Heirs of Lupena v. Medina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marsella T. Lupena owned a 180 sqm lot in Brgy. Bagumbayan, Taguig under TCT No. 18547. Around 1985-1986, respondents Pastora Medina (34 sqm), Jovito Pagsisihan (61 sqm), Cenon Patricio (8 sqm), and Bernardo Dionisio (15 sqm) allegedly encroached by building houses, depriving Lupena of possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth. Lupena demanded vacation but was refused; she hired Engr. Oscar Tenazas in July 2000 for a relocation survey (P10,000 fee), who researched at LRC/LMB, surveyed on-site with respondents present, prepared a Relocation Plan (LMB-approved Aug. 23, 2000) and Sketch Plan showing encroachments. Respondents countered: Pagsisihan/Dionisio claimed their houses on TCT No. 268143 (241 sqm, partitioned 1970, fenced since 1964, Tax Dec. FL-001-012264); Medina claimed ownership or 1988 partial sale (P12k/40k for 100 sqm) from Lupena, public alley adjacency since 1950s, good faith building. Independent surveys: Engr. Ervin Boado (Oct. 2004, Mediation Office) found no overlap on Dionisio/Pagsisihan lots but Medina encroached Lot 4-B; Engr. Macario Cruz (taxmapper) confirmed no tax map overlap. Francisco Jose (Lupena's son) visited daily since 1991, saw houses but unsure build dates; prior ejectment vs. Medina/Pagsisihan dismissed for 1yr dispossession. Procedural History: Aug. 29, 2001, Lupena filed RTC-Pasig Br. 155 Complaint for Recovery of Possession; substituted by heirs post-death. Trial: Petitioners' witnesses (Francisco Jose, Engr. Tenazas); respondents' (Engr. Boado, Pagsisihan, Engr. Cruz). RTC Nov. 4, 2015 Decision dismissed for failure to prove overlap—Tenazas' plan lacked notice (Sec. 643(e)), disputable presumption rebutted, no due process per Casimiro. MR denied Feb. 22, 2016. CA affirmed Jan. 13, 2017 (despite notice irrelevance, plan lacked encroachment indication per Sec. 43(d), Boado confirmed no overlap); MR denied May 11, 2017. The Petition: Heirs assail CA as misappreciating evidence; Relocation Plan proves encroachment despite no structures noted (arguing temporary sheds/shanties exempt); Boado's report unapproved by LMB, merely verification not relocation.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in finding the LMB-approved Relocation Plan insufficient proof of encroachment due to lack of indication of adverse structures, thus allegedly misappreciating evidence. Whether the petitioners' failure to prove the existence of permanent structures on the land, their shift to claiming temporary structures, and the procedural violations in the post-survey notice warrant a reversal of the CA decision.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The assailed CA Decision (Jan. 13, 2017) and Resolution (May 11, 2017) in CA-G.R. CV No. 106794 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Misappreciation of Evidence: The Petition raises a purely factual issue—re-weighing the Relocation Plan's evidentiary value to show encroachment—which is beyond Rule 45 scope, as it invites calibration of evidence, witness credibility, and probabilities (Caiña v. People; Bautista v. Puyat Vinyl; Hi-Precision Steel; Navarro v. COMELEC; Republic v. Sandiganbayan). The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, avoiding re-examination of trial evidence. On the Issue of Sufficiency of Evidence and Procedural Due Process: Even on merits, no reversal warranted: The Relocation Plan explicitly states 'no buildings, fences, walls, or other permanent structures' adversely affecting boundaries, per Sec. 43(d) Revised Manual requiring such notation; the Sketch Plan is irrelevant as non-official. Petitioners' trial claim (houses encroaching) was contradicted by their admission of no permanent structures, binding them; their post-trial shift to 'temporary structures' (sheds/shanties) is unavailing, as houses testified to were permanent. Tenazas' post-survey notice violated Sec. 643(e) due process (inform affected owners, obtain statements; Spouses Casimiro v. CA), rebutting Rule 132, Sec. 23 presumption. Boado's independent survey (no Dionisio/Pagsisihan overlap) and tax records reinforced no encroachment. Thus, petitioners failed to prove possession recovery elements.
Main Doctrine
In boundary dispute cases involving recovery of possession, the plaintiff's Relocation Plan, even if LMB-approved, is not competent proof of encroachment if it fails to indicate the positions of buildings, fences, walls, or other permanent improvements adversely affected, as mandated by Section 43(d) of the Revised Manual for Land Surveying Regulations in the Philippines. The presumption of correctness of public documents under Rule 132, Section 23 is merely disputable and yields to contrary evidence, such as the engineer's admission of non-compliance with notice requirements under Section 643(e), which demands informing affected owners and obtaining their statements. Notice and representation in survey proceedings constitute essential administrative due process, per Spouses Casimiro v. Court of Appeals, and non-compliance casts doubt on the survey's veracity. Pure questions of fact, like assessing the evidentiary weight of conflicting surveys (e.g., plaintiff's vs. independent verification survey), are not reviewable under Rule 45 petitions, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Parties are bound by their trial admissions, such as claiming encroachments via houses but later shifting to 'temporary structures' unsupported by the plan stating no adverse permanent structures.