Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF EL NIDO-LINAPACAN

El Nido, Palawan
EDITHA TIBAY - STEVENS, CIVIL CASE NO. 229
Plaintiff,
-versus - For
AVELINO TANALEON, EJECTMENT
RODOLFO JAMORA, (Forcible Entry)
MICHAEL DALABAJAN OFELIA TANALEON, OLI VIA TANALEON, ALLAN FABRIGAS,
MELIANA LEBARRA, CHARLITO LEBARRA, ALDIN LEBARRA, JOSE SEBIDO,
ABEL TANALEON and all other persons claiming rights under them.
Defendants.
X
DECISION
By this Special Civil Action, Plaintiff seeks to eject Defendants from the property she
possesses located in Sitio Turatod, Barangay Sibaltan, El Nido, Palawan.
The allegations in her Complaint are synthesized as follows:
1. That Plaintiff is the lawful owner of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1, PSD-04-
189581, with an area of 25,536 square meters, located in Sitio Turatod, Barangay Sibaltan,
El Nido, Palawan and formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. E-1695 and now
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 065-2016000817, issued by the Registry of Deeds of the
Province of Palawan, in the name of Andres Sebido covered by Tax Declaration No. 13-015-
1613 which was eventually sold to the complainant by the heirs of the late Helen S. Cercado
by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 26, 2015;
2. That the Plaintiff is religiously paying for the taxes due on the above-mentioned real
property the last of which was paid on March 5, 2018;

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -2-
3. That on February 28, 2018, herein defendants together with armed men through
stealth and strategy and with intimidation to the caretakers in the name of Deomedez
Valdeztamon and Gerald Logan, entered the said property and forcibly took over the said
area and thereafter, confiscated coconuts or copra harvested by the caretakers and sold it
without the permission or consent of the plaintiff.
4. That the defendants took over and illegally occupied the cottage owned by the
plaintiff intended for her rest and comfort every time she visits the said area and defendants
built two (2) small homes without her the permission or consent;
5. That the defendants gravely threatened the caretakers to surrender to them all the
harvested coconuts or copras and immediately leave the premises otherwise they would be
killed by the defendants;
6. That up to present, despite repeated oral and written demands made, the defendants
unlawfully stay in the said property to the prejudice and damage of the plaintiff;
7. That the plaintiff has prior possession of the area since the time they bought the
same several years ago as clearly shown from the Deed of Absolute Sale.
8. As a result of the defendants unjust deprivation of the property, the plaintiff has been
denied the use of the same. Because of their refusal to vacate the questioned area, plaintiff
has been compelled to engage the services of counsel to protect its interest for a fee
Php50,000.00 as well as costs of expenses of litigation amounting to not less than
Php50,000.00.
In their Answer which they have seasonably filed through their Attorney-in —fact co-
defendant MICHAEL DALABAJAN, Defendants asseverate, thus:
1. That the Defendants, except DALABAJAN, are the heirs of ANDRES SEBIDO who is
the registered owner of the property covered by TCT No. 065-2016-000817. Andres Sebido
died during the war years and there is no record of his death. There is also no record of his
birth. The fact that OCT No. E-1695 was issued in 1934 presupposes that he must have
already died.
2. That Andres Sebido, though he already passed away is still the registered owner of a
parcel of land now covered by TCT No. 065-2016-000817 with an area of 25,536 square
meters and situated in Brgy. Sibaltan, El Nido, Palawan. This property is a portion of OCT
No. E-1695;

