A.C. No. 10315 - Ladrera vs. Osorio

Adolfo Barcelo, the husband of petitioner Susana Barcelo and father of the other petitioners, was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg P-1805.
The property is located at Barangay Conversion, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, and covers an area of 36,435 square meters.
Adolfo’s family maintained possession of the property by tilling and cultivating the land, planting vegetables and mango trees.

Upon Adolfo’s death on October 5, 2004, petitioners succeeded to the property.
In 2006, petitioners discovered that respondent Dominador Riparip had clandestinely encroached on approximately one hectare of the subject property.
Petitioners asked Dominador to vacate the area; however, he constructed a nipa house and fenced the perimeter, and his claim that the land was given to him by Adolfo was unsupported by documentary evidence.
The matter was initially brought before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), but no settlement was reached due to the conflicting claims.

In June 2013, petitioners learned that respondents—Dominador Riparip, Romeo Riparip, Romeo Riparip Jr., and Daniel Tamallana—occupied the remaining area of the property by means of strategy and stealth.
Respondents also threatened petitioners to dissuade them from reclaiming possession.
Petitioners then filed an ejectment complaint before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija.
Respondents, in their Answer with Special and Affirmative Defense, claimed that their possession dated back to 1980 through their grandfather, Marcelino Riparip, and asserted that the property was formerly public land. They further argued that petitioners’ title was fraudulently procured and that the cause of action had prescribed due to the lapse of more than one year since the initial demand.

The MTC, after denying the motion to dismiss, issued a Decision on August 19, 2015, which granted petitioners’ complaint ordering respondents to vacate the property and pay costs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City, Branch 39, later affirmed the MTC decision, recharacterizing the case as one of forcible entry rather than unlawful detainer. It highlighted that petitioners were deprived of possession by stealth and that the action was filed within the one-year period from when the illegal entry was discovered.
Respondents’ subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied by the RTC.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated February 20, 2019, annulled the RTC decision and dismissed the complaint for ejectment, holding that the proper remedy was one for unlawful detainer given petitioners’ alleged tolerance of the possession.

Petitioners raised a single issue for resolution in their Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, questioning whether the CA gravely erred in annulling the RTC decision on the ground that the complaint was based solely on an allegation of tolerance.
Petitioners underscored that the proper cause of action was forcible entry and that their Torrens title should prevail as definitive proof of ownership and right to possession.
Respondents maintained that even though the issue was not raised in their own petition for review, a mischaracterization of the nature of the action required dismissal of the ejectment complaint.

Whether respondents’ entry into the subject property, effected by stealth or strategy, constitutes forcible entry (illegal from the start) or unlawful detainer (which presupposes prior lawful possession later converted by tolerance).

Whether the action for forcible entry — in respect to the illegal entry discovered in June 2013 — was filed within the required one-year prescriptive period from the date of discovery.

Whether petitioners' complaint for ejectment, based on the alleged illegal entry, should have been treated as a case for forcible entry rather than unlawful detainer.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the underlying remedy was inappropriate given the facts.

Whether respondents’ defense challenging the validity of petitioners' Torrens title (alleged fraud in its issuance) is admissible in an ejectment (or forcible entry) case.