346. Tahanan Development Corp. v. CA, GR L-55771, Nov.

15, 1982, 118 SCRA 273

FACTS

The Pascuals filed an Amended Petition and although they allegedly undertook
relocation survey on the subject land by which the supposed adjoining owners and
claimants may be definitely ascertained as well as the actual occupation and respected
addresses, they only included Pedro L. Flores as the occupant. The amended Petition
notwithstanding, the omission of Tahanan as adjoining owner and even as occupant of
portions of the supposed Pascual property is palpable and conspicuous.

ISSUE

Whether or not it is the duty of petitioners to know their adjoining property owners?

RULING

Yes. It the duty of petitioners to know their adjoining property owners. It is all too evident
that the Pascuals in refiling their Petition for Reconstitution in October, 1977 docketed
as Case No. 504-P, had no intention to notify nor give cause for notification and
knowledge to all adjacent or boundary owners, particularly Tahanan.

The Pascuals are duty-bound to know who are their actual adjacent boundary owners
on all sides and directions of their Property. They are charged with the obligation to
inquire who their neighbors are in actual possession and occupancy not only of portions
of their own property but also of land adjacent thereto. This duty or obligation cannot be
ignored or simply brushed aside where the location or the properties involved is a prime
site for land development, expansion, suitable for residential, commercial and industrial
purposes and where every square inch of real estate becomes a valuable and profitable
investment. It is of public knowledge in the community of Paranaque that "Tahanan
Village" is a privately-owned and occupied residential subdivision, plainly visible to the
general public by reason of the perimeter fence or wan separating it from adjacent
estates, the roads and streets therein and leading thereto, the numerous home
constructions and buildings going on, the visible electrical, lighting and water supply
installations, the presence of private security guards thereat and the numerous signs
and billboards advertising the estate as a housing development owned and/or managed
by petitioner Tahanan. It is preposterous to claim that the area is public land.