G.R. No. 171442 - ADING QUIZON, BEN ZABLAN, PETER SIMBULAN AND SILVESTRE VILLANUEVA, VS. LANIZA D. JUAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the [petitioners] to have ousted [respondent] of her possession of her one hectare land at Bullhorn, Aranguren, Capas, Tarlac and the destruction of her plants therein, the Court hereby reconsiders its decision on November 16, 2001 which affirmed in toto the decision of the 2 nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Capas-Bamban-Concepcion, Capas, Tarlac; thereby reversing said decision and hereby: orders [petitioners] to restore [respondent] to the possession of the one hectare land she had been dispossessed; ordering the defendants to pay the amount of P50,000.00 for the destruction of the [respondent's] fence, crops and fruit bearing trees; ordering the defendants to reimburse the attorney's fees and appearance fees paid by [respondent] to her counsel and to pay the cost. [7] The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the RTC in its Resolution dated 8 August 2002. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72921, arguing that the RTC erred in not upholding the dismissal by the MCTC of the respondent's complaint in Civil Case No. 2207 for its utter lack of merit. Petitioners asserted that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the MCTC Decision in Civil Case No. 2207, asserting that they had a better right over the subject property. Petitioners likewise averred that the amount of P50,000.00 adjudged by the RTC as their liability for destroying the vegetables planted on the subject property was excessive. On 15 March 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, affirming the RTC Resolution dated 20 May 2002. The Court of Appeals declared that petitioners did commit forcible entry of the subject property since the parties already made a stipulation to that effect during the Pre-Trial Conference before the MCTC, to wit: [Respondent] bought on December 11, 1996 from [Nuguid] a parcel of land consisting of 52,000 (sic) sq. meters situated at Bullhorn, Brgy. Aranguren, Capas, Tarlac; it was also stipulated upon proposal of the [petitioners] that [Simbulan] and [Villanueva] have no possession over the subject parcel of land but they were with petitioners [Quizon] and [Zablan] when forcible entry was made leading to the ouster of [respondent's] possession and destruction [respondent's] plants. That [petitioner Quizon] house is outside the portion bought by [respondent] from [Nuguid]. [8] The appellate court further ruled that having voluntarily stipulated in the Pre-Trial Agreement that they forcibly entered the subject property, petitioners can no longer deny the same. Once validly entered into, stipulations will not be set aside unless for good cause. The party who validly made them can be relieved therefrom only upon showing of collusion, duress, fraud, misrepresentation as to facts, undue influence or such other sufficient cause as will serve justice in a particular case. There is no showing in this case of any cause or g