G.R. No. 259061 - SPS. SALVADOR AND LEONIDA M. BANGUG AND SPS. VENERANDY ADOLFO• AND JESUSA ADOLFO, VS. GEORGE DELA CRUZ.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff herein, having proven with preponderance of evidence, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and directing defendants, their assigns and those acting for and in their behalf, to vacate the land and to surrender peacefully the possession thereof to the plaintiff being the owner of the land." Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that respondent [George] failed to show that the parcels of land that they occupied were part of and covered by [respondent George's] title. They posited that there were inconsistencies between the area indicated in the deed of reconveyance and those indicated in [respondent George's] and the four other transferees' titles, raising serious doubts as to the identity of the property claimed by respondent [George]. In its second Decision, the MTCC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. It pointed out that an ocular inspection was actually conducted on [August 14, 2015], which verified that the parcels of land occupied by petitioners were inside the property covered by [respondent George's] title. The discrepancy between the area indicated in the deed and that in the transferee's title[s] was also sufficiently explained by the subdivision plan, which showed that the "missing" square meters became part of the national road. The MTCC also noted that this issue was never raised by petitioners in their answer and must be deemed waived. Thus: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration, filed by counsel for the defendants, to the Decision of the Court dated October 30, 2017, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit." The petitioners appealed the MTCC Decisions to the RTC. They argued that they have [a] better right of possession since they inherited the property ab intestato from Cayetana and have been in possession thereof ever since. Severino's adjudication of the property for himself was void considering that there were other heirs entitled to the property. Consequently, the deed of reconveyance was equally infirm. In the assailed Decision, the RTC affirmed the MTCC's findings. It held that petitioners' position in their answer challenged the validity of [respondent George's] title, a collateral attack not allowed by law; [respondent George's] title showed a better right to possess the subject property, as opposed to petitioners' bare claim of co-ownership. Thus: "WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing discussions, this court affirms the lower court's Decision of October 20, 2017 in toto." [19] The Ruling of the CA Petitioners appealed the RTC Decision via a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the CA. The CA in its Decision [20] dated November 5, 2020 found the appeal bereft of merit and denied the same, viz.: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED . [21] The CA essentially affirmed that respondent George's preferential right of possession