Sample case on credibility of Land

The contending parties here are the heirs of the spouses Monica and Cesar who own a village
subdivision covered by Original Certificate of Title No.5975(heirs for brevity). Adjoining said
subdivision is a 25,000 square meter parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.S-
74375 owned by six individuals and a realty company(lot owners for brevity).

When the lot owners had their land surveyed, they discovered that the village subdivision of the
heirs encroached by 3,110 square meters into their land. The lot owners thus asked the heirs to
desist from making further developments and to remove all constructions within the area
encroached. The heirs however refused contending that based on the plan approved by the
Bureau of Lands, there was no encroachment. So the lot owners filed a suit in court for recovery
of possession with damages.

After trial and motions for reconsiderations the lower court ultimately rendered a decision in
favor of the heirs ruling that the reports of the Engineers from the Bureau of Lands were more
credible.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2003/05/28/207869/encroachment-rights-and-

properties#4j7Tssy7Cz66tpT3.99

-----------------------

Upon agreement of the parties, the CA ordered a relocation survey of the questioned properties
to be conducted by a team of surveyors composed of five technical personnel, three of whom
shall come from the Land registration Authority( LRA) and the remaining two shall be Engineer
Leon for the lot owners and Engineer Basco for the heirs. Engineer Castro of the LRA was
designated as Chairman of the relocation survey team

Actual field work was performed by the four engineers from LRA headed by Engineer Castro
without representatives from the lot owners and the heirs. When the field work was completed,
Engineer Castro submitted a report to the CA finding that the subdivision of the heirs indeed
encroached upon the adjoining land of the lot owners by 3,235 square meters.

Engineer Basco who represented the heirs questioned the said report. He said that the field
work was conducted without his presence as he never received any notice of the date of the
field survey and it was conducted only by the engineers of the LRA who were not authorized by
the CA.

But the CA nevertheless sustained the findings in the report that the subdivision of the heirs
encroached upon the land of the lot owners by 3,235 sq.m., as it was arrived at after a careful,
deliberate process of survey, computation and assessment of its technical findings.

Was the CA correct?

No.

The failure of Engineer Castro of the LRA as chairman of the resurvey team to notify the
representatives of both parties, particularly Engineer Basco representing the heirs, of the actual
field work to enable him to participate therein constituted a serious violation of the heirs’ right
to due process especially considering that it resulted in a deprivation of their property to the
extent of 3,235 sq.m.

Representation of both parties in the re-survey team is required so as to ensure that the
interests of both sides are protected. If this requirement is breached, then serious prejudice can
result. This is especially true in this case where the purpose of the resurvey is to determine the
boundaries of the parties’ adjacent lots. The placing of the boundary lines and demarcation
points on the soil must be precise, and the smallest error in alignment may result in loss of a
large portion of one’s property. Hence it is crucial that each party must have a representative
present to ensure that the fixing of the metes and bounds on the soil is accurately performed.
Notice and representation in the relocation survey is an essential part of due process. The actual
survey proceeding must therefore be conducted anew ensuring that the interests of both parties
are protected. Hence the case should be reminded to the CA( Spouses Casimiro and Pascual vs.
Court of Appeals et.al, G.R. 136911, February 11, 2003).

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2003/05/28/207869/encroachment-rights-and-

properties#4j7Tssy7Cz66tpT3.99

*Favors surveyors from LRA and or Beureau of Lands

*. Notice and representation in the relocation survey is an essential part of due process. The
actual survey proceeding must therefore be conducted anew ensuring that the interests of both
parties are protected.

*violation of the heirs’ right to due process

*Representation of both parties in the re-survey team is required so as to ensure that the
interests of both sides are protected. If this requirement is breached, then serious prejudice can
result. This is especially true in this case where the purpose of the resurvey is to determine the
boundaries of the parties’ adjacent lots.

Source Case: ( Spouses Casimiro and Pascual vs. Court of Appeals et.al, G.R. 136911, February
11, 2003).

***

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2003/05/28/207869/encroachment-rights-and-

properties#4j7Tssy7Cz66tpT3.99

------------------------------