Tuazon v. Spouses Isagon Case Digest

G.R. No. 191432

September 02, 2015

• Spouses Melencio Diaz and Dolores Gulay are the owners of Lot 103 in Laguna. It consists of 499 square meters.
• The spouses had three children: Maria, Paciencia, and Esperanza.
  • Maria and Melencio predeceased Dolores.
• In 1955, Dolores, Paciencia, and Esperanza adjudicated Lot 103 to Dolores through a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement.
  • But Maria’s children, who were still minors are that time, were not included in the settlement.
• In 1956, Dolores sold the lot to Isabel Torres through a Deed of Absolute Sale.
  • Subsequently, Torres sold the same to Teresa Tuazon in 1973.
• Maria’s children—Gloria, Felix, Angel and Flaviano Isagon—executed a Deed of Conformity.
  • In the deed, they honored the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement executed by their grandmother and aunts subject to the condition that they would get 1/6 of the lot as share.
• Gloria, Feliz, and Flaviano also sold their shares to Teresa.
  • Angel, on the other hand, merely mortgaged his share to Teresa though a Kasulatan ng Sanglaan.
  • Angel’s share is 20.75 square meters.
• Angel refused and failed to redeem the mortgaged property.
• Teresa had an undated and reconstituted TCT to the property.
• In 1972, Teresa’s brother, Antonio Tuazon, allowed Angel and his wife to build a small hut on a portion of Lot 103 without Teresa’s knowledge.
  • Angel at that time was living near the seashore and he was afraid that they would be endangered during typhoons.
• In 2000, Teresa filed a complaint against the respondents before the Lupon Tagapamayapa, but they failed to reach any amicable settlement.
• In 2007, Teresa filed a complaint for unlawful detainer after sending a final demand letter to the respondents to which the latter did not reply.
• Angel said that Teresa’s TCT was obtained fraudulently, and that he still owned the lot since it was just mortgaged to Teresa.
• MTCC and RTC ruled in favor of Teresa Tuazon.
• CA reversed their decision

Issue:

• Who has the better right of physical possession between the registered owner as shown in the certificate of title and the mortgagor as shown in the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan?

Ruling:

It is the registered owner.

While a mortgage does not transfer ownership, the indefeasibility of a Torrens title should have been given primary consideration.

An action for unlawful detainer is summary in nature and cannot be delayed by a mere assertion of ownership as a defense. When the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass upon that issue only if needed to determine who between the parties has a better right to possess the property. Furthermore, the adjudication on the issue of ownership is only provisional, and subject to a separate proceeding that the parties may initiate to settle the issue of ownership.

A person who possesses a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of ownership including possession.

A certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack in an action for unlawful detainer. A collateral attack is made when, in an action to obtain a different relief, the validity of a certificate of title is questioned.

Articles 428 and 429 of the Civil Code

ARTICLE 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law.

ARTICLE 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.