Title
Supreme Court
De Vera vs. Manzanero
Case
G.R. No. 232437
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2021
Petitioners, heirs of Bernardo De Vera, sought recovery of property forcibly taken by respondents, who claimed ownership via a disputed waiver. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, affirming their right to possession as co-owners.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232437)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

  • Property acquisition by Bernardo from NHA: prior to 1993
  • Bernardo’s death: 1993
  • Forcible possession by Virgilio and others: September 9, 1995
  • Complaint for possession filed: June 19, 2014
  • Decision under review: March 16, 2017 by the Court of Appeals (CA)
  • Final resolution: June 30, 2021 by the Supreme Court
    Applicable law includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992), and pertinent procedural laws such as Rule 45 and Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

Facts of the Case

Bernardo acquired the property but died before completing payment. After his death, his wife Emelie and children (petitioners) became co-owners by inheritance. In 1995, Virgilio, relying on an Affidavit of Waiver allegedly executed by Emelie, forcibly took possession with 20 men, destroying existing structures and depriving the petitioners of possession. Despite initial tolerance, the petitioners sought legal recourse through complaints of destruction, harassment, and forgery, though these yielded no results. In 2013, petitioners paid the remaining balance for the property to the NHA. They filed a complaint for recovery of possession in 2014, which respondents answered by claiming Emelie sold the property to them. The RTC and CA dismissed the complaint, ruling the proper remedy was judicial partition.

Rulings of the RTC and Court of Appeals

The RTC ruled that Emelie and the petitioners were co-owners, heirs of Bernardo, and that no partition of the property had been effectuated. The Affidavit of Waiver by Emelie was presumed valid against respondents, effectively transferring to them her undivided interest but not the entire property. Since partition had not been done, petitioners could not claim exclusive title to any portion. The RTC dismissed the complaint for recovery of possession and ordered petitioners to file for judicial partition instead. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, holding that to resolve disputes concerning co-ownership or alleged unauthorized sales by a co-owner, the proper remedy is an action for partition under Rule 69.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the proper remedy is an action for partition.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents validly possessed the property.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners argued that their action for recovery of possession was proper to contest the validity of respondents’ possession and that partition is an action between recognized co-owners, which they deny respondents to be. They asserted that the Affidavit of Waiver is void under Section 14 of RA 7279 prohibiting alienation of socialized housing lands and for improper verification due to lack of notarization. They also argued that even assuming co-ownership exists, a co-owner may bring an action for ejectment against a co-owner who asserts exclusive ownership and possession of common property.

Respondents' Arguments

Respondents contended that petitioners must first prove ownership before challenging possession. They maintained that the CA correctly ruled that the action for recovery of possession raised ownership issues that must be resolved via judicial partition, as established in precedent jurisprudence (Domingo v. Sps. Molina).

Legal Analysis on Action for Recovery of Possession vs. Partition

The Supreme Court acknowledged the strict rule that only questions of law can be reviewed under Rule 45 on certiorari but accepted the exception for misapprehension of facts in this case. It emphasized that upon Bernardo’s death, petitioners and Emelie became co-owners, and the property was owned in common subject to partition. However, it ruled that the CA and RTC erred in dismissing the action for recovery of possession because such an action is not precluded by co-ownership nor contingent on prior partition.

Citing De Guia v. Court of Appeals, the Court clarified that under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner may file an action to recover possession against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership. The effect of such an action is to recognize co-ownership; it does not determine precise shares, nor does it effect physical division of the property. Partition is a separate remedy for physical division that can follow recognition of co-ownership.

The Court also noted that the remedy of ejectment or recovery of possession applies in cases where a co-owner forcibly ousts another without consent. Thus, petitioners’ action was permissible and proper to recover possession unlawfully withheld, irrespective of the question whether respondents acquired Emelie’s share.

On the Validity of the Affidavit of Waiver and Sale by Emelie

The Court found the lower courts prematurely dismissed the complaint without deciding on the validity of the Affidavit of Waiver or sale by Emelie. Since the document was not formally offered in evidence and there was no presentation of contrary proof by Emelie or respondents, no conclusive ruling on its effectiveness could be made at that stage. The Court ruled that a determination of valid acquisition by respondents was a matter to be resolved through the appropriate judicial processes, not by dismissal.

Ownership and Identification of the Property

The Court held that petitioners sufficiently proved ownership by inheritance from Bernardo, supported by NHA certification of full payment. The property was adequately identified. Under prevailing jurisprudence, once ownership is established, plaintif

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms