Basbas vs. Sayson

download Basbas vs. Sayson

of 37

Transcript of Basbas vs. Sayson

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court













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


    CORONA, C. J., Cha



    DEL CAST!LLO, and

    Petitioners, "!LLARAMA, #R$,J

    - %ersus-

    BEATA SA&SON and



    Respondents. Au'ust )*, )+

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


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

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

    D E C I S I O N


    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


    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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    !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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    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


    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


    *$ 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


    $ On #ul2 )*, =;

  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    =$ 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


    $ 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


    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


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


    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


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

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


    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


    $ 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


    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


    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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    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


    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' 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


    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


    @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


    !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


    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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


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

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


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

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


    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


    (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


    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


    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


    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




    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


    )$ 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


    $ 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


    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


    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' 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


    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


    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


    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


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson


    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




    Asso$iate Justi$e

    ?E CONCR:


    Chief Justi$e


  • 7/23/2019 Basbas vs. Sayson



    CASTROAsso$iate Justi$e


    Asso$iate Justi$e


    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$


    Chief Justi$e[if !supportFootnotes]