LILIA R. CATIPAY, CIVIL CASE NO.

861
Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
HRS. OF ASTERIO CATIPAY, Namely:
JULIET CATIPAY, JOSEPHUS “DECLARATORY RELIEF WITH
CATIPAY, NOVELITO CATIPAY, JEFF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION”
CATIPAY, JOVENIE CATIPAY, JUNEL
CATIPAY, JADE NICE CATIPAY, JADE
DIVINE CATIPAY,
LILIA CATIPAY DWARKIN,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

Comments:

By virtue of an order from the Municipal Trial Court of Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, this case was
referred to mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center pursuant to Section 2 (a), Rule 18 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Second Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation
Proceedings approved by the Supreme Court on October 16, 2001.

A Narration of Events:

It was 9 o’clock in the morning of the 28th of February. The defendants were already stationed at the
mediator’s table when the group arrived. The plaintiff was running late so the mediator asked the present
party to wait for the former to arrive. Feeling a bit impatient after waiting for more than 15 minutes, the
defendants started to relay their story. The mediator, Mr. Genedino Benitez, politely explained to them
that it would better if they wait for the petitioner so that he can fully hear both sides.
Immediately, the group observed how the mediator maintained his neutral position despite the absence of
the other party. He was committed to helping the parties settle the issue by showing that he was on no
one’s side, except on the potential reconciliation of the adverse disputants.
Moments later, the plaintiff arrived. She was an elderly woman, Lilia R. Catipay, accompanied by her one
of her children.
The proceedings immediately commenced. Mr. Benitez started off by elucidating the purpose of
mandatory mediation as well as its benefits. He emphasized the perennial problem of clogged court
dockets, causing delay in the resolution of disputes and contributing to dissatisfaction in the settlement of
issues through courts. Hence, there arises a need for Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) which
include the method of mediation, as a means for speedy and inexpensive disposition of cases. He added
how civil cases can take years of painful and burdensome litigation.
After this, he clarified to the parties that he is not to decide the merits of the case. He was unconcerned
with who was telling the truth and stated that his main purpose was to bring them together and to do his
best to assist them in reaching a compromise settlement. Mr. Benitez, however, told the parties that he
will not be the one to come up with a solution, for it should be the parties who must agree to settle and on
their own terms
Once both sides have fully understood, Mr. Benitez then allowed them to each air their case.
The plaintiff first shared her cause. She narrated that she was the second wife of the Asterio Catipay, the
father of herein defendants. She claims that she is the legal owner of an approx. 200sq.m lot by virtue of
an Original Certificate of Title. According to her, the land was initially classified as public land until she
and her husband applied for a Certificate of Title and registered such in the Register of Deeds during their
marriage. Hence, the land should be classified as part of their conjugal property. She asks that the land be
partitioned between her and heirs, as well as the heirs of her late husband from his first wife, Esterlita –
herein defendants.
After defendants refused to sign the deed of partition, Lilia filed this petition for declaratory relief with
preliminary injunction.
Defendants, however, have a different stand. They disagreed with Lilia’s claim that the land was part of
the conjugal property, but insisted that it belonged to their grandfather, Faustino, who paid the tax
declaration therein and occupied such land even before Lilia and their father got married. It was only in
1960s that Asterio started to pay for the tax declaration of herein land. They explained that the land was
inherited by Asterio Catipay from their grandparents as opposed to Lilia’s claim that it was part of the
conjugal partnership.
In addition to their claims, the defendants also insisted that there was already an agreement on the
extrajudicial partition of the land. It would be divided equally between the four heirs of the first wife and
the four heirs of the second wife, Lilia. However, before signing the deed of partition, defendants noticed
a provision in the deed pertaining to the cancellation of a certain deed of absolute sale. They alleged that a
deed of sale was executed by the heirs of Lilia, selling their rights over the land to the defendants. Hence,
they claim to be the owner of the entire lot.
Lilia denied the validity of the deed of absolute sale, claiming she was not aware of this and that she and
her heirs were not able to receive a single penny from the transaction. Defendants pointed out that they
were the only ones who could cancel the said deed and that their refusal to do such makes it valid and
binding upon the parties.
A heated exchange ensued. Both parties were clearly not willing to settle matters amicably. The plaintiff
continued to explain that she merely wanted a fair and just partition of property, pointing that it is the
defendant who refuses to meet in the middle. The heirs contended that it was plaintiff who opened the
gates to litigation and they were simply giving her what she asked for.
The mediator tried to reason with the parties and asked them to sleep on the matter. He asked to meet
them again on March 14, 2019 to try to settle the issue. If unsuccessful, he said he cannot do anything but
to refer the case back to the court.
The day came when the parties were back again in that same corner, the mediator in the middle,
facilitating the discussion. However, instead of a hearty reconciliation, the group was met with more
drama as defendants refused to give in to the plaintiff’s demands. The parties ended up throwing hurtful
words against each other. They did agree on one thing, though – that they are determined to bring their
case to court. Finally, a settlement — just not the kind of settlement we were hoping for.
So, after a whirlwind of events, the mediator finally raised the white flag. He asked both parties to sign a
document stating that in spite of earnest efforts, a compromise agreement could not be reached due to the
refusal of both parties.
The parties left soon after, looking forward for their day in court.

Conclusion:
It’s a sad reality indeed to see families fight over a piece of land.
According to the mediator, these were the types of cases that were difficult to settle. He said compromise
settlements are more successful in criminal cases rather than in civil ones. And more often than not, the
disputants in civil cases are mostly blood-related family members.
From the discussions we’ve observed, it was clear that the fight was not merely about property ownership,
but they were, in fact, really sorting out old issues of rivalry and dominance.
Once a patriarch or matriarch of a family has passed or given up control, adult children are often left in a
position of ambiguity, or, worse, contrary beliefs about their rightful role. Disputes arise that are often
less about malevolence than about conflicting feelings, misunderstandings of intent, divergent
expectations, and resistance to change or unspoken fears.
The tremendous cost of litigation is only one of the downsides to these interfamily lawsuits. Court
pleadings and proceedings are public. One of the principal advantages of private mediation over litigation
is the confidentiality provided in keeping family fights from the public eye. The light of publicity often
cements positions and makes compromise even more difficult. Courts are limited in the remedies they can
impose. Litigation rarely heals differences or promotes understanding.
Mediators should consider these during their meetings with conflicting family members. It should raise
questions that are not only limited to the facts, but should focus more on the real reason of the hurt and
pain that these parties are feeling. Despite what seems to be a limiting role, mediators are actually
empowered to provide parties with an outsider’s perspective of events. These families, after all, are
connected through a single blood line.
Family property and financial disputes, whether presented in a suit of partition, or a probate or trust case,
are matters of the heart and the law. They present challenges for how emotions and family dynamics are
to be weighed against and balanced with legal rights and obligations. In most family disputes there is a
dissonance between wanting to win by being proven right and desiring to make peace within the family.
The role of the mediator is to help the peace motivation prevail.