G.R. No. 179181
November 18, 2013
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, Pe!!o"er, Pe!!o"er, v#. CR$S$NCIASTA.T$R$SA RAMOS, %##!#e& b' (er ()#b%"& PONCIANO FRANCISCO, Re#*o"&e". +$CISION BRION, J.: We resolve in this petition for review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the challenge to the April 10 2007 decision2 and the August 9, 2007 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA"#$R$ C% &o$ '4(4($ )his CA decision a*r+ed, with +odication, the -anuar. 17, 2005 decision of the Regional )rial Court, /ranch 15( of asig Cit. R)C!, R)C!, in RC Case &o$ &"5'11 that denied the application for conr+ation and registration of title led . the petitioner, Ro+an Catholic Archishop of 3anila RCA3!$ )he actual actual Antecedents At the core of the controvers. in the present petition are two parcels of land ot 1 with an area of 64 suare +eters and ot 2 with an area of 7(0 suare +eters" covered . a+ended lan 8" 226919 - propert.!, oth located in what used to e /arrio /agu+a.an, )aguig, Ri:al$ ;n 8epte+er 15, 19((, the RCA3 led efore the R )C, then Court of irst nowledge and elief, no +ortgage or encu+rance of an. >ind a?ects the propert., and that no person has an. clai+, legal or euitale, on the propert.$ )he RCA3 attached attached the following docu+ents docu+ents to support its application@ a+ended plan su"226919= su"226919= technical description of ots 1 and 2=9 surve.or s certicate= 10 and )a Beclaration &o$ 9551 issued on 8epte+er (, 19(( 19(($$11
;n 3a. 22, 1992, the Repulic of the hilippines Repulic!, Repulic!, through the Birector of ands, led an opposition 12 to the application$ )he Repulic Repulic clai+ed that the propert. is part of the pulic do+ain and cannot e suect to private appropriation$ ;n August 1', 1992, respondent Cresencia 8ta$ )eresa Ra+os, through her husand onciano rancisco, rancisco, led her opposition 13 to the RCA3Ds application$ 8he alleged that the propert. for+ed part of the entire propert. that her fa+il. owns and has continuousl. possessed and occupied fro+ the ti+e of her grandparents, grandparents, during the 8panish ti+e, up to the present$ Cresencia su+itted the following docu+ents,1 a+ong others, to support her reuested conr+ation of i+perfect title@ 1$! the death certicates of Cipriano 8ta$ )eresa and Eulogia 8ta$ )eresa %da$ de Ra+os CresenciaDs parents!= 2$! her +arriage certicate= 6$! their childrenDs irth certicates= 4$! certicates of ownership covering two ancas= 5$! photographs of these two ane as with her .oungest child while standing on the propert. and showing the location of the RCA3D s church relative to the location of the propert.= ($! photographs of a pile of gravel and sand allegedl. for their gravel and sand usiness! on the propert.= 7$! photographs of the RCA3Ds aha. ni 3aria standing on the propert.= '$! a photograph of the plaue awarded to onciano . E88; 8tandard hilippines as sole dealer of its gasoline products in /agu+a.an, )aguig, )aguig, Ri:al= 9$! a photograph of their a Co+pania Refresh+ent Refresh+ent 8tore standing on their titled lot adacent to the propert.=
10$! a photograph of the certicate of dealership given to onciano . a )oacco co+pan. for his dealership in /agu+a.an, )aguig, Ri:al= and 11$! the registration certicate for their f a+il.Ds sheet +anufacturing usiness situated + /agu+a.an, )aguig, 1- Ri:al$ )he RCA3 presented in evidence the following docu+ents, in addition to those alread. on record@ 1 ta declarations issued in its na+e in 194', 1976, 19'1, 1990, 1996, and 1999= 17 the certied true cop. of ;riginal Certicate of )itle &o$ 00'2 covering the lot in the na+e of #arcia, which adoins the propert. on the south= and the a*davit of #arcia conr+ing the RCA3Ds ownership of the propert.$ 18 ewise su+itted several testi+onial evidence to corroorate its ownership and clai+ of possession of the propert.$ )he ruling of the R)C
)he CA agreed with the R)C that the totalit. of the evidence on record unuestional. showed that Cresencia was the actual possessor and occupant, in the concept of an owner, of the disputed propert.$ )he CA held that Cresencia s use of the propert. since the 8panish ti+e through her predecessors"in"interest!, as conr+ed . the RCA3 s witnesses, clearl. de+onstrated her do+inion over the propert.$ )hus, while she failed to register the propert. in her na+e or declare it for taation purposes as pointed out . the RCA3, the CA did not consider this non"declaration signicant to defeat her clai+$ )o the CA, Cresencia +erel. tolerated the RCA3 s te+porar. use of the propert. for lac> of an. urgent need for it and onl. acted to protect her right when the RCA3 applied for registration in its na+e$ )hus, the CA declared that Cresencia correctl. waited until her possession was distured efore she too> action to vindicate her right$ )he CA si+ilarl. disregarded the additional ta declarations that the RCA3 presented in support of its application$ )he CA pointed out that these docu+ents hardl. proved the RCA3 s alleged ownership of or right to possess the propert. as it failed to prove actual possession$ astl., the CA held that it was ound . the ndings of facts and the conclusions arrived at . the R)C as the. were a+pl. supported . the evidence$ )he RCA3 led the present petition after the CA denied its +otion for reconsideration$21 Assign+ent of Errors )he RCA3 argues efore us that the CA erred and gravel. aused its discretion in@22 1$ conr+ing the inco+plete and i+perfect title of the oppositor when the +agnitude of the parties evidence shows that the oppositors +erel. had pretended possession that could not r ipen into ownership= 2$ failing to consider that the RCA3 had continuous, open and notorious possession of the propert. in the concept of an owner for a period of thirt. 60! .ears prior to the ling of the application= and 6$ conr+ing the oppositorFs inco+plete and i+perfect title despite her failure to co+pl. with the sustantial and procedural reuire+ents of the ulic and Act$ )he
reli+inar. considerations@ nature of he issues= factual"issue"ar rule
Reuire+ents for conr+ation and registration of i+perfect and inco+plete title under C$A$ &o$ 141 and $B$ &o$ 1529 C$A$ &o$ 141 governs the classication and disposition of lands of the pulic do+ain$ 8ection 11 of C$A$ &o$ 141 provides, as one of the +odes of disposing pulic lands that are suitale for agriculture, the Gconr+ation of i+perfect or inco+plete titles$G 8ection 4', on the other hand, enu+erates those who are considered to have acuired an i+perfect or inco+plete title over pulic lands and, therefore, entitled to conr+ation and registration under the and Registration Act$
We are not entirel. convinced of the +erits of what Cresencia pointed out$ )he settled rule is that the urisdiction of this Court over petitions for review on certiorari is li+ited to the review of uestions of law and not of fact$ GA uestion of law eists when the dout or controvers. concerns the correct application of law or urisprudence to a certain set of facts= or when the issue does not call for an ea+ination of the proative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts eing ad+itted$ A uestion of fact eists when a dout or di?erence arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the uer. invites caliration of the whole evidence as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the proailit. of the situation$G2 An ea+ination of the RCA3Ds issues shows that the clai+ed errors indeed pri+aril. uestion the su*cienc. of the evidence supporting the lower courtsD conclusion that Cresencia, and not the RCA3, had een in possession of the propert. in the +anner and for the period reuired . law$ When the presented uestion centers on the su*cienc. of the evidence, it is a uestion of fact 2- and is arred in a Rule 45 petition$ &evertheless, urisprudence recogni:es certain eceptions to the settled rule$ When the lower courts grossl. +isunderstood the facts and circu+stances that, when correctl. appreciated, would warrant a di?erent conclusion, a review of the lower courtsD ndings +a. e +ade$2 )his, in our view, is the eact situation in the case as our discussions elow will show$ 3oreover, the RCA3 also uestions the propriet. of the CA s conr+ation of CresenciaDs title over the propert. although she was not the applicant and was +erel. the oppositor in the present conr+ation and registration proceedings$ 8tated in uestion for+ "was the CA ustied under the law and urisprudence in its conr+ation of the oppositorDs title over the propert.H )his, in part, is a uestion of law as it concerns the correct application of law or urisprudence to recogni:ed facts$ Ience, we nd it i+ perative to resolve the petition on the +erits$
)he RCA3 did not specif. the particular provision of C$A$ &o$ 141 under which it anchored its application for conr+ation and registration of title$ &evertheless, the allegations in its application and a+ended application readil. show that it ased its clai+ of i+perfect title under 8ection 4'! of C$A$ &o$ 141$ As a+ended . $B$ &o$ 1076 on -anuar. 25, 1977, 8ection 4'! of C$A$ &o$ 141 currentl. provides@ 8ection 4'$ )he following descried citi:ens of the hilippines, occup.ing lands of the pulic do+ain or clai+ing to own an. such lands or an interest therein, ut whose titles have not een perfected or co+pleted, +a. appl. to the Court of irst
! )hose who . the+selves or through their predecessors"in"interest have een in open, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the pulic do+ain, under a ona de clai+ of acuisition or ownership, for at least thirt. .ears, i++ediatel. preceding the ling of the application for conr+ation of title ecept when prevented . war or force +aeure$ )hese shall e conclusivel. presu+ed to have perfor+ed all the conditions essential to a #overn+ent grant and shall e entitled to a certicate of title under the provisions of this chapter$ Je+phases and italics oursK 8ince the RCA3 led its application on 8epte+er 15, 19(( and its a+ended application on ;ctoer 4, 1974, 8ection 4'! of C$A$ &o$ 141, as a+ended . R$A$ &o$ 1942 which then reuired possession of thirt. .ears!, governs$
;n the issue of whether the RC 3 is entitled to the enets of C A &o$ 141 and $B$ &o$ 1529 Reiterating its position efore the R)C and the CA, the RCA3 now argues that it actuall., continuousl., openl. and notoriousl. possessed the propert. since ti+e i++e+orial$ ness of its clai+ed possession$ Cresencia adds that at +ost, the RCA3 s possession was . her +ere tolerance which, no +atter how long, can never ripen into ownership$ 8he also points out that the RCA3 s ta declarations are insu*cient proof of possession as the. are not, . the+selves, conclusive evidence of ownership$ We do not see an. +erit in the RCA3 s contentions$ )he R)C and the CA as it a*r+ed the R)C, dis+issed the RCA3 s application for its failure to co+pl. with the second reuire+ent possession of the propert. in the +anner and for the period reuired . law$ We nd no reason to distur the R)C and the CA ndings on this point$ )he. had carefull. anal.:ed and weighed each piece of the RCA3 s evidence to support its application and had etensivel. eplained in their respective decisions wh. the. could not give weight to these pieces of evidence$ Ience, we a*r+ their denial of the RCA3D s application$ or greater certaint., we epound on the reasons elow$ a. The RC M failed to prove possession of the property in the manner and for the period required by law )he possession conte+plated . 8ection 4'! of C$A$ &o$ 141 is actual, not ctional or constructive$
