Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

ELEUTERIZO SANCHEZ and CHARLITO

SANCHEZ,
Petitioners,

-versus- G.R. No.___________

(Civil Case No. 440)
HEIRS OF CONCORDIA ESAGA
ANINO, namely: CRISOLOGO
E. ANINO, CECELIO E. ANINO,
PREGDANO E. ANINO, LEONCIA
A. YSALINA, PROCOPIA A. QUIJADA,
ERLINDA A, SARIN, MYRA E. CALE,
And JEAN E. ANINO, rep. By CRISO-
LOGO E. ANINO as Attorney-in-Fact,
Respondents.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

Petitioners, through counsels, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully state that:

This is an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the

Decision1 of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Lanuza, Surigao del
Sur, 11th Judicial Region, dated January 20, 2017, in Civil Case No. 440
entitled “Heirs of Concordia Esaga namely: Crisologo F. Anino, Cecelio E.
Anino, Pregdano E. Anino, Leoncia B. Ysalina, Procopia A. Quijada, Erlinda
E. Sarin, Myra E. Cale, And Jean E. Anino, rep. By Crisologo E. Anino as
Attorney-in-Fact v. Eleuterizo Sanchez and Charlito Sanchez.

PARTIES

Petitioners, ELEUTERIZO SANCHEZ and CHARLITO SANCHEZ.

Respondents, HEIRS OF CONCORDIA ESAGA ANINO, namely:

CRISOLOGO F. ANINO, CECELIO E. ANINO, PREGDANO E. ANINO,
LEONCIA B. YSALINA, PROCOPIA A. QUIJADA, ERLINDA A, SARIN, MYRA
E. CALE, And JEAN E. ANINO, rep. By CRISOLOGO E. ANINO.
NATURE OF THE PETITION
1
A certified true copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”.

1
 This Petition is an Appeal by Certiorari before the Supreme Court
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, questioning the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court’s Decision dated January 20, 2017 in Civil Case No. 440
entitled “Heirs of Concordia Esaga namely: Crisologo F. Anino, Cecelio E.
Anino, Pregdano E. Anino, Leoncia B. Ysalina, Procopia A. Quijada, Erlinda
E. Sarin, Myra E. Cale, And Jean E. Anino, rep. By Crisologo E. Anino as
Attorney-in-Fact v. Eleuterizo Sanchez and Charlito Sanchez.

In its Decision, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered judgment

in favor of the respondents, declaring that respondents are the owners of Lot
No. 1347, Cad. 597-D, located at Madrelino, Cortes, Surigao del Sur, and
ordering:

1. the petitioners and all other persons claiming rights under them, to
vacate and peacefully turn over the possession of the subject lot to
respondents and all the improvements thereon and demolish the
existing buildings or structures constructed; and

2. for said petitioners to pay respondents P25,000.00 by way of moral

damages and P30,000.00 by way of attorneys fees.

Petitioners respectfully submit that the Municipal Circuit Trial

Court’s Decision and Order were rendered in a way not in accord with law
and with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court. Hence, this
petition.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, and pursuant to the

ruling in Neypes vs. Court of Appeals 2, herein Petitioners have 15 days from
the notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of
the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
due time after notice of the judgment.

Decision, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court was received by

Petitioners, through their counsels, on February 8, 2017; thus, Petitioners
had until on February 23, 2017 within which to file the Petition.

