Arbizo vs Santillan.docx

7/25/2019 Arbizo vs Santillan.docx

1/8

G.R. No. 171315 February 26, 2008

ANTONIO ARBIZO,petitioner,

vs.

SPS. ANTONIO SANTILLAN a! ROSARIO L. SANTILLAN,respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x


vs.

SPS. "O#N $ASS%&R a! L'Z %AR(&LO)$ASS%&R,respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x


vs.

PA(ITA %AR(&LO,respondent.

* & ( I S I O N

(#I(O)NAZARIO, J.+

For review on certiorariunder Rule 451of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed b petitioner

!ntonio !rbi"o is the #ecision$of the Court of !ppe%ls d%ted &1 '%nu%r $((). *he Court of !ppe%ls

ordered petitioner to v%c%te the properties sub+ect of this c%se. *he %ss%iled #ecision reversed %nd

set %side the #ecision&d%ted $( Febru%r $((4 of the Reion%l *ri%l Court R*C of /b%, 0%b%les,

which %ffired in totothe #ecision4d%ted 12 !uust $((& of the & rd3unicip%l Circuit *ri%l Court

3C*C of otol%n-C%b%n%n, C%b%n%n, 0%b%les, in Civil C%ses o. 2&&, o. 2&4, o. 2&5 %nd

o. 2&).

Centr%l to this controvers is the possession of the %bove three %d+oinin p%rcels of l%nd sub+ect

properties which %re %ll situ%ted in %r%n% 6%n /sidro, C%b%n%n, 0%b%les, with %n %re% of

1,$(( su%re eters e%ch. *he sub+ect properties %re bein cl%ied b petitioner to be p%rt of the

propert described under *%x #ecl%r%tion o. 1)-((&$ in the n%e of his dece%sed f%ther, Celestino

!rbi"o. Respondents, on the other h%nd, %ssert ownership over the s%e b%sed on sep%r%te titles in

their n%es, p%rticul%rl8 % *r%nsfer Certific%te of *itle *C* o. *-5(7$& in the n%es of the

spouses 'ohn %nd u" 3%rie :%sser;5b *C* o. 5(7$$ in the n%e of P%cit% 3%rcelo;)%nd c

*C* o. *-5(7$5 in the n%es of the spouses !ntonio %nd Ros%rio 6%ntill%n.7

*he records show th%t on $7 'une $((1, the respondents filed with the 3C*C three sep%r%te

Copl%ints for


2/8

petitioner veheentl refused to do so. *hus, respondents pr%ed th%t the petitioner be ordered to

v%c%te the sub+ect properties, %nd to p% e%ch of the8 1 the %ount of P1,(((.(( per onth fro

6epteber $((( until the sub+ect properties %re v%c%ted, %s %ctu%l d%%es in the for of

re%son%ble copens%tion for the use %nd occup%tion thereof; $ the %ount of P$5,(((,(( %s

%ttorne>s fees plus P2((.(( per court %ppe%r%nce; %nd & the %ount of P1(,(((.(( %s or%l %nd

exepl%r d%%es.

/n response, the petitioner countered th%t the sub+ect lots fored p%rt of the $9,&45-su%re eter

propert previousl owned b his f%ther, Celestino !rbi"o, who occupied the s%e durin his lifetie

%s e%rl %s 19$1. !t the tie of his f%ther>s de%th on 11 3% 195), he left the entire propert %s p%rt

of his est%te to his forced %nd copulsor heirs; n%el, 3%ri% F%celo !rbi"o the petitioner>s

other, C%rolin% !rbi"o-oced%, !uror% !rbi"o-s fees.

?n 12 !uust $((&, on the b%sis of the position p%pers %nd docuent%r evidence %dduced b the

p%rties, the 3C*C rendered % #ecision disissin the three Copl%ints for s siblin,

!n%cleto !rbi"o %nd !rifin% !rbi"o-3endiorin, conveed %nd sold their respective 15
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt9


3/8

sh%res fro sic the propert to #oin% P. !rbi"o Apetitioner>sB wife is doubtlessl

est%blished b the two $ deeds of s%le executed b the forer in the e%r 197). *his

loic%ll expl%ins wh ApetitionerB !ntonio !rbi"o %nd his wife %re %s seen in the enineer>s

docuents occupin %n %pproxi%te %re% of 11,$&( su%re eters out of the $.9 hect%re-

propert sic t%x decl%red in the n%e of Celestino !rbi"o who %t the tie of his de%th

%ppe%red to h%ve left five 5 heirs. x x x.

3oreover, the corrobor%ted decl%r%tions of Apetitioner>sB witnesses one of who A'esus

P%redesB is 21 e%rs old %nd % lon-tie friend of Apetitioner>sB f%ther convincinl prove th%t

ApetitionerB h%s %lre%d been occupin the !rbi"o propert includin the controverted AthreeB

p%rcels of l%nd uch lon before the ArespondentsB bouht, reistered, %nd fenced the in

the e%r 1992. Proof th%t the ApetitionerB h%s preferred possession is the testion of

Conr%do 6%ntos, Arespondents>B own witness, to the effect th%t s%id ApetitionerB w%s %t the

%re% %nd th%t the l%borers even too= their refreshent %t the ne%rb resthouse of the

!rbi"o>s durin their fencin of Arespondents>B properties. ?n this point, Apetitioner>sB

possession becoes even ore superior if the sp%n of e%rs th%t his f%ther %nd

predecessor-in-interest h%d held the propert were to be t%c=ed to his own possession.

?ver-%ll, the unrefuted docuent%r evidence brouht to liht b the ApetitionerB indubit%bl

proves th%t his phsic%l occup%tion %nd exercise of %cts of possession %nted%te th%t of the

ArespondentsB. Cle%rl, since it is Apetitioner>sB possession th%t en+os priorit of tie, he is,

under the l%w, entitled to continue possessin the l%nds in uestion. #e un% vs. Court of

!ppe%ls, $1$ 6CR! $7).1(

#iss%tisfied, the respondents then elev%ted the %tter to the R*C. ?n $( Febru%r $((4, the R*C

sust%ined the disiss%l b the 3C*C of the respondents> Copl%ints for


4/8

prior possession of the sub+ect lots, the ApetitionerB %dduced in evidence *%x #ecl%r%tion o.

1)-((&$ which w%s issued in 1925, %nd the two $ deeds of s%le in 197) executed in f%vor

of his wife, #oin% !rbi"o, b !n%cleto !rbi"o %nd !rifin% !rbi"o-3endiorin. /n %ddition,

the ApetitionerB presented the %ffid%vits of his witnesses, 'esus P%redes %nd Ros%rio Corpu",

both st%tin therein th%t he re%ined in possession of the sub+ect lots even up to the present

tie. @owever, :e find th%t these pieces of evidence do not successfull debun= the cl%i

of the Aherein respondentsB th%t the were %ble to wrest phsic%l possession of the sub+ect

lots in 1992 when the inst%lled % fence enclosin the s%e. Furtherore, the f%ct th%t the

3C*C found Apetitioner>sB sever%l huts st%ndin on the sub+ect lots durin the ocul%r

inspection does not necess%ril est%blish th%t the ApetitionerB h%d been in pe%ceful,

continuous %nd uninterrupted possession of the sub+ect lots. !s the records disclose, the

ocul%r inspection w%s conducted in $((& which w%s %pproxi%tel three & e%rs %fter the

unl%wful intrusion b the ApetitionerB. @ence, :e c%nnot re%dil conclude th%t the huts were

%lre%d there when the ArespondentsB too= %ctu%l possession of the sub+ect lots in 1992 %s

these huts could be e%sil constructed.

pon the other h%nd, the ArespondentsB presented their respective certific%tes of title %nd t%x

decl%r%tions to prove th%t the h%d been the reistered owners of the sub+ect lots since1992. :hile it is %ditted th%t t%x decl%r%tions %nd certific%tes of title evidencin their

ownership over the sub+ect lots did not su%rel %ddress the issue of prior %ctu%l possession

r%ised in % forcible entr c%se German Management Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,177

6CR! 495, 499 A1929B, the nevertheless bolstered the st%nce of the ArespondentsB th%t

the too= phsic%l possession of the sub+ect lots b virtue of such ownership. 6inific%ntl, to

further corrobor%te their cl%i th%t the were the %ctu%l possessors of the sub+ect propert %t

the tie of the ille%l dispossession, the subitted the %ffid%vit of Conr%do 6%ntos

est%blishin th%t he %nd his son constructed % wooden fence enclosin the sub+ect lots

bouht b the ArespondentsB, %nd th%t of Dlori% #%lis%o confirin th%t this wooden fence

w%s l%ter destroed %nd repl%ced with % concrete fence b the ApetitionerB in 6epteber

$(((. Cle%rl fro the foreoin, the sufficientl est%blished b preponder%nce of evidence

th%t the were %ble to t%=e %teri%l or phsic%l possession of the sub+ect lots fro 1992 to6epteber $(((. /t ust be stressed th%t the fencin of the sub+ect lots b the ArespondentsB

in 1992 without %n ob+ection or protest fro the ApetitionerB for ne%rl two $ e%rs is

deeed sufficient to confer upon the %ctu%l possession thereof.1&

ot to be stied, petitioner is now before this Court r%isin the issue of whether the #ecision of the

Court of !ppe%ls is supported b evidence on record %nd in %ccord%nce with l%ws %nd +urisprudence

est%blished b the 6upree Court.14

*he pertinent point of inuir is whether or not priv%te respondents h%ve % v%lid round to evict

petitioner fro the sub+ect properties.

! copl%int for forcible entr % be instituted in %ccord%nce with 6ection 1, Rule 7( of the 1997

Rules of Court8

6


5/8

iplied, or the le%l represent%tives or %ssins of %n such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other

person % %t %n tie within 1 one e%r %fter such unl%wful depriv%tion or withholdin of

possession, brin %n %ction in the proper 3unicip%l *ri%l Court %%inst the person or persons

unl%wfull withholdin or deprivin of possession, or %n person or persons cl%iin under

the, for the restitution of such possession, toether with d%%es %nd costs.

*he su%r reedies of forcible entr %nd unl%wful det%iner under 6ection 1, Rule 7( of the 1997

Rules of Court %re distinuished fro e%ch other %s follows8

/n forcible entr, one is deprived of phsic%l possession of l%nd or buildin b e%ns of force,

intiid%tion, thre%t, str%te, or ste%lth. /n unl%wful det%iner, one unl%wfull withholds

possession thereof %fter the expir%tion or terin%tion of his riht to hold possession under

%n contr%ct, express or iplied. /n forcible entr, the possession is ille%l fro the beinnin

%nd the b%sic inuir centers on who h%s the prior possession de facto./n unl%wful det%iner,

the possession w%s oriin%ll l%wful but bec%e unl%wful b the expir%tion or terin%tion of

the riht to possess, hence the issue of rihtful possession is decisive for, in such %ction, the

defend%nt is in %ctu%l possession %nd the pl%intiff>s c%use of %ction is the terin%tion of the

defend%nt>s riht to continue in possession.

:h%t deterines the c%use of %ction is the n%ture of defend%nt>s entr into the l%nd. /f the

entr is ille%l, then the %ction which % be filed %%inst the intruder within one e%r

therefro is forcible entr. /f, on the other h%nd, the entr is le%l but the possession

there%fter bec%e ille%l, the c%se is one of unl%wful det%iner which ust be filed within one

e%r fro the d%te of the l%st de%nd.15

/t is % b%sic rule in civil c%ses th%t the p%rt h%vin the burden of proof ust est%blish his c%se b %

preponder%nce of evidence, which sipl e%ns Gevidence which is of re%ter weiht or ore

convincin th%n th%t which is offered in opposition to it.G1)

/n filin forcible entr c%ses, the l%w tells us th%t two %lle%tions %re %nd%tor for the unicip%lcourt to %cuire +urisdiction8 first,the pl%intiff ust %llee prior phsic%l possession of the propert,

%nd second,he ust %lso %llee th%t he w%s deprived of his possession b %n of the e%ns

provided for in 6ection 1, Rule 7( of the Rules of Court, i.e.,b force, intiid%tion, thre%t, str%te or

ste%lth. /t is %lso settled th%t in the resolution of such % c%se, wh%t is %teri%l is the deterin%tion of

who is entitled to the phsic%l possession of the propert. /ndeed, %n of the p%rties who c%n prove

prior possession de facto% recover such possession even fro the owner hiself since such

c%ses proceed independentl of %n cl%i of ownership %nd the pl%intiff needs erel to prove prior

possession de facto%nd undue depriv%tion thereof. *he uestion of possession is priordi%l while

the issue of ownership is unessenti%l.17

Eeril, in e+ectent c%ses, the word GpossessionG e%ns nothin ore th%n %ctu%l phsic%lpossession, not le%l possession, in the sense contepl%ted in civil l%w. *he onl issue in such

c%ses is who is entitled to the phsic%l or %teri%l possession of the propert involved, independent

of %n cl%i of ownership set forth b %n of the p%rt-liti%nts.12/t does not even %tter if the p%rt>s

title to propert is uestion%ble.19

*he Court of !ppe%ls, in its %ss%iled #ecision, found th%t 1 respondents h%d prior phsic%l

possession of the sub+ect properties, %nd $ the were deprived thereof b petitioner b e%ns of

force, intiid%tion, thre%t, str%te or ste%lth.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt19


6/8

:e %ree in the conclusion of the Court of !ppe%ls.

?n the issue of who h%s prior possession, respondents> prior phsic%l possession of the sub+ect

properties %nd depriv%tion thereof %re cle%r fro the %lle%tion th%t the %re the owners of the

sub+ect properties which petitioner forcibl entered, of which the were unl%wfull turned out of

possession %nd for which the pr% to be restored in possession.

/n e+ectent c%ses, the pl%intiff erel needs to prove prior de factopossession %nd undue

depriv%tion thereof. Respondents in their copl%int %verred th%t %fter the purch%sed the lots in

1992 the iedi%tel enclosed the s%e with % fence. *his prior possession of respondents is

buttressed b the Salaysay of their witness Conr%do 6%ntos who st%ted8

6!!H6!H

!=o, C?R!#? 6!*?6, s%p%t %n ul%n, Pilipino %t n%ninir%h%n s% C%b%n%n,

0%b%les, %t%pos n% %=%p%nup% n s%n-%on s% pin%-uutos n b%t%s % =us%n

loob n% dito % n%s%s%l%s%8

1. I%in d%l%w% n %=in %n%= n% si =%s%lu=u%n n%b%b%=od n%=%%sid si !ntonio !rbi"o. 6% =%tun%%n s%

Resthouse p% ni *on !rbi"o =%i =u%in n %in erend% s% t%bi n n%s%bin lup%.

5. %n =%i % =%s%lu=u%n n%b%b%=od, w%l% n%%n n%b%w%l o tu%ni s% %in

in%%w% %t %%os %t %p%%p% n%in n%b%=ur%n %n lup%n n%s%s%=up%n n %p%t n%

titulo.

). 6% =%tun%%n n%t%%l %n %in ibin%=od h%n%n s% ito> sinir% %t pin%lit%n n

=on=reto s% p%-uutos ni !ntonio !rbi"o.$(

/rrefr%%bl, the %bove %ffid%vit fortifies respondents> cl%i th%t the possessed the sub+ect

properties in 1992 e%rlier th%n the petitioner who c%e to the preises l%ter on in the e%r $(((.

ot%bl, petitioner f%iled to rebut the contents of the %bove %ffid%vit. *hus it should be iven

evidenti%r v%lue. *he Rule on 6u%r Procedure precisel provides for the subission b the

p%rties of %ffid%vits %nd position p%pers %nd en+oins courts to hold he%rins onl when it is necess%rto do so to cl%rif f%ctu%l %tters. *his procedure is in =eepin with the ob+ective of the Rule8 to

proote the expeditious %nd inexpensive deterin%tion of c%ses.$1:orth of note is th%t %n %ction

for forcible entr is % uietin process th%t is su%r in n%ture. /t is desined to recover phsic%l

possession throuh speed proceedins th%t %re restrictive in n%ture, scope %nd tie liits.$$

!s to whether respondents were deprived of possession b force, intiid%tion, str%te or ste%lth,

the %cts of the petitioner in unl%wfull enterin the sub+ect properties, erectin % structure thereon
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt22


7/8

%nd excludin therefro the prior possessor would necess%ril ipl the use of force. /n order to

constitute force, the tresp%sser does not h%ve to institute % st%te of w%r. !s expressl st%ted in !avid

v. Cordova$&8

*he words Gb force, intiid%tion, thre%t, str%te or ste%lthG include ever situ%tion or

condition under which one person c%n wronfull enter upon re%l propert %nd exclude

%nother, who h%s h%d prior possession therefro. /f % tresp%sser enters upon l%nd in open

d%liht, under the ver ees of the person %lre%d clothed with l%wful possession, but

without the consent of the l%tter, %nd there pl%nts hiself %nd excludes such prior possessor

fro the propert, the %ction of forcible entr %nd det%iner c%n unuestion%bl be %int%ined,

even thouh no force is used b the tresp%sser other th%n such %s is necess%ril iplied

fro the ere %cts of pl%ntin hiself on the round %nd excludin the other p%rt.

