Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
MARISTELA VS REYES sale of a parcel of land, part of respondents and that the running
which is involved in the complaint of the period within which to file a
1. ABATEMENT; ACTION ON for ejectment filed by Juan M. motion for reconsideration of the
ANNULMENT OF DEED OF SALE; Valerio in the Court of Industrial previous order denying the
EJECTMENT. — Where an action for Relations (Annex A to the deceased’s motion to dismiss be
annulment of the sale of a parcel of complaint in civil case No. 980 of suspended until after receipt by
land, on the ground of fraud, is the Court of First Instance of them of the order of the Court
pending in the Court of First Tarlac), executed by Alberto granting their motion for
Instance, and the defendant filed a Maristela by affixing his substitution (Annex 5). Juan M.
complaint for ejectment against the thumbmark to the deed (Annex 2; Valerio objected to the granting of
plaintiff in the Court of Agrarian Annex A to the motion to dismiss). the motion for substitution (Annex
Relations, Held: That the Juan M. Valerio objected to the 6). On 11 August 1956, counsel for
adjudication of the ejectment case motion (Annex 3). Upon the the widow and children of the late
should be held in abeyance until enactment of Republic Act No. Cecilio Rivera moved for
after the question of title, upon 1267, as amended by Republic Act reconsideration of the order of 24
which the ejectment case is No. 1409, the case was transferred July 1956 denying the motion to
anchored, shall have been decided. to the Court of Agrarian Relations dismiss (Annex 7). On 14
pursuant to section 7. On 24 July September 1956 the Court denied
1956 the Court denied the motion the two motions for reconsideration
On 8 December 1954, Juan M. to dismiss and directed Cecilio of the order denying the motion to
Valerio filed a complaint dated 3 Rivera to answer the complaint dismiss and for substitution, and
December 1954 in the Court of within the reglementary period ordered the widow and children of
Industrial Relations, Tarlac branch, provided in the Rules of the Court the late Cecilio Rivera to deliver
to dispossess Cecilio Rivera of his of Agrarian Relations and after harvest possession of the land
agricultural landholding situate at forwarded the record of the case to to Juan M. Valerio (Annex 9). The
Bamban, Tarlac (Annex 1). Cecilio the Commissioner of the Court of Court also denied their motion for
Rivera moved to dismiss the Agrarian Relations stationed at reconsideration of the last
complaint on the ground that the Tarlac (Annex 4). On the 7 August mentioned order (Annex 12).
Court of Industrial Relations had no 1956, the widow and children of
jurisdiction over the subject matter the late Cecilio Rivera filed a The widow and children of the late
of the action, there being a motion in the Court of Agrarian Cecilio Rivera, Lamberto, Belen and
pending case between the heirs of Relations alleging that they are the Rodolfo surnamed Rivera petition
the late Alberto Maristela and Juan surviving heirs, the first being the this Court after hearing to set aside
M. Valerio Et. Al. brought on 16 wife and the rest the children, of the order of 14 September 1956 of
October 1954 in the Court of First Cecilio Rivera who died on 21 the Court of Agrarian Relations, to
Instance of Tarlac for annulment March 1955, and praying that they declare null and void the
proceedings in the ejectment case upon the fact that Cecilio Rivera
had in the last mentioned court, to died on 21 March 1955, as alleged The petition is granted. The order
enjoin it from further proceeding in in the motion filed by the widow of 14 September 1956 complained
the aforesaid ejectment case and and heirs of the late Cecilio Rivera of is set aside. The respondent
to grant such other remedy as may to ask their substitution for the court is directed to allow the
be deemed just, proper and deceased in the case, and upon the substitution of the widow and
equitable, with costs against Juan assumption that there was a minor children of the late Cecilio
M. Valerio. tenancy relationship between the Rivera and enjoined from
respondent Valerio and the late proceeding with the ejectment case
The petitioners claim that the Cecilio Rivera in his lifetime. brought by the respondent Juan M.
respondent court had no Valerio against Cecilio Rivera or his
jurisdiction over the subject matter Our view is that the Court of successors-in-interest until after
of the action because of the Agrarian Relations committed an final judgment shall have been
pendency of a case which involved error by taking for granted the rendered in civil No. 980, without
the validity of title to the parcel of tenancy relationship between the pronouncement as to costs.
land, of a part of which respondent respondent Juan M. Valerio and
Juan M. Valerio prayed that the Cecilio Rivera without taking into Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor,
widow and children of the late consideration the fact that on 16 Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Cecilio Rivera and three others be October 1954, or before the filing Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and
dispossessed. of the complaint for ejectment on 8 Endencia, JJ., concur.
December 1954, Brigida Maristela,
The Court of Agrarian Relations the widow of Cecilio Rivera,
proceeded to decide the ejectment together with other interested
case in the way and manner parties brought an action against
already stated, relying on section Juan M. Valerio to annul the sale of
9, Republic Act No. 1199, which the parcel of land, of a part of
provides that — which the respondent Juan M.
Valerio sought to dispossess Cecilio
The tenancy relationship is Rivera, the husband of Brigida
extinguished by the voluntary Maristela. The respondent court
surrender of the land by, or the should have held in abeyance the
death or incapacity of, the tenant, adjudication of the ejectment case
but his heirs or the members of his brought by the respondent Juan M.
immediate farm household may Valerio until after the question of
continue to work the land until the title shall have been decided by the
close of the agricultural year. . . . Court of First Instance of Tarlac in
civil case No. 980.
FE U. QUIJANO v. ATTY. DARYLL A. she demanded that the latter vacate it. better right to the possession of the
AMANTE, GR No. 164277, 2014-10-08 Despite several demands, the last of which disputed property.
was by the letter dated November 4,
Facts: Ruling:
1994,[7] the respondent refused to vacate,
Where the plaintiff does not prove her prompting... her to file agamst him on An ejectment case can be either for forcible
alleged tolerance of the defendant's February 14, 1995 a complaint for entry or unlawful detainer. It is a summary
occupation, the possession is deemed ejectment and damages in the Municipal proceeding designed to provide expeditious
illegal from the beginning. Trial Court in Cities of Cebu City (MTCC),... means to protect the actual possession or
The respondent denied that his possession the right to possession of the property
The petitioner and her siblings, namely: of the disputed portion had been by mere involved.
Eliseo, Jose and Gloria, inherited from their tolerance of Eliseo. He even asserted that
father, the late Bibiano Quijano, the parcel he was in fact the owner and lawful
of land registered in the latter's name under possessor of the property, having bought it An ejectment case can be either for
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-188 from Eliseo forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
of the Registry of Deeds in Cebu City with It is a summary proceeding
an area of On February 5, 1996, the MTCC rendered designed to provide expeditious
its decision in favor of the petitioner,... On means to protect the actual
15,790 square meters, more or less. appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) possession or the right to
On reversed the judgment of the MTCC, and possession of the property
dismissed the complaint,[12] holding that involved.19 The sole question for
April 23, 1990, prior to any partition among the summary proceeding for ejectment was resolution in the case is the
the heirs, Eliseo sold a portion of his share, not proper because the serious question of physical or material possession
measuring 600 square meters, to ownership of the disputed property was (possession de facto) of the
respondent Atty. Daryll A. Amante involved property in question, and neither a
(respondent),... On July 25, 1991, Eliseo, claim of juridical possession
sickly and in need of money, sold an On May 26, 2004, the CA promulgated its
(possession de jure) nor an
additional 1/3 portion of his share in the decision,[15] affirming the decision of the
averment of ownership by the
property to the respondent, with their deed RTC, and dismissing the case for ejectment,
defendant can outrightly deprive
of absolute sale stating that the sale was but on the ground that the respondent was
the trial court from taking due
with the approval of Eliseo's siblings,... On either a co-owner or an assignee holding
cognizance of the case. Hence,
September 30, 1992, Fe, Eliseo, Jose and the right of possession over the disputed...
even if the question of ownership is
Gloria executed a deed of extrajudicial property.
raised in the pleadings, like here,
partition to divide their father's estate Issues: the court may pass upon the issue
(consisting of the aforementioned parcel of but only to determine the question
land) among themselves. To be resolved is the issue of who between of possession especially if the
the petitioner and the respondent had the question of ownership is
Due to the petitioner's needing her portion
that was then occupied by the respondent, inseparably linked with the
question of possession.20 The determined, and every co-owner states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
adjudication of ownership in that exercises, together with his co-
instance is merely provisional, and participants, joint ownership of
will not bar or prejudice an action the pro indiviso property, in Article 497. The creditors or
between the same parties involving addition to his use and enjoyment assignees of the co-owners may
the title to the property.21 of it.24 take part in the division of the thing
owned in common and object to its
Considering that the parties are Even if an heir's right in the estate being effected without their
both claiming ownership of the of the decedent has not yet been concurrence. But they cannot
disputed property, the CA properly fully settled and partitioned and is impugn any partition already
ruled on the issue of ownership for thus merely inchoate, Article executed, unless there has been
the sole purpose of determining 49325cralawred of the Civil fraud, or in case it was made
who between them had the better Code gives the heir the right to notwithstanding a formal opposition
right to possess the disputed exercise acts of ownership. presented to prevent it, without
property. Accordingly, when Eliseo sold the prejudice to the right of the debtor
disputed property to the or assignor to maintain its validity.
The disputed property originally respondent in 1990 and 1991, he
formed part of the estate of the was only a co-owner along with his The respondent could not deny that
late Bibiano Quijano, and passed siblings, and could sell only that at the time of the sale he knew
on to his heirs by operation of law portion that would be allotted to that the property he was buying
upon his death.22 Prior to the him upon the termination of the was not exclusively owned by
partition, the estate was owned in co-ownership. The sale did not vest Eliseo. He knew, too, that the co-
common by the heirs, subject to ownership of the disputed property heirs had entered into an oral
the payment of the debts of the in the respondent but transferred agreement of partition vis-a-vis the
deceased.23 In a co-ownership, the only the seller's pro indiviso share estate, such knowledge being
undivided thing or right belong to to him, consequently making him, explicitly stated in his answer to
different persons, with each of as the buyer, a co-owner of the the complaint, to
them holding the property pro disputed property until it is wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
indiviso and exercising her rights partitioned.26
over the whole property. Each co-
owner may use and enjoy the As Eliseo's successor-in-interest or 12. That defendant, before he
property with no other limitation assignee, the respondent was acquired the land from Eliseo
than that he shall not injure the vested with the right under Article Quijano was informed by the latter
interests of his co-owners. The 497 of the Civil Code to take part that the portion sold to him was his
underlying rationale is that until a in the partition of the estate and to share already; that they
division is actually made, the challenge the partition undertaken have orally partitioned the whole lot
respective share of each cannot be without his consent.27 Article 497 before defendant acquired the
portion from partition if he wanted to. It was possession was originally lawful,
him.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary only on September 30, 1992, or but turned unlawful only upon the
two years and five months from expiration of the right to possess.
His knowledge of Eliseo's co- the time of the first sale
ownership with his co-heirs, and of transaction, and a year and two To show that the possession was
their oral agreement of partition months from the time of the initially lawful, the basis of such
notwithstanding, the respondent second sale transaction, that the lawful possession must then be
still did not exercise his right under co-heirs executed the deed of established. With the averment
Article 497. Although Eliseo made extrajudicial partition. Having been here that the respondent's
it appear to the respondent that silent despite his ample opportunity possession was by mere tolerance
the partition had already been to participate in or to object to the of the petitioner, the acts of
completed and finalized, the co- partition of the estate, the tolerance must be proved, for bare
heirs had not taken possession yet respondent was bound by whatever allegation of tolerance did not
of their respective shares to signify was ultimately agreed upon by the suffice. At least, the petitioner
that they had ratified their Quijanos. should show the overt acts
agreement, if any. For sure, the indicative of her or her
respondent was no stranger to the There is no question that the predecessor's tolerance, or her co-
Quijanos, because he himself had holder of a Torrens title is the heirs' permission for him to occupy
served as the lawyer of Eliseo and rightful owner of the property the disputed property.31 But she
the petitioner herself.29 In that thereby covered and is entitled to did not adduce such evidence.
sense, it would have been easy for its possession.30 However, the Instead, she appeared to be herself
him to ascertain whether the Court cannot ignore that the not clear and definite as to his
representation of Eliseo to him was statements in the petitioner's possession of the disputed property
true. As it turned out, there had complaint about the respondent's being merely tolerated by Eliseo,
been no prior oral agreement possession of the disputed property as the following averment of her
among the heirs to partition the being by the mere tolerance of petition for review
estate; otherwise, Eliseo would Eliseo could be the basis for indicates:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibra
have questioned the deed of unlawful detainer. Unlawful ry
extrajudicial partition because it detainer involves the defendant's
did not conform to what they had withholding of the possession of
supposedly agreed upon. Had the the property to which the plaintiff 6.9. Their ignorance of the said
respondent been vigilant in is entitled, after the expiration or transaction of sale, particularly
protecting his interest, he could termination of the former's right to the petitioner, as they were not
have availed himself of the rights hold possession under the contract, duly informed by the vendor-
reserved to him by law, particularly whether express or implied. A co[-]owner Eliseo Quijano, [led]
the right to take an active part in requisite for a valid cause of action them to believe that the
the partition and to object to the of unlawful detainer is that the respondent's occupancy of the
subject premises was by mere
tolerance of Eliseo, so that upon Regardless, the issue of possession
partition of the whole property, between the parties will still
said occupancy continued to be remain. To finally resolve such
under tolerance of the petitioner issue, they should review their
when the subject premises became options and decide on their proper
a part of the land adjudicated to the recourses. In the meantime, it is
latter;32 (emphasis wise for the Court to leave the door
supplied)chanroblesvirtuallawlibrar open to them in that respect. For
y now, therefore, this recourse of the
petitioner has to be dismissed.
