Non-issue

Courts of Justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue. In rendering decisions, they ought to limit themselves to the issues presented by the parties in their pleadings. This is the principle applied in this case between the heirs of Fred (the heirs) and the spouses Sonya and Dario, and Edna and Arno (the spouses).

The case started when the heirs filed on June 4, 1996 a complaint for ejectment against both spouses before the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC). The heirs alleged that Sonya and Dario, Edna and Arno constructed their cottages on a portion of their lot no. 934-B-4 covered by TCT No. 111572 without any lease agreement between them and that therefore they merely tolerated the occupation of their lot by the two spouses. They further alleged that they had to file the complaint when the spouses refused to vacate their land despite demand.

In their answers the spouses denied that their cottages stood on lot 934-B-4. Sonya and Dario alleged that their cottages stood entirely on lot 934-B-7, a road widening lot which was the boundary of lot 934-B-4 on the south. Edna and Arno on the other hand claimed that their cottage did not stand on either lots nos. 934-B-4 and 934-B-7 but across the road being widened. The spouses added that lot 934-B-7 did not belong to the heirs.

Upon orders of the MTCC, at the request of the heirs an ocular inspection and relocation survey was conducted to determine whether the spouses’ cottages stood on their lot. The sketch plan of the geodetic engineer appointed by the Heirs which did not even indicate where lot 934-B-4 was located, showed that the spouses cottages encroached on 139 square meters of said lot 934-B-4 whereas in his report the said engineer declared that the spouses cottages stood on both lot 934-B-4 and 934-B-7. The sketch plan was also inconsistent with the Heirs’ TCT No. 111572 and subdivision plan showing that boundary on the south was lot 934-B-7.

On the other hand the sketch plan and report of the spouses’ geodetic engineer were complimentary and consistent with the heirs’ own TCT and subdivision plan and other evidence.

In the preliminary conference, both the heirs and the spouses agreed that the issues should be limited to determining whether the spouses’ cottages were standing on lot 934-B-4 of the heirs and who among them were entitled to damages they are respectively claiming.

And so on March 14, 1997, the MTCC rendered a decision in favor of the spouses and dismissed the complaint of the heirs. The claims and counterclaims for damages were also dismissed. The MTCC declared that the cottage of Sonya and Dario occupied only lot 934-B-7 and only its wall stood at the boundary of lot 934-B-4. The cottage of Edna and Arno on the other hand stood on neither lot 934-B-4 nor lot 934-B-7.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) however reversed the MTCC and ruled in favor of the heirs declaring that the cottages of the spouses were built on 139 square meters of lot 934-B-4 and on a portion of the 239 square meters of lot 934-B-7. The RTC went further and declared that the heirs were the co-owners of lot 934-B-7 since the City appeared to have abandoned its plan to expropriate said lot for its road widening project. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals adding that even assuming that the City did not abandon its road widening project the spouses had no absolute right to possess and occupy lot 934-B-7 in derogation of the rights of the heirs. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

No. The RTC and the CA should not have made any declaration as to the possession and ownership of lot 934-B-7 because this was not the subject matter of the complaint for ejectment. The subject matter of the heirs’ complaint here was lot 934-B-4. The parties agreed in the preliminary conference before the MTCC to limit the issue to whether the spouses had their cottages on lot 934-B-4. Clearly the issue in the complaint for ejectment was limited to the possession of lot 934-B-4. The RTC and the CA went beyond the issue of the case in ruling on the possession and ownership of lot 934-B-7.

Even the factual findings of the RTC and the CA are not supported by the evidence. They relied more on the contradictory and inconsistent report and sketch plan of the geodetic engineer of the heirs as against the report and sketch plan of the geodetic engineer of the spouses which were even complimentary and consistent with the TCT and subdivision plan of the heirs. Hence the decision of the MTCC should be reinstated (Spouses Sioson vs. Heirs of Avancena, G.R. 161387, March 13, 2009).

*      *      *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]