G.R. NO. 144103 - AGUEDA DE VERA-CRUZ, MARIO, EVANGELINE, EDRONEL, ANGELITO, TEODORO JR. AND FERNANDO, ALL SURNAMED DELA CRUZ, VS. SABINA MIGUEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the summary judgment of April 27, 1988 and the judgment on rental value dated July 22, 1988 are SET ASIDE and the trial court is directed to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the guidelines set forth above, and thereafter to render the proper decision. On 22 June 1990, pre-trial was conducted and terminated with the parties manifesting that they cannot settle the case and that they failed to enter into a stipulation of facts. The parties agreed to litigate the case on only one issue - whether or not respondent Sabina Miguel is inside or outside the land of the petitioners which is covered by TCT No. T-70778. [25] After trial, on 08 January 1991, the court rendered a decision [26] in this wise: The court resolves the issue in favor of the plaintiffs. The evidence is overwhelming that defendant is occupying an area within the titled land of the plaintiffs. This is established by the testimony of Angelito dela Cruz and the Sketch Plan marked as Exhibit "D" and "D-1" showing that the land occupied by the defendant is inside the titled land of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, defendant admitted that the area she is occupying is a part of the land bounded on the North by Mabini St., East by Magsaysay St., West by Quezon St., and South by Bonifacio St. This is the description of the entire land, consisting of one block, owned and titled in the name of the plaintiffs. . . . WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Sabina Miguel ordering said defendant to vacate the premises of the land in question described in paragraph 2 of the complaint and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-70778 and to remove her house and/or whatever improvements she introduced on the land, and to pay the plaintiffs P15,000.00 representing the rental value of the land occupied by her at the rate of P500.00 from the time the complaint was filed on July 30, 1987. Costs against the defendant. Respondent appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. [27] On 12 July 2000, the latter reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The decision [28] partly reads as follows: After a thorough and careful evaluation of the records hereof and the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the parcel of land which is registered in the name of plaintiffs-appellees includes the land being occupied by defendant-appellant. However, as the Court go deeper into the peculiar circumstances hereof, one important question surfaces: Can plaintiffs-appellees recover the said land from defendant-appellant who has been in peaceful possession thereof for more than 40 years and has performed all acts consistent with her claim of ownership? . . . The Court rules that plaintiffs-appellees are guilty of laches for their unexplained and unreasonable delay in asserting their right to the subject land and instituting action to recover the same from defendant-appellant who has been in possession thereof for more than fort