FELISA DANAO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND NORBERTO DANAO, PETITIONERS, VS. NERISSA TARTANA, RYAN TARTANA AND HIS WIFE ALIAS “TESSA” TARTANA, DANNY SANICO AND GIL SANICO, RESPONDENTS.

Danao versus Tartana

The Case

This is a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, brought by Felisa Danao, joined by her husband Norberto Danao, against Nerissa Tartana, Ryan Tartana and his wife known as Tessa Tartana, Danny Sanico, and Gil Sanico. The petitioners sued for unlawful detainer over a registered lot in Pilar, Capiz, and the respondents answered that they own the land and occupy it as owners, not by anyone's permission. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the working rules every examinee needs on possession: the Torrens title as the foundation of the right to possess, the presumption of tolerance that arises from such a title, the provisional ruling on ownership inside a detainer case, and the prohibition on attacking a certificate of title collaterally.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their complaint for unlawful detainer before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of President Roxas and Pilar, in Capiz. That court dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioners had chosen the wrong remedy and that possession could not be decided without first deciding ownership, and it awarded thirty thousand pesos in litigation expenses and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16, which ruled that the complaint did make out a case for unlawful detainer, but still affirmed the dismissal because the petitioners had failed to prove tolerance. The Regional Trial Court denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then filed this petition for review under Rule 42, assigning as errors the finding that tolerance was not proven, the affirmance of the first level court, the denial of reconsideration, and the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

Facts

Felisa Danao is the registered owner of Lot No. 1973-A-6-D, a parcel of one hundred eighty one square meters in Barangay San Nicolas, Pilar, Capiz, covered by a transfer certificate of title in her name. The lot traces back to her grandmother, Saturnina Custodio, who obtained a free patent and an original certificate of title over the mother lot, which was later partitioned and subdivided until the subject lot was adjudicated to Felisa Danao.

The respondents occupy the subject lot and built a house and other structures on it. The petitioners alleged that this occupation was by mere tolerance, without any contract and without rent, and that demand letters to vacate went unheeded, so the complaint was filed within one year from the last demand.

The respondents countered that they occupy the land as owners. They presented deeds of sale showing that Saturnina Custodio sold a portion of Lot No. 1973 to the spouses Arboleda in 1962, and that the Arboledas sold a portion to Quintin Sanico in 1977, from whom the respondents inherited. They also alleged that Saturnina Custodio fraudulently obtained her free patent. A court appointed commissioner conducted a relocation survey and reported that the lot bought by the respondents could not be physically identified on the ground, and that the respondents could show no survey plan.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents have a better right of physical possession over the subject lot.
• Whether or not the courts may provisionally pass upon the issue of ownership in order to resolve the issue of possession in an unlawful detainer case.
• Whether or not the respondents' claim of ownership, resting on a collateral attack against the petitioners' certificate of title, may be sustained.
• Whether or not tolerance on the part of the petitioners was sufficiently proven.

Applicable Provisions

Act Number 3344, the law on registration of unregistered deeds, is the provision the respondents invoked for their deeds of sale, and the Court measured their claim against what those deeds actually describe:

Section 194 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, provides that the registration of a deed affecting unregistered land shall be recorded in the registry of deeds, and such registration shall be a notice to all persons of the existence of the instrument registered.

The Court treated the registration as notice, but held that notice of a deed is not proof that the land described in it is the same land covered by the petitioners' title.

Ruling

The Court ruled for the petitioners. On the first issue, it held that in an unlawful detainer case the sole issue is physical or material possession, independent of any claim of ownership, but where ownership is raised the courts may pass upon it provisionally in order to determine who has the right to possess. The Court found that the first level court wrongly dismissed the case, and that the Regional Trial Court wrongly stopped short of provisionally ruling on ownership.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners, armed with a Torrens title, are the rightful owners and are entitled to possession. A title under the Torrens System carries all the attributes of ownership, including possession. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in the case of Heirs of Maligaso versus Encinas:

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.

On the third issue, the Court refused the collateral attack. A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the power to pass upon its validity at first instance belongs to the Regional Trial Courts in a direct proceeding for cancellation. A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that tolerance is presumed when the property is covered by a Torrens title, and that the respondents failed to rebut the presumption. Their deeds of sale described boundaries different from those in the earlier deed, their tax declaration referred to a different cadastral lot, and they presented no survey plan, so they failed to show that the lot they inherited includes the subject lot. Even assuming tolerance had to be proven, the Court found the unrebutted affidavit of Felisa Danao sufficient, since the respondents' silence on her sworn statements amounted to an admission by silence.

Doctrine

First, in unlawful detainer the sole issue is physical possession, but where ownership is raised the court may provisionally rule on it because the two issues are inseparably linked. Second, a Torrens certificate of title is evidence of indefeasible ownership and entitles the holder to possession, and it raises the reasonable presumption that the occupant's stay is merely tolerated. Third, the occupant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption, and a claim of ownership under an unregistered deed must show by survey plan and technical description that the land claimed is the very land titled in another's name. Fourth, a certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked; it may be altered, modified, or cancelled only in a direct proceeding before the Regional Trial Court.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, reversed the Regional Trial Court, and held that the petitioners are entitled to possession of the subject lot.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a Torrens title entitles its holder to possession and raises the presumption that the occupant's stay is merely tolerated, with the burden on the occupant to rebut it. Examiners use this case to test the provisional ruling on ownership in detainer cases and the rule against collateral attack on a certificate of title.