Case Digest (G.R. No. 151322)
Facts:
Mario L. Copuyoc v. Erlinda de Sola, G.R. No. 151322, October 11, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. The dispute involves possession of Lot 25, Block 6 of the Xavierville Estate Subdivision in Loyola Heights/Quezon City.
Petitioner Mario L. Copuyoc (also styled Capuyoc in parts of the record) and his spouse acquired a Contract to Sell dated September 6, 1995 from the Bank of Commerce (formerly The Overseas Bank of Manila) permitting them to take possession pending reconstitution of title and full payment. Respondent Erlinda de Sola holds Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 87569 issued June 8, 1993, tracing to an Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 7, 1993 from Christine C. Quesada.
On December 18, 1996 respondent filed a complaint for Forcible Entry with Injunction and an urgent prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 35, Quezon City, alleging she had been in actual possession since June 7, 1993 and that petitioner had commenced construction without consent. The MeTC issued a TRO on January 15, 1997. Petitioner answered, counterclaimed, and asserted that the Bank of Commerce held a reconstituted title (TCT No. RT‑114371 / 265907) covering the same property and that respondent’s title might be forged.
After submission of position papers and evidence, the MeTC dismissed respondent’s forcible entry complaint on September 22, 1997. Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City, which on October 19, 1998 reversed the MeTC and ordered petitioner to vacate the premises. The RTC relied on testimony and an LRA reconstitution order to conclude the titles covered the same lot and held that respondent’s June 1993 deed established prior possession.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 52132). The CA, in a decision dated April 30, 2001, denied the petition, upholding the RTC’s finding that respondent had prior possession (noting respondent’s alleged regular visits and tax declarations) and left questions of absolute ownership to pending Civil Case No. Q‑97‑30333, Bank of Commerce v. Erlinda de Sola. Petitioner then brought this Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court re‑examine the factual findings of the lower courts notwithstanding the general rule limiting Rule 45 review to questions of law?
- Between Mario L. Copuyoc and Erlinda de Sola, who had prior possession (possession de facto) of the disputed parcel at the time the forcible entry suit was filed?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in considering tax declarations presented for the first time on appeal as proof of respondent’s possession?
- Do the respective technical descriptions and survey evidence demonstrate that the titles (Bank of Commerce’s reconstituted ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)