8/18/2017 G.R. No.

159230

TodayisFriday,August18,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.159230October18,2010

B.E.SANDIEGO,INC.,Petitioner,
vs.

COURTOFAPPEALSandJOVITAMATIAS,Respondents.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

PetitionerB.E.SanDiego,Inc.(B.E.SanDiego)filedbeforetheCourtapetitionforreviewoncertiorari1assailing
the September 25, 2002 decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 50213. The CA decision
reversedtheJune22,1995decision3oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMalabon,Branch74,inCivilCaseNo.
1421MN.4TheRTCinturngrantedthecomplaintforrecoveryofpossession5institutedbyB.E.SanDiegoagainst
privaterespondentJovitaMatias(Matias).

THEFACTS

B.E. San Diego alleged that it is the registered owner of a parcel of land (subject property) located in Hernandez
Street,Catmon,Malabon,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.T134756oftheRegisterofDeedsof
Caloocan,anddelineatedasLotNo.3,BlockNo.13,withanareaof228squaremeters.B.E.SanDiegoclaimed
thatMatiashasbeenoccupyingthesubjectpropertyforoverayearwithoutitsauthorityorconsent.Asbothitsoral
andwrittendemandstovacatewereleftunheeded,B.E.SanDiegofiledacomplaintfortherecoveryofpossession
ofthesubjectpropertyagainstMatiasonMarch15,1990beforetheRTC.6

Inheranswertothecomplaint,Matiasallegedthatsheandherfamilyhavebeenlivingonthesubjectpropertysince
the1950sonthebasisofawrittenpermitissuedbythelocalgovernmentofMalabonin1954.7Matiasstatedthat
she and her family have introduced substantial improvements on the subject property and have been regularly
payingrealtytaxesthereon.ShefurtherclaimedthatsheisalegitimatebeneficiaryofPresidentialDecree(PD)No.
15178andPDNo.2016,9whichclassifiedthesubjectpropertyaspartoftheUrbanLandReformZone(ULRZ)and
anAreaforPriorityDevelopment(APD).

More importantly, she questioned B. E. San Diegos claim over the subject property by pointing out that the title
reliedonbyB.E.SanDiego(TCTNo.T134756)coversapropertylocatedinBarrioTinajeros,Malabon,whilethe
subject property is actually located in Barrio Catmon, Malabon. Matias thus claimed that the property she is
occupyinginBarrioCatmonisdifferentfromthepropertythatB.E.SanDiegoseekstorecoverinthepossessory
actionbeforetheRTC.10

TheRTCfoundnoissueastotheidentityoftheproperty,rulingthatthepropertycoveredbyB.E.SanDiegosTCT
No.T134756,locatedinBarrioTinajeros,isthesamepropertybeingoccupiedbyMatias,locatedinBarrioCatmon.
TheRTCtookjudicialnoticeofthefactthatBarrioCatmonwaspreviouslypartofBarrioTinajeros.Itfoundthatthe
Approved Subdivision Plan and tax declarations showed that the subject property is located in Barrio Catmon,
Malabon. The RTC thus declared that B. E. San Diego sufficiently proved its right to recover possession of the
subjectpropertyonthebasisofitsTCTNo.T134756.AsopposedtoB.E.SanDiegosclearright,itfoundMatias
claimedofpossessionoverthesubjectpropertyasalongtimeoccupantandasabeneficiaryofPDNos.1517and
2016unfounded.11

Onappeal,theCAdisagreedwiththeRTCsfindings.Itconsideredthediscrepancyinthelocationsignificantand
declared that this should have prompted the RTC to require an expert witness from the concerned government
agencytoexplainthematter.SinceitwasundisputedthatMatiaswasinactualpossessionofthesubjectpropertyat

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_159230_2010.html 1/5
8/18/2017 G.R. No. 159230
thetimeofthefilingofthecomplaint,theCAdeclaredthatherpossessionshouldhavebeenupheldunderArticle
538oftheCivilCode.12TheCAalsoupheldMatiaspossessionbasedonPDNos.1517and2016.13

AsitsmotionforreconsiderationoftheCAsjudgmentwasdenied,14B.E.SanDiegofiledthepresentpetitionfor
reviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.

