CA affirms RTC demolition order over a property in Pinamungajan

The Court of Appeals 20th Division has affirmed the lower court order of demolition over the contested property in Pandacan, Pinamungajan, Cebu.

CA Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla affirmed the twin orders for execution dated January 2, 2008 and for demolition dated July 13, 2009 issued by the Regional Trial Court in Toledo City, Cebu.

Padilla ruled to deny the petition filed by a certain Emiliano Sansan in his personal capacity and as representative of the heirs of Yanita Sansan for lack of merit.

Named respondents were RTC Judge Cesar Estrera, Sheriff Antonio Roque, Jr., heirs of Alfredo Gepitulan represented by Lorna Gepitulan-Tan and heirs of Francisco Ponsica represented by Anecita Gepitulan.

Sansan sought to assail the twin orders issued by the trial court in a civil case for quieting of title, annulment of documents, recovery of possession or real property, damages and attorney’s fees.

Petitioners alleged that they inherited a 0.3560 hectare parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 833 at Pandacan, Pinamungajan, Cebu, from their father Melquiades Sansan. The property was occupied by their predecessors-ininterest since 1918.

However, they said the predecessorin-interest of the respondents-Felicisimo Rico occupied a portion of the subject property being a buyer of the same from Serafin Cabarquil in 2012.

After Rico’s death, the latter’s heirs sold the lot to Alfredo, causing the motherin-law of Emiliano was prevented from cultivating her plants.

Emiliano said they filed a case before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MTCC) but it was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a civil case for quieting of title, annulment of documents, etc before the trial court.

In their reply, respondents said that on October 1, 1912, Cabarquil sold the lot to Rico. After the latter’s death, respondents said they started paying the realty taxes on the land since 1981.

In 1983, the lot was sold to Alfredo Gepitulan and Francisco Ponsica.

With the foregoing facts, the trial court ruled to dismiss the civil case filed by the petitioners.

The trial court then ordered Emiliano to eject his “cohorts who, during the proceedings in the case, wantonly intruded into and occupied unlawfully” the subject property.

Petitioners refused to vacate the subject property prompting the respondents to ask for a writ of execution and demolition which were eventually granted.

Emiliano then elevated the case to CA saying that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order granting the motion for writ of execution and the writ of demotion.

Padilla however, ruled in favor of the respondents.

“Petitioners, in not vigorously asserting their right when they had every opportunity to do so has no one to blame but themselves,” she said adopting the ruling of the trial court that when the case was in the trial court, the co-heirs of Emiliano never appeared during the trial of the case to corroborate his testimony and support his claim that they owned the subject property.—