basbas vs. sayson
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
1/37
Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court
ManilaFIRST DIVISION
EUGENIO BASBAS,
TEOFILO
ARAS, RUFINO ARAS,
GERVACIO BASBAS,ISMAEL
ARAS, EUGENIO ARAS,
SIMFRONIO ARAS,
FELICIANO ARAS, ROSITA
ARAS, EUGENIO BASBAS,
JR.
and SOUSES ABLITOBASARTE and MARCELINA
BASBAS BASARTE,
G.R. No. !"#$$%
Present:
CORONA, C. J., Cha
LEONARDO-DE CA
R!ON,
DEL CAST!LLO, and
Petitioners, "!LLARAMA, #R$,J
- %ersus-
BEATA SA&SON and
ROBERTO SA&SON, JR.,
Pro&ul'ate(:
Respondents. Au'ust )*, )+
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
2/37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO,J.'
Petitioners see. to pre%ent the re%i%al of a /u('&ent
ren(ere( in fa%or of the respon(ents &ore than t0o
(eca(es bac.$
This Petition for Re%ie0 on Certiorari assails the
1ebruar2 3, )++* Decision4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if6of the
Court of Appeals 7CA8 in CA-9$R$ C" No$ 3);, respon(ent eata Sa2son
7eata8 an( her husban( Roberto Sa2son, Sr$ 7Roberto
Sr$8 file( a Petition for Re'istration of an a'riculturallan( locate( in Ca'batan', ala'tas, Mata'-ob, Le2te
(oc.ete( as Lan( Re'istration Case No$ +-33$ The sai(
application 0as oppose( b2 the Republic of the
Philippines an( herein petitioners Eu'enio asbas
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
3/37
7Eu'enio Sr$8, Teofilo Aras 7Teofilo8 an( Rufino Aras
7Rufino8$ On March )), =3=, the Court of 1irst
!nstance 7C1!8 of Le2te, ranch " 7Or&oc Cit28
ren(ere( a Decision a(/u(icatin' to the spouses Sa2sonsai( a'ricultural lan( an( appro%in' its re'istration
un(er their na&es$4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6
The oppositors file( their appeal to the CA
(oc.ete( as CA-9$R$ No$ >>4if 5
support1ootnotes64364en(if6 0as issue( to the spouses Sa2son
pursuant to the March )), =3= C1! Decision$ An Alias
?rit of Possession 0as issue( on April >, =;= but this
coul( also not be i&ple&ente( in %ie0 of the refusal of
Eu'enio Sr$ an( his son Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 7Eu'enio
#r$8$ Clai&in' that the lan( the2 occupie( is not the sa&e
lan( sub/ect of the C1! Decision,4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6
the2(e&an(e( that a relocation sur%e2 be con(ucte($ @ence,
a relocation sur%e2 0as con(ucte( b2 or(er of the
Re'ional Trial Court 7RTC8, ranch ), Or&oc Cit2$4if 5
support1ootnotes64=64en(if6
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
4/37
!n an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64+64en(if6 (ate( Septe&ber
, =;=, the RTC appro%e( the Co&&issioners
Report4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if6
on the relocation sur%e2 an(or(ere( the ori'inal oppositors, petitioners Eu'enio Sr$,
Teofilo an( Rufino, as 0ell as their co-petitioners herein
9er%acio asbas 79er%acio8, !s&ael Aras 7!s&ael8,
Eu'enio Aras 7Eu'enio8, Si&fronio Aras 7Si&fronio8,
1eliciano Aras 71eliciano8, Rosita Aras 7Rosita8 an(
Eu'enio #r$ to %acate the sub/ect propert2, viz:
4R6espon(ents are (irecte( to %acate the portion of Lot No$
, Psu-+;-+++)< co%ere( b2 OCT No$ )*=> an(
sub/ect of the final (ecree of re'istration 0hich, 4up
to the6 present, sai( respon(ents are still possessin'
pursuant to the final an( eecutor2 /u('&ent of the
Court of Appeals an( as particularl2 (efine( in the
Co&&issioners report sub&itte( on Au'ust , =;=
$
Respon(ents are re&in(e( that un(er Rule 3 of the Ne0
