G.R. No. 186993 - Ang vs. Spouses Ang

Moreto Mirallosa and all persons claiming rights and interests under him, Petitioner, versus Carmel Development, Inc., Respondent.
Respondent was the registered owner of Pangarap Village, Barrio Makatipo, Caloocan City, a property of 156 hectares consolidated in three parcels under Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (62603) 15634, (62605) 15632 and (64007) 15807.
The lot occupied by petitioner was Lot No. 32, Block No. 73, covered by the titles above-mentioned.

On 14 September 1973, Presidential Decree No. 293 declared the cited titles invalid and opened the lots for disposition to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc. (MHAI).
A memorandum was inscribed on respondent's title stating that, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 293, the certificate of title was declared invalid and the property open for disposition and sale to MHAI.

By virtue of Presidential Decree No. 293, petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Pelagio M. Juan, a member of MHAI, occupied Lot No. 32 and built houses thereon.
Respondent permitted MHAI members to occupy the rest of Pangarap Village.

On 29 January 1988, the Supreme Court promulgated Roman Tuason et al. v. The Register of Deeds, Caloocan City, Ministry of Justice and the National Treasurer (hereafter Tuason), declaring Presidential Decree No. 293 unconstitutional and void ab initio in all its parts.
The Tuason dispositive ordered public respondents to cancel the memorandum on the affected titles and to restore the titles to full effect and efficacy.
On 17 February 1988, the Register of Deeds cancelled the memorandum on respondent’s title, restoring respondent’s ownership.

Sometime in 1995 petitioner took over Lot No. 32 by virtue of an Affidavit executed in his favor by Pelagio M. Juan.
After Tuason, respondent made several oral demands on petitioner to vacate the premises without success.
A written demand letter was sent by respondent in April 2002 and likewise ignored.
On 14 January 2003, respondent filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 52, Caloocan City.

Whether the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for unlawful detainer given the alleged lapse of the one-year prescriptive period and the alleged absence of tolerance from the start of possession.

Whether Tuason may be applied in the present ejectment proceeding despite petitioner not being a party to that case, or whether petitioner is protected by the doctrine of *res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicium faciunt* or by the *operative fact* doctrine.