View full case

RICARDO CHU v. MELANIA CAPARAS

FACTS:

This case involves a parcel of land located in Silang, Cavite, owned by Miguela Reyes. On July 5, 1975, Miguela sold a portion of the land to Melania Caparas. Miguela retained the remaining portion of the land. The deed of conveyance between Miguela and Caparas described the boundaries of the land purchased by Caparas. More than 14 years later, Caparas caused the preparation of a consolidated survey plan which erroneously included the portion of the land retained by Miguela. On November 8, 1991, Caparas sold the consolidated parcels of land, including the portion erroneously included, to the spouses Perez. On July 24, 1994, Miguela sold the portion of the land to the petitioners Ricardo Chu, Jr. and Dy Kok Eng.

After an ex parte hearing, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners but refused to approve the new survey plan they submitted. The spouses Perez filed a petition for relief from judgment, claiming that they bought the portion in good faith. The RTC set aside its earlier decision and dismissed the petitioners' complaint. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but this was affirmed by the CA.

The petitioners now seek review from the Supreme Court, claiming that there was an encroachment when the portion of the land was included in the consolidated survey plan and that they had no malice or bad faith in filing the case. The petitioners allege that there was technical encroachment in the sale due to a mistake in the survey plan. According to the petitioners, the Caparas survey plan included the subject property as part of the consolidated parcels of land owned by Caparas, which was subsequently sold to the spouses Perez. The petitioners argue that the subject property was actually the parcel of land that was retained by Miguela and later sold to them. The petitioners also claim that Caparas admitted that she was merely a trustee of the subject property.

The petitioners further contend that they cannot be held liable for damages and attorney's fees as they are the rightful owners of the subject property. On the other hand, the spouses Perez maintain that there was no encroachment and that the petitioners' resort to the court was premature. They argue that the petitioners are not purchasers in good faith and that the RTC has no authority to approve or cancel survey plans.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners' Rule 45 petition can be entertained despite involving factual issues.

  2. Whether there was encroachment on the subject property.

  3. Whether the action for reconveyance based on trust is valid.

  4. Whether there was an apparent discrepancy between the boundary description of the parcel of land described in the "Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Lupa" executed between Caparas and Miguela, the "Kasulatan ng Tuluyang Bilihan ng Lupa" executed between Caparas and the spouses Perez, and Caparas' TD on the one hand, and the boundary description of the consolidated parcels of land stated in the Caparas survey plan and the spouses Perez's title on the other hand.

  5. Whether the discrepancy in the boundary descriptions affects the petitioners' claim of encroachment.

  6. Whether the proper remedy for the petitioners is the cancellation of the Caparas survey plan and the approval of a new survey plan.

  7. Whether the sale of Lot No. 3 to the petitioners by Miguela using the Caparas survey plan can be considered as a ratification of any perceived error.

  8. Whether the award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of the spouses Perez is proper.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 only raises questions of law and not questions of fact. Since the petitioners sought relief on issues of encroachment, prematurity, and propriety of damages that presented factual considerations, their Rule 45 petition failed. The jurisdiction of the Court under a Rule 45 review is limited to reviewing perceived errors of law committed by the lower courts.

  2. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the RTC and the CA that there was no encroachment on the subject property. The records provided evidence that the property purchased by the petitioners from Miguela was different from the subject property. The petitioners' deeds and tax declarations supported the conclusion that Lot No. 3, which they allegedly owned, was distinct from the subject property. In contrast, the spouses Perez held Original Certificate of Title covering the subject property and had occupied it since 1991, establishing their ownership.

  3. The Court found that the action for reconveyance based on trust lacked basis. The petitioners failed to prove that the parcel of land they owned was the subject property, thus there was nothing to reconvey. Additionally, there was no trust, express or implied, created between the petitioners and the spouses Perez over the subject property. The property owned by the petitioners was separate and distinct from the property registered in the spouses Perez's name.

  4. The Court found that there was an apparent discrepancy between the boundary descriptions, but considered it more imagined than real because the evidence showed that the parcel of land sold to the petitioners was distinct from the consolidated parcels of land sold to the spouses Perez.

  5. The discrepancy in the boundary descriptions does not affect the petitioners' claim of encroachment because the petitioners' recourse should have been the cancellation of the Caparas survey plan and the approval of a new survey plan that correctly reflects the position of their respective landholdings.

  6. The proper remedy for the petitioners is the cancellation of the Caparas survey plan and the approval of a new survey plan, as filing an action for reconveyance was determined to be inappropriate.

  7. The sale of Lot No. 3 to the petitioners by Miguela using the Caparas survey plan can be considered as a ratification of any perceived error.

  8. The award of damages and attorney's fees in favor of the spouses Perez was considered proper based on the unfounded claim filed by the petitioners and the expenses incurred by the spouses Perez to protect their interests.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari only raises questions of law and cannot involve factual issues.

  • Factual issues are the function of the lower courts whose findings bind the Supreme Court when supported by evidence.

  • An action for reconveyance seeks to transfer or reconvey property wrongfully registered to its rightful owner, and the plaintiff must prove ownership and erroneous registration.

  • A trust by operation of law presumes a conflict between the rightful owner and the legal title holder over the same property.

  • A discrepancy in boundary descriptions may not necessarily invalidate a sale if there is evidence showing that the parcel of land sold is distinct from other properties.

  • The proper remedy for land disputes involving survey plans is to file the appropriate action before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Land Management Bureau for the cancellation of the erroneous survey plan and the approval of a new survey plan.

  • Ratification can occur when a party performs an act that confirms or adopts a prior act that may have been erroneous or defective.

  • Purchasers are deemed to be in bad faith if they have notice that another person has a right to or interest in the property they are purchasing.

  • Unfounded claims filed against innocent third parties may result in the payment of damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.