Case Digest (G.R. No. 171555)
Facts:
Evangeline Rivera-Calingasan and E. Rical Enterprises v. Wilfredo Rivera, G.R. No. 171555, April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Evangeline Rivera-Calingasan (doing business as E. Rical Enterprises) and Star Honda, Inc. (joined below); respondents are Wilfredo Rivera (later substituted by Ma. Lydia S. Rivera, Freida Leah S. Rivera and Wilfredo S. Rivera, Jr.) as the party asserting possession and usufruct.
During their lifetimes Wilfredo Rivera and his wife Loreto Inciong acquired several parcels in Lipa City, two of which were covered by TCT Nos. T-22290 and T-30557. Loreto died on July 29, 1982. In an extrajudicial settlement on March 29, 1993, Loreto’s heirs adjudicated her conjugal share in favor of Evangeline and Brigida Liza, with Wilfredo reserving usufructuary rights. On September 23, 1993, the Register of Deeds cancelled the earlier TCTs and issued TCT Nos. T-87494 and T-87495 to Evangeline and Brigida Liza, annotated with Wilfredo’s usufruct.
On March 13, 2003 Wilfredo filed a forcible entry complaint in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), alleging prior lawful possession of the two parcels (located on C.M. Recto Avenue) and that petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. took possession during his hospitalization and, with armed men, prevented his re-entry. Petitioners and Star Honda countered that Wilfredo had renounced his usufruct on March 4, 1996 and that an action in RTC, Branch 13 (Civil Case No. 99-0773) concerning cancellation of usufruct was pending.
The MTCC (Dec. 2, 2003) dismissed Wilfredo’s complaint for lack of proof of prior possession and noted his admission that E. Rical and Star Honda occupied the property under leases from Evangeline. Wilfredo appealed to the RTC. The RTC (Nov. 30, 2004) initially affirmed the MTCC; on reconsideration it set aside that ruling and, in an April 6, 2005 decision, found that Wilfredo had proven prior possession and dispossession and ordered eviction of petitioners and Star Honda, assessed P620,000.00 as reasonable compensation and P20,000.00 attorneys’ fees. By order of July 8, 2005 the RTC absolved Star Honda of liability. The petitioners appealed by Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA (Feb. 10, 2006; penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin) affirmed the RTC with modification: it agreed Wilfredo had prior possession and had been deprived of it, gave weight to Evangeline’s admission of residence elsewhere and to the Barangay captain’s affidavit...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Who, between the petitioners and Wilfredo, had prior physical possession of the disputed property?
- Did Wilfredo’s death render the forcible entry case and the remedy of restitution moot, and what is the effect on the m...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)