Apa vs. Fernandez

A pending civil action that directly questions the ownership of a property constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal prosecution for squatting on the same property, as the resolution of the ownership issue is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Petitioners were criminally charged under the Anti-Squatting Law (P.D. 772) for allegedly occupying a portion of Lot No. 3635-B and constructing their houses thereon without the consent of the registered owner, private respondent Rosita Tigol. However, three years prior to the filing of the criminal case, the petitioners had already initiated a civil action against the private respondents. This civil case sought to annul Rosita Tigol's title (TCT No. 13250) over the same lot and to have the property partitioned among them as co-heirs, asserting that they were co-owners of the land in question.

• Petitioners Isabelo Apa, Manuel Apa, and Leonilo Jacalan were charged with violating P.D. 772, the Anti-Squatting Law, in Criminal Case No. 012489 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City.
• The criminal information alleged that they unlawfully occupied a portion of Lot No. 3635-B, covered by TCT No. 13250 registered in the name of private respondent Rosita Tigol, and built their houses there without her consent.
• Prior to the filing of the criminal case, petitioners had filed Civil Case No. 2247-L in another branch of the same RTC, seeking the declaration of nullity of Rosita Tigol's TCT No. 13250 and the partition of the lot among themselves and Rosita Tigol as co-heirs of Filomeno and Rita Taghoy.
• Petitioners moved for the suspension of their arraignment in the criminal case, asserting that the pending civil case on the issue of ownership constituted a prejudicial question.
• The RTC denied their motion to suspend, proceeded with the arraignment where they pleaded not guilty, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration.
• During the pendency of the certiorari petition, the RTC branch hearing the civil case rendered a decision nullifying Rosita Tigol's TCT and declaring the lot to be co-owned by the petitioners and the private respondents.

• The resolution of the issue of ownership in Civil Case No. 2247-L is determinative of their guilt or innocence in the criminal case for squatting.
• The civil case for nullity of title and partition presents a prejudicial question that must be resolved before the criminal case can proceed.
• If they are declared co-owners of the property, they cannot be held criminally liable for squatting on land they are legally entitled to occupy.

• The issue of ownership is not a prejudicial question to a squatting case.
• Even an owner of a property can be ejected from it, as the only issue in an ejectment case is the right to physical possession.
• By analogy, an owner can also be prosecuted under the Anti-Squatting Law regardless of their claim of ownership.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to suspend the criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the pending civil case for the annulment of a certificate of title and partition, which involves the question of ownership, constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law (P.D. 772) over the same property.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the petition for certiorari was granted. The Court found that the trial court erred in refusing to suspend the criminal proceedings, as the existence of a prejudicial question was evident.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the question of ownership in the civil case is a prejudicial question to the criminal case for squatting. The Court held that the two essential elements of a prejudicial question were present: (1) the civil action involves an issue (ownership) that is similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action (unlawful occupation); and (2) the resolution of the ownership issue is determinative of whether the criminal action may proceed. If the petitioners are ultimately declared co-owners of the land, they cannot be found guilty of squatting, as their occupation of the property would be legally justified. The Court distinguished this from cases where possession is surrendered by agreement (e.g., lease), noting that here, the respondents' claim to possession is based solely on their claim of ownership, which is the very issue being contested in the civil case.

• Prejudicial Question — This doctrine applies when a civil action and a criminal action are pending, and the issue in the civil action is so intimately related to the issue in the criminal action that its resolution determines whether the criminal action may proceed. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the determination of ownership in the civil case would definitively establish whether the petitioners' occupation of the land was unlawful, a key element of the crime of squatting.
• Co-ownership (Rights of Co-owners) — Citing Article 486 of the Civil Code, the Court invoked the principle that a co-owner is entitled to the use and occupation of the co-owned property. This doctrine was used to explain that if the petitioners were proven to be co-owners, their act of occupying the land would not constitute squatting, thereby demonstrating how the resolution of the civil case was determinative of their criminal liability.

• "Surely, if petitioners are co-owners of the lot in question, they cannot be found guilty of squatting because they are as much entitled to the use and occupation of the land as are the private respondent Rosita T. Tigol and her family."

• Librodo v. Coscolluela, Jr. (1982) — Cited as a precedent to define what constitutes a prejudicial question and its effect of justifying the suspension of a criminal action.
• Donato v. Luna (1988) — Also cited to support the definition and application of the doctrine of prejudicial question.

• Rules of Court, Rule 111, §5 — This rule provides the two essential elements of a prejudicial question, which formed the primary legal basis for the Court's analysis and ruling.
• Presidential Decree No. 772 (Anti-Squatting Law) — This is the statute under which the petitioners were criminally prosecuted, and the elements of the crime defined therein were central to the determination of whether a prejudicial question existed.
• Civil Code, Art. 486 — This article, which grants each co-owner the right to use the thing owned in common, was cited to illustrate that a finding of co-ownership in the civil case would negate criminal liability for squatting.