Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
Plaintiff alleges that it is the legal owner in fee simple of a parcel of
land designated as Lot No. 714-E, situated at Brgy. Kapangian, Tacloban
City, and more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 714-E of the sub. Plan Psd-08-00174, being a
portion of Lot 714 of Tacloban Cad., L.R.C. Cad. Rec. No. 1039), situated
in the Barangay Kapangi-an, City of Tacloban , Island of Leyte. Bounded
on the NE along line 2-3 by Lot 714-F of the sub. Plan; on the SE along
line 3-4 by Lot 714-A of the sub. Plan; on the SW along line 4-1 by
Mangonbangon River and on the NW along line 1-2 by Lot 714-I of the
sub. Plan. Beginning at apoint marked 1 on plan, being S. 39 deg. 38' E.,
221.32 m. from B.B.M. No. 9 of Tacloban Cadastre; thence N. 45 deg. 30'
E., 15.89 m. to point 2: thence S. 35 deg. 40' E., 8.20 m. to point 3; thence
S. 45 deg. 14' W., 14.16 m. to point 4; thence N. 47 deg. 51' W., 8.18 m. to
point of beginning; containing an area of of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
TWO (122) Square meters, more or less. All points referred to are
indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground by P.S. Cyl. Conc.
Mons. 15X60 cm., bearings true; dec. 1 deg. 30' E., date of survey, May
1925 April 1928 and that of the sub. survey on March 16, 1981 and
approved on September 17, 1981.
Plaintiff claims that said land is registered under TCT No. T-25139 1
and declared for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 2012-02-002401548,2 both in the name of Ciriaco Enriquez. This property was redeemed
from the B.I.R. after it was levied for non-payment of realty taxes by the
plaintiff, Estate of Julita Dioso-Enriquez, and is now owned by it.
Moreover, plaintiff alleges that Encarnacion Enriquez-Llamas is the
legal owner in fee simple of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 714-I,
situated at Brgy. Kapangian, Tacloban City (adjacent to Lot No. 714-E).
This land is covered by TCT No. T-25143 and declared under Tax
1
2
See Exhibit B
See Exhibit D
Page 1 of 6
Civil Case No. 2011-08-58 for Revival of Judgment now on its execution
stage.
Defendant also argues that this case is dismissible on the ground of
prescription and laches as they have been in possession of the subject
property for more than two decades.
The Courts Ruling
The parties raised the following issues for consideration, to wit:
1. Whether defendant, Ildefredo Bravo should vacate from the land, and be
liable for attorneys fees, exemplary and litigation damages and per
appearance fees in compelling plaintiff to litigate; and
2. Whether plaintiff is authorized to file this present action.
At the outset, the Court finds that while in plaintiffs complaint, two
parcels of land, namely: Lot No. 714-E and Lot No. 714-I are mentioned,
only the property described in paragraph 5 of its complaint which is Lot No.
714-E is alluded to in its prayer for defendant to immediately vacate from.
This is seconded in the Judicial Affidavit of Gaspar E. Llamas, Jr., where as
an answer to Question No. 15, he said: I most respectfully pray that this
Honorable Court after due process, render Judgment in my favor and issue
an Order addressed to the defendant including his dependents and/or any
person acting for and his behalf including his assigns to immediately
vacate the premises of Lot No. 714-E, Psd-08-00174, Cad. Rec. No. 1039,
Tacloban Cadastre and voluntarily turn over possession thereof unto me.
Deliberately or unconsciously, plaintiffs complaint does not clearly establish
that it wanted to eject defendant from Lot No. 714-I. Hence, the Court need
not belabor such issue. The Court is bound only to respond to specific
claims contained in plaintiffs allegations and prayer which are supported by
evidence. At any rate, plaintiffs reply to defendants position paper made
this very clear when it stated that the mention of Lot No. 714-I is immaterial
but only used as a reference being located adjacent to each other.
Going into the subject lotLot No. 714-E, plaintiff claims that
defendants possession thereof was by mere tolerance of plaintiff. On this
wise, defendant argues that there is no allegation in the complaint why and
how Lot No. 714-E became part and parcel of the Estate of Julia DiosoEnriquez. There is no showing how Lot No. 714-E which is registered in the
name of Ciriaco Enriquez became part of her estate. Plaintiffs allegation
that the land was levied by the BIR for defaulted payments and later on
was redeemed by Julita Dioso-Enriquez who is now the owner thereof is
not supported with clear and convincing evidence.
Moreover, in his Answer, defendant counters that the Estate of Julita
Dioso-Enriquez is not the legal owner in fee simple of Lot No. 714-E. It is
registered in the name of Ciriaco Enriquez, as such Gaspar E. Llamas, Jr.
has no authority to sue for and in behalf of the latter. Besides, the alleged
Page 3 of 6
redemption does not bestow and vest full ownership upon the Estate of
Julita Dioso-Enriquez. It is still part of the estate of Ciriaco Enriquez.
Defendant likewise claims that for lapse of two decades of their use,
possession and occupation over said parcels of land peacefully, laches and
prescription will now lie and apply. The instant case should be dismissed
based on these grounds.
Generally, issue of ownership raised by defendant on the property in
dispute does not divest the jurisdiction of the first level court.
Section 16 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, as well as Section 33(2)
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act 7691, provide
that in actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
SEC. 16. Resolving defense of ownership.When the defendant raises the
defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession. (4a)
In another case the High Court has held that, relatedly, the fact that
during the trial of the case in the inferior court evidence was presented
which tended to establish ownership, did not deprive said court of
jurisdiction to determine who had prior possession, and whether that prior
possession was disturbed.5
The only exception to the above rule is where the question of de
facto possession cannot be determined properly without settling the de jure
possession and ownership because the latter is inseparably linked with the
former.6 It has been held that:
xxx inferior courts may not be divested of their jurisdiction over ejectment
cases simply because the defendant sets up a claim of ownership over the
litigated property. But where the question of possession cannot be resolved
without passing upon the issue of ownership, because the latter is
4
Page 4 of 6
inseparably linked with the former, the case must be dismissed, for the
inferior court loses jurisdiction over the same. 7 (emphasis added)
De la Cruz vs. CA, 133 SCRA 520, 528 (1984); also Consignado vs. CA, 207 SCRA 305
(1992)
8
Alvir vs. Vera, 130 SCRA 361
Page 5 of 6
executor was only made on October 24, 2001, as shown in plaintiffs Annex
A.
Indeed, the failure of the plaintiff to sufficiently establish, first, the
authority of Gaspar Llamas, Jr. to represent Ciriaco Enriquez, the
registered owner of the subject lot; second, its ownership over the
property, which is determinant to the issue of whether or not it has the
better right of possession over the defendant; and third, the circumstances
as to how and when plaintiff tolerated defendants possession on the
subject property, shall warrant the dismissal of this case for lack of cause of
action and lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, this case is ordered DISMISSED.
IN CHAMBERS, this 25 October 2016, at Tacloban City.
xx
Presiding Judge
Page 6 of 6