right to possession and ownership includes right to exclude others

8/9/2019 Right to Possession and Ownership Includes Right to Exclude Others

1/16

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

ASUNCION URITA VDA! D

"!R! No! #$%%&'

A"UI(AR) represente* b+

OR(ANDO U! A"UI(AR)

Present,

Petitioner)

CORONA) C! -!) Chairperson)

V(ASCO) -R!)


2/16

. /ersus .

(ONARDO.D CASTRO)

D( CASTI((O) an*

PR0) --!

SPOUSS DR(INA 1! A(FARO

an* RAU( A(FARO)

Promul2ate*,

Respon*ents!

-ul+ 3) '&

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4

D C I S I O N

D( CASTI((O) -!,


3/16

In an action for reco/er+ of possession of realt+) 5ho has the better ri2ht ofpossession) the re2istere* o5ner arme* 5ith a Torrens title or the occupantsbran*ishin2 a notari6e* but unre2istere* *ee* of sale e4ecute* before the lan* 5as

re2istere* un*er the Torrens s+stem7

As 5e pre/iousl+ rule* in similar cases)8#9 5e resol/e the :uestion in fa/or of thetitlehol*er!

Factual Antece*ents

On Au2ust ;) #


4/16

Respon*ents also raise* the *efense of prescription! The+ pointe* out that accionpubliciana or an action to reco/er the real ri2ht of possession in*epen*ent ofo5nership prescribes in #& +ears! o5e/er) it too petitioner more than '3 +ears

before she asserte* her ri2hts b+ =lin2 accion publiciana! As alle2e* in thecomplaint) the+ too possession of the *ispute* portion of (ot ; as earl+ as #


5/16

but it 5as onl+ in ##&)&&&!&&? as an* for reasonableattorne+Bs feesH ;! To pa+ the costs of this suit! SO ORDRD!8#&9


6/16

Rulin2 of the Court of Appeals

On -une @) '&&%) the CA promul2ate* its Decision8##9 re/ersin2 the trial courtBsDecision an* *ismissin2 the complaint) as 5ell as respon*entsB counterclaim! TheCA uphel* the /ali*it+ of the Gasulatan sa 1ilihan since it is a notari6e* *ocumentan* *isputabl+ presume* to be authentic an* *ul+ e4ecute*! In a**ition) 5itnessstrella cate2oricall+ *eclare* that she 5as present 5hen petitioner an* I2naciosi2ne* the Gasulatan sa 1ilihan! The CA elaborate* that in or*er to *ispro/e thepresumption accor*e* to a notari6e* *ocument) the part+ contestin2 itsauthenticit+ an* *ue e4ecution must present a clear an* con/incin2 e/i*ence to thecontrar+) 5hich the petitioner faile* to *o!

The CA lie5ise *isa2ree* 5ith the court a :uo that respon*entsB counterclaimshoul* be *ismisse* on the 2roun* of in*efeasibilit+ of title! It emphasi6e* that the

Torrens s+stem 5as a*opte* to protect innocent thir* parties for /alue an* not toprotect frau*! Nonetheless) the CA *i* not 2rant the relief sou2ht in respon*entsBcounterclaim consi*erin2 that not all intereste* parties 5ere implea*e* in the case!

The *ispositi/e portion of the CABs Decision rea*s,

IN VIK OF T FOR"OIN") the *ecision appeale* from is RVRSD) an* a ne5one NTRD *ismissin2 the complaint an* counterclaim! SO ORDRD!8#'9

Issue

Kithout seein2 reconsi*eration of the CABs Decision) petitioner interpose* thepresent recourse raisin2 the sole issue of,

KTR L L L T ONORA1( COURT OF APPA(S RRD IN UPO(DIN" TVA(IDIT"NUINNSS AND DU LCUTION OF T PURPORTD DD OF SA(


7/16

OF T PORTION OF T (OT DSPIT T VMNT DNIA( OF T A(("DVNDORS!8#;9

Petitioner conten*s that the CA 2rie/ousl+ erre* in uphol*in2 the /ali*it+ an*2enuineness of the Gasulatan sa 1ilihan! She alle2es that she 5ante* to tae the5itness stan* to *isclaim in open court her purporte* si2nature appearin2 onrespon*entsB Gasulatan sa 1ilihan) but coul* not *o so because she is too ol*) be*.ri**en an* has to bear a tortuous =/e.hour *ri/e to reach the court! Ne/ertheless)she e4ecute* a s5orn statement *eclarin2 that she an* her husban* ne/er sol* an+portion of (ot ; an* that their si2natures appearin2 on sai* *ee* 5ere for2e*! Shea/ers that the assistance of an e4pert 5itness is not e/en necessar+ to *etect thepatent *issimilarities bet5een sai* for2e* si2natures an* their authentic si2natures!

Petitioner lie5ise ar2ues that the CA erre* in tain2 into consi*eration theappearance an* con*ition of the paper 5here the Gasulatan sa 1ilihan is 5ritten!She posits that the fabrication of an ancient.looin2 *ocument no5a*a+s is nolon2er *iEcult! She also points to se/eral circumstances 5hich cast *oubt on theauthenticit+ an* *ue e4ecution of the Gasulatan sa 1ilihan) but 5hich the CAine4plicabl+ i2nore*

Furthermore) petitioner maintains that her title is in*efeasible! An* 5hile there aree4ceptions to the rule on in*efeasibilit+ of title)8#%9 she emphasi6es thatrespon*ents ne/er *ispute* her title! Kith re2ar* to the ta4 *eclarations presente*b+ respon*ents) petitioner asserts that it has been the consistent rulin2 of this Courtthat ta4 *eclarations are not necessaril+ proof of o5nership!

In their comment) respon*ents assert that in petitions =le* un*er Rule %3 of theRules of Court) onl+ :uestions of la5 can be raise*! Factual issues are prohibite*!From the ar2uments a*/ance* b+ the petitioner) ho5e/er) it is clear that she isasin2 this Court to e4amine an* 5ei2h a2ain the e/i*ence on recor*!

Our Rulin2

Ke 2rant the petition!


8/16

This case falls un*er the e4ceptions 5here the Supreme Court ma+ re/ie5 factualissues!

As a rule) onl+ :uestions of la5 ma+ be raise* in petitions for re/ie5 on certiorari!8#39 It is settle* that in the e4ercise of the Supreme CourtBs po5er of re/ie5) thecourt is not a trier of facts an* *oes not normall+ un*ertae the re.e4amination ofthe e/i*ence presente* b+ the conten*in2 parties *urin2 the trial of the case!8#$9

This rule) ho5e/er) is subect to a number of e4ceptions)8#@9 one of 5hich is 5henthe =n*in2s of the appellate court are contrar+ to those of the trial court) lie in thepresent case!

Nature an* purpose of accion publiciana!

Also no5n as accion plenaria *e posesion)8#9 accion publiciana is an

or*inar+ ci/il procee*in2 to *etermine the better ri2ht of possession of realt+in*epen*entl+ of title!8#


9/16

As a2ainst petitionerBs Torrens title) respon*entsB Gasulatan sa 1ilihan cannot conferbetter ri2ht to possess!

It is settle* that a Torrens title is e/i*ence of in*efeasible title to propert+ in fa/or of the person in 5hose name the title appears!8'%9 It is conclusi/e e/i*ence 5ithrespect to the o5nership of the lan* *escribe* therein!8'39 It is also settle* that thetitlehol*er is entitle* to all the attributes of o5nership of the propert+) inclu*in2possession!8'$9 Thus) in Arambulo /! "un2ab)8'@9 this Court *eclare* that thea2e.ol* rule is that the person 5ho has a Torrens title o/er a lan* is entitle* topossession thereof!

In the present case) there is no *ispute that petitioner is the hol*er of a Torrens title

o/er the entire (ot ;! Respon*ents ha/e onl+ their notari6e* but unre2istere*Gasulatan sa 1ilihan to support their claim of o5nership! Thus) e/en if respon*entsBproof of o5nership has in its fa/or a uris tantum presumption of authenticit+ an**ue e4ecution) the same cannot pre/ail o/er petitionerBs Torrens title! This hasbeen our consistent rulin2 5hich 5e recentl+ reiterate* in Pascual /! Coronel)8'9/i6,

/en if 5e sustain the petitionersB ar2uments an* rule that the *ee*s of sale are/ali* contracts) it 5oul* still not bolster the petitionersB case! In a number of cases)the Court ha* uphel* the re2istere* o5nersB superior ri2ht to possess the propert+!In Co /! Militar) the Court 5as confronte* 5ith a similar issue of 5hich bet5een thecerti=cate of title an* an unre2istere* *ee* of sale shoul* be 2i/en more probati/e5ei2ht in resol/in2 the issue of 5ho has the better ri2ht to possess! There) theCourt hel* that the court a :uo correctl+ relie* on the transfer certi=cate of title inthe name of petitioner) as oppose* to the unre2istere* title in the name ofrespon*ents! The Court stresse* therein that the Torrens S+stem 5as a*opte* inthis countr+ because it 5as belie/e* to be the most eecti/e measure to 2uaranteethe inte2rit+ of lan* titles an* to protect their in*efeasibilit+ once the claim ofo5nership is establishe* an* reco2ni6e*! (ie5ise) in the recent case of Umpoc /! Merca*o) the Court *eclare* that the trialcourt *i* not err in 2i/in2 more probati/e 5ei2ht to the TCT in the name of the*ece*ent /is.Q./is the conteste* unre2istere* Dee* of Sale! (ater in Arambulo /!"un2ab) the Court hel* that the re2istere* o5ner is preferre* to possess thepropert+ subect of the unla5ful *etainer case! The a2e.ol* rule is that the person5ho has a Torrens Title o/er a lan* is entitle* to possession thereof! >Citationsomitte*!?


10/16

As the titlehol*er) therefore) petitioner is preferre* to possess the entire (ot ;!1esi*es) there are telltale si2ns 5hich cast *oubt on the 2enuineness of theGasulatan! To cite a fe5,

#! The *ate of its e4ecution unbelie/abl+ coinci*es 5ith the *ate the bu+er)Anastacia) *ie*H

'! Despite its alle2e* e4ecution on April #@) #


11/16

SC! %! Certi=cate not subect to collateral attac! A certi=cate of title shall notbe subect to collateral attac! It cannot be altere*) mo*i=e*) or cancele* e4cept ina *irect procee*in2 in accor*ance 5ith la5!

A collateral attac transpires 5hen) in another action to obtain a *ierent relief an*

as an inci*ent to the present action) an attac is ma*e a2ainst the u*2ment2rantin2 the title!8;&9 This manner of attac is to be *istin2uishe* from a *irectattac a2ainst a u*2ment 2rantin2 the title) throu2h an action 5hose mainobecti/e is to annul) set asi*e) or enoin the enforcement of such u*2ment if not+et implemente*) or to see reco/er+ if the propert+ title* un*er the u*2ment ha*been *ispose* of!8;#9 Thus) in Ma2a+ /! stian*an)8;'9 therein plainti.appellee=le* an accion publiciana! In his *efense) *efen*ant.appellant alle2e* amon2others that plainti.appelleeBs Transfer Certi=cate of Title No! '&&% 5as issue*un*er anomalous circumstances! Khen the case reache* this Court) 5e reecte**efen*ant.appellantBs *efense on the 2roun* that the issue on the /ali*it+ of sai*title can onl+ be raise* in an action e4pressl+ institute* for that purpose! Also) in Co/! Court of Appeals8;;9 5e arri/e* at the same conclusion an* elaborate* as

follo5s,

In their repl+ *ate* September #


12/16

The lo5er courts cannot pass upon or 2rant respon*entsB counterclaim for lac of uris*iction!

1oth the trial court an* the appellate court consi*ere* respon*entsB counterclaim asa petition for recon/e+ance! In 5hich case) it shoul* be treate* merel+ as apermissi/e counterclaim because the e/i*ence re:uire* to pro/e their claim *iersfrom the e/i*ence nee*e* to establish petitionerBs *eman* for reco/er+ ofpossession! 1ein2 a permissi/e counterclaim) therefore) respon*ents shoul* ha/epai* the correspon*in2 *ocet fees!8;%9 o5e/er) there is no proof on recor* thatrespon*ents pai* the re:uire* *ocet fees! The oEcial receipts 5ere neitherattache* to nor annotate* on respon*entsB Ans5er 5ith Counterclaims an*AErmati/e Defenses8;39 5hich 5as =le* /ia re2istere* mail8;$9 on Au2ust #


13/16

Associate -ustice

K CONCUR,

RNATO C! CORONA

Chief -ustice

Chairperson

PRS1ITRO -! V(ASCO) -R!

Associate -ustice

TRSITA -! (ONARDO.D CASTRO

Associate -ustice

-OS PORTU"A( PR0

Associate -ustice

C R T I F I C A T I O N


14/16

Pursuant to Section #;) Article VIII of the Constitution) it is hereb+ certi=e*that the conclusions in the abo/e Decision ha* been reache* in consultation beforethe case 5as assi2ne* to the 5riter of the opinion of the CourtBs Di/ision!

RNATO C! CORONA

Chief -ustice

8#9 Co /! Militar) %$$ Phil! '#@ >'&&%?H Umpoc /! Merca*o) %


15/16

8#$9 Santos /! (umbao) "!R! No! #$#? 5hen the inference ma*e is manifestl+mistaen) absur* or impossibleH >'? 5hen there is a 2ra/e abuse of *iscretionH >;?5hen the =n*in2 is 2roun*e* entirel+ on speculations) surmises or conecturesH >%?

5hen the u*2ment of the CA is base* on misapprehension of factsH >3? 5hen the=n*in2s of fact are conictin2H >$? 5hen the CA) in main2 its =n*in2s) 5ent be+on*the issues of the case an* the same 8are9 contrar+ to the a*missions of bothpartiesH >@? 5hen the =n*in2s of the CA are contrar+ to those of the trial courtH >?5hen the =n*in2s of fact are conclusions 5ithout citation of speci=c e/i*ence on5hich the+ are base*H >


16/16

8;#9 I*!

8;'9 #$# Phil! 3$) 3@ >#

right to possession and ownership includes right to exclude others

Documents