Rules of Court, failure on their part to so obe2 thisor(er &a2 &a.e the& liable for conte&pt of this
Court$
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
5/37
SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6
9er%acio, !s&ael, Eu'enio, Si&fronio, 1eliciano,
Rosita an( Eu'enio #r$, althou'h not oppositors in CA-
9$R$ No$ >>
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
6/37
Au'ust ;, ==< a Co&plaint for Re%i%al of #u('&ent4if 5
support1ootnotes6464en(if6(oc.ete( as Ci%il Case No$ )-
+$ !&plea(e( as (efen(ants 0ere Eu'enio Sr$, Teofilo,Rufino, 9er%acio, !s&ael, Eu'enio, Si&fronio,
1eliciano, Rosita, an( Eu'enio #r$ Petitioner-spouses
Pablito asarte an( Marcelina asbas-Sabarte4if 5
support1ootnotes64364en(if67spouses asarte8, 0ho, althou'h not
i(entifie( in the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er as principal
oppositors in the lan( re'istration case, 0ere li.e0ise
i&plea(e( as (efen(ants since the2 also alle'e(l2har%este(, processe(, an( sol( the coconuts foun( in the
sub/ect propert2$
pon receipt of su&&ons, 9er%acio, Rufino, !s&ael,
Eu'enio, 1eliciano, Rosita an( Eu'enio #r$ file( a
Motion to Dis&iss4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6on the 'roun( that
the Co&plaint states no cause of action$ This 0as,ho0e%er, (enie(4if 5support1ootnotes64=64en(if6 so the sa&e set of
petitioners, ecept for 1eliciano, file( an Ans0er 0ith
Counterclai&$4if 5support1ootnotes64)+64en(if6
!n their Ans0er 0ith counterclai&, sai( petitioners
a(&itte( the alle'ations in para'raphs *, , 3, ;, =, +,
an( ) of respon(ents Co&plaint 0hich state that:
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
7/37
*$ On March )), =3=, the @onorable #u('e Nu&eriano
EstenBo ren(ere( a (ecision in the abo%e-&entione(
Lan( Re'istration 4c6ase in fa%or of the petitioners
an( a'ainst the oppositors, the (ispositi%e
portion of sai( (ecision rea(s:
?@ERE1ORE, (ecision is hereb2ren(ere( 4an(6 the lan( (escribe( un(er
Plan PS-+;-+++)< (ate( Septe&ber +,
=3 of 9eo(etic En'ineer Nestorio EncenBo
alrea(2 APPRO"ED b2 the Actin' Re'ional
Director on #une )3, =3* is hereb2a(/u(icate( an( re'istere( in the na&es of the
Spouses ROERTO SASON an( EATA
O$ SASON, of le'al a'es, 1ilipinos, spouses
an( resi(ents of Ca&po.po., Taban'o, Le2te,
Philippines an( as soon as this (ecisionbeco&es final, let a (ecree of re'istration beissue( b2 the Lan( Re'istration Co&&ission$
SO ORDERED$ 7 8
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
8/37
$ On #ul2 )*, =;
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
9/37
an( the sai( (ecision has beco&e final an( eecutor2 on
Au'ust ), =;< per Entr2 of #u('&ent issue( b2
the Court of Appeals $
3$ That conseuentl2, on Septe&ber 3,
=;> an Ori'inal Certificate of Title No$ N-)*=>
0as issue( in the na&es of Roberto Sa2son an(
eata O$ Sa2son, pursuant to Decree No$ N-=>,
=;= (irecte( the issuance of an Alias ?rit of
Possession
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
10/37
=$ That the Deput2 Sheriff of this Court, Mr$Placi(4o6 Ca2co ten(ere( the Alias ?rit of
Possession to the oppositors, particularl2 to Mr$
Eu'enio asbas, Sr$ an( Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 0ho,
as the Deput2 Sheriff state( in his Pro'ress Report
(ate( Ma2 ;, =;= (i( not belie%e an( obe2 the
C1! Decision an( the (ecision of the Court of
Appeals an( 4t6he2 (e&an(e( a relocation
sur%e2 to (eter&ine the eact location of applicants
7co&plainant4s6 herein8 propert2 (escribe( in the
alias 0rit of possession$
