Galindez v. Salamanca-Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed five (5) separate complaints for Forcible Entry against petitioners, alleging that petitioners, by means of force, strategy, or stealth, entered portions of their lots, including accretions, built fences, and planted onions. Respondents claimed ownership and possession of their respective lots, evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), and asserted that the contested properties were formed by accretion. Petitioners, in their Answers, claimed prior possession of the contested property since 1967, alleging it was not an accretion but owned by Vitaliano Ganado, whom they assisted in cultivating the land. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dismissed the complaints for Forcible Entry, finding that respondents failed to prove prior physical possession and giving weight to the testimonies of BARC Chairpersons who stated Ganado had prior possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC's decision, finding respondents' testimonies unreliable and petitioners' witnesses more credible. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and MTCC decisions, finding that respondents proved their prior physical possession by preponderance of evidence, considering evidence submitted after the MTCC decision and for the first time on appeal. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the CA erred in considering evidence submitted irregularly and that its decision was not supported by the evidence on record.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the CA's assailed Decision and Resolution is contrary to law and jurisprudence. Whether or not the CA's assailed Decision is supported by the evidence submitted by the parties.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 2016, and its Resolution dated March 31, 2017, in CA-G.R. SP No. 144897 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Joint Decision dated May 11, 2015, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, San Jose City, which affirmed the Joint Decision dated November 7, 2014, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, San Jose City, dismissing the Complaints for Forcible Entry, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA's assailed Decision and Resolution is contrary to law and jurisprudence: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The CA erred in considering the second Judicial Affidavits of BARC Chairpersons Tangonan and Anastacio, which contained retractions of their earlier testimonies, as well as the Supplemental Judicial Affidavit and undated Certification of Engr. Magtuto, which were submitted for the first time on appeal. These submissions violated the Rules on Summary Procedure, which require all evidence to be submitted within a specific period, and the principle against piecemeal presentation of evidence. The Court viewed the retractions with suspicion, noting that they were submitted belatedly and deprived the MTCC of the opportunity to scrutinize them. The Court also found that Engr. Magtuto's evidence tended to prove ownership, which is not the issue in a forcible entry case, and was presented without justification for the delay. On the issue of whether the CA's assailed Decision is supported by the evidence on record: The Supreme Court ruled that it is not. Evaluating the evidence submitted to the MTCC, sans the improperly considered evidence, the Court found that respondents failed to prove by preponderance of evidence their prior physical possession of the contested property. Their judicial affidavits primarily focused on their ownership of the titled properties and their belief that the accretion was an attachment thereto, but they did not sufficiently narrate how they discovered the accretion or what specific acts they performed to take actual physical possession of it. The Court noted that the alleged accretion was a significant area (9,535 sq.m.) and was not included in their TCTs, thus requiring proof of actual physical possession distinct from their titled properties. The evidence presented by the petitioners, particularly the testimonies of Ganado, Galindez, and Liberato, supported by the testimonies of former BARC Chairperson Tangonan and BARC Chairperson Anastacio in their initial affidavits, indicated that Ganado had been in prior physical possession of the contested property since 1967.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals erred in considering evidence submitted after the Municipal Trial Court rendered its decision and evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, as such actions violate the Rules on Summary Procedure and settled principles against piecemeal presentation of evidence. Furthermore, retractions of testimony are viewed with suspicion and require careful scrutiny.