Lupena v. Pagsisihan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a boundary dispute between the petitioners, the Heirs of Lupena, and the respondents, Pagsisihan and Dionisio, regarding their respective land lots. The core of the dispute centers on whether the respondents' properties encroach upon the lot registered under TCT No. 18547 in the name of Lupena. Engr. Ervin Boado, a licensed geodetic engineer, conducted a verification survey at the request of the Mediation Office to identify the boundaries of the adjoining lots owned by Lupena, Dionisio, and Medina. His survey report dated October 12, 2004, indicated that while Lot 1 of Dionisio, et al. did not encroach on Lupena's lots, Lot 4-B was found to be totally encroached by respondent Medina. Engr. Boado explained discrepancies arose from different tie lines used by the LMB and LRA, and recommended a resurvey of Lot 4-B and Lot 3. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Heirs of Lupena's Complaint for lack of merit in its Decision dated November 4, 2015, finding that the petitioners failed to sufficiently establish encroachment. The RTC noted that the relocation survey conducted by Engr. Tenazas in July 2000 did not comply with the required notice to affected owners, casting doubt on its veracity. The RTC denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration on February 22, 2016. Subsequently, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its assailed Decision, denied the appeal, affirming the RTC's ruling. The CA reasoned that while Engr. Tenazas's failure to notify might not cast doubt, his Relocation Plan did not indicate any encroachment. Furthermore, the CA highlighted Engr. Boado's independent survey, commissioned by the Philippine Mediation Center, which showed no overlaps. The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Lupena, filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. The core issue presented is whether the CA misappreciated the evidence by finding that the Relocation Plan approved by the LMB failed to show encroachment. The petitioners argue that the Relocation Plan is competent proof of encroachment and that the CA misconstrued it. The respondents, Pagsisihan and Dionisio, maintain that their property does not encroach on Lupena's land. The petitioners contend that even if permanent structures were not indicated, temporary structures could still constitute encroachment. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition unmeritorious, deeming it a purely factual issue that is not proper for its review. The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the Relocation Plan, as presented by the petitioners, did not indicate any encroachment by the respondents, and that the petitioners' argument about temporary structures was a new theory not substantiated by their earlier claims of building houses.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Relocation Plan approved by the Land Management Bureau failed to show that the respondents encroached on the subject property. Whether the issue presented is a question of fact, which is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the issue presented is a purely factual issue, which cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the factual finding of the CA that the Relocation Plan presented by the petitioners did not show encroachment, and that the petitioners failed to sufficiently establish that the respondents encroached upon the subject property.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Encroachment: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the Relocation Plan, heavily relied upon by the petitioners, did not indicate any encroachment by the respondents on the subject property. The Court noted that Section 43(d) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines requires geodetic engineers to indicate in the relocation plan the positions of buildings, fences, walls, and other permanent improvements adversely affected by the determination of boundaries. The petitioners admitted that their Relocation Plan did not show such structures, and that respondents did not put up any permanent structures on the subject property. The Court found the petitioners' subsequent argument that encroachment was committed by erecting temporary structures unconvincing, as their original allegation was based on building houses and occupying them. Consequently, with the Relocation Plan incontrovertibly showing that no buildings or permanent structures were put up by the respondents on the subject property, the CA did not err in holding that the petitioners failed to sufficiently establish encroachment. On the Issue of Factual Determination and Scope of Review: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It does not re-examine the evidence presented in the lower courts, especially when the findings of the Court of Appeals are supported by substantial evidence. The present petition, which asks the Court to re-weigh and re-assess the evidentiary value of the Relocation Plan, raises a purely factual issue. Therefore, it is not proper for the Supreme Court's consideration, as the Court's function is not to examine and weigh all over again the evidence presented in the proceedings below. The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the factual finding of the CA that the Relocation Plan presented by the petitioners did not show encroachment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not entertain appeals that raise purely factual issues, as it is not a trier of facts. The Court's review is limited to errors of law. In land boundary disputes, the admissibility and conclusiveness of survey plans as evidence of encroachment depend on their compliance with regulatory requirements, such as proper notification of affected parties and clear indications of findings within the plans themselves. The failure to meet these standards can render the survey plan incompetent proof of encroachment.