G.R. No. 204626 - Gabriel, Jr. vs. Crisologo

The subject matter involves two parcels of land with a total area of approximately 2,000 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-13935 and T-13936.
Carmeling Crisologo, by virtue of her titles, claimed to be the registered owner and had been declaring the properties for taxation purposes since 1969 with updated tax payments.

Crisologo alleged that in 2006 the petitioners—Paul P. Gabriel, Jr., Ireneo C. Calwag, Thomas L. Tingga-an, and the heirs of Juliet B. Pulkera—entered, occupied, and built houses on her parcels of land without her consent, employing stealth and force.
Following the discovery of the unlawful occupation, Crisologo (assisted by her daughter, Atty. Carmelita Crisologo, and her attorney-in-fact, Pedro Isican) demanded that the petitioners vacate the properties and dismantle the structures they had erected.
The petitioners, while admitting to occupation, contended that they had acquired the properties through a promise to purchase at a stated price, although they later reneged on their alleged promise to pay the stipulated amount.

Ruled in favor of Crisologo, holding that her regular tax payments and declaration of ownership established that she was the rightful possessor.
Directed the petitioners to vacate the subject properties, demolish the illegally constructed houses, and pay rentals, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs.

Reversed the MTCC decision, asserting that petitioners’ challenge to the validity of Crisologo’s titles did not constitute a collateral attack, thereby concluding that her titles were void pursuant to precedents (e.g., Republic v. Marcos) and the failure to comply with conditions under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1271.
Held that since the titles were products of procedural irregularities, they could not support her claim for recovery of possession.

Reinstated the MTCC ruling by emphasizing that Crisologo’s possession was well-established through her acquisition by sale in 1967, subsequent issuance of the titles, continuous tax payments since 1969, and her appointment of an administrator over the properties.
Concluded that regardless of the questionable condition of the titles, Crisologo had the superior right to possess the lands.

Contended that Crisologo’s titles were invalid because they were products of illegal proceedings (as reiterated in the Republic v. Marcos rulings and under P.D. No. 1271).
Argued that Crisologo had never actually taken possession of the properties post-sale and that her evidence (including tax documents) did not amount to established possession.
Asserted that the petitioners had maintained open, notorious, and continuous possession in good faith.

Defended her possession by stressing the technical validity of her titles and the protective nature of the Torrens system, which renders titles immune from collateral attacks.
Claimed that her acts—such as paying taxes, appointing an administrator, and even offering to sell portions of the property—firmly demonstrated her control and rightful possession.
Raised issues on standing, asserting that petitioners who filed the petition did not represent the real parties in interest.

Whether Crisologo, as the registered owner with Torrens titles, has a better right of possession over the subject parcels despite the alleged defects in the registration process.
Whether the petitioners maintained a possession that was open, actual, exclusive, notorious, and in good faith contrary to Crisologo’s claim.

Whether petitioners’ challenge to the validity of Crisologo’s titles constitutes an impermissible collateral attack under P.D. No. 1529.
Whether the legal effect of the titles, given the conditions set forth in P.D. No. 1271, safeguards Crisologo’s right to possession regardless of noncompliance with certain technical requirements.

Whether the case should be construed purely as an action to recover possession (accion publiciana) rather than a substantive ownership dispute, given the pleadings and evidence presented.
How the distinction between possession and ownership influences the adjudication of the dispute.