)he law spea>s of possession and occupation$ 8ince these words are separated . the conunction and, the clear intention of the law is not to +a>e one s.non.+ous with the other$ ossession is roader than occupation ecause it includes constructive possession$ When, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it see>s to deli+it the all"enco+passing e?ect of constructive possession$ )a>en together with the words open, continuous, eclusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact that for an applicant to ualif., his possession +ust not e a +ere ction$ Actual possession of a land consists in the +anifestation of acts of do+inion over it of such a nature as a part. would naturall. eercise over his own propert.$ Accordingl., to prove its co+pliance with 8ection 4'!D s possession reuire+ent, the RCA3 had to show that it perfor+ed specic overt acts in the character an owner would naturall. eercise over his own propert.$ roof of actual possession of the propert. at the ti+e of the ling of the application is reuired ecause the phrase adverse, continuous, open, pulic, and in concept of owner,G the RCA3 used to descrie its alleged possession, is a conclusion of law, 30 not an allegation of fact$ ossession is open when it i s patent, visile, apparent JandK notorious continuous when uninterrupted, unro>en and not inter+ittent or occasional= eclusive when Jthe possession is characteri:ed . acts +anifestingK eclusive do+inion over the land and an appropriation of it to Jthe applicantDsK own use and enet= and notorious when it is so conspicuous that it is generall. >nown and tal>ed of . the pulic or the people in the neighorhood$G31 %er. noticeal., the RCA3 failed to show or point to an. specic act characteri:ing its clai+ed possession in the +anner descried aove$ )he various docu+ents that it su+itted, as well as the are assertions it +ade and those of its witnesses, that it had een in open, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession of the propert., hardl. constitute the Gwell"nigh incontrovertile evidence reuired in cases of this nature$ 32 We elaorate elow on these points$ irst, the ta declarations issued in the RCA3Ds na+e in 194', 19((, 1977, 19'4, 1990, 1996 and 1999 did not in an. wa. prove the character of its possession over the propert.$ &ote that the settled rule is that ta declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership or of the right to possess land when not supported . an. other evidence showing actual, pulic and adverse possession$33 )he declaration for taation purposes of propert. in the na+es of applicants for registration or of their predecessors"in"interest +a. constitute collaorating evidence onl. when coupled with other acts of possession and ownership= 3 standing alone, it is inconclusive$
)his rule applies even +ore strongl. in this case since the RCA3Ds pa.+ents of taes due on the propert. were inconsistent and rando+$
)hird, the a+ended plan su"226919, technical description for ots 1 and 2, and surve.or s certicate onl. prove the identit. of the propert. that the RCA3 sought to register in its na+e$ 37 While these docu+ents plot the location, the area and the oundaries of the propert., the. hardl. prove that the RCA3 actuall. possessed the propert. in the concept of an owner f or the reuired duration$ nowledge of the circu+stances surrounding the RCA3Fs clai+ed actual, continuous, eclusive and notorious possession$ b. The RC M failed to prove that the property is alienable and disposable land of he public domain 3ost i+portantl., we nd the RCA3 s evidence to e insu*cient since it failed to co+pl. with the rst and +ost asic reuire+ent proof of the alienale and disposale character of the propert.$ 8urprisingl., no nding or pronounce+ent referring to this reuire+ent was ever +ade in the decisions of the R )C and the CA$
)o prove that the propert. is alienale and disposale, the RCA3 was ound to estalish Gthe eistence of a positive act of the govern+ent such as a presidential procla+ation or an eecutive order= an ad+inistrative action= investigation reports of /ureau of ands investigators= and a legislative act or a statute$G38 ind of approach for two asic reasons$ ;ne, in this urisdiction, all lands elong to the 8tate regardless of their classication$0 )his rule, +ore co++onl. >nown as the Regalian doctrine, applies with eual force even to private unregistered lands, unless the contrar. is satisfactoril. shown$ 8econd, unless the date when the propert. eca+e alienale and disposale is specicall. identied, an. deter+ination on the RCA3D s co+pliance with the second reuire+ent is rendered useless as an. alleged period of possession prior to the date the propert. eca+e alienale and disposale can never e counted in its favor as an. period of possession and occupation of pulic lands in the concept of owner, no +atter how long, can never ri pen into ownership$1 ;n this ground alone, the R )C could have outrightl. denied the RCA3D s application$ On the CA’s authority to conrm the title of the oppositor in land reistration proceedins )he RCA3 net argues that the CAFs act of conr+ing CresenciaDs title over the propert. is contrar. to law and urisprudence$ )he RCA3 points out that it led the application for registration of title under the provisions of C$A$ &o$ 141 or alternativel. under $B$ &o$ 1529= oth statutes dictate several sustantive and procedural reuire+ents that +ust rst e co+plied wi th efore title to the propert. is conr+ed and registered$
8ection 29 of $B$ &o$ 1529 gives the court the authorit. to conr+ the title of either the applicant or the oppositor in a land registration proceeding depending on the conclusion that the evidence calls f or$ 8pecicall., 8ection 29 provides that the court G after considering the evidence nds that the applicant or the oppositor has su*cient title proper for registration, udg+ent shall e rendered conr+ing the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land $G e+phases and italics ours! )hus, contrar. to the RCA3Ds contention, the CA has the authorit. to conr+ the title of Cresencia, as the oppositor, over the propert.$ )his, of course, is suect to CresenciaDs satisfaction of the evidentiar. reuire+ent of B &o$ 1529, in relation with C$ A$ &o$ 141 in support of her own clai+ of i+perfect title over the propert.$ )he issue of whether Cresencia is entitled to the enets of C$A$ &o$ 141 and $B$ &o$ 1529 )he RCA3 lastl. argues that the evidence elies CresenciaDs clai+ of continuous, open and notorious possession since the 8panish ti+e$ )he RCA3 points out that, rst, Cresencia failed to declare for taation purposes the propert. in her na+e, thus e?ectivel. indicating that she did not elieve herself to e its owner$ 8econd, Cresencia did not have the propert. surve.ed in her na+e so that she could assert her clai+ over it and show its +etes and ounds$ )hird, Cresencia did not register the propert. in her na+e although she previousl. registered the adoining lot in her na+e$ ourth, Cresencia did not construct an. per+anent structure on the propert. and no traces of the usinesses allegedl. conducted . her and . her fa+il. on it could e seen at the ti+e it led its application$ And fth, Cresencia did not perfor+ an. act of do+inion that, . the estalished urisprudential denition, could e su*cientl. considered as actual possession$ We agree with the RCA3 on +ost of these points$ While we uphold the CAD s authorit. to conr+ the title of the oppositor in a conr+ation and registration proceedings, we cannot agree, however, with the conclusion the CA reached on the nature of CresenciaDs possession of the propert.$ nder the sa+e legal para+eters we used to a*r+ the R)CDs denial of the RCA3D s application, we also nd insu*cient the evidence that Cresencia presented to prove her clai+ed possession of the propert. in the +anner and for the period reuired . C$A$ &o$ 141$ i>e the RCA3, Cresencia was ound to adduce evidence that irrefutal. proves her co+pliance with the reuire+ents for conr+ation of title$ )o our +ind, she also failed to discharge this urden of proof= thus, the CA erred when it a*r+ed the contrar. ndings of the R)C and conr+ed CresenciaFs title over the propert.$
We arrive at this conclusion for the reasons outlined elow$ irst, the various pieces of docu+entar. evidence that Cresencia presented to support her own clai+ of i+perfect title hardl. proved her alleged actual possession of the propert.$ 8pecicall., the certicates of +arriage, irth and death did not particularl. state that each of these certied events, i$e$ +arriage, irth and death, in fact transpired on the clai+ed propert.= at est, the certicates proved the occurrence of these events in /agu+a.an, )aguig, Ri:al and on the stated dates, respectivel.$ 8i+ilarl., the certicate of ownership of two ancas in the na+e of onciano, the registration certicate for their fa+il. s sheet +anufacturing usiness, the photograph of the certicate of dealership in the na+e of onciano given . a toacco co+pan., and the photograph of the plaue awarded to onciano . E88; 8tandard hilippines as sole dealer of its gasoline products did not prove that Cresencia and her fa+il. conducted these usinesses on the disputed propert. itself$ Rather, the. si+pl. showed that at one point in ti+e, Cresencia and her fa+il. conducted these usinesses in /agu+a.an, )aguig, Ri:al$
inall., the testi+onies of onciano and lorencia rancisco 3ariano CresenciaDs daughter! on the nature and duration of their fa+il.Ds alleged possession of the propert., other than eing self"serving, were +ere general state+ents and could not have constituted the factual evidence of possession that the law reuires$ )he. also failed to point out specic acts of do+inion or ownership that were perfor+ed on the propert. . the parents of Cresencia, their predecessors"in"interest$ )he. li>ewise failed to present an. evidence that could have corroorated their alleged possession of the propert. fro+ the ti+e of their grandfather, Cipriano, who acuired the propert. fro+ its previous owner, etrona 8ta$ )eresa$ nown that Cresencia owns or at least clai+s ownership of the propert.$ At an. rate, even if we were to consider these pieces of evidence to e su*cient, which we do not, conr+ation and registration of title over the propert. in CresenciaD s na+e was still i+proper in the asence of co+petent and persuasive evidence on record proving that the propert. is alienale and disposale$ or all these reasons, we nd that the CA erred when it a*r+ed the R)CDs ruling on this +atter and conr+ed CresenciaDs i+perfect title to the propert.$WIERE;RE, in light of these considerations, we here. BE&L the petition$ We A of su*cient evidentiar. asis$ Costs against the petitioner$ 8; ;RBEREB$ G.R. No. 193-92, Febr)%r' 0-, 201 PASIG PRINTING CORPORATION, Petitioner , v. ROC/LAN+ CONSTRCTION COMPAN, INC., Respondent . G.R. No. 19310 R$PBLIC OF TH$ PHILIPPIN$S, R$PR$S$NT$+ B TH$ PR$SI+$NTIAL COMMISSION ON GOO+ GO4$RNM$NT 5PCGG6 AN+ MI+PASIG LAN+ +$4$LOPM$NT CORPORATION
5MPL+C6,Petitioner , v. ROC/LAN+ CONSTRCTION COMPAN, INC., Respondent . G.R. No. 1938 MI+PASIG LAN+ +$4$LOPM$NT CORPORATION, 5MPL+C6, Petitioner , v. ROC/LAN+ CONSTRCTION COMPAN, INC., Respondent . R$SOLTION 3E&B;NA, !.@ )his resolves the +otions for reconsideration led . 1! asig rinting Corporation ""C!,1 and the 2! Repulic of the hilippines represented . the residential Co++ission on #ood #overn+ent "C##! and 3idasig and Bevelop+ent Corporation M"$%C!,2 collectivel. referred herein as +ovants, see>ing reconsideration andOor clarication of the eruar. 2, 2011 Resolution 6 rendered . this Court in #$R$ &o$ 196592 and #$R$ &o$ 196(10, dis+issing the petitions for eing +oot and acade+ic= and in #$R$ &o$ 196('(, declaring it closed and ter+inated as no petition had een led within the reuested etension ti+e$ land Construction Co+pan. Roc)land!$ )he cru of this controvers. is the issue of possession covering the suect propert. registered in the na+e of 3BC$ )his had een the suect of three cases led with the trial courts$ land$ ater, Roc>land erected a uilding on the area and suleased certain portions to 3C Io+e Bepot$ land vacate the propert.$ )o pree+pt an. action . 3BC, on -anuar. 11, 2001, Roc>land led the rst of the three cases a civil case for specic perfor+ance doc>eted as Civil Case &o$ ('216, as>ing 3BC to eecute a 6.ear etended contract of lease in its favor$ )o protect its interest, on August 22, 2001, 3BC led the second case, an unlawful detainer case, efore the 3etropolitan )rial Court of asig Cit. MeTC!, where it was doc>eted as Civil Case &o$ '7''$ )he specic perfor+ance case Civil Case &o$ ('216! reached its wa. to
the Court when 3BC led a petition uestioning the CA a*r+ation of the R)CFs denial of its +otion to dis+iss on account of the suseuent ling of the unlawful detainer case Civil Case &o$ '7''! with the 3e)C$ /efore the Court could rule on the +erits of the petition with regard to the specic perfor+ance case, the separate unlawful detainer case was dis+issed . the 3e)C on April 29, 2002, reasoning out that the issue sought to e resolved was not one of possession, ut an eercise of the option to renew a contract cogni:ale . the R)C$ ;n ;ctoer ', 2006, the Court granted 3BCFs petition, stating, a+ong others, that the issues in the specic perfor+ance case should e addressed in the unlawful detainer proceedings efore the 3e)C, thus, the specic perfor+ance case was dis+issed$ At this point, the CA decision in the unlawful detainer case was elevated to the Court as #$R &o$ 1(2924, entitled Mid'"asi $and %evelopment Corporation v. Mario Tablante +Tablante, $ ;n eruar. 4, 2010, in Tablante, the Court declared that a re+and to the 3e)C for the unlawful detainer case would have een proper if not for the circu+stances which rendered the issue of possession +oot and acade+ic$ Ience, the Court declared the case as cl osed and ter+inated$ )he Court disposed@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. WIERE;RE, the petition is #RA&)EB$ )he assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals are RE%ER8EB and 8E) A8eted as 8CA Case &o$ 2(76$ )his was led against 3BC for its refusal to reconnect the electric suppl. in the suect propert.$ ;n 8epte+er 17, 2004, this case was dis+issed$ )he R)C, however, awarded the possession to 3BC w ith Roc>land eing ordered to refrain fro+ eercising an. possessor. rights over the sa+e$ ;n ;ctoer 12, 2004, C + oved to intervene in 8CA Case &o$ 2(76, clai+ing interest over the propert. ased on an alleged option to lease granted to it . 3BC on 3arch 1, 2004$ ;n &ove+er 12, 2004, the R)C issued the ;+nius ;rder den.ing Roc>landFs +otion for reconsideration on the dis+issal of the indirect conte+pt case, granting CFs +otion to intervene, and ordering the i++ediate i+ple+entation of the 8epte+er 17, 2004 Resolution$ As ordered . the R)C@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. WIERE;RE, pre+ises considered, the 3otion for Reconsideration, dated 8epte+er 27, 2004, is denied and the dispositive portion of this CourtFs
Resolution, dated 8epte+er 17, 2004, is here. reiterated and re a*r+ed$ 3oreover, the instant rgent 3otion to ewise, the pra.er for i++ediate eecution of the Resolution of this Court, dated 8epte+er 17, 2004, is also here. granted$ Conseuentl., pursuant to the ing of the 3C Io+e Bepot pre+ises, located at ;rtigas Avenue corner 3eralco Avenue, asig Cit., 3etro 3anila and +a>e the corresponding return thereon i++ediatel.$ et the Cler> of Court issue the corresponding Writ of Eecution for the i+ple+entation of the suect Resolution dated 8epte+er 17, 2004$ 8; ;RBEREB$ (ChanRoles%irtualawlirar. ;n &ove+er 1(, 2004, the aove resolution was i+ple+ented . the 8heri?, thus, possession of the suect propert. was turned over to C on the asis of the option to lease agree+ent with 3BC$ ;n appeal, the CA a*r+ed, in its Becision,7 dated !anuary -& -//, the dis+issal of the indirect conte+pt case, ut annulled the award of possession to 3BC$ )he dispositive portion of the said decision reads@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. WIERE;RE, the assailed Resolution dated 8epte+er 17, 2004 and the ;+nius ;rder dated &ove+er 12, 2004 are here. partiall. Aland to refrain fro+ eercising an. possessor. right over the sa+e= and 6! granted asig rinting CorporationFs 3otion to ewise &<land sought restoration in the possession of the suect$
of the eecution proceedings, the trial court issued MipMopping orders, the last Auust 0/& -//1 RTC Order !9 of which awarded the possession to C$ land in the possession of the propert. e reinstated, to wit@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. ACC;RB<&#L, the petition is #RA&)EB$ )he ;rder dated August 10, 2007 is &<ing clarication andOor reconsideration of the CourtFs eruar. 2, 2011 Resolution dis+issing the cases$ Bisposition of the 3otions )he Court nds +erit in the +otions$ After a thorough review of the records, the Court agrees with the +ovants in their su+ission that the dis+issal of the petitions would a*r+ an erroneous ruling which e?ectivel. restored the possession of the suect propert. to Roc>land despite the epiration of its contract of lease$ rior to the issuance of the assailed May 00& -/0/ CA Becision, however, the Court, on eruar. 4, 2010, ca+e out with its decision in Tablante, where it was written@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. etitioner J3idasig and Bevelop+ent CorporationK, in its 3e+orandu+ dated ;ctoer 2', 2005, alleged that respondentsF possessor. clai+s had lapsed and, therefore, had eco+e +oot and acade+ic$ Respondent Roc>land pra.ed that a three .earperiod e granted to it in order that it would e ale to plan i ts activities +ore e*cientl.$ 8ince the clai+ed Please contractQ had alread. epired as of -ul. or August 2006, there appears no reason wh. respondents should continue to have an. clai+ to further possession of the propert.$ Respondent Roc>land also stated in its 3e+orandu+ dated 3arch 1(, 200( that it was no longer in possession of the suect propert. considering that@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. 50$ land Construction Co+pan., eted as 8CA &o$ 2(76 and the ;+nius ;rder dated 12 &ove+er 2004, a*r+ing the aforesaid Resolution, /ranch (7 asig Cit.
Regional )rial Court residing -udge 3ariano 3$ 8ing:on awarded possession aleit erroneousl.! of suect propert. to asig rinting Corporation, an intervenor in the 8CA case$ 51$ At present, petitioner does not have a cause of action against herein respondent Roc>land$ Respondent is not unlawfull. withholding possession of the propert. in uestion as in fact respondent is not in possession of the suect propert.$ )he issue of possession in this eect+ent case has therefore een rendered +oot and acade+ic$ )his allegation was conr+ed . respondent 3C Io+e Bepot, in its Co++entO3e+orandu+ dated 3a. 22, 2007 su+itted to the Court$ land, as the three.ear period has long een epired in 2006$ urther+ore, respondent 3C Io+e Bepot, landFs right to possess the suect propert.$ )he Court clearl. stated that the said right was already e2tinuished by virtue of the e2piration of Roc)land’s leasehold rihts way bac) in -//3 $ )hus, the +ovants, in ling their +otions, see> the CourtFs guidance in deter+ining whether the CA erred in not ta>ing into consideration the +ootness of Roc>landFs clai+ when it issued an order co++anding the restoration of the propert. to the latter$ )he +ovants su+it that . virtue of the CourtFs ruling in Tablante, which alread. attained nalit., the CA has erred in declaring that Roc>land still has the right to possess the suect propert.$
)he Court agrees$ )he CA erred in ordering the restoration of the possession to Roc>land$ )he rule is that@chanRolesvirtualawlirar. landFs clai+ over the suect propert. ecause of the epiration of its lease$ /. that ver. fact, Roc>land has no +ore possessor. right over it$ #ranting that the CA was not aware of Tablante, nonetheless, it had no factual or legal asis in ordering the restoration of the possession of the suect propert. to Roc>land$ land, had long epired in 2006$ land to clai+ possession despite the fact that the contract, on which its right was ased, has long epired$ WIERE;RE, the +otions for reconsideration are #RA&)EB$ Accordingl., the petitions are#RA&)EB$ )he 3a. 11, 2010 Becision and the August 27, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are here. A&&EB and 8E) A8
