Bienvenido Velarma v. Court of Appeals and Josefina Pansacola
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent filed an ejectment suit against petitioner, alleging that petitioner surreptitiously built his dwelling on her land in May 1981. Despite barangay conferences where petitioner promised to vacate, he failed to do so. A criminal case for violation of P.D. No. 772 (Anti-Squatting Law) was filed in 1986, resulting in petitioner's conviction and fine. Petitioner continued occupying the property despite the judgment and demands to vacate. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that private respondent established ownership, that petitioner entered without authority and through stealth, and that petitioner's claim of government ownership due to an agreement with the municipality was baseless as no deed perfected the deal. The RTC ordered petitioner to vacate, remove his house, and pay damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner argued that private respondent had no cause of action because the land belonged to the government by virtue of an exchange agreement for a portion of the provincial road. This agreement was evidenced by minutes of a Sangguniang Bayan meeting dated November 5, 1974, where the previous owner, Publio Pansacola, agreed to the transfer.
Issue(s)
Whether the minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan meeting constitute a sufficient ground to defeat a forcible entry suit, considering the absence of a formal deed and the lack of consummation of any transfer. Whether the Regional Trial Court properly acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case, considering the issue of ownership was raised by the petitioner himself. Whether the prior referral to the Lupong Barangay was properly complied with, given the petitioner's admission in his Answer before the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the RTC's order for petitioner to vacate the subject land, remove his house, and pay private respondent exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the agreement to sell and its effect on the forcible entry suit: The Court held that the minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan meeting dated November 5, 1974, did not constitute a deed of transfer nor did it perfect any deal between the municipality and the Pansacola spouses. An agreement to transfer property, without a formal deed or consummation, does not extinguish the original owner's title. Therefore, private respondent retained ownership of the land, and petitioner's claim of government ownership was baseless. The Court emphasized that unless the transfer is consummated or expropriation proceedings are instituted, the private respondent continues to retain ownership. On the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court: The Court noted that an ejectment suit should have been filed before the Municipal Trial Court. However, the issue of ownership was specifically raised by the petitioner himself before the RTC. By filing an answer and proceeding to trial without moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner was deemed to have waived his objection. The Court invoked the principle of estoppel by laches, stating that it had set in at this point in time. On the compliance with Katarungang Pambarangay: The Court agreed with the trial court's finding that the compliance with P.D. No. 1508 (Katarungang Pambarangay Law) could no longer be assailed by the petitioner. This was because the referral to the Lupong Barangay was admitted in his affirmative allegations and affirmative defenses in his Answer filed before the trial court. Therefore, the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Main Doctrine
An agreement to transfer property, absent a formal deed of transfer or consummation of expropriation proceedings, does not extinguish the original owner's title and is insufficient to defeat a forcible entry suit. Estoppel by laches may set in if a party participates in the proceedings without questioning jurisdiction.