Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81959:g-r-no-186366,-july-03,-2013-heirs-of-jose-fernando,-petitioners,-v-reynaldo-de-belen,-respondent&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:09:06+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 186366, July 03, 2013 - HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO DE BELEN, Respondent.
HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO DE BELEN, Respondent.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the 11 February 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87588, setting aside the 28 October 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10 of Malolos City, Bulacan, which rendered a favorable finding for the petitioners in a complaint for recovery of possession docketed as Civil Case No. 180-M-98.
This case emanated from a complaint for Recovery of Possession3 filed on 6 March 1998 by the petitioners against Reynaldo De Belen, herein respondent, before the RTC, Branch 10 of Malolos, Bulacan, involving a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-487 (997) registered in the name of the late Jose, married to Lucila Tinio and Apolonia Fernando, wife of Felipe Galvez, consisting of 124,994 square meters, more or less, which is situated in Baliuag, Bulacan.
Instead of filing an Answer, respondent Reynaldo De Belen filed a Motion to Dismiss7 dated 22 June 1998, setting forth the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction; (2) lack of cause of action; (3) ambiguity as to the portion of the lot De Belen occupies; and, (4) incomplete statement of material facts, the complaint having failed to state the identity, location and area of the lot sought to be recovered.
The petitioners filed their Opposition8 on 17 July 1998, averring that the complaint states a cause of action and respondent need not be confused because the estate under OCT No. RO-487 (997) is actually known as Psu-39080 with an area of 124,994 square meters divided into Lot 1 (80,760 square meters), Lot 2 (22,000 square meters), and Lot 3 (21,521 square meters). Likewise, petitioners also stated that their father, Jose and the latter’s sister, Antonia A. Fernando, were co-owners pro-indiviso of the subject property and that as indicated in their demand letter, they represent the heirs of Jose and Antonia A. Fernando, both deceased many years ago. Although, a matter of proof to be presented in the course of the trial, petitioners nonetheless advanced that Antonia Fernando predeceased her brother Jose and she died without issue; thus, her undivided share was consolidated with that of her brother.
Finding lack of merit, the motion was denied in an Order9 dated 3 November 1998, with the trial court ordering herein petitioners to amend the complaint by indicating the details desired by the respondent in order for the latter to file a responsive pleading.
On 12 February 1999, the Amended Complaint10 with its attachment was filed to which the respondent moved for a Bill of Particulars,11 specifically questioning the legal basis for the complaint since the entire property appears to be co-owned by Jose and Antonia Fernando and it was not particularized in the complaint as to what specific portion belongs to each of the co-owners.
In addition, the respondent, in his Answer,12 claimed that even the Bill of Particulars13 did not clearly show the exact identity, personal circumstances and relationship of the individual heirs of the decedent, location, area and size of the subject property. Also, prescription, estoppel and laches had set in as against the petitioners.
The respondent further argued that the Amended Complaint was prematurely filed due to the fact that the Certification to File Action was issued in violation of the prescribed procedure. The respondent likewise insisted on his right of possession over the subject property as evidenced by the successive transfer from Felipe Galvez to Carmen Galvez on 11 March 1955; from Carmen Galvez to Florentino San Luis to Reynaldo De Belen on 4 June 1979, and the receipt for the purchase price of P60,000.00 dated 19 June 1979. He asserted that from the date of his purchase, he has been in exclusive, continuous, open and public possession of said parcel of land.
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the issues on jurisdiction for failure of the petitioners to state the assessed value of the subject property, absence of evidence proving the lawful ownership of the petitioners and the grant of affirmative reliefs which were not alleged or prayed for.
On 11 February 2009, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed decision setting aside the decision of the RTC for want of jurisdiction and declaring further that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
Hence, the petition at bench seeking the reversal of the aforementioned decision.
The core issue for resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction for failure to allege in the complaint the assessed value of the subject property.
"Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
Thereby guided, the Court of Appeals no longer dwelt on the other issues and matters raised before it.
Jurisprudence has it that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.20 As held in the case of Solmayor v. Arroyo,21 it is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again. This is premised on the presumed thorough appreciation of the facts by the lower courts. Such that, when the trial court and the appellate court, as in this case, reached opposite conclusions, a review of the facts may be done. There is a permissible scope of judicial review on the factual findings of the lower courts as crystallized in Treñas v. People of the Philippines,22 where the Court cited contradictory findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court as one of the instances where the resolution of the petition requires a review of the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence upon which they are based.
We, accordingly, review the records of this case and note the facts and evidence ignored by the appellate court. We observe that at the initial stage of this case when the respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC in a Motion to Dismiss, he solely assailed the vagueness of the complaint for failure to allege the specific identity of the subject property and for being prematurely filed. The trial court in its 3 November 1998 Order, settled the issue by declaring that the allegations in the complaint make out for a case of recovery of ownership and that the petitioners need not wait for the lapse of one year from the 8 April 1997 demand letter to maintain the accion reinvidicatoria. The trial court went on to explain that the complaint clearly gives the defendant, herein respondent, notice of their exclusive and absolute claim of ownership over the entire property covered by the OCT No. RO-487 (997).
From the said Order, the respondent never raised any objection and did not even opt to elevate the matter to a higher court via a certiorari case which is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. If indeed respondent was not convinced of the trial court’s ruling, he could have availed of such remedy which is an original and independent action that does not proceed from the trial that would lead to the judgment on the merits. As aptly cited in the case of New Frontier Sugar Corporation v. RTC, Branch 39, Iloilo City,24 when the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment.
When the pre-trial conference was concluded, the trial court issued several Pre-Trial Orders,30 specifying the identity and coverage of the subject property being claimed by the petitioners as well as that portion occupied by the respondent, simplification of facts involved, and the issues which primarily centered on the validity of the transfer or disposition made by Felipe Galvez of the paraphernal property of his wife Antonia Fernando from which transfer the respondent succeeded his right over the portion he occupied.
During the trial, the petitioners were able to prove that indeed they are the rightful heirs of Jose and Antonia Fernando and that they have right of ownership over the property covered by OCT No. RO-487 (997) as described in Plan Psu-39080 of Lots 1302-B and 1303 prepared by Geodetic Engineer Alfredo C. Borja on 15 September 1997.31 It was also proved through the admission of the respondent that he has been occupying a portion of Lot 1303 which is the Sapang Bayan, the old river, titled in the name of Jose and Antonia Fernando. Thus, it was ruled that the Deed of Sale in respondent’s favor which was traced from the transfer made by Felix Galvez on 11 March 1955, without any participation of Antonia Fernando was likewise without any settlement of property between the said husband and wife and the property remained to be the paraphernal property of Antonia. Consequently, the trial court declared that the sale between Felipe Galvez and Carmen Galvez and its subsequent transfers are void ab initio, as Felipe Galvez was neither the owner nor administrator of the subject property.
Further, the trial court went on to state that respondent has not proved his status as a purchaser in good faith and for value taking cue from the facts and circumstances as well as the numerous entries found at the dorsal sides of OCT No. RO-487 (997) which should have put any of the buyers on guard.
Similarly, as this Court held in Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,34 participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, that included invoking its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively barred the respondent by estoppel from challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The Court has consistently upheld the doctrine that while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a litigant who participated in the court proceedings by filing pleadings and presenting his evidence cannot later on question the trial court’s jurisdiction when judgement unfavorable to him is rendered.
thereby showing that way back in 1979 or nineteen (19) years before this case was instituted, the value of the property was already well covered by the jurisdictional amount for cases within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial Court Decision is AFFIRMED. Let the records of this case be remanded to the RTC, Branch 10, Malolos, Bulacan for execution.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.