G.R. No. 175720

September 11, 2007

• Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment in Makati City. It is covered by a TCT.
• In 1983, he executed a Huling Habilin at Testamento allocating the following properties:
  • Apartments D and E
    • To Cresencia Rodriguez, his live-in partner
  • Apartment A
    • To Benjamin Rodriguez, his son
    • Note: Evangeline Rodriguez (one of the respondents) is Benjamin’s wife.
  • Apartment B
    • Buenaventura Rodriguez, his daughter
  • Apartment C
    • Belen Rodriguez, his daughter
• Note: The will was not probated.
• In 1984, however, Juanito executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the whole property in favor of Cresencia. This was in consideration for Php20,000.
  • A new TCT is issued in Cresencia’s name.
• Cresencia allowed the respondents to occupy the property out of kindness and tolerance.
  • However, without her knowledge, the respondents separately leased the units to Magpantay, Navarro, and Escota.
• Cresencia filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the respondents.
• Respondents, however, claimed ownership over the property by succession.
  • They contended that the Deed of Absolute Sale was void because they said that Cresencia exerted undue influence over their father who at that time was seriously ill.
  • They also contended that Cresencia acknowledged their ownership when they entered into a Partition Agreement in 1990, wherein they recognized each other as co-owners.
• The following evidences were considered:
  • Huling Habilin at Testamento executed by Juanito Rodriguez on October 27, 1983
  • Deed of Sale of the property executed by Juanito Rodriguez and the petitioner on June 14, 1984
  • TCT No. 150431 in the name of the petitioner
  • August 23, 1990 Partition Agreement executed by both the respondents and the petitioner
• MTC favored respondents.
• RTC reversed MTC.
• CA reinstated the MTC decision.

Issue:

Who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the property?

Ruling:

Cresencia Rodriguez is entitled to possession.

In a summary proceeding such as an unlawful detainer case, the issue of ownership can be tackled, but this is only provision, and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the property.

Section 16 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court

SEC 16. Resolving defense of ownership. – 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.

Thus, all that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.

When respondents leased the apartments to other persons without her consent, their possession as well as those persons claiming right under them became unlawful upon their refusal to vacate the premises and to pay the rent.

Respondents failed to prove their right of possession, as the Huling Habilin at Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no legal effect since the will has not been probated. Before any will can have force or validity it must be probated. Based on the evidences, the Court finds that there is preponderance of evidence in favor of the petitioner’s claim.

Moreover, at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereof since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the time of his death. Thus, as owner of the property, he had the absolute right to dispose of it during his lifetime.

No collateral attacks on titles

Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law.

It is settled that a Torrens Certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless and until it has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction.