Alternative Dispute Resolution

Ludovina R. Narra –Plaintiff

vs.
Emerito Escaño –Defendant

PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF ACTION

Quieting of Title, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages was filed by Ludovina
R. Narra, the plaintiff, against Emerito Escaño, the defendant. The plaintiff bought the 15,541 sq.m. of
land from the owner and registered it under her name by 2001 and yet the plaintiff cannot be in
possession of the said property because apparently, the defendant owned the property as well, as he
was also holding a deed of sale dated 6 months earlier than that of what the plaintiff was holding.

DEFENSE OF THE ADVERSE PARTY

Emerito Escaño, alleged that he was the owner of the property since he holds a deed of sale
showing that he first bought it from the owner and also claimed that his family are tenants of the owner
since time immemorial. Thus, claiming that he was the real owner of the property, he cannot just give
up his possession for they had already built their house in that property and raised crops from the same
property.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

The plaintiff narrated that in the year 2001, the owner offered to her the property, the plaintiff
was aware that there were, by that time, the so-called tenants by the name Erma (Aunt of the
defendant), but the owner said they were not her tenants and that she had already offered the property
to Erma but Erma refused. The plaintiff was interested on the property but before she buys it, she went
first to the municipality’s assessor’s office to verify the details of the property being sold to her. Only
after finding out that the property was registered to the owner that she decided to purchase it. Right
after the sale, she went to the Land Registration Authority to register the land under her name.

The defendant on the other hand claimed that when the owner offered the property to his aunt,
Erma, she bought it in consideration for Php 50,000.00 and during harvest time they give the owner,
sacks of palay as her share. They are allegedly the tenants of the owner.

It was, unfortunately for the defendant, found out during the mediation that they were neither
tenant nor lessee because they do not have any proof of that relationship with the owner, no leasehold
contract or tenancy agreement was presented.
 SUGGESTED RESOLUTION BY THE PARTIES

At first, the plaintiff proposed that she will pay the defendant the amount of Php 50,000.00
equivalent to that which they paid for the property. But the defendant refused, he said they are not
after the money but after the property because they already built their house on it.

The mediator made her part to explain that both parties are in good faith in claiming the
property. First, the defendant for presenting a deed of sale dated six months earlier than that of the
plaintiff. And as well as the plaintiff, for before agreeing to buy the property she went first to the
assessor’s office for verification, she presented tax declarations and registered the property under her
name. The mediator also said that according to our laws, whoever holds the title under his/her name is
the rightful owner. In this case of double sale of real property, the law is clear that the ownership shall
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property hence;
the mediator explained further that the problem of the plaintiff is that she not in possession of the
property named under her.

The mediator after explaining, asked the defendant his counter proposal, but no counter
proposal was made as of that time. The mediator asked both parties to fix their proposals and be back
to present their proposals.

Ten days after, the defendant presented this proposal, that he is willing to pay the plaintiff the
amount of Php 120,000.00 as payment for the land, but the plaintiff refused, instead the plaintiff
presented two proposals since the property is more important to both of them, first, that the property,
15,541 sq.m., be divided, into two portions, 5,541 sq.m. shall be given to the defendant plus the amount
Php 100,000.00, but the remaining 10,000 sq.m. shall be given to the plaintiff. The defendant did not
agree to this proposal, the land which will be given to him allegedly was very small. Second proposal by
the plaintiff, that the land will be equally divided, including all the expenses of lot survey but the transfer
of title on the defendant’s part will be shouldered by him. This proposal was the best option that they
have by this time, and this is where everyone saw a possibility of settlement. The defendant cannot
decide on that day since he wanted to consult his family first on the plaintiff’s proposal, so it was again
reset for another week

OUTCOME OF THE RESOLUTION

The case was settled, both parties agreed to rest their cases as they both decided to divide the
property. The defendant made his last favour and asked the plaintiff if she is willing to give them the 20
sq.m. in which they built their house and exclude it in the subdivision, the plaintiff out of her generosity
and out of her will to settled the dispute, give in to the defendant’s request. The total lot area of 15,541
sq.m. minus the 20 sq.m. so that all in all it amounts to 15,521 sq.m. divided by 2, both parties now have
7,760.5 sq.m.
 PERSONAL EVALUATION OF PROCESS

The mediation process gives both parties a venue to vent their wants; it also gives them a venue
to settle things within the parties’ effort. The experience that we had in this process left us with an
impression that everything can be settled if we just give it a chance.

The mediator sees to it that both parties are given ample time to think over their proposals and
counter proposals, the mediator made her suggestions on the matter for it to be settled but she was
never imposing neither dictating, the mediator allows both parties to first, give their suggestions and
comment before she gives her recommendations but she made it clear that every negotiations done
shall not deviate from the rules of mediation. The mediator also made sure that both parties adhered to
schedules of the session.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE MEDIATOR

The negotiation on this case prospered, the parties made a settlement with the help of the
mediator, who prepared the agreement and explained to both parties the agreement that they had
made, making sure that both parties understood clearly their pieces. That the total amount of the
property, less the 20 sq.m. in which the house of the defendant was situated, be equally divided and
that expenses must be shouldered by both parties as well.