Basbas vs. Sayson

download Basbas vs. Sayson

of 37

Transcript of Basbas vs. Sayson

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    1/37

    Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

    ManilaFIRST DIVISION

    EUGENIO BASBAS,

    TEOFILO

    ARAS, RUFINO ARAS,

    GERVACIO BASBAS,ISMAEL

    ARAS, EUGENIO ARAS,

    SIMFRONIO ARAS,

    FELICIANO ARAS, ROSITA

    ARAS, EUGENIO BASBAS,

    JR.

    and SOUSES ABLITOBASARTE and MARCELINA

    BASBAS BASARTE,

    G.R. No. !"#$$%

    Present:

    CORONA, C. J., Cha

    LEONARDO-DE CA

    R!ON,

    DEL CAST!LLO, and

    Petitioners, "!LLARAMA, #R$,J

    - %ersus-

    BEATA SA&SON and

    ROBERTO SA&SON, JR.,

    Pro&ul'ate(:

    Respondents. Au'ust )*, )+

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    2/37

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    D E C I S I O N

    DEL CASTILLO,J.'

    Petitioners see. to pre%ent the re%i%al of a /u('&ent

    ren(ere( in fa%or of the respon(ents &ore than t0o

    (eca(es bac.$

    This Petition for Re%ie0 on Certiorari assails the

    1ebruar2 3, )++* Decision4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if6of the

    Court of Appeals 7CA8 in CA-9$R$ C" No$ 3);, respon(ent eata Sa2son

    7eata8 an( her husban( Roberto Sa2son, Sr$ 7Roberto

    Sr$8 file( a Petition for Re'istration of an a'riculturallan( locate( in Ca'batan', ala'tas, Mata'-ob, Le2te

    (oc.ete( as Lan( Re'istration Case No$ +-33$ The sai(

    application 0as oppose( b2 the Republic of the

    Philippines an( herein petitioners Eu'enio asbas

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    3/37

    7Eu'enio Sr$8, Teofilo Aras 7Teofilo8 an( Rufino Aras

    7Rufino8$ On March )), =3=, the Court of 1irst

    !nstance 7C1!8 of Le2te, ranch " 7Or&oc Cit28

    ren(ere( a Decision a(/u(icatin' to the spouses Sa2sonsai( a'ricultural lan( an( appro%in' its re'istration

    un(er their na&es$4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6

    The oppositors file( their appeal to the CA

    (oc.ete( as CA-9$R$ No$ >>4if 5

    support1ootnotes64364en(if6 0as issue( to the spouses Sa2son

    pursuant to the March )), =3= C1! Decision$ An Alias

    ?rit of Possession 0as issue( on April >, =;= but this

    coul( also not be i&ple&ente( in %ie0 of the refusal of

    Eu'enio Sr$ an( his son Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 7Eu'enio

    #r$8$ Clai&in' that the lan( the2 occupie( is not the sa&e

    lan( sub/ect of the C1! Decision,4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6

    the2(e&an(e( that a relocation sur%e2 be con(ucte($ @ence,

    a relocation sur%e2 0as con(ucte( b2 or(er of the

    Re'ional Trial Court 7RTC8, ranch ), Or&oc Cit2$4if 5

    support1ootnotes64=64en(if6

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    4/37

    !n an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64+64en(if6 (ate( Septe&ber

    , =;=, the RTC appro%e( the Co&&issioners

    Report4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if6

    on the relocation sur%e2 an(or(ere( the ori'inal oppositors, petitioners Eu'enio Sr$,

    Teofilo an( Rufino, as 0ell as their co-petitioners herein

    9er%acio asbas 79er%acio8, !s&ael Aras 7!s&ael8,

    Eu'enio Aras 7Eu'enio8, Si&fronio Aras 7Si&fronio8,

    1eliciano Aras 71eliciano8, Rosita Aras 7Rosita8 an(

    Eu'enio #r$ to %acate the sub/ect propert2, viz:

    4R6espon(ents are (irecte( to %acate the portion of Lot No$

    , Psu-+;-+++)< co%ere( b2 OCT No$ )*=> an(

    sub/ect of the final (ecree of re'istration 0hich, 4up

    to the6 present, sai( respon(ents are still possessin'

    pursuant to the final an( eecutor2 /u('&ent of the

    Court of Appeals an( as particularl2 (efine( in the

    Co&&issioners report sub&itte( on Au'ust , =;=

    $

    Respon(ents are re&in(e( that un(er Rule 3 of the Ne0

    Rules of Court, failure on their part to so obe2 thisor(er &a2 &a.e the& liable for conte&pt of this

    Court$

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    5/37

    SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6

    9er%acio, !s&ael, Eu'enio, Si&fronio, 1eliciano,

    Rosita an( Eu'enio #r$, althou'h not oppositors in CA-

    9$R$ No$ >>

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    6/37

    Au'ust ;, ==< a Co&plaint for Re%i%al of #u('&ent4if 5

    support1ootnotes6464en(if6(oc.ete( as Ci%il Case No$ )-

    +$ !&plea(e( as (efen(ants 0ere Eu'enio Sr$, Teofilo,Rufino, 9er%acio, !s&ael, Eu'enio, Si&fronio,

    1eliciano, Rosita, an( Eu'enio #r$ Petitioner-spouses

    Pablito asarte an( Marcelina asbas-Sabarte4if 5

    support1ootnotes64364en(if67spouses asarte8, 0ho, althou'h not

    i(entifie( in the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er as principal

    oppositors in the lan( re'istration case, 0ere li.e0ise

    i&plea(e( as (efen(ants since the2 also alle'e(l2har%este(, processe(, an( sol( the coconuts foun( in the

    sub/ect propert2$

    pon receipt of su&&ons, 9er%acio, Rufino, !s&ael,

    Eu'enio, 1eliciano, Rosita an( Eu'enio #r$ file( a

    Motion to Dis&iss4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6on the 'roun( that

    the Co&plaint states no cause of action$ This 0as,ho0e%er, (enie(4if 5support1ootnotes64=64en(if6 so the sa&e set of

    petitioners, ecept for 1eliciano, file( an Ans0er 0ith

    Counterclai&$4if 5support1ootnotes64)+64en(if6

    !n their Ans0er 0ith counterclai&, sai( petitioners

    a(&itte( the alle'ations in para'raphs *, , 3, ;, =, +,

    an( ) of respon(ents Co&plaint 0hich state that:

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    7/37

    *$ On March )), =3=, the @onorable #u('e Nu&eriano

    EstenBo ren(ere( a (ecision in the abo%e-&entione(

    Lan( Re'istration 4c6ase in fa%or of the petitioners

    an( a'ainst the oppositors, the (ispositi%e

    portion of sai( (ecision rea(s:

    ?@ERE1ORE, (ecision is hereb2ren(ere( 4an(6 the lan( (escribe( un(er

    Plan PS-+;-+++)< (ate( Septe&ber +,

    =3 of 9eo(etic En'ineer Nestorio EncenBo

    alrea(2 APPRO"ED b2 the Actin' Re'ional

    Director on #une )3, =3* is hereb2a(/u(icate( an( re'istere( in the na&es of the

    Spouses ROERTO SASON an( EATA

    O$ SASON, of le'al a'es, 1ilipinos, spouses

    an( resi(ents of Ca&po.po., Taban'o, Le2te,

    Philippines an( as soon as this (ecisionbeco&es final, let a (ecree of re'istration beissue( b2 the Lan( Re'istration Co&&ission$

    SO ORDERED$ 7 8

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    8/37

    $ On #ul2 )*, =;

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    9/37

    an( the sai( (ecision has beco&e final an( eecutor2 on

    Au'ust ), =;< per Entr2 of #u('&ent issue( b2

    the Court of Appeals $

    3$ That conseuentl2, on Septe&ber 3,

    =;> an Ori'inal Certificate of Title No$ N-)*=>

    0as issue( in the na&es of Roberto Sa2son an(

    eata O$ Sa2son, pursuant to Decree No$ N-=>,

    =;= (irecte( the issuance of an Alias ?rit of

    Possession

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    10/37

    =$ That the Deput2 Sheriff of this Court, Mr$Placi(4o6 Ca2co ten(ere( the Alias ?rit of

    Possession to the oppositors, particularl2 to Mr$

    Eu'enio asbas, Sr$ an( Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 0ho,

    as the Deput2 Sheriff state( in his Pro'ress Report

    (ate( Ma2 ;, =;= (i( not belie%e an( obe2 the

    C1! Decision an( the (ecision of the Court of

    Appeals an( 4t6he2 (e&an(e( a relocation

    sur%e2 to (eter&ine the eact location of applicants

    7co&plainant4s6 herein8 propert2 (escribe( in the

    alias 0rit of possession$

    +$ That on #une >, =;=, the @onorable

    Court, actin' on the Pro'ress Report of Deput2

    Sheriff Placi(o Ca2co, issue( an Or(er on e%en (ate

    appointin' 9eo(etic En'ineer #ose A$ Tahil as

    Court Co&&issioner specificall2 to relocate Lot

    No$ , Plan Psu-+;-+++)

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    11/37

    $ That pursuant to the 4O6r(er (ate( #une>, =;= the Court assi'ne( Co&&issioner,

    En'r$ #ose A$ Tahil, sub&itte( his report statin' that

    the /ob assi'ne( to the co&&issioner 0as alrea(2

    full2 an( peacefull2 acco&plishe( that his fin(in's

    4sho06 that all points are eistin' an( intact on the

    fiel( ecept corner of sai( lot 0hich at

    present 4is6 alrea(2 (efine( an( in(icate( on the

    'roun($ The co&&issioner also attache( a S.etch

    Plan of the lan( to his report$

    )$ That, finall2, the @onorable Court, on

    Septe&ber , =;= issue( an Or(er appro%in' the

    Co&&issioners Report an( further state(:

    4R6espon(ents 7(efen(ants herein8 are (irecte( to %acate theportion of Lot No$ , Psu-+;-+++)< co%ere(

    b2 OCT No$ )*=> an( sub/ect of final (ecree

    of re'istration 0hich, until 4the6 present, sai(

    respon(ents are still possessin', pursuant to

    the final an( eecutor2 /u('&ent of the Court

    of Appeals an( as particularl2 4(efine(6 in the

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    12/37

    Co&&issioners Report sub&itte( on Au'ust

    , =;=

    Respon(ents are re&in(e( that

    un(er Rule 3 of the Ne0 Rules of Court,failure on their part to so obe2 this Or(er &a2

    &a.e the& liable for conte&pt of this Court$4if

    5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6

    @o0e%er, petitioners a(&itte( but (enie( in

    part:

    8 para'raphs ) an( , insofar as the2 alle'e( that

    the2 0ere all oppositors to the lan( re'istration case

    0hen onl2 Eu'enio Sr$, Teofilo an( Rufino 0ere the

    oppositors therein an(

    )8 para'raph *, 0ith respect to the alle'ation on

    the retire&ent of the Deput2 Sheriff an( the heart

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    13/37

    con(ition of the Cler. of Court, for lac. of sufficient

    .no0le('e an( infor&ation sufficient to for& a belief

    thereon$

    On the other han(, the2 specificall2 (enie(:

    8 para'raph , on the 'roun( that the2 ha%e the

    ri'ht of o0nership an(For possession o%er the sub/ect

    propert2 an(

    )8 para'raph

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    14/37

    $ Plaintiffs eata Sa2son an( her late

    husban(, Roberto Sa2son are petitioners in Lan(

    Re'istration Case No$ +-33 for the re'istration of a

    parcel of a'ricultural lan( situate( in arrio

    ala'tas, Mata'-ob, Le2te, file( on Septe&ber ),=3> 0ith the then Court of 1irst !nstance of Le2te,

    ranch ", Or&oc Cit2$ The abo%e-na&e(

    (efen(ants, na&el2: Eu'enio asbas, Teofilo Aras,

    9er%acio asbas, Rufino Aras, !s&ael Aras,

    Eu'enio Aras, Si&fronio Aras, 1eliciano Aras,

    Rosita Aras an( Eu'enio asbas, #r$ 0ere

    oppositors to the application4if 5support1ootnotes64))64en(if6

    $ That (espite this a(&onition in the

    4Septe&ber , =;=6 4O6r(er that the2 coul( be

    cite( for conte&pt of Court, the respon(ents,

    (efen(ants herein, ha( continuousl2 (efie( the sa&ean( this not0ithstan(in' the fact that it 0as upon

    their o0n (e&an(s an( insistence that a relocation

    sur%e2 be &a(e on the pre&ises sub/ect of this case

    before the2 0oul( obe2 the alias 0rit of possession

    an( that the fin(in'4s6 of the

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    15/37

    Court4-6appointe( Co&&issioner En'r$ #ose A$

    Tahil sho0 that the oppositors-respon(ents (i(

    4encroach6 on the lan( of plaintiffs herein

    *$ That this 4Septe&ber , =;=6 Or(er

    ho0e%er 0as not i&ple&ente( thru a ?rit of

    Eecution 0ithin the fi%e-2ear perio( fro& the ti&e

    the Or(er beca&e final because of the retire&ent ofDeput2 Sheriff Placi(o Ca2co an( b2 reason also of

    the fact that the then Cler. of Court, Att2$

    Constantino A$ Trias, #r$ 0ho 0as also the e-officio

    Pro%incial Sheriff 0as not ph2sicall2 fit to hi.e thru

    the &ountains an( hills of r'2$ ala'tas 0here the

    propert2 an( the (efen(ants therein resi(e (ue to his

    heart con(ition

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    16/37

    in%ol%e($ An( until the (ecision of the Court of

    Appeals is eecute(, plaintiff 0ill continue to suffer

    losses an( (a&a'es b2 reason of (efen(ants

    unla0ful occupation an( possession an( their

    continue( har%estin' of the pro(uce of this lan( ofthe herein plaintiffs$4if 5support1ootnotes64)64en(if6

    2 0a2 of special an( affir&ati%e (efenses, sai(

    petitioners conten(e( that the Or(er sou'ht to bere%i%e( is not the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section

    >, Rule = of the Rules of Court, hence the action for

    re%i%al of /u('&ent is i&proper$ Also, ecept for

    Rufino, petitioners a%erre( that the2 cannot be &a(e

    parties to the co&plaint for re%i%al of /u('&ent as the2

    0ere not parties to the lan( re'istration case$ The2 thus

    belie%e( that the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er sou'ht to bere%i%e( is not bin(in' upon the& an( hence, the

    co&plaint states no cause of action 0ith respect to the&$

    As to the counterclai&, petitioners pra2e( that

    respon(ents pa2 the& &oral an( ee&plar2 (a&a'es,

    attorne2s fees an( liti'ation epenses$

    Pre-trial conference 0as thereafter set4if 5support1ootnotes64)*64en(if6 but since not all petitioners 0ere ser%e( 0ith

    su&&ons, this 0as reset an( alias su&&ons 0as issue(

    an( ser%e( upon Si&fronio an( the spouses asarte$4if 5

    support1ootnotes64)

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    17/37

    a(opte( the Ans0er 0ith Counterclai& of 9er%acio,

    Rufino, !s&ael, Eu'enio, 1eliciano, Rosita an( Eu'enio

    #r$4if 5support1ootnotes64)>64en(if60hile the spouses asarte file( a

    Motion to Dis&iss4if 5support1ootnotes64)364en(if6

    on the 'roun( oflac. of cause of action$ As sai( &otion 0as also (enie(,4if 5support1ootnotes64);64en(if6 the spouses asarte later file( a

    Manifestation4if 5support1ootnotes64)=64en(if6 that the2 0ere also

    a(optin' the Ans0er 0ith Counterclai& file( b2

    9er%acio an( the others$

    Durin' the pre-trial conference on #ul2 *, ===,the RTC issue( an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64+64en(if6 0hich

    pro%i(es in part, viz:

    !n to(a2s pre-trial conference,

    &anifestations an( counter-&anifestations 0ere

    echan'e($ All the parties an( their counsels are

    present$ 01-a*nt*//+ )oun+e- pre+ented a

    Spe)*a- o4er o/ Attorne3 3 Beata Sa3+on utt2e Court o+er(ed t2at +ame 4a+ not du-3

    a)8no4-eded e/ore t2e 2*-*pp*ne Con+u-ate or

    Ema++3 *n Canada. 9o4e(er, t2*+ matter *+ not

    +o *mportant4$6 4?6hen the Court trie( to (i' an(

    (iscuss 0ith the parties on their real positions, it

    turne( out that the p-a*nt*//+ are +ee8*n re(*(a- o/

    t2e pre(*ou+ /*na- :udment, t2e or**na- part*e+

    o/ 42*)2 4ere Euen*o Ba+a+, Teo/*-o Ara+ andRu/*no Ara+. Euen*o and Teo/*-o are a-- dead,

    -ea(*n Ru/*no Ara+ a-*(e. It *+ ;u*te )omp-*)ated

    )on+*der*n t2at *n t2*+ a)t*on, t2e p-a*nt*//+

    re-*ed on t2e Order o/ t2*+ Court penned 3 t2e

    pre(*ou+ :ude dated Septemer !5, !

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    18/37

    4a+ made a/ter or )on+e;uent to t2e /*na-

    :udment a/orement*oned, 42ere*n t2e name+ o/

    t2e ot2er de/endant+ 4ere ment*oned *n t2e od3

    t2ereo/. A/ter )on+*der*n t2e mer*t+ o/ t2e

    (ar*ou+ )ontent*on+, t2e Court *+ o/ t2e (*e4 t2att2e )omp-a*nt 2ad to -*m*t *t+e-/ to t2e name+ o/

    t2e or**na- part*e+ appear*n *n t2e or**na-

    :udment no4 e*n +ou2t /or re(*(a-. The

    interest of the plaintiffs in see.in' i&ple&entation

    or eecution of the /u('&ent sou'ht to be re%i%e(

    0hich 0oul( in%ol%e the other (efen(ants can be

    ta.en 0hen the /u('&ent shall ha%e been re%i%e($

    !n this connection therefore an( as part of

    the &atters to be &a(e part in the pre-trial

    conference, in the eercise of the authorit2 'rante(to it b2 la0, t2*+ Court d*re)t+ t2e p-a*nt*//+ to

    ma8e t2e ne)e++ar3 amendment and>or to +um*t

    a man*/e+tat*on /*r+t to t2*+ Court on t2e po*nt

    ao(e ra*+ed reard*n amendment o/ t2e

    de+*nat*on o/ t2e part*e+ ha%in' in &in( the

    ob/ection of the (efen(ants 0ho &anifeste( that

    shoul( there be an a&en(&ent, this counter-clai&

    shall be (isre'ar(e( since the2 0ere brou'ht in

    unnecessaril2 in this .in( of action$

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    19/37

    Plaintiffs therefore are 'i%en a perio( of ten

    7+8 (a2s fro& to(a2 0ithin 0hich to sub&it the

    reuisite &anifestation furnishin' cop2 thereof to

    the (efen(ant 0ho upon receipt shall also be 'i%en a

    perio( of ten 7+8 (a2s 0ithin 0hich this Court 0ill&a.e the necessar2 resolution before allo0in' an2

    a&en(&ent$

    @ol( the pre-trial conference in abe2ance$

    SO ORDERED$ 4if 5support1ootnotes6464en(if67E&phasis supplie($8

    !n their Manifestation 0ith Pra2er,4if 5support1ootnotes64)6

    4en(if6 respon(ents infor&e( the RTC about the (eath ofEu'enio Sr$ an( Teofilo 0ho 0ere oppositors in the lan(

    re'istration case an( the substitution b2 their heirs,

    na&el2, 9er%acio, Marcelina asbas asarte,4if 5

    support1ootnotes6464en(if6 an( Eu'enio #r$ for Eu'enio Sr$ an(

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    20/37

    !s&ael, "icente, Li'a2a Aras 7Li'a2a8, Rosen(o Aras

    7Rosen(o8 an( Daina Aras 7Daina8 for Teofilo$

    Respon(ents pra2e( that their &anifestation be

    consi(ere( for the purpose of (eter&inin' the properparties to the case$ Despite petitioners Counter-

    Manifestation,4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6 the RTC issue( the

    follo0in' Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    21/37

    other heirs, na&el2: Marcelina asbas asarte,

    "icente Aras, Li'a2a Aras, Rosen(o Aras, an(

    Daina Aras$ 4if 5support1ootnotes64>64en(if6

    After su&&ons 0ere ser%e(, "icente, Rosen(o,

    Li'a2a an( Daina 0ere, ho0e%er, (eclare( in (efault for

    not filin' an2 responsi%e plea(in'$4if 5support1ootnotes64364en(if6

    On 1ebruar2 ), )++, the RTC issue( a Pre-TrialOr(er4if 5support1ootnotes64;64en(if6 0here the contro%erte(

    stipulations an( issues to be trie(, a&on' others, 0ere

    enu&erate( as follo0s:

    Contro%erte( Stipulations:

    4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6That (efen(ants are not en/o2in'

    the pro(uce of the lan( because there are perio(4s6 0herein thefruits 0ere sub/ect of theft an( the sa&e is no0 pen(in' at the

    Municipal Trial Court of Mata'-ob

    4if 5supportLists6)$ 4en(if6That 4e%en6 before the start of the

    ori'inal case, the ori'inal (efen(ants referrin' to the late Eu'enio

    asbas, Sr$ an( Teofilo Aras, 4an(6 Rufino Aras 0ere occup2in'

    the propert2 an( the2 0ere succee(e( b2 the respecti%e heirs of the

    (ecease( Eu'enio asbas, Sr$ an( Teofilo Aras 4sic6

    4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6That plaintiff Teofilo Aras, Sr$ has

    a (au'hter na&e( 1e(eliBa Aras

    !ssues

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    22/37

    4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6?hether the plaintiffs are

    entitle( to re%i%al of /u('&ent in the earlier 4lan( re'istration6

    case

    4if 5supportLists6)$ 4en(if6?hether the (efen(ants ecept

    for (efen(ant Rufino Aras are the proper parties in the present

    action

    4if 5supportLists6$ 4en(if6?hether the co&plaint states a

    cause of action

    4if 5supportLists6*$ 4en(if6?hether (efen(ants areentitle( to their counterclai&, an(