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -3-
3. That the Defendants, except Dalabajan, have always been in possession of all the
portions of the property previously covered by OCT No. E-1695. On the other hand, the
unfinished and uninhabitable structure allegedly built by the Plaintiff is not within the property
covered by TCT No. 0652016000817 but on the foreshore area of the property as could be
readily proven in an ocular inspection. It could be that she was given permission by Nestor
Cercado to build a structure thereon but definitely without the consent of the Defendants. If
so, the Plaintiff is not authorized to build the structure which was build outside of the metes
and bound of TCT No. 0652016000817. As such, the Plaintiff has no cause of action against
the Defendants.
3. That Nestor Cercado is the husband of the late Helen Magura Fabrigas who is said
to be an adopted daughter of Jorge Sebido, one of the four (4) children of Andres Sebido.
Jorge died on February 29, 1966 while his wife Cristina died on January 11, 1994. They had
no natural children. Helen Magura Fabrigas never used the family name Sebido as shown in
the fact that Jorge Sebido and his wife Cristina are not indicated in Marriage Contract. Not
one of her children used the middle name Sebido. She should be deemed to have
disclaimed the adoption, if true, by virtue of her acts.
4. That assuming that Helen Magura Fabrigas-Cercado is indeed an adopted child of
Jorge Sebido, her claim of heirship is only over the property owned /registered in the name
of Jorge Sebido. The property that is the subject matter of this case is owned and titled in the
name of Andres Sebido. As an adopted child, she could not inherit from the parents of her
adoptive parents. Moreover, Helen
5. Magura Fabrigas-Cercado or her children never considered themselves as
descended from Jorge Sebido or from Andres Sebido.
6. That during the lifetime of Jorge Sebido, he never resided in the portion of the
property covered by TCT No. 065-2016000817. Nestor Cercado also never resided in any
portion of the property covered by TCT No. 0652016000817.
7. That the Defendants Heirs of Andres Sebido came to know that Lot No. I, TCT No.
065-2016000817 was allegedly sold by Nestor Cercado recently. They were able to confirm
this when they read the Complaint against them because the said Deed of Sale is attached
to the Complaint. They have no knowledge as to its concerned, Nestor Cercado or his
children are not Heirs of Andres Sebido. As such, she could not legally sell the property for it
is not his property.

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Titay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -4-
8. That assuming also that Nestor Cercado is an heir of Helen Magura Fabrigas-Cercado
who is an heir of Jorge Sebido who is an heir of Andres Sebido, the Plaintiff should have
inquired if Andres Sebido has other heirs. Insofar as the Defendants are concerned, the
Plaintiff never communicated with any of them regarding this Deed of Sale which is of course
void as Nestor Cercado, assuming he is an heir of Andres Sebido, could not sell the property
without the consent of the other heirs of Andres Sebido.
9.That Lots 2105 of OCT No. E-1695 has already been sold. In the Deed of Sale, Nestor
Cercado and his children are not named as one of the Vendors precisely because they are
not heirs of Andres Sebido. Despite the knowledge of Nestor Cercado of this Deed of Sale,
he never complained because he knows for a fact that he is not one of the heirs of Andres
Sebido.
10.That the Plaintiff did not step into the shoes of Nestor Cercado as the title has not yet
been transferred in the name of the latter. The Plaintiff appears to be claiming possession in
her own name as the alleged buyer of the property from Nestor Cercado. As such, she is not
the proper party to file this complaint. Although she may have been allowed by Nestor
Cercado to take possession of the property, the Defendants who are the rightful heirs of
Andres Sebido have always been possession of the property even before the Plaintiff
allegedly purchased the property from Nestor Cercado.
11. That the Defendants have all the right to continue their occupation of the property
subject matter of this case and harvest the fruits of the coconuts that have been planted
therein by themselves and their ascendants. On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a squatter on
this property who did not even ask for permission from the Defendants to enter the property.
Considering that the Plaintiff is the owner of several residential properties, she should be
deemed to be a professional squatter and the unfinished and uninhabitable structure that
she claims to have introduced in the property as her "house of rest" should be demolished.
12. The Plaintiff is publicly known to be engaged in the acquisition, development,
operation and management of real properties. As such, she could have easily known of the
invalidity of the claim of ownership by Nestor Cercado and she could not excuse herself by
merely relying on the representations made to her by Nestor Cercado. The Plaintiff has only
herself to be blamed for buying the property without exercising due diligence and lack of
good faith, being an owner of a business enterprise 11-Estate, which is engaged in realty.
The Plaintiff is not also the proper party to claim ownership or possession over the property
by virtue of a void claim of ownership over the property by Nestor Cercado.

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -5-
Defendants now pray that the Complaint be dismissed for being an improper remedy for the
Plaintiff is not a proper party and for failure by the Plaintiff to state a cause of action against
the Defendants. They likewise pray that the Plaintiff be ordered to reimburse/pay the
Defendants attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the total amount of no less than Php
100,000.00.
On August 23, 2018, the Preliminary Conference was held and both parties were in Court.
After its termination, the counsels were given ten (10) days from even date to submit their
respective Position Paper with all original documentary exhibits attached. From receipt
thereof, the Court will consider this case submitted for decision. Records show that the both
parties have already submitted their respective Position paper. This case is now considered
submitted for Decision.
This Court is called upon to resolve the following issues:
1. Whether or not the Plaintiff is the proper party to file this instant complaint;
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff is in prior possession of the subject property;
3. Whether or not the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants; and
4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to claim for damages

RULING OF THE COURT

Defendants contend that the Plaintiff is not the proper party to institute this instant
Complaint. The Court finds such contention untenable. Contrary to their allegation, evidence
discloses that herein Plaintiff Editha Tibay-Stevens, being the actual claimant and possessor
of the subject property is the real-party-in interest who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit and she is the party entitled to the avails of the suit (Rule 3 Section 1
and 2 Rules of Court), thus, she is the proper party to file this case against the defendants.

In the main, the Court after a careful scrutiny of the entire records of the case and evidence
presented by both parties, finds that the Plaintiff is in prior possession of the subject property
of this case before the unlawful dispossession made by the defendants on February 28,
2018. The evidence is clear that she acquired the subject parcel of land which is covered by
TCT No. 065-2016-000817 consisting of an area of 25,536 square meters by virtue of a
Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 26, 2015 from the heirs of Helen Sebido Cercado, one
of the heirs of Andres Sebido.

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -6-
It was clearly shown in the Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate of the Heirs of Andres Sebido,
that Helen Sebido, being the adopted child of Jorge Sebido, son of Andres, is one of the
heirs of Andres Sebido. Thus, when Helen's heirs sold their share of the property to Plaintiff
Editha, the latter stepped into their shoes and was conferred by law from the time of the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale the right to possess the subject property.
"For one to be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical occupation of
every square inch of the property at all times. Possession can be acquired not only by
material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by
the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Possession can be
acquired by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives the force of acts of
possession. Examples of these are donations, succession, execution and registration of
public instruments, and the inscription of possessory information titles.( Habagat Grill v.
DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc., G.R. No. 155110, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 653,
671; Quizon v. Juan, G.R. No. 171442, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 601, 612.

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff acquired from spouses Alberto Patalita and Laudenia
Patalita , and Randy and Margieline Patalita their respective existing house, other
improvements located and coconut trees planted inside the subject property, on September
7, 2011 and November 19, 2011 respectively as shown in the two (2) "Malayang Salaysay
na may Kaakibat na Pag-uurong ng karapatan" executed by them before Atty. Antonieto
Justo, Notary Public (Annexes "5" and "K"). Aside from the Deed of Absolute Sale executed
in favor of herein Plaintiff, pertinent documents were likewise presented to Court such as
Kasunduan, Acknowledgment Receipt of Full Payment, Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship
with Confirmation of Sale, Affidavit of Family Tree, History of Partition Understanding of
Sharing and Sale of Andres Sebido Lots OCT No. E-1695, Sinumpaang Salaysay of
Mamerta Sebido, Garcellano, Emerita Jardin Mendoza, Celestina Sabroso Sebido and
Imelda Vasquez Sebido, Pinagsamang Salaysay of the heirs of Andres Palay Sebido to
support the validity of the said transaction of sale. Furthermore, evidence shows that Plaintiff
have been religiously paying for the taxes from fiscal years 2011 to 2012 including back
taxes from fiscal years 1953 to 1997, the last of which was paid on March 5, 2018 due on
the said subject property.

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editba Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaka', et.. al For Ejectment
Page -7-
The Plaintiff through her counsel has correctly emphasized the ruling of the Honorable
Supreme Court with respect to the payment of the Real property taxes, thus: "It is settled
rule that albeit tax declarations and realty tax payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless good indicia of the possession the concept of
owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or at least constructive possession."( Ganila vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 150755
June 28, 2005 461 SCRA 435, 448)
Perforce, as shown in the evidence at hand, since the yew 2011, when those houses and
improvements were acquired by the Plaintiff from their owners, and since 2015, when the
Plaintiff and Helen's heirs executed the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Plaintiff has already been
in possession of the subject property. Further, evidence discloses that the Plaintiff takes
control over the property since then and has actually employed an administrator in the
person of Joventino Melchor, and caretakers namely: Diomedez Valdeztamon and Geral
Lagan who were assigned the task of harvesting the coconuts in the subject property.
Hence, Plaintiff exercises total control over the property even if she was not at the subject
property all the time.

Moreover, the Punong Barangay of Barangay Sibaltan in the person of Hon. Arvin Gabayan
has issued a Certification stating that the Plaintiff is the actual and lawful owner of the
structures and lot subject of this case (Annex "X"). Thus, indubitably, Plaintiff is in actual and
prior possessor of the subject property when the Defendants forcibly entered the same on
February 28, 2018.

Witnesses Joel Marientes narrated in his Judicial Affidavit the manner of entry of the
defendants into the subject property of the Plaintiff According to him, on February 28, 2018,
he witnessed when herein Defendants arrived in the subject property of the Plaintiff and
entered while being armed with deadly weapon; that at that time only Deomedez
Valdeztamon and Geral Lagan were there and were assigned to harvest coconuts and turn
them into copras; that he witnessed when the defendants threatened and intimidated to
surrender their coconut harvest and they were told to immediately leave the place otherwise,
something bad will happen to them; that up to present, the defendants are still in possession
of the subject property; that he immediately reported the incident to the Plaintiff.
Joventino Melchor likewise stated in his judicial affidavit that he was informed about the
incident happened in the property of plaintiff on February 28, 2018; it was reported to him
that the lot subject of this case including the cottage being constructed by the Plaintiff was
forcibly entered by the defendants who were armed and they threatened the caretakers to
surrender thousands of harvested coconuts. He corroborated the testimony of Joel
Marientes on material points. r)

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tanaleon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -g-
To reiterate, when herein defendants forcibly entered the property of Plaintiff, on February
28, 2018 as witnessed by Joel Marientes, the Plaintiff is in prior possession of the subject
property and has the better right to possess the same.
On the other hand, herein Defendants have miserably failed that they have the better right to
possess the property. As can gleaned in their Answer, and in their Position Paper, they claim
that they are in prior possession of the subject property being the legal heirs of Andres
Sebido, that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the Plaintiff and heirs of Helen has no
force and effect as the property is not yet transferred in their name.
It must be stressed that the principal issue to be resolved in forcible entry cases is mere
physical or material possession (possession de facto) and not juridical possession
(possession de jure) nor ownership of the property involved. (Dela Rosa v Carlos, G.R. No.
147549, October 23, 2003, 414 SCRA 226, 234).

Title is not involved. Thus, in David v. Cordova, (G.R. No. 152992, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA
384) the Supreme Court explained:
"The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is -who is entitled
to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the
possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable, or
when both parties intruded into public land and their applications to own the land have yet to
be approved by the proper government agency. Regardless of the actual condition of the
tide to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be thrown out by a
strong hand, violence or terror. Neither is the unlawful withholding of property allowed.
Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession.
Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the
owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior
possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a
person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to
settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession." (Id. at 402-403).

