l\epublic of tbe ~bilippines
$Upreme <1:ourt
;ffianila
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated March 22, 2023 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209668 (La Filipina Evangelical Church, Inc. v. United
Church of Christ in the Philippines, respondent, Billy Castrence, Nino
Khadaffo Tanzo, Julynel Gante, Michelle Castrence, Jefferson Castrence,
and Evangeline* Dayanan, intervenors).- This is a Petition 1 under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and
Injunction assailing the March 14, 2013 Decision2 and the August 5, 2013
Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 01675-MIN.
4
The assailed rulings reversed and set aside the February 1, 2008 Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Branch 2 in
Civil Case No. 3460, which dismissed the Complaint5 for recovery of
possession, damages and attorney's fees filed by respondent United Church of
Christ in the Philippines (United Church) against petitioner La Filipina
Evangelical Church, Inc. (Evangelical Church).
The Antecedent Facts
The case arose from a Complaint filed by United Church against
Evangelical Church for recovery of possession over four contiguous parcels
of land situated in Purok 3, Barangay La Filipina, Tagum City, with a total
area of 2,289 square meters.6
In the complaint, United Church claimed that its members have been in
possession of the subject properties since 1957. Its members constructed
thereon a church building where they could use as a place of worship and in
• Also spelled as Evangelyn in some parts of the rollo .
1 Rollo, p. 4-19.
2 Id. at 26-41. Penned by Associate Justice n1osep Y . Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and concurred
in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court).
Id. at 2 1-24.
4
ld.at 73-79.
5
Id. at 53-58 (sans annexes).
6 Id. at 53 .
- over - nine (9) pages ...
169
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
furtherance of related activities. United Church declared the subject properties
for taxation purposes and was issued tax declarations with a total market
value exceeding PHP 300,000.00. 7
Sometime in 2000, a conflict arose among the members of United
Church. As the members failed to settle their differences and resolve their
dispute, several members of the United Church, which consisted of around 30
families, formed Evangelical Church, a religious corporation duly registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Sometime in August 2000,
members of Evangelical Church removed the United Church signboard and
replaced the same with La Filipina Evangelical Church, Inc. Since the
members of United Church were outnumbered by the members of Evangelical
Church, United Church was ousted of its possession of the subject properties.
Members of the United Church had to temporarily hold worship services at
the residence of one of its members. United Church sent a final written
demand to Evangelical Church. As the demand was left unheeded, United
Church filed the instant complaint before the RTC. 8
In its Answer,9 Evangelical Church contended that United Church was
never in possession of the subject properties, and that it was Evangelical
Church, albeit under the name of United Church, which declared the said lots
for taxation purposes prior to its separation, cessation, and withdrawal from
the mainstream of United Church. Moreover, it was their members, through
their collective efforts, who caused the construction of the church building on
the subject properties. Meanwhile, due to internal conflicts in United Church,
several of its members withdrew their affiliation from the mainstream of
United Church and fonned an independent congregation in the name of
Evangelical Church. In this regard, Evangelical Church insisted that its
members are the very same original members of United Church.
As special and affirmative defenses, Evangelical Church alleged the
following:
13. That the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction; the lots in dispute are
still part of the public domain; though the instant action is one for
recovery of possession, but the very core of the issue is who between
the Plaintiff and Defendant has the preferential right over the
disputed lots; Defendant respectfully submits that this Honorable
Court has no jurisdiction but the DENR; in fact, there was already a
preliminary investigation conducted by the personnel of the DENR
Tagum; copy of the Transmittal/Letter of PENRO Romulo Valerio is
hereto attached as Annex "B";
14. That Rev. Oliver T. Paraiso has no legal personality to institute the
instant case; he is devoid of any authority to sue or be sued for and
in behalf of the UCCP;
7
Id. at 54.
8
Id. at 54-55 .
9
Id. at 63 -68.
- over -
169
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 209668
March 22 , 2023
15. That Plaintiff has no cause of action.
The lots in dispute are known as Lots 253, 279, 280 and 381
of the Tagum Cadastre. The said four (4) lots were part and portions
of Lot 459 whose original allocate/claimant was Rodolfo Castrence
as shown by the Survey Notification Card dated March 23, 1937,
copy is hereto attached as Annex "C;"
Rodolfo Castrence and his family were faithful of the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines. Realizing the necessity and
convenience of a church building for their worship and of the others
in La Filipina, the Castrence family and other members constructed a
church on Lot 459 of Rodolfo Castrence bringing the name of the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines.
There never was any transfer of rights or any mode of
conveyance made by Rodolfo Castrence in favor of the UCCP. If
ever the church was constructed, it was just through the benevolence
and generosity of Rodolfo Castrence being a devoted member of the
uccP. 10
A hearing was thus set by the RTC for the purpose of hearing the special
and affirmative defenses raised by Evangelical Church. On December 3,
2002, the trial court, through presiding Judge Erasto D. Salcedo, issued an
Order, 11 which states:
[Evangelical Church] questions the jurisdiction of the Court over the
subject matter of the case considering that the disputed parcels of land are still
part of public domain.
[United Church] has been in continuous possession of the land subject
matter of the case since 1957. Presumably, the property subject of this case is
already an alienable and disposable portion of a public land, which can be
subject of the grant.
This case 1s a recovery of possession which the court acquires
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is denied.
SO ORDERED. 12
After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
10
Id. at 66-67.
11
See id. at 28-29.
i2 Id.
- over -
169
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In February 1, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads, as follows :
WHEREFORE, this case is hereby dismissed.
Defendant's counter-claim not being impressed with merit, the same is
likewise hereby denied.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC held that it did not have jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of
possession and deten11ine who between the parties has the better right to
possess the subject lots since the same properties are still classified as public
lands. Thus, it ruled that the subject matter of the complaint is within the
jurisdiction of the Land Management Services of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 14
United Church filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by
the RTC in its June 25, 2008 Order. 15 Aggrieved, United Church filed an
Appeal with the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its March 14, 2013 Decision, the CA granted the appeal and set aside
the February 1, 2008 Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 1, 2008
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Tagum City, Davao de! Note,
Branch 2, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one be rendered
ordering appellee to vacate the subject lots and surrender it in favor of
the appellant.
SO ORDERED. 16 (Emphasis in the original)
The CA held that while the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is
confined to the detennination of the respective rights of claimants of public
lands, the power to determine who has the better right of possession over
them still remains with the courts. Thus, the CA held that the R TC committed
patent error when it dismissed United Church's complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. The CA also observed that the issue of jurisdiction was
already raised by Evangelical Church as an affirmative defense, and resolved
by the RTC in its December 3, 2002 Order, which held that the court has
13
CA rollo, p. 14.
14
Id. at 13.
15
See id. at 33.
16 Rollo, p. 40.
- over -
169
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
jurisdiction over actions involving recovery of possession involving public
lands. 17
Given the foregoing, the CA held that as between United Church and
Evangelical Church, United Church has a better claim or title over the subject
properties since it was able to prove that it had actual possession of the said
properties as early as 1957, coupled with its tax declarations over the same as
presented before the court. The CA noted, however, that its decision in the
present case does not preclude the parties from instituting the proper
administrative action for the purpose of resolving the issue of ownership over
the subject properties. 18
Evangelical Church filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 19 but the same
was denied by the CA in its August 5, 2013 Resolution.20
Hence the instant petition.
Proceedings before this Court
Meanwhile, on April 11, 2014, herein pet1tloner-intervenors Billy
Castrence, Nifio Khadaffo Tanzo, Julynel Gante, Michelle Castrence,
Jefferson Castrence and Evangeline Dayanan filed a Motion for Leave Court
to File Petition in Intervention21 together with an attached Petition-in-
Intervention.22 United Church then filed a Cornment23 to the Petition-in-
Intervention. In a Resolution24 dated December 9, 2020, this Court required
the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. Petitioner-intervenors then
filed their Memorandum25 with this Court.
The Petition-in-Intervention
In their petition and memorandum, petitioner-intervenors allege that they
are registered owners and holders of residential free patents over the subject
properties, which were issued to them by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) while the instant case is pending before this
Court. 26 To substantiate their allegations, petitioner-intervenors respectively
submitted to this Court copies of letters from the DENR to the Register of
Deeds of Tagum City as well as its Orders for the Issuance of Residential
Free Patents to petitioner-intervenors.27 Subsequently, the Registry of Deeds
17
Id. at 35-37.
18
Id. at 37-40.
19
Id. at 42-50.
20
Id. at 2 I-24.
21 Rollo, pp. 135-1 37.
22 Id. at 138-145.
23
Id. at 165-180.
24 Id. at 230.
25 Id. at 246-254.
26
Id. at 247-249.
27
Id. at 147-16 1.
- over -
169
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
for Davao Del Norte issued Original Certificates of Title (OCT) to the
patentees, thus:
Patentee Residential Free Original Certificate
Patent No. of Title No.
Billy Castrence 112319-2013-0445 201400055428
Nifio KhadaffoTanzo 112319-2013-0484 2015000023 29
Jefferson Castrence30 112319-2013-0444 201500021031
Evangelyn Dayanan 112319-2013-0493 201400093 932
Julynet Gante 112319-2013-0483 unnurn bered33
Petitioner-intervenors assert that a resolution on the merits of the case
would ultimately evict or dispossess them of the subject properties without
due process oflaw. 34
Issues
The issues before this Court are the following: (1) whether the courts
may resolve questions relating to possession of public lands; and (2) who
among the parties is entitled to the rightful possession over the subject
properties.
Our Ruling
Both United Church and Evangelical Church do not dispute that the
subject properties are considered public lands. Anent United Church's
Complaint, Evangelical Church argues that United Church does not only
claim possession, but also ownership over the said properties, which is an
issue beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. Thus, since the properties subject
of the controversy are public lands, Evangelical Church maintains that the
determination of possessory rights over the same falls within the jurisdiction
of the DENR.
To be clear, the instant complaint filed by United Church is one for
accion publiciana or recovery of possession of the subject properties. As
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3460, United Church never asked that it be
declared the owner of the lots in question, but only prayed that it be allowed
to recover possession thereof from Evangelical Church.
28 Id. at 271 -274.
29 Id. at 275-278.
30 Spouse of Michelle Castrence.
31 Rollo, pp. 279-282.
32
Id. at 283-286.
33
Id. at 287 .
34
Id. at 250-252.
- over -
169
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
Notably, while regular courts would have no power to conclusively
resolve the issue of ownership given the supposed public character of the
lands in dispute, as the same falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DENR, it is equally settled that this does not divest regular courts of
jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants to
protect their respective possessions and occupations,35 such as in this case.
Moreover, in Gabriel, Jr. v. Crisologo, 36 We held that:
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover
possession only, not ownership. When parties, however, raise the issue of
ownership, the court may pass upon the issue to determine who between the
parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, nonetheless, is
not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for
the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership
is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of
ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties
involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on
the issue of ownership. 37
Notwithstanding the foregoing discussions, this Court is not inclined to
make a definitive ruling on the classification of the properties in question, that
is, whether the same are public or alienable or disposable lands.
It appears, in this regard, that herein petitioner-intervenors have
presented before this court copies of letters from the DENR to the Register of
Deeds of Tagum City as well as its Orders for the Issuance of Residential
Free Patents to petitioner-intervenors, and OCTs over the properties in
question, which appear to be registered under the names of petitioner-
intervenors. The aforementioned documents, if considered, would imply that
the subject properties are no longer public lands, thereby making the first
issue on jurisdiction moot as no useful purpose can be served by its
resolution.
The OCTs presented by petitioner-intervenors would also have bearing
on the issue of possessory rights over the subject properties. In this regard,
both United Church and Evangelical Church claim that they have been in
possession of the lots since 1957. However, if the documents attached to the
petition-in-intervention are to be considered competent and admissible
evidence, it appears that petitioner-intervenors would still have a better right
of possession since their right is based on ownership recognized by OCT Nos.