In contrast, the respondent
consistently stood firm on his WHEREFORE, the
assertion that his possession of the Court AFFIRMS the decision
disputed property was in the promulgated on May 26, 2004
concept of an owner, not by the subject to
mere tolerance of Eliseo, and the MODIFICATION that the
actually presented the deeds of unlawful detainer action is
sale transferring ownership of the dismissed for being an improper
property to him.33 remedy; and ORDERS the
petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Considering that the allegation of
the petitioner's tolerance of the SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
respondent's possession of the
disputed property was not
established, the possession could
very well be deemed illegal from
the beginning. In that case, her
action for unlawful detainer has to
fail.34 Even so, the Court would not
be justified to treat this ejectment
suit as one for forcible entry
because the complaint contained
no allegation that his entry in the
property had been by force, G.R. No. 195814
intimidation, threats, strategy or
stealth.
EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, submission of a Motion to Withdraw the residents (collectively, the occupants).
represented by DR. GERARDO M. Motion for Reconsideration. The Spouses Barbarona alleged that
AQUINO, JR. (now DR. PRIMO JOEL they had sent demand letters and that
S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF Eversley is a public health facility the occupants were given until April 15,
SANITARIUM,, Petitioner operated by the Department of Health to 2005 to vacate the premises. They
vs administer care and treatment to further claimed that despite the lapse of
SPOUSES ANASTACIO patients suffering from Hansen's the period, the occupants refused to
PERLABARBARONA, Respondents disease, commonly known as leprosy, vacate; hence, they were constrained to
and to provide basic health services to file the Complaint.9
A case for unlawful detainer must state non-Hansen's cases.4 Since 1930, it has
the period from when the occupation by occupied a portion of a parcel of land In their Answer, 10 the occupants alleged
tolerance started and the acts of denominated as Lot No. 1936 in that since they had been in possession
tolerance exercised by the party with the Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu.5 of the property for more than 70 years,
right to possession. If it is argued that the case was effectively one for
the possession was illegal from the start, Spouses Anastacio and Perla recovery of possession, which was
the proper remedy is to file an accion Barbarona (the Spouses Barbarona) beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal
publiciana, or a plenary action to recover allege that they are the owners of Lot Trial Court. They likewise claimed that
the right of possession. Moreover, while No. 1936 by virtue of Transfer Certificate the Spouses Barbarona were guilty of
an ejectment case merely settles the of Title (TCT) No. 53698. They claim laches since it took more than 60 years
issue of the right of actual possession, that they have acquired the property for them to seek the issuance of a
the issue of ownership may be from the Spouses Tarcelo B. Gonzales Torrens title over the property. They also
provisionally passed upon if the issue of and Cirila Alba (the Spouses averred that the Spouses Barbarona's
possession cannot be resolved without Gonzales),6 whose ownership was certificate of title was void since they,
it. Any fina1 disposition on the issue of covered by Original Certificate of Title the actual inhabitants of the property,
ownership, however, must be resolved (OCT) No. R0-824. Per the Spouses were never notified of its issuance. 11
in the proper forum. Barbarona's verification, OCT No. R0-
824 was reconstituted based on Decree In its September 29, 2005
This is a Petition for Review No. 699021, issued to the Spouses Decision, 12 the Municipal Trial Court in
on Certiorari 1 assailing the Court of Gonzales by the Land Registration Cities ordered the occupants to vacate
Appeals February 17, 2011 Office on March 29, 1939.7 the property, finding that the action was
Decision,2 which upheld the judgments one for unlawful detainer, and thus,
of the Municipal Trial Court and On May 6, 2005, the Spouses within its jurisdiction. It likewise found
Regional Trial Court ordering Eversley Barbarona filed a Complaint for that the Spouses Barbarona were the
Childs Sanitarium (Eversley) to vacate Ejectment (Complaint)8 before the lawful owners of Lot No. 1936 and that
the disputed property. Eversley assails Municipal Trial Court in Cities of the occupants were occupying the
the August 31, 2011 Resolution3 of the Mandaue City against the occupants of property by mere tolerance. 13
Court of Appeals for resolving its Motion Lot No. 1936, namely, Eversley,
for Reconsideration despite its earlier Jagobiao National High School, the The Municipal Trial Court in Cities also
Bureau of Food and Drugs, and some held that a titled property could not be
acquired through laches. It found that P20,000 as reasonable recognizing that the subsequent
even the occupants' tax declarations in attorney[']s fees; and invalidation of the Spouses Barbarona's
their names could not prevail over a certificate of title was prejudicial to their
valid certificate of title. 14 The dispositive 3. The cost of suit. cause of action.21
portion of its Decision read:
Counterclaims of the [occupants] are On February 17, 2011, the Court of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of Appeals rendered its
rendered in favor of the [the Spouses merit. Decision, 22 denying the Petition.
