G.R. No. 171555 - Rivera-Calingasan vs. Rivera

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171555)

Factual Background

During their lifetimes, respondent Wilfredo Rivera and his wife, Loreto Inciong, acquired several parcels of land in Lipa City, Batangas, including lands covered by TCT Nos. T-22290 and T-30557. Loreto died on July 29, 1982. On March 29, 1993, Loreto's heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement adjudicating her one-half conjugal share in favor of daughters Evangeline and Brigida Liza, with Wilfredo purportedly waiving rights except for a reserved lifetime usufruct. On September 23, 1993, the Register of Deeds canceled the earlier titles and issued TCT Nos. T-87494 and T-87495 in the names of Evangeline and Brigida Liza, annotated with Wilfredo's usufructuary rights.

Events Leading to Litigation

On March 13, 2003, Wilfredo Rivera filed a forcible entry complaint against the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc., alleging prior lawful possession and occupation of the two parcels and alleging that, during his hospital confinement in September 2002, the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. took possession, renovated the building, and, with the aid of armed men, barred him from entry in December 2002. The petitioners countered that Wilfredo had voluntarily renounced his usufruct by a March 4, 1996 instrument and that Wilfredo had another action pending in RTC Branch 13, Civil Case No. 99-0773, concerning annulment of a petition for cancellation of usufructuary rights.

MTCC Ruling

The MTCC dismissed Wilfredo's complaint in its December 2, 2003 decision. The MTCC found no proof of Wilfredo's prior possession and noted his admission that E. Rical Enterprises and Star Honda, Inc. occupied the property pursuant to lease contracts from Evangeline. Wilfredo appealed the MTCC decision to the RTC.

RTC Proceedings and First Ruling

In its November 30, 2004 decision, the RTC affirmed the MTCC and held that Wilfredo lacked cause to evict the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. because Evangeline was the registered owner and because Wilfredo had voluntarily renounced his usufructuary rights. Wilfredo moved for reconsideration.

RTC Reconsideration and Modified Ruling

The RTC granted reconsideration, set aside its prior judgment, and in its April 6, 2005 decision ordered eviction of the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. The RTC found evidence of Wilfredo's prior possession and subsequent dispossession, including Evangeline's admission of residence at J. Belen Street, Rosario, Batangas; findings by the Lipa City Prosecutor in a related criminal case that the petitioners did not reside on the property; an affidavit of Barangay Captain Ricky Briones attesting to Wilfredo's prior possession and the petitioners' entry during Wilfredo's hospital confinement; and evidence that the petitioners destroyed the padlock of the building. The RTC awarded P620,000.00 as reasonable compensation for use and occupation and P20,000.00 as attorneys' fees. By its July 8, 2005 order, however, the RTC absolved Star Honda, Inc. from liability for lack of proof of its participation.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA in its February 10, 2006 decision affirmed with modification the RTC's April 6, 2005 decision. The CA accepted the RTC's finding that Wilfredo had prior possession and that the petitioners entered the property during his hospital confinement by strategy and stealth. The CA emphasized that Evangeline's admission of residence at J. Belen Street, Rosario, Batangas undermined her claim of possession of the disputed property. The CA deleted the P20,000.00 attorneys' fees award because the RTC had not discussed or justified it.

Issues Presented on Review

The principal issue was factual and legal: who, between the petitioners and Wilfredo Rivera, had prior physical possession of the disputed property for purposes of a forcible entry action. A secondary question concerned the effect of Wilfredo's death on the ejectment remedy and on his asserted usufructuary rights.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners argued that the CA erred by equating possession with residence because possession in forcible entry cases denotes plain physical occupancy irrespective of whether the occupant resides on the premises. They relied on an interlocutory March 11, 2003 order of RTC Branch 13 in Civil Case No. 99-0773 stating that the petitioners had occupied the premises since 1997, and they pointed to Wilfredo's alleged admission that he had padlocked the doors as evidence inconsistent with prior possession.

Respondents' Contentions

The respondents countered that the interlocutory order in Civil Case No. 99-0773 was provisional and could not prevail over Evangeline's judicial admission in her answer that she resided in Poblacion, Rosario, Batangas, contrasted with Wilfredo's consistent allegation of residence at C.M. Recto Avenue, Lipa City, the site of the disputed property. They also relied on the Lipa City Prosecutor's determination in a related criminal matter that the petitioners did not reside on the property and on Barangay Captain Briones' affidavit attesting to Wilfredo's prior possession and the petitioners' unlawful entry.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision with modification. The Court held that the respondents proved prior physical possession of the property and that the petitioners deprived Wilfredo of such possession by force, strategy, and stealth. The Court sustained the CA's deletion of attorneys' fees. The Court further ruled that, by reason of Wilfredo's death, his usufruct terminated under Article 603(1) of the Civil Code, rendering the issue of restitution of possession moot; however, the monetary award for use and occupation survives and accrues to the decedent's estate.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated settled principles that ejectment actions such as forcible entry are summary proceedings aimed only at determining who is entitled to physical or possession de facto, not legal title. Prior physical possession is the controlling consideration in forcible entry cases, and the party in prior possession is entitled to remain until lawfully ejected by one with a better right. The Court found that residence is a manifestation of possession and that Evangeline's admission of residence elsewhere diminished the petitioners' claim to physical possession. The Court credited the Lipa City Prosecutor's findings and the affidavit of the barangay captain as competent proof of prior possession and unlawful dispossession. It rejected reliance upon the interlocutory pronouncement in RTC Branch 13 because such orders are provisional, subject to modification, and do not have conclusive effect on the issue of actual possession.

The Court applied Article 603(1) of the Civil Code to hold that a usufruct termina

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171555)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Evangeline Rivera-Calingasan and E. Rical Enterprises filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90717.
Wilfredo Rivera instituted the original forcible entry complaint and was later substituted by Ma. Lydia S. Rivera, Freida Leah S. Rivera, and Wilfredo S. Rivera, Jr. upon his death.
The Court of Appeals decision dated February 10, 2006 affirmed with modification the April 6, 2005 decision and the July 8, 2005 order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, Branch 85, in Civil Case No. 2003-0982.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City rendered the initial dismissal of the complaint in its December 2, 2003 decision.
The petition involved competing claims to prior physical possession of real property covered by original TCT Nos. T-22290 and T-30557 and later reissued as TCT Nos. T-87494 and T-87495.

Key Factual Allegations

Loreto Inciong died on July 29, 1982, leaving her conjugal one-half share subject to an extrajudicial settlement executed on March 29, 1993, which adjudicated her share to daughters Evangeline and Brigida Liza while reserving Wilfredo Rivera a usufruct during his lifetime.
The Register of Deeds of Lipa City cancelled the earlier titles and issued new TCT Nos. T-87494 and T-87495 in the names of Evangeline and Brigida Liza with an annotation of Wilfredo's usufructuary rights.
Wilfredo filed a forcible entry complaint on March 13, 2003, alleging prior lawful possession and subsequent dispossession during his hospital confinement in September 2002, and alleged that the petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. removed his padlock and barred his reentry.
The petitioners and Star Honda, Inc. countered that Wilfredo had filed a petition for cancellation of usufructuary rights in 1996 and that an action to annul that petition was pending in RTC Lipa Branch 13 as Civil Case No. 99-0773.
Evidence relied upon by Wilfredo included Evangeline's judicial admission of residence in J. Belen Street, Rosario, Batangas, the Lipa City Prosecutor's findings in a related criminal trespass matter that the petitioners did not reside on the property, and the affidavit of Barangay Captain Ricky Briones attesting to Wilfredo's prior possession and the petitioners' entry during his hospital confinement.

Procedural History

The MTCC dismissed Wilfredo's complaint in its December 2, 2003 decision for lack of proof of prior possession and dispossession.
The RTC of Lipa City initially affirmed the MTCC decision in its November 30, 2004 decision but later granted reconsideration and set aside that judgment in an April 6, 2005 decision ordering eviction and awarding monetary compensation.
The RTC modified its April 6, 2005 decision by order dated July 8, 2005 to absolve Star Honda, Inc. from liability for lack of proof of participation in the dispossession.
The petitioners filed a Rule 42 petition with the Court of Appeals, which issued its February 10, 2006 decision affirming with modification the RTC decision and deleting the P20,000.00 attorneys' fee award.
The petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, and Wilfredo died on December 27, 2006 and was substituted by his heirs.

Issue

The dispositive issue presented was who, between the petitioners and Wilfredo Rivera, had prior physical possession of the disputed premises.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision dated February 10, 2006