SPOUSES JONEL PADILLA AND SARAH PADILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. ISAURO A. VELASCO, TEODORA A. VELASCO, DELIA A. VELASCO, VALERIANO A. VELASCO, JR., IDA A. VELASCO, AMELITA C. VELASCO,…

Padilla versus Velasco

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by spouses Jonel Padilla and Sarah Padilla against the heirs of Dr. Artemio Velasco. The respondents sued the petitioners for accion publiciana — an action for the recovery of the right to possess real property — over a parcel of land in Pagsanjan, Laguna. The petitioners occupied the land by virtue of a sale made by a bank to the Solomon spouses, from whom they claim authority. The case matters because it cleanly separates the question of possession from the question of ownership, and because it reminds us that a registered title cannot be attacked collaterally in a suit for possession.

Procedural History

The respondents filed their complaint for accion publiciana, accounting, and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to vacate the land, restore possession, render an accounting of the harvest from September 1987, and remove at their expense the structures they had built. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Dr. Artemio Velasco acquired Lot No. 2161, a parcel of 7,791 square meters in Barangay Pinagsanjan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, by a deed of sale dated February 14, 1944, executed in his favor by spouses Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial. The land had been the subject of a decree issued in 1930, and the original certificate of title was in the names of the Sacluti spouses. Artemio died single and without issue on January 22, 1949. His brother Isauro acted as administrator of the land, with a caretaker in place.

In October 1987, the petitioners entered the property as trustees, relying on a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla. The land described in that deed was denominated Lot No. 76-pt, consisting of 10,000 square meters, and was said to have previously belonged to Valeriano Velasco, whose loan had been foreclosed and whose land was sold at public auction to the bank in 1980. The respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate, but they refused. The matter was referred to the barangay for conciliation, but no settlement was reached. The petitioners then cut trees on the land, fenced it, built a house, harvested the crops, and performed other acts of dominion.

At trial, the respondents presented the deed of sale in favor of Artemio, tax declarations and tax receipts in his name, and a certification from the Land Registration Authority. A geodetic engineer testified that he surveyed the land and concluded that the area occupied by the petitioners was Lot No. 2161. The petitioners, for their part, insisted that the land they occupied was Lot No. 76-pt, which the bank had sold to the Solomon spouses.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents have a better right of possession over Lot No. 2161.
• Whether or not the complaint for accion publiciana has already prescribed.
• Whether or not the negligence of the petitioners' counsel entitles them to a new trial.

Applicable Provisions

Article 555 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in its fourth paragraph:

The real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.

This fixes the period within which the action for recovery of possession must be brought, and it bears directly on the second issue.

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, the Property Registration Decree, provides:

Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

This bars the petitioners from attacking Artemio's registered title within a suit that is merely for possession.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondents have the better right of possession. Accion publiciana is a plenary action to determine the better right to possession independently of title, and its objective is to recover possession only, not ownership. The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, established that the land occupied by the petitioners was Lot No. 2161, in the name of Artemio, and not Lot No. 76-pt, which the bank had sold. The Court also held that the factual findings of the trial court, adopted and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding, and it found no exceptional reason to depart from that policy.

On the second issue, the Court held that the action had not prescribed. The petitioners dispossessed the respondents in October 1987, and the complaint was filed on October 14, 1991, so only four years had elapsed. Under Article 555 of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is not lost until after the lapse of ten years, and accion publiciana prescribes after ten years. The action was therefore filed well within the allowable period.

On the third issue, the Court held that the illness of the petitioners' counsel and his failure to present additional evidence did not constitute sufficient ground for a new trial. Mistakes of counsel as to the competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, as well as his failure to introduce evidence or summon witnesses, are not proper grounds for a new trial unless the incompetence is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case. The Court also struck down the petitioners' attempt to show that Lot No. 2161 and Lot No. 76-pt are one and the same, because this amounted to a collateral attack on a registered title, which cannot be allowed. Ownership may be passed upon in a possession case only when possession cannot be resolved without it, and any such pronouncement is merely provisional.

Doctrine

Accion publiciana is a plenary action for the recovery of the right to possess real property, brought in the Regional Trial Court, where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or where possession has been lost for more than one year. Its objective is to recover possession only, not ownership. The action prescribes after ten years, consistent with Article 555 of the Civil Code. A certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked; it can be altered, modified, or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law, as Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 commands. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court absent exceptional reasons. Finally, the negligence or mistake of counsel is not a ground for a new trial unless it is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioners, thereby affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

Remember the line that accion publiciana recovers possession only, not ownership, and that it prescribes in ten years under Article 555 of the Civil Code. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between possession and ownership, the rule against collateral attack on a registered title under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, and the limits of counsel's negligence as a ground for new trial.