G.R. NO. 148423 - ESPERANZA G. FRONDARINA, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, PEDRO A. FRONDARINA, ETITIONERS, VS. NAPOLEON MALAZARTE AND LAURA P. MALAZARTE.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as follows: ordering the defendants and all and any other persons claiming under them to vacate the parcel of land located at No. 5 Latires Street, Gordon Heights, Olongapo City, also identified as Lot 5, Block 15-B, Gordon Heights Subdivision, Gordon Heights, Olongapo City, with an area of 450 square meters, declared in the name of plaintiff Esperanza G. Frondarina under Tax Declaration No. 004-3574 and more particularly described under paragraph 2 of the complaint, and to deliver its possession to the plaintiffs; ordering the defendants to remove from the subject premises all constructions that they built thereat; ordering the defendants, jointly and severally to pay unto the plaintiffs actual damages in the amount of P3,000.00 and reasonable rentals of P500.00 every month from the time of forcible entry on March 18, 1988 until the time defendants have vacated the premises and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiffs; and ordering the defendants to pay jointly and severally, unto the plaintiffs the sum of P15,000.00, as attorney's fees, plus costs. [6] On April 26, 2006, respondents Malazartes filed a Notice of Appeal [7] from the adverse Decision of the Olongapo City MTCC with the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 72. The Ruling of the Olongapo City RTC Upon respondents' appeal, the Olongapo City RTC Branch 72 arrived at factual findings [8] diametrically opposed to the facts culled by the Olongapo City MTCC. According to the trial court, it was convinced that respondents were in actual and physical possession of the disputed lot through their predecessor-in-interest, Romeo Valencia; because they bought it from him on March 1, 1988 and they started to occupy the disputed lot on March 18, 1988 according to the testimony of Laura Malazarte. The trial court said that "this [testimonial evidence] is the strong point in the evidence on record in favor of the [respondents]." The trial court further discoursed that: [P]laintiffs failed to prove, with preponderance of evidence, that they were in actual and physical possession of the subject land. The plaintiffs were not in personal actual and physical possession of the subject land. The plaintiffs' possession was through a caretaker. Esperanza Frondarina testified on this fact: Q Did you occupy the property after it was sold to you by your sister? A I have a caretaker, sir. Q What is the name of your caretaker Mrs. Witness? A Andrada sir. (TSN, p. 4, Nov. 16, 1989). The plaintiffs have only hearsay knowledge of who planted the two mango trees and one coconut tree. Q Mrs. Frondarina, do you know who planted this two mango trees and one (1) coconut tree? A Santos [Flordelina] from whom my sister bought the lot sir. x x x Q You were there present when these trees were planted Mrs. Witness? A I was not present sir. (TSN, pp. 11 to 12, Nov. 16, 1989). The evidence of the plainti