Case on Ownership

7/26/2019 Case on Ownership

1/28

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 138053. May 31, 2000]

CORNELIO M. ISAGUIRRE,petitioner, vs. FELICITAS DE LARA,

respondent.

D E C I S I O N

GONAGA!RE"ES,J.#

In this petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules

of Civil Procedure, petitioner Cornelio M. Isaguirre assails the cto!er 5, 199"

decision#1$of the Court of %ppeals#&$and its Resolution pro'ulgated on March 5,

1999.

(he antecedent facts of the present case are as follows)

%le*andro de +ara was the original applicantclai'ant for a Miscellaneous -ales

%pplication over a parcel of land identified as portion of +ot 5&, /uianga

Cadastre, filed with the 0ureau of +ands on anuar2 17, 194& and with an area of

&,34& suare 'eters. pon his death, %le*andro de +ara was succeeded !2 his wife

respondent 6elicitas de +ara, as clai'ant. n ove'!er 19, 1954, the

ndersecretar2 of %griculture and atural Resources a'ended the sales

application to cover onl2 1,8 suare 'eters. (hen, on ove'!er 3, 1981, !2

virtue of a decision rendered !2 the -ecretar2 of %griculture and atural

Resources dated ove'!er 19, 1954, a su!division surve2 was 'ade and the area

was further reduced to 1, suare 'eters. n this lot stands a twostor2

residentialco''ercial apart'ent declared for taation purposes under (: 439&7in the na'e of respondents sons %polonio and Rodolfo, !oth surna'ed de +ara.

-o'eti'e in 1953, respondent o!tained several loans fro' the Philippine ational

0an;.


2/28

n Ma2 5, 1997, respondent filed a 'otion for eecution with the trial court,

pra2ing for the i''ediate deliver2 of possession of the su!*ect propert2, which

'otion was granted on %ugust 1", 1997. n 6e!ruar2 3, 199", respondent 'oved

for a writ of possession, invo;ing our ruling in /. R. o. 1&"3&. Petitioner

opposed the 'otion, asserting that he had the right of retention over the propert2

until pa2'ent of the loan and the value of the i'prove'ents he had introduced on

the propert2. n March 1&, 199", the trial court granted respondents 'otion for

writ of possession. Petitioners 'otion for reconsideration was denied !2 the trialcourt on Ma2 &1, 199". Conseuentl2, a writ of possession dated une 18, 199",

together with the -heriffs otice to Bacate dated ul2 7, 199", were served upon

petitioner.

Petitioner filed with the Court of %ppeals a special civil action for certiorariand

prohi!ition with pra2er for a te'porar2 restraining order or preli'inar2 in*unction

to annul and set aside the March 1&, 199" and Ma2 &1, 199" orders of the trial

court, including the writ of possession dated une 18, 199" and the sheriffs notice

to vacate dated ul2 7, 199".#8$

(he appellate court su''aried the issues involved in the case as follows) ?1@

whether or not the 'ortgagee in an euita!le 'ortgage has the right to retain

possession of the propert2 pending actual pa2'ent to hi' of the a'ount of

inde!tedness !2 the 'ortgagorA and ?!@ whether or not petitioner can !e considered

a !uilder in good faith with respect to the i'prove'ents he 'ade on the propert2

!efore the transaction was declared to !e an euita!le 'ortgage.

(he Court of %ppeals held that petitioner was not entitled to retain possession of

the su!*ect propert2. It said that

the 'ortgagee 'erel2 has to annotate his clai' at the !ac; of the

certificate of title in order to protect his rights against third persons

and there!2 secure the de!t. (here is therefore no necessit2 for

hi' to actuall2 possess the propert2. either should a 'ortgagee

in an euita!le 'ortgage fear that the contract relied upon is not

registered and hence, 'a2 not operate as a 'ortgage to *ustif2 its

foreclosure. InFeliza Zubiri v. Lucio Quijano, 74 Phil 47,it was

ruled =that when a contract is held as an euita!le 'ortgage,

the sa'e shall !e given effect as if it had co'plied with the for'al

reuisites of 'ortgage. !2 its ver2 nature the lien there!2

created ought not to !e defeated !2 reuiring co'pliance with the

for'alities necessar2 to the validit2 of a voluntar2 real estate

'ortgage, as long as the land re'ains in the hands of the petitioner

?'ortgagor@ and the rights of innocent parties are not affected.=

Proceeding fro' the foregoing, petitioners i'agined fears that hislien would !e lost !2 surrendering possession are unfounded.

In the sa'e vein, there is nothing to stop the 'ortgagor de +ara

fro' acuiring possession of the propert2 pending actual pa2'ent

of the inde!tedness to petitioner. (his does not in an2wa2

endanger the petitioners right to securit2 since, as pointed out !2

private respondents, the petitioner can alwa2s have the euita!le

'ortgage annotated in the Certificate of (itle of private respondent

and pursue the legal re'edies for the collection of the alleged de!t

secured !2 the 'ortgage. In this case, the re'ed2 would !e to

foreclose the 'ortgage upon failure to pa2 the de!t within the

reuired period.

It is unfortunate however, that the Court of %ppeals, in declaring

the transaction to !e an euita!le 'ortgage failed to specif2 in its

:ecision the period of ti'e within which the private respondent

could settle her account, since such period serves as the rec;oning

point !2 which foreclosure could ensue. %s it is, petitioner is now

in a dile''a as to how he could enforce his rights as a 'ortgagee.

...

>ence, this Court, once and for all resolves the 'atter !2 reuiring

the trial court to deter'ine the a'ount of total inde!tedness and

the period within which pa2'ent shall !e 'ade.

Petitioners clai's that he was a !uilder in good faith and entitled to rei'!urse'ent

for the i'prove'ents he introduced upon the propert2 were re*ected !2 the Court

of %ppeals. It held that petitioner ;new, or at least had an in;ling, that there was a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn6


3/28

defect or flaw in his 'ode of acuisition. evertheless, the appellate court

declared petitioner to have the following rights)

>e is entitled to rei'!urse'ent for the necessar2 epenses which

he 'a2 have incurred over the propert2, in accordance with %rt.

5&8 and %rt. 45& of the Civil Code. Moreover, considering that the

transaction was 'erel2 an euita!le 'ortgage, then he is entitled

to pa2'ent of the a'ount of inde!tedness plus interest, and in theevent of nonpa2'ent to foreclose the 'ortgage. Meanwhile,

pending receipt of the total a'ount of de!t, private respondent is

entitled to possession over the disputed propert2.

(he case was finall2 disposed of !2 the appellate court in the following 'anner)

DR6RD, the Petition is here!2 :I-MI--D:, and this case is

ordered re'anded to the Regional (rial Court of :avao Cit2 for

further proceedings, as follows)

1@ (he trial court shall deter'ine

a@ (he period within which the 'ortgagor 'ust pa2 his total

a'ount of inde!tedness.

!@ (he total a'ount of inde!tedness owing the petitioner

'ortgagee plus interest co'puted fro' the ti'e when the

*udg'ent declaring the contract to !e an euita!le 'ortgage

!eca'e final.

c@ (he necessar2 epenses incurred !2 petitioner over the propert2.#7$

n March 5, 1999, petitioners 'otion for reconsideration was denied !2 the

appellate court.#"$>ence, the present appeal wherein petitioner 'a;es the following

assign'ent of errors)

%.......(>D >R%0+D CR( 6 %PPD%+- DRRD: I

( R+I/ (>%( (>D R(C %C(D: ( R I

DECD-- 6 I(- RI-:IC(I R /R%BD %0-D

6 :I-CRD(I %M(I/ ( +%CF R DECD-- 6

RI-:IC(I I I--I/ %


4/28

(he dispositive portion of the March 31, 1995 decision of the Court of %ppeals in

/.R. CB o. 4&85, which was affir'ed !2 this Court, provides that

I BID< 6 %++ (>D 6RD/I/, the *udg'ent appealed

fro' is RDBDR-D: and -D( %-I:D and a new one entered)

?1@ dis'issing the co'plaintA ?&@ declaring the =:ocu'ent of -ale

and -pecial Cession of Rights and Interests= ?Dhi!it 0@ dated

6e!ruar2 1, 198, to !e an euita!le 'ortgage not a saleA ?3@upholding the validit2 of C( o. P133" in the na'e of

6elicitas de +araA and ?3@ declaring null and void C( o. P

11588 in the na'e of plaintiff Cornelio Isaguirre. %ll other

counterclai's for da'ages are li;ewise dis'issed. Costs against

the appellee.#11$

Petitioner argues that the a!ove'entioned decision 'erel2 settled the following

'atters) ?1@ that the transaction !etween petitioner and respondent was not a sale

!ut an euita!le 'ortgageA ?&@ that C( o. P133" in the na'e of respondent is

validA and ?3@ that C( o. P11588 in the na'e of petitioner is null and void.

-ince the afore'entioned decision did not direct the i''ediate ouster of petitioner

fro' the su!*ect propert2 and the deliver2 thereof to respondent, the issuance of

the writ of possession !2 the trial court on une 18, 199" constituted an

unwarranted 'odification or addition to the final and eecutor2 decision of this

Court in /.R. o. 1&"3&.#1&$

aving delivered possession of the Propert2 to petitioner as

part of the constitution of the euita!le 'ortgage thereon,

respondent is not entitled to the return of the Propert2 unless and

until the 'ortgage loan is discharged !2 full pa2'ent thereof.

Petitioners right as 'ortgagee to retain possession of the Propert2

so long as the 'ortgage loan re'ains unpaid is further supported

!2 the rule that a 'ortgage 'a2 not !e etinguished even though

then 'ortgagorde!tor 'a2 have 'ade partial pa2'ents on the

'ortgage loan)

=%rt. &"9. % pledge or 'ortgage is indivisi!le,

even though the de!t 'a2 !e divided a'ong the

successors in interest of the de!tor or the creditor.

=(herefore, the de!tors heir who has paid a part of

the de!t cannot as; for the proportionate

etinguish'ent of the pledge or 'ortgage as long

as the de!t is not co'pletel2 satisfied.

=either can the creditors heir who has received

his share of the de!t return the pledge or cancel

the 'ortgage, to the pre*udice of the other heirs

who have not !een paid.=

?D'phasis supplied.@
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn15


5/28

............

4.14 ......(o reuire petitioner to deliver possession of the Propert2

to respondent prior to the full pa2'ent of the latters 'ortgage loan

would !e euivalent to the cancellation of the 'ortgage. -uch

effective cancellation would render petitioners rights ineffectual

and nugator2 and would constitute unwarranted *udicial

interference.

............

4.18 (he fact of the present case show that respondent delivered

possession of the Propert2 to petitioner upon the eecution of the

:eed of %!solute -ale and -pecial Cession of Rights and Interest

dated 1 6e!ruar2 198. >ence, transfer of possession of the

Propert2 to petitioner was an essential part of whatever agree'ent

the parties entered into, which, in this case, the -upre'e Court

affir'ed to !e an euita!le 'ortgage.

............

4.19 Petitioner does not have the 'ista;en notion that the

'ortgagee 'ust !e in actual possession of the 'ortgaged propert2

in order to secure the de!t. >owever, in this particular case, the

deliver2 of possession of the Propert2 was an integral part of the

contract !etween petitioner and respondent. %fter all, it was

supposed to !e a contract of sale. If deliver2 was not part of the

agree'ent entered into !2 the parties in 198, wh2 did respondent

surrender possession thereof to petitioner in the first place

4.& ow that the Courts have ruled that the transaction was not a

sale !ut a 'ortgage, petitioners entitle'ent to the possession of

the Propert2 should !e dee'ed as one of the provisions of the

'ortgage, considering that at the ti'e the contract was entered

into, possession of the Propert2 was li;ewise delivered to

petitioner. (hus, until respondent has full2 paid her 'ortgage loan,

petitioner should !e allowed to retain possession of the su!*ect

propert2.#18$

Petitioners position lac;s sufficient legal and factual 'oorings.

% 'ortgage is a contract entered into in order to secure the fulfill'ent of a

principal o!ligation.#17$It is constituted !2 recording the docu'ent in which it

appears with the proper Registr2 of Propert2, although, even if it is not recorded,the 'ortgage is nevertheless !inding !etween the parties. #1"$(hus, the onl2 right

granted !2 law in favor of the 'ortgagee is to de'and the eecution and the

recording of the docu'ent in which the 'ortgage is for'alied. #19$%s a general

rule, the 'ortgagor retains possession of the 'ortgaged propert2 since a 'ortgage

is 'erel2 a lien and title to the propert2 does not pass to the 'ortgagee.#&$>owever, even though a 'ortgagee does not have possession of the propert2,

there is no i'pair'ent of his securit2 since the 'ortgage directl2 and i''ediatel2

su!*ects the propert2 upon which it is i'posed, whoever the possessor 'a2 !e, to

the fulfill'ent of the o!ligation for whose securit2 it was constituted.#&1$If the

de!tor is una!le to pa2 his de!t, the 'ortgage creditor 'a2 institute an action to

foreclose the 'ortgage, whether *udiciall2 or etra*udiciall2, where!2 the

'ortgaged propert2 will then !e sold at a pu!lic auction and the proceeds

therefro' given to the creditor to the etent necessar2 to discharge the 'ortgage

loan. %pparentl2, petitioners contention that =#t$o reuire #hi'$ to deliver

possession of the Propert2 to respondent prior to the full pa2'ent of the latters

'ortgage loan would !e euivalent to the cancellation of the 'ortgage= is without

!asis. Regardless of its possessor, the 'ortgaged propert2 'a2 still !e sold, with

the prescri!ed for'alities, in the event of the de!tors default in the pa2'ent of his

loan o!ligation.

Moreover, this Court cannot find an2 *ustification in the records to uphold

petitioners contention that respondent delivered possession of the su!*ect propert2

upon the eecution of the =:eed of -ale and -pecial Cession of Rights and

Interests= on 6e!ruar2 1, 198 and that the transfer of possession to petitioner

'ust therefore !e considered an essential part of the agree'ent !etween the

parties. (his selfserving assertion of petitioner was directl2 contradicted !2

respondent in her pleadings.#&&$6urther'ore, nowhere in the Court of %ppeals

decisions pro'ulgated on March 31, 1995 ?/.R. CB o. 4&85@ and on cto!er 5,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/138053.htm#_ftn22


6/28

199" ?/.R. -P o. 4"31@, or in our own decision pro'ulgated on ul2 ", 1998

?/.R. o. 1&"3&@ was it ever esta!lished that the 'ortgaged properties were

delivered !2 respondent to petitioner.

InAlvano v. Batoon,#&3$this Court held that =#a$ si'ple 'ortgage does not give the

'ortgagee a right to the possession of the propert2 unless the 'ortgage should

contain so'e special provision to that effect.= Regretta!l2 for petitioner, he has not

presented an2 evidence, other than his own gratuitous state'ents, to prove that thereal intention of the parties was to allow hi' to en*o2 possession of the 'ortgaged

propert2 until full pa2'ent of the loan.

(herefore, we hold that the trial court correctl2 issued the writ of possession in

favor of respondent. -uch writ was !ut a necessar2 conseuence of this Courts

ruling in /.R. o. 1&"3& affir'ing the validit2 of the original certificate of title

?C( o. P133"@ in the na'e of respondent 6elicitas de +ara, while at the sa'e

ti'e nullif2ing the original certificate of title ?C( o. P11588@ in the na'e of

petitioner Cornelio Isaguirre. Possession is an essential attri!ute of ownershipA

thus, it would !e redundant for respondent to go !ac; to court si'pl2 to esta!lish

her right to possess su!*ect propert2. Contrar2 to petitioners clai's, the issuance of

the writ of possession !2 the trial court did not constitute an unwarranted

'odification of our decision in /.R. o. 1&"3&, !ut rather, was a necessar2

co'ple'ent thereto.#&4$It !ears stressing that a *udg'ent is not confined to what

appears upon the face of the decision, !ut also those necessaril2 included therein or

necessar2 thereto.#&5$


7/28

Repu!lic of the Philippines

SU%REME COURT

Manila

(>IR: :IBI-I

G.R. No. &'21& S()*(+(- 1, 1/8/

GERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF A%%EALS a ERNESTO VILLEA, respondents.G.R. No. L!&'21' S()*(+(- 1, 1/8/

GERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF A%%EALS a ORLANDO GERNALE, respondents.

Alam, !erano % A##ociate# &or 'etitioner.

Franci#co . Lozano &or 'rivate re#'on)ent#.

FERNAN, C.J.:

-pouses C2nthia Cu2eg;eng ose and Manuel Rene ose, residents of

Penns2lvania, Philadelphia, -% are the owners of a parcel of land situated in

-itio Inarawan, -an Isidro, %ntipolo, Rial, with an area of &3&,94& suare 'eters

and covered !2 (C( o. 5&3 of the Register of :eeds of the province of Rial

issued on -epte'!er 11, 19" which canceled (C( o. 5878&J (58. (he land

was originall2 registered on %ugust 5, 194" in the ffice of the Register of :eeds

of Rial as C( o. 19, pursuant to a >o'estead Patent granted !2 the President

of the Philippines on ul2 &7, 194", under %ct o. 141.

n 6e!ruar2 &8, 19"&, the spouses ose eecuted a special power of attorne2

authoriing petitioner /er'an Manage'ent -ervices to develop their propert2

covered !2 (C( o. 5&3 into a residential su!division. Conseuentl2, petitioner

on 6e!ruar2 9,19"3 o!tained :evelop'ent Per'it o. 4&4 fro' the >u'an

-ettle'ents Regulator2 Co''ission for said develop'ent. 6inding that part of the

propert2 was occupied !2 private respondents and twent2 other persons, petitioner

advised the occupants to vacate the pre'ises !ut the latter refused. evertheless,

petitioner proceeded with the develop'ent of the su!*ect propert2 which included

the portions occupied and cultivated !2 private respondents.

Private respondents filed an action for forci!le entr2 against petitioner !efore the

Municipal (rial Court of %ntipolo, Rial, alleging that the2 are 'ountainside

far'ers of -itio Inarawan, -an Isidro, %ntipolo, Rial and 'e'!ers of the

Concerned Citiens of 6ar'erKs %ssociationA that the2 have occupied and tilled

their far'holdings so'e twelve to fifteen 2ears prior to the pro'ulgation of P.:.

o. &7A that during the first wee; of %ugust 19"3, petitioner, under a per'it fro'

the ffice of the Provincial /overnor of Rial, was allowed to i'prove the

0aranga2 Road at -itio Inarawan, -an Isidro, %ntipolo, Rial at its epense,su!*ect to the condition that it shag secure the needed right of wa2 fro' the owners

of the lot to !e affectedA that on %ugust 15, 19"3 and thereafter, petitioner deprived

private respondents of their propert2 without due process of law !2) ?1@ forci!l2

re'oving and destro2ing the !ar!ed wire fence enclosing their far'holdings

without noticeA ?&@ !ulldoing the rice, corn fruit !earing trees and other crops of

private respondents !2 'eans of force, violence and inti'idation, in violation of

P.:. 13" and ?3@ trespassing, coercing and threatening to harass, re'ove and e*ect

private respondents fro' their respective far'holdings in violation of P.:. os.

318, 5"3, "15, and 1&". 1

n anuar2 7,19"5, the Municipal (rial Court dis'issed private respondentsK

co'plaint for forci!le entr2. 2n appeal, the Regional (rial Court of %ntipolo,

Rial, 0ranch +EEI sustained the dis'issal !2 the Municipal (rial Court. 3

Private respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of %ppeals. n

ul2 &4,19"8, said court gave due course to their petition and reversed the

decisions of the Municipal (rial Court and the Regional (rial Court.

(he %ppellate Court held that since private respondents were in actual possession

of the propert2 at the ti'e the2 were forci!l2 e*ected !2 petitioner, private

respondents have a right to co''ence an action for forci!le entr2 regardless of the

legalit2 or illegalit2 of possession. 5Petitioner 'oved to reconsider !ut the sa'e

was denied !2 the %ppellate Court in its resolution dated -epte'!er &8, 19"8. '

>ence, this recourse.

(he issue in this case is whether or not the Court of %ppeals denied due process to

petitioner when it reversed the decision of the court a *uowithout giving petitioner


8/28

the opportunit2 to file its answer and whether or not private respondents are

entitled to file a forci!le entr2 case against petitioner. &

e who !elieves that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of

a thing, 'ust invo;e the aid of the co'petent court, if the holder should refuse to

deliver the thing.=

DRD6RD, the Court resolved to :DG the instant petition. (he decision of

the Court of %ppeals dated ul2 &4,19"8 is here!2 %66IRMD:. Costs against

petitioner.

- R:DRD:.

Bi)in an) Corte#, $$., concur.

+utierrez, $r., $., concur# in the re#ult.

Feliciano, $., i# on leave.


9/28


SU%REME COURT

Manila

D 0%C

G.R. No. L!28&1' No(+(- 18, 1/&0

FELI4 CAISI%, IGNACIO ROALES a FEDERICO

VILLADELRE",petitioners,

vs.

THE %EO%LE OF THE %HILI%%INES a THE COURT OF

A%%EALS, respondents.

+o)o&re)o F. rajano an) -a&ael A. Franci#co &or 'etit ioner#.

&&ice o& the /olicitor +eneral Feli0 !. Ma1a#iar, A##i#tant /olicitor +eneral

Antonio +. 2barra an) /olicitor Conra)o . Limcaoco &or re#'on)ent#.

CONCE%CION, C.J.:

(his case is !efore s upon petition of defendants 6eli Caisip, Ignacio Ro*ales

and 6ederico Billadelre2, for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

%ppeals which affir'ed that of the Court of 6irst Instance of 0atangas, convicting

the' of the cri'e of /rave Coercion, with which the2 are charged, and sentencingeach to four ?4@ 'onths and one ?1@ da2 of arre#to ma3or and to pa2 a fine of

P&., with su!sidiar2 i'prison'ent in case of insolvenc2, not to eceed one

third of the principal penalt2, as well as onethird of the costs.

%s set forth in the trial courtKs decision, the !ac;ground of the present case is this)

(he co'plainant /loria Ca!alag is the wife of Marcelino

/uevarra who cultivated a parcel of land ;nown as +ot 15% of

>acienda Palico situated in sitio 0ote!ote, !arrio (a'pisao,

asug!u, 0atangas. (he said parcel of land used to !e tenanted !2

the deceased father of the co'plainant. >acienda Palico is owned

!2 Roas 2 Cia. and ad'inistered !2 %ntonio Chuidian. (he

overseer of the said hacienda is 6eli Caisip, one of the accused

herein. Dven !efore the occurrence of the incident presentl2involved, there had !een a series of 'isunderstandings and

litigations involving the co'plainant and her hus!and, on one

hand, and the 'en of >acienda Palico on the other.

It appears that on :ece'!er &3, 1957, Marcelino /uevarra filed

an action with the Court of %grarian Relations see;ing recognition

as a lawful tenant of Roas 2 Cia. over lot o. 15% of >acienda

Palico. In a decision dated 6e!ruar2 &&, 195", the Court of

%grarian Relations declared it has no *urisdiction over the case,

inas'uch as /uevarra is not a tenant on the said parcel of land. %n

appeal was ta;en !2 /uevarra to the -upre'e Court, !ut the

appeal was dis'issed in a resolution dated %pril 1, 195".

n Ma2 17, 195", Roas 2 Cia. filed an action against Marcelino

/uevarra in the *ustice of the peace court of asug!u, 0atangas,

for forci!le entr2, pra2ing therein that /uevarra !e e*ected fro'

the pre'ises of +ot o. 15%. %fter due hearing, the said Court

in a decision dated Ma2 &, 1959 ordered /uevarra to vacate the lot

and to pa2 da'ages and accrued rentals. % writ of eecution was

issued !2 ustice of the Peace Rodolfo %. Castillo of asug!u,

which was served on /uevarra on une 8, 1959, and the return of

which was 'ade !2 :eput2 -heriff +eonardo R. %uino of this

Court on une &3, 1959 ?Dhi!it =1=@. (he writ recites a'ong

other things that the possession of the land was delivered to the

Roas 2 Cia. thru 6eli Caisip, the overseer, and /uevarra was

given twent2 da2s fro' une 8, 1959 within which to leave the

pre'ises.


10/28

(he record !efore s does not eplain wh2 said decision was eecuted. %ccording

to the co'plainant, her hus!andKs counsel had appealed fro' said decision. (he

*ustice of the peace who rendered it, >on. Rodolfo Castillo, said that there reall2

had !een an atte'pt to appeal, which was not given due course !ecause the

regle'entar2 period therefor had epiredA that a 'otion to reconsider his order to

this effect was denied !2 hi'A and that a second 'otion for reconsideration was

=#till 'en)in" con#i)eration,= and it was cto!er 19, 1959 when such testi'on2

was given.

Continuing the narration of the antecedent facts, >is >onor, the (rial udge, added)

n une 15, 1959, so'e trou!le occurred !etween the co'plainant

and Caisip regarding the cutting of sugar cane on +ot 15%. (he

following da2 une 18, 1959, the co'plainant allegedl2 again

entered the pre'ises of +ot 15% and refused to !e driven out !2

6eli Caisip. :ue to the afore'entioned incidents, /loria Ca!alag

was charged in the *ustice of the peace court of asug!u,

0atangas, with grave coercion for the incident of une 15, 1959,

doc;eted in the said court as Cri'inal Case o. 98" ?Dhi!it =3=@A

and with the cri'e of un*ust veation for the incident of une 18,

1959, doc;eted in the said court as Cri'inal Case o. 97. 0oth

cases, however, were filed onl2 on une &5, 1959.

In other words, these cri'inal cases, os. 98" and 97, against /loria Ca!alag,

were filed eight ?"@ da2s after the incident involved in the case at !ar. It is, also,

noteworth2 that !oth cases were L on 'otion of the prosecution, filed after a

reinvestigation thereof L provisionall2 dis'issed, on ove'!er ", 198, !2 the

Court of 6irst Instance of 0atangas, upon the ground =that the evidence of

record ... are insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused !e2ond reasona!le

dou!t.= (he decision of said court, in the case at !ar, goes on to sa2)

It further appears that due to the tenacious attitude of /loria

Ca!alag to re'ain in the pre'ises, Caisip sought the help of the

chief of police of asug!u who advised hi' to see :eput2 -heriff

%uino a!out the 'atter. (he lat ter, however, infor'ed Caisip that

he could not act on the reuest to e*ect /loria Ca!alag and to stop

her fro' what she was doing without a proper court order. Caisip

then consulted %ntonio Chuidian, the hacienda ad'inistrator, who,

in turn, went to the chief of police and reuested for the detail of

police'en in sitio 0ote!ote. (he chief of police, acting on said

reuest, assigned the accused Ignacio Ro*ales and 6ederico

Billadelre2, police sergeant and police corporal, respectivel2, of

the asug!u Police 6orce, to sitio 0ote!ote.1

n une 17, 1959, at a!out 5) p.'., /loria Ca!alag was seen weeding the

portion of +ot 15% which was a ricefield. %ppellant Caisip approached her and

!ade her to leave, !ut she refused to do so, alleging that she and her hus!and had

the right to sta2 there and that the crops thereon !elong to the'. -he having stuc;

to this attitude, even when he threatened to call the police, Caisip went to his co

defendants, -gt. Ro*ales and Cpl. Billadelre2, !oth of the local police, who were

so'e distance awa2, and !rought the' with hi'. Ro*ales told /loria, who was

then in a suatting position, to stop weeding. %s /loria insisted on her right to sta2

in said lot, Ro*ales gra!!ed her right hand and, twisting the sa'e, wrested

therefro' the trowel she was holding. (hereupon, Billadelre2 held her left hand

and, together with Ro*ales, forci!l2 dragged her northward L towards a forested

area, where there was a !anana plantation L as Caisip stood near!2, with a drawn

gun.

Inas'uch as /loria shouted =Ina ;o po Ina ;o po=2her neigh!ors, +i!rada

:ulutan, followed, soon later, !2 6rancisca %ndino, ca'e and as;ed the police'en

wh2 the2 were dragging her. (he police'en having answered that the2 would ta;e

/loria to town which was on the west L 6rancisca %ndino pleaded that /loria !e

released, sa2ing that, if their purpose was as stated !2 the', she ?/loria@ would

willingl2 go with the'. 02 this ti'e, /loria had alread2 !een dragged a!out eight

'eters and her dress, as well as her !louse 3were torn. -he then agreed to proceed

westward to the 'unicipal !uilding, and as;ed to !e allowed to pass !2 her house,

within +ot 15%, in order to !reastfeed her nursing infant, !ut, the reuest was

turned down. %s the2 passed, soon later, near the house of Noilo Rivera, head of

the tenant organiation to which she was affiliated, in the !arrio of Ca'achilihan,

/loria called out for hi', whereupon, he went down the house and acco'panied

the' to the 'unicipal !uilding. pon arrival thereat, Ro*ales and Billadelre2

turned her over to the police'an on dut2, and then departed. %fter !eing


11/28

interrogated !2 the chief of police, /loria was, upon representations 'ade !2 Noilo

Rivera, released and allowed to go ho'e.

(he foregoing is the prosecutionKs version. (hat of the defense is to the effect that,

upon !eing as;ed !2 the police'en to stop weeding and leave the pre'ises, /loria,

not onl2 refused to do so, !ut, also, insulted the', as well as Caisip. %ccording to

the defense, she was arrested !ecause of the cri'e of slander then co''itted !2

her. %ppellants Ro*ales and Billadelre2, 'oreover, testified that, as the2 wereheading towards the !arrio of Ca'achilihan, /loria proceeded to tear her clothes.

>is >onor, the (rial udge, accepted, however, the version of the prosecution and

found that of the defense unworth2 of credence. (he findings of fact of the Court

of %ppeals, which full2 concurred in this view, are =final,= and our authorit2 to

review on certiorari its appealed decision is li'ited to uestions purel2 of

law.%ppellants 'aintain that the Court of %ppeals has erred) ?1@ in not finding

their acts =*ustified under %rticle 4&9 of the ew Civil Code=A ?&@ in holding that

the &da2 period of grace given to Marcelino /uevarra and his wife, /loria

Ca!alag, !2 the sheriff, to vacate +ot 15%, was valid and lawfulA ?3@ in finding

that the ele'ents of the cri'e of grave coercion are present in the case at !arA and

?4@ in finding appellants guilt2 as charged. (his pretense is clearl2 untena!le.

%rt. 4&9 of our Civil Code, reading)

(he owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to eclude

an2 person fro' the en*o2'ent and disposal thereof. 6or this

purpose, he 'a2 use such force as 'a2 !e reasona!l2 necessar2 to

repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful ph2sical invasion

or usurpation of his propert2.

upon which appellants rel2 is o!viousl2 inapplica!le to the case at

!ar, for, having !een given & da2s fro' une 8, 1959, within

which to vacate +ot 15%, co'plainant did not, on une 17, 1959

L or within said period L inva)e or usurp said lot. -he had

'erel2 remaine) in possession thereof, even though the hacienda

owner 'a2 have !eco'e its copossessor. %ppellants did not

=re'el or'revent in actual or threatene) ... ph2sical inva#ion or

usurpation.= (he2 e0'elle) /loria fro' a propert2 of which she

and her hus!and were in possession even!efore the action for

forci!le entr2 was filed against the' on Ma2 17, 195", despite the

fact that the -heriff had eplicitl2 authoried the' to sta2 in said

propert2 up to une &8, 1959, and had epressed the view that he

could not oust the' therefro' on une 17, 1959, without a *udicial

order therefor.

It is urged, that, !2 weeding and refusing to leave +ot 15%, /loria had

co''itted a cri'e in the presence of the police'en, despite the afore'entioned

&da2 period, which, appellants clai', the sheriff had no authorit2 to grant. (his

contention is 'anifestl2 untena!le, !ecause) ?1@ said period was granted in the

presence of the hacienda ownerKs representative, appellant Caisip, who, !2 not

o!*ecting thereto, had i'pliedl2 consented to or ratified the act perfor'ed !2 the

sheriffA ?&@ /loria and her hus!and were there!2 allowed to re'ain, and had, in

fact, re'ained, in possession of the pre'ises, perhaps together with the owner of

the hacienda or his representative, CaisipA ?3@ the act of re'oving weeds fro' the

ricefield was bene&icial to its owner and to who'soever the crops !elonged, and,

even if the2 had not authoried it, does not constitute a cri'inal offenseA and ?4@

although /loria and her hus!and had !een sentenced to vacate the land, the

*udg'ent against the' did not necessaril2 i'pl2 that the2, as the parties who had

tilled it and planted thereon, had no rights, of an2 ;ind whatsoever, in or to the

standing crops, inas'uch as =necessar2 epenses shall !e refunded to ever2

possessor,=5and the cost of cultivation, production and up;eep has !een held to

parta;e of the nature of necessar2 epenses.'

It is, accordingl2, clear that appellants herein had, !2 'eans of violence, and

without legal authorit2 therefor, prevented the co'plainant fro' =doing so'ething

not prohi!ited !2 law,= ?weeding and !eing in +ot 15%@, and co'pelled her =to

do so'ething against= her will ?stopping the weeding and leaving said lot@,

=hether it be ri"ht or ron",= there!2 ta;ing the law into their hands, in violation

of %rt. &"8 of the Revised Penal Code.&

%ppellant Caisip argues that, not having used violence against the co'plaining

witness, he should !e acuitted of the charge. In this connection, >is >onor, the

(rial udge, correctl2 o!served)


12/28

... e could !e hardl2 said to

have disapproved an act which he hi'self induced and initiated. 8

In other words, there was co''unit2 of purpose !etween the police'en and

Caisip, so that the latter is guilt2 of grave coercion, as a coconspirator, apart fro'

!eing a principal !2 induction./

In the co''ission of the offense, the aggravating circu'stances of a!use of

superior strength 10and disregard of the respect due the offended part2, !2 reason

of her se, 11were present, insofar as the three appellants herein are concerned. %s

regards appellants Ro*ales and Billadelre2, there was the additional aggravating

circu'stance of having ta;en advantage of their positions as 'e'!ers of the local

police force. >ence, the penalt2 of i'prison'ent 'eted out to appellants herein,

which is the 'ini'u' of the 'ai'u' prescri!ed in said %rt. &"8, 12and the fine

i'posed upon the', are in accordance with law.

DRD6RD, the decision appealed fro' is here!2 affir'ed, with costs against

the defendantsappellants. It is so ordered.

-e3e#, $.B.L., Ma1alintal, Zal)ivar, Ca#tro, Fernan)o, eehan1ee an) Barre)o,

$$., concur.

izon, $., i# on leave.

Ma1a#iar an) !illamor, $$., too1 no 'art.


SU%REME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 11'100 F(-6a-y /, 1//'

S%OUSES CRISTINO a 7RIGIDA CUSTODIO a S%OUSES LITO a

MARIA CRISTINA SANTOS,petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF A%%EALS, HEIRS OF %ACIFICO C. MA7ASA a

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF %ASIG, METRO MANILA, 7RANCH

181, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

REGALADO,J.#

(his petition for review on certiorariassails the decision of respondent Court of

%ppeals in C%/.R. CB o. &9115, pro'ulgated on ove'!er 1, 1993, which

affir'ed with 'odification the decision of the trial court, as well as its resolutiondated ul2 ", 1994 den2ing petitionerKs 'otion for reconsideration.1

n %ugust &8, 19"&, Civil Case o. 47488 for the grant of an ease'ent of right of

wa2 was filed !2 Pacifico Ma!asa against Cristino Custodio, 0rigida R. Custodio,

Rosalina R. Morato, +ito -antos and Maria Cristina C. -antos !efore the Regional

(rial Court of Pasig and assigned to 0ranch && thereof.&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt2


13/28

(he generative facts of the case, as s2nthesied !2 the trial court and adopted !2

the Court of %ppeals, are as follows)

Perusing the record, this Court finds that the original plaintiff Pacifico

Ma!asa died during the pendenc2 of this case and was su!stituted !2

felia Ma!asa, his surviving spouse #and children$.

(he plaintiff owns a parcel of land with a twodoor apart'ent erected

thereon situated at Interior P. 0urgos -t., Palingon, (ipas, (agig, Metro

Manila. (he plaintiff was a!le to acuire said propert2 through a contract

of sale with spouses Ma'erto Ra2os and (eodora Huintero as vendors last

-epte'!er 19"1. -aid propert2 'a2 !e descri!ed to !e surrounded !2

other i''ova!les pertaining to defendants herein. (a;ing P. 0urgos -treet

as the point of reference, on the left side, going to plaintiffKs propert2, the

row of houses will !e as follows) (hat of defendants Cristino and 0rigido

Custodio, then that of +ito and Maria Cristina -antos and then that of

felia Ma!asa. n the right side ?is@ that of defendant Rosalina Morato

and then a -eptic (an; ?Dhi!it =:=@. %s an access to P. 0urgos -treet

fro' plaintiffKs propert2, there are two possi!le passagewa2s. (he first

passagewa2 is approi'atel2 one 'eter wide and is a!out & 'eters

distan?t@ fro' Ma!asaKs residence to P. 0urgos -treet. -uch path is passing

in !etween the previousl2 'entioned row of houses. (he second

passagewa2 is a!out 3 'eters in width and length fro' plaintiff Ma!asaKs

residence to P. 0urgos -treetA it is a!out &8 'eters. In passing thru said

passagewa2, a less than a 'eter wide path through the septic tan; and with

58 'eters in length, has to !e traversed.

5hen #ai) 'ro'ert3 a# 'urcha#e) b3 Maba#a, there ere tenant#

occu'3in" the remi#e# an) ho ere ac1nole)"e) b3 'lainti&& Maba#a a#tenant#.6oever, #ometime in Februar3, 89:, one o& #ai) tenant#

vacate) the a'artment an) hen 'lainti&& Maba#a ent to #ee the

'remi#e#, he #a that there ha) been built an a)obe &ence in the &ir#t

'a##a"ea3 ma1in" it narroer in i)th. -aid ado!e fence was first

constructed !2 defendants -antoses along their propert2 which is also

along the first passagewa2. :efendant Morato constructed her ado!e fence

and even etended said fence in such a wa2 that the entire passagewa2 was

enclosed. ?Dhi!it =1-antoses and Custodios, Dh. =:= for plaintiff, Dhs.

=1C=, =1:= and =1D=@An) it a# then that the remainin" tenant# o& #ai)

a'artment vacate) the area. :efendant Ma. Cristina -antos testified that

she constructed said fence !ecause there was an incident when her

daughter was dragged !2 a !ic2cle pedalled !2 a son of one of the tenants

in said apart'ent along the first passagewa2. -he also 'entioned so'e

other inconveniences of having ?at@ the front of her house a pathwa2 such

as when so'e of the tenants were drun; and would !ang their doors andwindows. -o'e of their footwear were even lost. . . .3?D'phasis in

original tetA corrections in parentheses supplied@

n 6e!ruar2 &7, 199, a decision was rendered !2 the trial court, with this

dispositive part)

%ccordingl2, *udg'ent is here!2 rendered as follows)

1@ rdering defendants Custodios and -antoses to give plaintiff per'anent

access ingress and egress, to the pu!lic streetA

&@ rdering the plaintiff to pa2 defendants Custodios and -antoses the su'

of Dight (housand Pesos ?P",@ as inde'nit2 for the per'anent use of

the passagewa2.

(he parties to shoulder their respective litigation epenses.4

ot satisfied therewith, therein plaintiff represented !2 his heirs, herein private

respondents, went to the Court of %ppeals raising the sole issue of whether or not

the lower court erred in not awarding da'ages in their favor. n ove'!er 1,

1993, as earlier stated, the Court of %ppeals rendered its decision affir'ing the*udg'ent of the trial court with 'odification, the decretal portion of which

disposes as follows)

DRD6RD, the appealed decision of the lower court is here!2

%66IRMD: M:I6IC%(I onl2 insofar as the herein grant of

da'ages to plaintiffsappellants. (he Court here!2 orders defendants

appellees to pa2 plaintiffsappellants the su' of -it2 6ive (housand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_116100_1996.html#fnt4


14/28

?P85,@ Pesos as %ctual :a'ages, (hirt2 (housand ?P3,@ Pesos as

Moral :a'ages, and (en (housand ?P1,@ Pesos as De'plar2

:a'ages. (he rest of the appealed decision is affir'ed to all respects. 5

n ul2 ", 1994, the Court of %ppeals denied petitionerKs 'otion for

reconsideration.8Petitioners then too; the present recourse to us, raising two

issues, na'el2, whether or not the grant of right of wa2 to herein private

respondents is proper, and whether or not the award of da'ages is in order.

owever, the 'ere fact that the plaintiff suffered losses does not give rise to a right

to recover da'ages. (o warrant the recover2 of da'ages, there 'ust !e !oth a

right of action for a legal wrong inflicted !2 the defendant, and da'age resulting

to the plaintiff therefro'.


15/28

injuria.13If, as 'a2 happen in 'an2 cases, a person sustains actual da'age, that is,

har' or loss to his person or propert2, without sustaining an2 legal in*ur2, that is,

an act or o'ission which the law does not dee' an in*ur2, the da'age is regarded

as )amnum ab#*ue injuria.14

In the case at !ar, although there was da'age, there was no legal in*ur2. Contrar2

to the clai' of private respondents, petitioners could not !e said to have violated

the principle of a!use of right. In order that the principle of a!use of right provided

in %rticle &1 of the Civil Code can !e applied, it is essential that the following

reuisites concur) ?1@ (he defendant should have acted in a 'anner that is contrar2

to 'orals, good custo's or pu!lic polic2A ?&@ (he acts should !e willfulA and ?3@

(here was da'age or in*ur2 to the plaintiff.15

(he act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid eercise of

their right as owners, hence not contrar2 to 'orals, good custo's or pu!lic polic2.

(he law recognies in the owner the right to en*o2 and dispose of a thing, without

other li'itations than those esta!lished !2 law.18It is within the right of petitioners,

as owners, to enclose and fence their propert2. %rticle 43 of the Civil Code

provides that =?e@ver2 owner 'a2 enclose or fence his land or tene'ents !2 'eans

of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or !2 an2 other 'eans without detri'ent to

servitudes constituted thereon.=

%t the ti'e of the construction of the fence, the lot was not su!*ect to an2

servitudes. (here was no ease'ent of wa2 eisting in favor of private respondents,

either !2 law or !2 contract. (he fact that private respondents had no eisting right

over the said passagewa2 is confir'ed !2 the ver2 decision of the trial court

granting a co'pulsor2 right of wa2 in their favor after pa2'ent of *ust

co'pensation. It was onl2 that decision which gave private respondents the right

to use the said passagewa2 after pa2'ent of the co'pensation and i'posed acorresponding dut2 on petitioners not to interfere in the eercise of said right.

>ence, prior to said decision, petitioners had an a!solute right over their propert2

and their act of fencing and enclosing the sa'e was an act which the2 'a2

lawfull2 perfor' in the e'plo2'ent and eercise of said right. (o repeat, whatever

in*ur2 or da'age 'a2 have !een sustained !2 private respondents !2 reason of the

rightful use of the said land !2 petitioners is )amnum ab#*ue injuria.17

% person has a right to the natural use and en*o2'ent of his own propert2,

according to his pleasure, for all the purposes to which such propert2 is usuall2

applied. %s a general rule, therefore, there is no cause of action for acts done !2

one person upon his own propert2 in a lawful and proper 'anner, although such

acts incidentall2 cause da'age or an unavoida!le loss to another, as such da'age

or loss is )amnum ab#*ue injuria. 1"


16/28


SU%REME COURT

Manila(>IR: :IBI-I

G.R. No. &&'1 No(+(- ', 1//0

NATIVIDAD V. ANDAMO a EMMANUEL R. ANDAMO,petitioners,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE A%%ELLATE COURT F9-:* C99; Ca:(: D99:9o< a

MISSIONARIES OF OUR LAD" OF LA SALETTE, INC., respondents.

Lo'e ;. A)riano &or 'etitioner#.

Pa)illa La &&ice &or 'rivate re#'on)ent.

FERNAN, C.J.:

(he pivotal issue in this petition for certiorari, prohi!ition and 'anda'us is

whether a corporation, which has !uilt through its agents, waterpaths, water

conductors and contrivances within its land, there!2 causing inundation and

da'age to an ad*acent land, can !e held civill2 lia!le for da'ages under %rticles

&178 and &177 of the Civil Code on uasidelicts such that the resulting civil case

can proceed independentl2 of the cri'inal case.

(he antecedent facts are as follows)

Petitioner spouses D''anuel and atividad %nda'o are the owners of a parcel of

land situated in 0iga ?0iluso@ -ilang, Cavite which is ad*acent to that of private

respondent, Missionaries of ur +ad2 of +a -alette, Inc., a religious corporation.


17/28

'otion for reconsideration filed !2 petitioners was denied !2 the %ppellate Court

in its resolution dated Ma2 19, 19"8. '

:irectl2 at issue is the propriet2 of the dis'issal of Civil Case o. (/74" in

accordance with -ection 3 ?a@ of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners

contend that the trial court and the %ppellate Court erred in dis'issing Civil Case

o. (/74" since it is predicated on a uasidelict. Petitioners have raised a valid

point.

It is aio'atic that the nature of an action filed in court is deter'ined !2 the facts

alleged in the co'plaint as constituting the cause of action. &(he purpose of an

action or suit and the law to govern it, including the period of prescription, is to !e

deter'ined not !2 the clai' of the part2 filing the action, 'ade in his argu'ent or

!rief, !ut rather !2 the co'plaint itself, its allegations and pra2er for relief. 8(he

nature of an action is not necessaril2 deter'ined or controlled !2 its title or

heading !ut the !od2 of the pleading or co'plaint itself. (o avoid possi!le denial

of su!stantial *ustice due to legal technicalities, pleadings as well as re'edial laws

should !e li!erall2 construed so that the litigants 'a2 have a'ple opportunit2 to

prove their respective clai's. /

Huoted hereunder are the pertinent portions of petitionersK co'plaint in Civil Case

o. (/74")

4@ (hat within defendantKs land, li;ewise located at 0iga ?0iluso@,

-ilang, Cavite, ad*acent on the right side of the aforesaid land of

plaintiffs, defendant constructed waterpaths starting fro' the

'iddleright portion thereof leading to a !ig hole or opening, also

constructed !2 defendant, thru the lower portion of its concrete

hollow!loc;s fence situated on the right side of its ce'ented gatefronting the provincial highwa2, and connected !2 defendant to a

'an height interconnected ce'ent culverts which were also

constructed and lain !2 defendant crosswise !eneath the tip of the

said ce'ented gate, the leftend of the said interconnected

culverts again connected !2 defendant to a !ig hole or opening

thru the lower portion of the sa'e concrete hollow!loc;s fence on

the left side of the said ce'ented gate, which hole or opening is

li;ewise connected !2 defendant to the ce'ented 'outh of a !ig

canal, also constructed !2 defendant, which runs northward

towards a !ig hole or opening which was also !uilt !2 defendant

thru the lower portion of its concrete hollow!loc;s fence which

separates the land of plaintiffs fro' that of defendant ?and which

serves as the eitpoint of the floodwater co'ing fro' the land of

defendant, and at the sa'e ti'e, the entrancepoint of the sa'e

floodwater to the land of plaintiffs, 2ear after 2ear, during rain2 or

stor'2 seasons.

5@ (hat 'oreover, on the 'iddleleft portion of its land *ust !eside

the land of plaintiffs, defendant also constructed an artificial la;e,

the !ase of which is soil, which utilies the water !eing channeled

thereto fro' its water s2ste' thru interconnected galvanied iron

pipes ?o. &@ and co'pli'ented !2 rain water during rain2 or

stor'2 seasons, so 'uch so that the water !elow it seeps into, and

the ecess water a!ove it inundates, portions of the ad*oining land

of plaintiffs.

8@ (hat as a result of the inundation !rought a!out !2 defendantKs

afore'entioned water conductors, contrivances and 'anipulators,

a 2oung 'an was drowned to death, while herein plaintiffs

suffered and will continue to suffer, as follows)

a@ Portions of the land of plaintiffs were eroded

and converted to deep, wide and long canals, such

that the sa'e can no longer !e planted to an2 crop

or plant.

!@ Costl2 fences constructed !2 plaintiffs were, on

several occasions, washed awa2.

c@ :uring rain2 and stor'2 seasons the lives of

plaintiffs and their la!orers are alwa2s in danger.


18/28

d@ Plants and other i'prove'ents on other

portions of the land of plaintiffs are eposed to

destruction. ... 10

% careful ea'ination of the aforeuoted co'plaint shows that the civil action is

one under %rticles &178 and &177 of the Civil Code on uasidelicts. %ll the

ele'ents of a uasidelict are present, to wit) ?a@ da'ages suffered !2 the plaintiff,

?!@ fault or negligence of the defendant, or so'e other person for whose acts he

'ust respondA and ?c@ the connection of cause and effect !etween the fault or

negligence of the defendant and the da'ages incurred !2 the plaintiff. 11

Clearl2, fro' petitionerKs co'plaint, the waterpaths and contrivances !uilt !2

respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. (here

is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection !etween the act of !uilding these

waterpaths and the da'age sustained !2 petitioners. -uch action if proven

constitutes fault or negligence which 'a2 !e the !asis for the recover2 of da'ages.

In the case of /am#on v#. ioni#io, 12the Court applied %rticle 19&, now %rticle

&178 of the Civil Code and held that =an2 person who without due authorit2

constructs a !an; or di;e, stopping the flow or co''unication !etween a cree; or

a la;e and a river, there!2 causing loss and da'ages to a third part2 who, li;e the

rest of the residents, is entitled to the use and en*o2'ent of the strea' or la;e, shall

!e lia!le to the pa2'ent of an inde'nit2 for loss and da'ages to the in*ured part2.


19/28

plaintiff cannot recover da'ages twice for the sa'e act or

o'ission of the defendant.

%ccording to the Report of the Code Co''ission =the foregoing provision though

at first sight startling, is not so novel or etraordinar2 when we consider the eact

nature of cri'inal and civil negligence. (he for'er is a violation of the cri'inal

law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence, which is a =culpa

auiliana= or uasidelict, of ancient origin, having alwa2s had its own foundation

and individualit2, separate fro' cri'inal negligence. -uch distinction !etween

cri'inal negligence and =culpa etracontractual= or =cuasidelito= has !een

sustained !2 decisions of the -upre'e Court of -pain ... 1

In the case of Ca#tillo v#. Court o& A''eal#,15this Court held that a uasidelict or

culpa auiliana is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a

su!stantivit2 all its own, and individualit2 that is entirel2 apart and independent

fro' a delict or cri'e L a distinction eists !etween the civil lia!ilit2 arising fro'

a cri'e and the responsi!ilit2 for uasidelicts or culpa etracontractual. (he

sa'e negligence causing da'ages 'a2 produce civil lia!ilit2 arising fro' a cri'e

under the Penal Code, or create an action for uasidelicts or culpa etra

contractual under the Civil Code. (herefore, the acuittal or conviction in the

cri'inal case is entirel2 irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the event

of an acuittal where the court has declared that the fact fro' which the civil

action arose did not eist, in which case the etinction of the cri'inal lia!ilit2

would carr2 with it the etinction of the civil lia!ilit2.

InAzucena v#. Potenciano,1' the Court declared that in uasidelicts, =?t@he civil

action is entirel2 independent of the cri'inal case according to %rticles 33 and

&177 of the Civil Code. (here can !e no logical conclusion than this, for to

su!ordinate the civil action conte'plated in the said articles to the result of thecri'inal prosecution L whether it !e conviction or acuittal L would render

'eaningless the independent character of the civil action and the clear in*unction

in %rticle 31, that his action 'a2 proceed independentl2 of the cri'inal

proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.=

DRD6RD, the assailed decision dated 6e!ruar2 17, 19"8 of the then

Inter'ediate %ppellate Court affir'ing the order of dis'issal of the Regional (rial

Court of Cavite, 0ranch 1" ?(aga2ta2 Cit2@ dated %ugust 17, 19"4 is here!2

RDBDR-D: and -D( %-I:D. (he trial court is ordered to reinstate Civil Case o.

(/74" entitled =atividad B. %nda'o and D''anuel R. %nda'o vs.

Missionaries of ur +ad2 of +a -alette Inc.= and to proceed with the hearing of the

case with dispatch. (his decision is i''ediatel2 eecutor2. Costs against

respondent corporation.

- R:DRD:.

+utierrez, $r. an) Bi)in, $$., concur.

Feliciano, $., i# on leave.


SU%REME COURT

Manila

-DC: :IBI-I

G.R. No. 125018 A)-9; ', 2000

REMMAN ENTER%RISES, INC.,petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF A%%EALS a CRIS%IN E. LAT,respondents.

7ELLOSILLO,J.:

RDMM% D(DRPRI-D-, IC. ?RDMM%@, and CRI-PI D. +%( are

ad*oining landowners in 0aranga2 0ugtong a Pulo, +ipa Cit2. (he land of +at

containing an area of 1." hectares is agricultural and planted 'ostl2 with fruit trees

while RDMM% occupies a land area of fifteen ?15@ hectares si ?8@ hectares ofwhich are devoted to its pigger2 !usiness. RDMM%Ks land is one and a half ?1

1J&@ 'eters higher in elevation than that of respondent +at.

-o'eti'e in ul2 19"4 +at noticed that RDMM%Ks waste disposal lagoon was

alread2 overflowing and inundating onefourth ?1J4@ of +atKs plantation. >e 'ade

several representations with RDMM% !ut the2 fell on deaf ears. n 14 March

19"5, after al'ost one ?1@ hectare of +atKs plantation was alread2 inundated with


20/28

water containing pig 'anure, as a result of which the trees growing on the flooded

portion started to wither and die, +at filed a co'plaint for da'ages with

preli'inar2 'andator2 in*unction against RDMM%. +at alleged that the acidit2

of the soil in his plantation increased !ecause of the overflow of the water heav2

with pig 'anure fro' RDMM%Ks pigger2 far'.

RDMM% denied all the allegations of +at and raised as an affir'ative defense

that 'easures such as the construction of additional lagoons were alread2 adopted

to contain the waste water co'ing fro' its pigger2 to prevent an2 da'age to the

ad*oining estates.

