G.R. NO. 158687 - FRISCO F. DOMALSIN, VS. SPOUSES JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, decision is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, FRISCO DOMALSIN, and against defendants, JUANITO VALENCIANO and AMALIA VALENCIANO, with the following: Order to declare the injunction permanent. Order the plaintiff as the actual possessor of the lot in question. Order the defendant(s) to vacate and deliver the physical possession voluntarily of the disputed land to plaintiff within 60 days from receipt of this decision. Order defendant(s) to remove his structure within from receipt of this decision. Order the defendant(s) to (sic) plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00, as litigation expenses. Order defendant(s) to pay the cost of suit [27] Respondents appealed the decision to the RTC. [28] In affirming the decision in toto the RTC ratiocinated: It may be well to consider that even after plaintiff's business ceased operation, he religiously paid the taxes due thereon. Appellant's theory that the plaintiff-appellee abandoned the property does not sit well and finds no support in the record. Notice that since 1985 up to mid-1990, the Banucas never laid claim over the property taking into consideration that they were already residents of the place. This only goes to show that they acknowledged and respected the prior possession of the plaintiff-appellee. Besides, what right has Gloria to cause the leveling of the property destroying the natural contour thereof, to presume that plaintiff-appellee abandoned it and to invite and allow other persons to settle thereat? Absolutely none. Knowing fully well that the plaintiff-appellee has prior possession of the property, Gloria's actions are unjustified, to say the least. Her consummated act of leveling the property without the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellee is viewed as a test to determine whether or not the latter is still interested in the property. From then on until 1998 (but before the construction), the Banucas still recognize the plaintiff's possession. But as Gloria claims to have heard no word from the plaintiff, she unilaterally declared that the place is now abandoned as she "invited and allowed" the defendants to live and construct their house thereat. Contrary to the assertion of the appellants, there was no abandonment simply because plaintiff-appellee continuously paid the corresponding taxes due thereon and that he promptly objected to the construction of the defendants-appellants' house. These are clear manifestations of his intention not to abandon the property. Sad to say though that here is a former employer. By passing off such property to be hers is so unkind, unfair and against social order. It is very clear that the Banucas knew of the prior possession of the plaintiff way back then so that they themselves never personally build construction over the property. If they honestly believe that they now "own" the land, why will they still have to invite other people who are not their relatives to settle thereat? Why the preference of strangers over rela