2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa
*
G.R. No. 152807. August 12, 2003.

HEIRS OF LOURDES SAEZ SABANPAN: BERNARDO S.

SABANPAN, RENE S. SABANPAN, DANILO S. SABANPAN
and THELMA S. CHU; HEIRS OF ADOLFO SAEZ: MA. LUISA
SAEZ TAPIZ, MA. VICTORIA SAEZ LAPITAN, MA. BELEN
SAEZ and EMMANUEL SAEZ; and HEIRS OF CRISTINA SAEZ
GUTIERREZ: ROY SAEZ GUTIERREZ and LUIS SAEZ, JR.,
petitioners, vs. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA,1
HERDIN C.
COMORPOSA, OFELIA C. ARIEGO,
2
REMEDIOS
COMORPOSA, VIRGILIO A. LARIEGO, BELINDA M.
COMORPOSA and ISABELITA H. COMORPOSA, respondents.

Public Land Act; Jurisdiction; Homestead Patent; Courts have no

jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling within the powers of the
Lands Management Bureau (LMB).—Under the Public Land Act, the
management and the disposition of public land is under the primary control
of the director of lands (now the director of the Lands Management Bureau
or LMB), subject to review by the DENR secretary. As a rule, then, courts
have no jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling within the
powers of the LMB. The powers given to the LMB and the DENR to
alienate and dispose of public land does not, however, divest regular courts
of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants
to protect their respective possessions and occupations. The power to
determine who has actual physical possession or occupation of public land
and who has the better right of possession over it remains with the courts.
But once the DENR has decided, particularly through the grant of a
homestead patent and the issuance of a certificate of title, its decision on
these points will normally prevail.
Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Facsimiles; Pleadings filed via fax
machines are not considered originals and are at best exact copies.—
Pleadings filed via fax machines are not considered originals and are at best
exact copies. As such, they are not admissible in evidence, as there is no
way of determining whether they are genuine or authentic.
Same; Offer of Evidence; Exception; Neither the rules of procedure nor
jurisprudence would sanction the admission of evidence that has not been

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 1/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

formally offered during the trial.—Neither the rules of procedure nor

jurisprudence would sanction the admission of evidence that has not been

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

1 Also spelled “Ariega” in the pleadings.

2 Also spelled “Lariega” in the pleadings.

693

VOL. 408, AUGUST 12, 2003 693

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

formally offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is applicable only
to ordinary trials, not to cases covered by the rule on summary procedure—
cases in which no full-blown trial is held.
Same; Admissibility; Probative Value; Distinction; The admissibility of
evidence should not be confused with its probative value.—The
admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its probative value.
Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence
are to be considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of
whether the admitted evidence proves an issue. Thus, a particular item of
evidence may be admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Cariaga Law Offices for petitioners.
William G. Carpentero for respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The admissibility of evidence should be distinguished from its

probative value. Just because a piece of evidence is admitted does
not ipso facto mean that it conclusively proves the fact in dispute.

The Case
3
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, seeking to set aside the August 7, 2001 Decision
4
and the
February 27, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 2/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

GR SP No. 60645. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision

reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby AFFIRMS

the Decision dated 22 June 2000 rendered by Branch 18 of the Regional
Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, REVERSING and SETTING

_______________

3 Rollo, pp. 11-37.

4 Eighth Division. Written by Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona and concurred in by Justices
Eugenio S. Labitoria (Division chairman) and Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (member).

694

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

ASIDE5 the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Davao del
Su[r].”
6
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Facts

The CA summarized the factual antecedents of the case as follows:

“A [C]omplaint for unlawful detainer with damages was filed by

[petitioners] against [respondents] before the Santa Cruz, Davao del Sur
Municipal Trial Court.
“The [C]omplaint alleged that Marcos Saez was the lawful and actual
possessor of Lot No. 845, Land 275 located at Darong, Sta. Cruz, Davao del
Sur with an area of 1.2 hectares. In 1960, he died leaving all his heirs, his
children and grandchildren.
“In 1965, Francisco Comorposa who was working in the land of Oboza
was terminated from his job. The termination of his employment caused a
problem in relocating his house. Being a close family friend of [Marcos]
Saez, Francisco Comorposa approached the late Marcos Saez’s son,
[Adolfo] Saez, the husband of Gloria Leano Saez, about his problem. Out of
pity and for humanitarian consideration, Adolfo allowed Francisco
Comorposa to occupy the land of Marcos Saez. Hence, his nipa hut was
carried by his neighbors and transferred to a portion of the land subject
matter of this case. Such transfer was witnessed by several people, among
them, Gloria Leano and Noel Oboza. Francisco Comorposa occupied a
portion of Marcos Saez’ property without paying any rental.
“Francisco Comorposa left for Hawaii, U.S.A. He was succeeded in his
possession by the respondents who likewise did not pay any rental and are
occupying the premises through petitioners’ tolerance.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 3/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

“On 7 May 1998, a formal demand was made upon the respondents to
vacate the premises but the latter refused to vacate the same and claimed
that they [were] the legitimate claimants and the actual and lawful
possessor[s] of the premises. A [C]omplaint was filed with the barangay
office of Sta. Cruz[,] Davao del Sur, but the parties failed to arrive at an
amicable settlement. Thus, the corresponding Certificate to File Action was
issued by the said barangay and an action for unlawful detainer was filed by
petitioners against respondents.

_______________

5 Assailed Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 49.

6 Rollo, p. 52.

695

VOL. 408, AUGUST 12, 2003 695

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

“Respondents, in their Answer, denied the material allegations of the

[C]omplaint and alleged that they entered and occupied the premises in their
own right as true, valid and lawful claimants, possessors and owners of the
said lot way back in 1960 and up to the present time; that they have acquired
just and valid ownership and possession of the premises by ordinary or
extraordinary prescription, and that the Regional Director of the DENR,
Region XI has already upheld their possession over the land in question
when it ruled that they [were] the rightful claimants and possessors and
[were], therefore, entitled to the issuance of a title.
“The Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur rendered
judgment in favor of petitioners but the Regional Trial Court of Digos, 7
Davao del Sur, on appeal, reversed and set aside the said decision. x x x”

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the CA upheld the right
of respondents as claimants and possessors. The appellate court held
that—although not yet final—the Order issued by the regional
executive director of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) remained in full force and effect, unless declared
null and void. The CA added that the Certification issued by the
DENR’s community environment and natural resources (CENR)
officer was proof that when the cadastral survey was conducted, the
land was still alienable and was not yet allocated to any person.
According to the CA, respondents had the better right to possess
alienable and disposable land of the public domain, because they
have sufficiently proven their actual, physical, open, notorious,
exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession thereof since
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 4/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

1960. The appellate court deemed as self-serving, and therefore

incredible, the Affidavits executed by Gloria Leano Saez, Noel
Oboza and Paulina Paran.8
Hence, this Petition.

_______________

7 Assailed Decision, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 45-46.

8 This case was deemed submitted for decision on January 15, 2003, upon the
Court’s receipt of respondents’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. William G. Carpentero.
Petitioners’ Memorandum, filed on January 10, 2003, was signed by Atty. Oswaldo
A. Macadangdang.

696

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

The Issue

In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues for the

Court’s consideration:

“I

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and [err] in sustaining
the ruling of the Regional Trial Court giving credence to the Order dated 2
April 1998 issued by the regional executive director?

“II

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err in
sustaining the Regional Trial Court’s ruling giving weight to the CENR
Officer’s Certification, which only bears the facsimile of the alleged
signature of a certain Jose F. Tagorda and, [worse], it is a new matter raised
for the first time on appeal?

“III

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion and err in holding
that the land subject matter of this case has been acquired by means of
adverse possession and prescription?

“IV

Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion, and err in
declaring that, ‘neither is there error on the part of the Regional Trial Court,
when it did not give importance to the affidavits by Gloria Leano
9
Saez, Noel
[Oboza], and Paulina Paran for allegedly being self serving?”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 5/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

To facilitate the discussion, the fourth and the third issues shall be
discussed in reverse sequence.

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

_______________

9 Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 8; Rollo, p. 283. Original in upper case.

697

VOL. 408, AUGUST 12, 2003 697

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

First Issue:
The DENR Order of April 2, 1998

Petitioners claim that the reliance of the CA upon the April 2, 1998
Order issued by the regional director of the DENR was erroneous.
The reason was that the Order, which had upheld the claim of
respondents, was supposedly not 10
yet final and executory. Another
Order dated August 23, 1999, issued later by the DENR regional
director, allegedly held in abeyance
11
the effectivity of the earlier one.
Under the Public Land Act, the management and the disposition 12
of public land is under the primary control of the director of lands13
(now the director of the Lands Management 14
Bureau or LMB),
subject to review by the DENR secretary. As a rule, then, courts
have no jurisdiction to intrude upon matters properly falling within
the powers of the LMB.
The powers given to the LMB and the DENR to alienate and
dispose of public land does not, however, divest regular courts of
jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or15
applicants to protect their respective possessions and occupations.
The power to determine who has actual physical possession or
occupation of public land and who 16
has the better right of possession
over it remains with the courts. But once the DENR has decided,
particularly through the grant of a homestead patent and

_______________

10 Annex I; Rollo, pp. 91-92.

11 Commonwealth Act 141 as amended.
12 §4 of CA 141 as amended.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 6/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

13 The LMB absorbed the functions of the Bureau of Lands, which was abolished
by Executive Order No. 131, except those line functions that were transmitted to the
regional field offices.
14 §3 of CA 141 as amended.
15 Omandam v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 483, January 18, 2001; Solis v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 198 SCRA 267, June 19, 1991; Rallon v. Ruiz, Jr., 138
Phil. 347; 28 SCRA 331, May 26, 1969; Molina v. Bacud, 126 Phil. 166; 19 SCRA
956, April 27, 1967; Bohayang v. Maceren, 96 Phil. 390, December 29, 1954;
Pitargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5, September 17, 1952.
16 Solis v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, citing National Development
Company v. Hervilla, 151 SCRA 520, June 30, 1987; Espejo v. Malate, 205 Phil. 216;
120 SCRA 269, January 27, 1983.

698

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

the issuance of a 17certificate of title, its decision on these points will

normally prevail.
Therefore, while the issue as to who among the parties are
entitled to a piece of public land remains pending with the DENR,
the question of recovery of possession of the disputed property is a
matter that may be addressed to the courts.

Second Issue:
CENR Officer’s Certification

Petitioners contend that the CENR Certification dated July 22, 1997
is a sham document, because the signature of the CENR officer is a
mere facsimile.
18
In support of their argument, they cite Garvida v.
Sales, Jr. and argue that the Certification is a new matter being
raised by respondents for the first time on appeal.
We are not persuaded.
In Garvida, the Court held:

“A facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving the transmission and

reproduction of printed and graphic matter by scanning an original copy,
one elemental area at a time, and representing the
19
shade or tone of each area
by a specified amount of electric current. x x x”

Pleadings filed via fax machines are not considered originals

and are at best exact copies. As such, they are not admissible in
evidence, as there is 20
no way of determining whether they are
genuine or authentic.
The Certification, on the other hand, is being contested for
bearing a facsimile of the signature of CENR Officer Jose F.
Tagorda. The facsimile referred to is not the same as that which is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 7/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

alluded to in Garvida. The one mentioned here refers to a facsimile

signature, which is defined as a signature produced by mechanical

_______________

17 Omandam v. Court of Appeals, supra.

18 338 Phil. 484; 271 SCRA 767, April 18, 1997.
19 Id., p. 496, per Puno, J., citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
(1976), p. 813.
20 Ibid.

699

VOL. 408, AUGUST 12, 2003 699

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

means but recognized

21
as valid in banking, financial, and business
transactions.
Note that the CENR officer has not disclaimed the Certification.
In fact, the DENR regional director has acknowledged and used it as
reference in his Order dated April 2, 1998:

“x x x. CENR Officer Jose F. Tagorda, in a ‘CERTIFICATION’ dated 22

July 1997, certified among others, that: x x x per records available in his
Office,
22
x x x the controverted lot x x x was not allocated to any person x x
x.”

If the Certification were a sham as petitioner claims, then the

regional director would not have used it as reference in his Order.
Instead, he would have either verified it or directed the CENR
officer to take the appropriate action, as the latter was under the
former’s direct control and supervision.
Petitioners’ claim that the Certification was raised for the first
time on appeal is incorrect. As early as the pretrial conference at the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), the CENR Certification had already
been marked
23
as evidence for respondents as stated in the Pre-trial
Order. The Certification was not formally offered, however,
because respondents had not been able24 to file their position 25paper.
Neither the rules of procedure nor jurisprudence would
sanction the admission of evidence that has not been formally
offered during the trial. But this evidentiary rule is applicable only to
ordinary trials, not to cases covered by the rule26 on summary
procedure—cases in which no full-blown trial is held.

_______________

21 “Facsimile signature,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976), p.

813.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 8/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

22 Rollo, p. 104.
23 Id., p. 121.
24 §34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
25 People v. Carino, 165 SCRA 664, September 26, 1988; Veran v. Court of
Appeals, 157 SCRA 438, January 29, 1988.
26 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 633, August 18,
1997; De los Reyes v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 394, August 11,
1989.

700

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

Third Issue:
Affidavit of Petitioners’ Witnesses

Petitioners assert that the CA erred in disregarding the Affidavits of

their witnesses, insisting that the Rule on Summary Procedure
authorizes the use of affidavits. They also claim that the failure of
respondents to file their position paper and counter-affidavits before
the MTC amounts to an admission by silence.
The admissibility of evidence should not be confused with its
probative value. Admissibility refers to the question of whether
certain pieces of evidence are to be considered at all, while probative
value refers
27
to the question of whether the admitted evidence proves
an issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible, but
its evidentiary weight depends on judicial28 evaluation within the
guidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
While in summary proceedings affidavits are admissible as the
witnesses’ respective testimonies, the failure of the adverse party to
reply does not ipso facto render the facts, set forth therein, duly
proven. Petitioners still bear the burden of proving their cause 29
of
action, because they are the ones asserting an affirmative relief.

Fourth Issue:
Defense of Prescription

Petitioners claim that the court a quo erred in upholding the defense
of prescription proffered by respondents. It is the former’s
contention that since the latter’s possession of the land was merely
being tolerated, there was no basis for the claim of prescription. We
disagree.
For the Court to uphold the contention of petitioners, they have
first to prove that the possession of respondents was by mere

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 9/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

tolerance. The only pieces of evidence submitted by the former to

sup-

_______________

27 PNOC Shipping & Transport Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 38;
297 SCRA 402, October 8, 1998.
28 Id., p. 59.
29 People v. Villar, 322 SCRA 393, January 19, 2000; Pacific Banking
Corporation Employees Organization v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil. 438; 288 SCRA
197, March 27, 1998; Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 734; 284 SCRA 673,
January 23, 1998; Ramcar Incorporated v. Garcia, 114 Phil. 1026; 4 SCRA 1087,
April 25, 1962.

701

VOL. 408, AUGUST 12, 2003 701

Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Comorposa

port their claim were a technical description and a vicinity 30

map
drawn in accordance with the survey dated May 22, 1936. Both of
these were discredited by the CENR Certification, which indicated
that the contested lot had not
31
yet been allocated to any person when
the survey was conducted. The testimony of petitioners’ witnesses
alone cannot prevail over respondents’ continued and uninterrupted
possession of the subject lot for a considerable length of time.
Furthermore, this is an issue of fact that32 cannot, as a rule, be
raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-

Morales, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.—The burden of proof in land registration cases is

incumbent on the applicant who must show that he is the real and
absolute owner in fee simple of the land applied for. (Turquesa vs.
Valera, 322 SCRA 573 [2000])

——o0o——

_______________

30 Rollo, pp. 83-84.

31 Id., p. 105.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 10/11
2/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 408

32 §1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; Heirs of Anastacio Fabela v. Court of

Appeals, 414 Phil. 838; 362 SCRA 531, August 9, 2001; American President Lines
Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 336 SCRA 582, July 31, 2000; Liberty Construction and
Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 490; 257 SCRA 696, June
28, 1996.

702

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168f365268cdb050fc9003600fb002c009e/p/ATH295/?username=Guest 11/11