!ll told, %fter due consider%tion of the evidence presented b the p%rties in this c%se %nd the

%pplic%ble +urisprudence, we hold th%t the Court of !ppe%ls correctl found respondents to h%ve %

superior riht of possession over the sub+ect properties.

:e eph%si"e th%t our disuisition in this c%se is provision%l %nd onl to the extent necess%r todeterine who between the p%rties h%s the better riht of possession.$4/n %n %ppropri%te proceedin

before the court h%vin +urisdiction, petitioner % still h%ve the s%le of the sub+ect propert to

respondents %nnulled, %nd the l%tter>s title c%ncelled if petitioner>s c%se is trul eritorious.

!ddition%ll, it ust %lso be reebered th%t the sub+ect propert is reistered under the *orrens

6ste in the n%es of the respondents whose title to the propert is presued le%l %nd c%nnot be

coll%ter%ll %tt%c=ed, less so in %n %ction for forcible entr.

/n p%ssin, it ust be stressed th%t the +urisdiction of 6upree Court in c%ses brouht before it fro

the Court of !ppe%ls vi% Rule 45, %s in this c%se, is liited to reviewin errors or uestions of l%w.

:here f%ctu%l %tters %re involved, it is well-settled th%t % uestion of f%ct is to be deterined b the

evidence to support the p%rticul%r contention. !s found b the Court of !ppe%ls, the evidence%dduced on this score %re in respondents> f%vor. :hether such conclusion of the Court of !ppe%ls

w%s supported b the evidence presented before it is %lso f%ctu%l in n%ture. /t is the burden of the

p%rt see=in review of % decision of the Court of !ppe%ls or other lower tribun%ls to distinctl set

forth in his petition for review, not onl the existence of uestions of l%w f%irl %nd loic%ll %risin

therefro, but %lso uestions subst%nti%l enouh to erit consider%tion, or show th%t there %re

speci%l %nd iport%nt re%sons w%rr%ntin the review th%t he see=s. /f these %re not shownprima

faciein his petition, this Court will be +ustified in su%ril spurnin the petition %s l%c=in in erit.

!dittedl, there %re reconi"ed exceptions to this rule when the evidence presented durin the tri%l

% be ex%ined %nd the f%ctu%l %tters resolved b this Court. !on these exception%l

circust%nces is when the findins of f%ct of the %ppell%te court differ fro those of the tri%l court.

$5

onetheless, the exception is not %pplied unu%lifiedl. /n "an# of Commerce v. Serrano,$)we held

th%t this Court does not, of itself, %uto%tic%ll delve into the record of % c%se to deterine the f%cts

%new where there is dis%reeent between the findins of f%ct b the tri%l court %nd b the Court of

!ppe%ls. :hen the dis%reeent is erel on the roba-/e /aue o -e e/!ee, i.e.,which is

ore credible of two versions, we liit our review to onl %scert%inin if the findins of the Court of

!ppe%ls %re supported b the records. 6o lon %s the findins of the %ppell%te court %re consistent

with %nd not p%lp%bl contr%r to the evidence on record, we sh%ll decline to %=e % review on the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_171315_2008.html#fnt26


8/8

prob%tive v%lue of such evidence. *he findins of f%ct of the Court of !ppe%ls, %nd not those of the

tri%l court, will be considered fin%l %nd conclusive, even in this Court. /n this c%se, we find no coent

re%son to disturb the foreoin f%ctu%l findins of the Court of !ppe%ls holdin respondents entitled

to the possession of the sub+ect properties.

$#&R&FOR&,preises considered, the inst%nt Petition is *&NI&*for l%c= of erit. *he #ecision

of the Court of !ppe%ls d%ted &1 '%nu%r $(() in C!-D.R. 6P o. 2)45) is AFFIR%&*.Costs

%%inst petitioner.

SO OR*&R&*.

Documents

Arbizo vs Santillan.docx