Case Digest (G.R. No. 205283)
Facts:
On June 7, 2017, the Supreme Court resolved a Petition for Review under Rule 45 filed by Abigail L. Mendiola against Venerando P. Sangalang assailing the Decision dated March 23, 2012 and Resolution dated January 15, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91072, which affirmed the November 15, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 218, Quezon City. The controversy involved a parcel of land at No. 104 Maginhawa Street, Brgy. Teachers Village East, Diliman, Quezon City, on which a residential house and a four-door, one-storey commercial building stood. The property was originally registered in the name of Honorata G. Sangalang. Honorata had two siblings, Sinforosa and Angel; Sinforosa’s children included petitioner Abigail Mendiola, while Angel’s children included respondent Venerando, together with Ma. Lourdes, Angelino, and Fernando, all surnamed Sangalang. Sinforosa and Angel predeceased Honorata, and on May 31, 1994, Honorata died intestate without is...Case Digest (G.R. No. 205283)
Facts:
Honorata Sangalang died intestate on May 31, 1994 without issue. Her siblings Sinforosa (mother of petitioner Abigail L. Mendiola) and Angel (mother of respondent Venerando P. Sangalang and others), having predeceased Honorata, became her heirs. After Honorata’s death, petitioner and her co-heir Vilma Aquino were allegedly registered as owners under a Deed of Sale dated January 29, 1996; a new title, TCT No. N-148021, was issued in their names. Respondent later broke into and detained one unit of the residential house, prompting petitioner and Vilma to file an accion publiciana in the RTC for return of possession and payment of reasonable rentals.The RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prove better right of possession, holding that respondent’s co-ownership defense required provisional resolution of ownership and that the Deed of Sale was void due to Honorata’s death before its execution. The CA affirmed the dismissal but clarified that the case need not be treated as accion reivindicatoria; it was dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove better right of possession. Petitioner then filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner proved better right of possession to evict respondent in an accion publiciana.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)