Case Summary (G.R. No. 259061)
Procedural History and Relevant Decisions
The litigation commenced as a complaint for recovery of possession filed by George before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC ruled in favor of George, relying on the principle that possession under a Torrens title holder is preferential, and that petitioners’ claims amounted to a prohibited collateral attack on his title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC ruling and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Central Issue Presented
The sole issue raised concerns whether petitioners have a better right of possession over the portions of the property they occupy compared to respondent George’s claim.
Ownership and Possession: Legal Framework and Arguments
Petitioners assert they possess the property in the concept of owners as heirs of Cayetana through intestate succession by their respective mothers, who are Cayetana’s children alongside Severino. They challenge the validity of Severino’s affidavit of adjudication and the deed of reconveyance, arguing it did not include other heirs and lacks his signature, rendering George’s Torrens title defective. Conversely, George claims exclusive ownership based on these documents and a Torrens title, emphasizing the legal protection against collateral attacks under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree).
Factual Findings on Property Identity and Possession
The lower courts conducted ocular inspection and factual determinations that the areas occupied by petitioners lie within the boundaries covered by George’s Torrens title. This factual finding, upheld consistently by the MTCC, RTC, and CA, is binding on the Supreme Court, which generally limits its review on factual questions in Rule 45 petitions to cases with recognized exceptions not present here.
Jurisprudential Clarification on Ownership Issues in Recovery of Possession
The Supreme Court clarified that in an accion publiciana (action for recovery of possession), provisional resolution of ownership issues is permitted and does not constitute a collateral attack prohibited by PD 1529. Such adjudication is solely for determining possession rights and is not final or binding on ownership, which must be finally established in an appropriate civil action. Petitioners’ defense raising the invalidity of Severino’s exclusive inheritance claim was therefore properly within the purview of the initial possession proceeding.
Examination of Ownership Claims and Title Validity
Evidence shows that Cayetana had seven children, including Severino and the mothers of petitioners, who were co-owners of the entire estate under Article 1078 of the Civil Code, which vests undivided common ownership in multiple heirs pending partition. Severino’s affidavit of adjudication claiming sole heirship, and the deed of reconveyance purporting to hold land in trust for certain heirs while excluding others, were found to be irregular. These facts suggest Severino could not validly isolate the property as his sole inheritance and that George’s exclusive ownership claim via his father’s acts is provisionally defective.
Conclusion on Co-ownership and Right to Possession
Based on all evidence, petitioners and respondent George are provisionally recognized as co-owners of the subject property, sharing equal undivided interests as heirs of Cayetana. Philippine civil law accords each co-owner the right to use and possess the entire property provided they do not injure co-owners’ interests or prevent their use. Consequently, petitioners, as co-owners, cannot be ejected
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 259061)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioners, spouses Salvador and Leonida M. Bangug, and spouses Venerandy Adolfo and Jesusa Adolfo, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the November 5, 2020 Decision and February 10, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 164563.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petition for review under Rule 42, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated November 19, 2019, which affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC).
- The case originated from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by respondent George dela Cruz (George) before the MTCC regarding a 2,172 square meter property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-388110.
- The MTCC held in favor of respondent George, declaring that petitioners' occupation was by tolerance only and that their claims challenged the validity of George’s Torrens title, constituting impermissible collateral attacks.
- Following motions for reconsideration and appeals up to the CA, the courts consistently ruled against petitioners.
- The Petition before the Supreme Court raises the issue of whether petitioners have a better right of possession over the property.
Factual Background and Title History
- The disputed property originally belonged to George’s grandmother, Cayetana Guitang, who died intestate around 1935.
- Cayetana left several children: Luisa, Severino, Juana, Herminia, Rufina, Leonarda, and Juliana.
- Severino, George’s father, executed an affidavit of adjudication in 1982 claiming sole heirship and ownership of the entire 8,657 sq.m. estate.
- In 1983, Severino executed a deed of reconveyance subdividing the property into five lots; Lot 1-A was transferred to George.
- Petitioners are descendants of Rufina and Juliana, two of Cayetana's children, who purportedly allowed them to occupy portions of the land.
- Petitioners claim co-ownership based on intestate succession from Cayetana and contest Severino’s sole adjudication and the deed’s validity.
- Respondent George demanded petitioners vacate the property in 2011, triggering the complaint for recovery of possession.
Issues Presented
- The core issue is whether petitioners have a better right of possession over the portions of the subject property they occupy.
- The inquiry entails whether petitioners’ claim of co-ownership based on their asserted inheritance from Cayetana gives them superior possession rights over George’s claim founded on Torrens title.
Jurisprudential Principles on Possession and Ownership
- Ownership issues may be provisionally passed upon in an accion publiciana (action for recovery of possession) to determine who holds the better right of possession.
- Such provisional adjudication does not constitute a conclusive or final judgment on ownership and does not amount to a collateral attack on a Torrens title.
- The Torrens title is protected from coll