4. Municipality of Sta. Maria Bulacan vs.

Buenaventura
GR No. 191278
March 29, 2023
Facts:
On October 11, 2002, the respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against
the petitioners. Respondent alleged that he is the registered owner of a parcel of land and that
without his knowledge and consent, the petitioners took possession and constructed a road on
approximately 998.75 square meters of the subject property. Upon discovery thereof, the
respondent wrote to Mayor Ramos demanding the removal of the constructed road.

Subsequently, meetings were held between the respondent and Mayor Ramos which led to a
draft MOA in which the respondent agreed to allow the petitioners to use the subject portion of
his property until 2004; thereafter, the petitioners committed to return the property to the
respondent in its original condition. However, after deliberations, the petitioner SB, found the
draft MOA beneficial only for the respondent. Thus, in Kapasiyahan Bilang 2002-1127 dated
August 26, 2002, it refused to give authority to Mayor Ramos to sign the same. This prompted
the respondent to file the instant complaint, in which he prayed among others, for the payment
of reasonable rent from the time the road was constructed until the same is restored to its
original condition and returned to him.

In response, the petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer arguing that the
complaint has no cause of action as the land in which the road was constructed belongs to
Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan by virtue of a Deed of Donation executed by the
respondent in the latter's favor.
Their motion having been denied by the RTC, the petitioners filed an Answer in which they
affirmed that they are uncertain as to whether the portion in which the road was constructed
belongs to the respondent and that, at any rate, the construction was undertaken only upon prior
knowledge that the property was donated in favor of Barangay Guyong.

After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision ordering the Dismissal of the complaint.

In its decision, the RTC held that the notarized Deed of Donation which has the respondent's
signature is a public document and as such is admissible without further proof of its authenticity
and is entitled to full faith and credit. The RTC adjudged that the Deed of Donation is deemed
valid until annulled in a proceeding specifically lodged for the purpose, not the one before it
which is a case for sum of money and damages. Accordingly, it held that the petitioners acted in
good faith in relying upon the Deed of Donation as the basis for its construction on the subject
property and are not liable for damages. (RTC decision; pwedeng isama, pwedeng hindi)

Aggrieved, the respondent then filed an appeal before the CA which granted the appeal.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby granted.
Accordingly, the decision of the court a quo dated September 18, 2007 is perforce reversed.
Judgment is hereby rendered ordering the [petitioners] at their own expense, to remove and
demolish the subject road and restore it to its original condition. Moreover, the [petitioners] are
adjudged to pay the [respondent] as and by way of rentals at the rate of P2,000.00 per month
commencing in June 2001 until said illegally constructed road is removed and returned to the
latter, and the costs of suit.

In resolving the appeal in favor of the respondent, the CA ruled that the burden rests upon the
party who asserts the truth of a fact. In this case, the CA held that it is incumbent upon the
petitioners to prove that the subject property on which the construction was made is the same
portion that is the subject of the Deed of Donation which the respondent allegedly executed in
favor of Barangay Guyong and that the respondent's signature in the document is authentic.

The CA adjudged that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof. In contrast, the CA
found that the respondent was able to present convincing evidence that his signature in the Deed
was forged particularly when the same is held in comparison with that in the
verification/certification portion of the Complaint.

Therefore, having established that the Deed of Donation was forged, the CA held that the
respondent is entitled to the removal of the construction, compensation for use of his land, and
damages pursuant to Article 449 of the New Civil Code. Nevertheless, the CA denied the
respondent's claim for rentals in the amount of P25,000.00 ratiocinating that the same partakes
of the nature of actual damages which must be supported by proof. In the absence of proof or
agreement as to the amount of monthly rentals, the CA awarded in favor of the respondent
temperate damages in the amount of P2,000.00 per month computed from the time he has been
removed from possession thereof and prevented to the use o f the subject property. The CA
similarly denied the respondent's claim for moral damages, litigation expenses, and attorney's
fees for lack of basis.
The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the said decision, but the CA denied it.

Issue:
WON the petitioner municipality is in bad faith for constructing a road over the property covered
by a notarized deed of donation and consequently pay rentals for its use.

Ruling:
Yes. Having concluded that the donation is ineffectual as the respondent's signature therein is
forged and spurious, the Court held that the petitioner municipality is in bad faith for
constructing a road over the property.

In this case, it is indubitable that there is taking of the respondent's property by the petitioner.
Guided by the recent pronouncement by the Court in the fairly similar case of Heirs of Spouses
Mariano, et al. v. City of Naga, recovery of possession may no longer be had as the return of the
subject property is no longer feasible as a road has already been constructed thereon. Thus, in
the higher interest of justice, in order to prevent irreparable injury that may result if the subject
property were to be surrendered and the public would be prevented from having access to the
road, payment of just compensation is warranted under the premises reckoned from the time of
taking on April 11, 2002, the date when the petitioner took possession and constructed a road on
the respondent's property. Further, as it is established that the petitioner illegally took over the
property, the former must pay the respondent the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P300,000.00) as exemplary damages. As the respondent was constrained to litigate to protect his
interest, an award of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) is fair and reasonable under the
premises.

In view of the foregoing, the Court affirmed with modifications, the Decision and Resolution of
the CA:

1. the order for the petitioners to remove and demolish the subject road and restore it to its
original condition is hereby DELETED;
2. the award of monthly rental in favor of the respondent is likewise DELETED;
3. the petitioners are ORDERED to pay the respondent just compensation equivalent to the fair
market value of the property at the time o f taking on April 11, 2002 , with legal interest thereon
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until full payment; and
4. the petitioners are ORDERED to pay the respondent exemplary damages in the amount of
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) and attorney's fees of Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P75,000.00).
Finally, the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14,
for the determination of just compensation, which is hereby DIRECTED to resolve the instant case
with dispatch.