HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO, PETITIONERS, VS. AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG AND LIXBERTO CASTRO, RESPO…

Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco versus Busilak

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco, represented by their attorney-in-fact Teodoro Yusingco, against Amelita Busilak, Cosca Navarro, Flavia Curayag, and Lixberto Castro. The heirs filed consolidated complaints to recover possession of three parcels of land in Surigao City, and the respondents claimed they had occupied those lots for more than thirty years. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between two ideas that students often blur: the judgment in an action to recover land binds only the parties impleaded, yet a trespasser who entered without any right may still be bound by that judgment. It is a lesson on the person against whom a judgment operates, and on the difference between an action to recover the right of possession and an action to recover ownership.

Procedural History

The heirs filed five separate complaints for recovery of possession with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Surigao City, Branch 1, and the cases were consolidated. On February 25, 2011, the municipal trial court rendered an Omnibus Judgment in favor of the heirs, ordering the respondents to vacate the premises, to remove their improvements, and to restore possession, and ordering each respondent to pay monthly compensation for the use of the property occupied, computed from the filing of the complaint until vacating. The respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30. On August 17, 2011, the regional trial court rendered a Joint Decision affirming the Omnibus Judgment with modification as to the defendants who did not appeal. The respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which on July 31, 2013 granted the petition, set aside the Joint Decision, set aside the Omnibus Judgment, and dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the earlier judgments declaring the heirs as owners came from an action in personam and bound only the parties impleaded, and the respondents were not parties to that action. The heirs then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

The heirs are the successors-in-interest of Alfonso Yusingco. They own three parcels of land, denominated as Lot 519, Lot 520, and Lot 1015, all located at Barangay Taft, Surigao City. They possessed the properties before and at the start of the Second World War, but lost possession during the war. After the war, they discovered that several persons occupied the properties, and they filed separate cases for recovery of ownership and possession against those persons.

While those cases were pending, the respondents entered different portions of the same properties without the knowledge and consent of the heirs. The heirs tolerated the occupation because they lacked sufficient resources to protect the property at that time and because their ownership was still being disputed in the earlier cases. The earlier cases were eventually decided in their favor, and they were declared the owners of the properties.

The heirs then demanded that the respondents vacate, but the respondents refused. The respondents claimed they had possessed the properties for more than thirty years, that the heirs never actually possessed the lots, and that the heirs never had title over them. The municipal trial court found that the respondents were mere intruders who occupied their portions simply as places to stay, hoping to acquire the lots should these turn out to be public land. Not one of them had declared the lot in his or her name for tax purposes, and none had applied under any legal mode of acquiring land of the public domain.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaints filed by the heirs, captioned as actions for recovery of possession, are in truth actions to recover ownership.
• Whether or not the final and executory decisions in the previous action to recover ownership, finding the heirs to be the lawful owners of the properties, are binding upon the respondents who were not parties to that action.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it rests on the settled classification of the three actions for recovery of real property, which the Court states as follows:

Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

This classification bears on the case because it determines the nature of the suit and, in turn, the reach of the judgment rendered in it.

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year.

This defines the action that pleads a better right of possession independently of title.

Accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.

This is the characterization the Court adopts for the heirs' complaints, since they sought possession on the basis of ownership.

It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam.

This is the rule the Court of Appeals applied, and the Court accepts it, but reads it together with its exception.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the lower courts did not err in ruling that the suits filed by the petitioners are actions to recover ownership, not actions to recover the right of possession, because the petitioners seek to recover possession of the lots on the basis of their ownership of them. The caption does not control; the allegations and the relief sought do.

On the second issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It accepted the premise that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of property is in personam, conclusive not against the whole world but only between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action. An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action, yet it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing, and any judgment therein binds only the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. But the rule admits of an exception: even a non-party may be bound by the judgment where he is a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; a guest or occupant with the permission of the defendant; a transferee pendente lite; a sublessee; a co-lessee; or a member of the family, relative, or privy of the defendant.

The Court found no reason to depart from the findings of the municipal trial court, affirmed by the regional trial court, that the respondents are mere intruders or trespassers without any right to possess the lots. Their entry was illegal from the beginning and remained so, and their possession was not under a claim of ownership, so it could not ripen into ownership by prescription. As between the petitioners, who had been judicially declared the owners, and the respondents, who are mere squatters, the former are entitled to legal protection. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in ruling that the prior judgments were not binding on the respondents, who, being trespassers, fall within the exception.

Doctrine

A judgment in an action to recover a parcel of land is in personam. It is conclusive only between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, and binds only those properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. The exception is that a non-party may be bound where he is a trespasser, squatter, or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; a guest or occupant with the permission of the defendant; a transferee pendente lite; a sublessee; a co-lessee; or a member of the family, relative, or privy of the defendant. The character of the action is determined by its allegations and relief, not its caption: an action to recover the right of possession is accion publiciana, while an action to recover ownership is accion reivindicatoria. A possessor who occupies land without any claim of ownership, and who never applies under any legal mode of acquiring land of the public domain, cannot ripen his possession into ownership by prescription.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals Decision was reversed and set aside, and the Omnibus Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City, dated February 25, 2011, was reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a judgment in an action to recover land is in personam, but a trespasser is bound by it as an exception. Examiners use this case to test the reach of a judgment against non-parties and the distinction between accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria.