G.R. No. 137582 - JOSE I. MEDINA, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF THE LATE ABUNDIO CASTAÑARES, REPRESENTED BY ANDRES CASTAÑARES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant-applicant, to wit: Ordering the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case No. 4080 with costs against the plaintiff-oppositors; Declaring the defendant-applicant, Jose I. Medina, the absolute owner of the land subject of his application in L.R.C. Case No. 374; Declaring the title of the applicant over the property designated in Plan Csd-05-009053 together with all the improvements thereon, CONFIRMED and REGISTERED pursuant to the provision of P.D. No. 1529; and Ordering the plaintiff-oppositors to pay the defendant-applicant the amount of P5,000.00 as attorneys fees and P5,000.00 as litigation expenses. Once this decision becomes final and executory, let the corresponding decree of registration issue. [21] The trial court found that petitioner lawfully acquired the land through a Deed of Waiver of Rights and Interest executed by Wenceslao Mahilum, Sr., the winning party in the damages suit. The trial court gave credence to a Certification [22] issued by the Provincial Sheriff and even signed by Patricia, the wife of Arles, certifying that the sketch plan of Lot 224-A reflects the true location and area of the property subject of the writ of possession and execution. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the trial court as follows: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered, to wit: Ordering the dismissal of the Application of Jose I. Medina in Land Registration Case No. N-374; Declaring the heirs of the late Abundio Castañares represented by Andres Castañares the absolute owner of the land subject of application in L.R.C. Case No. N-374; Ordering the Applicant Jose I. Medina to pay plaintiffs oppositors Heirs of Abundio Castañares the following sum: P20,000.00 as moral damages; [P]1,000.00 rental per month from February 24, 1989 until fully paid; [P]1,000.00 refund of the yield of the crops of the land from February 24, 1989 until fully paid, and Costs of suit. [23] The Court of Appeals stated that the lot under Tax Declaration No. 1107 in the name of Arles is separate and distinct from Lots 224 and 2187 declared under Tax Declaration No. 1106. The appellate court took into consideration the separate and distinct location of the lots, as well as the difference in their boundaries. It also noted that since there has been no settlement yet of the estate of Abundio, it was premature for Arles to have allocated unto himself a distinct portion of Lots 224 and 2187 as his share in the estate. And even if there was partition among the heirs of Abundio, the appellate court concluded that the share of Arles is only limited to 3.1432 hectares. The Court of Appeals further observed that the boundary on the west of the property sought to be registered by petitioner in the land registration case was changed from Abundio Castanares to Provincial Road, in conflict with the boundary of the property