466 Phil. 141
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
1) Who is the owner and actual possessor of the disputed parcel of land.After the parties had submitted their respective affidavits and position papers, the MTC set the case for clarificatory questions on February 3, 1997 and ordered the respondents to bring to the court the original technical description of Cadastre Lot 393, Case No. 6 as approved by the Director of Lands. On the said date, the respondent submitted the required copy of Exhibit “1” and agreed to submit case for decision.[5] After due proceedings, the MTC rendered judgment on July 11, 1997 in favor of the petitioner, thus:
2) Whether or not the defendant and plaintiff had an agreement with the barangay prior to the alleged unlawful entry.
3) Whether or not the plaintiff suffered damages by reason of the unlawful entry by the defendant into the subject premises.
4) What is the nature of the disputed parcel of land.[4]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:Synthesizing and analyzing the evidence of the parties, the trial court declared:
- Ordering the defendant and all those claiming rights under him to immediately remove, at his sole expense, the fence and other improvements erected or introduced by him on the subject premises and to surrender peacefully to the herein plaintiff the possession, control, and enjoyment of the subject lot;
- Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the following:
- P1,000.00 a month for the use and occupation of the premises until the same is vacated;
- P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P1,000 per court hearing; and
- Costs of suit.[6]
To prove his claim of such prior physical possession, plaintiff submitted to the Court: (a) a joint affidavit of Spouses Cecilia and Hermie Areno and George Tapia, dated June 14, 1996, in which it is alleged, among others, that Cecilia has been the plaintiff’s land caretaker replacing her father who died on June 17, 1990; and (b) an affidavit by Renato Jaramilla, of even date, where he states that in August 1995, upon the instruction of the plaintiff’s caretaker in the person of Cecilia Areno, he and two others constructed a fence and planted crops on the disputed land.On appeal, the Regional Trial Court rendered its judgment reversing the decision of the MTC, thus:
For his part, defendant did not present any proof which could controvert the allegations contained in the duly sworn statements of above-named affiants. Neither was there any independent evidence to show that defendant had been in actual possession of the disputed property at least in or before August 1995. His evidence basically tend to show merely that he is an applicant for a homestead patent before the DENR and such application, to the mind of the Court, does not make for a convincing evidence to prove actual possession of a certain real property. It is even doubtful that Lots 6717 and 6107 are included in the application for the reason as stated in Page 8(3) of the plaintiff’s position paper.
Admittedly, defendant and his companions entered and worked on the land at or past midnight of January 17, 1996. Nevertheless, Cecilia Areno, et al.’s affidavit serves to substantiate plaintiff’s claim of defendants’ surreptitious entry into the land.[7]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanay is reversed, and the said Court is ordered to conduct further proceedings to determine the extent of the property of the plaintiff. No pronouncement as to costs. The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to transmit the records of this case to the said court.[8]The RTC ruled that a survey of the subject property was important to determine whether the petitioner owned the subject property or, as claimed by the respondent, is part of the public land. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC issued an Order dated January 23, 1998 denying the said motion. The Court ruled that:
In the case at bar, it is clear that the plaintiffs-appellees was (sic) not sure of the extent of his property as shown by the fact [that] they in fact agreed to have the property resurveyed, but did not materialize when they cannot agree as to which title to use in the resurvey. The Court cannot really understand why the plaintiffs refused to have the property resurveyed using the technical description of his property. This only strengthened the belief of this Court that they are not sure of the boundary of their property.Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC decision. The petitioner alleged that the trial court erred as follows:
The decision of this Court to require the Court a quo to conduct further proceedings to determine the extent of the property of the plaintiff does not contravene the summary nature of an ejectment case, but rather to determine whether the defendant-appellant violated the rights of the plaintiffs-appellees. There is nothing in the Rules of Summary Procedure that prevents the Court from conducting survey of the land if only to find the truth.[9]
In its Resolution of February 18, 1998, the CA dismissed the petition for review for the petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORSI
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND ACTED OUT OF AND IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT AND ORDERED FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND A SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT LOT.II
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED THE CONDUCT OF “FURTHER PROCEEDINGS” AND A SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT LOT IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE.III
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE IS NO FORCIBLE ENTRY SHOULD IT APPEAR IN THE SURVEY THAT THE LAND POSSESSED AND OCCUPIED BY THE PETITIONER AND FORCIBLY ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT BELONG IN OWNERSHIP TO THE LATTER.IV
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN, NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENT’S CATEGORICAL ADMISSION OF FORCIBLE ENTRY, IT REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND OF UNCERTAINTY OF OWNERSHIP ON THE PART OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER.V
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE CATEGORICAL ADMISSION BY THE DEFENDANTS OF THE LATTER’S “MIDNIGHT AND SURREPTITIOUS INVASION” OF THE LAND OCCUPIED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER.[10]
4. CERTIFICATION THAT PETITIONER HASWe believe that the foregoing is a substantial compliance of the Rules.
NOT COMMENCED ANY OTHER ACTION
Petitioner and his counsel certify herein as well as in the verification and certification page that they have not commenced any other action or proceeding before this Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals or any other court or agency.
To the best of their knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency.
That if there is any such action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, the herein Petitioner and undersigned counsel shall state the status thereof; and if they should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, they undertake to report the facts within five (5) days therefrom to the Court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.[12]
SEC. 2. Form and contents. – The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.The appended copies of the RTC and MTC Decisions as well as the Order of the RTC denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration are legible enough. More importantly, the petitioner raised a very important issue in his petition which calls for a definitive resolution: whether or not under Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure, the trial court may allow the survey of the subject property despite the parties’ agreement to submit the case for decision without the need of a survey.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.