Decision
Cabang v. Basay
G.R. No. 180587 · 2009-03-20 · YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. · LawPhil
SIMEON CABANG, VIRGINIA CABANG and VENANCIO CABANG ALIAS "DONDON", Petitioners, vs. MR. & MRS. GUILLERMO BASAY, Respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 767551 dated May 31, 20072 which reversed the Order3 of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga Del Sur, Branch 23 in Civil Case No. 99-20-127 which denied respondents' motion for execution on the ground that petitioners' family home was still subsisting. Also assailed is the Resolution dated September 21, 2007 denying the motion for reconsideration. The facts as summarized by the appellate court: Deceased Felix Odong was the registered owner of Lot No. 7777, Ts- 222 located in Molave, Zamboanga del Sur.
Said lot was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-2,768 pursuant to Decree No. N-64 and issued on March 9, 1966. However, Felix Odong and his heirs never occupied nor took possession of the lot. On June 16, 1987, plaintiff-appellants bought said real property from the heirs of Felix Odong for P8,000.00.
Consequently, OCT No. 0-2,768 was cancelled and in its stead, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-22,048 was issued on August 6, 1987 in the name of plaintiff-appellants. The latter also did not occupy the said property. Defendant-appellees, on the other hand, had been in continuous, open, peaceful and adverse possession of the same parcel of land since 1956 up to the present.
They were the awardees in the cadastral proceedings of Lot No. 7778 of the Molave Townsite, Ts-222. During the said cadastral proceedings, defendant-appellees claimed Lot No. 7778 on the belief that the area they were actually occupying was Lot No. 7778. As it turned out, however, when the Municipality of Molave relocated the townsite lots in the area in 1992 as a big portion of Lot No. 7778 was used by the government as a public road and as there were many discrepancies in the areas occupied, it was then discovered that defendant-appellees were actually occupying Lot No. 7777.
On June 23, 1992, plaintiff-appellants filed a Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 92-20-127 for Recovery of Property against defendant-appellees. On July 19, 1996, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff - 1. Holding that the rights of the plaintiffs to recover the land registered in their names, have been effectively barred by laches; and 2. Ordering the dismissal of the above-entitled case. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, plaintiff-appellants filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals assailing the above-decision. Said appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55207. On December 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals, through the then Second Division, rendered a Decision reversing the assailed decision and decreed as follows: WHEREFORE, the judgment herein appealed from is hereby REVERSED, and judgment is hereby rendered declaring the plaintiffs-appellants to be entitled to the possession of Lot No. 7777 of the Molave Townsite, subject to the rights of the defendants-appellees under Article (sic) 448, 546, 547 and 548 of the New Civil Code. The records of this case are hereby ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the rights of the defendants-appellees under the aforesaid article (sic) of the New Civil Code, and to render judgment thereon in accordance with the evidence and this decision. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Defendant-appellees thereafter filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 139601. On October 18, 1999, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution denying the petition for late filing and lack of appropriate service. Subsequently, or on February 15, 2000, the Supreme Court Resolution had become final and executory. Consequently, the case was remanded to the court a quo and the latter commissioned the Municipal Assessor of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur to determine the value of the improvements introduced by the defendant-appellees. The Commissioner's Report determined that at the time of ocular inspection, there were three (3) residential buildings constructed on the property in litigation. During the ocular inspection, plaintiff-appellants' son, Gil Basay, defendant-appellee Virginia Cabang, and one Bernardo Mendez, an occupant of the lot, were present. In the report, the following appraised value of the improvements were determined, thus: Owner Lot No. Area (sq.m.) Improvement Appraised Value Virginia Cabang 7777 32.55 Building P21,580.65 Jovencio Capuno 7777 15.75 Building 18,663.75 Amelito Mata 7777 14.00 Building 5,658.10 Toilet 1,500.00 Plants & Trees 2,164.00 TOTAL