Case Digest (G.R. No. 259061)
Facts:
Sps. Salvador and Leonida M. Bangug and Sps. Venerandy Adolfo and Jesusa Adolfo v. George Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 259061, August 15, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Respondent George dela Cruz filed a complaint for recovery of possession (accion publiciana / unlawful detainer) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Ilagan City, Isabela, alleging he was registered owner of a 2,172 sq.m. parcel covered by TCT No. T-388110 that formed part of a larger tract originally owned by his grandmother, Cayetana Guitang. According to George, Cayetana’s estate was adjudicated to his father, Severino dela Cruz, by an affidavit of adjudication (1982), and Severino executed a deed of reconveyance (1983) subdividing the larger parcel into five lots, Lot 1‑A being the one later titled in George’s name. George alleged petitioners occupied portions of that lot and sought their eviction.
Petitioners (the two married couples) answered that Cayetana left several children (including Rufina and Juliana, the mothers of petitioners) and that Severino was therefore not sole heir; they asserted co‑ownership rights through inheritance and contended Severino’s adjudication and the reconveyance were invalid as to other heirs. Petitioners limited their counterclaims to moral and exemplary damages and did not expressly seek cancellation of the Torrens title.
The MTCC (first decision dated October 30, 2017) granted George’s complaint, finding petitioners’ possession was by tolerance and that their attack on George’s title was an impermissible collateral attack on a Torrens certificate. The MTCC conducted an ocular inspection (Aug. 14, 2015) and concluded the occupied parcels lay within the area of George’s title; it denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which in its November 19, 2019 decision affirmed the MTCC, reiterating that petitioners’ assertions amounted to a collateral attack and that George’s Torrens title showed a better right to possession.
Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its November 5, 2020 decision (and Feb. 10, 2022 resolution denying reconsideration), the CA denied the petition, again ruling that the attack on George’s Torrens title was collateral and not...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have a better right of possession over the portions of the subject property they occupy?...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)