You are on page 1of 25

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

Seventh Division

TITO ACOP, SR.,


Plaintiff-Appellant,

-versus- CA-G.R. CV NO. 102699

SPOUSES VENANCIO, SR. AND


MARTINIANA MALANO,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants,

-versus-

TUBLAY SCHOOL OF HOME


INDUSTRIES, represented by
BALNER DAMOSLOG,
Defendant-Appellee.
x----------------------------x

**********************************
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
**********************************
APPELLEE TUBLAY SCHOOL OF HOME INDUSTRIES
(TSHI), by counsel to this Honorable Court, respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND


ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS

This is an appeal from the Decision dated April 30, 2014


of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 63
in Civil Case No. 94-CV-0940 entitled, Tito Acop, Sr. versus
Tublay School of Home Industries, denying the respective
claims for just compensation against herein defendant-
appellee TSHI of Tito Acop, Sr. (Acop) and appellants-
intervenors Spouses Venancio, Sr. and Martiniana Malano
(Malano). The decretal portion1 of the Decision reads:

1 P. 27, Decision dated April 30, 2014


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 2
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DENYING


the respective claims of plaintiff TITO S. ACOP and
intervenors, TUBLAY SCHOOL OF HOME INDUSTRIES (sic)
for LACK OF MERIT.

The counter-claims of the defendant are likewise


DENIED for lack of merit.

No costs.

This case stemmed from the filing of a Complaint2 for just


compensation by Tito Acop against TSHI, herein appellee,
before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet. In his
Complaint, Acop claimed that he is the owner of the parcel of
land where the current premises of TSHI are constructed. He
prayed that the fair value of his property be pegged at fifty
pesos (P50.00) per square meter and that TSHI be ordered to
pay him One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) as just
compensation thereof.

The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 94-CV-0940 and


raffled to Branch 63.

In a Motion to Dismiss3 dated August 31, 1994, appellee


TSHI moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that: (1) The real party in this case is the Republic of the
Philipppines which, as the sovereign power, may not be sued
without its consent, therefore, the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the person of defendant; (2) Acop's claim is
barred by prescription, laches and/or estoppel; and (3) The
case is barred by prior judgment.4

In an Order 5 dated December 2, 1994, the trial court


granted appellee TSHI's Motion to Dismiss and ordered the
dismissal of the case due to lack of jurisdiction and for being
barred by prescription.

2 Rollo, pp. 1-6.


3 Ibid, pp. 12-23.
4 Ibid, p. 12.
5 Ibid, pp. 42-45.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 3
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

On December 16, 1994, Acop filed his Notice to Appeal6 of


the Order dated 2 December 1994 which was given due course
and granted by the trial court in its Order7 dated December 20,
1994.

On appeal, the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.


48853 and raffled to the Court of Appeals Fourteenth Division.

In a Decision promulgated on January 17, 1997, the


Court of Appeals granted Acop's appeal. It set aside the
December 2, 1994 Order of the trial court dismissing the case
and remanded the same to the trial court for further
proceedings.8

The Court of Appeal's Decision became final and


executory on December 15, 1997.9

In an Order 10 dated October 27, 1998, the trial court


ordered TSHI to file its Answer to the Complaint.

TSHI filed its Answer with Counterclaim11 dated January


19, 2000, maintaining that: (1) The trial court has no
jurisdiction to try the case; (2) The complaint is barred by
prescription, laches and/or estoppel; (3) The complaint is
barred by prior judgment; and, (4) Acop is guilty of forum
shopping.

Acop filed his Reply and Answer to Counterclaim12 dated


March 14, 2000.

In a Motion to Dismiss 13 dated February 3, 2003, TSHI


moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to
prosecute since Acop failed to move for pre-trial of the case for
more than three (3) years after the filing of his Reply in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court.

6 Ibid, p. 46.
7 Ibid, p. 47.
8 Ibid, pp. 51-58.
9 Ibid, p. 60.
10 Ibid, p. 62.
11 Ibid, pp. 84-90.
12 Ibid, pp. 95-97.
13 Ibid, pp. 98-100.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 4
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

TSHI filed its Comment to the Motion to Dismiss 14 dated


March 24, 2003.

In an Order 15 dated August 26, 2003, the trial court


denied TSHI's Motion to Dismiss to which the latter filed a
Motion for Reconsideration16 dated 18 September 2003.

On November 14, 2003, Acop filed his Comment on


TSHI's motion for reconsideration, alleging that he was
assured by the Department of Education, through a
Department of Education Memorandum, that it will favorably
act upon his request for amicable settlement awaiting the
status report of the Schools Division Superintendent of
Benguet but TSHI failed to comply with the said
memorandum.17

TSHI filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of


Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) 18
dated January 19, 2004 because Acop entered the TSHI's
premises, bulldozed the school grounds, destroying
improvements thereon, including various plants planted by
TSHI students.

On January 21, 2004, the trial court issued a seventy-


two hour (72) Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing
Acop, his assigns and all persons acting under him to cease
and desist from entering and/or bulldozing the property
subject matter of the case.19
On February 17, 2004, the parties manifested their
intention to amicably settle the case. In the meantime, the
resolution of the two motions (motion for reconsideration and
motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and
TRO) was held in abeyance. On May 27, 2004, the parties were
directed to submit a written offer of settlement.20

14 Ibid, pp. 109-110.


15 Ibid, pp. 111-112.
16 Ibid, pp. 115-119.
17 RTC Decision, pp. 5-6.
18 Ibid, pp. 139-148.
19 RTC Decision, p. 6.
20 Ibid.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 5
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

Later, a Motion with Leave of Court to Intervene dated July


29, 2004 was filed by the Spouses Venancio, Sr. and
Martiniana Malano (Spouses Malano) and Danilo Bolislis. The
Spouses Malano, herein appellants-intervenors, alleged that
Acop and TSHI are both claiming the north-western portion of
their property containing an area of 1.5 hectares, more or less.
On the other hand, Bolislis alleged that TSHI is claiming the
entire portion of the land he acquired from the Spouses
Malano. Both Spouses Malano and Bolislis alleged that since
their respective properties are being encroached by the
respective claims of Acop and TSHI, they will suffer litigation
expenses and attorney’s fees. In their motion, they prayed that,
after due notice and hearing, the Spouses Malano be declared
owners of the north-western portion of the property in dispute
containing an area of about 1.5 hectares, and that Bolislis be
declared owner of the 700 square meter portion thereof.

On May 14, 2004, the trial court deemed the two motions
filed by TSHI. On December 8, 2004, there being no comment
filed by Acop on the motions of the Spouses Malano and
Bolislis, the trial court deemed all motions and pending
incidents submitted for resolution.21

In an Order dated May 5, 2005, the trial court granted


the motion to intervene of the Spouses Malano and Bolislis,
paving way for them to file their Complaint-in-Intervention on
May 10, 2005. In their Complaint-in-Interventation, they alleged,
among others, that: (1) the Spouses Malano own a parcel of
land situated at “Guiweng, Caponga, Tublay, Benguet
containing an area of 8.1361 Hectares” and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 99-001-00948; (2) Bolislis purchased from the
Spouses Malano an area of 700 square meters; however, this
area has not yet been segregated from the tax declaration of
the Spouses Malano; (3) the present dispute between Acop and
TSHI, whose respective claims “encroached the properties of
Atty. Bolislis and the SPS. Malano” will cause the latter to
incur expenses to protect their property rights.22

TSHI filed its Answer-in-Intervention alleging that: (1) the


court has no jurisdiction over the case since the real party in

21 Ibid, p. 7.
22 Ibid, pp. 7-8.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 6
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

interest is the Republic of the Philippines which may not be


sued without its consent; (2) the complaint-in-intervention
does not state a cause of action since it does not allege that
TSHI has “taken steps to disturb intervenors' possession of the
subject property or that it had actually encroached upon the
same” and that this action is one for just compensation, hence,
TSHI may not be ordered to pay just compensation or damages
to intervenors for its “imagined, anticipated and
unsubstantiated invasion of rights”; (3) the intervenors went
beyond the purview of their complaint for just compensation
when they prayed to be declared the lawful owners of the
property which is not covered by a certificate of title; (4)
confirmation of real right over a property cannot be declared in
an ordinary complaint other than in a petition for the original
registration of property; and, (5) declaration cannot be had as
an ancillary matter when the complaint is primarily for just
compensation only.23

On September 15, 2006, Acop filed his Answer to the


Complaint-in-Intervention arguing that it is “barred by
prescription, laches, and/or estoppel” because Atty. Bolislis
and the Sps. Malano “never raised a claim over the land”
despite “being residents of the locality”.24

On October 26, 2005, Acop filed his Proposed Terms of


Compromise manifesting that he is willing to “forego his claim
for compensation and renounce, waive or quitclaim his
proprietary rights over the areas actully occupied” by TSHI “as
may be determined in a survey” and on condition that TSHI
will not “disturb Acop's possession over the remainder of his
claim outside the area actually occupied by TSHI”.25

In an Order dated January 31, 2006, the trial court


denied TSHI's motion for reconsideration (of the order denying
TSHI's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute).26 Thereafter,
the case was set for pre-trial with TSHI's Motion for Issuance
of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction unresolved.27

23 Ibid, p. 8.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid, p. 9.
27 Ibid.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 7
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

The parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs.

In an Order dated April 6, 2006, the case was dismissed


for failure of Acop and his counsel to appear for pre-trial. On
the same day, counsel for Acop appeared and moved for a
reconsideration of the order of dismissal earlier filed.
Thereafter, Acop filed his written Motion for Reconsideration28
of the April 6, 2006 Order, which motion for reconsideration
was opposed by TSHI.29

On June 25, 2007, TSHI filed its Motion for the Urgent
Resolution of Defendant's Motion for the Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction filed in January 19, 2004.30

On August 10, 2007, Intervenor Bolislis filed his Motion


to Withdraw Intervention on the ground that Acop and TSHI do
not claim any portion of his residential lot. Bolislis' motion was
granted by the trial court in its Order31 dated August 21, 2007.

On October 25, 2007, Acop filed his Comment and


Opposition 32 to TSHI's motion for issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.

In an Order 33 dated February 19, 2008, the trial court


lifted its order of dismissal of the case for failure of Acop and
his counsel to appear during pre-trial.

Thereafter, Acop filed his Motion for Issuance of Writ of


Preliminary Injunction34 against TSHI. He argued that: (1) TSHI
has engaged in numerous construction projects within the
subject property; (2) on February 2008 TSHI again commenced
constructing a building that intruded into Acop's fenced land,
destroying the stone fence and barbed wire thereon; and, (3)
TSHI's act of widening the area would cause grave and
irreparable damages to Acop. In support of his motion, Acop
testified in court.35

28 Rollo, pp. 368-371.


29 Ibid, pp, 378-381.
30 Ibid, pp. 383-386.
31 Ibid, p. 407.
32 Ibid, pp. 424-436.
33 Ibid, p. 457.
34 Ibid, pp. 460-464.
35 Decision, p. 11.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 8
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

On October 22, 2008, the trial court resolved the


respective motions for issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction filed by TSHI and Acop. The trial court directed
Acop to “stop any construction or improvement on the property
actually possessed by defendant TSHI” and for TSHI to “stop
further construction of any building beyond the 1.2-hectare-lot
which is in the possession of the school”. The trial court
likewise directed both Acop and TSHI to file their respective
bonds in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00)
each.36

During the scheduled pre-trial conference on March 24,


2010, Acop and his counsel again failed to appear. TSHI
moved for the dismissal of the case in open court. The trial
court dismissed the case filed by Acop but directed the
Spouses Malano to file their written opposition to the motion
for dismissal of the case.

On April 12, 2010, the Spouses Malano filed their


Manifestation/Opposition alleging that: (1) the complaint-in-
intervention was directed against both Acop and TSHI; (2) that
the dismissal of the main complaint filed by Acop does not
affect the complaint-in-intervention because TSHI remains as
a defendant, hence, the case may proceed even without the
participation of Acop; and, (3) the Spouses Malano were
present during the scheduled pre-trial conference.37

On May 26, 2010, Acop filed his Motion for


Reconsideration of the Order dated March 24, 2010 dismissing
the case for his failure to appear during the scheduled pre-
trial conference, which motion was granted by the trial court
on September 7, 2010. Hence, the case was reinstated.38

Pre-trial was conducted and terminated on July 28, 2011,


September 2, 2011, October 27, 2011, November 24, 2011,
respectively.39

Trial on the merits ensued.

36 Ibid, p. 11.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 9
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

On the part of Tito Acop, Sr., the following witnesses were


presented:

1. Tito Acop who testified on March 12, 2006;

2. Richard Acop who testified on April 26, 2012;

3. Gloria Acop who testified on June 7, 2012;

4. Pawid Esyaban who testified on June 21, 2012


and July 26, 2012;

5. Moresto Remegio who testified on August 2, 24


and 30, 2012;

6. Ernesto Gaspar who testified on August 30,


2012; and,

7. Engr. Orville Mina who testified on November 22,


2012.

On the other hand, TSHI presented: (1) Mr. Estanislao


Tagtag, Principal of TSHI, who testified on December 13, 2012
and (2) Mr. Oliver Marcos Bilango, CENRO Officer, who
testified on January 24, 2013 and February 21, 2013.

Intervenors Sps. Malano presented: (1) Martiniana


Malano who testified on March 1 & 14, 2013; (2) Engr. Paul
Songyoen who testified on April 11, 2013; and (3) Clemente
Gomayod who testified on April 19, 2013.

On April 30, 2014, the court a quo rendered the assailed


Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DENYING


the respective claims of plaintiff TITO S. ACOP and
intervenors, TUBLAY SCHOOL OF HOME INDUSTRIES (sic)
for LACK OF MERIT.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 10
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

The counter-claims of the defendant are likewise


DENIED for lack of factual and legal basis.

No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dissatisfied, Acop, Sr. and the Spouses Malano


separately filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 21, 2014 and
May 22, 2014, respectively.

In an Order dated May 23, 2014, the trial court gave due
course to both notices of appeal.

The Spouses Malano filed their Appellants' Brief dated


October 3, 2014, assigning the following errors 40 allegedly
committed by the trial court, viz:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE


TAX DECLARATION OF SPOUSES MALANO HAVE
NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN THE INSTANT CASE
THEREBY DENYING THE SPS. MALANO’S CLAIM
OF OWNERSHIP.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT SPS.


MALANO FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CLAIMS AND
FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW A 6,200 SQUARE
METERS (sic) PROPERTY THAT WAS INHERITED
BALLOONED TO 8,2837 SQUARE METERS.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING


THE EVIDENCES (sic) OF INTERVENORS-

40 Appellant's Brief (Spouses Malano), pp. 3-4.


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 11
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

APPELLANT AND THEIR WITNESSES THUS


CONCLUDING THAT INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS’
CLAIM OF 1.5 HECTARES, MORE OR LESS, WAS
NOT IDENTIFIED.

IV.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE


CLAIMS OF INTERVENORS-APPELLANT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE LOT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE
ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE. THE TRIAL COURT
DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT INTERVENORS-
APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLYING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OVER
THEIR PROPERTY, BUT ONLY PRAYING THAT
THEIR CLAIMS OF 1.5 HECTARES PORTION OF
THEIR PROPERTY BE SEGREGATED FROM THE
LOT BEING DISPUTED BY BOTH PLAINTIFF ACOP
AND DEFENDANT TSHI.

On November 20, 2014, appellee TSHI filed its


Manifestation and Motion to File Consolidated Brief which was
granted by the Honorable Court in its Resolution dated
January 30, 2015.

In a Resolution promulgated on June 19, 2015, the


Honorable Court took note of Acop's failure to timely file his
Appellant's Brief. The Honorable Court considered Acop's
appeal as abandoned and consequently dismissed the same.

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS

The Tublay School of Home Industries (TSHI) was


established pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 5301 entitled,
“An Act Establishing A National School For Home Industries In
The Municipality Of Tublay, Province Of Benguet, To Be Known
As The Tublay Shool Of Home Industries”, enacted on June 15,
1968. R.A. 5301 provides:
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 12
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

Section 1. There shall be established under the


supervision and administration of the Bureau of Vocational
Education a school for home industries in the Municipality
of Tublay, Province of Benguet, to be known as the Tublay
School of Home Industries.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Education is hereby


authorized to acquire a site for the establishment of this
school by purchase, grant or donation and to issue rules and
regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

Sec. 3. The Tublay School of Home Industries shall:

a. Offer courses in home and/or cottage


industries, particularly those that can avail of
and best utilize the supply of raw materials
available in the locality and enrollment shall be
open to all, including adults;

b. Conduct researches on designing and


processing of raw materials that are found in the
locality and in the Province of Benguet and
engage in producing models of handtools and
small equipment and machineries for training
and production;

c. Undertake the standardization of craft


promotion;

d. Render consultant services in home


industries promotion and technology and
conduct extension training throughout the
Province of Benguet;

e. Offer courses in secondary and technical


levels with home industries as the core.

Sec. 4. The Tublay School of Home Industries is


hereby authorized to accept endowments, land grants,
donations, or contributions from provincial and
municipal governments, private citizens, agencies and
entities whether government or private for the
improvement and expansion of its services.

Sec. 5. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos


is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any
funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the acquisition of a school site,
establishment, operation, maintenance and expansion
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 13
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

of said Tublay School of Home Industries during the


fiscal year nineteen hundred and sixty-nine which
shall include the purchase of a school site and
construction of buildings and shops. Thereafter, such
sums as may be needed for its operation and
maintenance shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its


approval.

