323 Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer (2005) PDF
323 Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer (2005) PDF
323 Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer (2005) PDF
*
G.R. No. 155110. March 31, 2005.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
654
655
vessel that their light on the night of a collision was red, and
nothing more, was easily overcome by testimony of witnesses on
the other vessel that the light was white, not red, and that fact
was a matter of remark among them when the light was observed.
Fourth, the witness in a state of excitement, fear, or terror is
generally incapable of observing accurately. This is so because, if
men perceive the most insignificant facts in the most diverse
ways, even when it is impossible that these facts should produce
on the observer any emotion preventing him from observing with
absolute calm, even much more will their impressions be
diversified under circumstances calculated to produce in the
onlookers excitement, fear or terror. Fifth, intoxication tends to
impair accuracy both of observation and memory of a witness.
Same Same Relationship will not by itself determine the true
worth of ones testimonythe essential test is whether such
testimony is disencumbered, credible, and in accord with human
experience. The lower courts dismissed the testimony of Garcia
regardless of how clear, positive and straightforward it was
solely on the ground that he was not a disinterested witness.
True, he was an employee of respondent relationship, however,
will not by itself determine the true worth of ones testimony. The
essential test is whether such testimony is disencumbered,
credible, and in accord with human experience. It cannot easily be
dismissed by the mere invocation of the witness relationship with
respondent. In sum, we have no reason to disagree with the CAs
evaluation that, being credible, Garcias direct testimony was
sufficient to establish respondents claim that petitioner had
entered the premises on December 1, 1993.
Same Judicial Notice Municipal Ordinances Words and
Phrases Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof because they
already know them Municipal courts may take judicial notice of
the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which
they sit, but such notice is limited to what the law is and what it
states. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof because they
already know them. Its object is to save time, labor and expense
in securing and introducing evidence on matters that are not
ordinarily capable of dispute or actually bona fide disputed, and
the tenor of which can safely be assumed from the tribunals
general knowledge or from a
656
657
prove that they were in prior possession of the premises until they
were deprived thereof by the defendant in unlawful detainer, the
plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession.
Same Same Possession Possession can be acquired not only
by material occupation but also by the fact that a thing is subject
to the action of ones will or by the proper acts and legal formalities
established for acquiring such right.Spouses Benitez v. CA has
held that possession can be acquired not only by material
occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the
action of ones will or by the proper acts and legal formalities
established for acquiring such right. Possession can be acquired
by juridical acts. These are acts to which the law gives the force
of acts of possession. Examples of these are donations, succession,
x x x execution and registration of public instruments, and the
inscription of possessory information titles. For one to be
considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical
occupation of every square inch of the property at all times. In the
present case, prior possession of the lot by respondents
predecessor was sufficiently proven by evidence of the execution
and registration of public instruments and by the fact that the lot
was subject to its will from then until December 1, 1993, when
petitioner unlawfully entered the premises and deprived the
former of possession thereof.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
658
The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the2
Rules of Court, challenging the April 312, 2002 Decision
and the August 19, 2002 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CAGR SP No. 53524. The assailed
Decision disposed as follows:
The Facts
_______________
659
660
pealed from said Decision to the Regional Trial Court and the
same was docketed in Branch 12, in Davao City as Civil Case No.
x x x 26,860.98. On February 16, 1999, said court rendered
judgment affirming the appealed Decision. A Motion for
Reconsideration was 5filed but was denied in the courts Order
dated April 21, 1999.
_______________
8Ibid.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
661
The Issues
_______________
662
First Issue:
Jurisdiction
Petitioner argues that the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case, because mere allegation of
ownership did not, by itself, show14
that respondent had
prior possession of the property.
We disagree. Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is 15
determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint.
As long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action
either for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle
holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not
support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance
the courtafter acquiring jurisdictionmay resolve to
dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.
The necessary allegations in a Complaint for ejectment
are set forth in Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
which reads thus:
_______________
663
Date of Entry
_______________
664
18
was filed within the oneyear prescriptive period.
Petitioner presented the testimony of a certain Samuel
Ruiz and offered the minutes of the hearings conducted by
the Urban Planning and Economic Development (UPED) to
prove19that the construction of the Habagat Grill began in
1992.