THEPETITIONFORREVIEWONCERTIORARI

B.E.SanDiegocontendsthattheCAerredinreversingtheRTCsfindingonthesolebasisofadiscrepancy,which
itclaimshasbeenexplainedandcontrovertedbytheevidenceitpresented.ItassailstheCAdecisionforfailingto
considerthefollowingevidencewhichadequatelyshowthatthepropertycoveredbyitsTCTNo.T134756isthe
samepropertyoccupiedbyMatias:

a.TCTNo.T134756issuedinthe nameofB.E.SanDiego,coveringapropertydelineatedasLotNo.3,
BlockNo.13

b.ApprovedSubdivisionPlanshowingLotNo.3,BlockNo.3issituatedinBarrioCatmon,Malabon

c.TaxDeclarationNo.B00500296issuedinthenameofB.E.SanDiego,referringtoapropertycoveredby
TCTNo.T134756

d.TestimonialevidenceofB.E.SanDiegoswitnessthatthepropertydescribedinTCTNo.T134756isthe
samepropertyoccupiedbyMatiasand

e.JudicialnoticetakenbytheRTCofMalabon,basedonpublicandcommonknowledge,thatBarrioCatmon
waspreviouslypartofBarrioTinajeros,Malabon.

B. E. San Diego also alleges that Matias is estopped from alleging that the property she is occupying is different
fromthepropertycoveredbyitsTCTNo.T134756.Matiaspreviouslymovedtodismissitscomplaintforrecoveryof
possessionofthesubjectproperty(accionpubliciana),raisingresjudicataasground.15Sheallegedthattheaccion
publiciana16isbarredbythejudgmentinanearlierejectmentcase,17asbothinvolvedthesameparties,thesame
subjectmatter,andthesamecauseofaction.TheejectmentcaseinvolvedaparceloflandcoveredbyTCTNo.T
134756,locatedatHernandezStreet,BarrioCatmon,MalabonMatiasneverquestionedtheidentityandlocationof
thepropertyinthatcase.18B.E.SanDiegothuscontendsthatMatias,byraisingthegroundofresjudicata,has
impliedlyadmittedthereisnodifferenceinthesubjectmatterofthetwoactionsand,thus,couldnolongerquestion
theidentityandlocationofthesubjectproperty.

IncontrovertingB.E.SanDiegospetition,MatiasreliesonthesamepointsthattheCAdiscussedinitsdecision.

THECOURTSRULING

TheCourtfindsthepetitionmeritorious.

Fromtheerrorsraisedinthepetition,whatemergesasaprimaryissueistheidentityofthesubjectmatterofthe
casewhetherthesubjectpropertythatMatiasoccupiesisthesameasthepropertycoveredbyB.E.SanDiegos
title.Ourreadingoftherecordsdisclosesthatthetwoareoneandthesame.

B. E. San Diegos TCT No. T134756 refers to a property located in Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon, but the subject
propertysoughttoberecoveredfromMatiasisinBarrioCatmon,Malabon.InrulingforMatias,theCAdeclaredthat
thisdiscrepancyshouldhavebeenexplainedbyanexpertwitness,whichB.E.SanDiegofailedtopresent.

The Court, however, does not find the testimony of an expert witness necessary to explain the discrepancy. The
RTCdeclaredthatthediscrepancyarosefromthefactthatBarrioCatmonwaspreviouslypartofBarrioTinajeros.
TheRTChasauthoritytodeclaresobecausethisisamattersubjectofmandatoryjudicialnotice.Section1ofRule
129oftheRulesofCourt19includesgeographicaldivisionsasamongmattersthatcourtsshouldtakejudicialnotice
of. Given that Barrio Tinajeros is adjacent to Barrio Catmon,20 we find it likely that, indeed, the two barrios
previouslyformedonegeographicalunit.

Evenwithoutconsideringjudicialnoticeofthegeographicaldivisionswithinapoliticalunit,sufficientevidenceexists
supporting the RTCs finding that the subject property B. E. San Diego seeks to recover is the Barrio Catmon
propertyinMatiaspossession.TCTNo.T134756identifiesapropertyinBarrioTinajerosasLotNo.3,BlockNo.
13.AlthoughB.E.SanDiegostaxdeclarationreferstoapropertyinBarrioCatmon,itneverthelessidentifiesitalso
asLotNo.3,BlockNo.13,coveredbythesameTCTNo.T134756.Indeed,bothtitleandthetaxdeclarationshare
the same boundaries to identify the property. With this evidence, the trial court judge can very well ascertain the
factstoresolvethediscrepancy,anddispensewiththeneedforthetestimonyofanexpertwitness.21

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_159230_2010.html 2/5
8/18/2017 G.R. No. 159230
Additionally,weagreewithB.E.SanDiegothatMatiascannolongerquestiontheidentityofthepropertyitseeksto
recover when she invoked res judicata as ground to dismiss the accion publiciana that is the root of the present
petition.Anallegationofresjudicatanecessarilyconstitutesanadmissionthatthesubjectmatterofthependingsuit
(theaccionpubliciana)isthesameasthatinapreviousone(theejectmentcase).22ThatMatiasneverraisedthe
discrepancy in the location stated in B.E. San Diegos title and the actual location of the subject property in the
ejectmentsuitbarshernowfromraisingthesame.Thus,theissueofidentityofthesubjectmatterofthecasehas
beensettledbyMatiasadmissionandnegatesthedefensessheraisedagainstB.E.SanDiegoscomplaint.

