GR 109370; (July, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109370. July 11, 1995.
ROGELIO PARMA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTEENTH DIVISION and LITO BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Lito Bautista was issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-4123 on April 1, 1987, by virtue of an approved free patent application over a parcel of land in Oriental Mindoro. He subsequently filed an action for forcible entry against petitioner Rogelio Parma with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to evict him from the land. The MTC dismissed the case, finding that Parma had possessed the land long before the title’s issuance and concluding that the real issue was ownership, not possession, placing it beyond the MTC’s jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sustained the dismissal but on the different ground that Bautista failed to prove his case. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision.
ISSUE
The central issue is whether petitioner Rogelio Parma was in prior physical possession of the disputed lot, which is the pivotal element in a forcible entry case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The legal logic centers on the insufficiency and inadmissibility of Parma’s evidence to prove prior possession. Parma presented a letter-complaint dated September 22, 1986, sent to the Bureau of Lands before the title’s issuance. The Court held this document was self-serving and lacked probative value because it was an unclear machine copy, never certified by the Bureau of Lands as required by Section 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Despite a subpoena duces tecum, no Bureau representative appeared to authenticate it. The Court emphasized it was Parma’s duty to authenticate this crucial evidence, and his claim that private respondent’s counsel volunteered to verify it was without merit.
Furthermore, a Notice/Letter dated November 7, 1986, allegedly from a District Land Officer, was not found in the records and thus could not be considered. A later complaint-protest dated July 8, 1987, was filed after the title’s issuance and the ejectment case’s filing, so it could not establish prior possession. In contrast, private respondent Bautista presented his original certificate of title and supporting affidavits. Consequently, Parma failed to substantiate his claim of prior physical possession, which is essential to defeat the ejectment action. The Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s assessment of the evidence.