Mariano Heirs Want CA to Reaffirm RTC Decision

NAGA CITY---Even as the Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled in their favor with modifications on the ejectment order against the Naga City government, the Mariano heirs were not satisfied, so they filed a motion for reconsideration that essentially retains the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 26.

Danilo David Mariano, one of the heirs of the five-hectare property co-owned by Don Macario Mariano which the RTC Branch 26 ordered returned to them after decades of occupancy by the Naga City government and other government agencies, revealed that they wanted the decision of Judge Felimon Montenegro retained.  

Modified decision

In a modified decision, the CA has affirmed the “ejectment order” issued by Montengro that ordered Naga City government and other government offices to “immediately vacate” the five-hectare property the heirs of Don Macario Mariano claim.

But the 25-page CA decision promulgated on March 7 modified the monthly rent Montenegro ordered paid to Mariano heirs from P2.5M to P250,000, citing co-ownership of the contested property with Jose Gimenez.

Co-owned by Mariano and Jose Gimenez, the CA set P500,000 as monthly rent to the five-hectare being claimed by Mariano heirs from the P2.5M Montenegro has set in his decision.

“It should not therefore, be burdened too much in the computation of the monthly rental when it has contributed in a major way in making the area an upscale one. Thus this Court submits that the monthly rental of Php500,000 is just and equitable under the circumstances,” the CA ruled.

In the motion for reconsideration filed by Mariano heirs, it is argued that the standard basis of computation of reasonable rental set by the Supreme Court was based on the “evidence presented by the party during the trial of the case.”

The Mariano heirs find the CA took judicial notice based on the appreciation of the place and the surrounding areas which they see did not follow the so-called standard in computing reasonable rental.

The CA has reduced the rental set during the trial at the lower court from P50/square meter to P10/square meter.

“Record will show that respondents presented and offered in evidence during the trial of the present case, a contract of lease to establish the reasonable compensation for the use of the disputed property in the surrounding area of the disputed property. With the presentation of the aforesaid documentary evidence that established the rental of the leased premises surrounding the area of the disputed property, a determination to fix the reasonable compensation for the use of the disputed property was passed upon by the court a quo, based on the evidence presented, as required by our Supreme Court,” according to the motion for reconsideration.

With this argument the Mariano heirs asks the CA to reconsider its modification and again set the rental the Naga City government has to pay at P50/square meter.

Unconvinced that the payment of the rental be divided into two because the five-hectare property is co-owned by Mariano and Gimenez, the Mariano heirs argued that a partition agreement has yet to be done which sets the payment to be paid in full to them.    

Ejectment Order coverage

Modifying Montenegro’s ejectment order affecting all government agencies aside from the Naga City government, the CA did not include other government offices occupying the five-hectare property like the Land Transportation Office, National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Labor and Employment, Philippine Postal Corporation, Fire Department, Regional Trial Court and Department of Justice to be bound by the order of the court.

“A person who was not impleaded in the complaint could not be bound by the decision rendered thereon for no man shall be affected by a proceeding to which he is a stranger,” the appellate court ruled.

But the Mariano heirs invoked the Supreme Court ruling on the Sunflower Neighborhood Association vs. Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court ruled: “It is well-settled that, although an ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein the judgment is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard, the judgement becomes binding on anyone who has not been impleaded if he or she is: (a) a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendent lite; (d) a sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or (f) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.”

Beginnings

The five-hectare property is a portion of the lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 671 registered under the name of Mariano and Gimenez which was offered for donation to the city government in July 1954.

But the offer to donate was made by the property owners on the condition that they would be the ones to finance and construct the City Hall building which did not materialize because the construction was awarded to a certain Sabaria.

Some five years after the offer to donate, Mariano sat down to a meeting on Feb. 5, 1959 with then Naga City mayor Monico Imperial to revoke the donation of the five-hectare lot, as its condition was not complied with.

In resolving the decision of Montenegro in favor of Mariano heirs the city government assailed, the CA chopped down the issues of the petition into three “pivotal questions” the most important of which was whether or not donation of the property was perfected.

The CA affirms Montenegro’s findings that there was no valid donation to speak of and that the continuing occupancy of the property was “through the mere tolerance of its owners.” 

“The plan of the lot owners to donate the five-hectare area of land in question did not take place as one of the conditions thereof---that is, the contract to construct the City Hall was awarded to another, not the intending donor,” the CA ruled.