+$ That on #une >, =;=, the @onorable
Court, actin' on the Pro'ress Report of Deput2
Sheriff Placi(o Ca2co, issue( an Or(er on e%en (ate
appointin' 9eo(etic En'ineer #ose A$ Tahil as
Court Co&&issioner specificall2 to relocate Lot
No$ , Plan Psu-+;-+++)
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
11/37
$ That pursuant to the 4O6r(er (ate( #une>, =;= the Court assi'ne( Co&&issioner,
En'r$ #ose A$ Tahil, sub&itte( his report statin' that
the /ob assi'ne( to the co&&issioner 0as alrea(2
full2 an( peacefull2 acco&plishe( that his fin(in's
4sho06 that all points are eistin' an( intact on the
fiel( ecept corner of sai( lot 0hich at
present 4is6 alrea(2 (efine( an( in(icate( on the
'roun($ The co&&issioner also attache( a S.etch
Plan of the lan( to his report$
)$ That, finall2, the @onorable Court, on
Septe&ber , =;= issue( an Or(er appro%in' the
Co&&issioners Report an( further state(:
4R6espon(ents 7(efen(ants herein8 are (irecte( to %acate theportion of Lot No$ , Psu-+;-+++)< co%ere(
b2 OCT No$ )*=> an( sub/ect of final (ecree
of re'istration 0hich, until 4the6 present, sai(
respon(ents are still possessin', pursuant to
the final an( eecutor2 /u('&ent of the Court
of Appeals an( as particularl2 4(efine(6 in the
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
12/37
Co&&issioners Report sub&itte( on Au'ust
, =;=
Respon(ents are re&in(e( that
un(er Rule 3 of the Ne0 Rules of Court,failure on their part to so obe2 this Or(er &a2
&a.e the& liable for conte&pt of this Court$4if
5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6
@o0e%er, petitioners a(&itte( but (enie( in
part:
8 para'raphs ) an( , insofar as the2 alle'e( that
the2 0ere all oppositors to the lan( re'istration case
0hen onl2 Eu'enio Sr$, Teofilo an( Rufino 0ere the
oppositors therein an(
)8 para'raph *, 0ith respect to the alle'ation on
the retire&ent of the Deput2 Sheriff an( the heart
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
13/37
con(ition of the Cler. of Court, for lac. of sufficient
.no0le('e an( infor&ation sufficient to for& a belief
thereon$
On the other han(, the2 specificall2 (enie(:
8 para'raph , on the 'roun( that the2 ha%e the
ri'ht of o0nership an(For possession o%er the sub/ect
propert2 an(
)8 para'raph
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
14/37
$ Plaintiffs eata Sa2son an( her late
husban(, Roberto Sa2son are petitioners in Lan(
Re'istration Case No$ +-33 for the re'istration of a
parcel of a'ricultural lan( situate( in arrio
ala'tas, Mata'-ob, Le2te, file( on Septe&ber ),=3> 0ith the then Court of 1irst !nstance of Le2te,
ranch ", Or&oc Cit2$ The abo%e-na&e(
(efen(ants, na&el2: Eu'enio asbas, Teofilo Aras,
9er%acio asbas, Rufino Aras, !s&ael Aras,
Eu'enio Aras, Si&fronio Aras, 1eliciano Aras,
Rosita Aras an( Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 0ere
oppositors to the application4if 5support1ootnotes64))64en(if6
$ That (espite this a(&onition in the
4Septe&ber , =;=6 4O6r(er that the2 coul( be
cite( for conte&pt of Court, the respon(ents,
(efen(ants herein, ha( continuousl2 (efie( the sa&ean( this not0ithstan(in' the fact that it 0as upon
their o0n (e&an(s an( insistence that a relocation
sur%e2 be &a(e on the pre&ises sub/ect of this case
before the2 0oul( obe2 the alias 0rit of possession
an( that the fin(in'4s6 of the
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
15/37
Court4-6appointe( Co&&issioner En'r$ #ose A$
Tahil sho0 that the oppositors-respon(ents (i(
4encroach6 on the lan( of plaintiffs herein
*$ That this 4Septe&ber , =;=6 Or(er
ho0e%er 0as not i&ple&ente( thru a ?rit of
Eecution 0ithin the fi%e-2ear perio( fro& the ti&e
the Or(er beca&e final because of the retire&ent ofDeput2 Sheriff Placi(o Ca2co an( b2 reason also of
the fact that the then Cler. of Court, Att2$
Constantino A$ Trias, #r$ 0ho 0as also the e-officio
Pro%incial Sheriff 0as not ph2sicall2 fit to hi.e thru
the &ountains an( hills of r'2$ ala'tas 0here the
propert2 an( the (efen(ants therein resi(e (ue to his
heart con(ition
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
16/37
in%ol%e($ An( until the (ecision of the Court of
Appeals is eecute(, plaintiff 0ill continue to suffer
losses an( (a&a'es b2 reason of (efen(ants
unla0ful occupation an( possession an( their
continue( har%estin' of the pro(uce of this lan( ofthe herein plaintiffs$4if 5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6
2 0a2 of special an( affir&ati%e (efenses, sai(
petitioners conten(e( that the Or(er sou'ht to bere%i%e( is not the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section
>, Rule = of the Rules of Court, hence the action for
re%i%al of /u('&ent is i&proper$ Also, ecept for
Rufino, petitioners a%erre( that the2 cannot be &a(e
parties to the co&plaint for re%i%al of /u('&ent as the2
0ere not parties to the lan( re'istration case$ The2 thus
belie%e( that the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er sou'ht to bere%i%e( is not bin(in' upon the& an( hence, the
co&plaint states no cause of action 0ith respect to the&$
As to the counterclai&, petitioners pra2e( that
respon(ents pa2 the& &oral an( ee&plar2 (a&a'es,
attorne2s fees an( liti'ation epenses$
Pre-trial conference 0as thereafter set4if 5support1ootnotes64)*64en(if6 but since not all petitioners 0ere ser%e( 0ith
su&&ons, this 0as reset an( alias su&&ons 0as issue(
an( ser%e( upon Si&fronio an( the spouses asarte$4if 5
support1ootnotes64)
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
17/37
a(opte( the Ans0er 0ith Counterclai& of 9er%acio,
Rufino, !s&ael, Eu'enio, 1eliciano, Rosita an( Eu'enio
#r$4if 5support1ootnotes64)>64en(if60hile the spouses asarte file( a
Motion to Dis&iss4if 5support1ootnotes64)364en(if6
on the 'roun( oflac. of cause of action$ As sai( &otion 0as also (enie(,4if 5support1ootnotes64);64en(if6 the spouses asarte later file( a
Manifestation4if 5support1ootnotes64)=64en(if6 that the2 0ere also
a(optin' the Ans0er 0ith Counterclai& file( b2
9er%acio an( the others$
Durin' the pre-trial conference on #ul2 *, ===,the RTC issue( an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64+64en(if6 0hich
pro%i(es in part, viz:
!n to(a2s pre-trial conference,
&anifestations an( counter-&anifestations 0ere
echan'e($ All the parties an( their counsels are
present$ 01-a*nt*//+ )oun+e- pre+ented a
Spe)*a- o4er o/ Attorne3 3 Beata Sa3+on utt2e Court o+er(ed t2at +ame 4a+ not du-3
a)8no4-eded e/ore t2e 2*-*pp*ne Con+u-ate or
Ema++3 *n Canada. 9o4e(er, t2*+ matter *+ not
+o *mportant4$6 4?6hen the Court trie( to (i' an(
(iscuss 0ith the parties on their real positions, it
turne( out that the p-a*nt*//+ are +ee8*n re(*(a- o/
t2e pre(*ou+ /*na- :udment, t2e or**na- part*e+
o/ 42*)2 4ere Euen*o Ba+a+, Teo/*-o Ara+ andRu/*no Ara+. Euen*o and Teo/*-o are a-- dead,
-ea(*n Ru/*no Ara+ a-*(e. It *+ ;u*te )omp-*)ated
)on+*der*n t2at *n t2*+ a)t*on, t2e p-a*nt*//+
re-*ed on t2e Order o/ t2*+ Court penned 3 t2e
pre(*ou+ :ude dated Septemer !5, !
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
18/37
4a+ made a/ter or )on+e;uent to t2e /*na-
:udment a/orement*oned, 42ere*n t2e name+ o/
t2e ot2er de/endant+ 4ere ment*oned *n t2e od3
t2ereo/. A/ter )on+*der*n t2e mer*t+ o/ t2e
(ar*ou+ )ontent*on+, t2e Court *+ o/ t2e (*e4 t2att2e )omp-a*nt 2ad to -*m*t *t+e-/ to t2e name+ o/
t2e or**na- part*e+ appear*n *n t2e or**na-
:udment no4 e*n +ou2t /or re(*(a-. The
interest of the plaintiffs in see.in' i&ple&entation
or eecution of the /u('&ent sou'ht to be re%i%e(
0hich 0oul( in%ol%e the other (efen(ants can be
ta.en 0hen the /u('&ent shall ha%e been re%i%e($
!n this connection therefore an( as part of
the &atters to be &a(e part in the pre-trial
conference, in the eercise of the authorit2 'rante(to it b2 la0, t2*+ Court d*re)t+ t2e p-a*nt*//+ to
ma8e t2e ne)e++ar3 amendment and>or to +um*t
a man*/e+tat*on /*r+t to t2*+ Court on t2e po*nt
ao(e ra*+ed reard*n amendment o/ t2e
de+*nat*on o/ t2e part*e+ ha%in' in &in( the
ob/ection of the (efen(ants 0ho &anifeste( that
shoul( there be an a&en(&ent, this counter-clai&
shall be (isre'ar(e( since the2 0ere brou'ht in
unnecessaril2 in this .in( of action$
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
19/37
Plaintiffs therefore are 'i%en a perio( of ten
7+8 (a2s fro& to(a2 0ithin 0hich to sub&it the
reuisite &anifestation furnishin' cop2 thereof to
the (efen(ant 0ho upon receipt shall also be 'i%en a
perio( of ten 7+8 (a2s 0ithin 0hich this Court 0ill&a.e the necessar2 resolution before allo0in' an2
a&en(&ent$
@ol( the pre-trial conference in abe2ance$
SO ORDERED$ 4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if67E&phasis supplie($8
!n their Manifestation 0ith Pra2er,4if 5support1ootnotes64)6
4en(if6 respon(ents infor&e( the RTC about the (eath ofEu'enio Sr$ an( Teofilo 0ho 0ere oppositors in the lan(
re'istration case an( the substitution b2 their heirs,
na&el2, 9er%acio, Marcelina asbas asarte,4if 5
support1ootnotes6464en(if6 an( Eu'enio #r$ for Eu'enio Sr$ an(
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
20/37
!s&ael, "icente, Li'a2a Aras 7Li'a2a8, Rosen(o Aras
7Rosen(o8 an( Daina Aras 7Daina8 for Teofilo$
Respon(ents pra2e( that their &anifestation be
consi(ere( for the purpose of (eter&inin' the properparties to the case$ Despite petitioners Counter-
Manifestation,4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6 the RTC issue( the
follo0in' Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
21/37
other heirs, na&el2: Marcelina asbas asarte,
"icente Aras, Li'a2a Aras, Rosen(o Aras, an(
Daina Aras$ 4if 5support1ootnotes64>64en(if6
After su&&ons 0ere ser%e(, "icente, Rosen(o,
Li'a2a an( Daina 0ere, ho0e%er, (eclare( in (efault for
not filin' an2 responsi%e plea(in'$4if 5support1ootnotes64364en(if6
On 1ebruar2 ), )++, the RTC issue( a Pre-TrialOr(er4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6 0here the contro%erte(
stipulations an( issues to be trie(, a&on' others, 0ere
enu&erate( as follo0s:
Contro%erte( Stipulations:
4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6That (efen(ants are not en/o2in'
the pro(uce of the lan( because there are perio(4s6 0herein thefruits 0ere sub/ect of theft an( the sa&e is no0 pen(in' at the
Municipal Trial Court of Mata'-ob
4if 5supportLists6)$ 4en(if6That 4e%en6 before the start of the
ori'inal case, the ori'inal (efen(ants referrin' to the late Eu'enio
asbas, Sr$ an( Teofilo Aras, 4an(6 Rufino Aras 0ere occup2in'
the propert2 an( the2 0ere succee(e( b2 the respecti%e heirs of the
(ecease( Eu'enio asbas, Sr$ an( Teofilo Aras 4sic6
4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6That plaintiff Teofilo Aras, Sr$ has
a (au'hter na&e( 1e(eliBa Aras
!ssues
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
22/37
