Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
ALEXIS B. CAMAT, CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
Petitioner,
Members:
B UZON, Chairman,
- versus- CARANDANG and
CASTILLO, JJ.
Promulgated:
NICOMEDES COSTES,
Respondent. SEP 2 5 2007--.;..
~ :rll
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BUZON, J.:
Before us is a petition for review of the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 48, Urdaneta City, which affirmed the Decision of the 12th
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Binalonan-Laoac, Pangasinan in an unlawful
detainer case.
Respondent Nicomedes Costes is the registered owner of a house and
lot with an area of 637 square meters located at No. 30 Mckinley St.,
Binalonan, Pangasinan and covered by TCT No. 92757. Said property was
originally owned by respondent's aunt, Mercedes Costes, who mortgaged
",y
609
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
DECISION 2
the same with the Rural Bank of Rosales. The property was foreclosed by
the bank, which acquired the same and subsequently sold it to respondent.
Because respondent lives in Baguio City, he allowed his relatives, including
petitioner, to occupy the subject property, with the understanding that they
would vacate the same upon demand. In a letter dated July 16, 2004,
respondent demanded that petitioner vacate the subject property, but the
latter refused. In view thereof, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer against petitioner.
Petitioner assailed the validity of the title of respondent over the
subject property. He claimed that his grandparents were co-owners of the
lot and the house thereon was constructed by his grandparents; and that
petitioner never resided thereon.
On December 28, 2004, the MCTC rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion I of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Ordering the defendant or anyone claiming right under
him to vacate the house and lot in question and to
forthwith deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff.
2. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff a monthly
rental of P700.00 for the use and occupation of the
premises from August, 2004 until he has completely
vacated the same; and
/)
I Rollo, p. 19.
610
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
3
DECISION
3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff reasonable
attorney's fees in the sum ofPlO,OOO.OO;
Costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED."
Petitioner appealed to the RTC, which rendered a Decision dated
2
April 21, 2005 affirming that of the MCTC in its entirety.
Hence, the instant petition raising the following assignment of errors.'
"I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE RTC-
BR. 48 OF URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN HAS
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MCTC OF
BINALONAN-LAOAC, PANGASINAN in its entirety
FINDING RESPONDENT TO HAVE A BETTER RIGHT
TO POSSESS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
II
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE RTC-
BR. 48 OF URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
OVERLOOKED AND MISAPPRECIATED CERTAIN
IMPORTANT FACTS THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE DECISION IN THE
INSTANT CASE
2 Id., at 12-15.
3 Id., at 4-5.
611
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
4
DECISION
III
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE RTC-
BR. 48 OF URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT
RULING THAT PETITIONER HAS A VALID
POSSESSORY RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY CONSIDERING THAT HE AND HIS
FAMIL Y HAS (sic) BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE
SUBJECT HOUSE AND LOT FOR MORE THAN 30
YEARS IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER, PUBLIC,
PEACEFUL AND UNINTERRUPTED AND IN GOOD
FAITH.
The petition is without merit.
Petitioner's arguments that the title of respondent over the subject
property is questionable and that the latter never resided thereon are
immaterial in an unlawful detainer case, as elucidated in Arambulo vs.
Gungab", as follows:
"The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is
physical or material possession. But even if there was a claim of
juridical possession or an assertion of ownership by the defendant,
the MeTC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the trial
court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner
of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession
absent other evidence to resolve ownership. Courts in ejectment
cases decide question of ownership only as it is necessary to decide
the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the
defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment
suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the
disputed property. ~
4471 SCRA 640, 649-65 I.
612
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
5
DECISION
In ~his case, the evidence showed that respondent has a
Torrens Title over the land. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled
that respond~nt, as registered owner, is preferred to possess it. The
age-old rule ISthat the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is
entitled to possession thereof. Except for petitioners'
unsubstantiated claim that Victoria Arambulo is a co-owner of the
property, they have not presented other justification for their
continued stay thereon.
We stress, however, that this determination of ownership is
not final. It is only an initial determination of ownership for the
sole purpose of settling the issue of possession. It would not
prejudice the pending action in the RTC of Quezon City between
the same parties involving title to the property.
Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is
bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon
demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper
remedy against them. Notably, Anastacia Reyes only allowed
petitioners to use and occupy certain portions of the subject
property. They admitted their 'use and possession' of these portions
of the subject property 'had been with the knowledge, consent and
tolerance of all the other co-owners.' Consequently, after
respondent obtained title to the subject property and withdrew her
tolerance later on, petitioners' refusal to vacate it rendered their
possession thereof unlawful.
x x x
We also cannot sustain petitioners' contention that since they
had possession of the subject property, they are entitled to remain
there. Again, they confuse unlawful detainer with forcible entry.
Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not necessary in an
unlawful detainer case. It is enough that she has a better right of
possession. Prior physical possession of a property by a party is
indispensable only in forcible entry cases. In unlawful detainer
cases, the defendant is necessarily in prior lawful possession of the
property, but his possession. ev~ntually becomes unlaw~~ upo~
termination or expiration of hIS nght to possess. Thus, petltl~ners
prior physical possession of the property does not automatically
/}
613
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
6
DECISION
entitle them to continue in said possessionand does not give them a
better right to the property."
Moreover, a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack.
It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding for
that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the validity of the title of
respondent can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that
purpose. Whether or not petitioner has the right to claim ownership over the
property is beyond the power of the MCTC to determine in an action for
5
unlawful detainer.
Petitioner's invocation of Articles 150 and 151 of the Family Code,
which require the exercise of earnest efforts among ascendants and
descendants for a compromise, is misplaced. In paragraph 4 of his answer''
to the complaint for unlawful detainer, petitioner admitted that he is a
grandson of the late Eufemia Costes Briones, who was a cousin of
respondent. Thus, petitioner is not a descendant of respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED and the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Urdaneta City is AFFIRMED.
so.... I)
5 Apostol YS. Court of Appeals, 432 SCRA 351, 359.
6 Id" at 26.
614
CA-G.R. SP No. 90140
7
DECISION
.... ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusion in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
