RTC affirms eviction of Talisay lot occupants

CEBU, Philippines - The Regional Trial Court has affirmed the decision of the lower court ejecting occupants of the lot owned by the Talisay City government.

The occupants appealed the civil case for ejectment after the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Talisay City ruled in favor of the city government.

RTC Judge Simeon Dumdum, Jr. in his decision mentioned that defendants failed to show evidence that they were the registered owner of the aforementioned lot being predecessors-in-interest.

The occupants earlier alleged that the lower court erred in granting possession of the lot in favor of Talisay City government.

“The lower court erred in ruling that the defendants are occupying the lot by mere tolerance of the owner,” the appeal reads adding they were occupants of Lot 660 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, Talisay City and not Lot No. 8293-New.

But Dumdum said, apart from the assertion that defendants have been in open, continuous possession of the lot for a long period of time, they have not shown any proof of title that is superior to that of the registered owner.

“It should be emphasized that a certificate of title cannot be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession by third persons. The title once registered is notice to the whole world and no one can plead ignorance of the registration,” the decision reads.

Named defendants were Marieta Base, Vicenta Daan, Susan Bacalso-Roa, Ophelia Bardillas, Lucina Deniega and Loreta Solas.

On August 9, 2012, the Talisay City has filed an ejectment case against the defendants after they refused to recognize their authority and rights being the owner of the lot where their houses were erected.

The subject lot, the plaintiff said will be used as an urban poor relocation site with priority given to those who are currently occupying the same.

The city government said the defendants were among the beneficiaries, but the latter refused to recognize their authority prompting them to disqualify them as beneficiaries.

In their reply, defendants claimed that they were occupants of Lot 660 and not Lot 8293. They added they occupied in the area not just by a mere tolerance of the previous owner but as heirs of spouses Lorenzo Bacalso and Fausta Bas, the original applicants’ for Lot No. 660.

The MTCC however, ruled in favor of the plaintiff prompting them to appeal the decision.

Dumdum in its decision said the sole issue was merely the possession of the property and not on the ownership. He said based on the evidence presented, it was vivid that the city government was the owner of the contested lot per land title. (FREEMAN)