2014000554, 2015000023, 2015000210, and 2014000939 respectively
registered and titled under their names. Accordingly, the age-old rule that the
35 Bagunu v. Spouses Aggabao, 67 1 Phil. 183, 200 (201 I).
36 735 Phil. 673 (2014).
37
Id. at 683.
- over -
169
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
person who has a Torrens title over the land is entitled to possession thereof
squarely applies in their favor.38
The determination, however, of whether petitioner-intervenors are
indeed registered owners of the subject properties can only proceed from a
factual inquiry to be conducted by the RTC. For this reason, the Court finds
that a remand of this case to the R TC for further reception of evidence is in
order.
WHEREFORE, the pet1t10n is DENIED. Accordingly, the case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao del Norte,
Branch 2 for reception of evidence presented by herein petitioner-intervenors
and, thereafter, PROCEED with the resolution of the case on the merits
WITH DISPATCH.
The Court resolves to NOTE the following:
1) Letter dated April 11 , 2022 of Ms. Nelsie D. Loja, Records Officer II,
Judicial Records Section-Archives and Receiving Unit, Court of Appeals,
Mindanao, in compliance with the Resolution dated March 31, 2022,
informing the Court that the rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 01675-Min was
elevated to the Supreme Court on August 16, 2019, in compliance with the
Resolution dated April 8, 2019, with attached photocopy of the Court of
Appeals letter transmittal as proof;
2) Formal Entry of Appearance by Atty. Potenciano Bob Q. Otaza, Jr.,
stating that it is entering his appearance as the new counsel for respondent due
to the untimely demise of former counsel for respondent, Atty. Luel C.
Mendez, and the compliance submitting the attached Memorandum, and
GRANTS the request that the orders and processes of the Court be sent at
Estabillo and Otaza Law Offic,est, Ground Floor, Sollano Building, Quezon
Street corner Abad Santos Street, Tagum City;
3) Memorandum by respondent, in compliance with the Resolution
dated December 9, 2020;
4) Letter dated November 23 , 2022, by counsel for respondent, stating
that the memorandum for this case, which was supposedly sent to the
Supreme Court, was sent instead to the Court of Appeals, with attached
copies of the formal entry of appearance and memorandum; and
5) Memorandum for petitioner, in compliance with the Resolution dated
December 9, 2020.
38 See Heirs of Cul/ado v. Gutierrez, G.R. No . 21 2938, July 30, 2019, citing Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses,
656 Phil. 361 ,3 73 (2011 ).
- over -
169
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 209668
March 22, 2023
The Court further resolves to REQUIRE:
1) Atty. Potenciano Bob Q. Otaza to submit a verified declaration of
the formal entry of appearance pursuant to the February 22, 2022 Resolution
dated A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC; and
2) Respondents to submit a verified declaration of the Memorandum
pursuant to the February 22, 2022 Resolution in A .M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and
11-9-4-SC.
both within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official business.
By authority of the Court:
LIBRA
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
169
APR o 4 2023
AGTON RAMOS QU IROS LAW OFFICE Court of Appeals
Counsel for Petitioner 9000 Cagayan de Oro C ity
247-C Juan Dela Cruz Street (CA-G.R. CV No. 01675-MIN)
8000 Davao City
Atty. Lue! Mendez
(Deceased)
ESTABILLO & OTAZA LAW OFFICES
The Hon. Presiding Judge Counsel for Respondent
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 Ground Floor, Sollano Building
Tagum C ity, 8100 Davao del Norte Quezon cor Abad Santos Streets
(Civ. Case No. 3460) Tagum City, 8100 Davao del Norte
Public Information Office (x) Atty. Virginio C. Juan II
Library Services (x) Counsel for lntervenors
Supreme Court Door 2, 2 nd Floor, S & M Yamas Building
(For uploadi ng pursuant to A.M. Rizal & Osmefia Streets, Tagum City
No. 12-7-1-SC) 8 I 00 Davao del Norte
Philippine Judic ia l Academy (x) Judgme nt Division (x)
Supreme Court Supreme Court
UR
