Heirs of Saez Sabanpan v. Comorposa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with damages against respondents over Lot No. 845, Land 275. Petitioners alleged that the lot was lawfully possessed by Marcos Saez, who died leaving his heirs. In 1965, out of pity, Adolfo Saez allowed Francisco Comorposa to occupy a portion of the land without rental. Francisco Comorposa later left for Hawaii and was succeeded by the respondents, who also occupied the premises through petitioners' tolerance. Procedural History: A formal demand to vacate was made on May 7, 1998, but respondents refused, claiming ownership and possession since 1960, acquired by prescription, and citing a DENR regional director's order upholding their possession. After failing to reach an amicable settlement, a Certificate to File Action was issued, leading to the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, reversed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling, upholding respondents' right as claimants and possessors based on the DENR Order and CENR Certification, and finding their possession since 1960 to be continuous and uninterrupted. The Petition: Petitioners sought review of the CA's Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's reliance on the DENR Order (allegedly not final), the CENR Officer's Certification (bearing a facsimile signature and raised for the first time on appeal), and in holding that the land was acquired by prescription, and in disregarding the affidavits of petitioners' witnesses.
Issue(s)
I. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling giving credence to the Order dated April 2, 1998, issued by the regional executive director of the DENR. II. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling giving weight to the CENR Officer's Certification, which bears a facsimile signature and was allegedly raised for the first time on appeal. III. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and erred in holding that the land subject matter of the case has been acquired by means of adverse possession and prescription. IV. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and erred in declaring that the Regional Trial Court did not err in disregarding the affidavits of petitioners' witnesses for being self-serving.
Ruling
The Petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Costs are against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue I (DENR Order): The Court held that while the DENR has primary control over the disposition of public lands, regular courts retain jurisdiction over possessory actions to protect occupants' or applicants' possessions. The power to determine who has actual physical possession and the better right of possession remains with the courts, even if the issue of entitlement to public land is pending with the DENR. Therefore, the CA did not err in considering the DENR Order as a relevant piece of evidence in the possessory action. On Issue II (CENR Officer's Certification): The Court clarified that a facsimile signature, used in business transactions, is distinct from a facsimile transmission of pleadings, which is inadmissible. The CENR Certification was not a sham, as evidenced by its acknowledgment and use by the DENR regional director in his Order. Furthermore, the Certification was not a new matter raised on appeal, having been marked as evidence during the pre-trial conference at the MTC. The rule on formal offer of evidence, while generally applicable, is relaxed in cases covered by the rule on summary procedure where no full-blown trial is held. On Issue III (Defense of Prescription): The Court disagreed with petitioners' claim that respondents' possession was merely by tolerance. Petitioners failed to sufficiently prove that the possession was by tolerance, relying only on a technical description and vicinity map that were discredited by the CENR Certification. The continued and uninterrupted possession of the respondents for a considerable length of time, as supported by other evidence, outweighed the testimony of petitioners' witnesses. Moreover, the issue of prescription is a question of fact generally not reviewable in a petition for review under Rule 45. On Issue IV (Affidavits of Petitioners' Witnesses): The Court distinguished between admissibility and probative value. While affidavits are admissible in summary proceedings, their admission does not automatically prove the facts stated therein. The failure of the adverse party to reply does not ipso facto render the facts proven, as the burden of proving the cause of action remains with the party asserting an affirmative relief. The CA's assessment of the affidavits as self-serving and incredible was within its discretion.
Main Doctrine
The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its probative value; admissibility does not ipso facto mean conclusive proof. In summary proceedings, while affidavits are admissible, the adverse party's failure to reply does not automatically prove the facts stated therein, as the burden of proof remains with the party asserting an affirmative relief.