G.R. No. 111915 September 30, 1999 HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS, represented b!I"A#"A# VINZONS$ %HA&O, petitioners, vs. %O'R& OF A((EA!S )nd *ENA EDORIA, respondents. GONZAGA$RE#ES, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the January 27, 1993 1 e!ision and "epte#$er 1%, 1993 + Resolution of the &ourt of appeals 3 in &'().R. "P *o. 239+. -he &ourt of 'ppeals &'/ set aside the e!ision of the Regional -rial &ourt R-&/ of aet, &a#arines *orte in &ivil &ase *o. 032, affir#ing that of the uni!ipal -rial &ourt -&/ in &ivil &ase *o. 2137 5 , whi!h ordered the e e!t#ent of herein private respondent. -he fa!tual ante!edents of this !ase arePetitioners 4eirs of 5in6ons are !o(owners of a par!el of land in Barangay 0, aet, of whi!h a portion #easuring 1+.0 suare #eters is $eing o!!upied $y respondent ena 8doria as lessee sin!e 1901. Respondent $uilt thereon a residential house worth P+%,%%%.%%. 4e started paying a #onthly rent of P+.%% whi!h $y 19had rea!hed P13.%%. "o#eti#e in 19, an ee!t#ent suit was filed $y petitioners several others also o!!upying the sa#e lot owned $y the#, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 1923, on the ground, a#ong others, of non(pay#ent of rentals. 'fter trial, however, the !ase was dis#issed on the finding that respondent was not in arrears $ut was even advan!e in his rental pay#ents. Both petitioner and respondent appealed fro# said de!ision to the Regional -rial &ourt. "o#eti#e in 19, while the aforesaid &ase *o. 1923 was pending appeal $efore the R-&, petitioner filed another ee!t#ent suit, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2%1, against respondent and thirty(nine 39/ others alleging that said defendants refused to enter into an agree#ent with the# as tenants(lessees and refused to pay the in!reased rent of P1.%% per suare #eter per #onth. Respondent resisted the !lai# alleging, a#ong others, la!k of !ause of a!tion and penden!y of the earlier ee!t#ent !ase. -he trial !ourt rendered its de!ision dis#issing the !ase against respondent in view of the penden!y of &ivil &ase *o. 1923 on appeal. -his de!ision was again elevated to the R-&. :hile &ivil &ase *o. 2%1 was pending appeal in the R-&, petitioners again filed the instant suit for ee!t#ent do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2137 on the following groundsa/ e;piration oflease !ontra!t as of 19+< $/ refusal to sign written renewal of !ontra!t of lease< and !/ non( pay#ent of rent for one 1/ year and ten 1%/ #onths. =n his answer, respon dent sought dis#issal of the !o#plaint on the following grounds< a/ it did not pass through $arangay !on!iliation< $/ no prior de#and was #ade or if there was su!h a de#and, it was #ade #ore than one year prior to the filing of the !ase< !/ there was no !ause of a!tion as it was in violation of P2% and BP Blg. 20< d/ the !ase is $arred $y prior udg#ent< and e/ there is still pending appeal a si#ilar !ase $etween the parties, &ivil &ase *o. 2%1. 'fter trial, the -& of aet rendered its de!ision orderi ng respondent to va!ate the pre#ises and pay the a!!rued rentals. >n appeal to the R-&, the said de!ision was affir#ed in toto. -he &', however, reversed the two 2/ earlier de!isions $y dis#issing the !o#plaint on the
HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS, represented b !I"A#"A# VINZONS$%HA&O, petitioners,vs.%O'R& OF A((EA!S )nd *ENA EDORIA, respondents.
GONZAGA$RE#ES, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the January 27,1993 1 e!ision and "epte#$er 1%, 1993 + Resolution of the &ourt of appeals 3 in &'().R. "P*o. 239+. -he &ourt of 'ppeals &'/ set aside the e!ision of the Regional -rial &ourt R-&/of aet, &a#arines *orte in &ivil &ase *o. 032, affir#ing that of the uni!ipal -rial &ourt -&/in &ivil &ase *o. 2137 5, whi!h ordered the ee!t#ent of herein private respondent.
-he fa!tual ante!edents of this !ase are
Petitioners 4eirs of 5in6ons are !o(owners of a par!el of land in Barangay 0, aet, of whi!ha portion #easuring 1+.0 suare #eters is $eing o!!upied $y respondent ena 8doria aslessee sin!e 1901. Respondent $uilt thereon a residential house worth P+%,%%%.%%. 4estarted paying a #onthly rent of P+.%% whi!h $y 19 had rea!hed P13.%%.
"o#eti#e in 19, an ee!t#ent suit was filed $y petitioners several others also o!!upyingthe sa#e lot owned $y the#, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 1923, on the ground, a#ongothers, of non(pay#ent of rentals. 'fter trial, however, the !ase was dis#issed on the findingthat respondent was not in arrears $ut was even advan!e in his rental pay#ents. Bothpetitioner and respondent appealed fro# said de!ision to the Regional -rial &ourt.
"o#eti#e in 19, while the aforesaid &ase *o. 1923 was pending appeal $efore the R-&,petitioner filed another ee!t#ent suit, do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2%1, against respondentand thirty(nine 39/ others alleging that said defendants refused to enter into an agree#entwith the# as tenants(lessees and refused to pay the in!reased rent of P1.%% per suare#eter per #onth. Respondent resisted the !lai# alleging, a#ong others, la!k of !ause ofa!tion and penden!y of the earlier ee!t#ent !ase. -he trial !ourt rendered its de!isiondis#issing the !ase against respondent in view of the penden!y of &ivil &ase *o. 1923 onappeal. -his de!ision was again elevated to the R-&.
:hile &ivil &ase *o. 2%1 was pending appeal in the R-&, petitioners again filed the instantsuit for ee!t#ent do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 2137 on the following grounds a/ e;piration of lease !ontra!t as of 19+< $/ refusal to sign written renewal of !ontra!t of lease< and !/ non(pay#ent of rent for one 1/ year and ten 1%/ #onths. =n his answer, respondent sought
dis#issal of the !o#plaint on the following grounds< a/ it did not pass through $arangay!on!iliation< $/ no prior de#and was #ade or if there was su!h a de#and, it was #ade#ore than one year prior to the filing of the !ase< !/ there was no !ause of a!tion as it wasin violation of P 2% and BP Blg. 20< d/ the !ase is $arred $y prior udg#ent< and e/ there isstill pending appeal a si#ilar !ase $etween the parties, &ivil &ase *o. 2%1.
'fter trial, the -& of aet rendered its de!ision ordering respondent to va!ate the pre#isesand pay the a!!rued rentals. >n appeal to the R-&, the said de!ision was affir#ed in toto.-he &', however, reversed the two 2/ earlier de!isions $y dis#issing the !o#plaint on the
ground of litis pendentia, failure to !o#ply with the ?atarungang Pa#$arangay @aw P10%/< and la!k of eviden!e of prior de#and to va!ate $efore instituting the !o#plaint.
Petitioners argue that the &' was duty($ound, under the rules and urispruden!e, to giveweight to the findings of fa!t of the -& sin!e the sa#e had already $een affir#ed in toto $ythe R-&. urther, it is argued that the a!tion is not $arred $y prior udg#ent and the prin!ipleof litis pendentia does not apply< that the petitioners !o#plied with the reuire#ents of P
10%< and that de#and to va!ate is not ne!essary for udi!ial a!tion in !ase of e;piration ofthe lease !ontra!t.
-he petition is devoid of #erit, we find that the -& had i#properly assu#ed urisdi!tionover the ee!t#ent suit.
irst, this !ase $eing one of unlawful detainer, it #ust have $een filed within one year fro#the date of last de#and with the uni!ipal -rial &ourt, otherwise it is an accion
publiciana !ogni6a$le $y the Regional -rial &ourt. -he rule is that the one(year periodprovided for in "e!tion 1, Rule 7% of the Rules of &ourt / within whi!h a !o#plaint for unlawfuldetainer !an $e filed should $e !ounted fro# the last letter of de#and to va!ate. 9 Accion
publiciana is the plenary a!tion to re!over the right of possession when dispossession has lastedfor #ore than one year. 10
-here is no uestion that the petitionersD dispossession has lasted for #ore than one year. =ntheir &o#plaint and Position paper, petitioners alleged that the lease !ontra!t e;pired in19+ 11< that thereafter, private respondent $e!a#e a lessee on a #onth(to(#onth $asis 1+< andthat $efore the filing of &ivil &ases *os. 19%, 1923 and 2%1, de#and to va!ate had already$een #ade to defendant. 13 "in!e &ivil &ase *o. 19% was instituted in 19< &ivil &ase *o. 1923in 19< and &ivil &ase *o. 2%1 in 'pril 19, the alleged de#ands to va!ate to a$ort an i#pliedrenewal of the lease on a #onth(to(#onth $asis were #ade $etween 19 and 19, the lastone, $efore 'pril 19. 5erily, the instant &o#plaint for ee!t#ent filed $y petitioner in >!to$er199, was filed #ore than one year fro# the ter#ination of the #onth(to(#onth lease so#e ti#e$efore 'pril 19. =t is well(esta$lished that what deter#ines the nature of an a!tion and!orrespondingly the !ourt whi!h has urisdi!tion over it is the allegation #ade $y the plaintiff in his!o#plaint. 1
"e!ond, the !hallenged de!ision !orre!tly dis#issed the !ase for failure of the plaintiffs, thepetitioners herein, to avail of the $arangay !on!iliation pro!ess under P 10%, preli#inaryto udi!ial re!ourse. -he &ourt of 'ppeals had found that Ethere is no !lear showing that itwas $rought $efore the Barangay @upon or Pangkat of Barangay 0, aet, &a#arines *orte,where the parties reside and the property su$e!t of the !ase is situated, as there is no$arangay !ertifi!ation to file a!tion atta!hed to the !o#plaint. 15
va!ate and leave the sa#e, $ut said defendants unreasona$ly refused at t%esame time claiming o&ners%ip of t%e property, and alleging furt%er t%at t%eyboug%t t%e same from a certain Pablo Aguinaldo'
0. $%at in order to quiet t%e title of o&ners%ip over t%is land , the plaintiffshave $een !o#pelled to institute the present a!tion and, as a !onseuen!e,
she suffered da#ages in the su# of >ne -housand Pesos P1,%%%.%%/,Philippine &urren!y, as attorneyDs fees<
. -hat the defendants thru their a!ts stated a$ove have therefore #ali!iouslyand unlawfully detained the land of plaintiffs sin!e e$ruary, 19< and
7. -hat for the unlawful o!!upation of the land, an esti#ate of ifty P0%.%%/Pesos #onthly rental is here$y !lai#ed as reasona$le da#ages suffered $yplaintiffs sin!e e$ruary, 19. +
Petitioners a!!ordingly prayed in their !o#plaint for udg#ent a/ Ede!laring Hthe#I to $e theowners of the property des!ri$ed ... E< $/ Eordering the defendants to va!ate the pre#ises
and return the possession of the sa#e to plaintiffs<E !/ Eordering the defendants to payplaintiffs, ointly and severally, the su# of ifty Pesos P0%.%%/, Philippine &urren!y, rental orda#ages every #onth effe!tive the first day of e$ruary, 19, until the possession of thepre#ises is finally restored in favor of plaintiffs<E and further ordering defendants to pay the#d/ P1,%%%.%% attorneyDs fees and e/ !osts of suit.
Apon respondentsD #otion to dis#iss the !o#plaint on the ground that Ethe !ourt has no urisdi!tion over the nature of the a!tion or suitE and that the a!tion e#$odied in petitionersD!o#plaint Eis a!tually one for ee!t#ent or unlawful detainer. &onseuently, the !ase fallswithin the original e;!lusive urisdi!tion of the inferior !ourt or #uni!ipal !ourtE as againstpetitioners opposition that EplaintiffsD !o#plaint is prin!ipally one to uiet title to property, theuestion of possession $eing #erely redu!ed to an in!idental issue,E the lower !ourt issuedits appealed order of 'ugust 10, 19, finding the #otion to dis#iss to $e Ewell foundedE anddis#issing the !ase Efor la!k of urisdi!tionE.-he lower !ourt reasoned that
' perusal of the a!tual aver#ents of fa!ts in the !o#plaint do not reveal anyallegation of ulti#ate fa!ts whi!h !ould suffi!iently support an a!tion to uiettitle. Apon the other hand, it is plain that the allegations of fa!ts are only!onstitutive of an a!tion for unlawful detainer. -he allegation in paragraph 0of said !o#plaint Dthat in order to uiet the title of ownership over this land,the plaintiffs have $een !o#pelled to institute the present a!tion ... is notsuffi!ient $y itself to !onsider this !ase as an a!tion for uieting title under
'rti!le +7 of the *ew &ivil &ode. *either does the prayer of said !o#plaintasking that the plaintiffs $e de!lared the owners of the property in uestion!onstitute a !ause of a!tion.
4en!e, the present petition for review and setting aside of the dis#issal order, whi!h the&ourt finds to $e #eritorious. -he lower !ourt was !learly in error in issuing its dis#issalorder on its #istaken notion Ethat the allegations of fa!ts are only !onstitutive of an a!tion forunlawful detainerE sin!e the !o#plaint shows on its fa!e that respondentsD refusal to deliverthe possession of the property was due to their adverse !lai# of ownership of the sa#eproperty and their !ounter(allegation that they had $ought the sa#e fro# a !ertain Pa$lo
'guinaldo, and, therefore, petitionersD a!tion was !learly one for re!overy of their right to
possess the property possessionde jure/ as well as to $e de!lared the owners thereof asagainst the !ontrary !lai# of respondents.
's restated $y the late &hief Justi!e oran E-here are three kinds of a!tions for there!overy of possession of real pro. property, na#ely, 1/ the su##ary a!tion for for!i$le entryor detainer deno#inated accion interdictal under the for#er law of pro!edure, (ey de
#njuiciamiento Civil / whi!h seeks the re!overy of physi!al possession only and is $roughtwithin one year in the usti!e of the pea!e !ourt< 2/ the accion publiciana whi!h is for there!overy of the right to possess and is a plenary a!tion in an ordinary !ivil pro!eeding in a&ourt of irst =nstan!e< and 3/ accion de reivindicacion whi!h seeks the re!overy ofownership whi!h of !ourse in!ludes the us utendi and the us fruendi also $rought in the&ourt of irst =nstan!e. 3
=t has $een said that E-/he only issue in for!i$le entry and detainer !ases isthe p%ysical possession of real property possession de fa!to and not possession de ure =fplaintiff !an prove a prior possession in hi#self, he #ay re!over su!h possession even fro#the owner hi#self. :hatever #ay $e the !hara!ter of his prior possession, if he has in hisfavor priority of ti#e, he has the se!urity that entitles hi# to stay on the property until he is
lawfully ee!ted $y a person having a $etter right $y either accion publiciana or accionreivindicatoria. PetitionersD a!tion was not #erely for re!overy of possession de fa!to. -heira!tion was !learly one of a!!ion pu$li!iana for re!overy of possession de ure if not one of accionreivindicatoria for de!laration of their ownership of the land.
's reaffir#ed $y the &ourt in the analogous !ase of Aguilon vs. )o%ol 5 petitioners a!tion is atleast Ean a!!ion pu$li!iana, whi!h a!tion D!orrespondent al ue tiene dere!ho a la possession,!ontra el ue posee sin dere!ho oD !on titulo #enos fir#e para ue se ponga la !osa en poderdel a!tor !on todas las a!!esiones, frutos etsD = 8n!i!lopedia Juridi!a 8spanola +0%/,E andsu!h accion publiciana or the plenary a!tion in an ordinary !ivil pro!eeding to deter#ine the$etter and legal right to possess independently of title/ !learly falls within the urisdi!tion of the&ourts of irst =nstan!e and not of the uni!ipal &ourts. -he &ourt further unders!ored thereinEthat an a!tion for re!overy of possession is an urgent #atter whi!h #ust $e de!ided pro#ptly to
forestall $rea!hes of pea!e, violen!e or even loss of life and, therefore, the !ourt should a!tswiftly and e;peditiously in !ases of that nature.
Petitioners, therefore, !orre!tly filed their accion publiciana $efore the lower !ourt as againstrespondentsK !lai# that they should instead have filed a su##ary a!tion for detainer in the#uni!ipal !ourt. 4aving $een fully apprised of respondentsD refusal to surrender possessionand their !ontrary !lai# of ownership of the sa#e property, petitioners properly filedtheir accion publiciana with the &ourt of irst =nstan!e to avoid getting en#eshed in whatwould !ertainly have $een another urisdi!tional dispute, sin!e they !ould reasona$ly foreseethat if indeed they had filed a su##ary a!tion for illegal detainer instead in the #uni!ipal!ourt, respondents would then have !ontended, !ontrary to their present !lai#, that the#uni!ipal !ourt is without urisdi!tion over the detainer !ase $y virtue of their !ontrary !lai#of ownership of the property. -
'&&>R=*)@C, udg#ent is here$y rendered, setting aside the lower !ourtDs dis#issal order of 'ugust 10, 19 and the !ase is re#anded to respondent &ourt of irst =nstan!e withinstru!tions to e;pedite the pro!eedings and trial and deter#ination thereof on the #erits.:ith !osts against respondents. -his de!ision is i##ediately e;e!utory.
a*asiar, +ernande, uerrero, e Castro and elencio-/errera, ""., concur.
By way of !ounter!lai#, respondents prayed that petitioner $e dire!ted to e;e!ute thene!essary do!u#ents so that title to the 37.0(suare #eter portion of @ot 3 !ould $eissued in their na#e. -hey likewise prayed for the dis#issal of the !o#plaint and for awardof #oral and e;e#plary da#ages, as well as attorneyLs fees.
=n her Reply and 'nswer to &ounter!lai#,7 petitioner denied having signed the ?asulatan sa
Bilihan and averred that her signature appearing thereon is a forgery. "he presented anunsworn written de!laration dated January 2, 199+ where her hus$and de!lared that he didnot sell the property in uestion to anyone. 's to the issue of pres!ription, she asserted thatrespondentsL o!!upation of su$e!t property !annot ripen into ownership !onsidering that thesa#e is $y #ere toleran!e of the owner. Besides, the purported ?asulatan sa Bilihan wasnot registered with the proper Registry of eeds. 1avvp%i1
uring the trial, petitioner presented the testi#onies of >rlando 'guilar >rlando/ andMenaida Baldeo Menaida/. >rlando testified that he has $een staying in @ot 3 sin!e 19%and had $uilt a house thereon where he is presently residing< and, that his #other, hereinpetitioner, denied having sold the property or having signed any do!u#ent for that #atter.
Menaida also testified that in 191, her father =gna!io/ and 8derlina had a !onfrontation$efore the $arangay during whi!h her father denied having !onveyed any portion of @ot 3 toany$ody. "he further testified that she is fa#iliar with the signature of her father and that thesignature appearing on the ?asulatan sa Bilihan is not her fatherLs signature.
or their part, respondents offered in eviden!e the testi#onies of 8strella Ber#udo 'lfaro8strella/, 8derlina, and Jose -a#polino Jose/. 8strella de!lared that she was present when=gna!io and the petitioner affi;ed their signatures on the ?asulatan sa Bilihan, whi!h wasa!knowledged $efore *otary Pu$li! Juan N. antayana on 'pril 17, 1973. "he narrated thather #other a!tually pur!hased the property in 190+, $ut it was only in 1973 when the vendore;e!uted the deed of sale. =n fa!t, her father ran!is!o Ber#udo was a$le to se!ure a per#itto ere!t a house on the disputed property fro# the >ffi!e of the ayor of "a$layan,>!!idental indoro in 190+. "he was surprised to learn though that their property is still
registered in the na#e of the petitioner.
8derlina !orro$orated the de!larations of 8strella. "he also alleged that her parentso!!upied the property in 190+ when they $uilt a hut there, then later on, a house of strong#aterials.
Jose !orro$orated the de!larations of the other witnesses for the respondents that thedisputed portion of @ot 3 is owned $y 'nasta!ia.
R72n o4 t8e Re2on)7 &r2)7 %ort
=n its e!ision9 dated "epte#$er 21, 199, the !ourt a uo ordered the respondents to
va!ate su$e!t pre#ises and denied their !ounter!lai# for re!onveyan!e on the grounds ofpres!ription and la!hes. =t held that the pres!riptive period for re!onvenyan!e of fraudulentlyregistered real property is 1% years re!koned fro# the date of the issuan!e of the !ertifi!ateof title. =n this !ase, however, it is not disputed that >&- *o. P(930+ !overing the entire @ot3 was issued to =gna!io in 1977. -he trial !ourt likewise held that respondents are guilty ofla!hes and that the re!onveyan!e of the disputed property in their favor would violate therule on indefeasi$ility of -orrens title.
-he dispositive portion of the trial !ourtLs e!ision reads
:48R8>R8, and in the light of all the foregoing !onsiderations, udg#ent is here$yrendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit
1. >rdering the defendants and any person !lai#ing right under the# to va!ate thepre#ises in uestion and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiff<
2. -o pay the a#ount of -en -housand Pesos P1%,%%%.%%/ as and for reasona$leattorneyLs fees<
3. -o pay the !osts of this suit.
"> >R8R8.1%
R72n o4 t8e %ort o4 Appe)7s
>n June 7, 2%%+, the &' pro#ulgated its e!ision11 reversing the trial !ourtLs e!ision anddis#issing the !o#plaint, as well as respondentsL !ounter!lai#. -he &' upheld the validity of the ?asulatan sa Bilihan sin!e it is a notari6ed do!u#ent and disputa$ly presu#ed to $e
authenti! and duly e;e!uted. =n addition, witness 8strella !ategori!ally de!lared that she waspresent when petitioner and =gna!io signed the ?asulatan sa Bilihan. -he &' ela$orated thatin order to disprove the presu#ption a!!orded to a notari6ed do!u#ent, the party !ontestingits authenti!ity and due e;e!ution #ust present a !lear and !onvin!ing eviden!e to the!ontrary, whi!h the petitioner failed to do.
-he &' likewise disagreed with the !ourt a uo that respondentsL !ounter!lai# should $edis#issed on the ground of indefeasi$ility of title. =t e#phasi6ed that the -orrens syste# wasadopted to prote!t inno!ent third parties for value and not to prote!t fraud. *onetheless, the&' did not grant the relief sought in respondentsL !ounter!lai# !onsidering that not allinterested parties were i#pleaded in the !ase.
-he dispositive portion of the &'Ls e!ision reads
=* 5=8: > -48 >R8)>=*), the de!ision appealed fro# is R858R"8, and a new one8*-8R8 dis#issing the !o#plaint and !ounter!lai#.
"> >R8R8.12
=ssue
:ithout seeking re!onsideration of the &'Ls e!ision, petitioner interposed the presentre!ourse raising the sole issue of
Petitioner !ontends that the &' grievously erred in upholding the validity and genuineness of the ?asulatan sa Bilihan. "he alleges that she wanted to take the witness stand to dis!lai#in open !ourt her purported signature appearing on respondentsL ?asulatan sa Bilihan, $ut!ould not do so $e!ause she is too old, $ed(ridden and has to $ear a tortuous five(hour drive
to rea!h the !ourt. *evertheless, she e;e!uted a sworn state#ent de!laring that she and her hus$and never sold any portion of @ot 3 and that their signatures appearing on said deedwere forged. "he avers that the assistan!e of an e;pert witness is not even ne!essary todete!t the patent dissi#ilarities $etween said forged signatures and their authenti!signatures.
Petitioner likewise argues that the &' erred in taking into !onsideration the appearan!e and!ondition of the paper where the ?asulatan sa Bilihan is written. "he posits that thefa$ri!ation of an an!ient(looking do!u#ent nowadays is no longer diffi!ult. "he also points toseveral !ir!u#stan!es whi!h !ast dou$t on the authenti!ity and due e;e!ution of the?asulatan sa Bilihan, $ut whi!h the &' ine;pli!a$ly ignored
urther#ore, petitioner #aintains that her title is indefeasi$le. 'nd while there are e;!eptionsto the rule on indefeasi$ility of title,1+ she e#phasi6es that respondents never disputed hertitle. :ith regard to the ta; de!larations presented $y respondents, petitioner asserts that ithas $een the !onsistent ruling of this &ourt that ta; de!larations are not ne!essarily proof ofownership.
=n their !o##ent, respondents assert that in petitions filed under Rule +0 of the Rules of&ourt, only uestions of law !an $e raised. a!tual issues are prohi$ited. ro# theargu#ents advan!ed $y the petitioner, however, it is !lear that she is asking this &ourt toe;a#ine and weigh again the eviden!e on re!ord.
>ur Ruling
:e grant the petition.
-his !ase falls under the e;!eptions where the "upre#e &ourt #ay review fa!tual issues.
's a rule, only uestions of law #ay $e raised in petitions for review on !ertiorari.10 =t is
settled that in the e;er!ise of the "upre#e &ourtLs power of review, the !ourt is not a trier offa!ts and does not nor#ally undertake the re(e;a#ination of the eviden!e presented $y the!ontending parties during the trial of the !ase.1 -his rule, however, is su$e!t to a nu#$er ofe;!eptions,17 one of whi!h is when the findings of the appellate !ourt are !ontrary to those ofthe trial !ourt, like in the present !ase.
*ature and purpose of a!!ion pu$li!iana.
'lso known as a!!ion plenaria de posesion,1 a!!ion pu$li!iana is an
ordinary !ivil pro!eeding to deter#ine the $etter right of possession of realty independentlyof title.19 =t refers to an ee!t#ent suit filed after the e;piration of one year fro# the a!!rual of
the !ause of a!tion or fro# the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
2%
-he o$e!tive of the plaintiffs in a!!ion pu$li!iana is to re!over possession only, notownership.21 4owever, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the !ourts #ay passupon the issue to deter#ine who $etween the parties has the right to possess the property.-his adudi!ation, however, is not a final and $inding deter#ination of the issue of ownership<it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownershipis insepara$ly linked to the issue of possession. -he adudi!ation of the issue of ownership,
$eing provisional, is not a $ar to an a!tion $etween the sa#e parties involving title to theproperty.22 -he adudi!ation, in short, is not !on!lusive on the issue of ownership.23
)uided $y the foregoing urisprudential guideposts, we shall now resolve the argu#entsraised $y the parties in this petition.
's against petitionerLs -orrens title, respondentsL ?asulatan sa Bilihan !annot !onfer $etterright to possess.
=t is settled that a -orrens title is eviden!e of indefeasi$le title to property in favor of theperson in whose na#e the title appears.2+ =t is !on!lusive eviden!e with respe!t to theownership of the land des!ri$ed therein.20 =t is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to allthe attri$utes of ownership of the property, in!luding possession.2-hus, in 'ra#$ulo v.)unga$,27 this &ourt de!lared that the Eage(old rule is that the person who has a -orrens titleover a land is entitled to possession thereof.E
=n the present !ase, there is no dispute that petitioner is the holder of a -orrens title over theentire @ot 3. Respondents have only their notari6ed $ut unregistered ?asulatan sa Bilihan
to support their !lai# of ownership. -hus, even if respondentsL proof of ownership has in itsfavor a uris tantu# presu#ption of authenti!ity and due e;e!ution, the sa#e !annot prevailover petitionerLs -orrens title. -his has $een our !onsistent ruling whi!h we re!entlyreiterated in Pas!ual v. &oronel,2 vi6
8ven if we sustain the petitionersL argu#ents and rule that the deeds of sale are valid!ontra!ts, it would still not $olster the petitionersL !ase. =n a nu#$er of !ases, the &ourt hadupheld the registered ownersL superior right to possess the property. =n &o v. ilitar, the&ourt was !onfronted with a si#ilar issue of whi!h $etween the !ertifi!ate of title and anunregistered deed of sale should $e given #ore pro$ative weight in resolving the issue ofwho has the $etter right to possess. -here, the &ourt held that the !ourt a uo !orre!tlyrelied on the transfer !ertifi!ate of title in the na#e of petitioner, as opposed to theunregistered title in the na#e of respondents. -he &ourt stressed therein that the -orrens"yste# was adopted in this !ountry $e!ause it was $elieved to $e the #ost effe!tive#easure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to prote!t their indefeasi$ility on!e the!lai# of ownership is esta$lished and re!ogni6ed.
@ikewise, in the re!ent !ase of A#po! v. er!ado, the &ourt de!lared that the trial !ourt didnot err in giving #ore pro$ative weight to the -&- in the na#e of the de!edent vis((vis the!ontested unregistered eed of "ale. @ater in 'ra#$ulo v. )unga$, the &ourt held that theregistered owner is preferred to possess the property su$e!t of the unlawful detainer !ase.-he age(old rule is that the person who has a -orrens -itle over a land is entitled topossession thereof. &itations o#itted./
's the titleholder, therefore, petitioner is preferred to possess the entire @ot 3. Besides,
there are telltale signs whi!h !ast dou$t on the genuineness of the ?asulatan. -o !ite a few
1. -he date of its e;e!ution un$elieva$ly !oin!ides with the date the $uyer, 'nasta!ia, died<
2. espite its alleged e;e!ution on 'pril 17, 1973, respondents $rought up the?asulatan only when petitioner asked the# to va!ate the disputed pre#ises. Priorthereto, they neither asserted their rights thereunder nor registered the sa#e with theproper Registry of eeds<
only $e raised in an a!tion e;pressly instituted for that purpose. 4en!e, whether or notpetitioners have the right to !lai# ownership of the land in uestion is $eyond the provin!e of the instant pro!eeding. -hat should $e threshed out in a proper a!tion.
-he lower !ourts !annot pass upon or grant respondentsL !ounter!lai# for la!k of urisdi!tion.
Both the trial !ourt and the appellate !ourt !onsidered respondentsL !ounter!lai# as apetition for re!onveyan!e. =n whi!h !ase, it should $e treated #erely as a per#issive!ounter!lai# $e!ause the eviden!e reuired to prove their !lai# differs fro# the eviden!eneeded to esta$lish petitionerLs de#and for re!overy of possession. Being a per#issive!ounter!lai#, therefore, respondents should have paid the !orresponding do!ketfees.3+ 4owever, there is no proof on re!ord that respondents paid the reuired do!ket fees.-he offi!ial re!eipts were neither atta!hed to nor annotated on respondentsL 'nswer with&ounter!lai#s and 'ffir#ative efenses30 whi!h was filed via registered #ail3 on 'ugust 19,1990. =t has $een our !onsistent ruling that it is not si#ply the filing of the !o#plaint orappropriate initiatory pleading, $ut the pay#ent of the full a#ount of the pres!ri$ed do!ketfee, that vests a trial !ourt with urisdi!tion over the su$e!t #atter or nature of thea!tion.37 -he sa#e rule applies to per#issive !ounter!lai#s, third(party !lai#s and si#ilar
pleadings, whi!h shall not $e !onsidered filed until and unless the filing fee pres!ri$edtherefor is paid.3
>n a final note, and as dis!ussed a$ove, we stress that our ruling in this !ase is li#ited onlyto the issue of deter#ining who $etween the parties has a $etter right to possession. -hisadudi!ation is not a final and $inding deter#ination of the issue of ownership. 's su!h, thisis not a $ar for the parties to file an a!tion for the deter#ination of the issue of ownershipwhere the validity of the 0asulatan sa )ili%an and of >&- *o. P(930+ !an $e properlythreshed out.
"HEREFORE, the petition is GRAN&ED. -he assailed e!ision of the &ourt of 'ppealsdated June 7, 2%%+ is R858R"8 and SE& ASIDE and the "epte#$er 21, 199 e!ision of Regional -rial &ourt, Bran!h +, "an Jose, >!!idental indoro, insofar as it orders the
respondents to va!ate the pre#ises is REINS&A&ED )nd AFFIR*ED.
"> >R8R8.
G.R. No. 1-93/0 No:ember +-, +01+
FIORE!!O R. OSE, Petitioner,vs.RO6ER&O A!F'ER&O, ERNES&O 6A%A#, I!'*INADO 6A%A#, *AN'E! 6AN&A%'!O,!E&&# 6AR%E!O, ING 6ER*EO, *I!NA 6ER*EO, (A6!O 6ER*EO, HONN#6ORA, 6ERNADE&&E 6'ENAFE, A!FREDO %A!AGOS, ROSA'RO %A!AGOS, A!E;%HA%ON, AIDA %ONS'!&A, %AR*EN %OR('Z, RODO!FO DE VERA, ANA DE!A
Before us is a petition for review on !ertiorari under Rule +0 of the Rules of &ourt assailingthe de!ision1 dated ar!h 1+, 2%%0 of the &ourt of 'ppeals in &'().R. "P *o. %1. -he
&ourt of 'ppealsL de!ision reversed the de!isions of the Regional -rial &ourt R-&/ ofParaaue &ity, Bran!h 207, and of the etropolitan -rial &ourt e-&/ of Paraaue &ity,Bran!h 77, $y dis#issing petitioner iorello R. JoseLs !o#plaint for ee!t#ent againstRo$erto 'lfuerto, 8rnesto Ba!ay, =lu#inado Ba!ay, anuel Banta!ulo, @etty Bar!elo, JingBer#eo, ilna Ber#eo, Pa$lo Ber#eo, Jhonny Bora, Bernadette Buenafe, 'lfredo&alagos, Rosauro &alagos, 'le; &ha!on, 'ida &onsulta, &ar#en &orpu6, Rodolfo e 5era,
'na ela Rosa, Rudy ing, Jose 8s!asinas, )orgonio 8spadero, e#etrio 8strera, Rogelio8strera, 8duardo 8vardone, 'ntonio )a$aleo, 'rsenia )aring, *ar!ing )uarda, *ila@e$ato, 'ndrade @igaya, 4elen @ope6, Ra#on a!airan, o#ingo *olas!o, Jr., lorante*olas!o, Regina >perario, &arding >r!ullo, eli!isi#o Pa!ate, &onrado Pa#indalan, JunParil, Rene "antos, o#inador "elvelyeo, Rosario A$aldo, "ergio 5illar, John oe, Janeoe and Anknown >!!upants of >livares &o#pound, Phase ==, Barangay "an ionisio,
Paraaue &ity respondents/, on the ground that the petitionerLs !ause of a!tion was not for unlawful detainer $ut for re!overy of possession. -he appellate !ourt affir#ed this de!ision inits resolution of 'ugust 22, 2%%0. 2
-he dispute involves a par!el of land registered in the na#e of Rodolfo &hua "ing under-ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle *o. 0209+,3 with an area of 1919 suare #eters, lo!ated inBarangay "an ionisio, Paraaue &ity. &hua "ing pur!hased the land in 1991. >n 'pril 1,1999, &hua "ing leased the property to the petitioner. -heir !ontra!t of lease was neithernotari6ed nor registered with the Paraaue &ity Registry of eeds.+
-he lease !ontra!t provided that
-hat the ter# of this lease shall $e =58 0/ years and renewa$le for the sa#e period upon#utual agree#ent of the parties to !o##en!e upon the total evi!tion of any o!!upant oro!!upants. -he @8"">R here$y transfers all its rights and prerogative to evi!t saido!!upants in favor of the @8""88 whi!h shall $e responsi$le for all e;penses that #ay $ein!urred without rei#$urse#ent fro# the @8"">R. =t is understood however that the@8"">R is here$y waiving, in favor of the @8""88 any and all da#ages that #ay $ere!overed fro# the o!!upants.0 Anders!ore ours/
"ignifi!antly, the respondents already o!!upied the property even $efore the lease !ontra!twas e;e!uted.
>n 'pril 2, 1999, soon after &hua "ing and the petitioner signed the lease !ontra!t, thepetitioner de#anded in writing that the respondents va!ate the property within 3% days and
that they pay a #onthly rental of P1,%%%.%% until they fully va!ate the property.
-he respondents refused to va!ate and to pay rent. >n >!to$er 2%, 1999, the petitioner filedan ee!t#ent !ase against the respondents $efore Bran!h 77 of the Paraaue &ity e-&,do!keted as &ivil &ase *o. 113++.7
=n this !o#plaint, no #ention was #ade of any pro!eedings $efore the $arangay. Jose then$rought the dispute $efore the $arangay for !on!iliation. -he $arangay issued a &ertifi!ationto ile '!tion on ar!h 1, 2%%%.9 Jose was then a$le to file an a#ended !o#plaint,
in!orporating the pro!eedings $efore the $arangay $efore the su##ons and !opies of the!o#plaint were served upon the na#ed defendants.1%
=n the '#ended &o#plaint11 dated ar!h 17, 2%%%, the petitioner !lai#ed that as lessee ofthe su$e!t property, he had the right to ee!t the respondents who unlawfully o!!upy theland. 4e alleged that
7. efendants, having $een fully aware of their unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$e!t lot, havedefiantly ere!ted their houses thereat without $enefit of any !ontra!t or law whatsoever,#u!h less any $uilding per#it as san!tioned $y law, $ut $y #ere toleran!e of its true, lawfuland registered owner, plaintiffLs lessor.12
-he petitioner also stated that despite his written de#and, the respondents failed to va!atethe property without legal ustifi!ation. 4e prayed that the !ourt order the respondents< 1/ tova!ate the pre#ises< 2/ to pay hi# not less than P+1,%%%.%% a #onth fro# ay 3%,1999until they va!ate the pre#ises< and 3/ to pay hi# attorneyLs fees of no less than P0%,%%%.%%,and the !osts of suit.13
=n their 'nswer, the respondents likewise pointed out that they have $een in possession ofthe land long $efore &hua "ing a!uired the property in 1991, and that the lease !ontra!t$etween the petitioner and &hua "ing does not affe!t their right to possess the land. -herespondents also presented a eed of 'ssign#ent,1+ dated e$ruary 13, 2%%%, issued $yavid R. ulfo in their favor. -hey argued that the e-& had no urisdi!tion over the !ase asthe issue deals with ownership of the land, and sought the dis#issal of the !o#plaint for la!kof !ause of a!tion and for la!k of urisdi!tion. -hey also filed a !ounter!lai# for a!tual and#oral da#ages for the filing of a $aseless and #ali!ious suit.
'fter the reuired position papers, affidavits and other pie!es of eviden!e were su$#itted,the e-& resolved the !ase in the petitionerLs favor. =n its de!ision10 of January 27, 2%%3, thee-& held that the respondents had no right to possess the land and that their o!!upationwas #erely $y the ownerLs toleran!e. =t further noted that the respondents !ould no longerraise the issue of ownership, as this issue had already $een settled the respondentspreviously filed a !ase for the annul#entG!an!ellation of &hua "ingLs title $efore the R-&,Bran!h 2%, of Paraaue &ity, whi!h ruled that the registered ownerLs title was genuine andvalid. oreover, the e-& held that it is not divested of urisdi!tion over the !ase $e!ause ofthe respondentsL assertion of ownership of the property. >n these pre#ises, the e-&ordered the respondents to va!ate the pre#ises and to re#ove all stru!tures introdu!ed onthe land< to ea!h pay P0%%.%% per #onth fro# the date of filing of this !ase until they va!atethe pre#ises< and to pay Jose, ointly and severally, the !osts of suit and P2%,%%%.%% asattorneyLs fees.
>n appeal $efore the R-&, the respondents raised the issue, a#ong others, that no legal$asis e;ists for the petitionerLs !lai# that their o!!upation was $y toleran!e, Ewhere the
possession of the defendants was illegal at the in!eption as alleged in the !o#plaint, there!an $e no toleran!e.E1
-he R-& affir#ed the e-& de!ision of January 27, 2%%3. =t issued its de!ision17 on >!to$er , 2%%3, reiterating the e-&Ls ruling that a !ase for ee!t#ent was proper. -he petitioner, aslessee, had the right to file the ee!t#ent !o#plaint< the respondents o!!upied the land $y#ere toleran!e and their possession $e!a#e unlawful upon the petitionerLs de#and tova!ate on 'pril 2, 1999. -he R-&, #oreover, noted that the !o#plaint for ee!t#ent wasfiled on >!to$er 2%, 1999, or within one year after the unlawful deprivation took pla!e. =t !ited
Pangilinan, et al. v. 4on. 'guilar, et!., et al.1 and Cu v. @ara, et al.19 to support its ruling that a!ase for unlawful detainer was appropriate.
>n ar!h 1+, 2%%0, the &ourt of 'ppeals reversed the R-& and e-& de!isions.2% =t ruledthat the respondentsL possession of the land was not $y the petitioner or his lessorLstoleran!e. =t defined toleran!e not #erely as the silen!e or ina!tion of a lawful possessor
when another o!!upies his land< toleran!e entailed per#ission fro# the owner $y reason offa#iliarity or neigh$orliness. -he petitioner, however, alleged that the respondents unlawfullyentered the property< thus, toleran!e or authori6ed entry into the property/ was not allegedand there !ould $e no !ase for unlawful detainer. -he respondentsL allegation that they had$een in possession of the land $efore the petitionerLs lessor had a!uired it in 1991 supportsthis finding. 4aving $een in possession of the land for #ore than a year, the respondentsshould not $e evi!ted through an ee!t#ent !ase.
-he &ourt of 'ppeals e#phasi6ed that ee!t#ent !ases are su##ary pro!eedings where theonly issue to $e resolved is who has a $etter right to the physi!al possession of a property.-he petitionerLs !lai#, on the other hand, is $ased on an a!!ion pu$li!iana he asserts hisright as a possessor $y virtue of a !ontra!t of lease he !ontra!ted after the respondents had
o!!upied the land. -he dispositive part of the de!ision reads
:48R8>R8, the instant petition is )R'*-8. -he de!ision dated >!to$er , 2%%3 of theR-&, Bran!h 207, Paraaue &ity, in &ivil &ase *o. %3(%127, is R858R"8 and "8-
'"=8 and the a#ended !o#plaint for ee!t#ent is ="=""8.21
-he petitioner filed a #otion for re!onsideration,22 whi!h the &ourt of 'ppeals denied in itsresolution23 of 'ugust 22, 2%%0. =n the present appeal, the petitioner raises $efore us thefollowing issues
-he key issue in this !ase is whether an a!tion for unlawful detainer is the proper re#edy.
Anlawful detainer is a su##ary a!tion for the re!overy of possession of real property. -hisa!tion #ay $e filed $y a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against who# the
possession of any land or $uilding is unlawfully withheld after the e;piration or ter#ination ofthe right to hold possession $y virtue of any !ontra!t, e;press or i#plied. =n unlawfuldetainer, the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession wasper#itted $y the plaintiff on a!!ount of an e;press or i#plied !ontra!t $etween the#.4owever, the defendantLs possession $e!a#e illegal when the plaintiff de#anded that thedefendant va!ate the su$e!t property due to the e;piration or ter#ination of the right topossess under the !ontra!t, and the defendant refused to heed su!h de#and. ' !ase forunlawful detainer #ust $e instituted one year fro# the unlawful withholding of possession. 20
-he allegations in the !o#plaint deter#ine $oth the nature of the a!tion and the urisdi!tionof the !ourt. -he !o#plaint #ust spe!ifi!ally allege the fa!ts !onstituting unlawful detainer. =nthe a$sen!e of these allegations of fa!ts, an a!tion for unlawful detainer is not the proper
re#edy and the #uni!ipal trial !ourt or the e-& does not have urisdi!tion over the !ase.2
=n his a#ended !o#plaint, the petitioner presents the following allegations in support of hisunlawful detainer !o#plaint
3. >n 'pril 1, 1999, plaintiff leased fro# lessor, r. Rudy &huasing, that par!el of lot ownedand registered in the lessorLs na#e, !overing the area o!!upied $y the defendants.
;;;;
. PlaintiffLs lessor had a!uired the su$e!t property as early as 1991 through sale,thereafter the aforesaid -ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle was su$seuently registered under his
na#e.
7. efendants, having $een fully aware of their unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$e!t lot, havedefiantly ere!ted their houses thereat without $enefit of any !ontra!t or law whatsoever,#u!h less any $uilding per#it as san!tioned $y law, $ut $y #ere toleran!e of its true, lawfuland registered owner, plaintiffLs lessor.
. By reason of defendantsL !ontinued unlawful o!!upan!y of the su$e!t pre#ises, plaintiffreferred the #atter to his lawyer who i##ediately sent a for#al de#and upon ea!h of thedefendants to va!ate the pre#ises. &opies of the de#and letter dated 2 'pril 1999 are ;;;hereto atta!hed as anne;es E&E to ENN.E
9. espite noti!e, however, defendants failed and refused and !ontinues to fail and refuse tova!ate the pre#ises without valid or legal ustifi!ation.27 e#phasis ours/
-he petitionerLs allegations in the a#ended !o#plaint run !ounter to the reuire#ents forunlawful detainer. =n an unlawful detainer a!tion, the possession of the defendant wasoriginally legal and his possession was per#itted $y the owner through an e;press or i#plied!ontra!t.
=n this !ase, paragraph 7 #akes it !lear that the respondentsL o!!upan!y was unlawful fro#the start and was $ereft of !ontra!tual or legal $asis. =n an unlawful detainer !ase, thedefendantLs possession $e!o#es illegal only upon the plaintiffLs de#and for the defendant tova!ate the property and the defendantLs su$seuent refusal. =n the present !ase, paragraph !hara!teri6es the defendantLs o!!upan!y as unlawful even $efore the for#al de#andletters were written $y the petitionerLs !ounsel. Ander these allegations, the unlawful
withholding of possession should not $e $ased on the date the de#and letters were sent, asthe alleged unlawful a!t had taken pla!e at an earlier unspe!ified date.
-he petitioner nevertheless insists that he properly alleged that the respondents o!!upiedthe pre#ises $y #ere toleran!e of the owner. *o allegation in the !o#plaint nor anysupporting eviden!e on re!ord, however, shows when the respondents entered the propertyor who had granted the# per#ission to enter. :ithout these allegations and eviden!e, the$are !lai# regarding Etoleran!eE !annot $e upheld.
=n "arona, et al. v. 5illegas, et al.,2 the &ourt !ited Prof. 'rturo . -olentinoLs definition and!hara!teri6es Etoleran!eE in the following #anner
Professor 'rturo . -olentino states that a!ts #erely tolerated are Ethose whi!h $y reason ofneigh$orliness or fa#iliarity, the owner of property allows his neigh$or or another person todo on the property< they are generally those parti!ular servi!es or $enefits whi!h oneLsproperty !an give to another without #aterial inury or preudi!e to the owner, who per#itsthe# out of friendship or !ourtesy.E 4e adds that Ethey are a!ts of little distur$an!es whi!h aperson, in the interest of neigh$orliness or friendly relations, per#its others to do on hisproperty, su!h as passing over the land, tying a horse therein, or getting so#e water fro# awell.E 'nd, -olentino !ontinues, even though Ethis is !ontinued for a long ti#e, no right will $ea!uired $y pres!ription.E urther e;pounding on the !on!ept, -olentino writes E-here is ta!it!onsent of the possessor to the a!ts whi!h are #erely tolerated. -hus, not every !ase ofknowledge and silen!e on the part of the possessor !an $e !onsidered #ere toleran!e. Byvirtue of toleran!e that is !onsidered as an authori6ation, per#ission or li!ense, a!ts ofpossession are reali6ed or perfor#ed. -he uestion redu!es itself to the e;isten!e or non(
e;isten!e of the per#ission. H!itations o#itted< itali!s suppliedI
-he &ourt has !onsistently adopted this position toleran!e or per#ission #ust have $eenpresent at the $eginning of possession< if the possession was unlawful fro# the start, ana!tion for unlawful detainer would not $e the proper re#edy and should $e dis#issed.29
=t is not the first ti#e that this &ourt adudged !ontradi!tory state#ents in a !o#plaint forunlawful detainer as a $asis for dis#issal. =n Anida v. 4eirs of Ar$an,3% the !lai# that thedefendantLs possession was #erely tolerated was !ontradi!ted $y the !o#plainantLsallegation that the entry to the su$e!t property was unlawful fro# the very $eginning. -he&ourt then ruled that the unlawful detainer a!tion should fail.
-he !ontradi!tory state#ents in the !o#plaint are further dee#ed suspi!ious when a!o#plaint is silent regarding the fa!tual !ir!u#stan!es surrounding the alleged toleran!e. =n-en orty Realty &orporation v. &ru6,31 the !o#plaint si#ply stated that E1/ defendanti##ediately o!!upied the su$e!t property after its sale to her, an a!tion #erely tolerated $ythe plaintiff< and 2/ the respondentLs allegedly illegal o!!upation of the pre#ises was $y#ere toleran!e.E -he &ourt e;pressed its ual#s over these aver#ents of fa!t as they didnot !ontain anything su$stantiating the !lai# that the plaintiff tolerated or per#itted theo!!upation of the property $y the defendant
-hese allegations !ontradi!t, rather than support, plaintiffLs theory that its !ause of a!tion isfor unlawful detainer. irst, these argu#ents advan!e the view that defendantLs o!!upation of the property was unlawful at its in!eption. "e!ond, they !ounter the essential reuire#ent inunlawful detainer !ases that plaintiffLs supposed a!t of sufferan!e or toleran!e #ust $epresent right fro# the start of a possession that is later sought to $e re!overed.
's the $are allegation of plaintiffLs toleran!e of defendantLs o!!upation of the pre#ises hasnot $een proven, the possession should $e dee#ed illegal fro# the $eginning. -hus, the &'!orre!tly ruled that the ee!t#ent !ase should have $een for for!i$le entry F an a!tion thathad already pres!ri$ed, however, when the &o#plaint was filed on ay 12, 1999. -hepres!riptive period of one year for for!i$le entry !ases is re!koned fro# the date ofdefendantLs a!tual entry into the land, whi!h in this !ase was on 'pril 2+, 199.32
"i#ilarly, in )o, Jr. v. &ourt of 'ppeals,33 the &ourt !onsidered the ownerLs la!k of knowledgeof the defendantLs entry of the land to $e in!onsistent with the allegation that there had $eentoleran!e.
=n Padre v. ala$anan,3+ the &ourt not only reuired allegations regarding the grant of
per#ission, $ut proof as well. =t noted that the plaintiffs alleged the e;isten!e of toleran!e,$ut ordered the dis#issal of the unlawful detainer !ase $e!ause the eviden!e was Etotallywanting as to when and under what !ir!u#stan!es ;;; the alleged toleran!e !a#e a$out.E =tstated that
Judging fro# the respondentLs 'nswer, the petitioners were never at all in physi!alpossession of the pre#ises fro# the ti#e he started o!!upying it and !ontinuously up to thepresent. or sure, the petitioners #erely derived their alleged prior physi!al possession onlyon the $asis of their -ransfer &ertifi!ate of -itle -&-/, arguing that the issuan!e of said titlepresupposes their having $een in possession of the property at one ti#e or another.30
-hus, the !o#plainants in unlawful detainer !ases !annot si#ply an!hor their !lai#s on thevalidity of the ownerLs title. Possession de fa!to #ust also $e proved.
's early as the 19%s, in "arona, et al. v. 5illegas, et al.,3 we already ruled that a !o#plaintwhi!h fails to positively aver any overt a!t on the plaintiffLs part indi!ative of per#ission too!!upy the land, or any showing of su!h fa!t during the trial is fatal for a !ase for unlawfuldetainer. 's the &ourt then e;plained, a !ase for unlawful detainer alleging toleran!e #ustdefinitely esta$lish its e;isten!e fro# the start of possession< otherwise, a !ase for for!i$leentry !an #ask itself as an a!tion for unlawful detainer and per#it it to $e filed $eyond thereuired one(year pres!ription period fro# the ti#e of for!i$le entry
' !lose assess#ent of the law and the !on!ept of the word Etoleran!eE !onfir#s our viewheretofore e;pressed that su!h toleran!e #ust $e present right fro# the start of possessionsought to $e re!overed, to !ategori6e a !ause of a!tion as one of unlawful detainer F not of
for!i$le entry. =ndeed, to hold otherwise would espouse a dangerous do!trine. 'nd for tworeasons irst. or!i$le entry into the land is an open !hallenge to the right of the possessor.5iolation of that right authori6es the speedy redress F in the inferior !ourt F provided for inthe rules. =f one year fro# the for!i$le entry is allowed to lapse $efore suit is filed, then there#edy !eases to $e speedy< and the possessor is dee#ed to have waived his right to seekrelief in the inferior !ourt. "e!ond. =f a for!i$le entry a!tion in the inferior !ourt is allowed after the lapse of a nu#$er of years, then the result #ay well $e that no a!tion of for!i$le entry!an really pres!ri$e. *o #atter how long su!h defendant is in physi!al possession, plaintiffwill #erely #ake a de#and, $ring suit in the inferior !ourt F upon plea of toleran!e to
prevent pres!ription to set in F and su##arily throw hi# out of the land. "u!h a !on!lusionis unreasona$le. 8spe!ially if we $ear in #ind the postulates that pro!eedings of for!i$leentry and unlawful detainer are su##ary in nature, and that the one year ti#e($ar to the suitis $ut in pursuan!e of the su##ary nature of the a!tion.37 itali!s supplied/
)iven these rulings, it would $e eually dangerous for us to deprive the respondents of
possession over a property that they have held for at least eight years $efore the !ase wasfiled in 1999, $y #eans of a su##ary pro!eeding, si#ply $e!ause the petitioner used theword Etoleran!eE without suffi!ient allegations or eviden!e to support it.
-here was no !hange in therespondentsL theory duringthe appeal that would a#ountto a deprivation of the petitionerLsright to due pro!ess.
-he petitioner alleges that the respondents had never uestioned $efore the e-& the fa!tthat their o!!upan!y was $y toleran!e. -he only issues the respondents allegedly raised
were 1/ the title to the property is spurious< 2/ the petitionerLs prede!essor is not the trueowner of the property in uestion< 3/ the petitionerLs lease !ontra!t was not legallyenfor!ea$le< +/ the petitioner was not the real party(in(interest< 0/ the petitionerLsprede!essor never had prior physi!al possession of the property< and / the respondentsLright of possession was $ased on the Eeed of 'ssign#ent of Real PropertyE e;e!uted $yulfo. -he respondents raised the issue of toleran!e #erely on appeal $efore the R-&. -heyargue that this !onstitutes a !hange of theory, whi!h is disallowed on appeal. 3
=t is a settled rule that a party !annot !hange his theory of the !ase or his !ause of a!tion onappeal. Points of law, theories, issues and argu#ents not $rought to the attention of thelower !ourt will not $e !onsidered $y the reviewing !ourt. -he defenses not pleaded in theanswer !annot, on appeal, !hange funda#entally the nature of the issue in the !ase. -o doso would $e unfair to the adverse party, who had no opportunity to present eviden!e in
!onne!tion with the new theory< this would offend the $asi! rules of due pro!ess and fairplay.39
:hile this &ourt has frowned upon !hanges of theory on appeal, this rule is not appli!a$le tothe present !ase. -he &ourt of 'ppeals dis#issed the a!tion due the petitionerLs failure toallege and prove the essential reuire#ents of an unlawful detainer !ase. =n "erdon!illo v."pouses Benolirao,+% we held that
=n this regard, to give the !ourt urisdi!tion to effe!t the ee!t#ent of an o!!upant ordefor!iant on the land, it is ne!essary that the !o#plaint #ust suffi!iently show su!h astate#ent of fa!ts as to $ring the party !learly within the !lass of !ases for whi!h the statutesprovide a re#edy, without resort to parol testi#ony, as these pro!eedings are su##ary in
nature. =n short, the urisdi!tional fa!ts #ust appear on the fa!e of the !o#plaint. :hen the!o#plaint fails to aver fa!ts !onstitutive of for!i$le entry or unlawful detainer, as where itdoes not state how entry was effe!ted or how and when dispossession started, the re#edyshould either $e an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria. e#phasis ours< itali!ssupplied/
Regardless of the defenses raised $y the respondents, the petitioner was reuired toproperly allege and prove when the respondents entered the property and that it was thepetitioner or his prede!essors, not any other persons, who granted the respondents
per#ission to enter and o!!upy the property. urther#ore, it was not the respondentsLdefense that proved fatal to the !ase $ut the petitionerLs !ontradi!tory state#ents in hisa#ended !o#plaint whi!h he even reiterated in his other pleadings.+1
'lthough the respondents did not use the word Etoleran!eE $efore the e-&, they havealways uestioned the e;isten!e of the petitionerLs toleran!e. =n their 'nswer to '#ended
&o#plaint, the respondents negated the possi$ility of their possession of the property underthe petitioner and his lessorLs toleran!e when the respondents alleged to have o!!upied thepre#ises even $efore the lessor a!uired the property in 1991. -hey said as #u!h in theirPosition Paper
R>>@> &4A' "=*) never had a!tual physi!al possession of his supposed property, aswhen he $e!a#e an owner of the 1,919 suare #eters property des!ri$ed in -&- *o.0209+, the property had already $een o!!upied $y herein 88*'*-" sin!e late 197%.-herefore, 88*'*-" were already o!!upantsGpossessors of the property fro# wherethey are $eing ee!ted $y =>R8@@> J>"8, a supposed @8""88 of a property with adu$ious title. -he #ain thing to $e proven in the !ase at $ar is prior possession and that thesa#e was lost through for!e, inti#idation, threat, strategy and stealth, so that it $ehooves
the !ourt to restore possession regardless of title or even ownership ;;;. =n the !ase at $ar,neither R>>@> &4A' "=*) nor herein P@'=*-= ever had any a!tual physi!alpossession of the property where 88*'*-" have already possessed for #ore than ten1%/ years in 1991 when R>>@> &4A' "=*) got his fake title to the property.+2 !itationo#itted/
=n addition, whether or not it was !redi$le, the respondentLs !lai# that their possession was$ased on the eed of 'ssign#ent e;e!uted $y ulfo, in $ehalf of the estate of o#ingo de>!a#po, shows that they !onsidered the petitioner and his lessor as strangers to any of their transa!tions on the property, and !ould not have stayed there upon the latterLs per#ission.
:e note that even after the issue of toleran!e had $een dire!tly raised $y the respondents$efore the R-&, the petitioner still failed to address it $efore the R-&, the &ourt of 'ppeals,
and the "upre#e &ourt.+3 't $est, he $elatedly states for the first ti#e in hise#orandu#++ $efore this &ourt that his lessor had tolerated the respondentsL o!!upan!y ofthe lot, without addressing the respondentsL allegation that they had o!!upied the lot in 197%,$efore the petitionerLs lessor $e!a#e the owner of the property in 1991, and withoutproviding any other details. 4is pleadings !ontinued to insist on the e;isten!e of toleran!ewithout providing the fa!tual $asis for this !on!lusion. -hus, we !annot de!lare that the &ourtof 'ppeals had in anyway deprived the petitioner of due pro!ess or had unfairly treated hi#when it resolved the !ase $ased on the issue of toleran!e.
-he &ourt !annot treat an ee!t#ent!ase as an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria.
-he petitioner argues that assu#ing this !ase should have $een filed as an a!!ionpu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria, this &ourt should still resolve the !ase, as reuiring hi#to properly refile the !ase serves no other ends than to !o#ply with te!hni!alities. +0
-he &ourt !annot si#ply take the eviden!e presented $efore the e-& in an ee!t#ent !aseand de!ide it as an a!!ion pu$li!iana or a!!ion reivindi!atoria. -hese !ases are notinter!hangea$le and their differen!es !onstitute far #ore than #ere te!hni!alities.
pro!eedings will have to ta!kle !o#pli!ated issues reuiring e;tensive proof, they would nolonger $e e;peditious and would no longer serve the purpose for whi!h they were !reated.=ndeed, we !annot see how the resulting !ongestion of !ases, the hastily and in!orre!tlyde!ided !ases, and the utter la!k of syste# would assist the !ourts in prote!ting andpreserving property rights.
:48R8>R8, we 8*C the petition, and '=R the &ourt of 'ppealsD de!ision datedar!h 1+, 2%%0 and resolution dated 'ugust 22, 2%%0 in &'().R. "P *o. %11.
