G.R. No. 78409 - Soriano vs. Offshore Shipping and Manning Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 78409)

Procedural Posture

The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of February 16, 2005 (CA-G.R. SP No. 80032), which reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) decisions that had ordered the ejectment of respondent. The CA also denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated May 17, 2005. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision.

Key Dates and Original Instruments

June 14, 1979: Deed of Confirmation conveying Lots Nos. 990 and 5427 from heirs of Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan to their daughters Irene and Isabel Cuntapay.
December 28, 1979: Partition Agreement designating the eastern half portion (the subject lot) to the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay.
1947: Alleged death of Isabel Cuntapay (per facts asserted in record).
1955: Alleged commencement of respondent’s possession of the subject lot (tolerated possession by Rosendo Lasam, according to petitioners’ allegations).
1961 and 1975: Deeds of sale and donation by certain children of Isabel (documents relied upon by respondent).

Facts Material to Dispute

Petitioners claim title and right to possess the subject lot by inheritance through their father Rosendo Lasam, who allegedly received the lot under a newly discovered last will and testament (Testamento Abierto) of Isabel Cuntapay. Petitioners assert that respondent’s possession was merely permissive and terminated upon demand.
Respondent claims possession based on intestate succession and on conveyances (deed of sale, deed of donation) by several of Isabel’s children (Abdon, Rufo, Maria, Sado) transferring their pro indiviso shares to respondent. Respondent asserts continuous possession since 1955.

Trial Court Findings (MTCC) and RTC Affirmation

The MTCC found in favor of petitioners and ordered respondent’s ejectment. The court credited a newly discovered document purporting to be Isabel Cuntapay’s Testamento Abierto, bequeathing a share to Rosendo Lasam. The MTCC and RTC reasoned that testamentary disposition should be respected and, under Article 1080 of the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, testacy is favored over intestacy; therefore the siblings of Rosendo could not convey what they no longer owned. The MTCC awarded monthly rental, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Issues Presented on Appeal and Review

Whether the MTCC had jurisdiction to try the unlawful detainer action.
Whether the purported testamentary instrument of Isabel Cuntapay could be relied upon in an unlawful detainer action to establish petitioners’ superior right to possession without prior probate.
Whether respondent’s deeds of sale and donation and long possession established a better right to possession than petitioners.
Whether the dismissal in Civil Case No. 4917 constituted res judicata regarding respondent’s claimed conveyances and ownership.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The CA: (1) upheld MTCC jurisdiction, concluding the complaint sought only recovery of possession; (2) reversed the MTCC/RTC decisions because the purported will failed to comply with statutory formalities for non-holographic wills (lack of page numbering, absence of attestation clause, missing signatures on the second page, lack of acknowledgment before a notary; and suspicious dates); (3) held that respondent’s deeds of sale and donation, together with continuous possession since 1955, established respondent’s better right to possession de facto against petitioners; and (4) observed that the CA’s provisional ruling on possession did not decide ownership on the merits and did not preclude a proper action to determine title.

Supreme Court’s Scope of Review and Approach

The Supreme Court reviewed jurisdictional and substantive matters under the applicable law (including the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional backdrop for cases decided in 1990 or later) and examined whether the CA erred in its reversal. The Court applied settled principles on unlawful detainer actions, probate of wills, co-ownership and the rights of heirs to dispose of their shares, and the requirements for res judicata.

Jurisdiction of the MTCC and Nature of Unlawful Detainer Actions

The Court reiterated that unlawful detainer actions are concerned principally with material or physical possession, although the issue of ownership may be provisionally considered for the limited purpose of determining who has the better right to possess de facto. The CA had correctly sustained the MTCC’s jurisdiction because the complaint sought ejectment and recovery of possession rather than a plenary adjudication of ownership.

Probation of Wills — Legal Effect of an Unprobated Will

The Court emphasized the mandatory rule that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court (Civil Code, Art. 838). A will not probated has no effect as a source of rights; probate is a proceeding to establish the validity of the instrument and is required as a matter of public policy. Because petitioners’ claimed testamentary instrument had not been probated and exhibited substantial infirmities in formal requisites, it could not serve as a basis to establish a superior right to possession in an unlawful detainer action. The Court therefore held that the MTCC and RTC erred in treating the alleged will as conferring a better right to possess.

Validity of Conveyances by Co-heirs Prior to Partition

The Court explained that heirs, even before partition, may dispose of their undivided (pro indiviso) shares. The law recognizes an heir’s substantive right to alienate his ideal share in a co-ownership; such dispositions are valid and effective against third parties, subject to the rights of co-heirs with respect to partition. The Court relied on precedent confirming that sales by heirs of their shares, even while administration or partition is pending, do not prevent partition proceedings and are permitted by law.

Possession and Better Right to Possession

Applying the foregoing principles to the record, the Court agreed with the CA that respondent demonstrat

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 78409)

Case Caption and Decision Reference

Supreme Court decision reported at 539 Phil. 547, First Division, G.R. No. 168156, December 06, 2006; penned by Justice Callejo, Sr.
Petitioners: Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, represented by Rogelio M. Lasam and Atty. Edward P. Llonillo.
Respondent: Vicenta Umengan.
Relief sought: Petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 16, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 80032, and reversal of the Court of Appeals Resolution dated May 17, 2005 denying motion for reconsideration.

Factual Background — Property and Titles

Subject property: Eastern half portion of Lot No. 5427 and Lot No. 990, situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
Lot No. 5427: area 1,037 sq. m., covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 196.
Lot No. 990: area 118 sq. m., covered by OCT No. 1032.
Subject lot (eastern half portion): area 554 sq. m., described as the eastern half of Lots Nos. 990 and 5427.
Original registered owners of the lots: spouses Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan.

Conveyances, Partition, and Testamentary Instrument Allegation

Deed of Confirmation (acknowledged June 14, 1979): heirs of Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan conveyed ownership of Lots Nos. 990 and 5427 in favor of their two children, Irene Cuntapay and Isabel Cuntapay.
Partition Agreement (acknowledged December 28, 1979): agreed that the eastern half portion (subject lot) belongs to heirs of Isabel Cuntapay; the western portion belongs to heirs of Irene Cuntapay.
Petitioners allege a newly discovered last will and testament (Testamento Abierto) of Isabel Cuntapay bequeathing her 1/5 share of the Cuntapay heirs, including the house thereon, to her son Rosendo Lasam.

Relevant Family Relationships (Succession Context)

Isabel Cuntapay had four children by her first husband, Domingo Turingan: Abdon, Sado (deceased), Rufo, and Maria.
After Domingo Turingan’s death, Isabel remarried Mariano Lasam and had two more children: Trinidad and Rosendo Lasam.
Petitioners are heirs of Rosendo Lasam (son of Isabel by second marriage).
Respondent Vicenta Umengan is the daughter of Abdon Turingan (son of Isabel by first marriage).

Possession and Alleged Acts of Tolerance

Petitioners’ claim: Rosendo Lasam (their father) was sole owner of the subject lot by inheritance from Isabel through the purported will; Rosendo allegedly allowed respondent to occupy the lot temporarily circa 1955, with promise to vacate on demand; respondent allegedly remained despite written notices and demands.
Respondent’s claim: when Isabel died, the subject lot was inherited by her six children as pro indiviso shares of 1/6 each; respondent’s possession traces to conveyances from siblings — sale and donation documents and continuous possession since 1955.

Instrumentary Evidence Presented by Respondent

Deed of Sale dated June 14, 1961: Rufo allegedly sold his 1/6 share in the subject lot to Vicenta Umengan and her husband (Doc. No. 539).
Deed of Donation dated June 14, 1961: Abdon allegedly donated his 1/6 share to his daughter Vicenta Umengan (Doc. No. 538).
Deed of Sale dated March 3, 1975: Abdon allegedly purchased the respective 1/6 shares of Maria and Sado (Doc. No. 88).

Procedural History — Trial Court to Supreme Court

MTCC (Municipal Trial Court in Cities), Branch III, Tuguegarao City: rendered judgment in favor of petitioners (heirs of Rosendo Lasam), directed ejectment of respondent, awarded monthly rent of P500 from Aug. 2000 to termination, attorney’s fees of P20,000 plus costs.
RTC (Regional Trial Court), Tuguegarao City, Branch 1: affirmed the MTCC decision in toto.
CA (Court of Appeals) in CA-G.R. SP No. 80032: reversed and set aside RTC decision by Decision dated February 16, 2005; dismissed complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of merit; denied motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated May 17, 2005.
Supreme Court: petition for review on certiorari by petitioners; affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution; petition denied.

Issue(s) Presented for Resolution

Primary: Whether the heirs of Rosendo Lasam have the better right to possession of the subject lot entitling them to eject respondent for unlawful detainer.
Subsidiary / Ancillary issues:
- Whether MTCC had jurisdiction over the action filed (unlawful detainer vs. recovery of ownership).
- Whether the purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay is valid and can be relied upon absent probate proceedings.
- Whether respondent’s deeds of sale and donation and her long possession establish a better right to possession.
- Whether the dismissal in Civil Case No. 4917 constitutes res judicata as to the validity of respondent’s conveyances or ownership.

Jurisdictional Determination (MTCC and CA)

Court of Appeals: preliminarily upheld MTCC’s jurisdiction, finding that allegations in the complaint made out a case for unlawful detainer because the complaint sought only vacatur and surrender of possession.
Supreme Court: accepted CA’s determination that MTCC had jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action because the MTCC complaint sought physical possession and ejectment, not recovery of ownership.

MTCC Findings and Reasoning (Trial Court)

Credited the purported newly discovered Testamento Abierto of Isabel Cuntapay as bequeathing the subject lot to Rosendo Lasam.
Held that testacy is favored over intestacy and the wishes of the testator should prevail; cited jurisprudence and Article 1080 of the Civil Code.
Concluded siblings by first marriage no longer had any share in property once bequeathed by testament; thus their purported conveyances to respondent could not transfe