Case Digest (G.R. No. 200969)
Facts:
Consolacion D. Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo v. Engracia D. Singson, G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The parties are siblings: petitioners Consolacion Domingo Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo (with co-defendants Rafael and Ramon Domingo), and respondent Engracia Domingo Singson. Their parents, Macario and Felicidad Domingo, owned a 223-square meter lot in San Juan City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 845-R issued in 1953 (TCT 845‑R). Petitioners and their brothers lived on the subject property with their parents; respondent had taken residence elsewhere after marriage. Macario died in 1981 and Felicidad in 1997.
On June 7, 2006, TCT 845‑R was cancelled and a new Torrens title, TCT No. 12575‑R (TCT 12575), was issued in respondent’s name based on a notarized “Absolute Deed of Sale” dated June 6, 2006 purporting to have been executed by Macario and Felicidad as sellers. Petitioners allege those vendors were already deceased when the instrument was executed. After registration, respondent demanded that her siblings vacate the property.
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 70898‑SJ in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for annulment and cancellation of TCT 12575 and the June 6, 2006 deed of sale, reconveyance and damages. Meanwhile respondent filed an unlawful detainer action against petitioners (and Rafael and Ramon) in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), San Juan City, docketed Civil Case No. 9534, seeking ejectment, monthly compensation, attorney’s fees and costs.
The MeTC (Branch 58) on September 17, 2007 ruled for respondent, upholding the MeTC’s jurisdiction over ejectment even where ownership is pleaded, and awarded ejectment, P2,000 monthly compensation from August 7, 2006, attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal to the RTC (SCA No. 3144), the RTC initially (April 29, 2009) affirmed the MeTC, stressing the indefeasibility of Torrens titles and the need to raise direct attacks specifically for annulment of title.
On motion for reconsideration the RTC reversed itself in a December 11, 2009 Order, dismissing respondent’s ejectment complaint on the ground that petitioners — as heirs of the original registered owners — still had legal possession and that respondent’s deed (showing signatures of deceased vendors) undermined her claimed title; the RTC awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants. The RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2010.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 114363). The Court of Appeals on February 29, 2012 granted respondent’s petition, reversed the RTC’s December 11, 2009 Order, and reinstated the MeTC decision of September 17, 2007, holding that TCT 12575 issued in respondent’s favor afforded her the better right to possession and that the validity of a Torrens title may not ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the failure to allege or attempt earnest efforts at compromise between family members (Article 151, Family Code; Rule 16, Sec. 1(j)) deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over the ejectment suit?
- In an unlawful detainer action where defendants plead ownership, may the court resolve ownership when the instrument relied upon to register the plaintiff’s Torrens title is forged, and does a Torrens certificate obtained through a forged deed confer a right to eject co‑owners?
- Should the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC on the merits — including the award of attorney’s fees to defendants — bind non‑appealing co‑owners, and may the ejectment remedy lie where co‑owners occupy the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)