In the implementation of R.A. No. 5301, the Provincial


Board of Benguet enacted Provincial Board Resolution No.
44041 dated June 14, 1971 earmarking five (5) hectares, more
or less, of the lot then entirely occupied by the Benguet
Provincial Nursery in Acop, Benguet, to be transferred to the
Bureau of Public Schools for the establishment of TSHI. In the
same resolution, the Provincial Board of Benguet resolved to
transfer the Benguet Provincial Nursery to an area within a
“provincial lot covered by TCT No. 23 located in La Trinidad,
Benguet”.

The land occupied by the Benguet Provincial Nursery and


thereafter, allocated for the establishment of the TSHI in
Provincial Board Resolution No. 440 dated June 14, 1971, is
within the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve.42

ISSUES

I.
WHETHER INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS CAN BE
DECLARED OWNERS OF A PARCEL OF LAND
WITHIN THE AMBUKLAO-BINGA FOREST
RESERVE.
II.
WHETHER THE CLAIM OF INTERVENORS-
APPELLANTS TO BE DECLARED AS OWNERS OF A

41 Exhibit “1” for TSHI.


42 Survey Plan PR 1007 (Exhibit “2” for TSHI); CENRO Certification (Exhibit “3” for
TSHI” and, LC Map 3049 (Exhibit “5-B” for TSHI)
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 14
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN A FOREST RESERVE IS


TENABLE IN AN ACTION FOR JUST
COMPENSATION.

ARGUMENTS
I.
THE LOT SUBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY IS
LOCATED WITHIN THE AMBUKLAO-BINGA
FOREST RESERVE, HENCE, INCAPABLE OF
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
II.
INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS' TESTIMONIAL AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CANNOT BE UTILIZED
TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
III.
THE ACTION TO BE DECLARED OWNERS OVER
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT TENABLE IN AN
ACTION FOR JUST COMPENSATION.

DISCUSSION

I. The land subject of the


controversy is located within
the Ambuklao-Binga Forest
Reserve, hence, incapable of
private ownership.
==========================

The land subject of the controversy was plotted and


projected on Survey Plan PR-1007 and its location and
classification appearing on Land Classification (LC) Map 3049
is found to be within the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve. The
subject land being a forest reserve, it is, therefore, incapable of
private ownership.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 15
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

The inclusion of the subject land as part and parcel of


the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve was duly proved and
established by appellee TSHI when it presented Mr. Oliver
Marcos Bilango, Certifying Officer of the City Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR).
In Mr. Bilango's Judicial Affidavit 43 he categorically
identified the subject land to be within the Ambuklao-Binga
Forest Reserve and stated that:

I. Q: You mentioned of a request letter from Mr.


Tagtag, what was his request in this letter?
A: He requested for a certification as to the status
of the land in survey plan PR-1007, which is located at
Acop, Tublay, Benguet.

II. Q: Kindly explain the procedures which you did in


treating the Survey Plan for the former Provincial
Nursery of Benguet?
A: Using the tie line and tie of the point of the
surveyed lot submitted and a formula is being used in
computing the latitude and longitude.

The formula is:

Distance INV – Bearing = LATITUDE


INV. X-Y = LONGITUDE
Thus;
4806.78 INV.-77°32”= 1037.647/30.738=33.757
Then INV. X – Y
Thus;
4693.444/29.667 = 158.20
Coordinates of NORTHBASE
LAT 16 27 45 + 33.757 = 16 28 18.757
LONG 120°35 12 + 158.20 = 120° 37” 50.2
SECONDS, which is 18.757 is multiplied with
30.78 = 576.64m. Likewise, in the Longitude
50.2 is multiplied by 29.664 = 1489.13m

III. Q: When you gave a certification in Survey Plan PR


1007, did you conduct any research on the location
and classification of the land appearing in the survey?
A: Yes, Sir.

43 Exhibits “5” and “5-A” for TSHI.


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 16
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

IV. Q: What did you find out in your research?


A: I found out that the survey plan of Provincial
Reservation 1007 is within the Ambuklao – Binga
Forest Reserve when plotted in the LC Map 3049.

V. Q: In your certification, it was entered therein that


the parcel of land appearing in the survey containing
an area of 50,294 square meters, was plotted and
projected and was found to be within the Ambuklao –
Binga Forest Reserve under LC Map 3049 certified on
February 4, 1983, how were you able to come up with
that?
A: Using a given formula with the tie line and tie
point, I computed the latitude and longitude and it is
my basis in plotting. (please see XVII)

VI. Q: Would you know how the Ambuklao – Binga


Forest Reserve was created?
A: Proclamation No. 548 dated April 19, 1969 as
appearing in LC Map 3049

VII. Q: What is LC Map 3049?


A: Land Classification Map 3049 was certified and
approved on February 4, 1983 by Edmundo V. Cortes,
Director of the Bureau of Forestry Development (BFD)
under Forestry Administrative Order 4 – 1702. An LC
map shows the classifications of lands such as: forest
land; forest reserves; communal forests; reservations;
alienable and disposable lands. In LC map, we can
verify or check the land status.

VIII. Q: Would you be able to pinpoint the location of the


former Provincial Nursery of Benguet located in Acop,
Tublay, Benguet in LC Map 3049?
A: Yes, Sir.

IX. Q: After you gave a certification of Survey Plan PR


1007, were there changes made which withdrew
certain parcels of land from the Ambuklao – Binga
Forest Reserve?
A: No, there were no changes Sir.

X. Q: Is your certification on Survey Plan PR 1007 still


in effect as regards the classification of the parcel of
land appearing in this survey plan?
A: Yes, Sir. It is still in effect. No change of status in
the area.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 17
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

XI. Q: What is the effect on a surveyed parcel of land if


you certified that this land is classified to be within a
forest reserve, like in this case, the surveyed parcel of
land was found to be within the Ambuklao – Binga
Forest Reserve? Can it be owned by private individuals?
A: Parcel of lands within the Forest Reserves cannot
be titled by private individuals.

When Mr. Bilango was presented on the witness stand,


he was able to plot and identify the subject land using Survey
Plan PR 1007 and LC Map 3049 and stated that the subject
land, as plotted on the classification map, is within the
Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. TABANDA:

You also mentioned in your Affidavit that upon plotting,


projecting and computing the lattitude and longitude of the
land appearing on SP PR-1007, you verified the land's status
and classification using LC Map 3049, you found out that
the land appearing on SP PR-1007 is found to be within the
Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve, do you have a copy of LC
Map 3049, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, Sir I have.

COURT INTERPRETER:

Witness is going over his documents and brought out


from his envelope.

A: I have here a copy of Land Classification Map 3049.

ATTY. TABANDA:

You also mentioned in your Affidavit that you can


pinpoint the location of the former Provincial Nursery in
Acop, Tublay, Benguet in LC Map 3049, kindly illustrate to
us the location of the former Provincial Nursery being used
(sic) of Benguet as appearing in survey plan PR-1007, Mr.
Witness?

A: Yes, Sir it is here.

COURT:

As appearing in the LC Map?


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 18
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

ATTY. TABANDA:

Yes, Your Honor.

COURT INTERPRETER:

The witness is pointing to a portion of LC Map 3049.

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. TABANDA:

Mr. witness, can you pinpoint to us the classification


of the Survey Plan PR-1007?

COURT INTERPRETER:

With the use of marking colored orange, he placed a


dot in the map where it is within the Tublay area and with a
number 5.

A: So the map is, I am only marking the corner 1


which the tie line is shown.

COURT INTERPRETER:

Witness is pinpointing the line corner 1 of Exhibit “2”.

COURT:

Noted.

ATTY. SELMO:

No, Your Honor I think the question is, can you


indicate on the LC Map the location of this entire five (5)
hectare lot, not just corner 1 so may we ask the witness to
make …. (interrupted)

COURT:

Can you color the entire map represented by Exhibit “2”


in that LC Map.

A: Yes, Your Honor, we can see that corner 1 is here


and then corner 2 is going left, so.... (discontinue)

COURT INTERPRETER:

With the use of red ballpen, witness is making a line


following the plot of Exhibit “2”.

COURT:
Mark it.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 19
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

Clarification. So based on that LC Map 3049, that land


that is the subject matter of this case is not alienable and
disposable?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: It falls within the?

A: Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve.

xxx xxx xxx44

From the foregoing, it cannot be denied that the subject


land is part and parcel of a forest reserve.

Forest reservations refer to forest lands which have been


reserved by the President of the Philippines for any specific
purpose or purposes.45

It is already a settled rule that forest lands or forest


reserves are not capable of private appropriation and
possession thereof, however long, do not convert them into
private property 46 unless such lands are reclassified and
considered disposable and alienable by the Director of Forestry,
but even then, possession of the land by the applicants prior to
the reclassification of the land as disposable and alienable
cannot be credited as part of the thirty-year requirement
under Section 48 (b) of the Public Land Act.47

The records positively establish that the land in question


is part of the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve. As such, the
subject land being part of a forest reserve is incapable of
alienation and private possession.

