G.R. No. 186366 July 3, 2013HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO, PETITIONERS, vs.REYNALDO DE BELEN, RESPONDENT.D E C I S I O NPEREZ, J.:This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules ofCourt seeks the reversal of the!e"ruar# $%%& De'ision

of theCourt of ())eals in C(*+.R. C, No. -.5--, settin/ aside the $-O'to"er $%%5 De'ision$ of the Re/ionalTrial Court 0RTC1, 2ran'h% of 3alolos Cit#, 2ula'an, whi'h rendered a favora"le findin/ forthe )etitioners in a 'o4)laint for re'over# of )ossession do'ketedas Civil Case No. -%*3*&-.The !a'tsThis 'ase e4anated fro4 a 'o4)laint for Re'over# ofPossession5 filed on 6 3ar'h &&- "# the )etitioners a/ainstRe#naldo De 2elen, herein res)ondent, "efore the RTC, 2ran'h %of 3alolos, 2ula'an, involvin/ a )ar'el of land 'overed "# Ori/inalCertifi'ate of Title 0OCT1 No. RO*4-. 0&&.1 re/istered in the na4eof thelate7ose, 4arriedto8u'ilaTinioand()olonia!ernando,wife of !eli)e +alve9, 'onsistin/ of $4,&&4 s:uare 4eters, 4ore orless, whi'h is situated in 2aliua/, 2ula'an.In the said 'o4)laint, it was alle/ed that )etitioners are the'hildren of the late 7ose and the# are in the )ro'ess of )artitionin/their inheritan'e. ;owever, the# 'ould not )ro)erl# a''o4)lish the)artition due to the )resen'e of the res)ondent who intruded into a)ortion of their )ro)ert# and 'ondu'ted :uarr#in/ o)erations in itsi44ediate vi'init# for so 4an# #ears, without their knowled/e and)er4ission.4Petitioners, therefore, wrotealetter5 dated-()ril &&.totheres)ondent whi'h was unheeded< thus, a "aran/a# 'on'iliation wasresorted to. !or failure of the res)ondent to a))ear, aCertifi'ation6 wasissued"#the2aran/a#8u)onthat ledtothefilin/ of the 'o4)laint "efore the RTC of 3alolos, 2ula'an do'ketedas CivilCase No. -%*3*&- to assert and defend their ri/ht overthe su"=e't )ro)ert# and for the res)ondent to va'ate the )re4isesand )a# rental arreara/es in the a4ount of P$4,%%%.%%, attorne#>sfees of P%,%%%.%% and e?e4)lar# da4a/es ofP$%,%%%.%%Instead of filin/ an (nswer, res)ondent Re#naldo De 2elen filed a3otion to Dis4iss. dated $$ 7une &&-, settin/ forth the followin//rounds@ 01 la'k of =urisdi'tion< 0$1 la'k of 'ause of a'tion< 051a4"i/uit# as to the )ortion of the lot De 2elen o''u)ies< and, 041in'o4)lete state4ent of 4aterial fa'ts, the 'o4)laint havin/ failedtostatetheidentit#,lo'ationandareaof thelot sou/ht to"ere'overed.The)etitionersfiledtheir O))osition- on.7ul#&&-, averrin/that the 'o4)laint states a 'ause of a'tion and res)ondent neednot "e 'onfused "e'ause the estate under OCT No. RO*4-. 0&&.1 isa'tuall# knownas Psu*5&%-%withanareaof $4,&&4s:uare4eters divided into 8ot0-%,.6% s:uare 4eters1, 8ot $ 0$$,%%%s:uare 4eters1, and 8ot 5 0$,5$ s:uare 4eters1. 8ikewise,)etitioners also stated that their father, 7ose and the latter>s sister,(ntonia(.!ernando,were'o*owners)ro*indivisoof thesu"=e't)ro)ert# and that as indi'ated in their de4and letter, the#re)resent the heirs of 7ose and (ntonia (. !ernando, "othde'eased4an##ears a/o. (lthou/h, a4atter of )roof to"e)resented in the 'ourse of the trial, )etitioners nonethelessadvan'ed that (ntonia !ernando )rede'eased her "rother 7ose andshe died without issue< thus, her undivided share was 'onsolidatedwith that of her "rother.!indin/ la'k of 4erit, the 4otion was denied in an Order& dated 5Nove4"er &&-, with the trial 'ourt orderin/ herein )etitioners toa4end the 'o4)laint "# indi'atin/ the details desired "# theres)ondent in order for the latter to file a res)onsive )leadin/.On $ !e"ruar# &&&, the (4ended Co4)laint% with itsatta'h4ent was filed to whi'h the res)ondent 4oved for a 2ill ofParti'ulars,

s)e'ifi'all# :uestionin/ the le/al "asis for the'o4)laint sin'etheentire)ro)ert#a))earsto"e'o*owned"#7oseand(ntonia!ernandoandit wasnot )arti'ulari9edinthe'o4)laint as to what s)e'ifi' )ortion "elon/s to ea'h of the 'o*owners.In addition, the res)ondent, in his (nswer,$ 'lai4ed that even the2ill of Parti'ulars5 did not 'learl# show the e?a't identit#, )ersonal'ir'u4stan'es and relationshi) of the individual heirs of thede'edent, lo'ation, areaandsi9eof thesu"=e't )ro)ert#.(lso,)res'ri)tion, esto))el and la'hes had set in as a/ainst the)etitioners.The res)ondent further ar/ued thatthe(4ended Co4)laint was)re4aturel# filed due to the fa't that the Certifi'ation to !ile ('tionwas issued in violation of the )res'ri"ed )ro'edure. The res)ondentlikewise insisted on his ri/ht of )ossession over the su"=e't)ro)ert# as eviden'ed "# the su''essive transfer fro4!eli)e+alve9 to Car4en +alve9 on3ar'h &55< fro4 Car4en +alve9to !lorentino San 8uis to Re#naldo De 2elen on 4 7une &.&, andthere'ei)t for the)ur'hase)ri'eof P6%,%%%.%%dated&7une&.&. ;e asserted that fro4 the date of his )ur'hase, he has "eenin e?'lusive, 'ontinuous, o)en and )u"li' )ossession of said )ar'elof land.Trial onthe4eritsensuedwhi'heventuall#resultedinthe$-O'to"er $%%5 De'ision of the RTC whi'h is favora"le to the)etitioners. Thus@IN ,IEA O! T;E !ORE+OIN+, =ud/4ent is here"# RENDERED@0a1De'larin/ as null and void and without le/al for'e and effe'tthe BCasulatan N/ Pa/"i"ilihan/ Tulu#an N/ Tu4anaB dated3ar'h , &55 e?e'uted "# !eli)e +alve9 in favor ofCar4en +alve9< BCasulatan N/ Pa/"i"ilin/ Tulu#an N/Tu4ana dated 7ul# $-, &5-, re/istered as Do'. No. &45