    4if 5supportLists6

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    23/37

    (eci(e( base( on the plea(in's nor throu'h su&&ar2

    /u('&ent consi(erin' that the contro%erte( stipulations

    an( issues (efine( in the Pre-Trial Or(er &ust be pro%en

    b2 e%i(ence$ !n a((ition, the2 uestione( the SpecialPo0er of Attorne2 7SPA8 eecute( b2 eata in Cana(a

    e&po0erin' her son Roberto #r$ to appear on her behalf

    in the pre-trial conference$ The2 ar'ue( that since sai(

    SPA has not been authenticate( b2 a Philippine

    Consulate official, it is not sufficient authoriBation an(

    hence, eata cannot be consi(ere( to ha%e atten(e( the

    pre-trial conference$ The case &ust, therefore, be(is&isse( insofar as she is concerne($

    Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

    !n resol%in' respon(ents O&nibus Motion for

    #u('&ent on the Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent,

    the RTC foun( that petitioners Ans0er (oes notessentiall2 ten(er an issue since the &aterial alle'ations

    of the Co&plaint 0ere a(&itte($ @ence, sai( court

    issue( an Or(er4if 5support1ootnotes64*)64en(if6(ate( Ma2 ), )++,

    the (ispositi%e portion of 0hich rea(s:

    ?herefore, fin(in' &erit in the &otion, /u('&ent is hereb2

    ren(ere( for an( in fa%or of the plaintiffs an(a'ainst the (efen(ants or(erin' the re%i%al of the

    (ecision of the Court of Appeals pro&ul'ate( on

    #ul2 )*, =;< affir&in' the (ecree of re'istration of

    this Court in the (ecision of the Lan( Re'istration

    Case No$ +-33 (ate( March )), =3=, an( of the

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    24/37

    final Or(er of this Court (ate( Septe&ber , =;=

    an( upon finalit2 of this Or(er, or(erin' the

    issuance of ?rit of Possession for the lot &a(e

    sub/ect of the (ecision$ ?ithout pronounce&ent as

    to costs$

    SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64*64en(if6

    Petitioners thus file( a Notice of Appeal4if 5support1ootnotes64**6

    4en(if60hich 0as appro%e( in an Or(er (ate( #une +>,

    )++$4if 5support1ootnotes64*

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    25/37

    court, petitioners refusal to %acate the sub/ect propert2

    (espite the final an( eecutor2 Decision of the CA in the

    lan( re'istration case an( the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er

    of the RTC for the& to %acate the sa&e, clearl2 supportrespon(ents cause of action a'ainst the&$ Also contrar2

    to petitioners posture, the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er is a

    final or(er as it finall2 (ispose( of the contro%ers2

    bet0een the parties in the lan( re'istration case$ The CA

    li.e0ise foun( the SPA eecute( b2 eata in fa%or of

    Roberto #r$ as %ali(, hence, she 0as (ul2 represente(

    (urin' the pre-trial conference$ The (ispositi%e portionof sai( CA Decision rea(s:

    ?@ERE1ORE, pre&ises consi(ere(, the present appeal is

    DEN!ED$ The Ma2 ), )++ Decision of the

    Re'ional Trial Court of Or&oc Cit2, ranch < is

    A11!RMED$

    SO ORDERED$4if 5support1ootnotes64*364en(if6

    Their Motion for Reconsi(eration4if 5support1ootnotes64*;6

    4en(if6ha%in' been (enie( in a Resolution 4if 5support1ootnotes64*=6

    4en(if6(ate( April =, )++>, petitioners are no0 before this

    Court throu'h the present Petition for Re%ie0 on

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    26/37

    Certiorari$

    I++ue+

    Petitioners i&pute upon the CA the follo0in' errors:

    $ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(

    serious errors of la0 in its (ecision an( Resolution

    (ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( April =, )++> 0hen it

    affir&e( the Or(er of the Re'ional Trial Court (ate(

    Ma2 ), )++ an( (eclare( that no re%ersible error

    0as co&&itte( b2 the Re'ional Trial Court ofOr&oc Cit2 in 'rantin' respon(ents &otion for

    /u('&ent on the plea(in's an(For su&&ar2

    /u('&ent

    )$ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(

    serious errors of la0 in its Decision an( Resolution

    (ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( April =, )++> 0hen it

    affir&e( the Or(er of the Re'ional Trial Court of

    Or&oc Cit2 (ate( Ma2 ), )++ an( (eclare( that

    petitioners ar'u&ent that respon(ents co&plaint

    faile( to state a cause of action has no &erit$

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    27/37

    $ The @onorable Court of Appeals clearl2 co&&itte(

    serious errors of la0 0hen it affir&e( the Or(er of

    the Re'ional Trial Court of Or&oc Cit2 0hich

    or(ere( the re%i%al of the #u('&ent of this Court of

    Appeals in CA-9$R$ No$ >>

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    28/37

    is not proper in this case since the contro%erte(

    stipulations an( the first three issues enu&erate( in the

    pre-trial or(er in%ol%e facts 0hich &ust be threshe( out

    (urin' trial$ The2 also clai& that the Co&plaint forRe%i%al of #u('&ent states no cause of action because

    the Septe&ber , =;= Or(er 0hich it sou'ht to re%i%e

    is not the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section >, Rule

    = of the Rules of Court an(, therefore, cannot be the

    sub/ect of such an action$ Moreo%er, the2 ar'ue that the

    CA Decision in the lan( re'istration case shoul( not

    ha%e been re%i%e( as sa&e 0as not pra2e( for in theCo&plaint for Re%i%al of #u('&ent$ Lastl2, petitioners

    assail the SPA 0hich authoriBe( Roberto #r$ to represent

    his &other, eata, (urin' the pre-trial conference, it not

    ha%in' been authenticate( b2 a Philippine consulate

    officer in Cana(a 0here it 0as eecute($ Citin'Lopez v.

    Court of Appeals,4if 5support1ootnotes64

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    29/37

    a(%erse part2s plea(in', the court &a2, on &otion of

    that part2, (irect /u('&ent on the plea(in's$ Also, the

    test for a &otion for su&&ar2 /u('&ent is 0hether the

    plea(in's, affi(a%its or ehibits in support of the &otionare sufficient to o%erco&e the opposin' papers an( to

    /ustif2 a fin(in' as a &atter of la0 that there is no

    (efense to the action or the clai& is clearl2 &eritorious$

    An( since, as foun( b2 the CA, petitioners Ans0er (i(

    not ten(er an issue an( that there is no (efense to the

    action, the 'rant of the Motion for #u('&ent on the

    Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent 0as appropriate$Respon(ents li.e0ise conten( that if their pra2er in the

    Co&plaint is ta.en in its proper contet, it can be

    (e(uce( that 0hat the2 0ere reall2 see.in' is the

    i&ple&entation of the CA Decision (ate( #ul2 )*, =;,Rule = of the Rules of Court an(, )8 the plea(in's of

    the parties an( pertinent portions of the recor(s4if 5

    support1ootnotes6464en(if6 sho0in', a&on' others, 0ho a&on'

    the respon(ents 0ere oppositors to the lan( re'istration

    case, the heirs of such oppositors an( the present

    occupants of the propert2$ Plainl2, these issues coul( be

    rea(il2 resol%e( base( on the facts establishe( b2 theplea(in's$ A full-blo0n trial on these issues 0ill onl2

    entail 0aste of ti&e an( resources as the2 are clearl2 not

    'enuine issues reuirin' presentation of e%i(ence$

    Petitioners a%er that the RTC shoul( not ha%e

    'rante( respon(ents Motion for #u('&ent on the

    Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent because of thecontro%erte( stipulations an( the first three issues

    enu&erate( in the Pre-trial Or(er, 0hich, accor(in' to

    the&, reuire the presentation of e%i(ence$ These

    stipulations an( issues, ho0e%er, 0hen ea&ine(,

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    33/37

    basicall2 boil (o0n to uestions relatin' to the propriet2

    of the action resorte( to b2 respon(ents, 0hich is re%i%al

    of /u('&ent, an( to the proper parties thereto the sa&e

    uestions 0hich 0e ha%e earlier (eclare( as notconstitutin' 'enuine issues$

    !n su&, this Court hol(s that the instant case is

    proper for the ren(ition of a su&&ar2 /u('&ent, hence,

    the CA co&&itte( no error in affir&in' the Ma2 ),

    )++ Or(er of the RTC 'rantin' respon(ents Motion for

    #u('&ent on the Plea(in's an(For Su&&ar2 #u('&ent$

    II. T2e Comp-a*nt +tate+ a )au+e o/ a)t*on.

    Petitioners conten( that the co&plaint states no

    cause of action since the

    Septe&ber , =;= Or(er sou'ht to be re%i%e( is not

    the /u('&ent conte&plate( un(er Section >, Rule = ofthe Rules of Court$ The2 also a%er that the RTC erre(

    0hen it or(ere( the re%i%al not onl2 of the Septe&ber

    , =;= Or(er but also of the #ul2 )*, =;< CA

    Decision, 0hen 0hat 0as pra2e( for in the co&plaint

    0as onl2 the re%i%al of the for&er$

    This Court, ho0e%er, a'rees 0ith respon(ents thatthese &atters ha%e alrea(2 been sufficientl2 a((resse(

    b2 the RTC in its Or(er of Ma2 =, ==34if 5support1ootnotes64

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    34/37

    The bo(2 of the Co&plaint as 0ell as the pra2er &entione(

    about the eecutor2 (ecision of the Court of

    Appeals pro&ul'ate( on #ul2 )*, =;< that ha( to

    be finall2 i&ple&ente($ So it appears to this Court

    that the Co&plaint (oes not alone in%o.e or use assub/ect thereof the Or(er of this Court 0hich 0oul(

    i&ple&ent the (ecision or /u('&ent re'ar(in' the

    lan( in uestion$ The Rules of Court referrin' to the

    eecution of /u('&ent, particularl2 Rule =, Sec$ >,

    pro%i(es a &echanis& b2 0hich the /u('&ent that

    ha( not been enforce( 0ithin fi%e 7

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    35/37

    Anent the SPA, 0e fin( that 'i%en the particular

    circu&stances in the case at bar, an SPA is not e%ennecessar2 such that its efficac2 or the lac. of it 0oul(

    not in an2 0a2 preclu(e the case fro& procee(in'$ This

    is because upon Roberto Sr$s (eath, Roberto #r$, in

    succession of his father, beca&e a co-o0ner of the

    sub/ect propert2 to'ether 0ith his &other, eata$ As a

    co-o0ner, he &a2, b2 hi&self alone, brin' an action for

    the reco%er2 of the co-o0ne( propert2 pursuant to the0ell-settle( principle that in a co-o0nership, co-o0ners

    &a2 brin' actions for the reco%er2 of co-o0ne( propert2

    0ithout the necessit2 of /oinin' all the other co-o0ners

    as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presu&e( to ha%e

    been file( for the benefit of his co-o0ners$4if 5support1ootnotes6

    4

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    36/37

    lan( re'istration case finall2 i&ple&ente( but

    ulti&atel2, to reco%er possession thereof fro&

    petitioners$ This action is therefore one 0hich Roberto

    #r$, as co-o0ner, can brin' an( prosecute alone, on hiso0n behalf an( on behalf of his co-o0ner, eata$ @ence,

    a (is&issal of the case 0ith respect to eata pursuant to

    Sec$ +64en(if6Rule ; of the Rules of Court

    0ill be futile as the case coul( ne%ertheless be continue(

    b2 Roberto #r$ in behalf of the t0o of the&$

    ?9EREFORE, the Petition for Re%ie0 on Certiorariis DENIEDan( the assaile( Decision of the Court of

    Appeals (ate( 1ebruar2 3, )++* an( Resolution (ate(

    April =, )++> in CA-9$R$ C" No$ 3);< are

    AFFIRMED$

    SO ORDERED$

    MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

    Asso$iate Justi$e

    ?E CONCR:

    RENATO C. CORONA

    Chief Justi$e

    Chairperson

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson

    37/37

    TERESITA J. LEONARDO@DE

    CASTROAsso$iate Justi$e

    ARTURO D

    Asso$iate Justi$e

    MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

    Asso$iate Justi$e

    C E R T I F I C A T I O N

    Pursuant to Section , Article "!!! of the Constitution,

    it is hereb2 certifie( that the conclusions in the abo%e

    Decision ha( been reache( in consultation before the

    case 0as assi'ne( to the 0riter of the opinion of the

    Courts Di%ision$

    RENATO C. CORONA

    Chief Justi$e[if !supportFootnotes]