Barbarona] and against all the According to the Court of Appeals, the
[occupants] and ordering the latter to SO ORDERED.15 allegations in the Complaint were for the
peacefully vacate the portion of the recovery of the physical possession of
premises in question and remove their The occupants appealed to the Regional the property and not a determination of
houses, structures or any building and Trial Court. In its November 24, 2006 the property's ownership. The action,
improvements introduced or constructed Decision, 16 the Regional Trial Court thus, was one for unlawful detainer and
on said portion on Lot 1936 covered by affirmed in toto the Decision of the was properly filed with the Municipal
TCT No. 53698. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. One of Trial Court. 23
the occupants, Eversley, filed a motion
The [occupants] are further ordered to for reconsideration. 17 The Court of Appeals held that the
pay the following, to wit: subsequent invalidation of the issuance
During the pendency of Eversley's of the certificate of title was immaterial,
1. The amount of ₱10.00 motion, or on February 19, 2007, the stating:
per square meter for the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP
area occupied by each [of No. 01503 rendered a Decision, Whether or not [the Spouses Barbarona
the occupants] as cancelling OCT No. R0-824 and its are] holder[s] or not of a certificate of
reasonable monthly derivative titles, including TCT No. title is immaterial. The matter of the
compensation for the use 53698, for lack of notice to the owners of issuance of the decree by the Land
of the portion of the the adjoining properties and its Registration Office in favor of [the
property of [the Spouses occupants. 18 Spouses Barbarona's] predecessor[s-
Barbarona] from the date ]in[-]interest has not been resolved on
of the filing of the On April 23, 2007, the Regional Trial the merits by the RTC. [The Spouses
complaint until [the Court issued an Order denying Barbarona,] having acquired all the
occupants] shall have Eversley's Motion for rights of their predecessors-in-interest[,]
actually vacated and Reconsideration. 19 have[,] from the time of the issuance of
turned over the portion of the decree[,] also derived title over the
their possession to the Eversley filed a Petition for property and nullification of the title
[Spouses Barbarona]; Review20 with the Court of Appeals, based on procedural defects is not
arguing that the Municipal Trial Court tantamount to the nullification of the
2. The amount of ₱20,000 had no jurisdiction over the action and decree. The decree stands and remains
as litigation expenses and that the Regional Trial Court erred in not a prima facie source of the [Spouses
Barbarona's] right of ownership over the evidence to prove that they have over their complaint since prior physical
subject property. 24 acquired the property from Tarcelo B. possession is not an indispensable
Gonzales, the owner named in the requirement and all that is required is
Eversley, represented by the Office of decree.28 "that the one-year period of limitation
the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for commences from the time of demand to
Review25 with this Court assailing the Petitioner points out that respondents' vacate."33
February 17, 2011 Decision of the Court Complaint before the trial court was a
of Appeals. It likewise prayed for the case for accion publiciana, not one for While the Petition was pending before
issuance of a Temporary Restraining unlawful detainer, since respondents this Court, respondents raised a few
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary have not proven petitioner's initial procedural concerns before submitting
Injunction26 to restrain the immediate possession to be one of mere tolerance. their Comment. In their Motion for Leave
execution of the assailed judgment and It claims that respondents' bare to File
to prevent impairing the operations of allegation that they merely tolerated Comment/Manifestation,34 respondents
the government hospital, which had petitioner's possession is insufficient in a informed this Court that petitioner still
been serving the public for more than 80 case for unlawful detainer, especially had a pending and unresolved Motion
years. with petitioner's possession of the for Reconsideration35 before the Court of
property since 1930, which pre-dates Appeals, in violation of the rule against
In its May 13, 2011 Resolution, 27 this the decree that was reconstituted in 193 forum shopping. Respondents,
Court issued a Temporary Restraining 9. 29 It argues that its long occupancy nonetheless, filed their
Order enjoining the implementation of should have been the subject of judicial Comment/Manifestation,36 to which this
the Court of Appeals February 17, 2011 notice since it is a government hospital Court ordered petitioner to reply.37
Decision. Respondents were also serving the city for decades and is even
directed to comment on the Petition. considered as a landmark of the city. 30 Petitioner filed its Reply38 and submitted
a Manifestation,39 explaining that the
In its Petition before this Court, On the other hand, respondents counter Court of Appeals had issued a
petitioner argues that the nullification of that the cancellation of TCT No. 53698 Resolution40 on August 31, 2011,
TCT No. 53698 should have been "does not ... divest respondents of their denying its Motion for Reconsideration
prejudicial to respondents' right to rightful ownership of the subject despite its earlier filing on April 14, 2011
recover possession over the property. property[,] more so their right of of a Manifestation and Motion to
Petitioner claims that since the possession"31 since their predecessors- Withdraw its Motion for Reconsideration.
Metropolitan Trial Comi relied on in-interest's title was still valid and Thus, it manifested its intention to
respondents' title to determine their right protected under the Torrens system. likewise question the Court of Appeals
of possession over the property, the They insist that "petitioner has not August 31, 2011 Resolution with this
subsequent nullification of their title shown . . . any sufficient evidence Court.
should have invalidated their right of proving [its] ownership ... much less, [its]
possession. Petitioner maintains that right of possession."32 On November 28, 2011, this Court noted
even if Decree No. 699021 was valid, that petitioner's Reply and Manifestation
the effect of its validity does not extend Respondents maintain that the and directed respondents to comment
to respondents since there is no Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction on the Manifestation.41
In their Comment on Petitioner's In City of Taguig v. City of Makati, 44 this whereby a court, in conflicts of law
Manifestation,42 respondents assert that Court discussed the definition, origins, cases, may refuse impositions on its
while petitioner submitted a and purpose of the rule on forum jurisdiction where it is not the most
Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw its shopping: "convenient" or available forum and the
Motion for Reconsideration, the Court of parties are not precluded from seeking
Appeals did not issue any order Top Rate Construction & General remedies elsewhere.
considering petitioner's Motion for Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development
Reconsideration to have been Corporation explained that: In this light, Black's Law Dictionary says
abandoned. The Court of Appeals that forum-shopping "occurs when a
instead proceeded to resolve it in its Forum shopping is committed by a party party attempts to have his action tried in
August 31, 2011 Resolution; hence, who institutes two or more suits -in a particular court or jurisdiction where he
respondents submit that petitioner different courts, either simultaneously or feels he will receive the most favorable
violated the rule on non-forum successively, in order to ask the courts judgment or verdict." Hence, according
shopping.43 to rule on the same or related causes or to Words and Phrases, "a litigant is open
to grant the same or substantially the to the charge of 'forum shopping'
Based on the arguments of the parties, same reliefs, on the supposition that one whenever he chooses a forum with
this Court is asked to resolve the or the other court would make a slight connection to factual
following issues: favorable disposition or increase a circumstances surrounding his suit, and
party's chances of obtaining a favorable litigants should be encouraged to
First, whether or not the nullification of decision or action. attempt to settle their differences without
the Spouses Anastacio and Perla imposing undue expense and vexatious
Barbarona's title had the effect of First Philippine International Bank v. situations on the courts."
invalidating their right of possession Court of Appeals recounted that forum
over the disputed property; and shopping originated as a concept in Further, Prubankers Association v.
private international law: Prudential Bank and Trust
Second, whether or not the Spouses Co. recounted that:
Anastacio and Perla Barbarona's To begin with, forum-shopping
complaint against Eversley Childs originated as a concept in private The rule on forum-shopping was first
Sanitarium was for accion publiciana or international law, where non-resident included in Section 17 of the Interim
for unlawful detainer. litigants are given the option to choose Rules and Guidelines issued by this
the forum or place wherein to bring their Court on January 11, 1983, which
Before these issues may be passed suit for various reasons or excuses, imposed a sanction in this wise: "A
upon, however, this Court must first including to secure procedural violation of the rule shall constitute
resolve the procedural question of advantages, to annoy and harass the contempt of court and shall be a cause
whether or not Eversley Childs defendant, to avoid overcrowded for the summary dismissal of both
Sanitarium violated the rule on non- dockets, or to select a more friendly petitions, without prejudice to the taking
forum shopping. venue. To combat these less than of appropriate action against the counsel
honorable excuses, the principle of or party concerned." Thereafter, the
I forum non conveniens was developed Court restated the rule in Revised
Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative party shall certify under oath in the contempt, as well as a cause for
Circular No. 04-94. Ultimately, the rule complaint or other initiatory pleading administrative sanctions.
was embodied in the 1997 amendments asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
to the Rules of Court. 45 certification annexed thereto and Petitioner, through the Office of the
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that Solicitor General, is alleged to have
There is forum shopping when a party he has not theretofore commenced any committed forum shopping when it filed
files different pleadings in different action or filed any claim involving the its Petition for Review on Ce1iiorari with
tribunals, despite having the same same issues in any court, tribunal or this Court, despite a pending Motion for
"identit[ies] of parties, rights or causes of quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of Reconsideration with the Court of
action, and reliefs sought."46 Consistent his knowledge, no such other action or Appeals.
with the principle of fair play, parties are claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
prohibited from seeking the same relief such other pending action or claim, a According to the Solicitor General, it
in multiple forums in the hope of complete statement of the present filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
obtaining a favorable judgment. The rule status thereof; and (c) if he should File a Petition for Review
against forum shopping likewise fulfills thereafter learn that the same or similar on Certiorariwith this Court on March 10,
an administrative purpose as it prevents action or claim has been filed or is 2011 but that another set of solicitors
conflicting decisions by different pending, he shall report that fact within erroneously filed a Motion for
tribunals on the same issue. five (5) days therefrom to the court Reconsideration with the Court of
wherein his aforesaid complaint or Appeals on March 11, 2011.47 Thus, it
In filing complaints and other initiatory initiatory pleading has been filed. was constrained to file a Manifestation
pleadings, the plaintiff or petitioner is and Motion to Withdraw its Motion for
required to attach a certification against Failure to comply with the foregoing Reconsideration on April 14, 2011,48 the
forum shopping, certifying that (a) no requirements shall not be curable by same date as its Petition for Review
other action or claim involving the same mere amendment of the complaint or on Certiorariwith this Court. Indeed, its
issues has been filed or is pending in other initiatory pleading but shall be Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, as
any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial cause for the dismissal of the case certified by State Solicitor Joan V.
agency, (b) if there is a pending action without prejudice, unless otherwise Ramos-Fabella, provides:
or claim, the party shall make a provided, upon motion and after hearing.
complete statement of its present status, The submission of a false certification or ....
and (c) if the party should learn that the non-compliance with any of the
same or similar action has been filed or undertakings therein shall constitute 5. I certify that there is a pending
is pending, that he or she will report it indirect contempt of court, without Motion/or Reconsideration erroneously
within five (5) days to the tribunal where prejudice to the corresponding filed in the Court of Appeals, Special
the complaint or initiatory pleading is administrative and criminal actions. If Eighteenth Division which we
pending. Thus, Rule 7, Section 5 of the the acts of the party or his counsel have asked to be withdrawn. Aside from
Rules of Court provides: clearly constitute willful and deliberate said pending motion, I have not
forum shopping, the same shall be commenced any action or filed any
Section 5. Certification against forum ground for summary dismissal with claim involving the same issues in any
shopping. - The plaintiff or principal prejudice and shall constitute direct court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of my knowledge, no Appeals as abandoned, pursuant to its can be faulted for filing a motion instead
such other action or claim is pending Internal Rules. However, it filed a Motion of a mere manifestation, it cannot be
therein; and should I thereafter learn to Withdraw, effectively submitting the faulted for presuming that the Court of
that the same or similar action or claim withdrawal of its Motion for Appeals would follow its Internal Rules
is pending before any other court, Reconsideration to the Court of Appeals' as a matter of course.
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I shall sound discretion. A motion is not
report such fact within five (5) days presumed to have already been acted Rule VI, Section 15 of the Internal Rules
therefrom from the court wherein this upon by its mere filing. Prudence of the Court of Appeals is provided for
petition has been filed. 49 (Emphasis dictated that the Office of the Solicitor precisely to prevent forum shopping. It
supplied) General await the Court of Appeals' mandates that once a party seeks relief
action on its Motion to Withdraw before with this Court, any action for relief with
The Office of the Solicitor General, considering its Motion for the Court of Appeals will be deemed
however, mistakenly presumed that the Reconsideration as withdrawn. abandoned to prevent conflicting
mere filing of a motion to withdraw has decisions on the same issues. Had the
the effect of withdrawing the motion for Ordinarily, "a motion that is not acted Court of Appeals applied its own Internal
reconsideration without having to await upon in due time is deemed Rules, petitioner's Motion for
the action of the Court of Appeals. The denied."50 When the Court of Appeals Reconsideration would have been
Office of the Solicitor General's basis is denied the Office of the Solicitor deemed abandoned.
its reading of Rule VI, Section 15 of the General's Motion for Reconsideration
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of without acting on its Motion to Withdraw, Moreover, unlike this Court, which can
Appeals: the latter was effectively denied. suspend the effectivity of its own rules
Petitioner, thus, committed forum when the ends of justice require it,51the
Section 15. Effect of Filing an Appeal in shopping when it filed its Petition before Court of Appeals cannot exercise a
the Supreme Court. - No motion for this Court despite a pending Motion for similar power. Only this Court may
reconsideration or rehearing shall be Reconsideration before the Court of suspend the effectivity of any provision
acted upon if the movant has previously Appeals. in its Internal Rules.52 Thus, it would be
filed in the Supreme Court a petition for reasonable for litigants to expect that the
review on certiorari or a motion for To rule in this manner, however, is to Court of Appeals would comply with its
extension of time to file such petition. If unnecessarily deprive petitioner of its own Internal Rules.
such petition or motion is subsequently day in court despite the Court of
filed, the motion for reconsideration Appeals' failure to apply its own Internal Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
pending in this Court shall be deemed Rules. The Internal Rules of the Court of having been deemed abandoned with its
abandoned. Appeals clearly provide that a filing of a Motion for Extension of Time
subsequent motion for reconsideration before this Court, the Court of Appeals'
This would have been true had the shall be deemed abandoned if the August 31, 2011 Resolution denying the
Office of the Solicitor General merely movant filed a petition for review or Motion for Reconsideration, thus, has no
manifested that it had already motion for extension of time to file a legal effect. It is as if no motion for
considered its Motion for petition for review before this Court. reconsideration was filed at
Reconsideration before the Court of While the Office of the Solicitor General all. 53 Considering that petitioner
counted the running of the period to file competent jurisdiction upon the question by the simple expedient of asserting
its Petition with this Court from its of ownership. It is obviously just that the ownership over the property.
receipt of the Court of Appeals February person who has first acquired
17, 2011 Decision, and not of the Court possession should remain in possession In forcible entry and unlawful detainer
of Appeals August 31, 2011 Resolution, pending this decision; and the parties cases, even if the defendant raises the
it does not appear that petitioner cannot be permitted meanwhile to question of ownership in his pleadings
"wanton[ly] disregard[ed] the rules or engage in a petty warfare over the and the question of possession cannot
cause[d] needless delay in the possession of the property which is the be resolved without deciding the issue of
administration of justice."54 In this subject of dispute. To permit this would ownership, the lower courts and the
particular instance, petitioner did not be highly dangerous to individual Court of Appeals, nonetheless, have the
commit a fatal procedural error. security and disturbing to social order. undoubted competence to provisionally
Therefore, where a person supposes resolve the issue of ownership for the
II himself to be the owner of a piece of sole purpose of determining the issue of
property and desires to vindicate his possession.
