G.R. No. 262034 - MERCURIA B. MAGSI, VS. HEIRS OF IGNACIO A. LOPEZ, JR., NAMELY: DELIA DE GUZMAN LOPEZ AND LORRAINE DE GUZMAN LOPEZ, AND RODOLFO BARNACHEA, SR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly to protect his principal's interest. While Rodolfo admitted that he notified Magsi about the demolition of her illegal structure, he explained that it was the City Government of Baguio who recommended its demolition. He also admitted to placing the "NO TRESPASSING" sign to protect the property from Magsi, who is a trespasser on Lot No. 49, which was titled in favor of the Heirs of Lopez, Jr. [18] Respondents mentioned that the lot occupied and applied for by Magsi is Lot No. 50, while the lot of the Heirs of Lopez, Jr. is Lot No. 49. They claimed that Magsi never occupied Lot No. 49 since she and her family stayed in Lot No. 50. However, Magsi surreptitiously erected a shanty on respondents' property and had it rented by tenants without any building permit. This was precisely why the City Government of Baguio recommended its demolition as early as October 8, 1998. [19] During the preliminary conference, the parties agreed on the following stipulations: The subject property was previously owned by the National Government and covered by Republic Act No. 1361. The lot applied for by [Magsi] is Lot No. 50. Lot No. 49 is already titled in the name of Ignacio Lopez, Jr. The property sought to be recovered by [Magsi] is inside the titled property of the [Heirs of Lopez] as far as the metes and bounds as described in the title are concerned. [20] Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) In its Decision [21] dated February 12, 2018, the MTCC ruled in favor of Magsi. The dispositive portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE , with the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] MERCURIA B. MAGSI and ordering [respondents] HEIRS OF IGNACIO LOPEZ, namely, Delia De Guzman Lopez and Lorraine De Guzman Lopez, and RODOLFO BARNACHEA, including all persons acting for and in behalf of them, to surrender possession of the subject property to the plaintiff. The [respondents] shall also pay jointly and severally the [petitioner] the sums of [PHP] 20,000.00 and [PHP] 5,903.55 as reimbursements for attorney's fees and filing fees, respectively. Costs against the [respondents]. SO ORDERED.