Respondent counters that the CA properly relied on the
testimony of the formers real property manager, Bienamer
20
Garcia, as he had personal knowledge of the facts. On the
other hand, the two trial courts allegedly relied on the
hearings conducted by the UPED in resolving that
petitioner had been in possession of the property since
1992. Respondent avers that those hearings referred to 21a
restaurant located 330 meters away, not to Habagat Grill.
The determination of the date of entry into the subject
lot is a question of fact. This Court has held in a long line of
cases that the review of cases brought before it via Rule 45
of the Rules of Court is limited to errors of law. Findings of
fact by the CA are conclusive except in a number of
instances, one of which is when its factual findings are
contrary
22
to those of the courts below, as in the present
case.
The appellate court held that the minutes of the UPED
hearing pertained to matters relating 23
to a different
establishment, the Kawayan Restaurant. Thus, the UPED
minutes did not have any material bearing on the
resolution of the present case. Consequently, the
determination of the date of entry into the subject lot boils
down to the appreciation of the testimonies of Garcia and
Ruiz.
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence
adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has
greater
_______________
665
24
weight than that of the other. Where the evidence
presented by one side is insufficient to25 ascertain the claim,
there is no preponderance of evidence. In criminal cases in
which the quantum of evidence required is greater than in
civil cases, the testimony of only one witnessif credible,
straightforward,
26
and worthy of beliefis sufficient to
convict. With more reason then, Garcias testimony, if
clear and positive, may be sufficient to establish
respondents claim.
Under Section 1 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,
among the facts and circumstances to be considered by the
court in determining which of the presented evidence has
superior weight is the witnesses means
27
and opportunity to
know the facts to which they testify.
The extent of such means and opportunity are
determined by the following considerations:
_______________
666
667
vessel that their light on the night of a collision was red, and
nothing more, was easily overcome by testimony of witnesses on
the other vessel that the light was white, not red, and that fact
was a matter of remark among them when the light was observed.
Fourth, the witness in a state of excitement, fear, or terror is
generally incapable of observing accurately. This is so because, if
men perceive the most insignificant facts in the most diverse
ways, even when it is impossible that these facts should produce
on the observer any emotion preventing him from observing with
absolute calm, even much more will their impressions be
diversified under circumstances calculated to produce in the
onlookers excitement, fear or terror.
Fifth, intoxication tends to impair28
accuracy both of
observation and memory of a witness. (Citations omitted)
_______________
668
Second Issue:
Cause of Action
Petitioner avers that no cause of action was alleged by
respondent, as shown by the following circumstances: (1)
the latters property was not encroached upon by Habagat
Grill, which had allegedly been constructed on a 31portion of
land owned by the City Government of Davao and (2)
respondent failed to prove that its 32predecessorininterest
had prior possession of the property.
On the other hand, respondent argues that the trial
court indiscriminately ignored the Report of the survey
team that had been constituted to determine the exact
location of Habagat Grill. Respondent further contends
that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the
metes and bounds of the property covered by Presidential
33
Proclamation No. 20. Although the lower court may take
33
Proclamation No. 20. Although the lower court may take
judicial notice of PD No. 20, it may not do so in regard to
the metes and bounds of Times Beach. Neither, may it
claim knowledge of the situational relation between the
land in question and Times Beach.
_______________
669
_______________
35Id., at p. 25.
36United States v. Pons, 34 Phil. 729, August 12, 1916.
37 MTC Decision, pp. 23 Rollo, pp. 7374.
670
Prior Possession
_______________
671
42
Spouses Benitez v. CA has held that possession can be
acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the
fact that a thing is subject to the action of ones will or by
the proper acts and legal formalities established for
acquiring such right.
Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are
acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession.
Examples of these are donations, succession, x x x
execution and registration of public instruments,
43
and the
inscription of possessory information titles. For one to be
considered in possession,
44
one need not have actual or
physical occupation of every square inch of the property at
all times. In the present case, prior possession of the lot by
respondents predecessor was sufficiently proven by
evidence of the execution and registration of public
instruments and by the fact that the lot was subject to its
will from then until December 1, 1993, when petitioner
unlawfully entered the premises and deprived the former of
possession thereof.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the
challenged Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
SandovalGutierrez, Corona, CarpioMorales and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
_______________
42 334 Phil. 216 266 SCRA 254, January 16, 1997 (citing Pharma
Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, 100 SCRA 339, October 17,1980).
43 Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, (1992 ed.), p. 262.
44Spouses Benitez v. Court of Appeals, supra.
672
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.