By its very nature, an ejectment case ownership against the party actually in
only resolves the issue of who has the possession, it is incumbent upon him to Such decision, however, does not bind
better right of possession over the institute an action to this end in a court the title or affect the ownership of the
property. The right of possession in this of competent jurisdiction; and he land nor is conclusive of the facts
instance refers to actual possession, not [cannot] be permitted, by invading the therein found in a case between the
legal possession. While a party may property and excluding the actual same parties upon a different cause of
later be proven to have the legal right of possessor, to place upon the latter the action involving possession. 58
possession by virtue of ownership, he or burden of instituting an action to try the
she must still institute an ejectment case property right.56 In this instance, respondents anchor
to be able to dispossess an actual their right of possession over the
occupant of the property who refuses to In ejectment cases, courts will only disputed property on TCT No.
vacate. In Mediran v. Villanueva: 55 resolve the issue of ownership 5369859 issued in their names. It is true
provisionally if the issue of possession that a registered owner has a right of
Juridically speaking, possession is cannot be resolved without passing possession over the property as this is
distinct from ownership, and from this upon it. In Co v. Militar: 57 one of the attributes of
distinction are derived legal ownership.60 Ejectment cases, however,
consequences of much importance. In We have, time and again, held that the are not automatically decided in favor of
giving recognition to the action of only issue for resolution in an unlawful the party who presents proof of
forcible entry and detainer the purpose detainer case is physical or material ownership, thus:
of the law is to protect the person who in possession of the property involved,
fact has actual possession; and in case independent of any claim of ownership Without a doubt, the registered owner of
of controverted right, it requires the by any of the party litigants. Moreover, real property is entitled to its
parties to preserve the status quo until an ejectment suit is summary in nature possession. However, the owner cannot
one or the other of them sees fit to and is not susceptible to circumvention simply wrest possession thereof from
invoke the decision of a court of whoever is in actual occupation of the
property. To recover possession, he property, or if there was, it may have Barbarona] is covered by a Torrens
must resort to the proper judicial remedy been lost or destroyed during the Certificate of Title. Until such time or
and, once he chooses what action to Second World War. The heirs of the period that such title is rendered
file, he is required to satisfy the Spouses Gonzales subsequently worthless, the same is BINDING UPON
conditions necessary for such action to executed a Deed of Full Renunciation of THE WHOLE WORLD in terms of
prosper. Rights, Conveyance of Full Ownership ownership[.]64 (Emphasis in the original)
and Full Waiver of Title and Interest on
In the present case, petitioner opted to March 24, 2004 in respondents' favor. During the interim, the Republic of the
file an ejectment case against Thus, respondent Anastacio Barbarona Philippines, represented by the Office of
respondents. Ejectment cases - forcible succeeded in having Decree No. the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for
entry and unlawful detainer - are 699021 reconstituted on July 27, 2004 Annulment of Judgment before the
summary proceedings designed to and having TCT No. 53698 issued in Court of Appeals to assail the
provide expeditious means to protect respondents' names on February 7, reconstitution of Decree No. 699021,
actual possession or the right to 2005.63 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 01503. On
possession of the property involved. The February 19, 2007,65 the Court of
only question that the courts resolve in The Municipal and Regional Trial Courts Appeals in that case found that the trial
ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled referred to respondents' Torrens title as court reconstituted the title without
to the physical possession of the basis to rule the ejectment case in their having issued the required notice and
premises, that is, to the possession de favor: initial hearing to the actual occupants,
facto and not to the possession de rendering all proceedings void. The
Jure. It does not even matter if a party's The complaint in this case sufficiently ... dispositive portion of the Decision read:
title to the property is questionable. For establish[es] beyond doubt that [the
this reason, an ejectment case will not Spouses Barbarona] are the lawful WHEREFORE, in the light of the
necessarily be decided in favor of one owners of Lot 1936, situated at foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
who has presented proof of ownership Jagobiao, Mandaue City, as evidenced GRANTING the instant petition and
of the subject property. Key jurisdictional by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53698 SETTING ASIDE the Order of Branch
facts constitutive of the particular .... 55 of the Regional Trial Court, Mandaue
ejectment case filed must be averred in City in Case No. 3 G.L.R.O., Record No.
the complaint and sufficiently .... 4030.
proven.61 (Emphasis supplied)
A certificate of title is a conclusive SO ORDERED.66
Here, respondents alleged that their evidence of ownership and as owners,
right of ownership was derived from their the [the Spouses Bnrbarona] are entitled As a consequence of this ruling, TCT
predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses to possession of the property . . . . No. 53698 was cancelled by the
Gonzales, whose Decree No. 699021
was issued on March 29, 1939.62 The This Court however cannot just simply Register of Deeds on January 25,
Register of Deeds certified that there closed (sic) its eyes into the fact 2011.67
was no original certificate of title or presented before the trial court that the
owner's duplicate issued over the subject lot owned by [the Spouses
Despite these developments, the Court The institution was built by the Leonard that a certificate of title does not vest
of Appeals in this case proceeded to Wood Memorial with most of the funds ownership. The Torrens system "simply
affirm the Municipal Trial Court's and donated by the late Mr. Eversley Childs recognizes and documents ownership
Regional Trial Court's judgments on the of New York, USA, hence the name, and provides for the consequences of
basis that Decree No. 699021 was still Eversley Childs Sanitarium, in honor of issuing paper titles."71
valid, stating: the late donor. The total cost was about
400,000.00 which were spent for the Without TCT No. 53698, however,
Whether or not [the Spouses Barbarona construction of 52 concrete buildings (11 respondents have no other proof on
are] holder[s] or not of a certificate of cottages for females and 22 for males, 5 which to anchor their claim. The Deed of
title is immaterial. The matter of the bathhouses, 2 infirmaries, powerhouse, Full Renunciation of Rights,
issuance of the decree by the Land carpentry shop, general kitchen and Conveyance of Full Ownership and Full
Registration Office in favor of [the storage, consultation and treatment Waiver of Title and Interest executed in
Spouses Barbarona's] predecessor[ s- clinics and offices), waterworks, their favor by the heirs of the Spouses
]in[-]interest has not been resolved on sewerage, road and telephone system, Gonzales is insufficient to prove
the merits by the RTC. [The Spouses equipment and the likes. conveyance of property since no
Barbarona,] having acquired all the evidence was introduced to prove that
rights of their predecessors-in-interest[,] The construction of the building [was] ownership over the property was validly
have[,] from the time of the issuance of started sometime on May 1928 and was transferred to the Spouses Gonzales'
the decree[,] also derived title over the completed 2 years later. It was formally heirs upon their death.
