ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139152. August 9, 1999]

SPOUSES MANUEL S. BARRETO et al. vs. SOCORRO H. TIONGKO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 9, 1999.

G.R. No. 139152 (Spouses Manuel S. Barreto and Loreto Rosca-Barretto vs. Socorro H. Tiongko, et al.)

Petitioners, the spouses Manuel S. Barreto and Loreto Rosca-Barreto are defendants in an ejectment suit by respondents Socorro H. Tionko, Jose Tionko, Vicente Tionko, Martin Paul Tionko, Celina T. Los Ba�os, and Geraldine T. Dalumpines in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City. It was alleged that petitioners were lessees of Lot Block 11, Pcs 91-0004699 covered by TCT No. T-101076 in respondents' name and that, despite the expiration of their lease, petitioners refused to vacate the property.

In their answer, petitioners alleged that the land occupied by them is not covered by TCT No. T-101076 of respondents but is actually Lot 483, Cad-102 of the Davao Cadastre, which is still public land, and that petitioners had been in possession thereof for more than 30 years.

The MTCC ruled in favor of respondents and ordered petitioners to vacate the property in question. However, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the decision of the MTC and dismissed the complaint. Considering that petitioners claimed ownership of the land, the court held that the dispute should be threshed out in an accion publiciana or an accion reinvidicatoria.

Respondents in turn filed a petition foe review in the Court of Appeals which found that TCT No. T-101076 had been cancelled as a result of subdivision of the property and that the subject property was covered by TCT No. 263830, issued on May 24, 1996, in the names of Socorro H. Tionko, Celina T. Los Ba�os, Socorro T. Laxa, and Tomas Tionko, Jr. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ordered petitioners to vacate the property and also ordered them to pay to Socorro H. Tionko, Celina T. Los Ba�os, Socorro T. Laxa, and Tomas H. Tionkoa monthly rent of P17,610.00 until February 29, 1996 and P20,000.00 from March 1, 1996 until they (petitioners) had vacated the property as well as attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00 and the costs.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but as their motion was denied, they filed the present reiterating their claim that the lot occupied by them is not covered by TCT No. T-101076. They invite attention to the evidence they presented before the RTC, consisting of the Land Title. Verification Task Force of the Land Registration Authority indicating that TCT No. T-101076 was of spurious origin as its mother title was issued before the land had been declared alienable and disposable, as well as the sketch plan of Geodetic Engineer Jimmy T. Francilla, prepared on September 1, 1997, showing that respondents' Lot Block 11 did not cover Lot 483, Cad-102 of the Davao Cadastre.

The petition is without merit.

First of all, petitioners are in possession of the land by virtue of a lease agreement with respondent. As lessees they are estopped from questioning the validity of respondents' title pursuant to Rule 131, �2(b).

Second, the actuations of petitioners themselves belie heir claims that the land being occupied by them was not covered by respondents' TCT No. T-101076. If that were the case, why would petitioners feel the need to write a letter, dated March 18, 1996, to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources praying that TCT No. T-101076 be annulled and that they (petitioners) be given "top priority" as longtime occupants in acquiring the land covered by said title for themselves? In said letter, petitioners also admitted leasing the land from respondent Tionkos. This letter was sent after respondents had demanded on February 12, 1996 that petitioners pay their arrears and vacate the property. Earlier, on December 20, 1995, petitioner Loreto Barretto wrote respondent Jose Tionko indicating that she was willing to pay a graduated increase of the rentals commencing from January 1996 up to 2000.

Credence cannot be given to the sketch plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Johnny Francenilla allegedly showing that the property in question is part of Lot 483, Cad-102 of the Davao Cadastre. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, Francenilla's sketch plan lacks the approval of the Regional Technical Director and Regional Director of he DENR.

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE