SPS. CANDIDO GOMEZ, SR., AND CRISTINA GOMEZ, SPS. ANTONIO MALLARI AND EDNA MALLARI AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, PETITIONERS, VS. DRA. DOLORES OLIVEROS AND DR. ALB…
CRUZ, R.A., J.:
THE ANTECEDENTS
Respondents Spouses Dolores Oliveros and Albert Oliveros, and co-owners Lauro, Romeo, Gerardo, Jovito, Venus and Rodolfo, all surnamed Oliveros, are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at San Luis, Antipolo with an area of 19,515 square meters more or less covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706[3] of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City. The parcel of land is covered by Tax Declaration of Real Property with Number AC-015-19347.[4]
Sometime in 1988, Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez entered the property and erected a shanty. They pleaded to Macario Oliveros, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, that they be allowed to stay in the meantime because they have been recently ejected from the adjacent property by its owner, Abel Mata Nalog. Macario Oliveros took pity and allowed Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez to build their shanty on the subject property under the condition that they will immediately vacate the same upon advise and will protect the property from intruders.
In the year 2000, a typhoon hit the area and the shanty was destroyed. Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez asked the permission of Macario Oliveros to allow them to stay at the rest house within the subject property until they are able to rebuild their shanty. Again, Macario Oliveros allowed them to use the rest house temporarily and on the condition that they would vacate the same when needed by the family.
Upon his death, the heirs of Macario Oliveros, (herein respondents) tolerated the continued possession and occupation of the subject property by Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez. However, when one of the heirs of Macario Oliveros attempted to harvest fruits on the subject property, he was threatened by Candido Gomez. Moreover, Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez, in connivance with Spouses Antonio Mallari and Edna Mallari, who represented themselves to be the owners of the subject property, rented a portion thereof to Manila Water. Consequently, respondents verbally demanded that they vacate the subject property and filed a case before the Tanggapan ng Lupon Tagapamayapa of Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City. Since the parties failed to amicably settle the matter, the barangay issued a Certification to File Action. Respondents also sent the following letters to the petitioners: (1) Demand to Vacate dated May 3, 2010 received by Candido Gomez on May 18, 2010; (2) Demand Letter to Vacate dated July 14, 2010 received on July 20, 2010 by Alex Celine Estrada; (3) Demand Letter to Vacate dated February 14, 2011 received on February 18, 2011 by Cristina Gomez. Despite receipt of the last demand letter, petitioners refused and continue to refuse to vacate the subject property. Petitioners even recruited illegal settlers to erect shanties on the subject property.
This prompted respondents to file a verified Complaint[5] for Ejectment with Damages and application for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction against Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez, Spouses Antonio Mallari and Edna Mallari and all other persons claiming rights under them before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (“MTCC”) of Antipolo City, Branch 1.
On September 1, 2011, the MTCC rendered a decision[6] in favor of the respondents and ordered: (1) petitioners and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the subject property and deliver possession thereof to the respondents; (2) petitioners to pay respondents: (a) monthly rental of P5,000.00 from March 2011 up to the time they actually vacate the subject property; and (b) attorney’s fees in the amount of P20,000.00 and costs of the suit.
It ruled that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the complaint contains the following allegations: (1) Respondents are the registered owners of the subject property; (2) Petitioners were allowed to stay on the property by tolerance; (3) Possession of the property by the petitioners became illegal upon termination of their right to possess the same thru a written demand letter to vacate dated February 14, 2011 duly received on February 18, 2011; (4) The complaint was filed on May 20, 2011, within one year from the written demand to vacate. The MTCC’s findings reveal that the respondents, as registered owners of the subject property, have the possessory rights over the same. Prior possession of the property is immaterial in an unlawful detainer case. Petitioners occupied the subject property by tolerance of the respondents. Hence, they are necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will vacate upon demand.
On appeal, the RTC of Antipolo City, Branch 95, affirmed the decision of the MTCC. The RTC ruled that petitioners failed to establish that they are the owners of the subject property. Jurisdiction was properly acquired by the MTCC based on the allegations in the complaint. Respondents were able to satisfactorily establish that the property subject of the case is the same property actually registered under their names. They were able to trace the transfer of ownership over the subject property from their predecessors-in-interest to them. On the other hand, petitioners were not able to establish ownership over the subject property. They were not able to establish their relationship to Ines Oliveros, the alleged original owner of the property that they are occupying. The RTC observed that the certificate of title presented by the petitioners was already canceled, subdivided and now belongs to different owners. The Assessor’s Office also certified that the property registered under the name of Heirs of Severino Oliveros could not be identified or located. Furthermore, Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez acknowledged that it was Macario Oliveros who allowed them to stay in the subject property. The RTC reiterated that prior physical possession is not necessary in an action for unlawful detainer. The MTCC has jurisdiction even if the petitioners raised the issue of ownership because it can receive evidence upon the question of title to property but solely for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
THE ASSIGNED ERRORS
In assailing the decision and order rendered against them, petitioners pose the following queries,
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING FIRST THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP AND THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER THAT A PROPER AND COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE MAY BE HAD;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE JUDICIAL ADMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS AND THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CITY ASSESSOR OF ANTIPOLO CITY THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENTS IS LOCATED AT SITIO, BANABA, SAN LUIS, ANTIPOLO CITY WHILE THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY PETITIONERS IS LOCATED AT SITIO MAGUEY, BRGY. SAN LUIS, ANTIPOLO CITY;
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RULES ON JURISDICTION;
Petitioners claim that the property they are currently occupying belongs to their predecessor-in-interest, Antonio Oliveros Masangkay Mallari. Petitioners and their co-owners inherited the same from Ines Oliveros by intestate succession. They argue that the respondents’ evidence namely Tax Declaration No. AC-015-19347 and Survey Plan Psd-04898 show that the property covered by their certificate of title is situated at Sitio, Banaba, Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City whereas the property occupied by the petitioners is situated at Sitio Maguey, Antipolo City. The Certification issued by the City Assessor’s Office of Antipolo City also states that the property covered by Tax Declaration No. AC-015-19347 is situated in Sitio Banaba, Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City. Petitioners also presented a Google Earth Satellite Image which shows the location of the property covered by the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 and Lot F-1652.
Petitioners contend that they have been in actual and continuous possession of the property for 60 years and they became the owner thereof upon the death of their mother Caridad Oliveros Masangkay on June 24 1986. Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez acted as caretakers of the subject property for and on behalf of Spouses Antonio Mallari and Edna Mallari since 1970. The respondents should have brought the action for ejectment within one year from the alleged unlawful deprivation or some 40 years ago. For failure to do so, the case must be dismissed.
In their Comment[7], respondents asseverate that the certificate of title from which petitioners derive their ownership over the subject property does not exist because it was canceled by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53694 and thereafter subdivided into three titles namely, TCT No. 75951, TCT 75952 and TCT 75953. Respondents aver that the location of the property embraced in the Plat of Free Patent Survey of Severino Oliveros is at Brgy. San Isidro, Antipolo City. Respondents submitted a Subdivision Plan of FP1652 as surveyed for the Heirs of Paulino Oliveros which shows that the parcel of land was divided into 2 lots: (1) Lot A with an area of 19,515 square meters which is now the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706; (2) Lot B with an area of 19,515 square meters which is the property inherited by the siblings of the grandparent of respondents, now denominated as Queenstown Subdivision. Respondents also furnished the RTC with a Certification dated March 30, 2011 from the City Assessor of Antipolo City to the effect that the property registered under the name of Heirs of Severino Oliveros does not exist. Respondents emphasize that the petitioners failed to show proof of ownership or title over the subject property namely a certificate of title, tax declaration and official receipt of payment of real estate taxes. On the other hand, they were able to show the following: (1) TCT No. R-43706 registered in their names; (2) Tax Declaration with No. 177-02-015-035-060/AC-015- 19347 registered in their names; and (3) Payment of real estate taxes as per Tax Clearance dated April 13, 2011. Furthermore, the certified true copy of the transcript of the hearing dated March 7, 2011 held before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City, reflects the categorical admission of Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez that it was Macario Oliveros, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, who allowed them to stay at the subject property. Respondents also presented a Certification dated August 10, 2011, showing the boundaries of their property.
Respondents argue that the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the case based on the allegations made in the complaint. Moreover, the claim of ownership by petitioners did not divest the MTCC of its jurisdiction over the case.
OUR RULING
The petition lacks merit.
The allegations in the complaint make
a case for unlawful detainer and the
MTCC has validly acquired jurisdiction
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.[8] The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[9] The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.
Thus, to fall within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, the complaint must allege that:
-xxx-
“1. the defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2.eventually, the defendant’s possession of the property became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to defendant of the expiration or the termination of the defendant’s right of possession;
3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and
4. within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.”[10]
-xxx-
Here, respondents’ allegations in the complaint clearly make a case for unlawful detainer, essential to confer jurisdiction on the MTCC over the subject matter. Respondents alleged that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at San Luis, Antipolo City as shown by the Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706 of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City and Tax Declaration of Real Property with Number AC-015-19347; that petitioners’ entry and construction of shanties were tolerated by the respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, Macario Oliveros; and that they sent a Letter dated February 14, 2011 received on February 18, 2011 by Cristina Gomez demanding them to vacate the subject property within 15 days from receipt of the notice but the latter failed and refused to do so. The complaint for unlawful detainer was filed on May 20, 2011 or within one year from the time the last demand to vacate was made.
It is settled that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the court – after acquiring jurisdiction – may resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.
The above allegations obviously show the elements of unlawful withholding of property constitutive of unlawful detainer. They also conferred initiatory jurisdiction on the MTCC, because the case was filed within the one-year prescriptive period.
Following Minerva Umpoc , et., al. vs. Mildred Mercado[11], where it was held that, “a simple allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is sufficient”, the allegations in the complaint amount to an unlawful withholding of the subject property by the petitioners because they continuously refused to vacate the premises even after respondents had already sent them demand letters to the effect. In an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.[12]
The underlying principle for this liberal approach was explained in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[13], thus,
-xxx-
“the principle underlying the brevity and simplicity of pleadings in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases rests upon considerations of public policy.” “Cases of forcible entry and detainer are summary in nature for they involve perturbation of social order which may be restored as promptly as possible, and accordingly, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should be carefully avoided. Such cases are designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved.”
-xxx-
Respondents have a better right of
possession over the subject property
In ejectment proceedings, courts resolve the basic question of who is entitled to physical possession of the premises, possession referring to possession de facto, and not possession de jure. Where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. However, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of the ownership issue is not final and binding, but only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property.
Respondents have satisfactorily established that they are the registered owners of the subject property as reflected in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706 of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City and Tax Declaration of Real Property with Number AC-015- 19347. As held in Asuncion Ureta Vda de Aguilar vs. Spouses Ederlina Alfaro[14], “It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession.” Indeed, a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of property ownership, which necessarily includes possession. Respondents are correct that as a Torrens title holder over the subject property, they are the rightful owner and are entitled to the possession thereof. Also, the tax clearance and declaration presented by the respondents are prima facie proofs of ownership of the property for which such taxes have been paid.
On the other hand, petitioners were not able to show any document of title or ownership over the subject property. They presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal covering a parcel of land with an area of 10.391 hectares under the name of Ines Oliveros, allegedly their grandmother. Upon examination of the certificate of title, however, we observed important points which preclude us from considering the same as evidence of title or ownership in favor of the petitioners: (1) The certificate of title is not registered under the name of Spouses Antonio Mallari and Edna Mallari; (2) They have not adduced any instrument of conveyance of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal from Ines Oliveros to them or that the Estate of Ines Oliveros had been judicially or extrajudicialy settled; (3) Assuming without admitting that it was transmitted by intestate succession, the petitioners failed to adduce proof that they are the only surviving intestate heirs of Ines Oliveros; (4) The certificate of title had already been canceled as shown by the annotation therein. There was no tax declaration or official receipts showing payment of real estate taxes over the subject property.
Between the petitioners’ unsubstantiated self-serving claim that they inherited the subject property from Ines Oliveros and respondents’ Torrens title, the latter must prevail. The respondents’ title over such area is evidence of their ownership thereof. That a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein and that a person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to the possession thereof are fundamental principles observed in this jurisdiction. Alternatively put, the respondents’ title and that of their predecessors-in-interest give rise to the reasonable presumption that the petitioners have no right over the subject area and that their stay therein was merely tolerated. The petitioners failed to overcome this presumption, being inadequately armed by a narration that yearns for proof and corroboration. The petitioners harped that the subject property belongs to them by intestate succession but the absence of any evidence that the subject property was indeed adjudicated to them impresses that their claim of ownership is nothing but a mere afterthought.
The allegation of possession of the subject property since time immemorial on the part of the petitioners was met with rebuke as such possession, for whatever length of time, cannot prevail over a Torrens title, the validity of which is presumed and immune to any collateral attack. It has been consistently ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Neither the sheer lapse of time legitimize the petitioners’ refusal to vacate the subject area or bar the respondents from gaining possession thereof.
Petitioners counter that the transfer of property to Oreta, Dionisio and Tapales as reflected in the annotation at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal is invalid. As a matter of fact, they claim that they filed an action for nullification of the Deed of Sale involving Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal because the document was fabricated. We stress that, there is no judicial declaration that the transaction was null and void. So far, the sale still stands valid until such time when the same is declared null and void by the courts. Consequently, the cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53573 and the issuance of new ones in favor of Oreta, Dionisio and Tapales stand.
Respondents have established that the possession of the subject property by Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez was by mere tolerance of their predecessor-in-interest, Macario Oliveros thru the following: (1) Judicial Affidavit of Abel Nalog dated May 12, 2011 to the effect that Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez were informal settlers of his land who transferred to the adjacent lot of Macario Oliveros after he ejected them from his property in 1988; (2) Transcript of the Hearing at the Lupon the Tagapamayapa of San Luis Antipolo City dated March 7, 2011 where Spouses Candido and Cristina Gomez categorically admitted that it was Macario Oliveros, who permitted them to stay in the subject property.
As explained in Spouses Ismael and Teresita Macasaet vs. Spouses Vicente and Rosario Macasaet[15],
-xxx-
“Toleration is defined as “the act or practice of permitting or enduring something not wholly approved of.”Sarona v. Villegas described what tolerated acts means, in this language:
“Professor Arturo M. Tolentino states that acts merely tolerated are ‘those which by reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of property allows his neighbor or another person to do on the property; they are generally those particular services or benefits which one’s property can give to another without material injury or prejudice to the owner, who permits them out of friendship or courtesy.’ x x x. And, Tolentino continues, even though ‘this is continued for a long time, no right will be acquired by prescription.” x x x. Further expounding on the concept, Tolentino writes: ‘There is tacit consent of the possessor to the acts which are merely tolerated. Thus, not every case of knowledge and silence on the part of the possessor can be considered mere tolerance. By virtue of tolerance that is considered as an authorization, permission or license, acts of possession are realized or performed. The question reduces itself to the existence or non-existence of the permission.”
-xxx-
While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand. Respondents sent a letter dated February 14, 2011 received on February 18, 2011 by Cristina Gomez, demanding the petitioners to vacate the property within 15 days from receipt but the latter failed to heed the same. A person who occupies the property of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.
Petitioners attempt to create an issue out of the exact location of the subject property claiming that the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706 of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City is located in Banaba, San Luis, Antipolio City while the subject property is located at Maguey Road, San Luis, Antipolo City. Respondents have sufficiently established the location of the subject property as follows: (1) Allegation in the Complaint which states that the subject property is located at IOliveros Compound, maguey Road, Sitio Radar, Barangay San Luis, Antipolo City; (2) Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706 of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City which describes a parcel of land located at Bo. of San Luis, Mun. of Antipolo, Prov. of Rizal; (3) Tax Mapping of Barangay San Isidro and San Luis; (4) Subdivision Plan of FP 1652 as Surveyed for the Heirs of Paulino Oliveros showing Lot A of the subdivision plan Psd-65898; (5) Certification dated August 10, 2011 showing the boundaries of the subject property. The documents show that the subject property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-43706 of the Registry of Deeds for Antipolo City is the property presently being occupied by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, this Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 5, 2012 and Order dated June 29, 2012 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 95 in Special Civil Case No. 11-1143 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Abdulwahid (Chairperson) and Barza, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 48-59
[2] Rollo, p. 73.
[3] Rollo, p. 35.
[4] Rollo, p. 34.
[5] Rollo, 84-93.
[6] Rollo, pp. 41-47.
[7] Rollo, pp. 296-333.
[8] Rosa De Los Reyes vs. Spouses Francisco Odones and Arwenia Odones, et., al. , G.R. No. 178096, March 23, 2011 .
[9] Id.
[10] Republic of the Philippines and National Power Corporation vs. Sunvar Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194880, June 20, 2012.
[11] G.R. No. 158166, January 21, 2005 .
[12] Spouses Guillermo Malison and Amelita Malison vs. Court of Appeals, et., al., G.R. No. 147776 , July 10, 2007.
[13] G.R. No. 136080, January 16, 2002.
[14] G.R. No. 164402 , July 5, 2010.
[15] G.R. Nos. 154391-92, September 30, 2004 .