G.R. No. 213187 - Bulalacao-Soriano vs. Papina

The subject property is a 201‑square meter parcel of residential land located in Barangay VII, Daet, Camarines Norte.
It was originally owned by Tomas de Jesus and is identified by Tax Declaration (TD) No. 2172, describing a parcel with visible boundaries and specific market values.

The heirs of Tomas de Jesus sold the property to respondents Ernesto Papina and Manuel Papina for P15,000, evidenced by a document titled “Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale.”
Despite the sale, the tax declarations continued to be registered in the name of De Jesus.
The respondents, having become co‑owners, agreed not to partition the property immediately and allowed petitioner Haide Bulalacao‑Soriano to enjoy occupancy under certain conditions.

The petitioner was allowed by the respondents’ father to reside and construct a house on the lot with the understanding that she would surrender possession should the co‑owners need the property.
In 1993, responding to a financial need, Ernesto and Manuel mortgaged the property to Haide to secure a P25,000 loan, executing a “Sanglaan ng Lupa na may Karapatan sa Nag Mamay‑ari.”
Subsequent to the mortgage, petitioner’s possession of the property remained undisturbed even after the funds for the loan were mishandled—Manuel appropriated the money given for the mortgage repayment—leading to non‑payment within the five‑year period.

On August 22, 2000, without Ernesto’s knowledge, Manuel sold his undivided share of the property to petitioner for P100,000 on an installment basis.
The transaction was memorialized in the “Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Lupa” which set forth:

Initial and installment payment schedule (P20,000 upon signing and P80,000 in installments).
An obligation that the seller (Manuel) would handle the necessary tax payments with the understanding that any amounts paid by petitioner for transfer purposes would reduce the remaining balance of P8,500.

Petitioner contended that Manuel’s instruction led her to pay P20,780 towards real property and estate taxes (accumulated since 1983), sufficient to cover the balance, whereas respondent denied such arrangement and maintained that the balance remained unpaid.

In March 2002, the Papina brothers initiated the partition process by surveying the property with the intent of dissolving the co‑ownership.
On October 27, 2005, they entered into a “Subdivision Agreement” dividing the property into:

Lot 1 – An 80‑square meter lot, which included the area where petitioner’s house was located, allocated to Ernesto.
Lot 2 – A 121‑square meter tract, constituting what was Manuel’s remaining interest.

The respondents informed petitioner of the subdivision, and on March 19, 2006, respondent Ernesto demanded that petitioner vacate Lot 1.
Petitioner’s failure to vacate led respondent to file a Complaint for Ejectment (an unlawful detainer suit) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Daet as Civil Case No. 2777.

On March 10, 2009, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the title was in issue and that the proper remedy might be an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

On September 30, 2009, the RTC reversed the MTC’s ruling, holding that the petitioner’s possession had shifted from tolerated occupancy to unlawful detention after the formal demand to vacate.
The RTC found that petitioner’s right to occupy had become limited to the area (Lot 2) assigned to Manuel, and that her sale of Manuel’s share could only affect that specific portion upon termination of co‑ownership.
Consequently, the RTC ordered petitioner to vacate Lot 1.

In the assailed decision dated October 30, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, denying petitioner’s appeal by holding that:

ii. Petitioner, having only acquired an undivided share through Manuel’s sale, did not possess a determinate part of the property.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 29, 2014.

Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the CA’s decision and the protection of her right to remain in the property.
The central contention revolved around whether petitioner had in fact fully paid for Manuel’s share (by crediting her tax payments against the balance) and whether the subdivision agreement was valid as executed without her consent.

Whether respondent has a valid case for unlawful detainer given that petitioner claims to have acquired Manuel’s undivided share by fully paying the purchase price (through the application of tax payments as credit).
Whether the execution of the Subdivision Agreement by the Papina brothers, without petitioner’s knowledge or participation, effectively terminated petitioner’s right to possess Lot 1.
Whether the contractual arrangement (the Kasunduan) between petitioner and Manuel rendered the sale fully paid, thereby converting petitioner into a proper co‑owner with the right to partition the property, and whether only co‑owners may validly enter into a partition agreement.