G.R. No.

111915 September 30, 1999

HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS, represented b !I"A#"A# VINZONS$
%HA&O, petitioners,
vs.
%O'R& OF A((EA!S )nd *ENA EDORIA, respondents.

GONZAGA$RE#ES, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the January 27,
1993
1
e!ision and "epte#$er 1%, 1993
+
Resolution of the &ourt of appeals
3
in &'().R. "P
*o. 239+,. -he &ourt of 'ppeals .&'/ set aside the e!ision
,
of the Regional -rial &ourt .R-&/
of aet, &a#arines *orte in &ivil &ase *o. 0,32, affir#ing that of the 1uni!ipal -rial &ourt .1-&/
in &ivil &ase *o. 2137
5
, whi!h ordered the e2e!t#ent of herein private respondent.
-he fa!tual ante!edents of this !ase are3
Petitioners 4eirs of 5in6ons are !o(owners of a par!el of land in Barangay 0, aet, of whi!h
a portion #easuring 1+,.0 s7uare #eters is $eing o!!upied $y respondent 1ena 8doria as
lessee sin!e 1901. Respondent $uilt thereon a residential house worth P+%,%%%.%%. 4e
started paying a #onthly rent of P+.%% whi!h $y 19,9 had rea!hed P13.%%.
"o#eti#e in 19,9, an e2e!t#ent suit was filed $y petitioners several others also o!!upying
the sa#e lot owned $y the#, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 1923, on the ground, a#ong
others, of non(pay#ent of rentals. 'fter trial, however, the !ase was dis#issed on the finding
that respondent was not in arrears $ut was even advan!e in his rental pay#ents. Both
petitioner and respondent appealed fro# said de!ision to the Regional -rial &ourt.
"o#eti#e in 19,,, while the aforesaid &ase *o. 1923 was pending appeal $efore the R-&,
petitioner filed another e2e!t#ent suit, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2%91, against respondent
and thirty(nine .39/ others alleging that said defendants refused to enter into an agree#ent
with the# as tenants(lessees and refused to pay the in!reased rent of P1.%% per s7uare
#eter per #onth. Respondent resisted the !lai# alleging, a#ong others, la!k of !ause of
a!tion and penden!y of the earlier e2e!t#ent !ase. -he trial !ourt rendered its de!ision
dis#issing the !ase against respondent in view of the penden!y of &ivil &ase *o. 1923 on
appeal. -his de!ision was again elevated to the R-&.
:hile &ivil &ase *o. 2%91 was pending appeal in the R-&, petitioners again filed the instant
suit for e2e!t#ent do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2137 on the following grounds3 .a/ e;piration of
lease !ontra!t as of 19,+< .$/ refusal to sign written renewal of !ontra!t of lease< and .!/ non(
pay#ent of rent for one .1/ year and ten .1%/ #onths. =n his answer, respondent sought
dis#issal of the !o#plaint on the following grounds< .a/ it did not pass through $arangay
!on!iliation< .$/ no prior de#and was #ade or if there was su!h a de#and, it was #ade
#ore than one year prior to the filing of the !ase< .!/ there was no !ause of a!tion as it was
in violation of P 2% and BP Blg. 20< .d/ the !ase is $arred $y prior 2udg#ent< and .e/ there is
still pending appeal a si#ilar !ase $etween the parties, &ivil &ase *o. 2%91.
'fter trial, the 1-& of aet rendered its de!ision ordering respondent to va!ate the pre#ises
and pay the a!!rued rentals. >n appeal to the R-&, the said de!ision was affir#ed in toto.
-he &', however, reversed the two .2/ earlier de!isions $y dis#issing the !o#plaint on the
ground of litis pendentia, failure to !o#ply with the ?atarungang Pa#$arangay @aw .P
10%,/< and la!k of eviden!e of prior de#and to va!ate $efore instituting the !o#plaint.
4en!e, this petition on the following grounds3
-4'- -48 &>AR- >B 'PP8'@" 8RR8 =* R858R"=*) -48 8&="=>*
>B -48 R8)=>*'@ -R='@ &>AR- >B &'1'R=*8" *>R-8 =* ' :'C
*>- =* '&&>R :=-4 @': '* JAR="PRA8*&8.
-4'- -48 &>AR- >B 'PP8'@" 8RR8 =* 8*C=*) -48 1>-=>* B>R
R8&>*"=8R'-=>* AP>* -48 )R>A* -4'- -48 )R>A*"
-48R8=* '58RR8 4' '@R8'C B88* P'""8 AP>* =* =-"
8&="=>*.
-
Petitioners argue that the &' was duty($ound, under the rules and 2urispruden!e, to give
weight to the findings of fa!t of the 1-& sin!e the sa#e had already $een affir#ed in toto $y
the R-&. Burther, it is argued that the a!tion is not $arred $y prior 2udg#ent and the prin!iple
of litis pendentia does not apply< that the petitioners !o#plied with the re7uire#ents of P
10%,< and that de#and to va!ate is not ne!essary for 2udi!ial a!tion in !ase of e;piration of
the lease !ontra!t.
-he petition is devoid of #erit, we find that the 1-& had i#properly assu#ed 2urisdi!tion
over the e2e!t#ent suit.
Birst, this !ase $eing one of unlawful detainer, it #ust have $een filed within one year fro#
the date of last de#and with the 1uni!ipal -rial &ourt, otherwise it is an accion
publiciana !ogni6a$le $y the Regional -rial &ourt.
.
-he rule is that the one(year period
provided for in "e!tion 1, Rule 7% of the Rules of &ourt
/
within whi!h a !o#plaint for unlawful
detainer !an $e filed should $e !ounted fro# the last letter of de#and to va!ate.
9
Accion
publiciana is the plenary a!tion to re!over the right of possession when dispossession has lasted
for #ore than one year.
10
-here is no 7uestion that the petitionersD dispossession has lasted for #ore than one year. =n
their &o#plaint and Position paper, petitioners alleged that the lease !ontra!t e;pired in
19,+
11
< that thereafter, private respondent $e!a#e a lessee on a #onth(to(#onth $asis
1+
< and
that $efore the filing of &ivil &ases *os. 19%,, 1923 and 2%91, de#and to va!ate had already
$een #ade to defendant.
13
"in!e &ivil &ase *o. 19%, was instituted in 19,9< &ivil &ase *o. 1923
in 19,9< and &ivil &ase *o. 2%91 in 'pril 19,,, the alleged de#ands to va!ate to a$ort an i#plied
renewal of the lease on a #onth(to(#onth $asis were #ade $etween 19,9 and 19,,, the last
one, $efore 'pril 19,,. 5erily, the instant &o#plaint for e2e!t#ent filed $y petitioner in >!to$er
19,9, was filed #ore than one year fro# the ter#ination of the #onth(to(#onth lease so#e ti#e
$efore 'pril 19,,. =t is well(esta$lished that what deter#ines the nature of an a!tion and
!orrespondingly the !ourt whi!h has 2urisdi!tion over it is the allegation #ade $y the plaintiff in his
!o#plaint.
1,
"e!ond, the !hallenged de!ision !orre!tly dis#issed the !ase for failure of the plaintiffs, the
petitioners herein, to avail of the $arangay !on!iliation pro!ess under P 10%,, preli#inary
to 2udi!ial re!ourse. -he &ourt of 'ppeals had found that Ethere is no !lear showing that it
was $rought $efore the Barangay @upon or Pangkat of Barangay 0, aet, &a#arines *orte,
where the parties reside and the property su$2e!t of the !ase is situated, as there is no
$arangay !ertifi!ation to file a!tion atta!hed to the !o#plaint.
15
Paraphrasing Peaflor vs. Panis
1-
, Ethe @upong Barangay is with 2urisdi!tion under P 10%, to
pass upon an e2e!t#ent !ontroversy where the parties are residents in the sa#e $arangay or in
$arangays within the sa#e !ity or in $arangays ad2oining ea!h other.E =t is !learly averred in the
&o#plaint that herein petitioners, then represented $y the widow of the late Bernando 5in6ons,
resided in the sa#e $arangay, hen!e, !overed $y the said law. =n Royales vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court
1.
, this &ourt ruled that Enon(!o#plian!e with the !ondition pre!edent pres!ri$ed
$y P 10%, !ould affe!t the suffi!ien!y of the plaintiffDs !ause of a!tion and #ake his !o#plaint
vulnera$le to dis#issal on the ground of la!k of !ause of a!tion or pre#aturity.E efendants,
private respondents herein, o$2e!ted to the failure of the parties to undergo a !onfrontation at the
$arangay level in their answer and even during the entire pro!eedings a quo to no avail as the
trial !ourts #erely $rushed aside this issue. 4en!e, the &ourt of 'ppeals had to re!tify this error
$y the trial !ourts.
=n refutation of the said findings of the &ourt of 'ppeals, petitioners su$#it that Eit is !lear in
the findings of fa!t of the 1-& of aet, as affir#ed $y the R-& of aet that $efore the filing
of &ivil &ases *os. 19%,, 1923 and 2%91, de#and to va!ate had already $een #ade to the
defendant after efforts to settle the !ontroversy at the $arangay level had failed.E
1/
-his is not
a fa!tual finding of the 1-&, $ut an allegation in petitionersD &o#plaint. 's #entioned earlier, the
1-& #erely $rushed aside the issue of non(re!ourse to $arangay !on!iliation. -his allegation in
petitionersD &o#plaint that efforts to settle the !ontroversy at the $arangay level had failed in &ivil
&ases *os. 19%,, 1923 and 2%91, does not !onstitute !o#plian!e with the re7uire#ents of P
10%, for purposes of filing the &o#plaint in &ivil &ase *o. 2137. "e!tion 9 of P 10%, insofar as
pertinent provides3
"e!. 9. Conciliation, pre-condition to filing of complaint. F *o !o#plaint,
petition, a!tion or pro!eeding involving any #atter within the authority of the
@upon as provided in "e!tion 2 hereof shall $e filed or instituted in !ourt or
any other govern#ent offi!e for ad2udi!ation unless there has $een a
!onfrontation of the parties $efore the @upon !hair#an or the Pangkat . . . .
Referral to the @upon &hair#an or the Pangkat should $e #ade prior to the filing of the
e2e!t#ent !ase under P 10%,. @egal a!tion for e2e!t#ent is $arred when there is non(
re!ourse to $arangay !ourt.
19
-he &o#plaint for unlawful detainer, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o.
2137, should have $een !oursed first to the $arangay !ourt. Petitioners !annot rely on the
$arangay !on!iliation pro!eedings held in the other !ases and !onsider the sa#e as !o#plian!e
with the law.
-hird, petitioners rely heavily on the general rule that findings of trial !ourts deserve to $e
respe!ted and affir#ed $y appellate !ourts. 'l#ost as well(re!ogni6ed as the general rule is
the e;!eption that the fa!tual findings of the trial !ourt #ay nonetheless $e reversed $y the
&ourt of 'ppeals if $y the eviden!e on re!ord or the la!k of it, it appears that the trial !ourt
erred.
+0
&onsidering that the trial !ourts and the &ourt of 'ppeals arrived at different fa!tual
findings, we have reviewed the eviden!e on re!ord and have found as aforesaid, the i#proper
assu#ption $y the 1-& of the !ase due to non(re!ourse to $arangay !on!iliation and the lapse of
the one(year period for $ringing the !ase for unlawful detainer.
4aving arrived at the a$ove !on!lusion, the &ourt finds no need to dis!uss the other issues,
spe!ifi!ally, those $earing on the appli!ation of the prin!iples of litis pendentia andGor res
judicata. 1oreover, the re!ords of &ivil &ases *os. 1923 and 2%91 are not $efore us to
ena$le us to deter#ine the presen!e of the ele#ents thereof in the instant !ase.
:48R8B>R8, the instant petition is here$y 8*=8, and the assailed de!ision of the &ourt
of 'ppeals is here$y 'BB=R18.
"> >R8R8.
elo, !itug, Panganiban and Purisima, ""., concur.
G.R. No. !$33+13 01ne +9, 19.9
AR&E*IO %. RE#ES )nd HI!ARION %. RE#ES, petitioners,
vs.
HON. ANDRES S&A. *ARIA, (res2d2n3 01d3e, %o1rt o4 F2rst Inst)n5e o4 617)5)n,
6r)n58 II, HI!ARIA SAN&OS VDA. DE !O(EZ )nd (I!AR SAN&OS, respondents.
#. . Reyes for petitioner.
Ruben $. Reyes for respondents.

&EEHAN9EE, J.:
-he &ourt sets aside the lower !ourtDs >rder whi!h dis#issed petitioners(plaintiffsD !o#plaint
filed $efore it for re!overy of the property in the possession of respondents(defendants and
for de!laration of ownership thereof as against said respondentsD !ontrary !lai# of ownership
on the ground of alleged la!k of 2urisdi!tion. "u!h a!tion was !learly an accion publiciana for
the re!overy of the right to possess .possesion de jure/ .if not an accion reivindicatoria/
falling within the lower !ourtDs 2urisdi!tion and not a #ere a!tion for detainer to re!over
physi!al possession .possession de facto/ whi!h would fall within the 2urisdi!tion of the
#uni!ipal !ourt .if filed within one year after unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession/ as erroneously held $y the lower !ourt in its dis#issal order.
Petitioners as plaintiffs in the &ourt of Birst =nstan!e of Bula!an had filed on 'pril 1, 199, an
a!tion whi!h they ter#ed as one to 7uiet title to a !ertain residential lot in Barrio "an
"e$astian, 4agonoy, Bula!an with an area of 39,.0 s7uare #eters and to re!over the
possession thereof fro# respondents as defendants,
1
wherein they #ade the following
aver#ents3
2. -hat plaintiffs are owners pro(indiviso of a !ertain residential lot situated in
the Barrio of "an "e$astian, 4agonoy, Bula!an, and #ore parti!ularly
$ounded and des!ri$ed as follows3
.es!ription o#itted/
3. -hat through the toleran!e and goodwill of plaintiffs, thru the intervention
and entreaty of one 1a;i#o "antos, father of the defendants, the latter used
and o!!upied said land free of !harge, under the following !onditions, to wit3
.a/ that instead of paying rentals on the pre#ises defendants undertook to
pay the !orresponding real estate ta;es on the land< and .$/ that said
defendants will leave and va!ate the pre#ises anyti#e the plaintiffs so
de#and<
+. -hat so#eti#e in Be$ruary, 199,, plaintiffs ver$ally notified defendants
that said plaintiffs were in need of the land, hen!e, said defendants should
va!ate and leave the sa#e, $ut said defendants unreasona$ly refused at t%e
same time claiming o&ners%ip of t%e property, and alleging furt%er t%at t%ey
boug%t t%e same from a certain Pablo Aguinaldo'
0. $%at in order to quiet t%e title of o&ners%ip over t%is land, the plaintiffs
have $een !o#pelled to institute the present a!tion and, as a !onse7uen!e,
she suffered da#ages in the su# of >ne -housand Pesos .P1,%%%.%%/,
Philippine &urren!y, as attorneyDs fees<
9. -hat the defendants thru their a!ts stated a$ove have therefore #ali!iously
and unlawfully detained the land of plaintiffs sin!e Be$ruary, 199,< and
7. -hat for the unlawful o!!upation of the land, an esti#ate of Bifty .P0%.%%/
Pesos #onthly rental is here$y !lai#ed as reasona$le da#ages suffered $y
plaintiffs sin!e Be$ruary, 199,.
+
Petitioners a!!ordingly prayed in their !o#plaint for 2udg#ent .a/ Ede!laring Hthe#I to $e the
owners of the property des!ri$ed ... E< .$/ Eordering the defendants to va!ate the pre#ises
and return the possession of the sa#e to plaintiffs<E .!/ Eordering the defendants to pay
plaintiffs, 2ointly and severally, the su# of Bifty Pesos .P0%.%%/, Philippine &urren!y, rental or
da#ages every #onth effe!tive the first day of Be$ruary, 199,, until the possession of the
pre#ises is finally restored in favor of plaintiffs<E and further ordering defendants to pay the#
.d/ P1,%%%.%% attorneyDs fees and .e/ !osts of suit.
Apon respondentsD #otion to dis#iss the !o#plaint on the ground that Ethe !ourt has no
2urisdi!tion over the nature of the a!tion or suitE and that the a!tion e#$odied in petitionersD
!o#plaint Eis a!tually one for e2e!t#ent or unlawful detainer. &onse7uently, the !ase falls
within the original e;!lusive 2urisdi!tion of the inferior !ourt or #uni!ipal !ourtE as against
petitionersJ opposition that EplaintiffsD !o#plaint is prin!ipally one to 7uiet title to property, the
7uestion of possession $eing #erely redu!ed to an in!idental issue,E the lower !ourt issued
its appealed order of 'ugust 10, 199,, finding the #otion to dis#iss to $e Ewell foundedE and
dis#issing the !ase Efor la!k of 2urisdi!tionE.-he lower !ourt reasoned that3
' perusal of the a!tual aver#ents of fa!ts in the !o#plaint do not reveal any
allegation of ulti#ate fa!ts whi!h !ould suffi!iently support an a!tion to 7uiet
title. Apon the other hand, it is plain that the allegations of fa!ts are only
!onstitutive of an a!tion for unlawful detainer. -he allegation in paragraph 0
of said !o#plaint Dthat in order to 7uiet the title of ownership over this land,
the plaintiffs have $een !o#pelled to institute the present a!tion ... is not
suffi!ient $y itself to !onsider this !ase as an a!tion for 7uieting title under
'rti!le +79 of the *ew &ivil &ode. *either does the prayer of said !o#plaint
asking that the plaintiffs $e de!lared the owners of the property in 7uestion
!onstitute a !ause of a!tion.
4en!e, the present petition for review and setting aside of the dis#issal order, whi!h the
&ourt finds to $e #eritorious. -he lower !ourt was !learly in error in issuing its dis#issal
order on its #istaken notion Ethat the allegations of fa!ts are only !onstitutive of an a!tion for
unlawful detainerE sin!e the !o#plaint shows on its fa!e that respondentsD refusal to deliver
the possession of the property was due to their adverse !lai# of ownership of the sa#e
property and their !ounter(allegation that they had $ought the sa#e fro# a !ertain Pa$lo
'guinaldo, and, therefore, petitionersD a!tion was !learly one for re!overy of their right to
possess the property .possessionde jure/ as well as to $e de!lared the owners thereof as
against the !ontrary !lai# of respondents.
's restated $y the late &hief Justi!e 1oran3 E-here are three kinds of a!tions for the
re!overy of possession of real pro. property, na#ely, .1/ the su##ary a!tion for for!i$le entry
or detainer .deno#inated accion interdictalunder the for#er law of pro!edure, (ey de
#njuiciamiento Civil/ whi!h seeks the re!overy of physi!al possession only and is $rought
within one year in the 2usti!e of the pea!e !ourt< .2/ the accion publiciana whi!h is for the
re!overy of the right to possess and is a plenary a!tion in an ordinary !ivil pro!eeding in a
&ourt of Birst =nstan!e< and .3/ accion de reivindicacion whi!h seeks the re!overy of
ownership .whi!h of !ourse in!ludes the 2us utendi and the 2us fruendi also $rought in the
&ourt of Birst =nstan!e.
3
=t has $een said that E.-/he only issue in for!i$le entry and detainer !ases is
the p%ysical possession of real property possession de fa!to and not possession de 2ure =f
plaintiff !an prove a prior possession in hi#self, he #ay re!over su!h possession even fro#
the owner hi#self. :hatever #ay $e the !hara!ter of his prior possession, if he has in his
favor priority of ti#e, he has the se!urity that entitles hi# to stay on the property until he is
lawfully e2e!ted $y a person having a $etter right $y either accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria.
,
PetitionersD a!tion was not #erely for re!overy of possession de fa!to. -heir
a!tion was !learly one of a!!ion pu$li!iana for re!overy of possession de 2ure if not one of accion
reivindicatoria for de!laration of their ownership of the land.
's reaffir#ed $y the &ourt in the analogous !ase of Aguilon vs. )o%ol
5
petitioners a!tion is at
least Ean a!!ion pu$li!iana, whi!h a!tion D!orrespondent al 7ue tiene dere!ho a la possession,
!ontra el 7ue posee sin dere!ho oD !on titulo #enos fir#e para 7ue se ponga la !osa en poder
del a!tor !on todas las a!!esiones, frutos etsD .= 8n!i!lopedia Juridi!a 8spanola +0%/,E and
su!h accion publiciana or the plenary a!tion in an ordinary !ivil pro!eeding to deter#ine the
$etter and legal right to possess .independently of title/ !learly falls within the 2urisdi!tion of the
&ourts of Birst =nstan!e and not of the 1uni!ipal &ourts. -he &ourt further unders!ored therein
Ethat an a!tion for re!overy of possession is an urgent #atter whi!h #ust $e de!ided pro#ptly to
forestall $rea!hes of pea!e, violen!e or even loss of life and, therefore, the !ourt should a!t
swiftly and e;peditiously in !ases of that nature.
Petitioners, therefore, !orre!tly filed their accion publiciana $efore the lower !ourt as against
respondentsK !lai# that they should instead have filed a su##ary a!tion for detainer in the
#uni!ipal !ourt. 4aving $een fully apprised of respondentsD refusal to surrender possession
and their !ontrary !lai# of ownership of the sa#e property, petitioners properly filed
their accion publiciana with the &ourt of Birst =nstan!e to avoid getting en#eshed in what
would !ertainly have $een another 2urisdi!tional dispute, sin!e they !ould reasona$ly foresee
that if indeed they had filed a su##ary a!tion for illegal detainer instead in the #uni!ipal
!ourt, respondents would then have !ontended, !ontrary to their present !lai#, that the
#uni!ipal !ourt is without 2urisdi!tion over the detainer !ase $y virtue of their !ontrary !lai#
of ownership of the property.
-
'&&>R=*)@C, 2udg#ent is here$y rendered, setting aside the lower !ourtDs dis#issal order
of 'ugust 10, 199, and the !ase is re#anded to respondent &ourt of Birst =nstan!e with
instru!tions to e;pedite the pro!eedings and trial and deter#ination thereof on the #erits.
:ith !osts against respondents. -his de!ision is i##ediately e;e!utory.
a*asiar, +ernande,, -uerrero, .e Castro and elencio-/errera, ""., concur.

G.R. No. 1-,,0+ 017 5, +010
AS'N%ION 'RIE&A VDA. DE AG'I!AR, represented b OR!ANDO '.
AG'I!AR, Petitioner,
vs.
S(O'SES EDER!INA 6. A!FARO Respondents.
8 & = " = > *
DE! %AS&I!!O, J.:
=n an a!tion for re!overy of possession of realty, who has the $etter right of possession, the
registered owner ar#ed with a -orrens title or the o!!upants $randishing a notari6ed $ut
unregistered deed of sale e;e!uted $efore the land was registered under the -orrens
syste#J
's we previously ruled in si#ilar !ases,
1
we resolve the 7uestion in favor of the titleholder.
F)5t1)7 Ante5edents
>n 'ugust 3, 1990, petitioner filed a &o#plaint for Re!overy of Possession and
a#ages
2
$efore the Regional -rial &ourt .R-&/ of "an Jose, >!!idental 1indoro. "he
alleged that on 1ay 19, 1977, her hus$and =gna!io 'guilar .=gna!io/ was issued >riginal
&ertifi!ate of -itle .>&-/ *o. P(930+
3
over a 9%9(s7uare #eter par!el of land designated as
@ot ,3 situated in Brgy. Buenavista, "a$layan, >!!idental 1indoro. Prior thereto, or in 199,,
=gna!io allowed petitionerLs sister, 'nasta!ia Arieta .'nasta!ia/, #other of respondent
8derlina B. 'lfaro .8derlina/, to !onstru!t a house on the southern portion of said land and to
stay therein te#porarily.
=n 199+, =gna!io died and his heirs de!ided to partition @ot ,3. Petitioner thus asked the
respondents, who took possession of the pre#ises after the death of 'nasta!ia, to va!ate
@ot ,3. -hey did not heed her de#and.
-hus, petitioner filed a !ase for a!!ion pu$li!iana praying that respondents $e ordered to
va!ate su$2e!t property, and to pay #oral, te#perate, and e;e#plary da#ages, as well as
attorneyLs fees and the !osts of suit.
=n their 'nswer with &ounter!lai#s and 'ffir#ative efenses,
+
respondents did not dispute
that =gna!io was a$le to se!ure title over the entire @ot ,3. 4owever, they asserted that on
'pril 17, 1973, =gna!io and herein petitioner sold to their #other 'nasta!ia the southern
portion of @ot ,3 !onsisting of 397.0 s7uare #eters as shown $y the0asulatan sa
)ili%an
0
whi!h $ears the signatures of petitioner and =gna!io. "in!e then, they and their
#other have $een in possession thereof. Respondents also presented several -a;
e!larations
9
in support of their allegations.
Respondents also raised the defense of pres!ription. -hey pointed out that a!!ion pu$li!iana
or an a!tion to re!over the real right of possession independent of ownership pres!ri$es in
1% years. 4owever, it took petitioner #ore than 20 years $efore she asserted her rights $y
filing a!!ion pu$li!iana. 's alleged in the !o#plaint, they took possession of the disputed
portion of @ot ,3 as early as 199,, $ut petitioner filed the !ase only in 1990.
By way of !ounter!lai#, respondents prayed that petitioner $e dire!ted to e;e!ute the
ne!essary do!u#ents so that title to the 397.0(s7uare #eter portion of @ot ,3 !ould $e
issued in their na#e. -hey likewise prayed for the dis#issal of the !o#plaint and for award
of #oral and e;e#plary da#ages, as well as attorneyLs fees.
=n her Reply and 'nswer to &ounter!lai#,
7
petitioner denied having signed the ?asulatan sa
Bilihan and averred that her signature appearing thereon is a forgery. "he presented an
unsworn written de!laration dated January 2,, 199+ where her hus$and de!lared that he did
not sell the property in 7uestion to anyone. 's to the issue of pres!ription, she asserted that
respondentsL o!!upation of su$2e!t property !annot ripen into ownership !onsidering that the
sa#e is $y #ere toleran!e of the owner. Besides, the purported ?asulatan sa Bilihan was
not registered with the proper Registry of eeds.1avvp%i1
uring the trial, petitioner presented the testi#onies of >rlando 'guilar .>rlando/ and
Menaida Baldeo .Menaida/. >rlando testified that he has $een staying in @ot ,3 sin!e 199%
and had $uilt a house thereon where he is presently residing< and, that his #other, herein
petitioner, denied having sold the property or having signed any do!u#ent for that #atter.
Menaida also testified that in 19,1, her father .=gna!io/ and 8derlina had a !onfrontation
$efore the $arangay during whi!h her father denied having !onveyed any portion of @ot ,3 to
any$ody. "he further testified that she is fa#iliar with the signature of her father and that the
signature appearing on the ?asulatan sa Bilihan is not her fatherLs signature.
Bor their part, respondents offered in eviden!e the testi#onies of 8strella Ber#udo 'lfaro
.8strella/, 8derlina, and Jose -a#polino .Jose/. 8strella de!lared that she was present when
=gna!io and the petitioner affi;ed their signatures on the ?asulatan sa Bilihan, whi!h was
a!knowledged $efore *otary Pu$li! Juan N. antayana on 'pril 17, 1973. "he narrated that
her #other a!tually pur!hased the property in 190+, $ut it was only in 1973 when the vendor
e;e!uted the deed of sale. =n fa!t, her father Bran!is!o Ber#udo was a$le to se!ure a per#it
to ere!t a house on the disputed property fro# the >ffi!e of the 1ayor of "a$layan,
>!!idental 1indoro in 190+.
,
"he was surprised to learn though that their property is still
registered in the na#e of the petitioner.
8derlina !orro$orated the de!larations of 8strella. "he also alleged that her parents
o!!upied the property in 190+ when they $uilt a hut there, then later on, a house of strong
#aterials.
Jose !orro$orated the de!larations of the other witnesses for the respondents that the
disputed portion of @ot ,3 is owned $y 'nasta!ia.
R172n3 o4 t8e Re32on)7 &r2)7 %o1rt
=n its e!ision
9
dated "epte#$er 21, 199,, the !ourt a 7uo ordered the respondents to
va!ate su$2e!t pre#ises and denied their !ounter!lai# for re!onveyan!e on the grounds of
pres!ription and la!hes. =t held that the pres!riptive period for re!onvenyan!e of fraudulently
registered real property is 1% years re!koned fro# the date of the issuan!e of the !ertifi!ate
of title. =n this !ase, however, it is not disputed that >&- *o. P(930+ !overing the entire @ot
,3 was issued to =gna!io in 1977. -he trial !ourt likewise held that respondents are guilty of
la!hes and that the re!onveyan!e of the disputed property in their favor would violate the
rule on indefeasi$ility of -orrens title.
-he dispositive portion of the trial !ourtLs e!ision reads3
:48R8B>R8, and in the light of all the foregoing !onsiderations, 2udg#ent is here$y
rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit3
1. >rdering the defendants and any person !lai#ing right under the# to va!ate the
pre#ises in 7uestion and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiff<
2. -o pay the a#ount of -en -housand Pesos .P1%,%%%.%%/ as and for reasona$le
attorneyLs fees<
3. -o pay the !osts of this suit.
"> >R8R8.
1%
R172n3 o4 t8e %o1rt o4 Appe)7s
>n June 7, 2%%+, the &' pro#ulgated its e!ision
11
reversing the trial !ourtLs e!ision and
dis#issing the !o#plaint, as well as respondentsL !ounter!lai#. -he &' upheld the validity of
the ?asulatan sa Bilihan sin!e it is a notari6ed do!u#ent and disputa$ly presu#ed to $e
authenti! and duly e;e!uted. =n addition, witness 8strella !ategori!ally de!lared that she was
present when petitioner and =gna!io signed the ?asulatan sa Bilihan. -he &' ela$orated that
in order to disprove the presu#ption a!!orded to a notari6ed do!u#ent, the party !ontesting
its authenti!ity and due e;e!ution #ust present a !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e to the
!ontrary, whi!h the petitioner failed to do.
-he &' likewise disagreed with the !ourt a 7uo that respondentsL !ounter!lai# should $e
dis#issed on the ground of indefeasi$ility of title. =t e#phasi6ed that the -orrens syste# was
adopted to prote!t inno!ent third parties for value and not to prote!t fraud. *onetheless, the
&' did not grant the relief sought in respondentsL !ounter!lai# !onsidering that not all
interested parties were i#pleaded in the !ase.
-he dispositive portion of the &'Ls e!ision reads3
=* 5=8: >B -48 B>R8)>=*), the de!ision appealed fro# is R858R"8, and a new one
8*-8R8 dis#issing the !o#plaint and !ounter!lai#.
"> >R8R8.
12
=ssue
:ithout seeking re!onsideration of the &'Ls e!ision, petitioner interposed the present
re!ourse raising the sole issue of3
:48-48R O O O -48 4>*>R'B@8 &>AR- >B 'PP8'@" 8RR8 =* AP4>@=*) -48
5'@==-CG)8*A=*8*8"" '* A8 8O8&A-=>* >B -48 PARP>R-8 88 >B "'@8
>B -48 P>R-=>* >B -48 @>- 8"P=-8 -48 584818*- 8*='@ >B -48 '@@8)8
58*>R".
13
Petitioner !ontends that the &' grievously erred in upholding the validity and genuineness of
the ?asulatan sa Bilihan. "he alleges that she wanted to take the witness stand to dis!lai#
in open !ourt her purported signature appearing on respondentsL ?asulatan sa Bilihan, $ut
!ould not do so $e!ause she is too old, $ed(ridden and has to $ear a tortuous five(hour drive
to rea!h the !ourt. *evertheless, she e;e!uted a sworn state#ent de!laring that she and her
hus$and never sold any portion of @ot ,3 and that their signatures appearing on said deed
were forged. "he avers that the assistan!e of an e;pert witness is not even ne!essary to
dete!t the patent dissi#ilarities $etween said forged signatures and their authenti!
signatures.
Petitioner likewise argues that the &' erred in taking into !onsideration the appearan!e and
!ondition of the paper where the ?asulatan sa Bilihan is written. "he posits that the
fa$ri!ation of an an!ient(looking do!u#ent nowadays is no longer diffi!ult. "he also points to
several !ir!u#stan!es whi!h !ast dou$t on the authenti!ity and due e;e!ution of the
?asulatan sa Bilihan, $ut whi!h the &' ine;pli!a$ly ignored
Burther#ore, petitioner #aintains that her title is indefeasi$le. 'nd while there are e;!eptions
to the rule on indefeasi$ility of title,
1+
she e#phasi6es that respondents never disputed her
title. :ith regard to the ta; de!larations presented $y respondents, petitioner asserts that it
has $een the !onsistent ruling of this &ourt that ta; de!larations are not ne!essarily proof of
ownership.
=n their !o##ent, respondents assert that in petitions filed under Rule +0 of the Rules of
&ourt, only 7uestions of law !an $e raised. Ba!tual issues are prohi$ited. Bro# the
argu#ents advan!ed $y the petitioner, however, it is !lear that she is asking this &ourt to
e;a#ine and weigh again the eviden!e on re!ord.
>ur Ruling
:e grant the petition.
-his !ase falls under the e;!eptions where the "upre#e &ourt #ay review fa!tual issues.
's a rule, only 7uestions of law #ay $e raised in petitions for review on !ertiorari.
10
=t is
settled that in the e;er!ise of the "upre#e &ourtLs power of review, the !ourt is not a trier of
fa!ts and does not nor#ally undertake the re(e;a#ination of the eviden!e presented $y the
!ontending parties during the trial of the !ase.
19
-his rule, however, is su$2e!t to a nu#$er of
e;!eptions,
17
one of whi!h is when the findings of the appellate !ourt are !ontrary to those of
the trial !ourt, like in the present !ase.
*ature and purpose of a!!ion pu$li!iana.
'lso known as a!!ion plenaria de posesion,
1,
a!!ion pu$li!iana is an
ordinary !ivil pro!eeding to deter#ine the $etter right of possession of realty independently
of title.
19
=t refers to an e2e!t#ent suit filed after the e;piration of one year fro# the a!!rual of
the !ause of a!tion or fro# the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
2%
-he o$2e!tive of the plaintiffs in a!!ion pu$li!iana is to re!over possession only, not
ownership.
21
4owever, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the !ourts #ay pass
upon the issue to deter#ine who $etween the parties has the right to possess the property.
-his ad2udi!ation, however, is not a final and $inding deter#ination of the issue of ownership<
it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership
is insepara$ly linked to the issue of possession. -he ad2udi!ation of the issue of ownership,
$eing provisional, is not a $ar to an a!tion $etween the sa#e parties involving title to the
property.
22
-he ad2udi!ation, in short, is not !on!lusive on the issue of ownership.
23
)uided $y the foregoing 2urisprudential guideposts, we shall now resolve the argu#ents
raised $y the parties in this petition.
's against petitionerLs -orrens title, respondentsL ?asulatan sa Bilihan !annot !onfer $etter
right to possess.
=t is settled that a -orrens title is eviden!e of indefeasi$le title to property in favor of the
person in whose na#e the title appears.
2+
=t is !on!lusive eviden!e with respe!t to the
ownership of the land des!ri$ed therein.
20
=t is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all
the attri$utes of ownership of the property, in!luding possession.
29
-hus, in 'ra#$ulo v.
)unga$,
27
this &ourt de!lared that the Eage(old rule is that the person who has a -orrens title
over a land is entitled to possession thereof.E
=n the present !ase, there is no dispute that petitioner is the holder of a -orrens title over the
entire @ot ,3. Respondents have only their notari6ed $ut unregistered ?asulatan sa Bilihan
to support their !lai# of ownership. -hus, even if respondentsL proof of ownership has in its
favor a 2uris tantu# presu#ption of authenti!ity and due e;e!ution, the sa#e !annot prevail
over petitionerLs -orrens title. -his has $een our !onsistent ruling whi!h we re!ently
reiterated in Pas!ual v. &oronel,
2,
vi63
8ven if we sustain the petitionersL argu#ents and rule that the deeds of sale are valid
!ontra!ts, it would still not $olster the petitionersL !ase. =n a nu#$er of !ases, the &ourt had
upheld the registered ownersL superior right to possess the property. =n &o v. 1ilitar, the
&ourt was !onfronted with a si#ilar issue of whi!h $etween the !ertifi!ate of title and an
unregistered deed of sale should $e given #ore pro$ative weight in resolving the issue of
who has the $etter right to possess. -here, the &ourt held that the !ourt a 7uo !orre!tly
relied on the transfer !ertifi!ate of title in the na#e of petitioner, as opposed to the
unregistered title in the na#e of respondents. -he &ourt stressed therein that the -orrens
"yste# was adopted in this !ountry $e!ause it was $elieved to $e the #ost effe!tive
#easure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to prote!t their indefeasi$ility on!e the
!lai# of ownership is esta$lished and re!ogni6ed.
@ikewise, in the re!ent !ase of A#po! v. 1er!ado, the &ourt de!lared that the trial !ourt did
not err in giving #ore pro$ative weight to the -&- in the na#e of the de!edent vis(P(vis the
!ontested unregistered eed of "ale. @ater in 'ra#$ulo v. )unga$, the &ourt held that the
registered owner is preferred to possess the property su$2e!t of the unlawful detainer !ase.
-he age(old rule is that the person who has a -orrens -itle over a land is entitled to
possession thereof. .&itations o#itted./
's the titleholder, therefore, petitioner is preferred to possess the entire @ot ,3. Besides,
there are telltale signs whi!h !ast dou$t on the genuineness of the ?asulatan. -o !ite a few3
1. -he date of its e;e!ution un$elieva$ly !oin!ides with the date the $uyer,
'nasta!ia, died<
2. espite its alleged e;e!ution on 'pril 17, 1973, respondents $rought up the
?asulatan only when petitioner asked the# to va!ate the disputed pre#ises. Prior
thereto, they neither asserted their rights thereunder nor registered the sa#e with the
proper Registry of eeds<
3. -he lawyer who notari6ed the ?asulatan sa Bilihan, as well as the witnesses
thereto, was not presented in !ourt< and,
+. -he istri!t @and >ffi!er who signed >&- *o. P(930+ $y authority of the President
is a pu$li! offi!er who has in his favor the presu#ption of regularity in issuing said
title.
-orrens !ertifi!ate of title !annot $e the su$2e!t of !ollateral atta!k.
1oreover, respondentsL atta!k on the validity of petitionerLs title $y !lai#ing that their #other
$e!a#e the true owner of the southern portion of @ot ,3 even $efore the issuan!e of >&-
*o. P(930+ !onstitutes as a !ollateral atta!k on said title. =t is an atta!k in!idental to their
7uest to defend their possession of the property in an a!!ion pu$li!iana, not in a dire!t a!tion
whose #ain o$2e!tive is to i#pugn the validity of the 2udg#ent granting the title.
29
-his !annot
$e allowed. Ander "e!tion +, of Presidential e!ree *o. 1029, otherwise known as the
Property Registration e!ree, a !ertifi!ate of title !annot $e the su$2e!t of !ollateral atta!k.
-hus3
"8&. +,. &ertifi!ate not su$2e!t to !ollateral atta!k. Q ' !ertifi!ate of title shall not $e su$2e!t
to !ollateral atta!k. =t !annot $e altered, #odified, or !an!eled e;!ept in a dire!t pro!eeding
in a!!ordan!e with law.
' !ollateral atta!k transpires when, in another a!tion to o$tain a different relief and as an
in!ident to the present a!tion, an atta!k is #ade against the 2udg#ent granting the title.
3%
-his
#anner of atta!k is to $e distinguished fro# a dire!t atta!k against a 2udg#ent granting the
title, through an a!tion whose #ain o$2e!tive is to annul, set aside, or en2oin the enfor!e#ent
of su!h 2udg#ent if not yet i#ple#ented, or to seek re!overy if the property titled under the
2udg#ent had $een disposed of.
31
-hus, in 1agay v. 8stiandan,
32
therein plaintiff(appellee
filed an a!!ion pu$li!iana. =n his defense, defendant(appellant alleged a#ong others that
plaintiff(appelleeLs -ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle *o. 2%%+ was issued under ano#alous
!ir!u#stan!es. :hen the !ase rea!hed this &ourt, we re2e!ted defendant(appellantLs
defense on the ground that the issue on the validity of said title !an only $e raised in an
a!tion e;pressly instituted for that purpose. 'lso, in &o v. &ourt of 'ppeals
33
we arrived at the
sa#e !on!lusion and ela$orated as follows3
=n their reply dated "epte#$er 199%, petitioners argue that the issues of fraud and
ownership raised in their so(!alled !o#pulsory !ounter!lai# partake of the nature of an
independent !o#plaint whi!h they #ay pursue for the purpose of assailing the validity of the
transfer !ertifi!ate of title of private respondents. -hat theory will not prosper.
:hile a !ounter!lai# #ay $e filed with a su$2e!t #atter or for a relief different fro# those in
the $asi! !o#plaint in the !ase, it does not follow that su!h !ounter!lai# is in the nature of a
separate and independent a!tion in itself. =n fa!t, its allowan!e in the a!tion is su$2e!t to
e;pli!it !onditions, as a$ove set forth, parti!ularly in its re7uired relation to the su$2e!t #atter
of opposing partyLs !lai#. Bailing in that respe!t, it !annot even $e filed and pursued as an
altogether different and original a!tion.
=t is evident that the o$2e!tive of su!h !lai# is to nullify the title of private respondents to the
property in 7uestion, whi!h there$y !hallenges the 2udg#ent pursuant to whi!h the title was
de!reed. -his is apparently a !ollateral atta!k whi!h is not per#itted under the prin!iple of
indefeasi$ility of a -orrens title. =t is well settled that a -orrens title !annot $e !ollaterally
atta!ked. -he issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, !an
only $e raised in an a!tion e;pressly instituted for that purpose. 4en!e, whether or not
petitioners have the right to !lai# ownership of the land in 7uestion is $eyond the provin!e of
the instant pro!eeding. -hat should $e threshed out in a proper a!tion.
-he lower !ourts !annot pass upon or grant respondentsL !ounter!lai# for la!k of 2urisdi!tion.
Both the trial !ourt and the appellate !ourt !onsidered respondentsL !ounter!lai# as a
petition for re!onveyan!e. =n whi!h !ase, it should $e treated #erely as a per#issive
!ounter!lai# $e!ause the eviden!e re7uired to prove their !lai# differs fro# the eviden!e
needed to esta$lish petitionerLs de#and for re!overy of possession. Being a per#issive
!ounter!lai#, therefore, respondents should have paid the !orresponding do!ket
fees.
3+
4owever, there is no proof on re!ord that respondents paid the re7uired do!ket fees.
-he offi!ial re!eipts were neither atta!hed to nor annotated on respondentsL 'nswer with
&ounter!lai#s and 'ffir#ative efenses
30
whi!h was filed via registered #ail
39
on 'ugust 19,
1990. =t has $een our !onsistent ruling that it is not si#ply the filing of the !o#plaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, $ut the pay#ent of the full a#ount of the pres!ri$ed do!ket
fee, that vests a trial !ourt with 2urisdi!tion over the su$2e!t #atter or nature of the
a!tion.
37
-he sa#e rule applies to per#issive !ounter!lai#s, third(party !lai#s and si#ilar
pleadings, whi!h shall not $e !onsidered filed until and unless the filing fee pres!ri$ed
therefor is paid.
3,
>n a final note, and as dis!ussed a$ove, we stress that our ruling in this !ase is li#ited only
to the issue of deter#ining who $etween the parties has a $etter right to possession. -his
ad2udi!ation is not a final and $inding deter#ination of the issue of ownership. 's su!h, this
is not a $ar for the parties to file an a!tion for the deter#ination of the issue of ownership
where the validity of the 0asulatan sa )ili%an and of >&- *o. P(930+ !an $e properly
threshed out.
"HEREFORE, the petition is GRAN&ED. -he assailed e!ision of the &ourt of 'ppeals
dated June 7, 2%%+ is R858R"8 and SE& ASIDE and the "epte#$er 21, 199, e!ision of
Regional -rial &ourt, Bran!h +9, "an Jose, >!!idental 1indoro, insofar as it orders the
respondents to va!ate the pre#ises is REINS&A&ED )nd AFFIR*ED.
"> >R8R8.
G.R. No. 1-93/0 No:ember +-, +01+
FIORE!!O R. 0OSE, Petitioner,
vs.
RO6ER&O A!F'ER&O, ERNES&O 6A%A#, I!'*INADO 6A%A#, *AN'E! 6AN&A%'!O,
!E&&# 6AR%E!O, 0ING 6ER*E0O, *I!NA 6ER*E0O, (A6!O 6ER*E0O, 0HONN#
6OR0A, 6ERNADE&&E 6'ENAFE, A!FREDO %A!AGOS, ROSA'RO %A!AGOS, A!E;
%HA%ON, AIDA %ONS'!&A, %AR*EN %OR('Z, RODO!FO DE VERA, ANA DE!A
ROSA, R'D# DING, 0OSE ES%ASINAS, GORGONIO ES(ADERO, DE*E&RIO
ES&RERA, ROGE!IO ES&RERA, ED'ARDO EVARDONE, AN&ONIO GA6A!E<O,
ARSENIA GARING, NAR%ING G'ARDA, NI!A !E6A&O, ANDRADE !IGA#A, HE!EN
!O(EZ, RA*ON *A%AIRAN, DO*INGO NO!AS%O, 0R., F!ORAN&E NO!AS%O,
REGINA O(ERARIO, %ARDING OR%'!!O, FE!I%ISI*O (A%A&E, %ONRADO (
A*INDA!AN, 0'N (ARI!, RENE SAN&OS, DO*INADOR SE!VE!#E0O, VI!!AR, 0OHN
DOE, 0ANE DOE )nd 'n=no>n O551p)nts o4 O72:)res %ompo1nd, (8)se II, 6)r)n3)
S)n D2on2s2o, ()r)?)@1e %2t,Respondents.
8 & = " = > *
6RION, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on !ertiorari under Rule +0 of the Rules of &ourt assailing
the de!ision
1
dated 1ar!h 1+, 2%%0 of the &ourt of 'ppeals in &'().R. "P *o. ,%199. -he
&ourt of 'ppealsL de!ision reversed the de!isions of the Regional -rial &ourt .R-&/ of
ParaRa7ue &ity, Bran!h 207, and of the 1etropolitan -rial &ourt .1e-&/ of ParaRa7ue &ity,
Bran!h 77, $y dis#issing petitioner Biorello R. JoseLs !o#plaint for e2e!t#ent against
Ro$erto 'lfuerto, 8rnesto Ba!ay, =lu#inado Ba!ay, 1anuel Banta!ulo, @etty Bar!elo, Jing
Ber#e2o, 1ilna Ber#e2o, Pa$lo Ber#e2o, Jhonny Bor2a, Bernadette Buenafe, 'lfredo
&alagos, Rosauro &alagos, 'le; &ha!on, 'ida &onsulta, &ar#en &orpu6, Rodolfo e 5era,
'na ela Rosa, Rudy ing, Jose 8s!asinas, )orgonio 8spadero, e#etrio 8strera, Rogelio
8strera, 8duardo 8vardone, 'ntonio )a$aleRo, 'rsenia )aring, *ar!ing )uarda, *ila
@e$ato, 'ndrade @igaya, 4elen @ope6, Ra#on 1a!airan, o#ingo *olas!o, Jr., Blorante
*olas!o, Regina >perario, &arding >r!ullo, Beli!isi#o Pa!ate, &onrado Pa#indalan, Jun
Paril, Rene "antos, o#inador "elvelye2o, Rosario A$aldo, "ergio 5illar, John oe, Jane
oe and Anknown >!!upants of >livares &o#pound, Phase ==, Barangay "an ionisio,
ParaRa7ue &ity .respondents/, on the ground that the petitionerLs !ause of a!tion was not for
unlawful detainer $ut for re!overy of possession. -he appellate !ourt affir#ed this de!ision in
its resolution of 'ugust 22, 2%%0.
2
-he dispute involves a par!el of land registered in the na#e of Rodolfo &hua "ing under
-ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle *o. 0209+,
3
with an area of 1919 s7uare #eters, lo!ated in
Barangay "an ionisio, ParaRa7ue &ity. &hua "ing pur!hased the land in 1991. >n 'pril 1,
1999, &hua "ing leased the property to the petitioner. -heir !ontra!t of lease was neither
notari6ed nor registered with the ParaRa7ue &ity Registry of eeds.
+
-he lease !ontra!t provided that3
-hat the ter# of this lease shall $e B=58 .0/ years and renewa$le for the sa#e period upon
#utual agree#ent of the parties to !o##en!e upon the total evi!tion of any o!!upant or
o!!upants. -he @8"">R here$y transfers all its rights and prerogative to evi!t said
o!!upants in favor of the @8""88 whi!h shall $e responsi$le for all e;penses that #ay $e
in!urred without rei#$urse#ent fro# the @8"">R. =t is understood however that the
@8"">R is here$y waiving, in favor of the @8""88 any and all da#ages that #ay $e
re!overed fro# the o!!upants.
0
.Anders!ore ours/
"ignifi!antly, the respondents already o!!upied the property even $efore the lease !ontra!t
was e;e!uted.
>n 'pril 2,, 1999, soon after &hua "ing and the petitioner signed the lease !ontra!t, the
petitioner de#anded in writing that the respondents va!ate the property within 3% days and
that they pay a #onthly rental of P1,%%%.%% until they fully va!ate the property.
9
-he respondents refused to va!ate and to pay rent. >n >!to$er 2%, 1999, the petitioner filed
an e2e!t#ent !ase against the respondents $efore Bran!h 77 of the ParaRa7ue &ity 1e-&,
do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 113++.
7
=n this !o#plaint, no #ention was #ade of any pro!eedings $efore the $arangay. Jose then
$rought the dispute $efore the $arangay for !on!iliation.
,
-he $arangay issued a &ertifi!ation
to Bile '!tion on 1ar!h 1, 2%%%.
9
Jose was then a$le to file an a#ended !o#plaint,
in!orporating the pro!eedings $efore the $arangay $efore the su##ons and !opies of the
!o#plaint were served upon the na#ed defendants.
1%
=n the '#ended &o#plaint
11
dated 1ar!h 17, 2%%%, the petitioner !lai#ed that as lessee of
the su$2e!t property, he had the right to e2e!t the respondents who unlawfully o!!upy the
land. 4e alleged that3
7. efendants, having $een fully aware of their unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$2e!t lot, have
defiantly ere!ted their houses thereat without $enefit of any !ontra!t or law whatsoever,
#u!h less any $uilding per#it as san!tioned $y law, $ut $y #ere toleran!e of its true, lawful
and registered owner, plaintiffLs lessor.
12
-he petitioner also stated that despite his written de#and, the respondents failed to va!ate
the property without legal 2ustifi!ation. 4e prayed that the !ourt order the respondents< .1/ to
va!ate the pre#ises< .2/ to pay hi# not less than P+1,%%%.%% a #onth fro# 1ay 3%,1999
until they va!ate the pre#ises< and .3/ to pay hi# attorneyLs fees of no less than P0%,%%%.%%,
and the !osts of suit.
13
=n their 'nswer, the respondents likewise pointed out that they have $een in possession of
the land long $efore &hua "ing a!7uired the property in 1991, and that the lease !ontra!t
$etween the petitioner and &hua "ing does not affe!t their right to possess the land. -he
respondents also presented a eed of 'ssign#ent,
1+
dated Be$ruary 13, 2%%%, issued $y
avid R. ulfo in their favor. -hey argued that the 1e-& had no 2urisdi!tion over the !ase as
the issue deals with ownership of the land, and sought the dis#issal of the !o#plaint for la!k
of !ause of a!tion and for la!k of 2urisdi!tion. -hey also filed a !ounter!lai# for a!tual and
#oral da#ages for the filing of a $aseless and #ali!ious suit.
'fter the re7uired position papers, affidavits and other pie!es of eviden!e were su$#itted,
the 1e-& resolved the !ase in the petitionerLs favor. =n its de!ision
10
of January 27, 2%%3, the
1e-& held that the respondents had no right to possess the land and that their o!!upation
was #erely $y the ownerLs toleran!e. =t further noted that the respondents !ould no longer
raise the issue of ownership, as this issue had already $een settled3 the respondents
previously filed a !ase for the annul#entG!an!ellation of &hua "ingLs title $efore the R-&,
Bran!h 29%, of ParaRa7ue &ity, whi!h ruled that the registered ownerLs title was genuine and
valid. 1oreover, the 1e-& held that it is not divested of 2urisdi!tion over the !ase $e!ause of
the respondentsL assertion of ownership of the property. >n these pre#ises, the 1e-&
ordered the respondents to va!ate the pre#ises and to re#ove all stru!tures introdu!ed on
the land< to ea!h pay P0%%.%% per #onth fro# the date of filing of this !ase until they va!ate
the pre#ises< and to pay Jose, 2ointly and severally, the !osts of suit and P2%,%%%.%% as
attorneyLs fees.
>n appeal $efore the R-&, the respondents raised the issue, a#ong others, that no legal
$asis e;ists for the petitionerLs !lai# that their o!!upation was $y toleran!e, Ewhere the
possession of the defendants was illegal at the in!eption as alleged in the !o#plaint, there
!an $e no toleran!e.E
19
-he R-& affir#ed the 1e-& de!ision of January 27, 2%%3. =t issued its de!ision
17
on >!to$er
,, 2%%3, reiterating the 1e-&Ls ruling that a !ase for e2e!t#ent was proper. -he petitioner, as
lessee, had the right to file the e2e!t#ent !o#plaint< the respondents o!!upied the land $y
#ere toleran!e and their possession $e!a#e unlawful upon the petitionerLs de#and to
va!ate on 'pril 2,, 1999. -he R-&, #oreover, noted that the !o#plaint for e2e!t#ent was
filed on >!to$er 2%, 1999, or within one year after the unlawful deprivation took pla!e. =t !ited
Pangilinan, et al. v. 4on. 'guilar, et!., et al.
1,
and Cu v. @ara, et al.
19
to support its ruling that a
!ase for unlawful detainer was appropriate.
>n 1ar!h 1+, 2%%0, the &ourt of 'ppeals reversed the R-& and 1e-& de!isions.
2%
=t ruled
that the respondentsL possession of the land was not $y the petitioner or his lessorLs
toleran!e. =t defined toleran!e not #erely as the silen!e or ina!tion of a lawful possessor
when another o!!upies his land< toleran!e entailed per#ission fro# the owner $y reason of
fa#iliarity or neigh$orliness. -he petitioner, however, alleged that the respondents unlawfully
entered the property< thus, toleran!e .or authori6ed entry into the property/ was not alleged
and there !ould $e no !ase for unlawful detainer. -he respondentsL allegation that they had
$een in possession of the land $efore the petitionerLs lessor had a!7uired it in 1991 supports
this finding. 4aving $een in possession of the land for #ore than a year, the respondents
should not $e evi!ted through an e2e!t#ent !ase.
-he &ourt of 'ppeals e#phasi6ed that e2e!t#ent !ases are su##ary pro!eedings where the
only issue to $e resolved is who has a $etter right to the physi!al possession of a property.
-he petitionerLs !lai#, on the other hand, is $ased on an a!!ion pu$li!iana3 he asserts his
right as a possessor $y virtue of a !ontra!t of lease he !ontra!ted after the respondents had
o!!upied the land. -he dispositive part of the de!ision reads3
:48R8B>R8, the instant petition is )R'*-8. -he de!ision dated >!to$er ,, 2%%3 of the
R-&, Bran!h 207, ParaRa7ue &ity, in &ivil &ase *o. %3(%127, is R858R"8 and "8-
'"=8 and the a#ended !o#plaint for e2e!t#ent is ="1=""8.
21
-he petitioner filed a #otion for re!onsideration,
22
whi!h the &ourt of 'ppeals denied in its
resolution
23
of 'ugust 22, 2%%0. =n the present appeal, the petitioner raises $efore us the
following issues3
=
:48-48R >R *>- -48 &>AR- >B 'PP8'@" 8RR8 =* 4>@=*) -4'- -48 &'A"8
>B '&-=>* >B -48 "ABJ8&- &>1P@'=*- =" *>- B>R A*@':BA@ 8-'=*8R BA-
B>R R8&>58RC >B P>""8""=>* '* -48R8B>R8 ="1=""=B@8
==
:48-48R >R *>- -48 &>AR- >B 'PP8'@" 8RR8 =* 8&==*) -48 &'"8 B'"8
>* R8"P>*8*-"L 1'-8R='@ &4'*)8 >B -48>RC :4=&4 =" &>1P@8-8@C
=*&>*"="-8*- :=-4 -48=R 8B8*"8" =*5>?8 B8B>R8 -48 1A*=&=P'@ -R='@
&>AR-
===
:48-48R >R *>- -4=" 4>*>R'B@8 &>AR- 1'C 8&=8 -4=" &'"8 >* -48
18R=-" -> '5>= &=R&A=->A" PR>&8AR8 =* -48 '1=*="-R'-=>* >B JA"-=&8.
2+
-he &ourtLs Ruling
:e find the petition un#eritorious.
Anlawful detainer is not the proper
re#edy for the present !ase.
-he key issue in this !ase is whether an a!tion for unlawful detainer is the proper re#edy.
Anlawful detainer is a su##ary a!tion for the re!overy of possession of real property. -his
a!tion #ay $e filed $y a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against who# the
possession of any land or $uilding is unlawfully withheld after the e;piration or ter#ination of
the right to hold possession $y virtue of any !ontra!t, e;press or i#plied. =n unlawful
detainer, the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was
per#itted $y the plaintiff on a!!ount of an e;press or i#plied !ontra!t $etween the#.
4owever, the defendantLs possession $e!a#e illegal when the plaintiff de#anded that the
defendant va!ate the su$2e!t property due to the e;piration or ter#ination of the right to
possess under the !ontra!t, and the defendant refused to heed su!h de#and. ' !ase for
unlawful detainer #ust $e instituted one year fro# the unlawful withholding of possession.
20
-he allegations in the !o#plaint deter#ine $oth the nature of the a!tion and the 2urisdi!tion
of the !ourt. -he !o#plaint #ust spe!ifi!ally allege the fa!ts !onstituting unlawful detainer. =n
the a$sen!e of these allegations of fa!ts, an a!tion for unlawful detainer is not the proper
re#edy and the #uni!ipal trial !ourt or the 1e-& does not have 2urisdi!tion over the !ase.
29
=n his a#ended !o#plaint, the petitioner presents the following allegations in support of his
unlawful detainer !o#plaint3
3. >n 'pril 1, 1999, plaintiff leased fro# lessor, 1r. Rudy &huasing, that par!el of lot owned
and registered in the lessorLs na#e, !overing the area o!!upied $y the defendants.
;;;;
9. PlaintiffLs lessor had a!7uired the su$2e!t property as early as 1991 through sale,
thereafter the aforesaid -ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle was su$se7uently registered under his
na#e.
7. efendants, having $een fully aware of their unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$2e!t lot, have
defiantly ere!ted their houses thereat without $enefit of any !ontra!t or law whatsoever,
#u!h less any $uilding per#it as san!tioned $y law, $ut $y #ere toleran!e of its true, lawful
and registered owner, plaintiffLs lessor.
,. By reason of defendantsL !ontinued unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$2e!t pre#ises, plaintiff
referred the #atter to his lawyer who i##ediately sent a for#al de#and upon ea!h of the
defendants to va!ate the pre#ises. &opies of the de#and letter dated 2, 'pril 1999 are ;;;
hereto atta!hed as anne;es E&E to ENN.E
9. espite noti!e, however, defendants failed and refused and !ontinues to fail and refuse to
va!ate the pre#ises without valid or legal 2ustifi!ation.
27
.e#phasis ours/
-he petitionerLs allegations in the a#ended !o#plaint run !ounter to the re7uire#ents for
unlawful detainer. =n an unlawful detainer a!tion, the possession of the defendant was
originally legal and his possession was per#itted $y the owner through an e;press or i#plied
!ontra!t.
=n this !ase, paragraph 7 #akes it !lear that the respondentsL o!!upan!y was unlawful fro#
the start and was $ereft of !ontra!tual or legal $asis. =n an unlawful detainer !ase, the
defendantLs possession $e!o#es illegal only upon the plaintiffLs de#and for the defendant to
va!ate the property and the defendantLs su$se7uent refusal. =n the present !ase, paragraph
, !hara!teri6es the defendantLs o!!upan!y as unlawful even $efore the for#al de#and
letters were written $y the petitionerLs !ounsel. Ander these allegations, the unlawful
withholding of possession should not $e $ased on the date the de#and letters were sent, as
the alleged unlawful a!t had taken pla!e at an earlier unspe!ified date.
-he petitioner nevertheless insists that he properly alleged that the respondents o!!upied
the pre#ises $y #ere toleran!e of the owner. *o allegation in the !o#plaint nor any
supporting eviden!e on re!ord, however, shows when the respondents entered the property
or who had granted the# per#ission to enter. :ithout these allegations and eviden!e, the
$are !lai# regarding Etoleran!eE !annot $e upheld.
=n "arona, et al. v. 5illegas, et al.,
2,
the &ourt !ited Prof. 'rturo 1. -olentinoLs definition and
!hara!teri6es Etoleran!eE in the following #anner3
Professor 'rturo 1. -olentino states that a!ts #erely tolerated are Ethose whi!h $y reason of
neigh$orliness or fa#iliarity, the owner of property allows his neigh$or or another person to
do on the property< they are generally those parti!ular servi!es or $enefits whi!h oneLs
property !an give to another without #aterial in2ury or pre2udi!e to the owner, who per#its
the# out of friendship or !ourtesy.E 4e adds that3 Ethey are a!ts of little distur$an!es whi!h a
person, in the interest of neigh$orliness or friendly relations, per#its others to do on his
property, su!h as passing over the land, tying a horse therein, or getting so#e water fro# a
well.E 'nd, -olentino !ontinues, even though Ethis is !ontinued for a long ti#e, no right will $e
a!7uired $y pres!ription.E Burther e;pounding on the !on!ept, -olentino writes3 E-here is ta!it
!onsent of the possessor to the a!ts whi!h are #erely tolerated. -hus, not every !ase of
knowledge and silen!e on the part of the possessor !an $e !onsidered #ere toleran!e. By
virtue of toleran!e that is !onsidered as an authori6ation, per#ission or li!ense, a!ts of
possession are reali6ed or perfor#ed. -he 7uestion redu!es itself to the e;isten!e or non(
e;isten!e of the per#ission. H!itations o#itted< itali!s suppliedI
-he &ourt has !onsistently adopted this position3 toleran!e or per#ission #ust have $een
present at the $eginning of possession< if the possession was unlawful fro# the start, an
a!tion for unlawful detainer would not $e the proper re#edy and should $e dis#issed.
29
=t is not the first ti#e that this &ourt ad2udged !ontradi!tory state#ents in a !o#plaint for
unlawful detainer as a $asis for dis#issal. =n Anida v. 4eirs of Ar$an,
3%
the !lai# that the
defendantLs possession was #erely tolerated was !ontradi!ted $y the !o#plainantLs
allegation that the entry to the su$2e!t property was unlawful fro# the very $eginning. -he
&ourt then ruled that the unlawful detainer a!tion should fail.
-he !ontradi!tory state#ents in the !o#plaint are further dee#ed suspi!ious when a
!o#plaint is silent regarding the fa!tual !ir!u#stan!es surrounding the alleged toleran!e. =n
-en Borty Realty &orporation v. &ru6,
31
the !o#plaint si#ply stated that3 E.1/ defendant
i##ediately o!!upied the su$2e!t property after its sale to her, an a!tion #erely tolerated $y
the plaintiff< and .2/ the respondentLs allegedly illegal o!!upation of the pre#ises was $y
#ere toleran!e.E -he &ourt e;pressed its 7ual#s over these aver#ents of fa!t as they did
not !ontain anything su$stantiating the !lai# that the plaintiff tolerated or per#itted the
o!!upation of the property $y the defendant3
-hese allegations !ontradi!t, rather than support, plaintiffLs theory that its !ause of a!tion is
for unlawful detainer. Birst, these argu#ents advan!e the view that defendantLs o!!upation of
the property was unlawful at its in!eption. "e!ond, they !ounter the essential re7uire#ent in
unlawful detainer !ases that plaintiffLs supposed a!t of sufferan!e or toleran!e #ust $e
present right fro# the start of a possession that is later sought to $e re!overed.
's the $are allegation of plaintiffLs toleran!e of defendantLs o!!upation of the pre#ises has
not $een proven, the possession should $e dee#ed illegal fro# the $eginning. -hus, the &'
!orre!tly ruled that the e2e!t#ent !ase should have $een for for!i$le entry F an a!tion that
had already pres!ri$ed, however, when the &o#plaint was filed on 1ay 12, 1999. -he
pres!riptive period of one year for for!i$le entry !ases is re!koned fro# the date of
defendantLs a!tual entry into the land, whi!h in this !ase was on 'pril 2+, 199,.
32
"i#ilarly, in )o, Jr. v. &ourt of 'ppeals,
33
the &ourt !onsidered the ownerLs la!k of knowledge
of the defendantLs entry of the land to $e in!onsistent with the allegation that there had $een
toleran!e.
=n Padre v. 1ala$anan,
3+
the &ourt not only re7uired allegations regarding the grant of
per#ission, $ut proof as well. =t noted that the plaintiffs alleged the e;isten!e of toleran!e,
$ut ordered the dis#issal of the unlawful detainer !ase $e!ause the eviden!e was Etotally
wanting as to when and under what !ir!u#stan!es ;;; the alleged toleran!e !a#e a$out.E =t
stated that3
Judging fro# the respondentLs 'nswer, the petitioners were never at all in physi!al
possession of the pre#ises fro# the ti#e he started o!!upying it and !ontinuously up to the
present. Bor sure, the petitioners #erely derived their alleged prior physi!al possession only
on the $asis of their -ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle .-&-/, arguing that the issuan!e of said title
presupposes their having $een in possession of the property at one ti#e or another.
30
-hus, the !o#plainants in unlawful detainer !ases !annot si#ply an!hor their !lai#s on the
validity of the ownerLs title. Possession de fa!to #ust also $e proved.
's early as the 199%s, in "arona, et al. v. 5illegas, et al.,
39
we already ruled that a !o#plaint
whi!h fails to positively aver any overt a!t on the plaintiffLs part indi!ative of per#ission to
o!!upy the land, or any showing of su!h fa!t during the trial is fatal for a !ase for unlawful
detainer. 's the &ourt then e;plained, a !ase for unlawful detainer alleging toleran!e #ust
definitely esta$lish its e;isten!e fro# the start of possession< otherwise, a !ase for for!i$le
entry !an #ask itself as an a!tion for unlawful detainer and per#it it to $e filed $eyond the
re7uired one(year pres!ription period fro# the ti#e of for!i$le entry3
' !lose assess#ent of the law and the !on!ept of the word Etoleran!eE !onfir#s our view
heretofore e;pressed that su!h toleran!e #ust $e present right fro# the start of possession
sought to $e re!overed, to !ategori6e a !ause of a!tion as one of unlawful detainer F not of
for!i$le entry. =ndeed, to hold otherwise would espouse a dangerous do!trine. 'nd for two
reasons3 Birst. Bor!i$le entry into the land is an open !hallenge to the right of the possessor.
5iolation of that right authori6es the speedy redress F in the inferior !ourt F provided for in
the rules. =f one year fro# the for!i$le entry is allowed to lapse $efore suit is filed, then the
re#edy !eases to $e speedy< and the possessor is dee#ed to have waived his right to seek
relief in the inferior !ourt. "e!ond. =f a for!i$le entry a!tion in the inferior !ourt is allowed after
the lapse of a nu#$er of years, then the result #ay well $e that no a!tion of for!i$le entry
!an really pres!ri$e. *o #atter how long su!h defendant is in physi!al possession, plaintiff
will #erely #ake a de#and, $ring suit in the inferior !ourt F upon plea of toleran!e to
prevent pres!ription to set in F and su##arily throw hi# out of the land. "u!h a !on!lusion
is unreasona$le. 8spe!ially if we $ear in #ind the postulates that pro!eedings of for!i$le
entry and unlawful detainer are su##ary in nature, and that the one year ti#e($ar to the suit
is $ut in pursuan!e of the su##ary nature of the a!tion.
37
.itali!s supplied/
)iven these rulings, it would $e e7ually dangerous for us to deprive the respondents of
possession over a property that they have held for at least eight years $efore the !ase was
filed in 1999, $y #eans of a su##ary pro!eeding, si#ply $e!ause the petitioner used the
word Etoleran!eE without suffi!ient allegations or eviden!e to support it.
-here was no !hange in the
respondentsL theory during
the appeal that would a#ount
to a deprivation of the petitionerLs
right to due pro!ess.
-he petitioner alleges that the respondents had never 7uestioned $efore the 1e-& the fa!t
that their o!!upan!y was $y toleran!e. -he only issues the respondents allegedly raised
were3 .1/ the title to the property is spurious< .2/ the petitionerLs prede!essor is not the true
owner of the property in 7uestion< .3/ the petitionerLs lease !ontra!t was not legally
enfor!ea$le< .+/ the petitioner was not the real party(in(interest< .0/ the petitionerLs
prede!essor never had prior physi!al possession of the property< and .9/ the respondentsL
right of possession was $ased on the Eeed of 'ssign#ent of Real PropertyE e;e!uted $y
ulfo. -he respondents raised the issue of toleran!e #erely on appeal $efore the R-&. -hey
argue that this !onstitutes a !hange of theory, whi!h is disallowed on appeal.
3,
=t is a settled rule that a party !annot !hange his theory of the !ase or his !ause of a!tion on
appeal. Points of law, theories, issues and argu#ents not $rought to the attention of the
lower !ourt will not $e !onsidered $y the reviewing !ourt. -he defenses not pleaded in the
answer !annot, on appeal, !hange funda#entally the nature of the issue in the !ase. -o do
so would $e unfair to the adverse party, who had no opportunity to present eviden!e in
!onne!tion with the new theory< this would offend the $asi! rules of due pro!ess and fair
play.
39
:hile this &ourt has frowned upon !hanges of theory on appeal, this rule is not appli!a$le to
the present !ase. -he &ourt of 'ppeals dis#issed the a!tion due the petitionerLs failure to
allege and prove the essential re7uire#ents of an unlawful detainer !ase. =n "erdon!illo v.
"pouses Benolirao,
+%
we held that3
=n this regard, to give the !ourt 2urisdi!tion to effe!t the e2e!t#ent of an o!!upant or
defor!iant on the land, it is ne!essary that the !o#plaint #ust suffi!iently show su!h a
state#ent of fa!ts as to $ring the party !learly within the !lass of !ases for whi!h the statutes
provide a re#edy, without resort to parol testi#ony, as these pro!eedings are su##ary in
nature. =n short, the 2urisdi!tional fa!ts #ust appear on the fa!e of the !o#plaint. :hen the
!o#plaint fails to aver fa!ts !onstitutive of for!i$le entry or unlawful detainer, as where it
does not state how entry was effe!ted or how and when dispossession started, the re#edy
should either $e an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria. .e#phasis ours< itali!s
supplied/
Regardless of the defenses raised $y the respondents, the petitioner was re7uired to
properly allege and prove when the respondents entered the property and that it was the
petitioner or his prede!essors, not any other persons, who granted the respondents
per#ission to enter and o!!upy the property. Burther#ore, it was not the respondentsL
defense that proved fatal to the !ase $ut the petitionerLs !ontradi!tory state#ents in his
a#ended !o#plaint whi!h he even reiterated in his other pleadings.
+1
'lthough the respondents did not use the word Etoleran!eE $efore the 1e-&, they have
always 7uestioned the e;isten!e of the petitionerLs toleran!e. =n their 'nswer to '#ended
&o#plaint, the respondents negated the possi$ility of their possession of the property under
the petitioner and his lessorLs toleran!e when the respondents alleged to have o!!upied the
pre#ises even $efore the lessor a!7uired the property in 1991. -hey said as #u!h in their
Position Paper3
R>>@B> &4A' "=*) never had a!tual physi!al possession of his supposed property, as
when he $e!a#e an owner of the 1,919 s7uare #eters property des!ri$ed in -&- *o.
0209+, the property had already $een o!!upied $y herein 8B8*'*-" sin!e late 197%.
-herefore, 8B8*'*-" were already o!!upantsGpossessors of the property fro# where
they are $eing e2e!ted $y B=>R8@@> J>"8, a supposed @8""88 of a property with a
du$ious title. -he #ain thing to $e proven in the !ase at $ar is prior possession and that the
sa#e was lost through for!e, inti#idation, threat, strategy and stealth, so that it $ehooves
the !ourt to restore possession regardless of title or even ownership ;;;. =n the !ase at $ar,
neither R>>@B> &4A' "=*) nor herein P@'=*-=BB ever had any a!tual physi!al
possession of the property where 8B8*'*-" have already possessed for #ore than ten
.1%/ years in 1991 when R>>@B> &4A' "=*) got his fake title to the property.
+2
.!itation
o#itted/
=n addition, whether or not it was !redi$le, the respondentLs !lai# that their possession was
$ased on the eed of 'ssign#ent e;e!uted $y ulfo, in $ehalf of the estate of o#ingo de
>!a#po, shows that they !onsidered the petitioner and his lessor as strangers to any of their
transa!tions on the property, and !ould not have stayed there upon the latterLs per#ission.
:e note that even after the issue of toleran!e had $een dire!tly raised $y the respondents
$efore the R-&, the petitioner still failed to address it $efore the R-&, the &ourt of 'ppeals,
and the "upre#e &ourt.
+3
't $est, he $elatedly states for the first ti#e in his
1e#orandu#
++
$efore this &ourt that his lessor had tolerated the respondentsL o!!upan!y of
the lot, without addressing the respondentsL allegation that they had o!!upied the lot in 197%,
$efore the petitionerLs lessor $e!a#e the owner of the property in 1991, and without
providing any other details. 4is pleadings !ontinued to insist on the e;isten!e of toleran!e
without providing the fa!tual $asis for this !on!lusion. -hus, we !annot de!lare that the &ourt
of 'ppeals had in anyway deprived the petitioner of due pro!ess or had unfairly treated hi#
when it resolved the !ase $ased on the issue of toleran!e.
-he &ourt !annot treat an e2e!t#ent
!ase as an a!!ion pu$li!iana or
a!!ion reivindi!atoria.
-he petitioner argues that assu#ing this !ase should have $een filed as an a!!ion
pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria, this &ourt should still resolve the !ase, as re7uiring hi#
to properly refile the !ase serves no other ends than to !o#ply with te!hni!alities.
+0
-he &ourt !annot si#ply take the eviden!e presented $efore the 1e-& in an e2e!t#ent !ase
and de!ide it as an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria. -hese !ases are not
inter!hangea$le and their differen!es !onstitute far #ore than #ere te!hni!alities.
=n Regis, Jr. v. &ourt of 'ppeals,
+9
we ruled that an a!tion for for!i$le entry !annot $e treated
as an a!!ion pu$li!iana and su##ari6ed the reasons therefor. :e find these sa#e reasons
also appli!a$le to an unlawful detainer !ase whi!h $ears the sa#e relevant !hara!teristi!s3
>n the issue of whether or not an a!tion for for!i$le entry !an $e treated as a!!ion
pu$li!iana, we rule in the negative. Bor!i$le entry is distin!t fro# a!!ion pu$li!iana. Birst,
for!i$le entry should $e filed within one year fro# the unlawful dispossession of the real
property, while a!!ion pu$li!iana is filed a year after the unlawful dispossession of the real
property. "e!ond, for!i$le entry is !on!erned with the issue of the right to the physi!al
possession of the real property< in a!!ion pu$li!iana, what is su$2e!t of litigation is the $etter
right to possession over the real property. -hird, an a!tion for for!i$le entry is filed in the
#uni!ipal trial !ourt and is a su##ary a!tion, while a!!ion pu$li!iana is a plenary a!tion in
the R-&. Hitali!s suppliedI
-he !ause of a!tion in e2e!t#ent is different fro# that in an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion
reivindi!atoria. 'n e2e!t#ent suit is $rought $efore the proper inferior !ourt to re!over
physi!al possession only or possession de fa!to, not possession de 2ure. Anlawful detainer
and for!i$le entry !ases are not pro!esses to deter#ine a!tual title to property. 'ny ruling $y
the 1e-& on the issue of ownership is #ade only to resolve the issue of possession, and is
therefore in!on!lusive.
+7
Be!ause they only resolve issues of possession de fa!to, e2e!t#ent
a!tions are su##ary in nature, while a!!ion pu$li!iana .for the re!overy of possession/ and
a!!ion reivindi!atoria .for the re!overy of ownership/ are plenary a!tions.
+,
-he purpose of
allowing a!tions for for!i$le entry and unlawful detainer to $e de!ided in su##ary
pro!eedings is to provide for a pea!eful, speedy and e;peditious #eans of preventing an
alleged illegal possessor of property fro# un2ustly taking and !ontinuing his possession
during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de 2ure or
ownership, there$y ensuring the #aintenan!e of pea!e and order in the !o##unity<
otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession #ight take the law in his hands and
sei6e the property $y for!e and violen!e.
+9
'n e2e!t#ent !ase !annot $e a su$stitute for a
full($lown trial for the purpose of deter#ining rights of possession or ownership. &iting
1ediran v. 5illanueva,
0%
the &ourt in )on6aga v. &ourt of 'ppeals
01
des!ri$es in detail how
these two re#edies should $e used3
=n giving re!ognition to the a!tion of for!i$le entry and detainer the purpose of the law is to
prote!t the person who in fa!t has a!tual possession< and in !ase of !ontroverted right, it
re7uires the parties to preserve the status 7uo until one or the other of the# sees fit to
invoke the de!ision of a !ourt of !o#petent 2urisdi!tion upon the 7uestion of ownership. =t is
o$viously 2ust that the person who has first a!7uired possession should re#ain in
possession pending the de!ision< and the parties !annot $e per#itted #eanwhile to engage
in a petty warfare over the possession of the property whi!h is the su$2e!t of dispute. -o
per#it this would $e highly dangerous to individual se!urity and distur$ing to so!ial
order.12&p%i 1 -herefore, where a person supposes hi#self to $e the owner of a pie!e of property
and desires to vindi!ate his ownership against the party a!tually in possession, it is
in!u#$ent upon hi# to institute an a!tion to this end in a !ourt of !o#petent 2urisdi!tion< and
he !annot $e per#itted, $y invading the property and e;!luding the a!tual possessor, to
pla!e upon the latter the $urden of instituting an a!tion to try the property right. Hitali!s
suppliedI
-hus, if we allow parties to file e2e!t#ent !ases and later !onsider the# as an a!!ion
pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria, we would en!ourage parties to si#ply file e2e!t#ent
!ases instead of plenary a!tions. &ourts would then de!ide in su##ary pro!eedings !ases
whi!h the rules intend to $e resolved through full($lown trials. Be!ause these Esu##aryE
pro!eedings will have to ta!kle !o#pli!ated issues re7uiring e;tensive proof, they would no
longer $e e;peditious and would no longer serve the purpose for whi!h they were !reated.
=ndeed, we !annot see how the resulting !ongestion of !ases, the hastily and in!orre!tly
de!ided !ases, and the utter la!k of syste# would assist the !ourts in prote!ting and
preserving property rights.
:48R8B>R8, we 8*C the petition, and 'BB=R1 the &ourt of 'ppealsD de!ision dated
1ar!h 1+, 2%%0 and resolution dated 'ugust 22, 2%%0 in &'().R. "P *o. ,%119.
"> >R8R8.
AR&'RO D. 6RION