LINDA RANA, VS. TERESITA LEE WONG, SPS. SHIRLEY LEE ONG AND RUBEN ANG ONG, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT WILSON UY, AND SPS. ROSARIO AND WILSON UY.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the plaintiffs are hereby allowed to use heavy equipments/machineries in order to develop the area and make use of the right of way which is located between the [Wong-Ong and Rana properties] . (Emphasis supplied) Despite the limited tenor of the November 27, 1997 Order, Wong, et al. , on May 23 and 24, 1998, proceeded to level the subject portion, which, in the process, hampered Sps. Rana's ingress and egress to their residence, resulting too to the entrapment of their vehicle inside their garage. [25] Feeling aggrieved, Sps. Rana, on June 19, 1998, filed a Supplemental Answer, [26] praying for: ( a ) the restoration of the soil, boulders, grade, contour, and level of the subject portion; and ( b ) payment of moral damages, actual and consequential damages, and exemplary damages. Meanwhile, on December 8, 1997, Sps. Rana filed with another branch of the same trial court a Complaint [27] for Recovery of Property and Damages against Sps. Uy, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-21296 . They alleged that in October 1997, they caused a resurvey of their property which purportedly showed that Sps. Uy encroached upon an 11-square meter (sq. m.) portion along the common boundary of their properties. Their demands for rectification as well as barangay conciliation efforts were, however, ignored. Thus, they prayed that Sps. Uy be ordered to remove their fence along the common boundary and return the encroached. portion, as well as to pay moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. After the filing of Sps. Rana's complaint, Civil Case No. CEB-21296 was consolidated with Civil Case No. CEB-20893. [28] In response thereto, Sps. Uy filed an Answer with Counterclaim, [29] averring that prior to putting up their fence, they caused a relocation survey of their property and were, thus, confident that their fence did not encroach upon the Rana property. In view of Sps. Rana's complaint, they then caused another relocation survey which allegedly showed, however, that while they encroached around 3 sq. m. of the Rana property, Sps. Rana intruded into 7 sq. m. of their property. Hence, they posited that they had "a bigger cause than that of [Sps. Rana] in [so] far as encroachment is concerned." [30] Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of Sps. Rana's complaint with counterclaim for damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. In light of the foregoing, the RTC appointed three (3) commissioners to conduct a resurvey of the Uy and Rana properties for the purpose of determining if any encroachment occurred whatsoever. [31] The RTC Ruling On December 20, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision [32] in the consolidated cases. In Civil Case No. CEB-20893 , the RTC found that: ( a ) Sps. Rana, without prior consultation with the subdivision owner or their neighbors, developed to their sole advantage the subject portion consisting of one-half of the width of the 10-meter subject road by intro