ROLANDO T. RABAYA, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES JUDITHA R. NACU AND PAUL NACU AND ALL THOSE CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS.

Rabaya versus Nacu

The Case

This is the case of Rabaya versus Nacu. Rolando Rabaya, the petitioner, sued the spouses Paul and Juditha Nacu, his own relatives, for unlawful detainer over a parcel of land in Barangay Cansojong, Talisay City, Cebu. He says he let them occupy the lot out of tolerance, and that they must vacate on his demand. They say they occupy it as owners, having bought it from those who earlier acquired it from the heirs of the registered owner. The case matters because it draws the boundary of an ejectment court's power: it may look at ownership, but only to decide possession, and only provisionally. It is a compact lesson on what a municipal trial court may and may not finally adjudicate in a summary proceeding.

Procedural History

Rolando Rabaya filed his complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Talisay City, Cebu. On March 29, 2010, that court dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that he is in fact the owner of the litigated lot. It likewise dismissed the counterclaims for insufficiency of evidence, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Rabaya appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. On December 9, 2010, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the dismissal in full, finding no cogent and compelling reason to disturb the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Rabaya moved for reconsideration, and the Regional Trial Court denied the motion in its order dated February 9, 2011.

Aggrieved, Rabaya went up to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assigning a single error: that the lower court erred in ruling that he had no sufficient evidence to prove that he is an owner of the disputed property.

Facts

The land is Lot Number 7668, with an area of two hundred ninety-eight square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Number 89104 in the name of the Heirs of Eustiquio Rabaya. Eustiquio was married to Gala Gabuya, and they had two children, Virgilio and Alfredo. Alfredo married Rosita Cañesa and they had five children, among them the petitioner Rolando. Alfredo died sometime in 1980, and Virgilio died a bachelor in October 1997, leaving no compulsory heirs.

Rolando claimed that he originally possessed the lot, and that when the Nacu spouses, who are also his relatives, asked to be allowed to enter, he permitted them through his tolerance, subject to vacate upon demand. Unknown to him, the spouses began claiming ownership. When he asked them to vacate, they refused, saying the lot had been sold to them. On April 13, 2009, through counsel, he sent a letter demanding that they vacate and turn over physical possession. They still refused. He brought the matter to the barangay, but no settlement was reached, so he went to court.

The spouses answered that he had no cause of action, and that they possessed the lot as owners, not by his tolerance. They traced their title to an Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale dated December 24, 1971, by which the heirs of Eustiquio Rabaya, namely Gala, Virgilio, and Alfredo, transferred the lot to the spouses Lucio Tabiolo and Dolores Rabaya. In 1985, the spouses bought the lot from the Tabiolos, as shown by an Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale executed by Dolores Rabaya on April 23, 2009. Since then, they have been in continuous possession, living on the lot and building a house there.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower courts erred in ruling that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that he is an owner of the disputed property.
• Whether or not the question of the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale may be resolved in an action for unlawful detainer.
• Whether or not the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

The petition was brought under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Court names as the vehicle of review:

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the Judgment dated December 9, 2010 and the Order dated February 9, 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-36650.

This fixes the mode of review and frames the question as one of law and fact already passed upon below.

The Court states the governing rule on the scope of an ejectment suit in these words:

It must be remembered that this case stems from an Unlawful Detainer case and the sole issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties.

This is the anchor of the decision: possession, not title, is the subject of the action.

The Court then qualifies that rule where ownership is raised:

Where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same in order to determine who has the right to possess the property. The adjudication is, however, merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.

This explains why the trial court could weigh the deeds yet leave title open for a separate suit.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lower courts did not err. Since ownership was raised, the question boiled down to whose evidence deserved more weight. The trial court found that the spouses firmly established possession in the concept of an owner, living on the lot and having built a house, by virtue of the Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale dated April 23, 2009, supported by the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale dated December 24, 1971. The petitioner, for his part, failed to prove a better right. His claim as an heir of Eustiquio and Gala was unsupported by any document and remained a barren claim. The Court added that the certificate of title relied upon was registered in the name of the Heirs of Eustiquio Rabaya, referring to the original heirs, Gala, Alfredo, and Vicente; the petitioner became an heir only because the original heirs had already died, so the title did not by itself show his ownership.

On the second issue, the Court held that the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale is not a proper subject for a summary procedure like ejectment. It must be fully ventilated in a court, in a case seeking a declaration of nullity of that deed. The Court stressed that any adjudication of ownership in an ejectment case is merely provisional, and that affirmance of the Regional Trial Court's decision would not bar or prejudice a later action between the same parties involving title to the property, if brought seasonably before the proper forum.

On the third issue, the Court applied the hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the evidence. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again, and no circumstance in this case justified a deviation.

Doctrine

An action for unlawful detainer resolves only the physical or material possession of the property, independent of any claim of ownership. Where ownership is raised, the court may pass upon it solely to determine who has the right to possess, and that adjudication is merely provisional; it does not bar a later action on title between the same parties. A claim of ownership resting on a certificate of title in the name of the original heirs does not establish the personal title of a descendant who sues alone. The validity of a deed of sale or settlement is not a proper subject of a summary proceeding and must be litigated in a separate action for its nullity. Finally, the factual findings of the trial court are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed absent strong and valid reasons.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the judgment and order of the Regional Trial Court, so the spouses Nacu won and the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer stands.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in ejectment, the court decides possession, and any ruling on ownership is merely provisional and does not bar a separate action on title. Examiners use this case to test the limited scope of unlawful detainer and the finality, or lack of it, of an ownership finding in a summary proceeding.