BIENVENIDO BARRIENTOS, petitioner, vs. MARIO RAPAL,
respondent
G.R. No. 169594 | July 20, 2011
FACTS:
On April 15, 1988, respondent Mario Rapal acquired a 235 sq.
m. land located at Batasan Hills, Quezon City from Antonio Natavio. Thereafter,
respondent constructed a semi-concrete house on the lot and took actual
possession of the property by himself and through his caretaker, Benjamin
Tamayo.
Sometime in 1993, respondent allowed petitioner Bienvenido
Barrientos and his family to stay on the subject property as caretakers on the
condition that petitioner shall vacate the premises when respondent would need
the property. However, when respondent demanded petitioner to vacate the
subject property, petitioner refused to leave the lot.
Thus on April 13, 1998, respondent filed a case for Unlawful
Detainer against the petitioner. The Trial court rendered a decision in favor
of the respondent.
On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision of the MeTC and
resolved in favor of petitioner, reasoning that respondent has not shown any
prior lawful possession of the property in question.
On April 29, 2005, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
In ruling in favor of the respondent the CA found that both parties presented
weak evidence of ownership. Hence, the CA determined who between the parties
was first in possession and concluded that respondent was indeed, first in
possession of the lot.
Petitioner contends that since respondent’s claim of
ownership was derived from a void title, he did not have a better right to
possess the property as opposed to by the petitioner who actually occupied the
same. He also points out that he was even awarded a Certificate of Project
Qualification by the Office of the President through the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council. Petitioner argues that since the property in
controversy is a government property, it is the government that can award the
same to qualified beneficiaries.
On his part, respondent argues that the CA did not commit
any reversible error by ruling in his favor, considering that the CA initially
looked into the issue of ownership only for the purpose of determining who
between the parties has a better right to possess the subject property. In
addition, petitioner failed to substantiate that he has a better right to
possess the subject property.
ISSUE:
Who has a better right over the subject property
RULING:
Ejectment cases—forcible entry and unlawful detainer – are
summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual
possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The only
question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled
to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto
and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title
to the property is questionable. In an unlawful detainer case, 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. 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.
As found by the CA, both petitioner and respondent presented
weak evidence of ownership. Respondent based his claim of ownership over the
subject property on the strength of a notarized Deed of Transfer of Possessory
Right from a certain Antonio Natavio. However, the Court has already declared
null and void the Titulo de Propriedad in which the subject land belongs.
Petioner, on the other hand, anchored his contention that he has a better right
to possess the property on the fact the he is in actual possession of the
property and that he was awarded a Certificate of Project Qualification by the
Office of the President through the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating
Council. However, petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence therefor, or
even sufficient reason on the manner by which he acquired ownership.
Based on the evidence presented by the respondent, it can be
deduced that petitioner’s occupation of the subject lot was by mere tolerance
only. Petitioner was initially permitted by respondent to occupy the lot as a
caretaker. All other supporting evidence bolster the fact that respondent was
in prior possession of the property before petitioner entered the same by mere
tolerance of the respondent.
Perusing respondent’s complaint, respondent clearly makes
out a case for unlawful detainer, since petitioner’s occupation of the subject
property was by mere tolerance. A person who occupies the land of another at
the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon
demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy
against them.
It should be stressed that unlawful detainer and forcible
entry suits, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, are designed to summarily
restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been
illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of
the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate
proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid disruption of public order by
those who would take the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their
claimed right of possession. In these cases, the issue is pure physical or de
facto possession, and pronouncements made on questions of ownership are
provisional in nature. The provisional determination of ownership in the
ejectment case cannot be clothed with finality.
Comments
Post a Comment