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino l'analeon, et.. al For Ejectment
Page -9-
If the allegations of the Defendants that they are in prior possession of the subject property
is true, why then they have forcibly driven away the caretakers of the Plaintiff who were in
the subject lot and harvesting coconuts and threatened them with harm?
 It must be stressed that the subject of this case is not the entire lot covered by OCT No. E-
1695, rather only a portion of it and identified as Lot 1 which is the lawful share of deceased
Jorge Sebido, father of Helen Sebido Cercado consisting of an area of 25,536 square
meters and covered by TCT No. 065-2016-000817.
Defendants in this proceedings, cannot even assail the validity of sale of the subject property
between Plaintiff Stevens and the heirs of Helen Sebido Cercado considering that such
action is not within the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction. Moreover, the Defendants could
neither collaterally attack the validity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 065-2016-000817
registered in the name of Andres Sebido nor the Heirship of Helen Sebido in this summary
action for ejectment.

Taking into consideration that the Plaintiff has shown by preponderance of evidence that she
is in actual and prior possession of the subject parcel of land (Lots 1 PSD-04-1 89581
covered by TCT No. 065-2016-000817), she has therefor the right to stay in the subject
property and her possession thereof cannot be wrestled from her by the Defendants by
means of threat, strategy, stealth, force, or intimidation. The latter should not have taken the
law into their hands for it is well-settled in our jurisprudence that:

"One who believes himself to be the owner of real property and entitled to the possession
thereof, must bring in court an action against the person or persons who are actually holding
the same, but if he takes justice into his hands and by force takes the property from the
person or persons holding it, he may, in an action for forcible entry be compelled to return
the property even if he were the owner. He is a mere intruder or mere trespasser and must
be dispossessed." (Manalac vs Olegario 430.G. 2169).

With respect to the claim for damages, the Court has to deny the same because in forcible
entry cases, the only form of damages that may be recovered is the fair rental value or the
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property (Dumo v. Espinas G.R.
No. 141962 January 25, 2006). Nevertheless, Plaintiff can recover for reasonable monthly
rental for the actual use of the subject property by way of actual damages in the amount of
One Thousand (Php1,000.00) Pesos from February 28, 2018, the date of the dispossession
until the defendants shall have finally vacated the subject property. Likewise, Plaintiff is
granted an equitably reduced amount of reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount
of Fifty Thousand Php50,000.00) Pesos and an award of attomey's fees in the amount of
Twenty thousand (Php20,000.00).

Decision in Civil Case No. 229

Editha Tibay-Stevens vs. Avelino Tana'eon. et.. al
For Ejectment
 Page -10- .

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of Plaintiff EDITHA TIBAY-STEVENS against Defendants AVELINO TANALEON,
RODOLFO JAMORA, MICHAEL DALABAJAN, OFELIA TANALEON, OLIVIA TANALEON,
ALLAN FABRIGAS, MELINA LEBARRA, ALDIN LEBARRA, JOSE SEBIDO, ABEL
TANALEON, their heirs, assigns and all other persons claiming rights under them, to
immediately vacate the subject property identified as Lot 1 PSD-04-189581 covered by TCT
No. 0652016-000817 consisting of 25,536 square meters and registered under the name of
Andres Sebido located at Sitio Turatod, Barangay Sibaltan, El Nido, Palawan, demolish the
structures they built thereon at their own expense and peacefully turnover possession
thereof to Plaintiff or to any of her authorized representatives; and to jointly and severally
pay Plaintiff the following:
a. Attorney's fee in the amount of Twenty thousand (Php20,000.00) Pesos;
b. Litigation expenses in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php50,000.00) Pesos; and
c. Reasonable monthly rental in the amount of One Thousand (Ph-p1,000.00) Pesos for
the actual use of the property involved from February 28, 2018 until after the defendants
shall have finally vacated the property;
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 24th day of October, 2018, at El Nido, Palawan.
MA. THERESA P. MANGCUCA G

Presiding Judge
Copy famished:
I. Atty. Victor Manlapaz
2. Atty. Allan D. Romero
3. Plaintiff
4. Defendants