784 Phil. 512
REYES, J.:
And, the court after carefully scrutinizing the evidences submitted in the record finds the preponderance of the evidence in favor of the defendants. If it is true the plaintiff had bought the property in question in 1979, why is it that from that time and up to the present, he never took steps to register the document and to caused [sic] the transfer of the covering tax declaration in his name? He did not even pay the real property taxes as they accrue annually. As shown by his exhibits C-1 to C-2, it was [Isabelo] who paid the real property taxes of the property. If it is true, [Isabelo] had already sold to the plaintiff the property in 1979, why is it that the former was still able to mort[g]aged [sic] the same to Modesto Padua in January 1980 as shown by the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (exhibit 5)? x x x.The foregoing decision became final and executory after the RTC of Iriga City dismissed the appeal of Rodrigo Sr. In the course of the execution, however, a survey on the subject property revealed that portions of the existing houses of Spouses Rodrigo Jr. and Jocelyn Imperial and Roberto Ballesteros and Fe Imperial (Fe) (petitioners) stood within the portion pertaining to the respondents. The respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate the encroached portions. Initially, the petitioners acceded to the demand and started demolishing walls of their houses but later ceased from doing so notwithstanding the respondents' repeated demands.[12] The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement of their differences which prompted the respondents to file a Complaint[13] for Unlawful Detainer with Damages against the petitioners, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 845. The respondents alleged that the petitioners unjustifiably refused to vacate the subject property and remove structures erected therein.[14]
x x x x
x x x [T]he court is more inclined to believe [Betty's] version that of having purchased one-half of the property in-question from [Isabelo] for the sum of [P10,000.00] and that no document was executed to evidenced [sic] the sale. As testified to by [Betty], she and her late husband-[Juan] lived together in the house and lot in question. In fact, after such sale, Isabelo [and] Juan had the property relocated and sub-divided by Geodetic Engineer Ramon Camposano, who prepared/made a sketch plan xxx.
x x x x
Be that as it may, since as [Betty] herself admitted the remaining half of the house and lot in question still belongs to [Isabelo], then, plaintiff should content himself of that remaining half. The other half which was already sold to [the respondents] should be recognized and respected. x x x.[11]
WHEREFORE, in view of all of the foregoing, on preponderance of evidence, this Court finds in favor of the [respondents] and against the [petitioners] who are ordered to:Unyielding, the petitioners appealed from the decision of the MTC. And, in a Decision[17] dated March 29, 2007, the RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
1.) Peacefully vacate and remove the structures constructed on the portion of the parcel of land subject of this case as declared under Tax Declaration (A.R.P.) #94-020-0236 with an area of 124 sq.m. (i.e. 1/2 of the total 248 sq. m ) and turnover the same to the [respondents]; 2.) Jointly and severally pay the [respondents] the amount of Php 500.00 per month from the date of judicial demand until they have effectively vacated the land in question as reasonable rentals. 3.) Pay the costs of suit.
All other claims and counter-claims by the [respondents] and the [petitioners] against each other are all denied.
SO ORDERED.[16]
WHEREFORE, the [petitioners] contention[s] are sustained and the decision of the lower court dated June 16, 2006 is hereby ordered reversed for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. No damages are imposed against the [respondents] in favor of the [petitioners].The RTC held that the respondents' complaint failed to state the fact that the petitioners' possession was lawful from the beginning but became illegal when their right to possess had expired or terminated. It also noted that the complaint failed to aver the facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer particularly the manner of entry; hence, the proper remedy should be either an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria which must be filed with the proper RTC. The RTC further observed that the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. 627 did not mention that the respondents are entitled to the possession of the property nor did it order the petitioners to vacate the same.[19]
SO ORDERED.[18]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the [RTC] of Iriga City, Branch 37, dated March 29, 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the [MTC] of Baao, Camarines Sur, dated June 16, 2006, is REINSTATED.The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same in its Resolution[22] dated September 27, 2010. Hence, this petition.
SO ORDERED.[21]
By "third party" is meant a person who is not a party to the action under consideration. We agree with the private respondents that the petitioners are privies to the case for recovery of ownership and possession filed by the former against the latter's predecessors-in-interest, the latter being the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the losing party in Civil Case No. 3150. By the term "privies" is meant those between whom an action is deemed binding although they are not literally parties to the said action. There is no doubt that the assailed decision is binding on the petitioners.[25]In Civil Case No. 627, the MTC dismissed Rodrigo Sr.'s claim of ownership after failing to establish the veracity of his allegation that a contract of sale over the subject property was executed between him and Isabelo. Hence, Rodrigo Jr. may not anchor his claim of title on that supposed purchase by his father. The only possibility that Rodrigo Jr. may be entitled to a portion of the property is by means of succession, his deceased father being the nephew of Isabelo who died without any children. As a mere successor, however, Rodrigo, Jr. only succeeds to that portion of the estate that the decedent did not dispose of during his lifetime. It is crystal clear from the facts that at the time of Isabelo's death, he is the owner of only one-half of the subject property, having disposed the other half by virtue of an absolute sale to his brother, Juan. Rodrigo Jr. cannot now repudiate the conclusiveness of the judgment in Civil Case No. 627, which delineated the portion of the subject property still owned by Isabelo and that which he had already disposed to the respondents. Rodrigo Jr., having merely stepped into the shoes of his predecessor, cannot claim that the decision does not apply to him. Nemo dat quod non habet.
That in the execution of the aforementioned decision, Alfredo Samper, a Geodetic Engineer by profession was appointed by the Court to conduct the subdivision survey in equal shares of the land subject of the case;The petitioners never disputed the statement of Sheriff Guevara throughout the proceedings in the RTC and CA. If they had any question on the propriety of the survey, they should have raised them at the time that the survey was being conducted or, at least, noted their disagreement in the pleadings they submitted before the trial court. Considering that the survey was undertaken to divide the property, it is only expected from the parties to raise a protest should the same be conducted irregularly or with manifest partiality to one party. There being neither resistance nor challenge to the survey conducted, it is only reasonable for the Court to assume that the same was conducted properly and to conclude that the petitioners were merely formulating issues in order to further delay the execution of the final decision of the MTC. The Court will not countenance such a deliberate effort to prevent the prevailing party from reaping the fruits of litigation.
That on June 3, 2004 at around 9:30 o'clock in the morning, Engr. Alfredo Samper, the undersigned together with Sheriff Rolando T. Sergio and in the presence of the parties of the case, including the spouses [Rodrigo Jr.] and Jocelyn Imperial, the person of Roberto Ballesteros and other members of the family conducted the actual subdivision survey of the land in question, dividing the property into two (2) equal portions, for which the share where the building structure of Rogelio Pinigat was constructed, and which actually identified and segreg[a]ted from the entire landholding.
x x x x
That on the actual survey, I came to know that that the house of Roberto Ballesteros (part) and also the spouses [Rodrigo Jr.] and Jocelyn Imperial (part) whose portion of their houses likewise encroached in the identified property of Rogelio Pinigat, hence I filed a report on the matter with the [MTC] of Baao, Camarines Sur x x x.[29]