Wethenproceedtoresolvethecoreissueoftheaccionpublicianawhobetweenthepartiesisentitledpossession
of the subject property. Notably, the judgment in the ejectment suit that B. E. San Diego previously filed against
MatiasisnotdeterminativeofthisissueandwillnotprejudiceB.E.SanDiegosclaim.23Whiletheremaybeidentity
ofpartiesandsubjectmatter,thereisnoidentityofcauseofactionbetweenthetwocasesanactionforejectment
andaccionpubliciana,thoughbothreferringtotheissueofpossession,differinthefollowingmanner:

First,forcibleentryshouldbefiledwithinoneyearfromtheunlawfuldispossessionoftherealproperty,whileaccion
publicianaisfiledayearaftertheunlawfuldispossessionoftherealproperty.Second,forcibleentryisconcerned
with the issue of the right to the physical possession of the real property in accion publiciana, what is subject of
litigation is the better right to possession over the real property. Third, an action for forcible entry is filed in the
municipaltrialcourtandisasummaryaction,whileaccionpublicianaisaplenaryactionintheRTC.24

B.E.SanDiegoanchorsitrighttopossessbasedonitsownershipofthesubjectproperty,asevidencedbyitstitle.
Matias,ontheotherhand,relieson(1)the1954permitshesecuredfromthelocalgovernmentofMalabon,(2)the
Miscellaneous Sales Application, (3) the tax declarations and realty tax payments she made annually beginning
1974,(4)herstandingasbeneficiaryofPDNos.1517and2016,and(5)herlongpossessionofthesubjectproperty
since1954uptothepresent.UnfortunatelyforMatias,herevidencedoesnotestablishabetterrightofpossession
overB.E.SanDiegosownership.

Thesettleddoctrineinpropertylawisthatnotitletoregisterlandinderogationofthatoftheregisteredownershall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.25 Even if the possession is coupled with payment of realty
taxes,wecannotapplyinMatiascasetherulethattheseactscombinedconstituteproofofthepossessorsclaimof
title.26Despiteherclaimofpossessionsince1954,Matiasbeganpayingrealtytaxesonthesubjectpropertyonlyin
1974 when B. E. San Diego filed an ejectment case against her husband/predecessor, Pedro Matias.27
Consideringthesecircumstances,wefindMatiaspaymentofrealtytaxessuspect. 1avvphi1

Matias cannot rely on the Miscellaneous Sales Application and the local government permit issued in her favor
neitherestablishesaclearrightinfavorofMatiasoverthesubjectproperty.Asalesapplication,intheabsenceof
approvalbytheBureauofLandsortheissuanceofasalespatent,remainssimplyasanapplicationthatdoesnot
vesttitleintheapplicant.28Thelocalgovernmentpermitcontainedonlyastatementofthelocalexecutivethatthe
casebetweenthelocalgovernmentandB.E.SanDiegowasdecidedbyatrialcourtinfavoroftheformer.29

TheCAerroneouslyupheldMatiasclaimofpossessionbasedonPDNos.1517and2016.Matiasisnotaqualified
beneficiary of these laws. The tenants/occupants who have a right not to be evicted from urban lands "does not
includethosewhosepresenceonthelandismerelytoleratedandwithoutthebenefitofcontract,thosewhoenter
thelandbyforceordeceit,orthosewhosepossessionisunderlitigation." 30AtthetimeofPD1517senactment,
therewasalreadyapendingejectmentsuitbetweenB.E.SanDiegoandPedroMatiasoverthesubjectproperty.
"Occupantsofthelandwhosepresencethereinisdevoidofanylegalauthority,orthosewhosecontractsoflease
were already terminated or had already expired, or whose possession is under litigation, are not considered
tenantsunderthe[PDNos.1517]."31TheRTCcorrectlyruledthatMatiascannotbeconsideredalegitimatetenant
whocanavailthebenefitsoftheselawsnomatterhowlongherpossessionofthesubjectpropertywas.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the September 25, 2002 decision
andMay20,2003resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.50213.TheJune22,1995decisionofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofMalaboninCivilCaseNo.1421MNisREINSTATED.Costsagainsttherespondent.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION**
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA*
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR. JOSECATRALMENDOZA***

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_159230_2010.html 3/5
8/18/2017 G.R. No. 159230
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

ActingChairperson

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionActingChairpersonsAttestation,itishereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*
DesignatedAdditionalMemberoftheThirdDivision,perSpecialOrderNo.907datedOctober13,2010.
**
DesignatedActingChairpersonoftheThirdDivision,perSpecialOrderNo.906datedOctober13,2010.
***
DesignatedAdditionalMemberoftheThirdDivision,perSpecialOrderNo.911datedOctober15,2010.

1Rollo,pp.324.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Delilah VidallonMagtolis, with Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and
AssociateJusticeMarioL.Guariaconcurring,id.at2935.

3PennedbyJudge(nowCAAssociateJustice)BienvenidoL.Reyes,records,pp.329338.

4AlsoassailedinthepresentpetitionistheMay20,2003resolutionoftheCA,denyingB.E.SanDiegos
motionforreconsiderationoftheSeptember25,2002decision,rollo,p.37.

5Records,pp.24.

6Id.at24.

7PayahagdatedDecember24,1954,id.at277.

8Entitled"ProclaimingUrbanLandReforminthePhilippinesandProvidingfortheImplementingMachinery
Thereof," Section 6 of which grants preferential rights to landless tenants/occupants to acquire land within
urbanlandreformareas.

9 Entitled "Prohibiting the Eviction of Occupant Families from Land Identified and Proclaimed as Areas for
Priority Development (APD) or as Urban Land Reform Zones and Exempting Such Land from Payment of
RealPropertyTaxes,"Section2ofwhichprohibitstheevictionofqualifiedtenants/occupants.

10Records,pp.1216.

11Id.at336339.

12Art.538.Possessionasafactcannotberecognizedatthesametimeintwodifferentpersonalitiesexcept
in the cases of copossession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present
possessor shall be preferred if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession if the dates of the
possessionarethesame,theonewhopresentsatitleandifalltheseconditionsareequal,thethingshallbe
placedinjudicialdepositpendingdeterminationofitspossessionorownershipthroughproperproceedings.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_159230_2010.html 4/5
8/18/2017 G.R. No. 159230
13Rollo,pp.3334.

14Supranote4.

15Records,pp.6163.

16CivilCaseNo.1421MN.

17CivilCaseNo.66887isoneofthefourejectmentcasesinstitutedbyB.E.SanDiegoagainsttheMatias
familybeforetheMetropolitanTrialCourtofMalabon,Branch56.
18TheRTCdeniedMatiasmotiontodismissinitsOrderdatedMarch5,1991,records,pp.9596.TheCA
dismissedMatiascertioraripetition(CAG.R.No.26172)assailingthedenialofhermotiontodismissinits
OrderdatedOctober10,1991,id.at124.

19 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial
notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political
history,formsofgovernmentandsymbolsofnationality,thelawofnations,theadmiraltyandmaritimecourts
of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative,executiveandjudicialdepartmentsofthePhilippines,thelawsofnature,themeasureoftime,and
thegeographicaldivisions.
20MalabonCitymapathttp://www.kabeetmaps.com/flash/detail.php?name_id=1124592.

21Expertwitnessesarenotallowedtogiveopinionevidenceiffromtheotherevidenceavailable,thejudge
can be put in possession of the facts. Such evidence, if permitted, would result in the substitution of the
judgment of experts for that of the court, R. Francisco, Evidence (1994 ed.), pp. 351352, citing McBain,
CaliforniaEvidenceManual,p.278.
22 For res judicata to apply, there must be (1) a former judgment or order that is final and executory, (2)
renderedbyacourtthathasjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterandtheparties,(3)theformerjudgmentor
order was resolved on the merits, and (4) there is identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
betweenthefirstandsecondactions,seeAgustinv.delosSantos,G.R.No.168139,January20,2009,576
SCRA576,586.

23TheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MTC)ofMalabon,Branch56,grantedB.E.SanDiegosejectmentcomplaint
against Matias (see rollo, pp. 4144). The RTC of Malabon, Branch 72, reversed the MTCs decision after
findingthatB.E.SanDiegoscomplaintfailedtoallegethatithadpriorphysicalpossessionoftheproperty
(seerecords,pp.6466).
24Regisv.CA,G.R.No.153914,July31,2007,528SCRA611,620seealsoCustodiov.Corrado,G.R.
No.146082,July30,2004,435SCRA500.

25PDNo.1529,Section47.

26 Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership,
nevertheless,theyaregoodindiciaofpossessionintheconceptofownerfornooneinhisrightmindwould
bepayingtaxesforapropertythatisnotinhisactualoratleastconstructivepossession.Theyconstituteat
leastproofthat the holderhasaclaimoftitle overthe property,DirectorofLandsv.CA,G.R. No.103949,
June17,1999,308SCRA317,324325,citingRepublicv.CA,258SCRA712(1996).

27CivilCaseNo.3667.

28Javierv.CA,G.R.No.101177,March28,1994,231SCRA498,507.

29Supranote7.

30Estrellerv.Ysmael,G.R.No.170264,March13,2009,581SCRA247,256.

31Ibid.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_159230_2010.html 5/5