AGUEDADEVERA, MARIODELACRUZ, EVANGELINEDELACRUZ,
andEDRONELDELACRUZ, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and
RICARDO RAMOS, respondents.D E C I S I O NPURISIMA, J.:At bar is a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised
Rules of Court, seeking toreverseand set asidetheDecision[1] of
theCourt of Aeals[!] inCA"#$R$ C%&o$
!15'(affir)ingwith)odificationtheDecision[*] datedAugust !, 1+,,of
theRegional -rial Court, .ranch1+,[4] Caua/an,0sabela, in Civil
Case &o$ .r$ 00"1,11$2ro) the records on hand, it aears
that34n5anuar/ 14, 1+,*, rivateresondent RicardoRa)os fileda
Complaint[5] against thehereinetitioners for recover/ of roert/
with da)ages, docketed as Civil Case &o$ .r 00"1,11 before the
saidcourt of origin. 4n 5une !+, 1+,*, an A)ended Co)laint[1] was
resented the ertinent ortion of whichalleged36662. That the
plaintiff is the legal and absolute owner of a certain parcel of
land known as Lot 2, H-4-6!, and particularl" described as
follows#$ounded on the %&., b" 'oad( on the )*, b" +ro,incial
'oad( and on the *., b" %ational 'oad. containingan area of -,6!.
s/uare meters, more or less.his title thereto being e,idenced b"
0riginal Certificate of Title %o. +-162 of the 'egister of 3eeds of
4sabela(-. That the defendants are occup"ing a triangular portion
of the abo,e-described propert" containing an area of 22 s/uare
meters, more or less, and which is bounded as follows#0n the
%&., b" the 'oad( on the )&., b" Lot -54-$ of the
subdi,ision plan, +sd 2-.2-.-2.!wherein the" ha,e constructed a
house of strong and permanent materials this "ear 25- after
remo,ing their pre,ious building of light materials in 6anuar" or
7ebruar" of 2!.(4$ -hat the laintiff has de)anded that the
defendants re)ove their i)rove)ent thereon and vacate the said
portion, $$$ but the defendants ha,e refused and failed, without
an" 8ust or lawful cause to do so, to the present time( 9990ntheir
:nswer,[(] the hereinetitionerstheori7ed, interalia,thatthe/
havebeeninossession notonl/ of !! s8uare )eters but (' s8uare
)eters of land through their redecessor"in"interest, -eodoro de
laCru7 ;husband of defendant-appellant :gueda 3e arch!1, 1++1,
theCourt of Aeals decidedthecase,
)odif/ingtheDecisionbelowanddisosing thus3C0%70'>:$L@ T0 TH&
70'&B04%B, the 8udgment appealed from is hereb" MODIFIED,
dismissing plaintiff-appellees complaint as regards +ortion :,
conse/uentl" deleting the monthl" rents decreed b" the lower court
in fa,or of plaintiff-appellee as regards said portion, and is
:774'>&3 in all other respects.%o pronouncement as to
costs.)0 0'3&'&3.?ndaunted, etitioners have co)e to this
Court via the resent etition9 contending that3-@A DAC0ARC@ 1++1
BA&&AC AD RA&DARAD E0-@ #RA%A A.?