4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6?hether the plaintiffs are
entitle( to re%i%al of /u('&ent in the earlier 4lan( re'istration6
case
4if 5supportLists6)$ 4en(if6?hether the (efen(ants ecept
for (efen(ant Rufino Aras are the proper parties in the present
action
4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6?hether the co&plaint states a
cause of action
4if 5supportLists6*$ 4en(if6?hether (efen(ants areentitle( to their counterclai&, an(
4if 5supportLists6
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
23/37
(eci(e( base( on the plea(in's nor throu'h su&&ar2
/u('&ent consi(erin' that the contro%erte( stipulations
an( issues (efine( in the Pre-Trial Or(er &ust be pro%en
b2 e%i(ence$ !n a((ition, the2 uestione( the SpecialPo0er of Attorne2 7SPA8 eecute( b2 eata in Cana(a
e&po0erin' her son Roberto #r$ to appear on her behalf
in the pre-trial conference$ The2 ar'ue( that since sai(
SPA has not been authenticate( b2 a Philippine
Consulate official, it is not sufficient authoriBation an(
hence, eata cannot be consi(ere( to ha%e atten(e( the
pre-trial conference$ The case &ust, therefore, be(is&isse( insofar as she is concerne($
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
!n resol%in' respon(ents O&nibus Motion for
#u('&ent on the Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent,
the RTC foun( that petitioners Ans0er (oes notessentiall2 ten(er an issue since the &aterial alle'ations
of the Co&plaint 0ere a(&itte($ @ence, sai( court
issue( an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64*)64en(if6(ate( Ma2 ), )++,
the (ispositi%e portion of 0hich rea(s:
?herefore, fin(in' &erit in the &otion, /u('&ent is hereb2
ren(ere( for an( in fa%or of the plaintiffs an(a'ainst the (efen(ants or(erin' the re%i%al of the
(ecision of the Court of Appeals pro&ul'ate( on
#ul2 )*, =;< affir&in' the (ecree of re'istration of
this Court in the (ecision of the Lan( Re'istration
Case No$ +-33 (ate( March )), =3=, an( of the
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
24/37
final Or(er of this Court (ate( Septe&ber , =;=
an( upon finalit2 of this Or(er, or(erin' the
issuance of ?rit of Possession for the lot &a(e
sub/ect of the (ecision$ ?ithout pronounce&ent as
to costs$
SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6
Petitioners thus file( a Notice of Appeal4if 5support1ootnotes64**6
4en(if60hich 0as appro%e( in an Or(er (ate( #une +>,
)++$4if 5support1ootnotes64*
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
25/37
court, petitioners refusal to %acate the sub/ect propert2
(espite the final an( eecutor2 Decision of the CA in the
lan( re'istration case an( the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er
of the RTC for the& to %acate the sa&e, clearl2 supportrespon(ents cause of action a'ainst the&$ Also contrar2
to petitioners posture, the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er is a
final or(er as it finall2 (ispose( of the contro%ers2
bet0een the parties in the lan( re'istration case$ The CA
li.e0ise foun( the SPA eecute( b2 eata in fa%or of
Roberto #r$ as %ali(, hence, she 0as (ul2 represente(
(urin' the pre-trial conference$ The (ispositi%e portionof sai( CA Decision rea(s:
?@ERE1ORE, pre&ises consi(ere(, the present appeal is
DEN!ED$ The Ma2 ), )++ Decision of the
Re'ional Trial Court of Or&oc Cit2, ranch < is
A11!RMED$
SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64*364en(if6
Their Motion for Reconsi(eration4if 5support1ootnotes64*;6
4en(if6ha%in' been (enie( in a Resolution 4if 5support1ootnotes64*=6
4en(if6(ate( April =, )++>, petitioners are no0 before this
Court throu'h the present Petition for Re%ie0 on
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
26/37
Certiorari$
I++ue+
Petitioners i&pute upon the CA the follo0in' errors:
$ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(
serious errors of la0 in its (ecision an( Resolution
(ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( April =, )++> 0hen it
affir&e( the Or(er of the Re'ional Trial Court (ate(
Ma2 ), )++ an( (eclare( that no re%ersible error
0as co&&itte( b2 the Re'ional Trial Court ofOr&oc Cit2 in 'rantin' respon(ents &otion for
/u('&ent on the plea(in's an(For su&&ar2
/u('&ent
)$ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(
serious errors of la0 in its Decision an( Resolution
(ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( April =, )++> 0hen it
affir&e( the Or(er of the Re'ional Trial Court of
Or&oc Cit2 (ate( Ma2 ), )++ an( (eclare( that
petitioners ar'u&ent that respon(ents co&plaint
faile( to state a cause of action has no &erit$
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
27/37
$ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(
serious errors of la0 0hen it affir&e( the Or(er of
the Re'ional Trial Court of Or&oc Cit2 0hich
or(ere( the re%i%al of the #u('&ent of this Court of
Appeals in CA-9$R$ No$ >>
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
28/37
is not proper in this case since the contro%erte(
stipulations an( the first three issues enu&erate( in the
pre-trial or(er in%ol%e facts 0hich &ust be threshe( out
(urin' trial$ The2 also clai& that the Co&plaint forRe%i%al of #u('&ent states no cause of action because
the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er 0hich it sou'ht to re%i%e
is not the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section >, Rule
= of the Rules of Court an(, therefore, cannot be the
sub/ect of such an action$ Moreo%er, the2 ar'ue that the
CA Decision in the lan( re'istration case shoul( not
ha%e been re%i%e( as sa&e 0as not pra2e( for in theCo&plaint for Re%i%al of #u('&ent$ Lastl2, petitioners
assail the SPA 0hich authoriBe( Roberto #r$ to represent
his &other, eata, (urin' the pre-trial conference, it not
ha%in' been authenticate( b2 a Philippine consulate
officer in Cana(a 0here it 0as eecute($ Citin'Lopez v.
Court of Appeals,4if 5support1ootnotes64
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
29/37
a(%erse part2s plea(in', the court &a2, on &otion of
that part2, (irect /u('&ent on the plea(in's$ Also, the
test for a &otion for su&&ar2 /u('&ent is 0hether the
plea(in's, affi(a%its or ehibits in support of the &otionare sufficient to o%erco&e the opposin' papers an( to
/ustif2 a fin(in' as a &atter of la0 that there is no
(efense to the action or the clai& is clearl2 &eritorious$
An( since, as foun( b2 the CA, petitioners Ans0er (i(
not ten(er an issue an( that there is no (efense to the
action, the 'rant of the Motion for #u('&ent on the
Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent 0as appropriate$Respon(ents li.e0ise conten( that if their pra2er in the
Co&plaint is ta.en in its proper contet, it can be
(e(uce( that 0hat the2 0ere reall2 see.in' is the
i&ple&entation of the CA Decision (ate( #ul2 )*, =;,Rule = of the Rules of Court an(, )8 the plea(in's of
the parties an( pertinent portions of the recor(s4if 5
support1ootnotes6464en(if6 sho0in', a&on' others, 0ho a&on'
the respon(ents 0ere oppositors to the lan( re'istration
case, the heirs of such oppositors an( the present
occupants of the propert2$ Plainl2, these issues coul( be
rea(il2 resol%e( base( on the facts establishe( b2 theplea(in's$ A full-blo0n trial on these issues 0ill onl2
entail 0aste of ti&e an( resources as the2 are clearl2 not
'enuine issues reuirin' presentation of e%i(ence$
Petitioners a%er that the RTC shoul( not ha%e
'rante( respon(ents Motion for #u('&ent on the
Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent because of thecontro%erte( stipulations an( the first three issues
enu&erate( in the Pre-trial Or(er, 0hich, accor(in' to
the&, reuire the presentation of e%i(ence$ These
stipulations an( issues, ho0e%er, 0hen ea&ine(,
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
33/37
basicall2 boil (o0n to uestions relatin' to the propriet2
of the action resorte( to b2 respon(ents, 0hich is re%i%al
of /u('&ent, an( to the proper parties thereto the sa&e
uestions 0hich 0e ha%e earlier (eclare( as notconstitutin' 'enuine issues$
!n su&, this Court hol(s that the instant case is
proper for the ren(ition of a su&&ar2 /u('&ent, hence,
the CA co&&itte( no error in affir&in' the Ma2 ),
)++ Or(er of the RTC 'rantin' respon(ents Motion for
#u('&ent on the Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent$
II. T2e Comp-a*nt +tate+ a )au+e o/ a)t*on.
Petitioners conten( that the co&plaint states no
cause of action since the
Septe&ber , =;= Or(er sou'ht to be re%i%e( is not
the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section >, Rule = ofthe Rules of Court$ The2 also a%er that the RTC erre(
0hen it or(ere( the re%i%al not onl2 of the Septe&ber
, =;= Or(er but also of the #ul2 )*, =;< CA
Decision, 0hen 0hat 0as pra2e( for in the co&plaint
0as onl2 the re%i%al of the for&er$
This Court, ho0e%er, a'rees 0ith respon(ents thatthese &atters ha%e alrea(2 been sufficientl2 a((resse(
b2 the RTC in its Or(er of Ma2 =, ==34if 5support1ootnotes64
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
34/37
The bo(2 of the Co&plaint as 0ell as the pra2er &entione(
about the eecutor2 (ecision of the Court of
Appeals pro&ul'ate( on #ul2 )*, =;< that ha( to
be finall2 i&ple&ente($ So it appears to this Court
that the Co&plaint (oes not alone in%o.e or use assub/ect thereof the Or(er of this Court 0hich 0oul(
i&ple&ent the (ecision or /u('&ent re'ar(in' the
lan( in uestion$ The Rules of Court referrin' to the
eecution of /u('&ent, particularl2 Rule =, Sec$ >,
pro%i(es a &echanis& b2 0hich the /u('&ent that
ha( not been enforce( 0ithin fi%e 7
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
35/37
Anent the SPA, 0e fin( that 'i%en the particular
circu&stances in the case at bar, an SPA is not e%ennecessar2 such that its efficac2 or the lac. of it 0oul(
not in an2 0a2 preclu(e the case fro& procee(in'$ This
is because upon Roberto Sr$s (eath, Roberto #r$, in
succession of his father, beca&e a co-o0ner of the
sub/ect propert2 to'ether 0ith his &other, eata$ As a
co-o0ner, he &a2, b2 hi&self alone, brin' an action for
the reco%er2 of the co-o0ne( propert2 pursuant to the0ell-settle( principle that in a co-o0nership, co-o0ners
&a2 brin' actions for the reco%er2 of co-o0ne( propert2
0ithout the necessit2 of /oinin' all the other co-o0ners
as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presu&e( to ha%e
been file( for the benefit of his co-o0ners$4if 5support1ootnotes6
4
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
36/37
lan( re'istration case finall2 i&ple&ente( but
ulti&atel2, to reco%er possession thereof fro&
petitioners$ This action is therefore one 0hich Roberto
#r$, as co-o0ner, can brin' an( prosecute alone, on hiso0n behalf an( on behalf of his co-o0ner, eata$ @ence,
a (is&issal of the case 0ith respect to eata pursuant to
Sec$ +64en(if6Rule ; of the Rules of Court
0ill be futile as the case coul( ne%ertheless be continue(
b2 Roberto #r$ in behalf of the t0o of the&$
?9EREFORE, the Petition for Re%ie0 on Certiorariis DENIEDan( the assaile( Decision of the Court of
Appeals (ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( Resolution (ate(
April =, )++> in CA-9$R$ C" No$ 3);< are
AFFIRMED$
SO ORDERED$
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Asso$iate Justi$e
?E CONCR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justi$e
Chairperson
-
7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson
37/37
TERESITA J. LEONARDO@DE
CASTROAsso$iate Justi$e
ARTURO D
Asso$iate Justi$e
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Asso$iate Justi$e
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section , Article "!!! of the Constitution,
it is hereb2 certifie( that the conclusions in the abo%e
Decision ha( been reache( in consultation before the
case 0as assi'ne( to the 0riter of the opinion of the
Courts Di%ision$
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justi$e[if !supportFootnotes]