ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 148861.� July 27, 2005]
PUCSUSAN BARANGAY vs. COLEWAN
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 27 2005 .
G.R. No. 148861 (PUCSUSAN BARANGAY, CITY GOVERNMENT OF BAGUIO , CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO , vs. BRUCE COLEWAN.)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision [1] cralaw dated March 12, 2001 and Resolution dated June 22, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61116.
This petition involves a 48,500 square-meter lot located in Barangay Pucsusan, Baguio City. Bruce Colewan, respondent, claims to be its rightful owner and possessor. Upon the other hand, Barangay Pucsusan, the City Government, the City Engineer's Office and the City Council, all of Baguio City, herein petitioners, contend that the lot is a public land.
On April 1, 1996, the City Land Needs Identification Committee of Baguio City classified a portion of the lot, occupied by respondent, as a public land. Thereafter, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Baguio City passed Resolution No. 186 reserving the said lot as the site for proposed basketball court of Barangay Pucsusan.
Petitioners then authorized several workers to enter the lot and commence the construction of a basketball court. This prompted respondent to file with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City, a complaint for forcible entry against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 10727. In his complaint, responded alleged inter alia that he has been the lawful occupant and possessor of the lot, having purchased the same from Basilio Cayat, as shown by a Deed of Sale dated November 16, 1965; and that sometime in August 1988, by means of force, strategy and/or stealth, several workers of herein petitioners divested him of his possession by constructing a "grouted rip-rap and other structures on the lot preparatory to the construction of a basketball court."
In their answer, while petitioners admitted that their workers entered the lot, they maintain, however, that it is a public land and, therefore, respondent has no right over it; and that the subject Deed of Sale is spurious.
On January 18, 2000, the MTCC rendered its Decision in favor of
respondent and ordered petitioners to restore him to his possession and to pay
him attorney's fee in the sum of P5,000.00.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 7, affirmed the MTCC Decision.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. In its Decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the assailed judgment holding that:
x x x
"x x x. Examining the records at hand, We are convinced that indeed, respondent is the rightful possessor of the subject lot as the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of ownership and possession of the same. In the first place, petitioners have not shown by sufficient evidence that the subject lot is indeed a public land. [2] cralaw
x x x
���� "x x x� respondent's evidence to establish prior possession of the land in dispute are the following : (a) the deed of sale executed by the prior possessor and claimant over the subject land; (b) affidavits executed by a certain William Mariano and Carolina Pascua affirming that he (respondent) has been in possession of the subject lot since 1960; (c) acknowledgement made by Pablo Chog-ap that he (respondent) has been in possession of the subject lot in the name of Basilio Cayat; (d) Declaration of Real Property dated October 24, 1974; and (e) Tax Receipts covering the period from 1985 to 1977." [3] cralaw
Hence, the instant petition.
The issue involved here is who between the parties has a better right of possession over the lot in question. In resolving this issue, we have to review factual matters raised below. It is basic that this Court is not a trier of facts and that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. Moreover, the three courts which reviewed the records and passed upon the issue are one in concluding that respondent has a better right of possession over the lot in controversy.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 12, 2001 and Resolution dated June 22, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 61116 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona (retired).
[2] cralaw Rollo at 27-28.
[3] cralaw Id. at 28-29.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
