G.R. No. 168156 - Heirs of Lasam vs. Umengan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168156)

Factual Background

The property in dispute consisted of the eastern half portion of Lot No. 5427 (OCT No. 196, 1,037 sq m) and Lot No. 990 (OCT No. 1032, 118 sq m), the subject lot measuring 554 sq m and situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. The lots were originally registered in the names of spouses Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan. In a Deed of Confirmation acknowledged June 14, 1979, the heirs of Pedro and Leona purportedly conveyed Lots Nos. 990 and 5427 to their daughters Irene and Isabel Cuntapay. A Partition Agreement dated December 28, 1979 allocated the eastern half (the subject lot) to the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay. Isabel had four children by her first husband, Domingo Turingan — Abdon, Sado (deceased), Rufo and Maria — and two children by her second husband, Mariano Lasam — Trinidad and Rosendo. Vicenta Umengan is the daughter of Abdon Turingan. Vicenta claimed possession of the subject lot since about 1955 by virtue of conveyances to her: a Deed of Sale dated June 14, 1961 from Rufo; a Deed of Donation dated June 14, 1961 from Abdon; and a Deed of Sale dated March 3, 1975 evidencing Abdon’s purchase of certain 1/6 shares of Maria and Sado.

Initiation of Ejectment Proceedings

In January 2001 the petitioners, heirs of Rosendo Lasam, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the MTCC seeking the ejectment of Vicenta Umengan from the subject lot. The petitioners alleged that Rosendo had inherited the subject lot through a newly discovered last will and testament (a Testamento Abierto) of Isabel Cuntapay that bequeathed her share to Rosendo, and that Vicenta’s possession was merely by tolerance and had expired upon demand to vacate.

MTCC Decision

The MTCC rendered judgment for the petitioners and ordered the ejectment of Vicenta Umengan, accepting the purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay as bequeathing the subject lot to Rosendo. The MTCC invoked jurisprudence favoring testacy and Article 1080, held that intestacy should be avoided, and concluded that the siblings of Rosendo no longer had any share to convey to Vicenta. The MTCC assessed P500.00 monthly rental from August 2000, awarded P20,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.

RTC Proceedings

On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTCC in toto. The RTC adopted the finding that the testamentary disposition should be respected and that the heirs of Rosendo had the better right to possess the subject lot. The RTC did not require probate of the will as a prerequisite to recognizing the petitioners’ superior right to possession.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Vicenta Umengan appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA preliminarily upheld the MTCC’s jurisdiction over a complaint for unlawful detainer because the complaint sought possession rather than a declaration of ownership. Nevertheless, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint, and held that the purported will failed to comply with the formal requisites of law. The CA found that the instrument lacked proper page numbering, an attestation clause, signatures on all pages as required by Article 805, and acknowledgment before a notary as required by Article 806. The CA also noted an inconsistency in dates — Isabel’s death in 1947, an apparent execution date of May 19, 1956 on the instrument, and the petitioners’ claim that the will was newly discovered in 1997 — which cast doubt on authenticity. The CA gave weight to Vicenta’s notarial deeds and her continuous possession since 1955, and concluded that she had a better right to possess the lot pending any direct action to determine ownership. The CA emphasized that its ruling on possession did not adjudicate title and left the parties free to litigate ownership.

Petition to the Supreme Court and Parties’ Contentions

The petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court. They contended that the CA erred by examining the validity of the will in an unlawful detainer action after having recognized the MTCC’s jurisdiction, that the will satisfied formal requisites, and that Vicenta’s deeded instruments had already been considered in Civil Case No. 4917 before RTC Branch 3 and were therefore barred by res judicata. Petitioners maintained that the MTCC and RTC correctly found that Vicenta’s possession was by mere tolerance and that a formal demand to vacate had expired her right to remain. The petitioners also argued that the CA should have dismissed respondent’s petition for technical defects in appeal.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court framed the essential issues as whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC and dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint; whether the unprobated last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay could confer a superior right to possession in an unlawful detainer action; whether the conveyances relied on by Vicenta Umengan were valid and afforded her a better right to possess; and whether prior proceedings in Civil Case No. 4917 gave rise to res judicata.

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated February 16, 2005 and Resolution dated May 17, 2005. The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s disposition.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court reiterated that the technical defects in Vicenta’s appeal to the CA did not mandate dismissal where justice required resolution of substantive rights, citing Orozco v. Court of Appeals, Fifth Division. The Court recalled the settled rule that ejectment actions concern physical possession and not title, but acknowledged that a trial court may provisionally rule on ownership solely to determine who was entitled to possession de facto, citing Keppel Bank Philippines, Inc. v. Adao. The Court held that petitioners could not derive a right to possession from the purported will because the instrument had not been probated and, under Article 838 of the Civil Code, no will passed real or personal property unless proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Court cited Caniza v. Court of Appeals and the explanation of Dr. Tolentino that a will, until probated, had no force and could not be relied upon to establish rights. The Court therefore concluded that the MTCC and the RTC erred in treating the unprobated instrument as conferring rights. The Supreme Court also addressed the res judicata contention and explained the four requisite elements, emphasizing that a former judgment must be a judgment on the merits; the dismissal in Civil Case No. 4917 was not

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168156)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, represented by Rogelio Lasam and Atty. Edward P. Llonillo, Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 80032 and its Resolution dated May 17, 2005.
Vicenta Umengan, Respondent opposed the ejectment and appealed the lower courts' rulings to the Court of Appeals.
The petition challenged the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 16, 2005 that reversed the Regional Trial Court decision and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

The subject property was the eastern half of Lot No. 5427 and Lot No. 990 in Tuguegarao City, with Lot No. 5427 covered by OCT No. 196 and Lot No. 990 covered by OCT No. 1032.
A Deed of Confirmation dated June 14, 1979 and a Partition Agreement dated December 28, 1979 purportedly allocated the eastern half (554 sq m) to the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay.
Isabel Cuntapay had six children by two marriages, including Rosendo Lasam (by second marriage) and Abdon Turingan (by first marriage), the latter being the father of Vicenta Umengan.
Petitioners alleged that Rosendo Lasam allowed Vicenta Umengan to occupy the lot in 1955 by tolerance and that she refused to vacate after demand, prompting an unlawful detainer action filed in January 2001.
Vicenta Umengan contended that she acquired pro rata shares by deeds of sale and donation from Isabel’s children and had possessed the property since 1955.

Prior Proceedings

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch III, rendered judgment for petitioners and ordered ejectment, monthly rental of P500, and attorney’s fees of P20,000.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, affirmed the MTCC decision in toto.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on February 16, 2005, dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint, and held that respondent had the better right to possession; the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2005.
The Supreme Court entertained the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Issues Presented

Whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the complaint for unlawful detainer.
Whether the trial courts erred in relying on an unprobated testamentary instrument purportedly executed by Isabel Cuntapay.
Whether the purported deeds of sale and donation in favor of Vicenta Umengan were valid and conferred a better right of possession.
Whether the dismissal in Civil Case No. 4917 constituted res judicata preventing relitigation of the validity of the conveyances.
Whether technical defects in respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeals warranted dismissal of the appeal.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioners contended that the MTCC correctly found that respondent held by mere tolerance and that the discovered will vested ownership in Rosendo Lasam, thereby giving petitioners a better right to possession.
Petitioners contended that the deeds relied upon by respondent could not convey ownership because the property remai