G.R. No. 164110 - Cruz vs. Catapang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164110)

Factual Background

Leonor B. Cruz, together with Luz Cruz and Norma Maligaya, co-owned a parcel of land of 1,435 square meters in Barangay Mahabang Ludlod, Taal, Batangas. With the consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya, Teofila M. Catapang built a house adjacent to the co-owned parcel in 1992, and the house intruded upon a portion of the co-owned property. Petitioner discovered the intrusion in September 1995, demanded demolition and vacation of the encroaching portion, and, upon respondent’s refusal, filed a complaint for forcible entry on January 25, 1996.

Trial Court Proceedings

The 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court found for petitioner and ordered respondent to vacate and deliver possession of the area illegally occupied and to pay reasonable attorney’s fees of P10,000.00. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Taal, Batangas, affirmed the MCTC decision in a Decision dated October 22, 2001. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision

Respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC in a Decision dated September 16, 2003. The Court of Appeals held that respondent’s entry was not effected by strategy or stealth because she had the consent of one co-owner, and that the plaintiff’s remedy was not an action for forcible entry but an entirely different recourse. The Court of Appeals dismissed the forcible entry complaint and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 11, 2004.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court addressed whether the knowledge and consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya constituted a valid license for respondent to erect the bungalow on the co-owned property without the consent of petitioner and the other co-owner; whether respondent thereby acquired exclusive ownership over the portion of the lot; and whether respondent obtained possession by means of simple strategy or stealth. The central question was whether consent by one co-owner defeats a forcible entry action brought by another co-owner against the third person who entered and built on the co-owned land.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that one co-owner cannot, without partition, claim title to any definite portion of common property or validly consent to its exclusive use by a third person, and that therefore the consent of Norma Maligaya could not defeat a forcible entry action. Respondent argued that her entry was not by strategy or stealth because she had the consent of one co-owner, that the residence of Norma Maligaya in the house established de facto and de jure possession, and that the proper remedy was not forcible entry.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 16, 2003 and Resolution dated June 11, 2004, and reinstated the RTC Decision of October 22, 2001. The Court ordered costs against respondent. The Court held that the consent of a single co-owner did not vest in respondent any right to enter and construct upon the co-owned property and that respondent’s acts constituted forcible entry.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that a co-owner may use common property only in accordance with its intended purpose and without injuring the interest of the co-ownership, citing Article 486 of the Civil Code, and that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, citing Article 491 of the Civil Code. The Court held that the construction of a house is an act of strict dominion and an alteration under Art. 491, which cannot be validly consented to by a single co-owner for the exclusion of the others. The Court relied on authority that alterations include acts of dominion and dispositions and on precedent characterizing clandestine entry or acts effected in connivance with a co-owner as entry by stealth or strategy. The Court concluded that respondent’s obtaining of consent from her sister Norma Maligaya and permitting the sister to occupy the structure could amount to a strategy enabling clandestine entry vis-à-vis the other co-owners, and that petitioner’s complaint for forcible entry was therefore proper.

Prescription and Timeliness

The Court applied the rule that the one-year period for bringing an action for forcible entry ge

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 164110)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Leonor B. Cruz, Petitioner, filed a petition for review from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69250.
Teofila M. Catapang, Respondent, was the private respondent against whom a complaint for forcible entry was originally filed.
The 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taal, Batangas rendered judgment ordering Respondent to vacate and to deliver possession, and awarded Petitioner attorneys' fees of P10,000.00.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Taal, Batangas, affirmed the MCTC decision by Decision dated October 22, 2001.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC by Decision dated September 16, 2003 and denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated June 11, 2004, prompting the present petition.
The Supreme Court reviewed the case and rendered a decision reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC decision.

Key Facts

Petitioner, Luz Cruz, and Norma Maligaya were co-owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land measuring 1,435 square meters located in Barangay Mahabang Ludlod, Taal, Batangas.
Respondent built a house sometime in 1992 on a lot adjacent to the co-owned parcel with the consent and knowledge of co-owner Norma Maligaya.
The house constructed by Respondent intruded upon a portion of the co-owned property.
Petitioner discovered the intrusion during a visit in the first week of September 1995 and made demands for demolition and vacatur, which Respondent refused.
Petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry on January 25, 1996.
The MCTC ruled in favor of Petitioner and ordered vacatur and P10,000.00 attorneys' fees, which the RTC affirmed and the Court of Appeals later reversed.

Issues Presented

Whether the knowledge and consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya constituted a valid license for Respondent to erect a bungalow on the pro-indiviso premises without the consent of Petitioner and the other co-owner.
Whether Respondent thereby acquired exclusive ownership over the portion of the lot subject to the house to the exclusion of Petitioner and the other co-owner.
Whether Respondent obtained possession of the property by means of simple strategy or stealth sufficient to sustain an action for forcible entry.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that the consent and knowledge of co-owner Norma Maligaya could not defeat the action for forcible entry because no co-owner may claim a definite portion of common property absent partition.
Petitioner maintained that a co-owner cannot validly devote common property to exclusive use or give a valid license to a third person to do so.
Respondent argued that her entry was not by strategy or stealth because she acted with the consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya and that possession of the house involved de facto and de jure enjoyment by co-owners.
Respondent further argued that the appropriate remedy was not forcible entry but another