EVIDENCE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC. V. CA AND JOVITA MATIAS

October 28, 2010 Brion, J. Raeses, Roberto Miguel O. (Apologies for the length. Considering the way Maam asks questions, I deemed it fit to err on the side of caution.)

SUMMARY: B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for recovery of possession of property against Matias. One of B.E. San Diegos pieces of evidence to prove ownership is TCT134756, which supposedly refers to the property subject of litigation. Matias, on the other hand, claims that the TCT covers a property in Barrio Tinajeros, while the subject property is in Barrio Catmon. The RTC took judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon was previously a part of Barrio Tinajeros, thereby stating that the property referred to in the TCT and the actual property are one and the same. The CA reversed, stating that the discrepancy warranted expert testimony. The SC reinstated the RTCs decision, upholding the RTCs authority to take judicial notice of geographical divisions. DOCTRINE: Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court includes geographical divisions as among matters that courts should take judicial notice of. FACTS: 1. According to B.E. San Diego: a. It is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Hernandez St., Catmon, Malabon [TCT No. T-134756], registered with the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, and identified as Lot No. 3 Block No. 13, with an area of 228 sq. m. b. Claimed that Matias has been occupying the property for over a year without its authority or consent.

c. As both its oral and written demands to vacate were left unheeded, B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of the property against Matias on 15 March 1990 before the RTC. 2. According to Matias [as found in her answer]: a. She and her family has been living on the property since the 1950s on the basis of a written permit issued by the LGU of Malabon in 1954. b. She and her family had introduced substantial improvements on the property, as well as paying for the realty taxes of the same. c. She is a legitimate beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and P.D. No. 2016, which classified the property as part of the Urban Land Reform Zone [ULRZ] and an Area for Priority Devt {APD]. d. She questioned B.E. San Diegos claim over the property, pointing out that the title relied upon by the latter, TCT No. T-134756, covers a property in Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon, while the subject property is located in Barrio Catmon. i. Consequently, she claims that the property B.E. San Diego seeks to recover is different from the property she is occupying. 3. Ruling of the RTC: a. There was no issue as to the identity of the property. i. The property covered by B.E. San Diegos TCT is the same as the one being occupied by Matias. b. It took judicial notice of the fact that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros. i. The Approved Subdivision Plan and tax declarations showed that the property is indeed located in Barrio Catmon

EVIDENCE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

c. Matias being a beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and P.D. No. 2016 was unfounded. d. B.E. San Diego, therefore, has the right to recover the property. 4. Ruling of the CA: a. The discrepancy in the location was significant i. RTC should have required an expert witness from the concerned govt agency to explain the matter. b. Since Matias was in actual possession of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint, her possession should have been upheld under Art. 538 of the CC. c. Her being a beneficiary under P.D. 1517 and 2016 should be upheld. ISSUES: WON the CA erred in ruling in favor of Matias. RULING: YES. B.E. San Diego should be allowed to recover the property. RATIO: 1. B.E. San Diegos Arguments: a. The CA should not have reversed the RTCs findings on the sole basis of the discrepancy as to location, which has been explained by evidence. b. The CA failed to consider the following pieces of evidence which show that the property possessed by Matias and the property referred to by their title is one and the same: i. TCT No. 134756 in the name of B.E. San Diego [Lot No. 3, Block No. 15] ii. Approved Subdivision Plan showing that the property is in Barrio Catmon iii. Tax Declaration No. B-005-00296 issued in the name of B.E. San Diego, referring to the subject property iv. Testimonial evidence

v. Judicial notice by the RTC of Malabon, based on public and common knowledge, that Barrio Catmon was previously part of Barrio Tinajeros c. Matias is estopped from alleging that the property she is occupying is different from the property covered by TCT No. 134756. i. Having raised res judicata in her motion to dismiss in view of an earlier ejectment case, Matias impliedly admitted that there is 2. Matiass Arguments: a. Same as those discussed by the CA. 3. Ruling of the SC: a. B.E. San Diegos TCT refers to the same property being occupied by Matias. i. There was no need for a testimony by an expert witness. The RTC had previously declared that the discrepancy arose because Barrio Catmon used to be a part of Barrio Tinajeros. ii. The RTC has authority to make such declaration because this is a matter of mandatory judicial notice. 1. Sec. 1, Rule 129 of the RoC includes geographical divisions. b. Even without judicial notice, sufficient evidence exists to prove such fact: i. Both the title and tax declaration cover the same boundaries to identify the property c. Matias can no longer question the identity of the property. i. An allegation of res judicata, which is exactly what she invoked her motion to dismissi in view of an earlier ejectment case, constitutes an admission of the subject matter.

EVIDENCE | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

ii. She never raised the discrepancy in the ejectment suit d. B.E. San Diego has the right to possess. i. B.E. San Diego anchors its right based on ownership of the property, as evidenced by title. ii. Matias, on the on the other hand, anchors it on: 1. 1954 permit from the LGU of Malabon 2. Miscellaneous Sales Application 3. Tax declarations and realty tax payments 4. Beneficiary of P.D. No. 1517 and 2016 5. Long possession of the property since 1954 iii. It is settled doctrine that no title to register land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. 1. Payment of realty taxes is not enough. Matias only started paying on 1974, when B.E. San Diego filed an ejectment suit. 2. The Miscellaneous Sales Application, without the approval of the Bureau of Lands, remains a mere application and does not vest title in the applicant. 3. Matias is not a qualified beneficiary of the laws cited. They do not protect from eviction those whose presence are merely tolerated. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the September 25, 2002 decision and May 20, 2003 resolution of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50213. The June 22, 1995 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon in Civil Case No. 1421-MN is REINSTATED. Costs against the respondent.