G.R. No. 133542 - FRANCISCO DEE, REPRESENTED IN THIS INSTRUMENT BY FORTUNATO T. DEE, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REYNALDO G. ROS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 80, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MORONG, RIZAL, AND RODOLFO TINGSON, AND ALL THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HIM.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Ordering the defendant and all those claiming rights under him to immediately remove, at his sole expense, the fence and other improvements erected or introduced by him on the subject premises and to surrender peacefully to the herein plaintiff the possession, control, and enjoyment of the subject lot; Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the following: P1,000.00 a month for the use and occupation of the premises until the same is vacated; P20,000.00 as attorneys fees plus P1,000 per court hearing; and Costs of suit. [6] Synthesizing and analyzing the evidence of the parties, the trial court declared: To prove his claim of such prior physical possession, plaintiff submitted to the Court: (a) a joint affidavit of Spouses Cecilia and Hermie Areno and George Tapia, dated June 14, 1996, in which it is alleged, among others, that Cecilia has been the plaintiffs land caretaker replacing her father who died on June 17, 1990; and (b) an affidavit by Renato Jaramilla, of even date, where he states that in August 1995, upon the instruction of the plaintiffs caretaker in the person of Cecilia Areno, he and two others constructed a fence and planted crops on the disputed land. For his part, defendant did not present any proof which could controvert the allegations contained in the duly sworn statements of above-named affiants. Neither was there any independent evidence to show that defendant had been in actual possession of the disputed property at least in or before August 1995. His evidence basically tend to show merely that he is an applicant for a homestead patent before the DENR and such application, to the mind of the Court, does not make for a convincing evidence to prove actual possession of a certain real property. It is even doubtful that Lots 6717 and 6107 are included in the application for the reason as stated in Page 8(3) of the plaintiffs position paper. Admittedly, defendant and his companions entered and worked on the land at or past midnight of January 17, 1996. Nevertheless, Cecilia Areno, et al.s affidavit serves to substantiate plaintiffs claim of defendants surreptitious entry into the land. [7] On appeal, the Regional Trial Court rendered its judgment reversing the decision of the MTC, thus: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanay is reversed, and the said Court is ordered to conduct further proceedings to determine the extent of the property of the plaintiff. No pronouncement as to costs. The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to transmit the records of this case to the said court. [8] The RTC ruled that a survey of the subject property was important to determine whether the petitioner owned the subject property or, as claimed by the respondent, is part of the public land. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC issued an Order dated January 23, 1998 denying the said motion. The Court ruled that: In the case at bar, it is clear that the pla