BELINDA E. SORIANO, CHRISTINE EVANGELISTA, MICHELLE NICOLE SORIANO, JOSE ENRIQUE ROXAS III, AND BERNARDINA FELICIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. ANTONIO V. ESTRELLA, RESPONDENT.

Soriano versus Estrella

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Belinda Soriano, Christine Evangelista, Michelle Nicole Soriano, Jose Enrique Roxas III, and Bernardina Feliciano against Antonio Estrella. The respondent Antonio filed a complaint for unlawful detainer to recover the basement of a house on a property registered in his name, and the occupants resisted on the startling ground that Antonio had already died, as shown by a certificate of death recorded in 1990. The case matters because the Supreme Court confronts a question of first impression: may a court in a summary ejectment suit pass upon the fact of the plaintiff's death, and if so, with what effect? The answer shapes how possessory actions are tried and how much weight a certificate of death carries in them.

Procedural History

Antonio filed his complaint for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that Antonio had failed to establish his right to absolute possession, that the property appeared to be conjugal, and that his wife had countermanded the ejectment by authorizing the occupants to stay. Antonio appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which affirmed the dismissal, now for lack of cause of action, agreeing that the possession of the occupants had not become illegal and that the recorded death had stripped Antonio of legal capacity. Antonio then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court, found all the elements of unlawful detainer present, ordered the occupants to vacate and turn over possession, and gave no credit to the wife's authorization letter. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration, and the occupants came to the Supreme Court by appeal by certiorari.

Facts

Antonio Estrella is the registered owner of a property on South Maya Street in PhilAm Homes, Quezon City, conveyed to him by his parents. With his consent, Maria Teresa Estrella, the mother of the petitioners, occupied the basement of the house on the property. When Teresa died in February 2004, Belinda, Christine, and Jose begged Antonio to let them stay, promising to leave once they found a suitable place to reside. As they were his nieces and nephew, he allowed them to use the basement and to introduce improvements without paying rent.

In September 2012, Antonio told them of his plan to renovate the basement and demanded that they vacate. They refused. Barangay conciliation failed and a certification to file action was issued. Antonio then sent a demand letter to vacate dated July 1, 2013, received on July 19, 2013, which went unheeded. He filed the complaint for ejectment on January 30, 2014.

The occupants answered that their grandparents had titled the property in Antonio's name, that the lot and improvements were declared for tax purposes in their mother's name, and that they had possessed the property peacefully and continuously. Crucially, they claimed that Antonio had been declared dead on November 14, 1990, and they presented a certificate of death. They also relied on a notarized authorization letter dated March 12, 2014, in which Antonio's wife, Maria Rosario Castro-Estrella, allowed them to continue occupying the lower portion of the house without paying rent.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling against the petitioners despite the respondent's failure to contest the authenticity of his certificate of death.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding the authorization letter of the respondent's wife inefficacious.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the elements of unlawful detainer are present in this case.

Applicable Provisions

Article 410 of the Civil Code provides:

The books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.

This makes the certificate of death prima facie evidence of the fact of death, but only prima facie, hence rebuttable.

Section 23 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter.

This is the evidentiary basis for treating the certificate of death as prima facie proof, and no more, of the fact stated in it.

Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides:

Any person interested in any act, event, or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

This is the remedy for cancelling an entry, and the Court holds it is not a precondition to an ejectment suit.

Section 16 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

This is the model of a provisional ruling, by parity with which the fact of death may be provisionally passed upon.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the certificate of death is prima facie evidence only, and that the courts below erred in treating it as conclusive until cancelled under Rule 108. The Court stressed the summary nature of ejectment, whose goal is a speedy settlement of possession de facto. To require a plaintiff to first secure cancellation of his own certificate of death would defeat that purpose. Instead, the court may pass upon the fact of death solely to determine who is entitled to physical or material possession, and any such finding is merely provisional and will not bar a subsequent action involving the same fact. The Court drew a parity with the provisional treatment of ownership in ejectment, quoting that the ruling on ownership "does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land nor is it conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession."

On the second issue, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals in giving no credit to the wife's authorization letter. Since Antonio and his wife were married in 1962, their property relations are governed by the Civil Code, under which each spouse retains exclusive ownership of property acquired by lucrative title, including inheritance or donation. The property came to Antonio from his parents, and since he is alive, no successional rights passed to his wife or heirs, so the letter conveyed no rights to the petitioners.

On the third issue, the Court found all the elements of unlawful detainer present. Antonio, the registered owner, merely tolerated the possession of the petitioners; he demanded that they vacate by letter received on July 19, 2013; they refused and remained; and he filed the complaint on January 30, 2014, within the one-year period. The Court also held that it may review the facts because the findings of the Court of Appeals conflicted with those of the trial courts.

Doctrine

A court in an ejectment suit may provisionally pass upon the fact of death of the plaintiff where necessary to resolve the issue of possession, and such finding is merely provisional, not conclusive, and does not bar a subsequent action on the same fact. A certificate of death is a public document and prima facie evidence of the fact of death under Article 410 of the Civil Code and Section 23 of Rule 132, but it is rebuttable and does not require prior cancellation under Rule 108 before a court may look behind it in a summary possessory action. The provisional treatment of the fact of death follows, by parity, the provisional treatment of ownership under Section 16 of Rule 70.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, thereby sustaining the Court of Appeals, and the petitioners were ordered to vacate the property and turn over possession to Antonio Estrella.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the fact of death of a plaintiff in ejectment may be provisionally passed upon, and the finding is not conclusive and bars no later action. Examiners use this case to test the provisional nature of rulings in summary ejectment, the rebuttable character of a certificate of death, and the parity between provisional findings on ownership and on the fact of death.