property and nullification of the title turned over the Philippine government
based on procedurai defects is not and was opened [on] May 30, 1930 with Moreover, Proclamation No. 507, series
tantamount to the nullification of the 540 patients transferred in from Caretta of 1932, reserved portions of the
decree. The decree stands and remains Treatment Station, now Cebu Skin Clinic property specifically for petitioner's use
a prima facie source of the [Spouses in Cebu City.69 as a leprosarium. Even assuming that
Barbarona's] right of ownership over the Decree No. 699021 is eventually held as
subject property. 68 Proclamation No. 507 was issued on a valid Torrens title, a title under the
October 21, 1932, "which reserved Torrens system is always issued subject
Blinded by respondents' allegedly valid certain parcels of land in Jagobiao, to the annotated liens or encumbrances,
title on the property, the three (3) Mandaue City, Cebu as additional or what the law warrants or reserves.
tribunals completely ignored how leprosarium site for the Eversley Childs Thus:
petitioner came to occupy the property Treatment Station."70 Petitioner's
in the first place. possession of the property, therefore, Under the Torrens system of
pre-dates that of respondents' registration, the government is required
Petitioner, a public hospital operating as predecessors-in-interest, whose Decree to issue an official certificate of title to
a leprosarium dedicated to treating No. 699021 was issued in 1939. attest to the fact that the person named
persons suffering from Hansen's is the owner of the property described
disease, has been occupying the It is true that defects in TCT No. 53698 therein, subject to such liens and
property since May 30, 1930. According or even Decree No. 699021 will not encumbrances as thereon noted or what
to its history: affect the fact of ownership, considering
the law warrants or summary in nature, are filed with the A requisite for a valid cause of action in
reserves. 72 (Emphasis supplied) Municipal Trial Courts. Accion an unlawful detainer case is that
publiciana, however, can only be taken possession must be originally lawful,
Portions occupied by petitioner, having cognizance by the Regional Trial and such possession must have turned
been reserved by law, cannot be Court.74 unlawful only upon the expiration of the
affected by the issuance of a Torrens right to possess. It must be shown that
title. Petitioner cannot be considered as Petitioner argues that the Municipal Trial the possession was initially lawful;
one occupying under mere tolerance of Court has no jurisdiction over the case hence, the basis of such lawful
the registered owner since its since respondents' cause of action possession must be established. If, as in
occupation was by virtue of law. makes a case for ace ion publiciana and this case, the claim is that such
Petitioner's right of possession, not ejectment through unlawful detainer. possession is by mere tolerance of the
therefore, shall remain unencumbered It asserts that respondents failed to plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be
subject to the final disposition on the prove that petitioner occupied the proved.
issue of the property's ownership. property by mere tolerance.
Petitioner failed to prove that
III Jurisdiction over subject matter is respondents' possession was based on
conferred by the allegations stated in the his alleged tolerance.1âwphi1 He did not
There are three (3) remedies available complaint. 75 Respondents' Complaint offer any evidence or even only an
to one who has been dispossessed of before the Municipal Trial Court states: affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that
property: (I) an action for ejectment to they tolerated respondents' entry to and
recover possession, whether for That [the occupants] are presently occupation of the subject properties. A
unlawful detainer or forcible entry; occupying the above-mentioned bare allegation of tolerance will not
(2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria property of the [Spouses Barbarona] suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show
de posesion, or a plenary action to without color [of] right or title. Such overt acts indicative of his or his
recover the right of · possession; and occupancy is purely by mere tolerance. predecessor's permission to occupy the
(3) accion reivindicatoria, or an action to Indeed, [the occupants'] occupying the subject property . . . .
recover ownership. 73 lot owned by [the Spouses Barbarona] is
illegal and not anchored upon any ....
Although both ejectment and accion contractual relations with the [Spouses
publiciana are actions specifically to Barbarona.]76 In addition, plaintiff must also show that
recover the right of possession, they the supposed acts of tolerance have
have two (2) distinguishing differences. Indeed, no mention has been made as been present right from the very start of
The first is the filing period. Ejectment to how petitioner came to possess the the possession - from entry to the
cases must be filed within one (I) year property and as to what acts constituted property. Otherwise, if the possession
from the date of dispossession. If the tolerance on the part of respondents or was unlawful from the start, an action for
dispossession lasts for more than a their predecessors-in-interest to allow unlawful detainer would be an improper
year, then an accion publiciana must be petitioner's occupation. In Carbonilla v. remedy. Notably, no mention was made
filed. The second distinction concerns Abiera:77 in the complaint of how entry by
jurisdiction. Ejectment cases, being respondents was effected or how and
when dispossession started. Neither assert their right of possession or their
was there any evidence showing such right of ownership.
details.
Considering that respondents filed the
In any event, petitioner has some other improper case before the Municipal Trial
recourse. He may pursue recovering Court, it had no jurisdiction over the
possession of his property by filing case. Any disposition made, therefore,
an accion publiciana, which is a plenary was void. The subsequent judgments of
action intended to recover the better the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
right to possess; or an accion Appeals, which proceeded from the void
reivindicatoria, a suit to recover Municipal Trial Court judgment, are
ownership of real property. We stress, likewise void.
however, that the pronouncement in this
case as to the ownership of the land WHEREFORE, the Petition
should be regarded as merely is GRANTED. The February 17, 2011
provisional and, therefore, would not bar Decision and August 31, 2011
or prejudice an action between the same Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
parties involving title to the land. 78 CAG. R. SP No. 02762
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
The same situation is present in this Temporary Restraining Order dated May
case. Respondents failed to state when 13, 2011 is made PERMANENT.
petitioner's possession was initially
lawful, and how and when their SO ORDERED.
dispossession started. All that appears
from the Complaint is that petitioner's
occupation "is illegal and not anchored
upon any contractual relations with
[respondents.]"79
HELD: WON the CA erred in holding that the . . . [A]n action for reconveyance of a
WON Gregorio Bontuyan acted in bad action of the petitioners to assail OCT parcel of land based on implied or
faith when he applied for free patent for No. 0-1619 and TCT No. 1392 and for constructive trust prescribes in ten
the same parcels of land (YES) the reconveyance of the property years, the point of reference being the
covered by the said title had already date of registration of the deed or the
As copiously shown by the record, prescribed when they filed their answer date of the issuance of the certificate of
Gregorio Bontuyan filed his application to the complaint (NO) title over the property, but this rule
for a free patent with the Bureau of applies only when the plaintiff or the
Lands on December 4, 1968 in gross The CA, likewise, erred in holding that person enforcing the trust is not in
bad faith, thereby defrauding Lourdes the action of the petitioners to assail possession of the property, since if a
Leyson of the said property through OCT No. 0-1619 and TCT No. 1392 and person claiming to be the owner thereof
deceit. Gregorio Bontuyan falsely for the reconveyance of the property is in actual possession of the property,
declared in the said application: (a) that covered by the said title had already as the defendants are in the instant
he entered upon and cultivated the prescribed when they filed their answer case, the right to seek reconveyance,
property since 1918 and that the to the complaint. which in effect seeks to quiet title to the
property, does not prescribe. The whose . . . possession of the litigated a Torrens title for the land which they
reason for this is that one who is in property for no less than 30 years and and their predecessors never possessed
actual possession of a piece of land was suddenly confronted with a claim and which has been possessed by
claiming to be the owner thereof may that the land she had been occupying another in the concept of an owner.
wait until his possession is disturbed or and cultivating all these years, was titled
his title is attacked before taking steps to in the name of a third person. We hold Disposition: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
vindicate his right, the reason for the that in such a situation the right to quiet FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED.
rule being, that his undisturbed title to the property, to seek its The Decision of the Court of Appeals
possession gives him a continuing right reconveyance and annul any certificate declaring the respondents the owners of
to seek the aid of a court of equity to of title covering it, accrued only from the Lot No. 17150 covered by OCT No. 0-
ascertain and determine the nature of time the one in possession was made 1619 and TCT No. 1392; and setting
the adverse claim of a third party and its aware of a claim adverse to his own, aside the award of attorney's fees in
effect on his own title, which right can be and it is only then that the statutory favor of the petitioners by the Regional
claimed only by one who is in period of prescription commences to run Trial Court are REVERSED AND SET
possession. against such possessor. ASIDE.
The paramount reason for this exception The Court hereby AFFIRMS the
is based on the theory that registration ownership of the petitioners of Lot No.
Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay, proceedings could not be used as a 17150. OCT No. 0-1619 and TCT No.
52 the same pronouncement was shield for fraud. Moreover, to hold 1392 covering the said lot are hereby
reiterated by the Court: otherwise would be to put premium on nullified. The Register of Deeds is
land-grabbing and transgressing the ORDERED to cancel TCT No. 1392 and
. . . There is settled jurisprudence that broader principle in human relations that to issue another title over the property in
one who is in actual possession of a no person shall unjustly enrich himself at favor of the petitioners as co-owners
piece of land claiming to be owner the expense of another. thereof. The trial court's award of
thereof may wait until his possession is P50,000.00 for attorney's fees to the
disturbed or his title is attacked before In the present case, Lourdes Leyson petitioners is AFFIRMED. No
taking steps to vindicate his right, the and, after her death, the petitioners, had pronouncement as to costs.
reason for the rule being, that his been in actual possession of the
undisturbed possession gives him a property. The petitioners were still in
continuing right to seek the aid of the possession of the property when they
court of equity to ascertain and filed their answers to the complaint
determine the nature of the adverse which contained their counterclaims for
claim of a third party and its effect on his the nullification of OCT No. 0-1619 and
own title, which right can be claimed TCT No. 1392, and for the consequent
only by one who is in possession. No reconveyance of the property to them.
better situation can be conceived at the The reconveyance is just and proper in
moment for Us to apply this rule on order to put a stop to the unendurable
equity than that of herein petitioners anomaly that the patentees should have
properties, the UCPB consolidated the
ownership over the properties, cancelling
the Nagtalon titles while issuing new TCTs in
UCPB’s name. UCPB then filed an ex parte
petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession from the RTC, but Nagtalon
opposed this petition by reason of a
pending civil case concerning the credit
agreement. The RTC agreed with Nagtalon,
but the UCPB brought this to the CA after its
motion for reconsideration was denied and
the CA reversed the RTC decision. Thus,
Nagtalon’s petitioned the SC to review the
CAs decision.
ISSUE AND ANSWER:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PENDENCY OF A
CIVIL CASE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF
THE CREDIT AGREEMENT, THE
PROMISSORY NOTES, AND THE
MORTGAGE CAN BAR THE ISSUANCE OF A
Nagtalon vs. UCPB
G.R. No. 172504
31 WRIT OF POSSESSION AFTER THE
FORECLOSURE AND SALE OF THE
July 2013
Ponente: J. Brion MORTGAGED PROPERTIES AND THE LAPSE
This is a petition for review on certiorari. OF THE ONE-YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD.
Roman Nagtalon and petitioner, Donna No, it cannot be a bar.
Nagtalon, mortgaged some properties in a) THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
order to secure a credit agreement they POSSESSION IS A MINISTERIAL FUNCTION
made with respondent United Coconut OF THE COURT. The rule is that once the
Planters Bank. The spouses failed to comply title to the property has been consolidated
with the terms of conditions thereof so the in the buyer’s name upon failure of the
properties were foreclosed and sold at mortgagor to redeem the property within
public auction. The UCPB was the sole and the one-year redemption period, the writ of
highest bidder. It was issued a certificate of possession becomes a matter of right
sale and caused the entry of the sale in the belonging to the buyer.
records of the Registry of Deeds. After the b) PENDENCY OF A CIVIL CASE
one-year redemption period had expired QUESTIONAING THE MORTGAGE AND
with Nagtalon having failed to redeem the
FORECLOSURE IS NOT A BAR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION. As a
ministerial function of court, the judge need
not look into the validity of the mortgage or
the manner of its foreclosure, as these are
questions that should properly be decided
by a court of competent jurisdiction in the
pending case filed before it.
c) EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: 1) Gross
inadequacy of purchase price 2) Third party
claiming right adverse to debtor/mortgagor
3) Failure to pay the surplus proceeds of
sale to mortgagor. Nagtalon did not qualify
for any of these.
d) PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED DUE
PROCESS. Issuance of a writ of possession is
an ex parte petition, a non litigious
proceeding where the relief is granted
without requiring an opportunity to be
heard for the person from whom relief is
sought.