44 TSN dated January 24, 2013 (Mr. Oliver Bilango), pp. 10-15.
45 Section 3(g), Presidential Decree No. 705 also known as THE FORESTRY REFORM
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
46 Republic v. CA and Carantes, G.R. No. l-56948 citing Vano vs. Government of
Philippine Islands, 41 Phil. 161; Adorable v. Director of Forestry, 107 Phil. 401;
Director of Forestry vs. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1183; Republic vs. De la Cruz 67 SCRA
221; Director of Lands vs. Reyes & Azurin vs. Director of Lands, 68 SCRA 177;
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 89 SCRA 648; and Director of Lands vs. Court of
Appeals, 133 SCRA 701.
47 Ibid citing Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 133 SCRA 701.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 20
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

II. Intervenors-Appellants' testi-


monial and document-tary
evidence cannot be utilized to
prove ownership over the
subject property.
============================

In Intervenors-Appellants' Brief, they prayed that they be


“declared merely as owners of the land over and against the
claim of Acop and TSHI, and not as an owner thereof against
the State or the government and Acop in the concept of a
Registered Owner under the Torrense System of land
registration”48

The argument is vague.

It must be noted that TSHI is an educational institution


created by virtue of R.A. No. 5310 under the supervision and
administration of the Bureau of Public Schools, now the
Department of Education. TSHI has no separate identity from
the National Government, hence, the instant case is being
lodged against the Republic of the Philippines.

Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands of the public


domain belong to the State and the latter is the source of any
asserted right to ownership in land. Thus, the State
presumably owns all lands not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership. To overcome such
presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the
applicant that the land subject of registration is alienable and
disposable.49

In the case at bar, intervenors-appellants may have


presented several tax declarations to establish their claim of
ownership over the subject land, but these do not not suffice
to support their claim. It is well-settled that “tax declarations
and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership. At
most, they constitute mere prima facie proof of ownership or
possession of the property for which taxes have been paid. In
the absence of actual, public and adverse possession, the

48 Brief for Intervenors-Appellants, p. 10.


49 Republic v. Roche, G.R. No. 175846, July 6, 2010 citing Pagkatipunan v. Court of
Appeals, 429 Phil. 377, 386-387 (2002).
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 21
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove


ownership.”50

Regrettably, however, intervenors-appellants payment of


real property taxes over the subject land does not have any
bearing at all on their claim of ownership thereof. As
previously discussed, the land subject of the case as projected
on Land Classification Map 3049 of the DENR is located
within the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve, and is thus
incapable of private ownership.

Worth noting is that, intervenors-appellants and even


appellant Acop, Sr. were not able to prove that, after the
creation of the Ambuklao-Binga Forest Reserve, a subsequent
positive act of the government such as a presidential
proclamation, an executive order, an administrative action,
investigation reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, a
legislative act or statute has been undertaken or enacted
withdrawing the subject parcel of land from being part of the
forest reserve and declaring the same to be alienable and
disposable land of the public domain. Since there is want of
evidence showing that the subject land is capable of private
ownership, its status as part of a forest reserve remains
undisturbed.

Thus, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in


Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals51 that, “forest lands
are inalienable and possession thereof, no matter how long,
cannot convert the same into private property” squarely
applies in the case at bar.

III. The action to be declared


owners over the subject
property is not tenable in an
action for just compensation.
==========================
In the case at bar, intervenors-appellants seek to be
declared as owners of the 1.5 hectares occupied by appellee
and appellant Acop, Sr.

50 Cequena v. Bolante, 330 SCRA 216 (2000).


51 Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 563 (1989).
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 22
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

The argument fails to persuade.

It bears stress that the instant case is one for payment of


just compensation. Verily, intervenors-appellants manifestly
went beyond the purview of their complaint for just
compensation when they prayed to be declared as lawful
owners of the subject property. The relief prayed for by
intervenor-appellants is in the nature of a confirmation of real
right over a property. This is evidently not tenable in an
ordinary complaint but in a petition for original registration of
title.

Even if intervenors-appellants’ prayer is to be treated as


one for recovery of possession, this is still not feasible in the
present action because intervenors-appellants failed to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the property subject of
this case is capable of private acquisition and that they have
met the necessary requirements to confirm their rights of
ownership over the subject property.

The trial court correctly held that intervenors-appellants'


totality of evidence on their claim of ownership failed to meet
the quantum of evidence required by law, thus:

xxx xxx xxx.

In their complaint-in-intervention, the SPS. MALANO


sought a judicial declaration that the North-Western portion
of their alleged property containing 1,500 square meters is
theirs.

Unfortunately, the evidence on record is insufficient to


grant their prayer.

ONE. The SPS. MALANO cannot explain how a 6,200


m2 property that was inherited ballooned to 82,837 m2. This
court finds unacceptable their explanation that the property
included after-acquired public land, without so much any
documentation to prove the same. If indeed, new public land
was acquired, then it should been covered by a new tax
declaration. Otherwise, not only would it be dishonest to
include it in an old tax declaration but it would deprive the
government of revenues and fees generated from the
issuance of new tax declarations. More importantly, the
increase is not de minimis but substantial for which reason,
documentation is imperative. None was presented.
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 23
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

TWO. Nowhere in the record does it appear that the


SPS. MALANO are entitled to 1.5 Hectares. Nothing in the
testimony of their witness, ENGR. PAUL SONGYOEN justifies
an award of 1.5 Hectares to the SPS. MALANO.

For one, the 1.5 Hectares is not identified on the


ground.

For another, the area claimed was not shown to be


alienable and disposable.

In an action to recover a parcel of land, which is


essentially what the SPS. MALANO seek, the land claimed
must be identified, otherwise, the claim is inutile.

A survey plan showing the boundaries and total area


clearly identified and delineates the extent of the land.

In this case, ENGR. SONGYOEN’s survey is


inconclusive to establish the SPS. MALANO’s prayer to be
declared owners of 1.5 hectares. He did not indicate whether
the land is alienable or disposable. He conducted the survey
without identifying and recovering monuments from which to
determine the boundaries. His survey is merely based on
another survey. He did not reflect the overlapping claims of
adjacent owners. His point of reference was a fence, despite
the existence of a titled property.
All of these point to glaring inaccuracies of the survey
conducted by ENGR. PAUL SONGYOEN, which survey was
primarily meant to identify the land.

To reiterate, the prayer of the SPS. MALANO is in effect


an attempt to recover ownership. The Supreme Court has
held in several cases too numerous to cite that a person who
seeks ownership of a piece of land, must prove his claim by
clear and convincing evidence, i.e., he must prove his title
and should not rely on the absence or weakness of the
evidence of the oppositors. Furthermore, the court has the
bounden duty, even in the absence of any opposition, to
required the claimant to show, by a preponderance of
evidence and by positive and absolute proof, so far as
possible, that they are the owners in fee simple of the lands
which they are attempting to recover. Since the SPS.
MALANO failed to meet the quantum of proof required by law,
a DENIAL of their prayer is warranted.

xxx xxx xxx.


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 24
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

Verily, appellee TSHI cannot be made liable to pay just


compensation or at the very least be held liable for damages
when the subject property is a forest reserve belonging to the
State.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant


appeal be DENIED for utter lack of merit and the assailed
April 30, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of La
Trinidad, Benguet in Civil Case No. 94-CV-0940 be affirmed
in toto.

Other forms of relief just and equitable in the premises


are likewise prayed for.

Costs against intervenors-appellants.

Makati City for City of Manila, September 30, 2015.

FLORIN T. HILBAY
Solicitor General
Roll No. 44957
IBP Lifetime No. 08505
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068 (05-14-13)

MARIA HAZEL P. VALDEZ-ACANTILADO


Senior State Solicitor
Officer-In-Charge, Felix Q. Antonio Division
Roll No. 43682
IBP Lifetime No. 02780
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009120 (11-13-12)

// ... other signatories next page ... //


BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE 25
CA-G.R. CV No. 102699
Tito Acop, Sr. vs. Tublay School
x---------------------x

DINAH P. MAXIMO-UY
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 56684
IBP Lifetime No. 0898
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009182 (11-13-12)

ROY PATRICK C. TABANDA


Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 58666
IBP Lifetime No. 010956
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009139 (11-12-13)

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City
Tel. Nos. 818-6301 to 09

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Jerome W. Selmo


(Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant)
JC 172, Km. 5
La Trinidad, Benguet

Atty. Mary G. Wayagwag-Guibac


(Counsel for Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants)
Rooms 208/209, Second Floor
Dangwa Terminal Building
Rajah Matanda St., 2600 Baguio City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Brief for the Appellee is being served by


registered mail, personal service not being practicable due to
distance.

DINAH P. MAXIMO-UY
Associate Solicitor
DPMU/bless
#87544

You might also like