G.R. No. 200969 - Romero vs. Singson

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200969)

Factual Background

The subject property was a 223-square meter lot at No. 127 F. Sevilla Street, San Juan City, originally registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (32600) (23937) 845-R in the names of Macario and Felicidad Domingo, issued in 1953. Petitioners and two brothers, Rafael and Ramon Domingo, lived on the property with their parents. Respondent Engracia Singson lived elsewhere after marriage. Macario died on February 22, 1981, and Felicidad on September 14, 1997. On June 7, 2006, TCT 845-R was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12575-R was issued in respondent’s name, allegedly pursuant to a notarized "Absolute Deed of Sale" dated June 6, 2006 executed by Macario and Felicidad in favor of respondent. Petitioners claimed the deed was forged and filed Civil Case No. 70898-SJ for annulment, cancellation of TCT 12575, reconveyance, and damages.

Proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court

On September 26, 2006, respondent filed an unlawful detainer action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), San Juan City, Civil Case No. 9534, seeking possession and PHP 2,000.00 monthly rent from petitioners and their two brothers. The MeTC ruled on September 17, 2007 that it had jurisdiction and that respondent, as holder of a Torrens title, could validly eject the defendants. The MeTC awarded possession to respondent, monthly compensation of PHP 2,000.00 from the date of demand, attorney’s fees of PHP 10,000.00, and costs.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings and Orders

The MeTC decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 160, docketed as SCA No. 3144. In a Decision dated April 29, 2009, the RTC affirmed the MeTC, holding that the validity of a Torrens certificate could not be collaterally attacked in an ejectment suit and citing the principle of indefeasibility of title. On motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC reversed itself in a December 11, 2009 Order and dismissed respondent’s ejectment complaint. The RTC concluded that the deed of sale dated June 6, 2006 bore forged signatures because the alleged vendors were deceased at the time, that respondent therefore acquired no title from the deed, and that petitioners and their brothers remained co-owners by succession with a right to possession; the RTC awarded attorney’s fees to the defendants. The RTC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2010.

Court of Appeals Decision

Respondent took the matter to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114363. The CA, in a February 29, 2012 Decision, granted respondent’s petition, reversed the RTC’s December 11, 2009 Order, and reinstated the April 29, 2009 RTC Decision affirming the MeTC. The CA reasoned that in an unlawful detainer action the principal issue was possession de facto, and that under Section 16, Rule 70 the court may provisionally resolve ownership only to determine possession. The CA gave preclusive weight to respondent’s more recent Torrens title (TCT 12575-R, 2006) and held that, absent a judgment invalidating that certificate, the presumption of its validity entitled respondent to possession.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners raised: (A) failure to dismiss the ejectment complaint for lack of compliance with the duty to attempt compromise under Rule 16, Section 1(j) and Article 151, Family Code; (B) error in treating the case as an unlawful detainer when the defense of ownership was indispensably intertwined with possession; (C) failure to uphold the RTC’s award of damages and recognition that respondent obtained title by a fraudulent deed; and (D) incorrect treatment of petitioners’ ownership defense as a collateral attack on respondent’s Torrens title.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that Civil Case No. 9534 should have been dismissed for failure to show prior efforts at compromise between siblings; that they were co-owners by inheritance and could not be evicted by a sister who held a title obtained through a forged deed; and that their challenge to respondent’s title in the ejectment proceedings was permissible to establish their right of possession. Respondent argued that the CA’s findings were correct, that her Torrens title entitled her to possession, and that the petitioners’ attack on her certificate of title was a collateral attack that was impermissible in an ejectment action.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the procedural failure to show attempts at compromise was not jurisdictional and was not fatal where not timely raised; thus that point did not bar relief. On the substantive contested ownership question, the Court concluded that the June 6, 2006 deed of sale was manifestly forged because the named vendors had died years earlier. The Court held that a forged instrument produced no legal effect and that respondent acquired no title from it. The Court rejected the CA’s reliance on the certificate of title to validate respondent’s ownership when the underlying transfer instrument was void ab initio. Consequently, the Court found that petitioners and respondent remained co-owners by succession and that respondent had no cause of action in ejectment against cotenants who neither asserted exclusive ownership nor exclusivity of possession. The Court therefore reversed the CA and reinstated the RTC’s December 11, 2009 Order dismissing the ejectment complaint and awarding attorney’s fees to the defendants.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200969)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Consolacion D. Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo, Petitioners are siblings who occupied a parcel of land at No. 127 F. Sevilla St., San Juan City that was originally registered in their parents' names.
Engracia D. Singson, Respondent is a sibling who was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12575-R in 2006 and thereafter filed an unlawful detainer action to evict her siblings.
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 70898-SJ for annulment and cancellation of the 6 June 2006 deed of sale and of TCT No. 12575 on the ground of forgery, while respondent filed MeTC Civil Case No. 9534 for unlawful detainer.
The case traversed the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals before the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court to set aside the CA decision of 29 February 2012.

Key Factual Allegations

The subject lot was registered as TCT No. (32600) (23937) 845-R in 1953 in the names of Macario and Felicidad Domingo who died on 22 February 1981 and 14 September 1997, respectively.
A notarized instrument labeled an “Absolute Deed of Sale” dated 6 June 2006 purportedly executed by Macario and Felicidad in favor of respondent was presented and TCT 12575-R was issued in respondent’s name on 7 June 2006.
Petitioners and other siblings continuously occupied the property since birth and alleged that the June 6, 2006 deed was forged and void because the alleged vendors were already deceased when the deed was executed.
Respondent demanded that petitioners vacate the property and filed for ejectment, prayed for PHP 2,000.00 monthly compensation from August 7, 2006, attorney’s fees, and costs, while petitioners countered that respondent’s title was null and void and they remained co-owners.

Lower Courts' Decisions

The MeTC (Branch 58, San Juan City) rendered judgment on 17 September 2007 ordering defendants to vacate, awarding PHP 2,000.00 per month from August 7, 2006, PHP 10,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs, and ruling that the ejectment court may provisionally resolve ownership for possession.
The RTC (Branch 160, Pasig City) initially affirmed the MeTC decision on April 29, 2009 on the ground that ownership of a Torrens title may not be collaterally attacked in ejectment proceedings.
On motion for reconsideration the RTC reversed itself by Order dated 11 December 2009 and dismissed the ejectment complaint on the ground that the defendants were co-heirs and co-owners and could not be ejected, while awarding attorney’s fees of PHP 8,000.00 each and denying execution; the RTC denied reconsideration on May 17, 2010.
The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition and on 29 February 2012 reversed the RTC’s December 11, 2009 Order and reinstated the MeTC and RTC April 29, 2009 decisions in favor of respondent.

Issues Presented

Whether the CA erred in failing to dismiss the ejectment complaint for failure to comply with the jurisdictional condition precedent found in Section 1, Rule 16 and Article 151 and Article 222 requiring earnest attempts at compromise among family members.
Whether the RTC correctly ruled that the ejectment action was rendered non-unlawful-detainer and thus dismissible because the defense of ownership by petitioners rendered ownership