survey to resolve the issue of identity of the land. The geodetic engineer commissioned to conduct the survey filed a report and testified that Buscato was occupying a portion of Lot No. 49-G, covered by OCT No. 0-2105 in the name of the Laos.
In its decision, the regional trial court ordered Buscato to vacate the disputed land and to pay damages. On appeal by Buscato to the Court of Appeals, he asserted that the trial court erred in its finding of fact that part of the land was titled to the Laos. He also asserted that, in the alternative that his land was indeed titled to the Laos, he was the owner of said land by acquisitive prescription, inasmuch as he was possessor since 1937.
The Court of Appeals rendered its challenged Decision affirming the Decision of the trial court. Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, the heirs of Buscato, now deceased, filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
Petitioners raise three issues:
1. HAS ABDON BUSCATO, WHOSE HEIRS ARE REPRESENTED BY JUANITA ARDON ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY SUBJECT HEREOF BY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION?
2. DID THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT, ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE?
3. WAS THE APPEALED CASE DECIDED BASED ON EVIDENCE ON RECORD? 1 [Rollo, p. 5.]
The petition lacks merit.
The issue of acquisitive prescription has been raised in and passed upon by the Court of Appeals. It is a finding of fact by the trial court, and a finding affirmed by the appellate court, that Buscato occupied a portion of Lot 49-G titled to the Laos. In order to acquire land by prescription, Buscato must not only have occupied the land, his occupation must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted2 [Art. 1118 of the Civil Code.] and for the period of time required.3 [par. 1, Art 1106 of the Civil Code.] Petitioners clam that Buscato occupied the disputed land in such character since 1937. However, whether Buscato's occupation indeed fulfilled the requirements for acquisitive prescription is a question of fact which cannot be resolved in this petition for review under Rules 45.4 [see Sec. 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.]
Regardless, however, of the character and duration of Buscato's occupation, he could not acquire the disputed land prescription. The land is part of Lot 49-G covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2105 issued in the name of the Laos. Like a certificate of title issued under ordinary registration proceedings,5 [Presidential Decree No. 1529 (1978), otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree (hereafter P.D. 1529) reads:
SEC. 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. - The trial of the case may occur at any convenient place within the province in which the lands are situated and shall be conducted, and orders for default and confessions entered, in the same manner as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall be governed by the same rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and such decrees shall be the basis for the issuance of original certificates of title in favor of said persons and shall have the same effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land under ordinary land registration proceedings. xxx (Italics supplied.)] the Original Certificate of Title resulting from a cadastral case is imprescriptible. No title in derogation of the title of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.6 [Section 47, P.D. 1529.] Well-settled is the rule that acquisitive prescription does not run where title to the property is registered.7 [Reyes v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), 258 SCRA 651, 662 (1996) per Romero, J., Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 215, 223 (1995), per Puno, J.]
Anent the second issue, petitioners claim that the trial had no jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession because the dispute was not referred by the Laos to barangay conciliation as required by P.D. No. 1508.8 [Presidential Decree No. 1508 (1978), otherwise known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, reads:
Sec. 6. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint. - No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon as provided in Section 2 hereof shall be filed or instituted in court or any other government office for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation of the parties before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat and no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the Lupon Secretary or the Pangkat Secretary, attested by the Lupon or Pangkat Chairman, or unless the settlement has been repudiated. However, the parties may go directly to court for following cases:
(1)���������� Where the accused is under detentions;
(2)���������� Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations.]
Indeed, prior to the amendment of the complaint, the dispute was covered by the rule requiring referral to conciliation. The appellate court, however, held that when the Complaint was amended to include a prayer for preliminary injunction, the dispute fell within the exceptions9 [Ibid.] to said rule. Such amendment was proper, according to the Court of Appeals, because at the time Buscato had not yet filed his responsive pleading and the Laos could amend their complaint as a matter of right.
It is immaterial to the issue of jurisdiction of the trial court whether the conciliation requirement was fulfilled. This merely affects plaintiff's cause of action.10 [Royales vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470, 473 (1984) per Escolin, J.] and does not go into the subject matter of jurisdiction of the court. In Galuba v. Laureta, 11 [157 SCRA 627 (1988) per Fernan, J.] the Court made the following pronouncement:
Section 6 of P.D. 1506 is mandatory in character. Thus, in Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444, Vda. De Panis, 133 SCRA 72, We accordingly held that the conciliation process at the barangay level is a condition precedent for the filing of a complaint in court. In Royales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 127 SCRA 470, We ruled that non-compliance with the condition precedent prescribed by P.D. 1508 could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make his complaint vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity. 12 [Id., at 632-633.]
Under the 1997 Rule of Civil Procedure, failure to refer to barangay conciliation may be considered as non-compliance with a condition precedent for filing the claim, and can be a ground for dismissing action.13 [Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.]
Regarding the third issue, petitioners maintain that Buscato occupied public land, and not the private land titled to the Laos. This claim regarding the identity of the disputed land presents a question of fact not cognizable in this petition for review under Rule 45.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
