Title
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.
recovery of possession
ownership
valid possession
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232437)

Factual Background

Petitioners are the surviving children of Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr., who acquired from the National Housing Authority a parcel described as Block 1-C, Lot 13, Avocado corner Durian Street, CAA, Las Piñas City. Bernardo died in 1993 without completing payment for the property. On September 9, 1995, respondent Virgilio A. Manzanero, then Barangay Chairman, allegedly entered the property with about twenty men, destroyed structures, and dispossessed petitioners. Petitioners lodged administrative and criminal complaints between 2000 and 2009, and, after receiving an NHA Final Demand of Settlement in 2012, petitioners paid the outstanding balance on December 26, 2013. Petitioners filed an action in the RTC on June 19, 2014 seeking recovery of possession and return of the property.

Trial Court Proceedings

Respondents answered alleging a sale by petitioners’ mother, Emelie Moreno Vda. De Vera, on April 20, 1994, attaching an Affidavit of Waiver as purported evidence. Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of noncompliance with barangay conciliation under Section 412 of the Local Government Code, and later sought leave to file a supplemental motion to dismiss. The RTC denied the motions, found that petitioners and Emelie were heirs and thus co-owners pro indiviso, and held that the proper remedy was an action for judicial partition rather than the action for recovery of possession. The RTC concluded that Emelie’s alleged sale would at most transfer her undivided aliquot share and that petitioners’ apparent inaction suggested acquiescence. The RTC therefore dismissed the complaint on February 15, 2016.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on March 16, 2017. The CA held that petitioners and Emelie inherited the property and that, as co-owners, petitioners could not claim any specific portion without partition. The CA ruled that the proper recourse was an action for partition under Rule 69, Rules of Court, and that the question whether respondents validly acquired Emelie’s pro indiviso share should be resolved in such an action. The CA thus affirmed dismissal without adjudicating the validity of the Affidavit of Waiver.

Issues Presented

Petitioners advanced two principal assignments of error: (1) whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the proper remedy was an action for partition; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents validly possessed the subject property.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that their complaint for recovery of possession was the correct remedy to determine whether respondents’ possession was valid, that no co-ownership existed, and that compelling them to file a partition action would be paradoxical to their claim of sole ownership. Petitioners also contended that the Affidavit of Waiver was void under Republic Act No. 7279, Section 14, and that the document was unenforceable as improperly notarized and hence a mere private document under Article 1358 of the Civil Code. Respondents countered that petitioners first had to establish ownership before asserting a possessory action, and relied on Domingo v. Sps. Molina to argue that partition was the proper remedy where consent to a sale of an undivided share was lacking.

Standard of Review and Scope of Review

The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45, Rules of Court, only questions of law are generally reviewable, and that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding except under established exceptions. The Court found that the CA’s judgment fell within an exception for judgments “based on a misapprehension of facts,” thereby permitting plenary review of the appellate disposition in this case.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court began from the uncontested premise that upon Bernardo’s death his rights in the property transmitted immediately to his heirs, making petitioners and Emelie co-owners pro indiviso. The Court then addressed the central legal issue whether an action for recovery of possession was a proper remedy for petitioners. Relying on precedent, particularly De Guia v. Court of Appeals (459 Phil. 447 (2003)), the Court reaffirmed that under Article 487 any co-owner may bring an action in ejectment, which includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer, accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria. A co-owner may sue a third person or another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership. The Court explained that where a co-owner asserts exclusive ownership and possession, an action for recovery of possession may be brought and its primary effect is to obtain recognition of co-ownership; the action may therefore be used to determine the existence or non-existence of co-ownership. Thus judicial partition is not a prerequisite to a recovery action and the remedies serve distinct purposes; one does not preclude the other.

Evidence and Proof of Ownership

The Court examined the record and concluded that petitioners had proven ownership and identity of the property. The Court relied on the findings that the property was acquired by Bernardo through an NHA Contract to Sell/Deed of Sale with Mortgage, that Bernardo died on August 27, 1993, that petitioner Rosalinda paid the outstanding balance, and that the NHA issued a certification showing awardee status and full payment. The Court further observed that respondents failed to formally offer the Affidavit of Waiver into evidence. The RTC had denied respondents’ motion to present supplemental evidence and ruled that their presentation was not availed of; therefore the Affidavit attached to respondents’ answer was

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms