G.R. No. L-48050 FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. No. L-48050, October 10, 1994 ]FELICIDAD JAVIER, PETITIONER, VS. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH I, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBALES AND REINO ROSETE, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NBELLOSILLO, J.:Petitioner Felicidad Javier questions before us the order of a regional trial court citing the final decision of the city court previously dismissing her complaint for forcible entry, and on the basis thereof, dismissed her petition to quiet title on the ground of res judicata. We summon the time-honored remedies accion interdictal, accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion to resolve the issues presented in the petition.It appears that on 25 January 1963, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application for Lot No. 1641, Ts-308 of the Olongapo Townsite Subdivision, Lower Kalaklan, Olongapo City, with the District Land Officer, Bureau of Lands, Olongapo City. Sometime in December 1970, alleging that she was forcibly dispossessed of a portion of the land by a certain Ben Babol, she instituted a complaint for forcible entry before the City Court of Olongapo City, docketed as Civil Case No. 926, stating in pars. 2 and 3 therein that -x x x plaintiff is the true, lawful and in actual, prior physical possession of a certain parcel of land situated at Lower Kalaklan, City of Olongapo, said lot being designated as Lot No. 1641, Ts-308 of the Olongapo Townsite Subdivision since 1961 and up to the present time, until the day and incidents hereinafter narrated x x x x Sometime on December 12, 1970, the defendant, without express consent of plaintiff and without lawful authority, through scheme, strategy and stealth, forcibly entered a portion on the southwestern part of Lot No. 1641, Ts-308, with the assistance of hired helpers, started construction of riprap along the Kalaklan River perimeter of said portion of land; said entry was further augmented by removing plaintiff's chain link, fence with galvanized iron posts embedded in concrete, likewise destroying plants introduced by plaintiff by removing existing BL (Bureau of Lands) monuments thereon, and by these actions, defendant started exercising illegal possession of said portion of land which contains an area of 200 square meters, more or less.[1]On 7 November 1972 the City Court of Olongapo City, Br. 4,[2] dismissed Civil Case No. 926 on the ground that "it appears to the Court that the Bureau of Lands has considered the area in question to be outside Lot 1641 of the plaintiff x x x x"[3] The Decision of the City Court of Olongapo City became final and executory on 30 April 1973 when the then Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Br. 3,[4] dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings and conclusions of the City Court holding that appellant (herein petitioner) failed to give sufficient evidence to prove that the area in question was within the boundaries of Lot No. 1641.[5]Subsequently, on 17 December 1973, petitioner was granted Miscellaneous Sales Patent No. 5548 and issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3259 covering Lot No. 1641. Meanwhile, Ben Babol who was the defendant and appellee in the complaint for forcible entry had sold the property he was occupying, including the portion of about 200 square meters in question, to a certain Reino Rosete. Thus petitioner demanded the surrender of the same area in dispute from Reino Rosete who repeatedly refused to comply with the demand.On 29 June 1977, or after about four (4) years from the finality of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 926, petitioner instituted a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession with damages against Ben Babol and Reino Rosete before the then Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, docketed as Civil Case No. 2203-0, alleging in pars. 2 and 3 therein that -x x x plaintiff is the absolute owner in fee simple of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1641, Ts-308, Olongapo Townsite Subdivision x x x covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-3259, issued by the Register of Deeds for the province of Zambales x x x x Sometime in December, 1970, and until present, defendants, relying on an application filed on December 23, 1969, with the Bureau of Lands, however have squatted, illegally occupied and unlawfully possessed the southwestern portion of plaintiff's above-described property of about 200 square meters, then by defendant BEN BABOL and now by defendant REINO ROSETE, the former having sold the entirety of his property to the latter, including the portion in question x x x x[6]Instead of filing a responsive pleading, therein defendant Reino Rosete (private respondent herein) moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. Defendant Ben Babol did not file any pleading.In its Order dated 27 January 1978,[7] the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, Br. 1,[8] sustained the argument of Rosete and granted his motion to dismiss. Thereafter, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.[9] Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.Petitioner contends that res judicata cannot apply in the instant case since there is no identity of parties and causes of action between her complaint for forcible entry, which had long become final and executory, and her subsequent petition for quieting of title. She argues that private respondent Reino Rosete, who invokes the defense of res judicata, was never impleaded in the forcible entry case, which is an action in personam; neither was he a purchaser pendente lite who, perhaps, could have validly invoked the defense of res judicata. With regard to the cause of action, she maintains that there is no identity of causes of action since the first case was for forcible entry, which is merely concerned with the possession of the property, whereas the subsequent case was for quieting of title, which looks into the ownership of the disputed land.Private respondent however submits that there is identity of parties in the two cases since he is a successor in interest by title of the defendant in the first case after the commencement of the first action. On the issue of identity of causes of action, he simply states that neither of the two cases, i.e., the complaint for forcible entry and the subsequent petition for quieting of title, alleges a cause of action. Thus, private respondent continues, both cases have to be dismissed.Time and again it has been said that for res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action the following requisites must concur: (1) There must be a final judgment or order; (2) The court rendering the judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter; (3) The former judgment is a judgment on the merits; and, (4) There is between the first and second actions identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.[10] The presence of the first three requirements and the identity of subject matter in the fourth requirement are not disputed. Hence, the only issues remaining are whether as between Civil Case No. 926 and Civil Case No. 2203-0 there is identity of parties and of causes of action which would bar the institution of Civil Case No. 2203-0.Petitioner's argument that there is no identity of parties between the two actions is without merit. We have repeatedly ruled that for res judicata to apply, what is required is not absolute but only substantial identity of parties.[11] It is fundamental that the application of res judicata may not be evaded by simply including additional parties in a subsequent litigation. In fact we have said that there is still identity of parties although in the second action there is one party who was not joined in the first action, if it appears that such party is not a necessary party either in the first or second action,[12] or is a mere nominal party.[13] Thus, Sec. 49, par. (b), Rule 39, Rules of Court, provides that "x x x the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity."In the case at bench, it is evident that private respondent Reino Rosete is a successor in interest of Ben Babol by title subsequent to the commencement and termination of the first action. Hence, there is actual, if not substantial, identity of parties between the two actions. But, there is merit in petitioner's argument that there is no identity of causes of action between Civil Case No. 926 and Civil Case No. 2203-0.Civil Case No. 926 is a complaint for forcible entry, where what is at issue is prior possession, regardless of who has lawful title over the disputed property.[14] Thus, "[t]he only issue in an action for forcible entry is the physical or material possession of real property, that is, possession de facto and not possession de jure. The philosophy underlying this remedy is that irrespective of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror."[15] And, a judgment rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only on the question of possession and not on the ownership. It does not in any way bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building.[16]On the other hand, Civil Case No. 2203-0 while inaccurately captioned as an action for "Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession with Damages" is in reality an action to recover a parcel of land or an accion reivindicatoria under Art. 434[17] of the Civil Code, and should be distinguished from Civil Case No. 926, which is an accion interdictal. From the averments of the complaint in Civil Case No. 2203-0, plaintiff therein (petitioner herein) clearly sets up title to herself and prays that respondent Rosete be ejected from the disputed land and that she be declared the owner and given possession thereof. Certainly, the allegations partake of the nature of an accion reivindicatoria.[18]The doctrine in Emilia v. Bado,[19] decided more than twenty-five years ago, is still good law and has preserved the age-old remedies available under existing laws and jurisprudence to recover possession of real property, namely, accion interdictal, which is the summary action for forcible entry (detentacion) where the defendant's possession of the property is illegal ab initio, or the summary action for unlawful detainer (desahuico) where the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess, both of which must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer, in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court;[20] accion publiciana which is a plenary action for recovery of the right to possess and which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year; and, accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion which seeks the recovery of ownership and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought in the proper regional trial court.Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is thus an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.[21] It is different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title.[22]In Civil Case No. 926 petitioner merely claimed a better right or prior possession over the disputed area without asserting title thereto. It should be distinguished from Civil Case No. 2203-0 where she expressly alleged ownership, specifically praying that she be declared the rightful owner and given possession of the disputed portion. Hence, in Civil Case No. 926 petitioner merely alleged that she was "the true, lawful (possessor) and in actual, prior physical possession" of the subject parcel of land, whereas in Civil Case No. 2203-0 she asserted that she was "the absolute owner in fee simple" of the parcel of land "covered by Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. P-3259." The complaint in Civil Case No. 2203-0 definitely raises the question of ownership and clearly gives defendants therein notice of plaintiff's claim of exclusive and absolute ownership, including the right to possess which is an elemental attribute of such ownership. Thus, this Court has ruled that a judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and declares only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right or title of ownership.[23]And, applying the ruling of the Court En Banc in Quimpo v. De la Victoria,[24] even if we treat Civil Case No. 2203-0 as a petition to quiet title, as its caption suggests, still it has a cause of action different from that for ejectment. Consequently, there being no identity of causes of action between Civil Case No. 926 and Civil Case No. 2203-0, the prior complaint for ejectment cannot bar the subsequent action for recovery, or petition to quiet title.WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order dated 27 January 1978 of the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, Br. I, with station in Olongapo City, dismissing Civil Case No. 2203-0, and its subsequent Order denying reconsideration of the dismissal are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the records immediately to the court a quo and the latter to proceed with the trial of Civil Case No. 2203-0 with deliberate dispatch. This decision is immediately executory.SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

411 Phil. 552 FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. No. 84831, June 20, 2001 ]PACENCIO ABEJARON, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ALEJANDRO ABEJARON, PETITIONER, VS. FELIX NABASA AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N*PUNO, J.:With the burgeoning population comes a heightened interest in the limited land resource, especially so if, as in the case at bar, one's home of many years stands on the land in dispute. It comes as no surprise therefore that while this case involves a small parcel of land, a 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 in Silway, General Santos City, the parties have tenaciously litigated over it for more than twenty years.

Petitioner Abejaron filed this petition for review on certiorari to annul the respondent court's Decision dated April 26, 1988 and Resolution dated July 12, 1988 reversing the trial court's decision and declaring respondent Nabasa the owner of the subject lot.

The following facts spurred the present controversy:

Petitioner Abejaron avers that he is the actual and lawful possessor and claimant of a 118-square meter portion of a 175-square meter residential lot in Silway, General Santos City described as "Block 5, Lot 1, Psu-154953, bounded on the North by Road, on the South by Lot 2 of the same Psu, on the East by Felix Nabasa, and on the West by Road."[1] In 1945, petitioner Abejaron and his family started occupying the 118-square meter land. At that time, the land had not yet been surveyed. They fenced the area and built thereon a family home with nipa roofing and a small store. In 1949, petitioner improved their abode to become a two-storey house measuring 16 x 18 feet or 87.78 square meters made of round wood and nipa roofing.[2] This house, which stands to this day, occupies a portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 and a portion of the adjoining Lot 2 of the same Psu. Lot 2 belongs to petitioner's daughter, Conchita Abejaron-Abellon. In 1950, the small store was destroyed and in its stead, petitioner Abejaron built another store which stands up to the present. In 1951, he planted five coconut trees on the property in controversy. Petitioner's wife, Matilde Abejaron, harvested coconuts from these trees.[3] Petitioner Abejaron also planted banana and avocado trees. He also put up a pitcher pump.[4] All this time that the Abejarons introduced these improvements on the land in controversy, respondent Nabasa did not oppose or complain about the improvements.

Knowing that the disputed land was public in character, petitioner declared only his house, and not the disputed land, for taxation purposes in 1950, 1966, 1976, and 1978.[5] The last two declarations state that petitioner Abejaron's house stands on Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Psu 154953.[6] Abejaron paid taxes on the house in 1955, 1966, and 1981.[7]

Petitioner stated that beginning 1955, respondent Nabasa resided on the remaining 57-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953.[8] Nabasa built his house about four (4) meters away from petitioner Abejaron's house. Beatriz Gusila, a neighbor of the Abejarons and the Nabasas confirmed that when she arrived in Silway in 1949, Nabasa was not yet residing there while Abejaron was already living in their house which stands to this day.

Before 1974, employees of the Bureau of Lands surveyed the area in controversy. Abejaron merely watched them do the survey[9] and did not thereafter apply for title of the land on the belief that he could not secure title over it as it was government property.[10] Without his (Abejaron) knowledge and consent, however, Nabasa "clandestinely, willfully, fraudulently, and unlawfully applied for and caused the titling in his name" of the entire Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, including petitioner Abejaron's 118-square meter portion.[11] Petitioner imputes bad faith and fraud on the part of Nabasa because in applying for and causing the titling in his name of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, Nabasa represented himself to be the actual and lawful possessor of the entire Lot 1, Block 5, including petitioner Abejaron's 118-square meter portion despite knowledge of Abejaron's actual occupation and possession of said portion.[12]

On September 24, 1974, Nabasa was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4140 pursuant to Free Patent No. (XI-4) 2877 covering Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953. As the title included petitioner Abejaron's 118-square meter portion of the lot, his son, Alejandro Abejaron, representing Matilde Abejaron (petitioner Abejaron's wife), filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands, Koronadal, South Cotabato against Nabasa's title and application. The protest was dismissed on November 22, 1979 for failure of Matilde and Alejandro to attend the hearings.[13] Alejandro claims, however, that they did not receive notices of the hearings. Alejandro filed a motion for reconsideration dated January 10, 1980. Alejandro also filed a notice of adverse claim on January 14, 1980. Subsequently, he requested the Bureau of Lands to treat the motion as an appeal considering that it was filed within the 60-day reglementary period. The motion for reconsideration was endorsed and forwarded by the District Land Office XI-3 of the Bureau of Lands in Koronadal, Cotabato to the Director of Lands in Manila on November 24, 1981.[14] But because the appeal had not been resolved for a prolonged period for unknown reasons, petitioner Abejaron filed on March 12, 1982 an action for reconveyance with damages against respondent Nabasa before Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.[15] On May 10, 1982, petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens.[16]

Abner Lagsub, geodetic engineer, testified for the petitioner. Lagsub stated that on March 30, 1980, Alejandro Abejaron hired him to relocate Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, the land in controversy. He surveyed the lot measuring 175 square meters. Fifty-seven (57) square meters of Lot 1 and a portion of the adjoining Lot 3 were occupied by Nabasa's house. This portion was fenced partly by hollow blocks and partly by bamboo. On the remaining 118 square meters stood a portion of petitioner Abejaron's house and two coconut trees near it, and his store. Abejaron's 118-square meter portion was separated from Nabasa's 57-square meter part by Abejaron's fence made of hollow blocks. Both Nabasa's and Abejaron's houses appeared more than twenty years old while the coconut trees appeared about 25 years old.

Back in 1971, Lagsub conducted a subdivision survey on Psu-154953. He was then hired by the Silway Neighborhood Association to conduct the survey for purposes of allocating lots to the members of the association, among whom were respondent Nabasa and petitioner Abejaron. When the 1971 survey was conducted, both the Abejarons and Nabasa were already occupying their respective 118 and 57 square meter portions of Lot 1, Block 5. Nabasa and Matilde Abejaron, representative of petitioner, were present during the survey.[17]

Respondent Nabasa had a different story to tell. He contends that he had been residing on a 12 x 15 meter or 180-square meter public land in Silway, General Santos City since 1945. He admits that petitioner Abejaron was already residing in Silway when he arrived there. Nabasa constructed a house which stands to this day and planted five coconut trees on this 180-square meter land, but only two of the trees survived. Nabasa never harvested coconuts from these trees as petitioner Abejaron claims to own them and harvests the coconuts. In many parts of respondent Nabasa's testimony, however, he declared that he started occupying the 180-square meter area in 1976.[18]

Nabasa avers that previously, he and petitioner Abejaron were in possession of portions of Lot 2, Psu-154953. This lot was subsequently surveyed and divided into smaller lots with the area of petitioner Abejaron designated as Lot 2, Block 5, Psu-154953 measuring one hundred eighty (180) square meters, while his was designated as Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 with an area of one hundred seventy five (175) square meters.

Instead of applying for free patent over his Lot 2, petitioner Abejaron gave this lot to his daughter Conchita Abejaron-Abellon and allowed her to file the application with the District Land Office XI-4, Bureau of Lands, Koronadal, South Cotabato. Conchita secured Free Patent No. (XI-4)-3293 over Lot 2. Pursuant to this, she was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4420. On April 27, 1981, Conchita's title was transcribed in the Registration Book of General Santos City.

Respondent Nabasa, on the other hand, filed an application for Free Patent over Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 with the District Land Office No. XI-4, Bureau of Lands, Koronadal, South Cotabato. While the application was pending, petitioner Abejaron forcibly encroached upon the northern and southwestern portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-159543. Abejaron fenced the disputed 118-square meter portion of Lot 1 and despite Nabasa's opposition, constructed a store near the road. Petitioner Abejaron then transferred his old house constructed on Lot 2, Block 5, Psu-154953 to a portion of the disputed 118-square meter area. Petitioner's daughter, Conchita, patentee and title holder of Lot 2, constructed her own house in Lot 2.

Free Patent No. (XI-4)-2877, covering Lot 1, Block 5, was issued to respondent Nabasa on September 24, 1974. But before the patent could be transcribed on the Registration Book of the Registrar of Deeds of General Santos City, the District Land Officer of District Land Office No. XI-4 recalled it for investigation of an administrative protest filed by the petitioner.[19] The protest was given due course, but petitioner Abejaron or his representative failed to appear in the hearings despite notice.

On November 22, 1979, the administrative protest was dismissed by the District Land Officer for failure of petitioner Abejaron or his representative to appear in the hearings despite notice.[20] Respondent Nabasa's Free Patent No. (XI-4)-2877 was then re-transmitted by the District Land Officer of District Land Office XI-4 to the Register of Deeds, General Santos City, and the same was transcribed in the Registration Book of the Registry of Property of General Santos City on December 13, 1979. Original Certificate of Title No. P-4140, covering Lot 1, Block 2, Psu-154953, was issued to respondent Nabasa.[21]

On March 12, 1982, petitioner Abejaron filed against respondent Nabasa an action for reconveyance with damages seeking reconveyance of his 118-square meter portion of Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953.

During the trial, respondent Nabasa presented Abundio Guiral, his neighbor who had been living since 1945 in Lot 3, Block 5, Psu-154953, adjoining Nabasa's Lot 1. He testified that when he arrived in Silway, petitioner Abejaron was already living there. Four months after, Nabasa started residing in the area. Nabasa constructed a house, planted coconut trees, and fenced his 12 x 15 meter area. Abejaron's house in 1945 is still the same house he lives in at present, but in 1977, it was jacked up and transferred from Lot 2 to Lot 1, Block 5. Nabasa tried to prevent the transfer to no avail. The house was then extended towards Lot 2.[22]

On rebuttal, petitioner Abejaron presented two neighbors. One of them, Alejandra Doria, started living in Silway in 1947. She testified that when she arrived in the neighborhood, Abejaron's fence as it now stands between the 57-square meter portion occupied by Nabasa's house and the 118-square meter area claimed by petitioner Abejaron was already there.[23] The other neighbor, Pacencia Artigo, also started living in Silway in 1947. She declared that the house of the Abejarons stands now where it stood in 1947. She also testified that the Abejarons previously had a store smaller than their present store.[24]

On September 27, 1985, after trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioner Abejaron, viz:"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this court hereby renders judgment as follows:

1. Declaring the possession and occupancy of Pacencio Abejaron over 118 square meters of Lot No. 1, Block 5, Psu-154953 in good faith and thereby declaring the inclusion of 118 square meters of said lot in OCT No. P-4140 erroneous and a mistake, and for which, defendant Felix Nabasa is hereby ordered to reconvey and execute a registerable document in favor of plaintiff Pacencio Abejaron, Filipino, married and a resident of Silway, General Santos City, his heirs, successors and assigns over an area of one hundred eighteen (118) square meters of Lot No. 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, situated at Silway, General Santos City, on the Western portion of said lot as shown in the sketch plan, Exhibit "R", and the remaining portion of 57 square meters of said lot to be retained by defendant Felix Nabasa;

2) Should Felix Nabasa fails (sic) to do so, upon the finality of this judgment, the Clerk of Court shall executed (sic) it in the name of Felix Nabasa, widower, and will have the same effect as if executed by the latter and the Register of Deeds, General Santos City, is hereby directed to issue New Transfer Certificate of Title to Alejandro Abejaron over 118 square meters of Lot No. 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, and New Transfer Certificate of Title over 57 square meters of same Lot No. 1, Block 5, Psu-154953, in favor of Felix Nabasa, and ultimately to have OCT No. P-4140 of Felix Nabasa cancelled accordingly."

Respondent Nabasa's motion for reconsideration having been denied, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. On April 26, 1988, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of respondent Nabasa, viz:". . . the only basis for reconveyance is actual fraud. In this case, Abejaron failed to substantiate the existence of actual fraud. . . There was no proof of irregularity in the issuance of title nor in the proceedings incident thereto nor was there a claim that fraud intervened in the issuance of the title, thus, the title has become indefeasible (Frias v. Esquival, 67 SCRA 487). Abejaron was not able to establish his allegation that Nabasa misrepresented his status of possession in his application for the title. . . In fact, in Abejaron's answer to Nabasa's counterclaim, he said that Nabasa has been occupying the area since 1950.

Contrary to the finding of the court a quo, the Bureau of Lands conducted an ocular inspection before the title was issued. This was confirmed by Abejaron himself (tsn, January 19, 1984).

xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered declaring Felix Nabasa as the owner of the lot covered by O.C.T. No. P-4140. Costs against plaintif-appellee.

SO ORDERED."

Petitioner Abejaron filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision. On July 22, 1988, the Court of Appeals rendered a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari with the following assignment of errors:"I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT ACTUAL FRAUD WAS COMMITTED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND PROVEN BY THE PETITIONER AND SUSTAINED BY THE TRIAL COURT WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT PROCURED THE TITLE IN HIS NAME OF THE AREA OF THE LOT IN QUESTION, LOT 1, BLOCK 5, LOCATED AT SILWAY, DADIANGAS, GENERAL SANTOS CITY.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE LOT WHICH BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER IS LOT 2 OF THE SAME BLOCK AND PSU, AND THAT THE PETITIONER FORCIBLY ENTERED INTO LOT 1 OF THE SAME BLOCK AND PSU, AND FORCIBLY TRANSFERRED HIS OLD HOUSE FROM LOT 2 TO LOT 1 IS BASED ONLY ON THE SELF-SERVING ALLEGATIONS OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COMPETENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAS A CLEAR RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN IN ACTUAL AND LAWFUL POSSESSION FOR SO MANY YEARS AND A CLAIMANT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION."

We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

An action for reconveyance of a property is the sole remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name after one year from the date of the decree so long as the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value.[25] The action does not seek to reopen the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration but only purports to show that the person who secured the registration of the property in controversy is not the real owner thereof.[26] Fraud is a ground for reconveyance. For an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, it is essential for the party seeking reconveyance to prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.[27]

Petitioner Abejaron does not claim to own Lot 1, Block 5, Psu-154953. He in fact admits that he believed the land in dispute was public in character, thus he did not declare it for taxation purposes despite possession of it for a long time. Neither did he apply for title over it on the mistaken belief that he could not apply for title of a public land. In his Complaint, he stated that respondent Nabasa's fraudulent procurement of Free Patent No. (XI-4)-2877 and OCT No. P-4140 over the disputed land deprived him not of ownership, but of his "right to file the necessary application thereon with the authorities concerned"[28] as long-time possessor of the land.

Nonetheless, petitioner contends that an action for reconveyance is proper, viz:". . . for an action of reconveyance of a parcel of land to prosper, it is not necessary that the proponent be the absolute owner thereof. It is enough that the proponent has an equitable right thereon. In the case at bar, the plaintiff had been in lawful, open, continuous and notorious possession, occupation and control in the concept of an owner of a greater portion of the subject lot since 1945 and have (sic) thereby acquired an equitable right thereon protected by law. Possession of public lands once occupation of the same is proven, as the herein plaintiff did, under claim of ownership constitutes a grant from the state (Republic vs. Vera, 120 SCRA 210). A portion of the public land ceased to be public as soon as its claimant had performed all the conditions essential to a grant (Republic vs. Villanueva, 114 SCRA 875)."[29]

Petitioner's contention, buttressed by the Vera case and Chief Justice Teehankee's dissent in the Villanueva case, is similar to the position taken by the plaintiff in Mesina v. Vda. de Sonza, et al.[30] In that case, plaintiff filed in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija an action for cancellation of the original certificate of title procured by the defendant by virtue of a homestead patent. The title covered a public land which she claimed to own through public, open, and peaceful possession for more than thirty years. The law applicable in that case, which petitioner Abejaron apparently relies on in the case at bar, is Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141 or the Public Land Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 1942, which took effect on June 22, 1957, viz:"Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act (now Property Registration Decree), to wit:

xxx

(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this Chapter." (emphasis supplied)

Citing Susi v. Razon,[31] the Court interpreted this law, viz:". . . where all the necessary requirements for a grant by the Government are complied with through actual physical possession openly, continuously, and publicly with a right to a certificate of title to said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of Act No. 2874, amending Act No. 926 (carried over as Chapter VIII of Commonwealth Act No. 141), the possessor is deemed to have already acquired by operation of law not only a right to a grant, but a grant of the Government, for it is not necessary that a certificate of title be issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts -an application therefor being sufficient under the provisions of Section 47 of Act No. 2874 (reproduced as Section 50, Commonwealth Act No. 141). If by a legal fiction, Valentin Susi had acquired the land in question by grant of the State, it had already ceased to be of the public domain and had become private property, at least by presumption, of Valentin Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands. (Italics supplied)"

The Mesina and Susi cases were cited in Herico v. Dar,[32] another action for cancellation of title issued pursuant to a free patent. Again, the Court ruled that under Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1942, with the plaintiff's proof of occupation and cultivation for more than 30 years since 1914, by himself and by his predecessor-in-interest, title over the land had vested in him as to segregate the land from the mass of public land. Thenceforth, the land was no longer disposable under the Public Land Act by free patent.[33] The Court held, viz:"As interpreted in several cases (Susi v. Razon, et al., 48 Phil. 424; Mesina v. Pineda Vda. de Sonza, G.R. No. L-14722, May 25, 1960) when the conditions as specified in the foregoing provision are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a grant, a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The land, therefore, ceases to be of public domain, and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is a mere formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the strength of said patent."[34]

In citing Republic v. Villanueva, et al.,[35] petitioner Abejaron relied on the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Teehankee. However, the en banc majority opinion in that case and in Manila Electric Company v. Bartolome,[36] departed from the doctrines enunciated in the Susi, Mesina, and Herico cases. Citing Uy Un v. Perez.[37] the Court ruled that "the right of an occupant of public agricultural land to obtain a confirmation of his title under Sec. 48(b) of Com. Act. No. 141, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1942, is 'derecho dominical incoativo' and that before the issuance of the certificate of title the occupant is not in the juridical sense the true owner of the land since it still pertains to the State."[38]

The Court pointed out that the Villanueva and Meralco cases are different from the oft-cited Susi case as the latter involved a parcel of land possessed by a Filipino citizen since time immemorial, while the land in dispute in the Villanueva and Meralco cases were sought to be titled by virtue of Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended. In explaining the nature of land possessed since time immemorial, the Court quoted Oh Cho v. Director of Lands,[39] viz:"All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An exception to the rule would be any land that should have been in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors-in-interest since time immemorial, for such possession would justify the presumption that the land had never been part of the public domain or that it had been a private property even before the Spanish conquest."

In 1986, however, in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,[40] this Court en banc recognized the strong dissent registered by Chief Justice Teehankee in the Villanueva case and abandoned the Villanueva and Meralco ruling to revert to the Susi doctrine. Reiterating the Susi and Herico cases, the Court ruled:"Nothing can more clearly demonstrate the logical inevitability of considering possession of public land which is of character and duration prescribed by statute as the equivalent of express grant from the State than the dictum of the statute itself [Sec. 48(b)] that the possessor(s) 'x x x shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title x x x.' No proof being admissible to overcome a conclusive presumption, confirmation proceedings would, in truth be little more than a formality, at the most limited to ascertaining whether the possession claimed is of the required character and length of time; and registration thereunder would not confer title, but simply recognize a title already vested. The proceedings would not originally convert the land from public to private land, but only confirm such a conversion already effected by operation of law from the moment the required period of possession became complete."[41] (Emphasis supplied)

This is the prevailing rule as reiterated in the more recent case of Rural Bank of Compostela v. Court of Appeals, a ponencia of now Chief Justice Davide, Jr.,[42] viz:"The rule under the latter (Section 48[b] of the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. No. 1942), is that when the conditions specified therein are complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a right to a government grant, without necessity of a certificate of title being issued, and the land ceases to be part of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands."[43]

The question brought to the fore, therefore, is whether or not petitioner Abejaron has satisfied the conditions specified in Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. No. 1942. Sec. 48(b) has been further amended by P.D. No. 1073 which took effect on January 25, 1977. Sec. 4 of the P.D. reads as follows:"Sec. 4. The provision of Section 48(b) and Section 48(c), Chapter VIII, of the Public Land Act, are hereby amended in the sense that these provisions shall apply only to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain which have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation by the applicant himself or thru his predecessor-in-interest, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945."

Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as further amended by P.D. No. 1073, now reads:"(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by wars or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter." (Italics ours)[44]

However, as petitioner Abejaron's 30-year period of possession and occupation required by the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 1942 ran from 1945 to 1975, prior to the effectivity of P.D. No. 1073 in 1977, the requirement of said P.D. that occupation and possession should have started on June 12, 1945 or earlier, does not apply to him. As the Susi doctrine holds that the grant of title by virtue of Sec. 48(b) takes place by operation of law, then upon Abejaron's satisfaction of the requirements of this law, he would have already gained title over the disputed land in 1975. This follows the doctrine laid down in Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.,[45] that the law cannot impair vested rights such as a land grant. More clearly stated, "Filipino citizens who by themselves or their predecessors-in-interest have been, prior to the effectivity of P.D. 1073 on January 25, 1977, in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years, or at least since January 24, 1947" may apply for judicial confirmation of their imperfect or incomplete title under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act.[46]

Having laid down the law applicable to the case at bar, i.e., Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 1942, we now determine whether or not petitioner has acquired title over the disputed land. In doing so, it is necessary for this Court to wade through the evidence on record to ascertain whether petitioner has been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the 118-square meter disputed land for 30 years at least since January 24, 1947. It is axiomatic that findings of fact by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court, which will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal unless these findings are not supported by evidence or unless strong and cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[47] One instance when findings of fact of the appellate court may be reviewed by this Court is when, as in the case at bar, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory.[48]

Petitioner claims that he started occupying the disputed land in 1945. At that time, he built a nipa house, a small store, and a fence made of wood to delineate his area. This nipa house was improved in 1949 into a two-storey house. The small store was also made bigger in 1950. The wooden fence was also changed to a fence made of hollow blocks. The two-storey house, bigger store, and hollow-block fence all stand to this day. In 1951, petitioner planted coconut trees near his house. While the petitioner has shown continued existence of these improvements on the disputed land, they were introduced later than January 24, 1947. He has failed to establish the portion of the disputed land that his original nipa house, small store and wooden fence actually occupied as of January 24, 1947. In the absence of this proof, we cannot determine the land he actually possessed and occupied for thirty years which he may acquire under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act. Worthy of notice is the fact that the disputed land was surveyed, subdivided into and identified by lots only in the 1970's. Therefore, prior to the survey, it would be difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the land petitioner claims to have occupied since 1947 in the absence of specific and incontrovertible proof.

The neighbors presented by the petitioner, namely Alejandra Doria, Pacencia Artigo, and Beatriz Gusila, could not also further his cause as both Doria and Artigo stated that they started residing in Silway in 1947, without specifying whether it was on or prior to January 24, 1947, while Gusila arrived in the neighborhood in 1949. While Doria testified that there was a fence between Abejaron's and Nabasa's houses in 1947, she did not state that Abejaron's 118-square meter area was enclosed by a fence which stands to this day. This is confirmed by Geodetic Engineer Lagsub's 1984 survey plan which shows that a fence stands only on one side of the 118-square meter area, the side adjacent to Nabasa's 57-square meter portion. Again, this poses the problem of determining the area actually occupied and possessed by Abejaron at least since January 24, 1947.

Finally, as admitted by the petitioner, he has never declared the disputed land for taxation purposes. While tax receipts and tax declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they become strong evidence of ownership acquired by prescription when accompanied by proof of actual possession of the property or supported by other effective proof.[49] Even the tax declarations and receipts covering his house do not bolster his case as the earliest of these was dated 1950.

Petitioner's evidence does not constitute the "well-nigh incontrovertible" evidence necessary to acquire title through possession and occupation of the disputed land at least since January 24, 1947 as required by Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by R.A. 1942. The basic presumption is that lands of whatever classification belong to the State and evidence of a land grant must be "well-nigh incontrovertible."[50] As petitioner Abejaron has not adduced any evidence of title to the land in controversy, whether by judicial confirmation of title, or homestead, sale, or free patent, he cannot maintain an action for reconveyance.

In De La Pea v. Court of Appeals and Herodito Tan,[51] the petitioner filed an action for reconveyance, claiming preferential right to acquire ownership over a 3/4 hectare of land and imputing fraud and misrepresentation to respondent in securing a free patent and original certificate of title over the land in controversy. The action for reconveyance was dismissed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. This Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, viz:"It is well-settled that reconveyance is a remedy granted only to the owner of the property alleged to be erroneously titled in another's name. (Tomas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79328, 21 May 1990, 185 SCRA 627, 633; Esconde v. Barlongay, G.R. No. 67583, 31 July 1987, 152 SCRA 603, 611; Nebrada v. Heirs of Alivio, et al., 104 Phil. 126 [1958]; Director of Lands v. Register of Deeds of Rizal, 92 Phil. 826 [1953]; Azurin v. Quitoriano, et al., 81 Phil. 261 [1948]). In the case at bench, petitioner does not claim to be the owner of the disputed portion. Admittedly, what he has is only a "preferential right" to acquire ownership thereof by virtue of his actual possession since January 1947. . . Title to alienable public lands can be established through open, continuous, and exclusive possession for at least thirty (30) years. . . Not being the owner, petitioner cannot maintain the present suit.

Persons who have not obtained title to public lands could not question the titles legally issued by the State. (Reyes v. Rodriguez, 62 Phil. 771, 776 [1936]) In such cases, the real party in interest is the Republic of the Philippines to whom the property would revert if it is ever established, after appropriate proceedings, that the free patent issued to the grantee is indeed vulnerable to annulment on the ground that the grantee failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the law. (See Sec. 101 of C.A. 141 [Public Land Act]; Lucas v. Durian, 102 Phil. 1157, 1158 [1957]; Sumail v. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, et al., 96 Phil. 946, 953 [1955]). Not being an applicant, much less a grantee, petitioner cannot ask for reconveyance." (emphasis supplied)[52]

In the more recent case of Tankiko, et al. v. Cezar, et al.,[53] plaintiffs filed an action for reconveyance claiming that they were the actual occupants and residents of a 126,112-square meter land which was titled to another person. The trial court dismissed the action, but the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. Despite the appellate court's finding that plaintiffs had no personality to file the action for reconveyance, the disputed land being part of the public domain, it exercised equity jurisdiction to avoid leaving unresolved the matter of possession of the land in dispute. On appeal to this Court, we reinstated the decision of the trial court and dismissed the action for reconveyance, viz:". . . equity is invoked only when the plaintiff, on the basis of the action filed and relief sought, has a clear right that he seeks to enforce, or that would obviously be violated if the action filed were to be dismissed for lack of standing. In the present case, respondents have no clear enforceable right, since their claim over the land in question is merely inchoate and uncertain. Admitting that they are only applicants for sales patents on the land, they are not and they do not even claim to be owners thereof.

Second, it is evident that respondents are not the real parties in interest. Because they admit that they are not the owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, it is daylight clear that the land is public in character and that it should revert to the State. This being the case, Section 101 of the Public Land Act categorically declares that only the government may institute an action for reconveyance of ownership of a public land. . .

x x x

In the present dispute, only the State can file a suit for reconveyance of a public land. Therefore, not being the owners of the land but mere applicants for sales patents thereon, respondents have no personality to file the suit. Neither will they be directly affected by the judgment in such suit.

x x x

Clearly, a suit filed by a person who is not a party in interest must be dismissed. Thus, in Lucas v. Durian, 102 Phil. 1157, September 23, 1957, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a Complaint filed by a party who alleged that the patent was obtained by fraudulent means and consequently, prayed for the annulment of said patent and the cancellation of a certificate of title. The Court declared that the proper party to bring the action was the government, to which the property would revert."[54]

Similarly, as petitioner Abejaron has failed to show his title to the disputed land, he is not the proper party to file an action for reconveyance that would result in the reversion of the land to the government. It is the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, who is by law mandated to institute an action for reversion.[55] He has the specific power and function to "represent the Government in all land registration and related proceedings" and to "institute actions for the reversion to the Government of lands of the public domain and improvements thereon as well as lands held in violation of the Constitution."[56] Since respondent Nabasa's Free Patent and Original Certificate of Title originated from a grant by the government, their cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.[57]

Having resolved that petitioner Abejaron does not have legal standing to sue and is not the real party in interest, we deem it unnecessary to resolve the question of fraud and the other issues raised in the petition. These shall be timely for adjudication if a proper suit is filed by the Solicitor General in the future.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the impugned decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 2492 before the Regional Trial Court of South Cotabato, Branch 1, is DISMISSED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE CORRECT CASE (312 SCRA 180)371 Phil. 107 FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999 ]JOSE MA. T. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. LUISITO & MA. LUISA MAGPAYO AND PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NPUNO, J.:This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44707 entitled "Jose Ma. T. Garcia, Plaintiff-Appellee versus Spouses Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo and Sheriff of Makati, Defendants, Philippine Bank of Communications, Defendant-Appellant".[1]

The facts are as succinctly summarized by the appellate court, viz:"Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, in whose name TCT No. S-31269 covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 17 situated at Bel Air II Village, Makati, was registered, sold with the consent of his wife Remedios T. Garcia, the same to their daughter Ma. Luisa Magpayo and her husband Luisito Magpayo (the Magpayos).

"On March 5, 1981, the Magpayos mortgaged the land to the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to secure a loan, Five Hundred Sixty Four Thousand (P564,000.00) Pesos according to them, One Million Two Hundred Thousand (P1,200,000.00) Pesos according to PBCom.

"On March 9, 1981, Atty. Garcia's Title was cancelled and in its stead Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-108412/545 was issued in the name of the Magpayos.

"The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was registered at the Makati Register of Deeds and annotated on the Magpayos title.

"The Magpayos failed to pay their loan upon its maturity, hence, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and at the public auction sale, PBCom which was the highest bidder bought the land.

"The redemption period of the foreclosed mortgage expired without the Magpayos redeeming the same, hence, title over the land was consolidated in favor of PBCom which cancelled the Magpayo's title and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 138233 was issued in its name.

"On October 4, 1985, the Magpayos filed at the RTC of Makati a complaint seeking the nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, public auction sale, and PBCom's title docketed as Civil Case No. 11891. This complaint was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

"On October 15, 1985, PBCom filed at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land, docketed as LRC Case No. M-731, which Branch 148 thereof granted.

"Upon service of the writ of possession, Mrs. Magpayo's brother, Jose Ma. T. Garcia (Garcia), who was in possession of the land, refused to honor it and filed a motion for Intervention in the above-said PBCom petition, which motion was denied.

"Garcia thereupon filed against PBCom, the Magpayos, and the RTC Sheriff the instant suit for recovery of realty and damages wherein he alleged, inter alia, that he inherited the land as one of the heirs of his mother Remedios T. Garcia, and that PBCom acquired no right thereover.

"In its answer, PBCom averred, inter alia, that Garcia's claim over the land is belied by the fact that it is not among the properties owned by his mother listed in the Inventory of Real Estate filed at the then CFI of Pasay City, Branch 27, in SP Proc. No. 2917-P, "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Remedios T. Garcia Petition for Letters of Administration, Pedro V. Garcia Petitioner-Administrator".

"The Magpayos, on the other hand, asserted that title over the land was transferred to them by Mrs. Magpayo's parents to enable them (Magpayos) to borrow from PBCom.

"Garcia filed a Motion for Summary Judgment praying that judgment be rendered in his favor to which PBCom counter-motioned that judgment should be rendered in its favor.

"The court a quo denied the motion for summary judgment on the ground that PBCom raised in its answer both factual and legal issues which could only be ventilated in a full-blown trial.

"The court a quo, however, later issued a summary judgment."[2]In its summary judgment, the lower court held that the mortgage executed by the Magpayo spouses in favor of PBCom was void. It found that:"x x x [A]t the time that the defendants Magpayo spouses executed the mortgage in favor of the defendant PBCom on March 5, 1981, the said spouses were not yet the owners of the property. This finding is evident from the other undisputed fact that a new Torrens title was issued to the defendants Magpayo spouses only on March 9, 1981 x x x. The Magpayo spouses could not have acquired the said property merely by the execution of the Deed of Sale because the property was in the possession of the plaintiff. The vendor, Pedro V. Garcia, was not in possession and hence could not deliver the property merely by the execution of the document (MANALILI V. CESAR, 39 PHIL. 134). The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the said mortgage is null and void for lack of one of the essential elements of a mortgage as required by Art. 2085 of our Civil Code x x x."[3]Thus, it invalidated the foreclosure sale and nullified TCT No. 138233 issued to PBCom. Dissatisfied, PBCom appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held:"(P)laintiff-appellee's assertion that ownership over the disputed property was not transmitted to his sister and her husband-Magpayo spouses at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale as he was still in actual and adverse possession thereof does not lie.

"For in his complaint, plaintiff-appellee alleged that he entered into possession of the disputed property only upon the demise of his mother, from whom he alleges to have inherited it but who was not the registered owner of the property, that is, on October 31, 1980 (Certificate of Death, p. 17, Records), by which admission he is bound. Since the execution of the deed of sale by Atty. Pedro V. Garcia in favor of the Magpayos took place earlier or on August 1, 1980, then contrary to his claim, plaintiff-appellee was not in possession of the property at the time of the execution of said public instrument.

"Furthermore, it appearing that the vendor Atty. Garcia had control of the property which was registered in his name and that the deed of sale was likewise registered, then the sale was consummated and the Magpayos were free to exercise the attributes of ownership including the right to mortgage the land.

"`When the land is registered in the vendor's name, and the public instrument of sale is also registered, the sale may be considered consummated and the buyer may exercise the actions of an owner (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 1992 Ed., p. 55).'

"That the Magpayos' title, TCT No. S-108412, was issued four (4) days following the execution of the deed of real estate mortgage is of no moment, for registration under the Torrens system does not vest ownership but is intended merely to confirm and register the title which one may already have on the land (Municipality of Victorias v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 32, 44-45 [1987])."Petitioner Garcia moved for a reconsideration of the above decision which was denied. He now comes before us raising the following errors committed by the Court of Appeals:IThe respondent Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted and usual course of proceedings when it decided the appeal subject of this case based on issues which were raised neither in the trial court nor in the appellant's brief.II

The Court of Appeals decided the appeal in a manner not in accord with applicable jurisprudence when it disregarded the admissions of the private respondents and, despite ruling that Summary Judgment was proper, made its own findings of facts which were contrary to the said admissions.III

The Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals was not in accord with established jurisprudence and even contradicts itself, as far as the issue of the propriety of the Summary Judgment is concerned.The petition has no merit.

Anent the first assignment of error, petitioner alleged that the Court of Appeals resolved the issues of "ownership" and "possession" though they were not raised by PBCom in its appellant's brief. The allegation is belied by page 17 of PBCom's appellate brief, viz:"Due to the wrong cited case, the trial court opined erroneously that `Magpayo Spouses could not have acquired the property merely by the execution of the deed of sale because the property was in the possession of the plaintiff' (Order, p. 10).

"Again, the trial court could not distinguish ownership from possession. Ownership and possession are two entirely different legal concepts.

"Plaintiff-appellee's possession as found by the trial court, started only `at the time of the filing of the complaint in this present case up to the present.' (page 2, Summary Judgment).

"Assuming that to be true, plaintiff-appellee's possession which started only in 1986 could not ripen into ownership. He has no valid title thereto. His possession in fact was that of an intruder, one done in bad faith (to defeat PBCom's Writ of Possession). His possession is certainly not in the concept of an owner. This is so because as early as 1981, title thereto was registered in the name of the Magpayo Spouses which title was subsequently cancelled when the property was purchased by PBCom in a public auction sale resulting in the issuance of title in favor of the latter in 1985."Anent the second assignment of error, petitioner contends that the following facts were admitted by the parties in the trial court:"1. The petitioner is a compulsory heir of the late spouses Atty. Pedro V. Garcia and Remedios Tablan Garcia;

"2. The property subject of this dispute was previously the conjugal property of the said spouses;

"3. The petitioner and his family have been and are continuously to the present in actual physical possession of the property. At the time of the alleged sale to the Magpayo spouses, petitioner was in possession of the property;

"4. When his mother Remedios Tablan (sic) Garcia died, sometime in October, 1980, he became, by operation of law, a co-owner of the property;

"5. Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, at the time of the execution of the instrument in favor of the Magpayo spouses was not in possession of the subject property."[4]We reject the contention of petitioner for a perusal of the records shows that these alleged admitted facts are his own paraphrased portions of the findings of fact listed by the trial court in the summary judgment.[5] Indeed, petitioner did not cite any page number of the records or refer to any documentary Exhibit to prove how and who admitted the said facts.

Petitioner's third assignment of error that he alone as plaintiff in the trial court is entitled to summary judgment merits scant attention. A summary judgment is one granted by the court, upon motion by either party, for an expeditious settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no important questions or issues of fact are involved (except the determination of the amount of damages) and that therefore the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.[6] Under Rule 34, either party may move for a summary judgment - the claimant by virtue of Section 1 and the defending party by virtue of Section 2, viz:"Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. - A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counter-claim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.

"Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. - A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof."It is true that petitioner made the initial move for summary judgment. Nonetheless, PBCom likewise moved for a summary judgment with supporting affidavit and documentary exhibits, to wit:"COUNTER-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT"

"PBCom Is Entitled To A Summary Judgment"

"The procedure for summary judgment may be availed of also by the defending parties who may be the object of unfounded claims as clearly shown in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 34."

x x x.

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to render summary judgment in PBCom's favor by DISMISSING plaintiff's Complaint as well as Sps. Magpayo's Cross-Claim for being sham and frivolous."[7]Needless to state, there was no error on the part of the appellate court in resorting to summary judgment as prayed for by both parties.

We stress again that possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others.[8] Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale.[9] Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses. On the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.[10] Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder.[11] "A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so."[12] On the other hand, "one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong."[13] The records show that petitioner occupied the property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his parents. We held in Caniza v. Court of Appeals[14] that an owner's act of allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free does not create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latter's favor. Consequently, it is of no moment that petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a hindrance to a valid transfer of ownership. On the other hand, petitioner's subsequent claim of ownership as successor to his mother's share in the conjugal asset is belied by the fact that the property was not included in the inventory of the estate submitted by his father to the intestate court. This buttresses the ruling that indeed the property was no longer considered owned by petitioner's parents. We also uphold the Court of Appeals in holding that the mortgage to PBCom by the Magpayo spouses is valid notwithstanding that the transfer certificate of title over the property was issued to them after the mortgage contract was entered into. Registration does not confer ownership, it is merely evidence of such ownership over a particular property.[15] The deed of sale operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the property sold and authorizes the buyer to use the document as proof of ownership.[16] All said, the Magpayo spouses were already the owners when they mortgaged the property to PBCom.[17]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44707 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

56 Phil. 117 [ G. R. No. 35223, September 17, 1931 ]THE BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, INTERVENOR AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O NROMUALDEZ, J.:This proceeding originated in a complaint filed by the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., against the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., for the delivery of the amount of P13,850 or promissory notes or other instruments of credit for that sum payable on June 30, 1930, as bonus in favor of Mariano Lacson Ledesma; the complaint further prays that the sugar central be ordered to render an accounting of the amounts it owes Mariano Lacson Ledesma by way of bonus, dividends, or otherwise, and to pay the plaintiff a sum sufficient to satisfy the judgment mentioned in the complaint, and that the sale made by said Mariano Lacson Ledesma be declared null and void.

The Philippine National Bank filed a third party claim alleging a preferential right to receive any amount which Mariano Lacson Ledesma might be entitled to from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co. as bonus, because that would be civil fruits of the land mortgaged to said bank by said debtor for the benefit of the central referred to, and by virtue of a deed of assignment, and praying that said central be ordered to deliver directly to the intervening bank said sum on account of the latter's credit against the aforesaid Mariano Lacson Ledesma.

The corporation Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., answered the complaint stating that of Mariano Lacson Ledesma's credit, P7,500 belonged to Cesar Ledesma because he had purchased it, and praying that it be absolved from the com- plaint and that the proper party be named so that the remainder might be delivered.

Cesar Ledesma, in turn, claiming to be the owner by purchase in good faith and for a consideration of the P7,500 which is a part of the credit referred to above, answered praying that he be absolved from the complaint.

The plaintiff Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., answered the third party claim alleging that its credit against Mariano Lacson Ledesma was prior and preferential to that of the intervening bank, and praying that the latter's complaint be dismissed.

At the trial all the parties agreed to recognize and respect the sale made in favor of Cesar Ledesma of the P7,500 part of the credit in question, for which reason the trial court dismissed the complaint and cross-complaint against Cesar Ledesma authorizing the defendant central to deliver to him the aforementioned sum of P7,500. And upon conclusion of the hearing, the 'court held that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., had a preferred right to receive the amount of P11,076.02 which was Mariano Lacson Ledesma's bonus, and it ordered the defendant central to deliver said sum to the plaintiff.

The Philippine National Bank appeals, assigning the following alleged errors as committed by the trial court:

1. In holding that the bonus which the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., bound itself to pay the planters who had mortgaged their land to the Philippine National Bank to secure the payment of the debt of said central to said bank is not civil fruits of said land.2. In not holding that said bonus became subject to the mortgage executed by the defendant Mariano Lacson Ledesma to the Philippine National Bank to secure the payment of his personal debt to said bank when it fell due.3. In holding that the assignment (Exhibit 9, P. N. B.) of said bonus made on March 7, 1930, by Mariano Lacson Ledesma to the Philippine National Bank to be applied to the payment of his debt to said Philippine National Bank is fraudulent.4. In holding that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., in civil case No. 31597 of the Court of First Instance of Manila levied a valid attachment upon the bonus in question.5. In admitting and considering the supplementary complaint filed by the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., alleging as a cause of action the attachment of the bonus in question which said Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., in civil case No. 31821 of the Court of First Instance of Manila levied after the filing of the original complaint in this case, and after Mariano Lacson Ledesma in this case had been declared in default. *6. In holding that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., has a preferential right to receive from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., the amount of P11,076.02 which is in the possession of said corporation as the bonus to be paid to Mariano Lacson Ledesma, and in ordering the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., to deliver said amount to the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc.7. In not holding that the Philippine National Bank has a preferential right to receive from the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., the amount of P11,076.02 held by said corporation as Mariano Lacson Ledesma's bonus, and in not ordering said Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., to deliver said amount to the Philippine National Bank.8. In not holding that the amended complaint and the supplementary complaint of the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., and against the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., or against the Philippine National Bank.*'

The appellant bank bases its preferential right upon the contention that the bonus in question is civil fruits of the land which the owners had mortgaged for the benefit of the central giving the bonus, and that, as civil fruits of said land, said bonus was assigned by Mariano Lacson Ledesma on March 7, 1930, by virtue of the document Exhibit S of said intervening institution, which admitted in its brief that "if the bonus in question is not civil fruits or rent which became subject to the mortgage in favor of the Philippine National Bank when Mariano Lacson Ledesma's personal obligation fell due, the assignment of March 7, 1930 (Exhibit 9, P. N. B.), is null and void, not because it is fraudulent, for there was no intent of fraud in execufcing the deed, but that the cause or consideration of the as- signment was erroneous, for it was based upon the propo- sition that the bonus was civil fruits of the land mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank." (P. 31.)

The fundamental question, then, submitted to our consid- eration is whether or not the bonus in question is civil fruits.

This is how that bonus came to be granted: On December 22, 1923, the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., was indebted to the Philippine National Bank. To secure the payment of its debt, it succeeded in inducing its planters, among whom was Mariano Lacson Ledesma, to mortgage their land to the creditor bank. And in order to compensate those planters for the risk they were running with their property under that mortgage, the aforesaid central, by a resolution passed on that same date, i. e., December 22, 1923, and amended on March 23, 1928, undertook to credit the owners of the plantation thus mortgaged every year with a sum equal to two per centum of the debt secured according to the yearly balance, the payment of the bonus being made at once, or in part from time to time, as soon as the central became free of its obligations to the aforesaid bank, and of those contracted by virtue of the contract of supervision, and had funds which might be so used, or as soon as it obtained from said bank authority to make such payment. (Exhibits 5, 6; P. N. B.)

Article 355 of the Civil Code considers three things as civil fruits: First, the rents of buildings; second, the proceeds from leases of lands; and, third, the income from perpetual or life annuities, or other similar sources of revenue. It may be noted that according to the context of the law, the phrase "u otras andlogas" refers only to rents or income, for the adjectives "otras" and "andlogas" agree with the noun "rentes," as do also the other adjectives "perpetuas" and "vitalicias" That is why we say that by "civil fruits" the Civil Code understands one of three and only three things, to wit: the rent of a building, the rent of land, and certain kinds of income.

As the bonus in question is not the rent of a building or of land, the only meaning of "civil fruits" left to be examined is that of "income."

Assuming that in the broad juridical sense of the word "income" it might be said that the bonus in question is "income" under article 355 of the Civil Code, it is obvious to inquire whether it is derived from the land mortgaged by Mariano Lacson Ledesma to the appellant bank for the benefit of the central; for if it is not obtained from that land but from something else, it is not civil fruits of that land, and the bank's contention is untenable.

It is to be noted that the said bonus bears no immediate, but only a remote and accidental relation to the land mentioned, having been granted as compensation for the risk of having subjected one's land to a lien in favor of the bank, for the benefit of the entity granting said bonus. If this bonus be income or civil fruits of anything, it is income arising from said risk, or, if one chooses, from Mariano Lac- son Ledesma's generosity in facing the danger for the pro- tection of the central, but certainly it is not civil fruits or income from the mortgaged property, which, as far as this case is concerned, has nothing to do with it. Hence, the amount of the bonus, according to the resolution of the cen- tral granting it, is not based upon the value, importance or any other circumstance of the mortgaged property, but upon the total value of the debt thereby secured, according to the annual balance, which is something quite distinct from and independent of the property referred to.

Finding no merit in this appeal, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without express finding as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

489 Phil. 200 THIRD DIVISION[ G.R. NO. 156360, January 14, 2005 ]CESAR SAMPAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CRISPULO VASQUEZ AND FLORENCIA VASQUEZ GILSANO, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O NGARCIA, J.:In this verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Cesar Sampayan seeks the annulment and setting aside of the following issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43557, to wit:1. Decision dated May 16, 2002, denying his petition for review and affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Agusan del Sur, Branch VII, which in turn reversed on appeal a favorable judgment of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayugan and Sibagat, Agusan del Sur in a forcible entry case thereat commenced against him by herein private respondents, the brother-and-sister Crispulo Vasquez and Florencia Vasquez-Gilsano; and

2. Resolution dated November 7, 2002, which denied his motion for reconsideration.From the pleadings and memoranda respectively filed by the parties, the Court gathers the following factual antecedents:

On July 8, 1992, in the MCTC of Bayugan and Sibagat, Agusan del Sur, the siblings Crispulo Vasquez and Florencia Vasquez-Gilsano filed complaint for forcible entry against Cesar Sampayan for allegedly having entered and occupied a parcel of land, identified as Lot No. 1959, PLS-225, and built a house thereon without their knowledge, consent or authority, the entry having been supposedly effected through strategy and stealth.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs (now private respondents), substantially alleged that their mother Cristita Quita was the owner and actual possessor of Lot No. 1959; that after their mothers death on January 11, 1984, they became co-owners pro-indiviso and lawful possessors of the same lot; that on June 1, 1992, while they were temporarily absent from the lot in question, defendant Cesar Sampayan, through strategy and stealth, entered the lot and built a house thereon, to their exclusion; and that, despite their repeated demands for Sampayan to vacate the lot and surrender the possession thereof to them, the latter failed and refused to do so.

In his answer, defendant Sampayan denied the material allegations of the complaint and averred that neither the plaintiffs nor their mother have ever been in possession of Lot No. 1959 and that he does not even know plaintiffs identities or their places of residence. He claimed that he did not enter the subject lot by stealth or strategy because he asked and was given permission therefor by Maria Ybaez, the overseer of the lots true owners, Mr. and Mrs. Anastacio Terrado who were then temporarily residing in Cebu City for business purposes. In the same answer, Sampayan alleged that the plaintiffs claim has long prescribed for the reason that the lot in dispute had been possessed and declared for taxation purposes by the spouses Felicisimo Oriol and Concordia Balida-Oriol in 1960, and that in 1978, the Oriol spouses sold one-half (1/2) of the lot to the spouses Mr. and Mrs. Anastacio Terrado, while the other half, to the couple Manolito Occida and Juliana Sambale-Occida in 1979. Both vendees, so Sampayan averred, have actually possessed the respective portions purchased by them up to the present. He thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In the ensuing proceedings following the joinder of issues, the plaintiffs, to prove that they have been in actual possession of Lot No. 1959 when defendant Sampayan effected his entry thereto, submitted in evidence the following documents:

1. Tax Declaration No. 3180 in the name of Cristita Quita;

2. Certificate of Death showing the date of death of Cristita Quita on January 11, 1984;

3. Certificate issued by Fermina R. Labonete, Land Management Officer-III of CENRO X-3-E, DENR-X-3-9, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur showing that Lot 1959, PLS-225 is covered by a Miscellaneous Sales Application of Cristita Quita;

4. Affidavit of one Emiliano G. Gatillo to the effect that he was the one who gave the lot in question to Cristita Quita sometime in 1957 and that since then the latter had been occupying the lot;

Plaintiffs also filed a Supplemental Position Paper dated July 13, 1994 for the purpose of showing that Cristita Quita is one of the oppositors in Cadastral Case No. 149. Together with said position paper, they submitted a copy of the Answer/Opposition earlier filed in Cadastral Case No. 149. In said cadastral case, Cristita Quita was claiming Lot 1959, thus her name appeared in the list of oppositors therein.

5. The decision in the said Cadastral Case No. 149 showing that the then Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur declared Lot No. 1959 as one of the lots subject of the same cadastral case.

For his part, defendant Sampayan, to prove the allegations in his answer, offered in evidence the following:

1. Tax Declaration No. A-11698 in the name of Felicisimo Oriol, which cancels Tax Declaration 8103;

2. Tax Declaration No. GRB-01-930 in the name of Felicisimo Oriol which cancels Tax Declaration No. A-11698;

3. Deed of Absolute Sale of Portion of Land, dated April 30, 1979, executed by Jesus Oriol for and in behalf of the spouses Felicisimo Oriol and Concordia Balida-Oriol, conveying the one-half (1/2) portion of Lot No. 1959 to the couple Manolito Occida and Juliana Sambale-Occida who possessed the one-half (1/2) portion and introduced improvements thereon, such as coconut and caimito trees;

4. Deed of Relinquishment of Rights of Portion of Land, executed by the spouses Oriol in favor of the same couple Manolito Occida and Juliana Sambale-Occida, to further strengthen the transfer of possession and whatever possessory rights the Oriols had in the lot in question;

5. Deed of Absolute Sale of Land executed by Concordia Balida-Oriol with the conformity of Teodosio Mosquito (another claimant), to prove that the other half of Lot No. 1959 was sold in 1978 to Mr. and Mrs. Anastacio Terrado whose overseer allowed Sampayan to enter and occupy the premises;

6. Protest filed with the CENRO, Agusan del Sur by the vendee Juliana Sambale-Occida against the Miscellaneous Sales Application of Cristita Quita;

7. Affidavit of Dionesia Noynay attesting to the fact that she is residing in Lot No. 1957, a lot adjacent to the lot in question, since 1960 up to the present. In the same affidavit, Dionisia claimed that neither Cristita Quita, much less the plaintiffs, had ever possessed Lot No. 1959. She claimed that it was the Occida couple who possessed said lot and introduced improvements thereon; and

8. Affidavit of Juliana Occida and Maria Ybaez to show the impossibility of plaintiffs possession of the same lot.

Meanwhile, on March 21, 1996, while the case was pending with the MCTC, the presiding judge thereof personally conducted an ocular inspection of the contested lot in the presence of the parties and/or their counsels. Among those found in the area during the inspection are: the house of defendant Sampayan; the dilapidated house of a certain Peter Siscon; and a portion of the house of Macario Noynay, husband of Dionisia Noynay, one of Sampayans witnesses.

Based on his ocular findings, the judge concluded that the improvements he saw in the premises could never have been introduced by the plaintiffs nor by their mother Cristita Quita but by the vendees of the same lot. Reproduced by petitioner Jose Sampayan in the instant petition as well as in the Memorandum he subsequently filed with this Court, the MCTC judges findings and observations during the ocular inspection, about which the herein private respondents took no exception whatsoever, are hereunder quoted, as follows:Noted inside the land are the house of the defendant, Cesar Sampayan, of Peter Siscon, which appears to be dilapidated, and part of the house of Macario Noynay which encroached to the land in question. Planted on the land are five (5) coconut trees, fruit bearing, three (3) not fruit bearing coconut trees, and three (3) star apple or caimito trees. Defendant Sampayan admitted that he started occupying the land since 1992. It is admitted by the parties during the ocular inspection that one-half (1/2) portion of the land was bought by a certain Occida from certain Mr. and Mrs. Felicisimo Oriol.

The findings in the ocular inspection have confirmed the allegation of the defendant that his predecessors-in-interest have introduced improvements by planting caimito trees, coconut trees, and others on the land in question.

Nothing can be seen on the land that plaintiffs had once upon a time been in possession of the land. The allegation that Cristita Quita, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had been in possession of the said property since 1957, openly, exclusively, continuously, adversely and in the concept of an owner is a naked claim, unsupported by any evidence.

Clearly, from the appearance of the improvements introduced by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendant, it is showed that they have been in possession of the land for more than one (1) year. Hence, the action of the plaintiffs, if any, is accion publiciana or plenaria de possession[1] (Emphasis supplied).In time, the MCTC rendered judgment dismissing the compliant for lack of merit.

Therefrom, the plaintiffs appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Agusan del Sur, which appeal was raffled to Branch VII thereof. In a decision dated December 5, 1996, said court reversed that of the MCTC, taking note of the fact that Cristita Quita was among the oppositors in Cadastral Case No. 149 and that she filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application over the lot. On the basis of such finding, the RTC concluded that it was Cristita Quita, predecessor-in-interest of the herein private respondents, who was in actual prior physical possession of Lot No. 1959.

Unable to accept the RTC judgment, Sampayan went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review, thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43557.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the Court of Appeals, in the herein assailed Decision dated May 16, 2002,[2] denied Sampayans petition. His motion for reconsideration having been similarly denied by that court in its Resolution of November 7, 2002,[3] Sampayan is now with us via the present recourse, it being his submis