Petitioners, therefore, are filing the instant Petition within the 15-day
reglementary period provided for under the Rules of Court.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

2
Neypes, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005.

2
 On June 19, 2008, herein respondents Heirs of Concordia Esaga
namely: Crisologo F. Anino, Cecelio E. Anino, Pregdano E. Anino, Leoncia B.
Ysalina, Procopia A. Quijada, Erlinda E. Sarin, Myra E. Cale, And Jean E.
Anino, rep. By Crisologo E. Anino as Attorney-in-Fact filed a complaint with
the prayer that judgment be in her favor and against the herein petitioners:

a. DECLARING respondents as the lawful owner of Lot 1347, Cad. 597-

D;

b. ORDERING the defendants to vacate and turnover the same to the

plaintiff, including all improvements found thereon; or, in the
alternative, demolish the existing buildings or structures constructed
by the defendants or any person(s) acting for and in their behalf;

c. ORDERING the defendants to jointly and severally pay the plaintiff

the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P3,000.00 appearance
for every Court hearing; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00
as actual damages and exemplary damages to be fixed or determined
by the Honorable Court;

d. DIRECTING defendants to pay the cost of suit.

On January 20, 2017, in its Decision 3, the Municipal Circuit Trial

Court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, declaring that
respondents are the owners of Lot No. 1347, Cad. 597-D, located at
Madrelino, Cortes, Surigao del Sur, and ordering:

1. the petitioners and all other persons claiming rights under them, to
vacate and peacefully turn over the possession of the subject lot to
respondents and all the improvements thereon and demolish the existing
buildings or structures constructed; and

2. for said petitioners to pay respondents P25,000.00 by way of moral

damages and P30,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees; hence, this Petition for
Review on Certiorari before this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY

ERRED IN DECLARING RESPONDENTS AS THE REAL OWNER
OF LOT 1347 WITH AN AREA OF 709 SQUARE METERS.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY

ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE

3
Supra, Note 1.

3
 ENTITLED FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND MORAL
DAMAGES.

SUBMISSIONS

I. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED, UNDER

THE LAW, WHEN IT DECLARED THAT RESPONDENTS ARE
THE REAL OWNERS OF LOT 1347 WITH AN AREA OF 709
SQUARE METERS.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED, UNDER

THE LAW, WHEN IT DECIDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE
ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING

THAT RESPONDENTS ARE THE REAL OWNERS OF LOT 1347 WITH AN
AREA OF 709 SQUARE METERS.

A Torrens Title4 is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of

the land referred to therein. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles
were regularly issued and that they are valid. In order to maintain an action
for reconveyance, proof as to the fiduciary relation of the parties must be
clear and convincing.5 A Torrens certificate prevails over unregistered Deeds
of Sale.6

A tax declaration cannot generally prevail over adverse possession for

a long period of the disputed lot nor over a private deed of sale. 7 While tax
declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership, yet,
when coupled with proof of actual possession, tax declarations and receipts
are strong evidence of ownership.8

By mere just preponderance of evidence, the respondents had not

established their claim of ownership over the property thru tax declaration.

Thus, the court, as clear as day, committed a reversible error when it

immediately jumped into conclusion that the respondents are the real
owners of the lot in dispute.

4
(Sec. 47, Act 496)
5
Yumul v. Rivera & Dizon, 64 Phil. 13
6
Demasiado v. Velasco L-27844, May 10, 1976
7
Ereve v. Escaros L-26993, Dec. 19, 1980
8
Gesmundo v. CA 321 SCRA 487

4
II. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED, UNDER THE
LAW, IN DECIDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO
MORAL DAMAGES.

The Civil Code provides that moral damages include physical

suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act for
omission.9

The award of moral damages is designed to compensate the

claimants for actual injury and is not meant to enrich the complainant at
the expense of the defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured
party to obtain means, diversions or amusement that will serve to alleviate
the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant’s culpable
action.10Its aim is the restoration within the limits of the possible the
spiritual status quo ante.11

It must be understood to be in the concept of grants not punitive or

corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury
suffered. In other words, moral damages are not awarded to punish the
defendant but to compensate the victim.12

No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages

may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages is left to the
discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case. 13

However, there must be proof that the defendant caused physical

suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury to the
plaintiff. Without allegation and proof of such sufferings, no moral damages
can be awarded.14

Nevertheless, the language of the law need not be used to warrant

the award of moral damages. 15 So long as there is satisfactory proof of the
psychological and mental trauma actually suffered by a party, the grant to
him of moral damages is warranted.16
9
Article 2217, Civil Code
10
Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 433 [1997]; Zenith Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 185
SCRA 308 [1990]
11
Visayan Sawmil Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 378 [1993]
12
People vs. Aringue, 283 SCRA 291 [1997]; Morales vs. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 [1997]; Del Mundo
vs. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 348 [1996]; De la Serna vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 325 [1994]; Bautista
vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA 16 [1994]; Zenith Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA
398 [1990]; Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 360 [1990]; Robleza vs. Court
of Appeals, 174 SCRA 354 [1989]
13
Article 2216, Civil Code
14
Compania Maritima vs. Allied Free Worker’s Union, 77 SCRA 24
15
Mirana-Ribaya vs. Carbonell, 95 SCRA 672
16
Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 58 [1997]

5
 Aside from the fact that there is a need for the claimant to
satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damages, it is
also necessary to prove its causal relation to the defendant’s act. 17 While
moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are recoverable if
they are the proximate cause of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission. 18

The exception to the rule that the factual basis for moral damages
must be alleged are criminal cases. Moral damages may be awarded to the
victim in criminal proceedings in such amount as the court deems just
without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. 19

Based on the foregoing jurisprudence and facts, the death of one of

the respondent’s mother should not be paid with moral damages because
the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury were not duly proven.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that it REVERSE AND SET ASIDE the Decision of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the
respondents, declaring that respondents are the owners of Lot No. 1347,
Cad. 597-D, located at Madrelino, Cortes, Surigao del Sur and consequently
declare that respondents are not entitled to moral damages. Other relief,
just and equitable, are also prayed for.

Surigao City, June 25, 2022.

By the Counsel for the Petitioners

MACABODBOD LAW OFFICE

Room 69, NKSR Building,
Corner Rizal and Burgos Streets,
SURIGAO City 8400
Telephone Number: (826) 253-1890
Fax Number: (826) 253-1893
E-mail Address: freelaw@jcmlawoffice.com
JONATHAN C. MACABODBOD
Roll No. 77701 IBP No. 9887 (Lifetime)
Surigao City MCLE Compliance No. III-0008600

17
Raagas vs. Traya, 22 SCRA 839 [1968]
18
Enervida vs. De la Torre, 55 SCRA 339; Yutuk vs. Manila Electric Co., 2 SCRA 337 [1961]

19
(People vs. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998; People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 126921, August 28, 1998;
People vs. Bagayong, G.R. No. 126518, December 2, 1998).

6
 PTR No. 1161031-5-8-2016-Cebu City
Telephone No. (826) 253-1890 local 101
E-mail Address: johnmax2016888@lawoffice.com

LUCEAH KATE C. CORDITA

Roll No. 44413 IBP No. 9859 (Lifetime)
Surigao City MCLE Compliance No. III-0008700
PTR No. 1161031-6-9-2016-Cebu City
Telephone No. (032) 253-1890 local 102
E-mail Address: jcjduce@bdplawoffice.com

AMBER C. GALANIDA
Roll No. 44433 IBP No. 9846 (Lifetime)
Surigao City MCLE Compliance No. III-0008800
PTR No. 1161032-8-9-2016-Cebu City
Telephone No. (032) 253-1890 local 103
E-mail Address: cpopabuaya@bdplawoffice.com

Copy furnished, in accordance with

Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised
Rules of Court, by registered mail, in
view of far distance making personal
service not practicable, to:

ATTY. EMMANUEL JOHN F. DAMAMBA

Assistant Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village,
Makati City

and by personal service, to:

ATTY. RAMINO E. MARTINQUILLA

Surigao Provincial Legal Officer
3rd Floor, Capitol Building,
Surigao City

ATTY. DEVIN Q. DASQUEZ

OIC, Clerk of Court V
Regional Trial Court of Surigao City,
Branch 9, 3/F Qimonda IT Center,
Sergio Osmeña Boulevard, Surigao City