Case Digest (G.R. No. 186993)
Facts:
Respondents Spouses Reynaldo P. Coronel and Asuncion Malig Coronel were the registered owners of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 68436 in Tarlac, which they occupied until 1969, after which they entrusted the property to Emilio and Alberta Malig, and later to Dr. Fermin Pascual, Jr., who allowed his son petitioner Richard Pascual and his wife to occupy the premises. On April 27, 2001, respondents demanded that petitioners vacate, but petitioners refused.On June 19, 2001, respondents filed an unlawful detainer case with the MTCC of Tarlac City, which the MTCC dismissed, crediting the parties’ deeds of sale. The RTC reversed and ordered petitioners to vacate, holding their possession was by tolerance and that the issue of ownership was merely provisional for purposes of possession; the CA affirmed, prompting this petition for review.
Issues:
- Whether respondents, though still registered owners, were no longer rightful owners after the 1975 deed to Alberta and the 1989 dee
Case Digest (G.R. No. 186993)
Facts:
- Parties, property, and registered ownership
- Spouses Richard B. Pascual and Cristina D. Pascual were the occupants/defendants in the unlawful detainer case.
- Spouses Reynaldo P. Coronel and Asuncion Malig Coronel were the respondents/plaintiffs and the registered owners of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 68436, located in Barrios San Roque and San Rafael, Tarlac, with a total area of 253 sq.m., and the house standing thereon.
- The property was evidenced by a Torrens title in respondents’ names.
- Transfer of possession by respondents’ entrustment to their family
- Respondents resided on the property until sometime in 1969, when they decided to transfer to a new residence near their business operations.
- Respondents entrusted the property and the owner’s copy of TCT No. 68436 to Emilio and Alberta Malig, Asuncion’s parents, who moved into and resided on the property.
- In 1981, Emilio and Alberta moved to a house in San Vicente, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, and entrusted the whole property to their son, Dr. Fermin Pascual, Jr.
- Dr. Fermin Pascual, Jr. had a son, petitioner Richard Pascual, who later occupied the premises together with his wife, petitioner Cristina.
- Demand to vacate and filing of unlawful detainer
- On April 27, 2001, respondents formally demanded that petitioners surrender the premises.
- Petitioners failed and refused to vacate.
- On June 19, 2001, respondents filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tarlac City a complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. 7821.
- Respondents alleged that they needed to retake possession because they would use the property as their permanent residence since their current residence in Quezon City would be occupied by their daughter.
- The parties’ efforts to settle amicably proved futile.
- Petitioners’ defense in unlawful detainer and ownership allegations based on deeds of sale
- Petitioners, in their Answer with Counterclaim, argued respondents were no longer the lawful owners because they had sold the property to Alberta via a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Estate dated February 18, 1975 (the 1975 Deed).
- Petitioners alleged that Alberta then sold the property to Dr. Melu-Jean Pascual, Richard’s older sister, via a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Estate dated March 6, 1989 (the 1989 Deed).
- Petitioners claimed that after Alberta sold the property to Melu-Jean, Alberta surrendered the actual possession to Melu-Jean.
- Petitioners maintained that they were occupying the property on behalf of, and with the consent of, Melu-Jean; thus, Melu-Jean was the real party-in-interest and the complaint should have been filed against her.
- Petitioners asserted that dismissal was warranted because the unlawful detainer case involved a serious question of ownership.
- Separate annulment case and amendments to include Melu-Jean and to challenge deed authenticity
- Respondents also filed an action for annulment of deeds of sale with the RTC of Tarlac City, docketed as Civil Case No. 9169.
- In the annulment complaint, respondents admitted Asuncion executed the 1975 Deed but alleged it was simulated because no actual consideration was paid to respondents by Alberta.
- Respondents alleged that Asuncion decided to execute the simulated contract because her marriage to Reynaldo was then on the verge of breaking up.
- Respondents alleged that Asuncion never appeared before any notary public at the time of the execution of the 1975 Deed.
- After petitioners filed their answer in Civil Case No. 7821, respondents amended the annulment complaint in Civil Case No. 9169 to include Melu-Jean as defendant and to pray for nullification of the 1989 Deed in her favor.
- Respondents alleged that Alberta’s signature in the 1989 Deed was forgery and that it was not signed by Emilio, who was still alive then, contrary to the deed’s statement that Emilio was deceased.
- MTCC outcome and reliance on deeds of sale
- On November 5, 2001, the MTCC dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint with costs against respondents.
- The MTCC upheld petitioners’ right to possession by giving credence to the two deeds of sale which it pronounced as valid until annulled by the RTC in Civil Case No. 9169.
- RTC reversal and findings relevant to possession
- Respondents appealed to the RTC alleging the MTCC erred in relying on the deed of sale transferring the property to Melu-Jean.
- On March 26, 2002, the RTC reversed the MTCC and ordered petitioners and all persons acting under their command to:
- Vacate the subject property and turn over possession to respondents.
- Pay respondents PHP 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus PHP 2,000.00 as appearance fee for every hearing.
- Pay costs of the suit.
- The RTC found petitioners’ possession was by tolerance of respondents and remained lawful until respondents sent a demand to vacate.
- The RTC held the MTCC failed to grasp the distinction between:
- Possession de jure (possession arising from ownership), and
- Possession de facto (physical possession).
- The RTC ruled that the only issue in unlawful detainer is possession de facto, which should have been decided for respondents.
- The RTC held the MTCC erred in relying on the deeds of sale in determining who had the better right to possess, because such reliance pertains to possession as an attribute of ownership.
- The RTC further found that Asuncion’s deed of sale was simulated and thus void from the beginning, and that the second deed of sale appeared falsified, so it c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondents’ registered ownership in the title entitled them to possession despite petitioners’ claim that respondents had sold the property to Alberta in 1975 and Alberta sold it to Melu-Jean in 1989
- Whether respondents were “no longer” the rightful and lawful owners when they executed the 1975 Deed and the property was allegedly sold onward to Melu-Jean.
- Whether the CA erred in concluding respondents, as registered owners, were entitled to possession.
- Whether unlawful detainer was proper or whether the case should have been an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria due to the ownership issue
- Whether the presence of an ownership dispute defeated the remedy of unlawful detainer.
- Whether the CA erred in treating the case as unlawful detainer rather than an accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria.
- Whether petitioners’ stay was by mere tolerance of respondents
- Whether petitioners’ occupancy was by respondents’ tolerance, such that demand and refusal constituted unlawful detainer.
- Whether the deeds of sale were simulated and void from the beginning
- Whether the CA erred in considering the deeds, particularly the 1975 Deed, as simulated and therefore null and void.
- Whether Melu-Jean was guilty of laches
- Whether the CA erred in considering that Melu-Jean was guilty of laches in asserting ownership...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)