B.E. San Diego, Inc. v.

Court of Appeals (2010) Brion,

J.
Petitioner: B.E. San Diego, Inc
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Jovita Matias
Concept: Judicial Notice
Brief Facts: B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for
recovery of possession of property against Matias. One
of B.E. San Diegos pieces of evidence to prove
ownership is TCT-134756, which supposedly refers to
the property subject of litigation. Matias, on the other
hand, claims that the TCT covers a property in Barrio
Tinajeros, while the subject property is in Barrio
Catmon. The RTC took judicial notice of the fact that
Barrio Catmon was previously a part of Barrio
Tinajeros, thereby stating that the property referred to
in the TCT and the actual property are one and the
same. The CA reversed, stating that the discrepancy
warranted expert testimony. The SC reinstated the
RTCs decision, upholding the RTCs authority to take
judicial notice of geographical divisions.
Doctrine: Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court
includes geographical divisions as among matters
that courts should take judicial notice of. Given that
Barrio Tinajeros is adjacent to Barrio Catmon, the Court
finds is likely that the two barrios previously formed
one geographical unit.
FACTS:
1. B.E. San Diego alleged that it is the registered
owner of a parcel of land located in Hernandez
Street, Catmon, Malabon, covered by TCT No.
T-134756 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan and
delineated as Lot No. 3, Block No. 13, with an area
of 228 square meters.
2. B.E. San Diego claims that Jovita Matias has been
occupying that property for over a year without its
authority or consent. Since its oral and written
demands to vacate the property were left
unheeded, B.E. San Diego filed a complaint for
recover of possession of the property against
Matias on March 15, 1990 before the RTC.
3. In her answer to the complaint, Matias alleged
that:
o She and her family have been living on the
property since the 1950 on the basis of a
written permit issued by the local
government of Malabon in 1954.
o She and her family have introduced
substantial improvements on the property.
o She and her family have been regularly
paying realty taxes thereon.
o She is a legitimate beneficiary of PD 1517 1
and PD 20162 which classified the property
as part of the Urban Land Reform Zone

4.

5.

(ULRZ)
and
an
Area
for
Priority
Development (APD).
Matias questioned petitioners claim over the
property by pointing out that the title it relied on
(TCT No. T-134756) covers a property located in
Barrio Tinajeros, Malabon while the actual
property is located in Barrio Catmon, Malabon.
Matias claims that the property she is occupying is
different from the property which petitioner seeks
to recover.

RTC: Ruled in favor of B.E. San Diego. It found that B.E.

San Diego sufficiently proved its right to recover
possession on the basis of TCT No. T-134756.

It found no issue as to the identity of the

property, ruling that the property covered by
petitioners TCT No. T-134756 located in Barrio
Tinajeros, is the same property being occupied
by Matias.

The RTC took judicial notice of the fact

that Barrio Catmon was previously part of
Barrio Tinajeros.

It found that the Approved Subdivision Plan

and tax declarations showed that the
property is located in Barrio Carmon, Malabon.

It also ruled that Matias claim for possession

over the property as a long-time occupant and
as a beneficiary of PD 1517 and 2016 is
unfounded.
CA: On appeal, the CA disagreed with RTCs findings.

It considered the discrepancy in the location

significant and declared that this should have
prompted the RTC to require an expert
witness from the concerned government
agency to explain the matter.

Since it is undisputed that Matias was in actual

possession of the property at the time of the
filing of the complaint, the CA declared that her
possession should have been upheld under Art.
538 of the Civil Code3.

It also upheld Matias possession based on PD

1517 and PD 2016.
6.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of CAs

judgment was denied. Hence, this present petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45. B.E. San
Diego contends that:
o The CA erred in reversing the RTC on the
sole basis of discrepancy, which it claims
has been explained and controverted by
the evidence it presented.
o The CA decision failed to consider the
following evidence which adequately show
that the property covered by TCT No. T134756 is the same property occupied by
Matias:

1 Proclaiming Urban Land Reform in the Philippines and Providing for

the Implementing Machinery Thereof, Section 6 of which grants
preferential rights to landless tenants/occupants to acquire land within
urban land reform areas.

2 Prohibiting the Eviction of Occupant Families from Land Identified

and Proclaimed as Areas for Priority Development or as Urban Land
Reform Zones and Exempting Such Land from Payment of Real
Property Taxes, Section 2 of which prohibits the eviction of qualified
tenants/occupants.

3 Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same

time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-possession.
Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present
possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessors, the one in
longer possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one
who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing
shall be place in judicial deposit pending determination of its
possession or ownership through proper proceedings.

a) TCT No. 134756 in the name of B.E.

San Diego [delineated asLot No. 3,
Block No. 15].
b) Approved Subdivision Plan showing
that the property is in Barrio
Catmon.
c) Tax Declaration No. B-005-00296
issued in the name of B.E. San
Diego, referring to the subject
property covered by TCT No. T134756.
d) Testimonial evidence of petitioners
witness that the same property
described in TCT No. T-134756 is
the same property occupied by
Matias.
e) Judicial notice by the RTC of
Malabon, based on public and
common knowledge, that Barrio
Catmon was previously part of
Barrio Tinajeros.
Matias is estopped from alleging that the
property she is occupying is different from
the property covered by TCT No. T-134756.
- She previously moved to dismiss
B.E. San Diegos complaint for
recovery of possession of the
subject
property
(accion
publiciana), raising res judicata
as ground.
- Prior to the filing of accion
publiciana, B.E. San Diego filed an
ejectment case against Matias,
involving the same property.
- IMPORTANT: She alleged that the
accion publiciana is barred by the
judgment in the earlier ejectment
case filed by B.E. San Diego, as
both involve the same parties, the
same subject matter, and the
same cause of action. She never
questioned
the
identity
and
location of the property in the
ejectment case. Thus, petitioner
contends that by raising the ground
of res judicata, she has impliedly
admitted
that
there
is
no
difference in the subject matter of
the two actions and could no longer
question the identity and location
of the property.

ISSUES:
1. WON the property that Matias occupied is the same
as the property covered by B.E. San Diegos title.
(YES)
2. Who between the two parties is entitled to
possession of the property? (B.E. San Diego)
RATIO:
1. Yes, the two properties are one and the
same.
- There was no need for a testimony by an expert
witness. The RTC had previously declared that the
discrepancy arose because Barrio Catmon used to
be a part of Barrio Tinajeros.

The RTC has authority to make such

declaration because this is a matter of
mandatory judicial notice.
Section 1 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court includes
geographical divisions as among matters that
courts should take judicial notice of. Given that
Barrio Tinajeros is adjacent to Barrio Catmon, the
Court finds is likely that the two barrios previously
formed one geographical unit.
Even without the judicial notice of the geographical
subdivisions, sufficient evidence exists to support
the RTCs findings that the property which
petitioner seeks to recover is the Barrio Catmon
property in Matias possession.
o Although the title refers to a property in
Barrio Tinajeros and the tax declaration
refers to a property in Barrio Catmon, both
the title and the tax declaration identify the
property as Lot No. 3, Block 13.
The court also agrees that Matias can no longer
question the identity of the property when she
invoked res judicata as ground to dismiss the
accion publiciana.
An allegation of res judicata necessarily constitutes
an admission that the subject matter of the
pending suit (accion publiciana) is the same as that
in the previous one (ejectment).
Since Matias never raised the discrepancy in the
location stated in petitioners title and the actual
location of the property in the ejectment case, she
is now barred from raising the same.
The issue of identity of the subject matter has been
settled by Matias admission and negates the
defences she raised against petitioner.

2. B.E. San Diego has a better right.

- The judgment in the ejectment suit that petitioner
previously filed is not determinative of the issue in
the present case and will not prejudice its claim.
- While there may be identity in the parties and
subject matter, there is no identity in cause of
action because an action for ejectment and accion
publiciana, although both refer to possession, differ
in the following manner:
o Forcible entry should be filed within one
year from the unlawful dispossession while
accion publiciana is filed a year after.
o Forcible entry is concerned with the issue
of the right to the physical possession of
the real property while in accion publiciana,
the issue is who has a better right to
possess the property.
o An action for forcible entry is filed in the
MTC and is a summary action while accion
publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC.
- Petitioner anchors its right to possess based on its
ownership of the property as evidenced by its
title.
- Matias, relies on:
a) 1954 permit from the LGU of Malabon
b) Miscellaneous Sales Application
c) Tax declarations and realty tax payments
d) Her standing as beneficiary of P.D. No.
1517 and 2016Long possession of the
property since 1954
- SC discussion on why these pieces of evidence are
not sufficient to prove Matias right to possess:

a) The local government permit contained

only a statement of the local executive that
the case between the local government
and B.E. San Diego was decided by a trial
court in favour of the local government.
b) The Miscellaneous Sales Application, in the
absence of approval by the Bureau of
Lands or the issuance of a sales patent,
remains simply an application that doesnt
vest title in the applicant.
c) No title to register land in derogation of
that of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. Even if the possession is
coupled with payment of realty taxes, we
cannot apply in Matias case the rule that
these acts combined constitute proof of the
possessors claim of title.
o Despite her claim of possession
since 1954, she only began to pay
realty taxes in 1974, when
petitioner filed an ejectment case
against her husband/predecessor,
Pedro Matias.
d) Matias is not a qualified beneficiary of
these laws. The tenants who have a right
not to be evicted from urban lands do not
include those whose presence on the land

is merely tolerated and without the

benefit of contract, those who enter the
land by force or deceit, or those whose
possession is under litigation.
o At the time of PD 1517s
enactment, there was already a
pending suit between B.E. San
Diego and Pedro Matias over the
property.
o Occupants of the land whose
presence therein Is devoid of any
legal authority, or those whose
contracts of lease were already
terminated or had already expired,
or whose possession is under
litigation are not considered as
tenants under PD 1517.
Matias cannot be considered a legitimate tenant
who can avail the benefits of these laws no matter
how long her possession of the property was.

DISPOSITIVE: we GRANT the petition for review on

certiorari, and REVERSE the resolution of the CA. The
RTC decision is REINSTATED. Costs against the
respondent.
Digest maker: Kat