Santos v.

Manlili

At the core of the controversy is a parcel of land which originally formed part of
the Furukawa Plantation. After the war, the land was turned over to the Philippine
government and administered by the respondent Board of Liquidators (BOL).

Reynaldo Manalili, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Ronald C. Manalili, filed
with the BOL an application to purchase the subject property. The application was
favorably acted upon.

after the lapse of nine (9) years and even as the BOL had already issued a Certification
of Full Payment endorsing the approval of the sale of the land in question to applicant
Reynaldo Manalili, herein petitioner Rodolfo Santos wrote an undated letter to the BOL
protesting Manalilis application.

the BOLs Alien Property Unit came out with a report that petitioner was not actually
occupying the lot and that he only hired certain Abalahin and Lumaad to plant bananas
and coconut trees and maintain a vegetable garden thereon presumably to establish
a bona-fide occupancy over the lot, and accordingly recommended the dismissal of
petitioners protest and the approval of the sale to Manalili.


the BOL issued to Manlili the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale and a TCT was
issued.

petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint for Reconveyance, Damages,
Attorneys Fees and/or Annulment of Title against the BOL and the Manalilis.

After the remand and trial of the case, the trial court decided in favor of the
Manalilis.

Therefrom, petitioner went on appeal to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed
petitioners appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court


WON Manlili has the better right of possession.

the Court of Appeals upheld the findings of the chief of the Alien Property Unit,
BOL, that petitioners protest was unfounded and was only meant to disturb the sale of
the subject land to respondent Manalili.
Presently, petitioner submits that he has clearly established a better right of
possession over the subject property. petitioner belabored to show that the land in
dispute was originally occupied by one Col. Agsalud the latter being given preference
as a guerilla veteran. Later, Col. Agsalud transferred his rights in favor
of one Ernesto Abalahin who continuously occupied the land and from whom
petitioner acquired the property, after which he himself introduced various
improvements thereon and continuously occupied the same up to the present.

Petitioner insists he came to learn that the land was surreptitiously applied for
and was already awarded by BOL to Manalili, whereupon he immediately filed a
protest which triggered an investigation by a BOL land examiner who submitted a
report to the effect that he (petitioner) is the actual occupant thereof and introduced
considerable improvements thereon, as against respondent Manalili who was never in
possession, occupation and cultivation of the same.

We are not persuaded.


The two (2) courts below, in unanimously upholding the validity of the sale of
the land in question to the Manalilis, likewise affirmed the BOLs finding that the
Manalilis had a better right of possession thereto. Preponderant evidence of respondent
have sufficiently established that as early as 1970, Reynaldo Manalili, respondents
predecessor-in-interest, had already filed an Affidavit of Occupancy with the BOL,; that
the Manalilis administered the land before they left for Manila in 1972; that after they
moved to Manila they appointed an administrator to oversee the land and the
improvements and crops they have planted thereon, such as bananas and coconut
trees; and that the Manalilis have been paying the real estate taxes for the subject land
even before the sale thereof to them.

The circumstance that after the sale, the Manalilis resided in Manila and
Pangasinan is of no moment. As it is, possession may be exercised in ones own name
or in that of another.
[5]
It is not necessary that the owner or holder of the thing
exercise personally the rights of possession. Rights of possession may be exercised
through agents.
[6]


In contrast, petitioners claim is without basis. Verily, it was only in 1981 that
Abalahin entered the subject land without permission, and that in 1982, petitioner,
together with Abalahin and one Lumaad, illegally cut trees on the land, thereby
prompting the Manalilis to report their unlawful entry to the local barrio captain.




WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED.