Title
Oblea vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 117389
Decision Date
May 11, 1995
Disputed lot ownership led to ejectment case; subsequent sale to petitioner deemed irrelevant, as ejectment judgment, focused on possession, remained enforceable despite quieting of title action.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 117389)

Factual Background

The disputed property, designated as Lot 1, Block 2, was originally part of a larger parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 26604, co-owned by Manuel Melencio (1/3), Pura Melencio (1/3), and Wilfredo and Mariabelle Wico (1/3). Subsequently, TCT No. 26604 was cancelled, and TCT No. 65031 was issued in the name of petitioner Ramon S. Melencio, who acquired a share through a deed of sale from his deceased father. Respondent Juan S. Esteban acquired the property from Mauricio Ramos, who claimed to obtain it from Ursula Melencio, the administratrix of the estate of Manuel and Pura Melencio.

Ejectment Proceedings

On July 4, 1991, Esteban filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Oblea in the Municipal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, leading to a ruling against Oblea on April 3, 1992. The lower court ordered him to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears, which was later modified on March 26, 1993, by the Regional Trial Court to limit these arrears to payments due only from March 2, 1988. Following this, Oblea acquired the disputed property on June 3, 1993.

Subsequent Legal Actions

After Oblea and Melencio, along with other co-owners, filed an action for quieting of title against Esteban, the ejectment case was appealed but ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeals on July 2, 1993. Upon remand, the Municipal Trial Court ordered execution of the judgment, leading to the lifting of a temporary restraining order issued in favor of the petitioners.

Court of Appeals Decision

The decision by the Court of Appeals on September 27, 1994, emphasized that the ejectment case was final and executory, dismissing the petitioners' argument that their subsequent purchase and the doctrine of supervening events negated Esteban's rights. The appellate court concluded that the only issue in an ejectment case pertains to physical possession, not ownership, thus ruling that the execution of the ejectment judgment could not be delayed merely because a separate action for quieting of title was pursued.

Rationale for Decision

The core legal principle reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals was that the substantive issue for resolution in unlawful detainer actions focuses solely on actual possession—referred to as possession de facto—rather than ownership, which is outside the scope of such proceedings. The court determined that a subsequent acquisit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.