%fter conducting an ocular inspection and evaluating the evidence of !oth parties

the Regional (rial Court found that indeed RDMM%Os waste disposal lagoon

overflowed with the conta'inated water flooding one ?1@ hectare of +atKs

plantation. (he waste water was an;ledeep and caused death and destruction to

one ?1@ *ac;fruit tree, fifteen ?15@ coconut trees, one hundred twent2two ?1&&@

coffee trees, and an unspecified nu'!er of 'ango trees, !ananas and vegeta!les.

%s a conseuence, the trial court ordered RDMM% to inde'nif2 +at

P1"8,975. for lost profits for three ?3@ crop 2ears and P3,. as attorne2Ks

fees.1

(he decision of the court a *uowas affir'ed in toto!2 the Court of %ppeals.&

In this Petition for Review on CertiorariRDMM% pra2s that we pass upon the

findings of the trial court as well as of the appellate court. RDMM% insists that

factual findings of lower courts 'a2 !e passed upon, reviewed and reversed) ?a@

when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirel2 on speculation, sur'ises orcon*ecturesA ?!@ when the inference 'ade is 'anifestl2 'ista;en, a!surd or

i'possi!leA ?c@ when there is grave a!use of discretionA ?d@ when the *udg'ent is

!ased on a 'isapprehension of factsA ?e@ when the Court of %ppeals 'anifestl2

overloo;ed certain relevant facts not disputed !2 the parties and which, if properl2

considered, would *ustif2 a different conclusionA ?f@ when the conclusions of the

Court of %ppeals are not supported !2 the evidence on recordA ?g@ when facts of

su!stance were overloo;ed which, if correctl2 considered, 'ight have changed the

outco'e of the caseA and, ?h@ when the findings of the Court of %ppeals are not in

accord with what reasona!le 'en would readil2 accept are the correct inferences

fro' the evidence etant in the records.3

Indeed, in the a!ove'entioned instances, the factual 'ilieu of a particular case

'a2 !e passed upon, reversed or 'odified !2 this Court. 0ut ea'ination of the

record reveals that all the a!ove instances are unavailing. 6ro' this point of view

alone the instant petition is dis'issi!le. evertheless, we shall discuss the'

hereunder to dispose finall2 of the contentions of RDMM%.

Fir#t, RDMM% argues that its lia!ilit2 for the da'ages suffered !2 +at was not

clearl2 esta!lished.


21/28

'onitor the increases in the level of water in the lagoons !efore, during

and after the heav2 downpours which occurred during the rain2 'onths of

19"4A ?!@ failure to aug'ent the eisting lagoons prior to the incident,

notwithstanding the fact that at the ti'e of the flooding, the pigger2 had

grown to a capacit2 of 11, heads, and considering that it was

reasona!l2 forseea!le that the eisting waste disposal facilities were no

longer adeuate to acco'odate the increasing volu'e of waste 'atters in

such a !ig far'A and 'ore i'portantl2, ?c@ the repeated failure to co'pl2

with their pro'ise to appellee.5

/econ), RDMM% argues that the trial court as well as the Court of %ppeals

should not have re*ected its reuest for the production of +atKs inco'e ta returns.

%ccording to RDMM% had +atKs inco'e ta returns !een produced, the issue of

the alleged da'ages suffered !2 +at would have !een settled.

(his argu'ent is 'oot, if not trite. 6or this 'atter has !een laid to rest when we

affir'ed the Court of %ppealsK decision in an earlier case involving the sa'e

parties.8In sustaining the trial courtKs uashal of the su!poena)uce#

tecumpreviousl2 issued co'pelling +at to produce his inco'e ta returns for the

2ears 19"&19"8, the appellate court eplained that the production of the inco'e

ta returns would not necessaril2 serve to prove the special and affir'ative

defenses set up !2 RDMM% nor re!ut +atKs testi'on2 regarding the losses he

sustained due to the pigger2. (he ta returns 'er #ecould not reflect the total

a'ount of da'ages suffered !2 +at, as inco'e losses fro' a portion of the

plantation could !e offset !2 an2 profit derived fro' the rest of the plantation or

fro' other sources of inco'e. Conversel2, losses incurred fro' other sources of

inco'e would !e totall2 unrelated to the inco'e fro' the particular portion of the

plantation flooded with waste 'atter co'ing fro' RDMM%Ks pigger2.7

hir), RDMM% contends that the da'ages allegedl2 sustained !2 +at have not

!een satisfactoril2 esta!lished.


22/28

sustained !2 private respondents since the2, the petitioners, were

guilt2 of negligence. (his event then was not occasioned

eclusivel2 !2 an act of /od or&orce majeureA a hu'an factor L

negligence or i'prudence L had intervened. (he effect then of

the&orce majeurein uestion 'a2 !e dee'ed to have, even if onl2

partl2, resulted fro' the participation of 'an. (hus, the whole

occurrence was there!2 hu'anied, as it were, and re'oved fro'

the rules applica!le to acts of /od.

%s regards the alleged natural ease'ent i'posed upon the propert2 of

appellee, resort to pertinent provisions of applica!le law is i'perative.

nder the Civil Code, it is provided)

%rt. 837. +ower estates are o!liged to receive the waters which

naturall2 and without the intervention of 'an descend fro' the

higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which the2 carr2 with

the'.

(he owner of the lower estate cannot construct wor;s which will

i'pede this ease'entA neither can the owner of the higher estate

'a;e wor;s which will increase the !urden.

% si'ilar provision is found in the owever, where the

waters which flow fro' a higher state are those which are artificiall2

collected in 'an'ade lagoons, an2 da'age occasioned there!2 entitles

the owner of the lower or servient estate to co'pensation.9

n the !asis of the foregoing discussion, it is cr2stal clear that RDMM% is

directl2 accounta!le to +at for the da'ages sustained !2 hi'. (he negligence of

RDMM% in 'aintaining the level of waste water in its lagoons has !een

satisfactoril2 esta!lished. (he etent of da'ages suffered !2 +at re'ains

unre!uttedA in fact, has !een proved.

DRD6RD, the petition is :DID:. (he 19 cto!er 1995 :ecision of the

Court of %ppeals affir'ing that of the Regional (rial Court0r. 18, +ipa Cit2,

holding petitioner Re''an Dnterprises, Inc. ?RDMM%@ lia!le to private

respondent Crispin D. +at for da'ages and to inde'nif2 the latter P1"8,975. for

lost profits for three ?3@ crop 2ears and P3,. as attorne2s fees, is

%66IRMD:. Costs against petitioner.


23/28


SU%REME COURT

Manila

6IR-( :IBI-I

G.R. No. L!3/38 A)-9; 15, 1/88

RE%U7LIC OF THE %HILI%%INES DIRECTOR OF FOREST

DEVELO%MENTa*=(- OSE ". DE LA ROSA, respondents.

G.R. No. L!0/2 A)-9; 15, 1/88

ATO?!7IG $EDGE MINING COM%AN",petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF A%%EALS, OSE ". DE LA ROSA, VICTOR;A,

7ENAMIN a EDUARDO, a;; :6-a+( DE LA ROSA, -()-(:(*( y

*=(9- >a*=(-, OSE ". DE LA ROSA, respondents.

CRU,J.:

(he Regalian doctrine reserves to the -tate all natural wealth that 'a2 !e found in

the !owels of the earth even if the land where the discover2 is 'ade !e private. 1In

the cases at !ar, which have !een consolidated !ecause the2 pose a co''on issue,

this doctrine was not correctl2 applied.

(hese cases arose fro' the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on

6e!ruar2 11, 1985, !2 ose de la Rosa on his own !ehalf and on !ehalf of his three

children, Bictoria, 0en*a'in and Dduardo. (he land, situated in (uding, Itogon,

0enguet Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered !2 plan Psu&&59.

%ccording to the application, +ots 15 were sold to ose de la Rosa and +ots 89 to

his children !2 Ma'a2a 0al!alio and ai'e %l!erto, respectivel2, in 1984. 2

(he application was separatel2 opposed !2 0enguet Consolidated, Inc. as to +ots

15, %to; 0ig


24/28

0enguet opposed on the ground that the une 0ug 'ineral clai' covering +ots 15

was sold to it on -epte'!er &&, 1934, !2 the successorsininterest of a'es Fell2,

who located the clai' in -epte'!er 199 and recorded it on cto!er 14, 199.

6ro' the date of its purchase, 0enguet had !een in actual, continuous and

eclusive possession of the land in concept of owner, as evidenced !2 its

construction of adits, its affidavits of annual assess'ent, its geological 'appings,

geological sa'plings and trench side cuts, and its pa2'ent of taes on the land. 8

6or its part, %to; alleged that a portion of +ots 15 and all of +ots 89 were

covered !2 the D''a and 6redia 'ineral clai's located !2 >arrison and Re2nolds

on :ece'!er &5, 193, and recorded on anuar2 &, 1931, in the office of the

'ining recorder of 0aguio. (hese clai's were purchased fro' these locators on

ove'!er &, 1931, !2 %to;, which has since then !een in open, continuous and

eclusive possession of the said lots as evidenced !2 its annual assess'ent wor;

on the clai's, such as the !oring of tunnels, and its pa2'ent of annual taes

thereon. /

(he location of the 'ineral clai's was 'ade in accordance with -ection &1 of the

Philippine 0ill of 19& which provided that)

-DC. &1. %ll valua!le 'ineral deposits in pu!lic lands in the

philippine Islands !oth surve2ed and unsurve2ed are here!2

declared to !e free and open to eploration, occupation and

purchase and the land in which the2 are found to occupation and

purchase !2 the citiens of the nited -tates, or of said islands.

(he 0ureau of 6orestr2 :evelop'ent also interposed its o!*ection, arguing that the

land sought to !e registered was covered !2 the Central Cordillera 6orest Reserve

under Procla'ation o. &17 dated 6e!ruar2 18, 19&9. Moreover, !2 reason of itsnature, it was not su!*ect to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973. 10

(he trial court @denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to

prove their clai' of possession and ownership of the land sought to !e

registered. 11(he applicants appealed to the respondent court, @which reversed the

trial court and recognied the clai's of the applicant, !ut su!*ect to the rights of

0enguet and %to; respecting their 'ining clai's. 12In other words, the Court of

%ppeals affir'ed the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the

sa'e ti'e reserving the su!surface rights of 0enguet and %to; !2 virtue of their

'ining clai's.

0oth 0enguet and %to; have appealed to this Court, invo;ing their superior right

of ownership. (he Repu!lic has filed its own petition for review and reiterates its

argu'ent that neither the private respondents nor the two 'ining co'panies have

an2 valid clai' to the land !ecause it is not aliena!le and registera!le.

It is true that the su!*ect propert2 was considered forest land and included in the

Central Cordillera 6orest Reserve, !ut this did not i'pair the rights alread2 vested

in 0enguet and %to; at that ti'e. (he Court of %ppeals correctl2 declared that)

(here is no uestion that the 9 lots applied for are within the une

0ug 'ineral clai's of 0enguet and the =6redia and D''a=

'ineral clai's of %to;. (he une 0ug 'ineral clai' of plaintiff

0enguet was one of the 18 'ining clai's of a'es D. Fell2,

%'erican and 'ining locator. >e filed his declaration of the

location of the une 0ug 'ineral and the sa'e was recorded in the

Mining RecorderKs ffice on cto!er 14, 199. %ll of the Fell2

clai's ha su!seuentl2 !een acuired !2 0enguet Consolidated,

Inc. 0enguetKs evidence is that it had 'ade i'prove'ents on the

une 0ug 'ineral clai' consisting of 'ine tunnels prior to 1935.

It had su!'itted the reuired affidavit of annual assess'ent. %fter


25/28

(he une 0ug 'ineral clai' of 0enguet and the 6redia and D''a

'ineral clai's of %to; having !een perfected prior to the approval

of the Constitution of the Philippines of 1935, the2 were re'oved

fro' the pu!lic do'ain and had !eco'e private properties of

0enguet and %to;.

It is not disputed that the location of the 'ining

clai' under consideration was perfected prior to

ove'!er 15, 1935, when the /overn'ent of the

Co''onwealth was inauguratedA and according

to the laws eisting at that ti'e, as construed and

applied !2 this court inMcaniel v. A'acible an)

Cui#ia ?4& Phil. 749@, a valid location of a 'ining

clai' segregated the area fro' the pu!lic do'ain.

-aid the court in that case) (he 'o'ent the

locator discovered a valua!le 'ineral deposit on

the lands located, and perfected his location in

accordance with law, the power of the nited

-tates /overn'ent to deprive hi' of the

eclusive right to the possession and en*o2'ent of

the located clai' was gone, the lands had !eco'e

'ineral lands and the2 were ee'pted fro' lands

that could !e granted to an2 other person. (he

reservations of pu!lic lands cannot !e 'ade so as

to include prior 'ineral perfected locationsA and,

of course, if a valid 'ining location is 'ade upon

pu!lic lands afterwards included in a reservation,

such inclusion or reservation does not affect the

validit2 of the for'er location. 02 such locationand perfection, the land located is segregated fro'

the pu!lic do'ain even as against the

/overn'ent. ?nion il Co. v. -'ith, &49 .-.

337A Ban Mess v. Roonet, 18 Cal. 131A &7 C2c.

548@.

=(he legal effect of a valid location of a 'ining

clai' is not onl2 to segregate the area fro' the

pu!lic do'ain, !ut to grant to the locator the

!eneficial ownership of the clai' and the right to

a patent therefor upon co'pliance with the ter's

and conditions prescri!ed !2 law.


26/28

aving !eco'e the private properties of the oppositors,

the2 cannot !e deprived thereof without due process of law. 13

-uch rights were not affected either !2 the stricture in the Co''onwealth

Constitution against the alienation of all lands of the pu!lic do'ain ecept those

agricultural in nature for this was 'ade su!*ect to eisting rights. (hus, in its

%rticle EIII, -ection 1, it was categoricall2 provided that)

-DC. 1. %ll agricultural, ti'!er and 'ineral lands of the pu!lic

do'ain, waters, 'inerals, coal, petroleu' and other 'ineral oils,

all forces of potential energ2 and other natural resources of the

Philipppines !elong to the -tate, and their disposition,

eploitation, develop'ent, or utiliation shall !e li'ited to

citiens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at

least 8Q of the capital of which is owned !2 such citiens,

su!*ect to an2 eisting right, grant, lease or concession at the ti'e

of the inauguration of the govern'ent esta!lished under this

Constitution. atural resources with the eception of pu!lic

agricultural lands, shall not !e alienated, and no license,

concession, or lease for the eploitation, develop'ent or

utiliation of an2 of the natural resources shall !e granted for a

period eceeding &5 2ears, ecept as to water rights for irrigation,

water suppl2, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the

develop'ent of water power, in which case !eneficial use 'a2 !e

the 'easure and the li'it of the grant.

I'ple'enting this provision, %ct o. 4&8", approved on ove'!er ", 1935,

declared)

%n2 provision of eisting laws, eecutive order, procla'ation to

the contrar2 notwithstanding, all locations of 'ining clai' 'ade

prior to 6e!ruar2 ", 1935 within lands set apart as forest reserve

under -ec. 1"&8 of the Revised %d'inistrative Code which would

!e valid and su!sisting location ecept to the eistence of said

reserve are here!2 declared to !e valid and su!sisting locations as

of the date of their respective locations.

(he perfection of the 'ining clai' converted the propert2 to 'ineral land and

under the laws then in force re'oved it fro' the pu!lic do'ain. 102 such act, the

locators acuired eclusive rights over the land, against even the govern'ent,

without need of an2 further act such as the purchase of the land or the o!tention of

a patent over it. 15%s the land had !eco'e the private propert2 of the locators, the2

had the right to transfer the sa'e, as the2 did, to 0enguet and %to;.

It is true, as the Court of %ppeals o!served, that such private propert2 was su!*ect

to the =vicissitudes of ownership,= or even to forfeiture !2 nonuser or

a!andon'ent or, as the private respondents aver, !2 acuisitive prescription.

>owever, the 'ethod invo;ed !2 the de la Rosas is not availa!le in the case at !ar,

for two reasons.

6irst, the trial court found that the evidence of open, continuous, adverse andeclusive possession su!'itted !2 the applicants was insufficient to support their

clai' of ownership. (he2 the'selves had acuired the land onl2 in 1984 and

applied for its registration in 1985, rel2ing on the earlier alleged possession of their

predecessorsininterest. 1'(he trial *udge, who had the opportunit2 to consider the

evidence firsthand and o!serve the de'eanor of the witnesses and test their

credi!ilit2 was not convinced.


27/28

underta;en =down !elow= 18!ut she did not 'ind, 'uch less protest, the sa'e

although she clai'ed to !e the owner of the said land.

(he Court of %ppeals *ustified this !2 sa2ing there is =no conflict of interest=

!etween the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the su!surface rights.

(his is rather doctrine, for it is a well;nown principle that the owner of piece of

land has rights not onl2 to its surface !ut also to ever2thing underneath and the

airspace a!ove it up to a reasona!le height. 1/nder the aforesaid ruling, the land

is classified as 'ineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, su!*ect to

separate clai's of title. (his is also difficult to understand, especiall2 in its

practical application.

nder the theor2 of the respondent court, the surface owner will !e planting on the

land while the 'ining locator will !e !oring tunnels underneath. (he far'er cannot

dig a well !ecause he 'a2 interfere with the operations !elow and the 'iner

cannot !last a tunnel lest he destro2 the crops a!ove. >ow deep can the far'er, and

how high can the 'iner, go without encroaching on each otherKs rights


28/28

underta;en therein, 6or the loss sustained !2 such owner, he is of course entitled to

*ust co'pensation under the Mining +aws or in appropriate epropriation

proceedings. 21

ur holding is that 0enguet and %to; have eclusive rights to the propert2 in

uestion !2 virtue of their respective 'ining clai's which the2 validl2 acuired

!efore the Constitution of 1935 prohi!ited the alienation of all lands of the pu!lic

do'ain ecept agricultural lands, su!*ect to vested rights eisting at the ti'e of its

adoption. (he land was not and could not have !een transferred to the private

respondents !2 virtue of acuisitive prescription, nor could its use !e shared

si'ultaneousl2 !2 the' and the 'ining co'panies for agricultural and 'ineral

purposes.

DRD6RD, the decision of the respondent court dated %pril 3, 1978, is -D(

%-I:D and that of the trial court dated March 11, 1989, is RDI-(%(D:, without

an2 pronounce'ent as to costs.

- R:DRD:.

Documents

Case on Ownership