1.

FAILURE TO STATE WHEN AND HOW ENTRY WAS MADE

SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ and AMELIA CONCIO-DELA CRUZ vs. SPOUSES RUFINO R. CAPCO AND
MARTY C. CAPCO, Respondents. G.R. No. 176055 March 17, 2014

The Court has already clarified in Delos Reyes v. Odones that:

The requirement that the complaint should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property
was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before
the MTC.

This is because, in forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date of defendants’ actual
entry into the property; whereas, in unlawful detainer cases, it is counted from date of the last demand to
vacate. Hence, to determine whether the case was filed on time, there is a necessity to ascertain whether the
complaint is one for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer; and since the main distinction between the two
actions is when and how defendant entered the property, the determinative facts should be alleged in the
complaint.

The timeliness of the filing of the Complaint for unlawful detainer is not an issue in this case. Hence, the failure
of the Complaint to allege when and how the spouses {Capco} came into possession of the property does not
mean that the {MeTC} did not acquire jurisdiction over it. "To give the court jurisdiction to effect the
ejectment of an occupant on the land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of
facts as brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy. The
complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction {without resort to parol testimony.}

2. TAX DECLARATIONS EFFECTS

As mentioned, the spouses Capco submitted tax declarations covering their house and a camarin as well as the
corresponding receipts evidencing their payments of real property taxes. Notably, the declared owner of the
lot on which these properties stand, as written in the receipts for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, is
Juan.41 Yet, the receipts for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 no longer reflect Juan as the owner but
Teodora. This change tends to support the conclusion that the lot occupied by the spouses Capco, which was
previously owned by Juan, is the portion adjudicated in favor of the spouses Dela Cruz’ predecessor-in-
interest, Teodora. This is further confirmed by the affidavit of the Municipal Assessor of Pateros, Mr.
Emmanuel España.

3. PAR 17 OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ADMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT > PAR 8 OF THE ANSWER
 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION IS BOLSTERED
4. EFFECTS OF DONATION by CAROLINA
5. PAR 19 – ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS INDEED A DONATION
a. PAR 12 OF THE COMPLIANT was not denied by the DEFENDANT
b. FORTUNATO CLAIMS THE 289 SQM for himself alone and not co-ownership
c. No co-ownership then since the admission of the existence of the DEED PRESUPPOSES
OWNERSHIP.
6. PAR 12 WAS NOT DENIED; document was not contested/ DID NOT EFFECTIVELY DENY THE
ALLEGATION AND EVEN SUSTAINED IN THE ANSWER’S SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
 a. SECTION 8, RULE 8
b. SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES par 12
c. Elayda v. Court of Appeals, the trial court may reject evidence that a party adduces to
contradict a judicial admission he made in his pleading since such admission is conclusive as to
him. It does not matter that the other party failed to object to the contradictory evidence so
adduced.
7. The holder of a Torrens title is the rightful owner of the property thereby covered and is entitled to its
possession
a. CAROLINA CAN VALIDLY donate the property.
8. Acts merely tolerated are those which by reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of property
allow his neighbor or another person to do on the property; they are generally those particular services
or benefits which one's property can give to another without material injury or prejudice to the
owner, who permits them out of friendship or courtesy. (ACTS OF LITTLE DISTURBANCES)
By virtue of tolerance that is considered as an authorization, permission or license, acts of possession
are realized or performed. The question reduces itself to the existence or non-existence of the
permission
9. Donation is one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Among the attributes of ownership is the right to
possess the property. > ARTICLE 428.

In order that the donation of an immovable property may be valid, it must be made in a public document.
Registration of the deed in the Office of the Register of Deeds or in the Assessor’s Office is not necessary
for it to be considered valid and official. Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title
over a particular parcel of land. The necessity of registration comes into play only when the rights of third
persons are affected. Furthermore, the heirs are bound by the deed of contracts executed by their
predecessors-in-interest. (San Agustin vs. Court of Appeals)

10. THERE WAS INDEED a donation since CAROLINA turned over the OCT to ERLINDA to facilitate the
issuance of a new title over the property.

THEORY:

September 23 2010 Registration under CAROLINA’s name

2011

March 21 DONATION

APRIL- NOV 1 TOLERANCE/LAWFUL POSSESSION

November 2 DEMAND TO VACATE

2012

JAN-SEPTEMBER From November 2011- PRESENT > UNLAWFUL POSSESSION

October 1 Barangay Confrontation

October 7 ISSUANCE OF Cert to File Action

October 12 FILING OF THE CASE

Three AUNTIES transferred the 289 sqm to ERLINDA and CAROLINA. (Transfers and waivers; no issue here).
The latter relinquished 1/3 of the property in favor of Emiliano and all agreed to have the property registered
in the name of CAROLINA. Although the certificate of title was issued only in her sole name; property is owned
in common. (Based on an agreement). He later returned the property to Erlinda and Carolina. Tapos,
registration was effected under CAROLINA’s name. So, by fiction, CAROLINA OWNED the 289sqm. Before her
death, SHE DONATED HALF of the property (144sqm) to ERLINDA IN KEEPING WITH THE WISHES OF THE
THREE AUNTIES TO CONVEY THE HALF PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ERLINDA.

Theories:

1. Donation is valid > ANSWER did not deny the existence, even (implied) admitted PAR 12 OF the
complaint.
2. The waiver executed by Emiliano and the DEED OF DONATION superseded the agreement on OCTOBER
31, 2008 (which maintained co-ownership).
3. Since Carolina was still alive during the execution of the deed, conveying the property through
donation is practical; OTHERWISE by virtue of registration under the TORRENS SYSTEM, FORTUNATO
as the HUSBAND AND HEIR OF CAROLINA may claim the whole property. NOTE THAT HE WAS not a
privy in the KASUNDOAN BETWEEN THE THREE SIBLINGS recognizing co-ownership. (edit the
KASUNDOAN accordingly).

AFTER DONATION (March 21, 2011) so nag assume na si Erlinda that she owns the 144sqm. The spouses
Ventanilla (Erlinda and Arturo) PERMITTED ANZURES to occupy the premises. So FROM MARCH 22 2011 –
November 1 (LAWFUL POSSESSION> TOLERANCE). Said permission ceased upon the demand to vacate on
NOVEMBER 2. The spouses persistently made efforts to repossess the property after giving the first demand to
vacate. (Like every month gipalayas si Anzures pero dili jud xa; baga ug fes). The last demand to vacate was on
September 15, 2012. *CAROLINA DIED AUGUST 1, 2011

1.) Exhibit “A” Tax Declaration with No. 12345

2.) Exhibit “B” Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2011000008
3.) Exhibit “C” Waiver of Rights over the Unregistered Parcel of Land
4.) Exhibit “D” The Deed of Absolute Sale of the Unregistered Land
5.) Exhibit “E” Pagkakaloob ng Bahagi ng Lupa na May Kasunduan
6.) Exhibit “F” Pagwawaksi ng Karapatan
7.) Exhibit “G” Deed of Donation – as DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT
8.) Exhibit “H” Certificate to File Action
1. Plaintiffs who shall testify on the material allegations of their complaint;
2. Ms. Erlina Antilres who witnessed the execution of the deed of donation; and
3. Atty. Mary Edeline Dalisay – for TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE