G.R. No. 224549 - SPOUSES JANET URI FAHRENBACH AND DIRK FAHRENBACH, VS. JOSEFINA R. PANGILINAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered them to vacate the property and pay respondent: ( a ) rent in the amount of P5,000.00 per month from September 2005, plus legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum until respondent is restored to its possession; and (b) attorney's fees and litigation expenses amounting to P125,000.00. [38] Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration, [39] which was, however, denied in an Order [40] dated November 18, 2013, prompting them to elevate the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari . [41] The CA Ruling In a Decision [42] dated September 21, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTCs findings insofar as it held that respondent was the prior possessor of the subject lot, but remanded the case to the RTC for the determination of the proper amount of monthly rentals payable to respondent. [43] The CA noted that the parties in this case are claiming one and the same property, i.e. the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 0056, [44] and that respondent's prior possession de facto thereof has been proven as she occasionally visited the same, paid realty taxes, and even requested for a survey authority thereon. [45] Thus, since a person need not have his/her feet on every square meter of the ground before it can be said that he/she is in possession of the land, the CA ruled that respondent did not lose her possession of the subject lot, although she resided somewhere else and only occasionally visited the same. [46] Meanwhile, the CA rejected petitioners' argument that their possession of the subject lot from the time they purchased the same in August 2005 should be tacked to Alvarez's possession. According to the CA, the concept of tacking refers to legal possession and does not apply to physical possession, which is the issue in suits for forcible entry such as this case. [47] The CA also echoed the RTC's observation that petitioners' documentary evidence are replete with inconsistencies, such as the boundary description of the property they acquired from Alvarez, as stated in the Deed of Sale vis-a-vis Tax Declaration Nos. 0052 and 019-0233-A. [48] Anent the award of monthly rent to the respondent, the CA noted that the RTC did not cite any document showing realty assessment of the land, justify the award of P5,000.00 monthly rental in favor of respondent. [49] In this regard, the CA remanded the case to the RTC for the determination of the monthly rentals due respondent. [50] Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration, [51] which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution [52] dated April 14, 2016; hence, the present petition. The Issue Before the Court The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in holding that respondent was in prior possession of the subject lot. The Court's Ruling The petition is denied. At the outset, it must be emphasized that as a rule, the Court is not a trier of facts [53] and does not normally embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial. [54] This R