G.R. No. 231639 , January 22, 2020
THE HEIRS OF MARSELLA T. LUPENA (IN SUBSTITUTION OF MARSELLA T. LUPENA), PETITIONERS, V. PASTORA MEDINA, JOVITO PAGSISIHAN, CENON PATRICIO, AND BERNARDO DIONISIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Marsella T. Lupena, the original plaintiff and registered owner of a 180-square-meter parcel of land in Taguig covered by TCT No. 18547 (subject property), filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession against respondents Pastor Medina, Jovito Pagsisihan, Cenon Patricio, and Bernardo Dionisio. Lupena alleged that around 1985-1986, respondents unlawfully entered and deprived her of possession of portions of the property by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth. She hired geodetic engineer Oscar Tenazas, who conducted a relocation survey approved by the Land Management Bureau (LMB). The survey indicated encroachments as follows: Medina occupied 34 sq m, Pagsisihan 61 sq m, Patricio 8 sq m, and Dionisio 15 sq m. During trial, Lupena died and was substituted by her heirs (petitioners).
At trial, petitioners presented Francisco Jose (Lupena’s son) and Engr. Tenazas. Jose testified that they discovered the encroachment only after the survey and that respondents’ houses were already on the property as early as 1991. Engr. Tenazas testified that he prepared a Relocation Plan and Sketch Plan showing the encroachments, and the Relocation Plan was approved by the LMB. However, the Relocation Plan did not indicate any buildings, houses, or permanent structures erected by respondents on the subject property.
Respondents denied encroachment. Pagsisihan and Dionisio claimed ownership under TCT No. 268143, asserting their houses were within their titled property since 1970. Medina claimed the encroached area was a public alley and alternatively argued that Lupena had ceded a 100 sq m portion to her for P40,000, with a partial payment of P12,000 made. Respondents also presented Engr. Ervin Boado, who conducted a verification survey upon the Mediation Office’s request. Engr. Boado’s report stated that the lot of Dionisio et al. did not encroach on Lupena’s property, but Medina’s lot totally encroached on it. He noted discrepancies between his survey and Engr. Tenazas’s due to different tie lines used by LMB and LRA.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding petitioners failed to prove encroachment by preponderance of evidence. The RTC gave more weight to Engr. Boado’s testimony and report, noting the Relocation Plan did not show any structures by respondents. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, emphasizing that the Relocation Plan’s failure to indicate buildings or permanent structures weakened petitioners’ claim. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the complaint for recovery of possession, based on the finding that petitioners failed to sufficiently prove that respondents encroached on the subject property.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that petitioners failed to establish encroachment by preponderance of evidence. Key points:
1. Burden of Proof: In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove their claim by preponderance of evidence. Petitioners relied heavily on Engr. Tenazas’s Relocation Plan and testimony.
2. Fatal Omission in Evidence: The Relocation Plan, though approved by the LMB, did not indicate any buildings, enclosures, or permanent structures erected by respondents on the subject property. This omission contradicted petitioners’ allegation that respondents built houses and occupied them.
3. Inconsistency in Theory: Petitioners’ new theory on appeal—that respondents erected only temporary structures (e.g., sheds, shanties) not required to be indicated in the plan—was inconsistent with their trial allegation that respondents built houses. The Court rejected this shift, as judicial review is limited to issues raised in the lower courts.
4. Weight of Evidence: The CA correctly gave more credence to Engr. Boado’s verification survey, which found no encroachment by Dionisio and Pagsisihan, and noted discrepancies in Engr. Tenazas’s survey tie lines. Petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to overturn the concurrent findings of the RTC and CA.
5. Finality of Factual Findings: The Supreme Court generally defers to the factual findings of lower courts when supported by evidence, as here. No reversible error was committed.
Thus, petitioners failed to prove respondents encroached on the subject property, and the complaint for recovery of possession was properly dismissed.