Case Summary (G.R. No. 224906)
Petitioner
Emma Buenviaje Nabo alleges continuous, open, and uninterrupted possession of the subject property since childhood, formal acquisition by Deed of Absolute Sale on May 12, 1983, tax declarations and regular payment of real property taxes in her and her spouse’s names, improvements on the property, and documentary evidence including barangay certification and tax receipts supporting possession in the concept of an owner.
Respondent
Felix C. Buenviaje claims to be the registered owner of the subject property by virtue of OCT No. O-1777, issued August 28, 2008 pursuant to a 2003 MTC decision. He alleges that he tolerated petitioner’s occupancy but withdrew that tolerance by demand in July 2012, giving petitioner 15 days to vacate; when she refused, he filed an ejectment complaint seeking recovery of possession, monthly damages, and attorney’s fees.
Subject Property and Title
The contested parcel is covered by OCT No. O-1777 (issued August 28, 2008) and the title arose from a registration proceeding (LRC Case No. 070-2000) culminating in a decision dated February 7, 2003. Petitioner introduced evidence of tax declarations registered in her and her spouse’s names as early as June 14, 1983 and real property tax payments dating from 1989, plus a barangay residence certificate indicating long-term occupancy.
Procedural History
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo dismissed respondent’s ejectment complaint. Branch 77, Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC and granted ejectment with damages and attorney’s fees in favor of respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision and seeking reinstatement of the MTC dismissal.
Facts and Parties’ Contentions
Respondent framed his cause of action as an ejectment complaint for unlawful detainer, alleging initial lawful possession by tolerance and subsequent notice terminating tolerance. Petitioner contended that respondent failed to prove the elements of unlawful detainer, that tolerance was not shown, and that petitioner’s long, continuous possession and tax records established possession in the concept of an owner. Petitioner also explained prior court and barangay interactions, and that she had declined respondent’s proposals to consolidate or simulate transfers of the property.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether respondent’s certificate of title entitles him to immediate recovery of possession under Rule 70 (unlawful detainer) of the Rules of Court without proving, by preponderance of evidence, the jurisdictional facts of unlawful detainer—particularly the initial tolerance or contractual basis for the occupant’s possession.
Applicable Law and Precedent
- Governing procedural rule: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and the substantive ejectment/unlawful detainer rule under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
- Principle under the Torrens system: a Torrens title carries attributes of ownership, including a right to possession, but ownership alone does not dispense with procedural requirements in ejectment suits.
- Controlling precedents cited and applied: Cabrera v. Getaruela and Fernando v. Spouses Lim (enumerating requisites of unlawful detainer), Quijano v. Atty. Amante (tolerance must be proven), Javelosa v. Tapus (owner must resort to proper remedy and prove requisites), Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals (ejectment focuses on physical possession rather than ownership), and other cases emphasizing that tax declarations and tax payments are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether respondent proved the first and critical element of unlawful detainer—initial possession by contract or tolerance. The Court emphasized that a bare allegation of tolerance is insufficient; respondent had the burden to show overt acts or circumstances constituting tolerance and to state when such tolerance began. Respondent’s complaint and evidence failed to provide essential details showing that petitioner’s possession was initially permissive. Petitioner’s evidence—barangay certification, tax declarations registered in 1983, and tax payment receipts—established long, continuous possession predating the issuance of the OCT in respondent’s name (2008). The Court noted that tax declarations and payments, while not conclusive of ownership, are persuasive indicia of possession in the concept of an owner. Because respon
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 224906)
Case Caption, Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- G.R. No. 224906; Second Division; Decision rendered October 7, 2020 by Justice Inting.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, filed by petitioner Emma Buenviaje Nabo seeking reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 136811 and seeking affirmation and reinstatement of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo, Rizal Decision dated October 4, 2013 in SCA No. 106-2012 (ejectment with damages).
- Reliefs prayed for by respondent in the complaint: (a) order directing petitioner to vacate and immediately surrender peaceful possession of the subject property; (b) award of P4,000.00 per month from time of demand until full surrender of possession; and (c) award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000.00.
Antecedent Facts as Alleged by Respondent (Plaintiff in the lower court)
- Respondent Felix C. Buenviaje alleges he is the registered owner of the subject property located in the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1777, title issued pursuant to an MTC Decision dated February 7, 2003 in LRC Case No. 070-2000 (LRA Record No. N-73603).
- Respondent avers that from the time of issuance of the title in his favor he allowed petitioner (his niece) to remain on the property on the understanding that she would peacefully surrender and vacate it if he decided to take it back.
- Respondent alleges that in July 2012 he sent a letter withdrawing the previous authority for petitioner to remain; petitioner was given 15 days from receipt to vacate and peacefully surrender possession.
- A Certification dated October 1, 2012 from the San Mateo Post Office indicates that petitioner, through Ethel May Nabo, received the demand letter.
- Petitioner allegedly refused to comply after expiration of the period, continuing to occupy and deprive respondent of enjoyment of his property.
- Respondent reported the dispute to the barangay; conciliation failed and a Barangay Certificate to File Action was issued.
- Complaint for ejectment with damages was thereafter filed (seeking the reliefs noted above).
Antecedent Facts as Alleged by Petitioner (Defendant in the lower court)
- Petitioner asserts she has been a resident of the subject property since 1950 or since childhood; property was registered under the name of her father Carlos Buenviaje with a Tax Declaration No. 08-0149 issued May 31, 1979.
- Petitioner claims formal acquisition by Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 12, 1983 (vendor Carlos Buenviaje; vendees petitioner and her spouse), notarized on that date; Tax Declaration No. 08-0149 was cancelled and a new tax declaration issued in 1984 in the names of petitioner and spouse Rolando Nabo.
- Petitioner and family allege open and continuous possession in the concept of an owner since the 1983 purchase, paying real property taxes since then as evidenced by receipts from the Provincial Treasurer’s Office of San Mateo, Rizal.
- Petitioner introduced improvements on an ancestral home already on the property and declared such improvements for real property tax on July 16, 1993 (Tax Declaration No. SM-007-0183) though she was exempted per Provincial Treasurer certification.
- Petitioner recounts that in 1998 respondent and a municipal assessment officer proposed consolidation/registration of her property with respondent’s adjacent unregistered property under respondent’s name to assist respondent’s son obtain a loan; petitioner declined.
- Respondent allegedly proposed a simulated sale and later approached petitioner through Atty. Almero of the Public Attorney’s Office to consolidate/register with assurances respondent and his children would sign an agreement to return the subject property; petitioner declined.
- Petitioner appeared in 2001 in LRC Case No. 070-2000 before the MTC of San Mateo and stated in open court that the property belonged to her; she was told to secure counsel to oppose the registration, but respondent later told her he would take care of the dropping of the case and that she need not return to hearings; she thereafter did not return.
- Petitioner was invited to barangay conciliation on May 17, 2012; Elena Buenviaje Valbuena claimed the subject property had been titled to respondent despite petitioner’s 1983 purchase and continuous possession; petitioner attempted to verify court records but was told records were destroyed in typhoon Ondoy (2009).
- Petitioner received respondent’s counsel’s demand letter dated July 18, 2012 (received October 1, 2012) and replied on November 14, 2012 asserting continuous and open possession since May 12, 1983.
Documentary and Other Evidence in the Record
- Respondent produced OCT No. 0-1777 (issued August 28, 2008; issued pursuant to MTC Decision dated February 7, 2003 in LRC Case No. 070-2000) as proof of registration in his name.
- Petitioner submitted documentary evidence of continuous possession and owner-like acts, including:
- Barangay Residence Certificate dated December 3, 2012 (certifying possession >30 years).
- Tax Declaration No. 08-0911 covering a 100-square meter parcel, declared in the names of Spouses Rolando S. Nabo and petitioner and registered on June 14, 1983.
- Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 12, 1983 (petitioner’s formal acquisition).
- Multiple tax declarations in petitioner’s and spouse’s names (oldest registered June 14, 1983).
- Real property tax receipts evidencing payment of taxes since 1989.
- Record reflects respondent’s alleged act of sending the demand letter and certification of receipt by the post office (Oct. 1, 2012).