Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cagayan De Oro

MANUEL L. SAMANIEGO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
CA-G.R. S.P. NO. _____
RTC Civil Case No. 1204
-versus- MTC Civil Case No. 1443

NOEL H. LOZANO, SR., For: Ejectment and

ROGER BALBIN, ROLANDO BALENA, Damages
ARMANDO CHRISOSTOMO and all other
Persons Claiming and/or Acting under their
employ or instruction
Defendants-Appellants.

x------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(Rule 42)

DEFENDANTS EVELYN B. BAYUBAY, TESSIE B.

CRISOSTOMO, ELSA S. BALBIN, ENRICO S. BALBIN AND
ROLANDO BALEÑA, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully allege:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of Court

of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 11 th Judicial Region,
Branch 3, Nabunturan, Davao de Oro (herein referred to as RTC for
brevity) in Civil Case No. 1204, which affirmed the decision of the 3 rd
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Nabunturan-Mawab-Montevista
(herein referred to as MCTC for brevity) in Civil Case No. 1443
against the Defendants.

2. Final judgment or order of the RTC in an appeal from the final

judgment or order of a MCTC, may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals through Petition for Review under this rule, whether the
appeal involves question of fact, of law or mixed question of fact and
law.

Page 1 of 13
THE PARTIES

Defendants are all of legal age and are residents of Purok 12,
Poblacion, Mawab, Davao de Oro, where the subject land is situated, and are
the defendants in said Civil Case No. 1443, MCTC, and the appellants in
Civil Case No. 1204, RTC.

Plaintiff is also of legal age and is a resident of Tagum City,

Davao del Norte, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1443, MCTC, and the
appellee in Civil Case No. 1204, RTC.

Parties have the capacity to sue and be sued and may be served
with processes at aforementioned address and through counsels of records.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

On 29 September 2020, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),

Branch 3, Nabunturan, Davao de Oro, rendered a decision denying the
appeal of the Petitioners and affirming the decision of the 3rd Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabunturan-Mawab-Montevista in Civil
Case No. 1443 against the Defendants-Appellants in the ejectment case filed
by the Plaintiff-Appellee. Certified true copy of said decision is attached
hereto as ANNEX "A".

Accordingly, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the

Defendants-Appellants through their counsel but was denied by the RTC in
a resolution dated 27 July 2021 and was received by the defendants-
appellants last 31 August 2021. A copy of such Resolution is attached hereto
as ANNEX "B".

Undersigned counsel filed on September 10, 2021 by registered mail

his seasonable Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition For Review on
Certiorari praying for additional Fifteen (15) days from September 15, 2021
or up to September 30, 2021 within which to file their intended Petition for
Review. He paid the requisite docket fees, and other fees by postal money
orders attached to the said motion.

This petition was not filed for delay. It is one which raises substantial
issues and thus, is worthy of consideration, the Regional Trial Court having
rendered the assailed decision in a way that is not in accord with facts, law
and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

Page 2 of 13
The factual background and proceedings are as follows:

1. On September 26, 2014, Plaintiff Manuel L. Samaniego filed a

verified complaint for Ejectment and Damages with an Application
for Preliminary Injunction before the MCTC;

2. In the said Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he owned the entire

area of that parcel of land of agricultural land identified as lot 520-
A, Psd-50815 (herein referred to as LOT 520-A for brevity)
covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title No. (T-623) T-97 as
registered in his name with an aggregate area of 11.97 hectares,
more or less, and situated at Purok 12, Poblacion, Mawab, Davao
de Oro (formerly Compostela Valley);

3. In 1986, the said landholding was subjected by the Department of

Agrarian Reform (DAR) to Operation Land Transfer and
segregated therefrom a substantial portion which a total area of
11.1329 hectares and distributed the same to 6 rice farmer
beneficiaries;

4. Plaintiff alleges that he was allowed to retain a small portion of the

said landholding identified after the segregation by the DAR as Lot
520-A-6 with an area of 8,358 square meters, more or less, the
subject matter of the instant case (herein referred to as SUBJECT
LOT for brevity);

5. This claim by the Plaintiff was vehemently denied by the

Defendants in their Answer and contended that under Republic Act
No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,
unless otherwise provided, no retention shall be available to the
land owner who must execute a Certification of Retention if indeed
such land owner had intentions of retaining some part of his
landholdings. Plaintiff, according to the Defendants, presented no
proof other than his bare allegations;

6. Plaintiff further alleges that while the beneficiaries had already

been awarded certain portions of the said landholding, he had
allowed and tolerated some of them to still continue to remain and
reside in their respective dwellings for free in the portion of the
former retained as his own;

Page 3 of 13
7. In the Plaintiff’s Position Paper, he claims that his claim over the
disputed property is based on his ownership over the property as
confirmed by the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 142-
2015006912 in his favour as the registered owner thereof. He
further states that defendants’ continued possession and occupation
of the disputed property was upon his tolerance after he allowed
them to retain the area subject to the arrangement that they will
vacate the same upon his demand;

8. Defendants counter that they have been in continuous possession

of the subject property in the concept of an owner thereof for
almost twenty-four (24) years already or from 1986 to 2009 and as
such they are of the belief that they cannot be simply ousted
therefrom through a summary procedure of an ejectment
proceedings;

9. Defendants further alleged that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the
Defendants’ possession of the property was by virtue of his alleged
tolerance. They elaborate that bare allegation of tolerance will not
suffice such that plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative
of his permission to occupy the subject property, they have noted
that other than a vague mention in the complaint, no other evidence
was offered by the Plaintiff showing how their entry was effected
or how and when the dispossession started;

10. To prove such tolerance by the Plaintiff, and as appreciated by the

RTC on appeal, the following were established:
a. Previous tenancy relationship between the Plaintiff and the
six (6) farmer beneficiaries;
b. Such relationship was terminated upon the segregation of
the 11.1329-hectare land due to the DAR’s Operation Land
Transfer program in 1986;
c. Upon such termination of the tenancy relationship, the
continued occupation and possession by the Defendants and
herein petitioners on the subject land is considered as an
occupation by mere tolerance;

11.MCTC ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendants,

among others, to vacate the premises and to deliver the possession
thereof to the former;

Page 4 of 13
12.An appeal was commenced before the RTC by the Defendants.
RTC, in affirming the Decision of the MCTC, resolved and
expounded, among others that the Plaintiff has caused of action for
unlawful detainer and that the Plaintiff’s action is not barred by
laches.

ISSUE RAISED

Whether or not the plaintiff had Plaintiff has Cause of

Action for unlawful detainer.

ERRORS COMMITTED BY TRIAL COURT

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RESOLVED

THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE THE SAME TENANTS
WHO ARE THE FARMER BENEFICIARIES OF THE
1986 OPERATION LAND TRANSFER OF DAR THAT
SEGREGATES LOT 520-A.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT RESOLVED

THAT THE OCCUPATION BY THE DEFENDANTS ON
THE SUBJECT LOT IS CONSIDERED AN
OCCUPATION BY MERE TOLERANCE.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONSIDERED

THE OCCUPATION BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THE
SUBJECT LOT IS BY A MERE POSSESSION AND NOT
IN THE CONCEPT OF THEIR OWNERSHIP.

GROUNDS OR REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

1. The appeal should be granted as it was filed within the

reglementary period of 15 days.

Page 5 of 13
2. The appeal should be granted as the Defendants will suffer
substantial injustice if they will be unlawfully misplaced from the subject
property.

DISCUSSION

1. A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is

that possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must
have turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess.
It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the
basis of such lawful possession must be established. If, as in this case,
the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff,
the acts of tolerance must be proved;

2. As aptly cited in the assailed decision, to prove possession by mere

tolerance for an unlawful detainer case, Plaintiff must show that the
possession was initially lawful and thereafter, establish the basis of
such lawful possession1;

3. The Honorable RTC considered the purported tenancy relationship

between the parties before the land segregation in 1986 as the basis of
the initial lawful possession by the Defendants;

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT

RESOLVED THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE THE
SAME TENANTS WHO ARE THE FARMER
BENEFICIARIES OF THE 1986 OPERATION
LAND TRANSFER OF DAR THAT SEGREGATES
LOT 520-A.

4. According to the Honorable RTC, when the Lot 520-A, Psd-50815

(LOT 520-A) was subjected to Oplan Land Distribution by the DAR,
the tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the Defendants was
ipso facto terminated. Consequently, since the tenancy relationship
has been terminated, the continued occupation by the Defendants on
the subject lot is considered as an occupation by mere tolerance. THIS
IS WHERE THE ERROR LIES;

1
Javelosa v. Tapus, et al., G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018.

Page 6 of 13
5. First, herein Defendants are not the tenants of the LOT 520-A and
second, their possession in the SUBJECT LOT is in the concept of
ownership and by virtue of any other claim or rights;

6. The Honorable trial courts might have wrongly considered all of the
Defendants as the same farmers-beneficiaries of DAR’s Oplan Land
Distribution, who previously has tenancy relationship with the
Plaintiff;

7. The farmer-beneficiaries, the original tenants of LOT 520-A, are

already occupying their respective lots previously awarded to them
and not in the SUBJECT LOT. Herein Defendants are strangers to
the Plaintiff from the beginning who merely entered and occupied the
land in 1986, the same having no possessors thereof, cultivated it and
made it productive and built their dwellings thereon;

8. In fact, even in the Complaint of the Plaintiff, he averred that there

existed no tenancy relation between the parties. It provides:

At a certain point, the Plaintiff had even referred the matter to

the Office of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer for
Conciliation. No settlement was reached therein although in
the investigation conducted by the said office, the latter had
emphasized that there existed no tenancy relation between the
parties [emphasis supplied];

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT

RESOLVED THAT THE OCCUPATION BY THE
DEFENDANTS ON THE SUBJECT LOT IS
CONSIDERED AN OCCUPATION BY MERE
TOLERANCE.

9. In Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Spouses Barbarona2, the Supreme

Court stated:

“In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of
tolerance have been present right from the very start of the
possession - from entry to the property. Otherwise, if the
possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful
detainer would be an improper remedy.”

2
GR 195814, April 4, 2018

Page 7 of 13
10.Also, in Suarez v. Sps. Emboy3, the Court warned that "when the
complaint fails to aver the facts constitutive of forcible entry or
unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected
or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be
an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria."

11.The same ruling was rendered in the case of Dr. Carbonilla v. Abiera,
et al.,4 where the Court laid the important dictum that the supposed
acts of tolerance should have been present right from the very start of
the possession—from entry to the property. "Otherwise, if the
possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful
detainer would be an improper remedy." This same ruling was
echoed in Jose v. Alfuerto, et al.,5 where the Court even emphasized
its consistent and strict holding that in an unlawful detainer case,
"tolerance or permission must have been present at the beginning of
possession; if the possession was unlawful from the start, an action
for unlawful detainer would not be the proper remedy and should be
dismissed;"

12.Let it be reiterated that the claims of ownership to the subject lot of

the Defendants neither do not spring from tenancy nor from tolerance
by the Plaintiff but by their adverse possession of the land
continuously since 1986 and for which, ripen into ownership. Such
ownership cannot be disturbed by mere unlawful detainer case;

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT

CONSIDERED THE OCCUPATION BY THE
DEFENDANTS IN THE SUBJECT LOT IS BY A
MERE POSSESSION AND NOT IN THE CONCEPT
OF THEIR OWNERSHIP.

13.In another argument set forth by the Plaintiff and which, the
Honorable RTC was likewise persuaded, is the registration of the
SUBJECT LOT in the name of the Plaintiff under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 142-2105006912 issued on April 23,
2015. Honorable RTC appreciated said TCT as proof of ownership by
the Plaintiff of the SUBJECT LOT as his retained portion of LOT
520-A;

14.It is true that a registered owner has a right of possession over the
property as this is one of the attributes of ownership 6. Ejectment cases,
3
729 Phil. 315, 329 (2014).
4
639 Phil. 473 (2010).
5
699 Phil. 307 (2012).
6
Co v. Militar, 466 Phil. 217 (2004)

Page 8 of 13
however, are not automatically decided in favor of the party who
presents proof of ownership, thus:

Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is

entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply
wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation
of the property. To recover possession, he must resort to the
proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to
file, he is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such
action to prosper.

In the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment case

against respondents. Ejectment cases - forcible entry and
unlawful detainer - are summary proceedings designed to
provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the
right to possession of the property involved. The only question
that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is
entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to
the possession de facto and not to the possession de Jure. It
does not even matter if a party's title to the property is
questionable. For this reason, an ejectment case will not
necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented
proof of ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional
facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be
averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven7. (Emphasis
supplied)

15.Further, it is respectfully submitted that ownership should not be

confused with a certificate of title. Registering land under the Torrens
System does not create or vest title, because registration is not a mode
of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of
ownership or title over the particular property described therein8;

16.Furthermore, the Certificate of Title was only issued on April 23,

2015 or six months after the Complaint of the instant case was filed.
Defendants are in possession exclusively of the SUBJECT LOT in
the concept of owner since 1986;

17.Defendants, during their entry into the SUBJECT LAND in 1986, are
strangers to the Plaintiff and cultivated and developed the land since
such has no possessors thereof. It was clearly established that their
occupation was adverse, open, continuous, notorious and in the
concept of an owner;

7
Carbonilla v. Abiera, 639 Phil. 473, 481 (2010) citing Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 172, 183 and
David v. Cordova, 502 Phil. 626 (005).
8
Ermac v. Ermac G.R. No. 149679 May 30, 2003

Page 9 of 13
18. Their continuous, undisturbed and actual possession and
introduction of permanent structures thereon independent of the
consent from the Plaintiff or from any other persons are indicative of
their claim of ownership over the subject land and not merely
possessors thereof by mere tolerance;

19. It must be stressed that the issue in the instant case is limited only to
the determination as to who between the parties has a better right to
possession. The possessory right of the Defendants over the
SUBJECT LOT spring not from the tolerance by the Plaintiff but as
an incident to their claim of ownership of the same. Plaintiff,
therefore, has no Cause of Action in the instant ejectment suit;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the
Defendants:

1. That the petition be given due course;

2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered

dismissing the case for lack of Cause of Action for Unlawful
Detainer and set aside the questioned Decision;

3. Defendants likewise prays for other reliefs deemed just and

equitable in the premises are similarly prayed for.

Nabunturan, Davao de Oro for Cagayan de Oro, Philippines,

September 29, 2021.

BY

LYNDON MELVI C. SUMI-OG

Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants
Roll No. 74318
PTR No. 264399 Jan. 04, 2021
IBP No. 15374 Jan. 19, 2021
TIN: 288-886-690-000
Mobile Number: 0915-426-3958
Email: [email protected]

Page 10 of 13
Copy furnished:

Office of the CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 3,
Nabunturan, Davao de Oro

Atty. Joel Emmanuel F. Valles, Jr.

Room 4, Suarez Plaza,
Mabini St., Tagum City,
Davao del Norte

Manuel Samaniego
c/o Atty. Joel Emmanuel F. Valles, Jr.
Room 4, Suarez Plaza,
Mabini St., Tagum City,
Davao del Norte

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

City of Tagum ) S.S.
Province of Davao del Norte)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING

We, EVELYN B. BAYUBAY, TESSIE B. CRISOSTOMO, ELSA

S. BALBIN, ENRICO S. BALBIN AND ROLANDO BALEÑA, all of
legal age, after having been duly sworn, depose and state that:

1. We are the Defendants and Appellants in the above stated case;

2. We have caused the preparation of the said Petition for Review

under Rule 42;

3. We have read the contents thereof and the allegations therein are
true and correct, based on our personal knowledge or authentic
documents;

Page 11 of 13
4. The Petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery;

6. We have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

the same issues in the any tribunal, agency or body;

7. To the best of our knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending before any tribunal, agency or body;

8. If we should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed

before any tribunal, agency or body, we undertake to report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Executed this 29th day of September, 2021 at Tagum City,

Davao del Norte, Philippines.

EVELYN B. BAYUBAY TESSIE B. CRISOSTOMO

Affiant Affiant

ELSA S. BALBIN ENRICO S. BALBIN

Affiant Affiant

ROLANDO BALEÑA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 29th day of

September 2021, affiant exhibiting to me their Proof of Identity as shown
above below their name as competent evidence of their identity.

ATTY. LYNDON MELVI C. SUMI-OG

Notary Public
Roll No. 74318
Page 12 of 13
PTR No. 264399 Jan. 04, 2021
IBP No. 15374 Jan. 19, 2021
TIN: 288-886-690-000
Email: [email protected]

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No.____;
Series of 2021.

Page 13 of 13