(TOPIC-Judicial Notice and Admissions)
ESTRELLA MEJIA-ESPINOZA and NORMA MEJIA DELLOSA vs. NENA A. CARIÑO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 193397
FACTS:
Estrella Mejia-Espinoza, a plaintiff in an ejectment action against Nena A. Cariño, filed a motion for
issuance of a writ of execution before the MTC of Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The case was consolidated
with another ejectment case, involving Espinoza and Alberto Cariño. In 1998, the MTC rendered a joint
decision in favor of Espinoza, ordering Nena and Alberto to vacate their respective properties and pay
rents, litigation expenses, and attorney's fees. Nena and Alberto appealed the joint decision to the RTC
of Dagupan City, Branch 43, which reversed the decision only with respect to Civil Case No. 1420 and
dismissed the case against Nena for lack of cause of action.
Espinoza filed a motion for review at CA 17th Division, which reversed the decision of the RTC Branch 43
and affirmed the MTC decision. Nena sought to elevate the case to on certiorari but denied it due to
Nena's failure to file her petition for review within the extended period. An entry of judgment was
issued in 2003, and Espinoza filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution before the MTC, which
was granted in 2004 and issued a writ of execution on March 10, 2005. Sheriff Hortaleza served the writ
upon Nena on March 16, 2005, and found that Nena had voluntarily vacated the place and turned
over the padlock to Gertrudes Taberna, Nena's caretaker. Sheriff Hortaleza levied a separate
commercial lot owned by Nena to cover monetary awards for rent, litigation expenses, and attorney's
fees.
Nena filed a complaint against Espinoza, alleging that he illegally caused the demolition of a one-story
building without a special court order. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action,
stating that Nena had already voluntarily relinquished her possession of the property. The RTC Branch
41 dismissed the complaint, finding that the levy on Nena's commercial lot was proper and that
Sheriff Hortaleza found no personal properties belonging to Nena. The RTC Branch 41 also ruled that
Nena availed of the wrong remedy and should have filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule
38.
The Court of Appeals Fourth Division reversed the RTC, stating that Nena correctly filed the petition for
annulment in accordance with Section 10 of Rule 47. The CA 4th Division ruled that the writ of
execution was premature and without legal basis, making it void.
Thus, this present petition.
ISSUE: WON the CA 4 Division correct that Nena was the builder of the one-story building. – NO
th
RULING: NO, the CA 4 Division was not correct that Nena was the builder of the one-story building..
th
XXXXX, as correctly pointed out by Espinoza, the CA 4 Division merely assumed that Nena was the
th
builder of the one-story building. Apart from the bare allegations in her pleadings and her own
testimony, the records are bereft of any evidentiary basis to support her claim. There are two
elementary rules in litigation that the CA 4 Division failed to apply. First, the party who alleges must
th
prove his case. Since Nena is seeking reimbursement for the building she allegedly constructed, it was
50
incumbent upon her to prove by preponderance of evidence that the building was constructed at her
own expense, more so since Espinoza disputes Nena's ownership of the improvement. However, Nena
failed to present any tax declaration, receipt for construction materials, or testimonies of the workers
who physically built the structure which would tend to substantiate her claim that the building was
constructed at her expense. Second, questions of fact must be resolved according to the evidence
presented. The general rule is that courts must base their factual findings on such relevant evidence
51
formally offered during trial. Recognized exceptions to this are matters which courts can take judicial
notice of, judicial admissions, and presumptions created by law or by the Rules. Here, we find
52 53 54
nothing under Philippine law that creates a presumption that improvements on a land were made by
the lessee (in this case, Nena). On the contrary, Article 446 of the Civil Code provides that "all works x x x
are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved." Therefore, in the
absence of such contrary evidence, the CA 4 Division cannot expediently assume that the building was
th
constructed by Nena.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Court of Appeals’ decisions are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City’s decision is AFFIRMED.
-X2/-mm
