Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

ELEVENTH DIVISION

GLORIA B. ROSELA, ROMEO CA-G.R. CV NO. 99008

BAROLA, ISIDORA B.
FLOTILDES, JACINTO BAROLA Members:
and MACARIO BAROLA,
VILLON, J., Chairperson
represented by ISIDORA B.
ZALAMEDA, &
FLOTILDES acting in her own
CORALES, JJ.
behalf and as Attorney-in-fact of
her co-plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

- versus -

EVELYN P. BAROLA, Promulgated:

Defendant-Appellant.
July 19, 2016

DECISION

CORALES, J.:

This is an appeal1 from the February 17, 2012 Decision 2 and

April 10, 2012 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21,
Naga City in Civil Case No. RTC 2007-0045. The assailed Decision
granted plaintiffs-appellees Gloria Rosela, Romeo Barola, Isidora
1
See Notice of Appeal in relation to the May 23, 2012 Order of the RTC giving due course
thereto, records, pages 351-352 and 358, respectively.
2
Penned by Judge Pablo Cabillan Formaran III, rollo, pages 27-35.
3
Records, page 350.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 2 of 9
Decision

Flotildes, Jacinto Barola, and Macario Barola's (individually referred

by their respective first names) complaint for accion publiciana with
damages4 (accion publiciana case) against defendant-appellant Evelyn
Barola (Evelyn). The questioned Order denied Evelyn's subsequent
motion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

Rufino Barola (Rufino), married to Felicidad, was the registered

owner of a 1,676-square meter (sq.m.) land in Barangay Carolina,
Naga City denominated as Lot-1 under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 27486.5 Upon Rufino's death in 1986, Lot-1 was inherited
by Felicidad and their children Flaviano, Marita, Erlinda, and
plaintiffs-appellees.

It appears that on April 30, 1996, Felicidad waived her right

over Lot-1 in favor of her children who adjudicated the parcel of land
unto themselves under an Extra Judicial and Settlement of Estate
with Waiver of Rights (extrajudicial settlement).6 Lot-1 was divided
as follows: Lot 1-A to Gloria, Lot 1-B to Romeo, Lot 1-C to Isidora,
Lot 1-D to Flaviano, Lot 1-E to Marita, Lot 1-F to Jacinto, Lot 1-G to
Erlinda and Lot 1-H to Macario. Consequently, TCT No. 27486 was
cancelled and TCT Nos. 43630,7 43631,8 43632,9 43635,10 and 4363711
were issued in the names of Gloria, Romeo, Isidora, Jacinto, and
Macario, respectively.

On June 4, 2007, plaintiffs-appellees instituted the accion

publiciana case against Evelyn, the wife of Flaviano who died on June
11, 1995.12 They alleged that since the lots were “titled” in their
names on July 29, 2003, defendant-appellant occupied Lots 1-A, 1-B

4
Ibid., pages 1-7.
5
Ibid., page 223-224.
6
Ibid., pages 278-280.
7
Ibid., pages 8-9.
8
Ibid., pages 12-13.
9
Ibid., pages 16-17.
10
Ibid., pages 20-21.
11
Ibid., pages 24-25.
12
See Certificate of Death of Flaviano Barola, ibid., pages 281-282.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 3 of 9
Decision

and 1-C, and a portion of Lots 1-F and 1-H by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. They claimed that Evelyn
continued occupying the questioned lots despite repeated demands,
thus, compelling them to bring the dispute before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa. A certificate to file action was issued after plaintiffs-
appellees and Evelyn failed to reach an amicable settlement because
the latter insisted on a court order for her to vacate the lands.
Plaintiffs-appellees prayed that Evelyn be ordered to pay P46,000.00,
or P1,000.00 per month, for the use and occupancy of the subject lots until
possession of the same are turned over to them.13

In her defense, Evelyn countered that she and her family had
been in possession of the subject lands adversely and in the concept
of owners since 1980.14 Contrary to plaintiffs-appellees' claim, no
force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth was employed when
she and her family occupied the properties because they were
similarly situated with plaintiffs-appellees as Rufino's successors, and
Flaviano also paid for the properties a long time ago. No verbal or
written demand to vacate was communicated by plaintiffs-appellees
to Evelyn and she only appeared once before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa to discuss matters relating to the boundaries of the
questioned lots.15

In support of plaintiffs-appellees' complaint, Isidora testified

and identified the TCTs registered in her and her siblings' names. 16
As shown in Subdivision Plan Psd-05-017518, 17 only Lot 1-D was
assigned to Flaviano as his share in the inherited property. However,
Evelyn unjustifiably grabbed the other lots that were assigned to
plaintiffs-appellees. On cross-examination, Isidora averred that she
was part of the plan to extrajudicially partition Rufino's land but she
can no longer produce the extrajudicial settlement considering that
the document was executed a long time ago. Only Isidora, Romeo,
13
See Complaint, supra, at note 4.
14
See Verified Answer (with Special and Affirmative Defenses), records, pages 34-37.
15
Ibid.
16
See Joint Affidavit of Isidora Flotildes, Gloria Rosela, Macario Barola, Romeo Barola and Jacinto
Barola, ibid., pages 210-212.
17
Ibid., page 228.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 4 of 9
Decision

Gloria, Rosela, Macario and Jacinto were present when the

extrajudicial settlement was executed. On the other hand, Flaviano
did not participate in its execution because he wanted half of the
property.18

Barangay Captain Armando Darilay (Armando) corroborated

Isidora's testimony that the plaintiffs-appellees lodged a verbal
complaint in his office against Evelyn. The proceedings before the
barangay failed which led to the issuance of a certificate to file action
before the court.19

On the other hand, Evelyn testified that the thumb mark

appearing above Flaviano's name in the extrajudicial settlement does
not belong to him. Flaviano could not have participated in the
execution of the extrajudicial settlement on April 30, 1996 since he
died on June 11, 1995.20 Flaviano told Evelyn that Rufino wanted the
entire Lot-1 to be registered in her husband's name. From the time
Flaviano and Evelyn occupied Lot-1 in 1980 until the filing of
complaint, none of the plaintiffs-appellees was in possession of the
same.21

The Rulings of RTC

In its February 17, 2012 Decision,22 the RTC held that plaintiffs-
appellees have better right of possession over the lots in question as
holders of Torrens titles. Evelyn could only marshal bare claims that
she and Flaviano had been in adverse, open, and continuous
possession of the lands, hence, the same cannot prevail over
plaintiffs-appellees' right to possess the subject parcels of land as
registered owners. Citing the case of Co v. Court of Appeals,23 the court
a quo further reasoned that plaintiffs-appellees' Torrens titles cannot

18
TSN, Isidora Flotildes, June 21, 2010, pages 18, 33, and 39.
19
See Judicial Affidavit of Armando Darilay, records, page 209.
20
See Certificate of Death of Flaviano Barola, supra, at note 12.
21
TSN, Evelyn P. Barola, March 30, 2011, pages 8-9 and 15-16.
22
Supra, at note 2.
23
G.R. No. 93687. May 6, 1991.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 5 of 9
Decision

be attacked collaterally by alleging that the extrajudicial settlement is

null and void. It then disposed the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is

hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant, to wit:

1. Ordering the defendant and any person claiming

right of interest under her to VACATE the lots in question and to
surrender the peaceful possession thereof to plaintiffs;

2. Ordering the defendant to PAY plaintiffs the

reasonable rent of the lots in question in the amount of One
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per month effective upon the date of
filing of the complaint on June 4, 2007 and until the premises shall
have been entirely vacated and turned over to plaintiffs; and

3. To pay the costs of this suit.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis and italics appear in the original

text of the Decision)

Evelyn moved for reconsideration24 which the RTC denied in its

April 10, 2012 Order.25

Undaunted, Evelyn interposed this appeal arguing that:26

1. THE COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION TO RULE

THAT PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ARE ENTITLED
TO POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BASING ON
THE TCTS ISSUED UNDER THEIR NAMES
DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID DOCUMENTS
STEMMED OUT FROM THE FRAUDULENT
DEED OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF
ESTATE WITH WAIVER OF RIGHTS; and

24
See Motion for Reconsideration with Notice of Appeal Ad Cautelem (sic), records, pages 333-
344.
25
Supra, at note 3.
26
See pages 6-7 of the Appellant's Brief, rollo, pages 19-20.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 6 of 9
Decision

2. THE COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION WHEN IT

SAID THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT NO
LONGER HAS ANY RIGHT ON SAID PROPERTY
AND SHOULD BE EJECTED WHEN IN FACT SHE
AND HER DAUGHTERS ARE COMPULSORY
HEIRS OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND.

Evelyn reiterates her arguments in the proceedings a quo as to

the nullity of the extrajudicial settlement and her right as prior and
actual possessor of the subject lands. Assuming that the extrajudicial
settlement is valid, Evelyn as a compulsory heir is entitled to the
possession of the lot assigned to Flaviano. Evelyn assails the failure
of the court a quo to state in its Decision the portion of the property
she occupied and ought to vacate. The dispositive portion of the said
Decision likewise failed to state the definite areas which she must
vacate.27

In defense of the assailed Decision, plaintiffs-appellees counter

that Evelyn cannot assail the validity of extrajudicial settlement for
being a collateral attack on their titles. The court a quo was mindful
that plaintiffs-appellees' complaint pertains only to the five (5) lots
belonging to them and they do not question Evelyn's possession of
the lot assigned to Flaviano in the extrajudicial settlement.28

This Court's Ruling

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Have Better Right of Possession

Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine

the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It refers
to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one (1) year from the
accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of
27
See Appellant's Brief, ibid., pages 11-26.
28
See Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellees, ibid., pages 46-57.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 7 of 9
Decision

possession of the realty. The objective of the plaintiffs in accion

publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. When
parties, however, raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass
upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to
possess the property. This adjudication, nonetheless, is not a final
and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of
ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The
adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar
to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of
ownership.29

Guided by the foregoing principles, We rule that the plaintiffs-

appellees have proven by preponderance of evidence their right to
the possession of the questioned lots.

The subject parcels of land are undoubtedly covered by

certificates of title. It is a fundamental principle in land registration
that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein.30 It is conclusive evidence with respect to the
ownership of the land described therein. Moreover, the age-old rule
is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.31 Having been issued titles in their names, it
follows that plaintiffs-appellees are entitled to the possession of the
subject lots being the owners thereof.

Evelyn's act of impugning the validity of plaintiffs-appellees'

titles by claiming that the extrajudicial settlement is void for being
fraudulently executed constitutes as a collateral attack on the said
titles. It is an attack incidental to her quest to defend her possession
of the property in an accion publiciana, not in a direct action whose
29
See Gabriel, Jr. v. Crisologo, G.R. No. 204626. June 9, 2014.
30
See Catinding v. Vda. De Meneses, G.R. Nos. 165851 & 168875. February 2, 2011, citing Caña
v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157573. February 11, 2008.
31
See Arambulo v. Gungab, G.R. No. 156581. September 30, 2005.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 8 of 9
Decision

main objective is to impugn the validity of the judgment granting the

title.32 This is not allowed. As aptly cited by the court a quo, Section
48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, provides that a certificate of title cannot be the
subject of collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

RTC's Decision: Pertains Solely To Lots Illegally Occupied by

Evelyn and All Persons Claiming Rights Under Her

Evelyn erroneously interpreted the court a quo's ruling as

ordering her to vacate Lot 1-D assigned to Flaviano in the
extrajudicial settlement. Plaintiffs-appellees never questioned, but in
fact recognized Flaviano's right over Lot 1-D. The subject properties
of the accion publiciana case33 before the RTC are clearly the five (5)
lots covered by certificates of title in the respective names of the
plaintiffs-appellees which were illegally occupied by Evelyn. Verily,
the “lots in question” in the dispositive portion of the court a quo's
February 17, 2012 Decision that Evelyn and any person claiming right
or interest under her have to vacate, refer to the titled lands of
plaintiffs-appellees, i.e. Lots 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-F, and 1-H, and do not
include Lot 1-D.

On a final note, We stress that Our ruling in this case is limited

only to the issue of determining who between the parties has a better
right to possession. This adjudication is not a final and binding
determination of the issue of ownership.34

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 17, 2012

Decision and April 10, 2012 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
21, Naga City in Civil Case No. RTC 2007-0045 are AFFIRMED in
toto.
32
See Vda. De Aguilar v. Spouses Alfaro, G.R. No. 164402. July 5, 2010 citing Ugale v. Gorospe,
G.R. No. 149516. September 11, 2006.
33
Supra, at note 4.
34
See Vda. De Aguilar v. Spouses Alfaro, supra, at note 32.
CA-G.R. CV No. 99008 Page 9 of 9
Decision

SO ORDERED.

PEDRO B. CORALES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

SESINANDO E. VILLON RODIL V. ZALAMEDA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Eleventh Division