G.R. No.

176055 March 17, 2014

SPOUSES EDMUNDO DELA CRUZ and AMELA CONCO!DELA CRUZ, Petitioners,
vs.
SPOUSES RU"NO R. CAPCO AND MAR#$
1
C. CAPCO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CAS#LLO, J.:
This case involves two spouses battling or the !aterial possession o a piece o land.
"ssailed in this Petition or Review on Certiorari is the "ugust #$, %&&' Decision
%
o the Court o
"ppeals (C") in C"*+.R. SP No. ,&-.' which (#) granted the petition or review iled therewith b/
respondents spouses Ruino R. Capco and 0art/ C. Capco (spouses Capco )1 (%) set aside the
2anuar/ %&, %&&3 Decision
.
and 2une %-, %&&3 O!nibus Order
4
o the Regional Trial Court (RTC) o
Pasig Cit/, 5ranch #3.1 and (.) dis!issed the Co!plaint or 6nlawul Detainer iled b/ petitioners
spouses Ed!undo Dela Cru7 and "!elia Concio*Dela Cru7 (spouses Dela Cru7) against the
spouses Capco. 8i9ewise :uestioned is the Dece!ber %#, %&&' Resolution
3
which denied the
spouses Dela Cru7; 0otion or Reconsideration thereto.
<actual "ntecedents
On October ', %&&., the spouses Dela Cru7 iled a Co!plaint
'
or 6nlawul Detainer against the
spouses Capco beore the 0etropolitan Trial Court (0eTC) o Pateros. The/ alleged that Teodora T.
Concio (Teodora), !other o petitioner "!elia Concio*Dela Cru7 ("!elia), ac:uired ownership over
a piece o land b/ virtue o a Decision dated October ., #,$. rendered b/ the RTC o Pasig, 5ranch
#3# in 8and Registration Case No. ,3##. The said propert/ was eventuall/ registered in her na!e
under Transer Certiicate o Title (TCT) No. .#$-.. Teodora, out o neighborliness and blood
relationship, tolerated the spouses Capco=s occupation thereo.
Subse:uentl/, the sub>ect propert/ was conve/ed to the spouses Dela Cru7. Intending to construct a
house thereon and utili7e the space or their balut and salted eggs business, the spouses Dela Cru7
thus de!anded that the spouses Capco vacate the propert/. "s the spouses Capco reused, the
!atter was brought beore the 5aranga/ 8upon or conciliation wherein several !eetings were held
but to no avail.
-
?ence, the said Co!plaint.
In their "nswer, the spouses Capco pointed out that the Co!plaint is deective or ailing to allege
the e@act !etes and bounds o the propert/. Neither is a title attached thereto to show that the
spouses Dela Cru7 are the owners o the disputed propert/. 5e that as it !a/, the spouses Capco
asserted that the/ have all the rights to occup/ the sub>ect propert/ since respondent Ruino Capco
(Ruino) is an heir o its true owner. In act, the/ established their balutan business and built their
house thereon as earl/ as #,4-. 5/ wa/ o counterclai!, the spouses Capco pra/ed that the
spouses Dela Cru7 be ordered to pa/ the! e@e!plar/ da!ages, attorne/=s ees and litigation
e@penses.
The e@hibits sub!itted b/ the spouses Dela Cru7, included, a!ong others, copies o the (#) RTC
Decision dated October ., #,$. in 8and Registration Case No. ,3##1
$
(%) TCT No. .#$-. in the
na!e o Teodora1
,
and, (.) Deed o E@tra*2udicial Settle!ent o the Estate o Teodora T. Concio
wherein her heirs agreed to assign, transer and conve/ the propert/ to "!elia.
#&
<or their part, the
spouses Capco presented (#) two #,,. ta@ declarations covering their house and a ca!arin which
both stand on a lot owned b/ 2uan E. Cru7 (2uan)
##
and (%) several receipts evidencing their pa/!ent
o real propert/ ta@es.
#%
Ruling o the 0etropolitan Trial Court
The 0eTC rendered a Decision
#.
on 2ul/ ,, %&&4. It did not give credence to the spouses Capco=s
assertion that the Co!plaint did not properl/ identi/ the propert/ and instead ound suicient the
identiication o the sa!e through the technical description in TCT No. .#$-. sub!itted b/ the
spouses Dela Cru7.
"nent the conlicting clai!s o the parties as to their right to possess the sub>ect propert/, the 0eTC
endeavored to ascertain the source o the parties= clai!ed rights, vi7A
@ @ @ Plainti "!elia Concio*dela Cru7 is the daughter o the late Teodora Tulad Concio, to who! the
propert/ sub>ect !atter o the instant case and which is covered b/ TCT No. .#$-. was registered.
Prior to the issuance o TCT No. .#$-. in the na!e o B"!elia=sC !other, the sub>ect propert/ used
to or! part o one*hal o a propert/ owned b/ one 2uan Cru7, which was previousl/ ad!inistered
b/ one +regorio Re/es, the grandather o herein deendant Ruino Capco. This propert/ owned b/
2uan Cru7 was later involved in a a!il/ land dispute upon his death ater the son o +regorio
Re/es, ?er!ogenes Re/es, instituted an action to have the sub>ect propert/ registered in the latter=s
na!e. 5ut Bthe spouses Dela Cru7=C predecessor*in*interest Teodora Tulad Concio iled her
opposition to the application.
In a decision rendered b/ the said court, one*hal o that propert/ was ad>udicated in avor o
?er!ogenes Re/es, and the other hal was awarded to Teodora Tulad Concio @ @ @. The sub>ect
decision paved the wa/ or the issuance o TCT No. .#$-. in the na!e o Teodora Tulad Concio @ @
@ and TCT No. .#$-4 in the na!e o ?er!ogenes Re/es.
Notwithstanding the decision o the Regional Trial Court in the 8and Registration proceedings and
the conse:uent issuance o TCT No. .#$-. in avor o Teodora Tulad Concio, Bthe spouses CapcoC
re!ained in possession o the sub>ect propert/ b/ reason o the tolerance e@tended to the! b/ the
Concios.
6pon the death, however, o Teodora Tulad Concio on "ugust .#, #,,., her heirs including plainti
"!elia T. Concio, e@ecuted a Deed o E@tra*2udicial Settle!ent o the Estate o Teodora Concio. In
that e@tra>udicial settle!ent dated 0a/ #4, %&&%, all the heirs ad>udicated upon the!selves the
propert/ covered b/ TCT No. .#-$. and thereater assigned, transerred and conve/ed to plainti
"!elia T. Concio*Dela Cru7 and her heirs, assigns and successors the said propert/.
#4
5ased on this, the 0eTC re>ected the spouses Capco=s clai!ed right to possess the sub>ect propert/
as ollowsA
@ @ @ BTChe Bspouses Capco=sC sta/ in the sub>ect pre!ises was originall/ lawul as the/ based it then
ro! their right as heirs o the lawul possessor thereo, 0r. ?er!ogenes Re/es, who initiall/ caused
the application o title in his na!e o that parcel o land which included the lot now sub>ect !atter o
this case. That right o the Bspouses CapcoC, however, ceased when the 8and Registration Court in
that application or land title iled b/ Re/es ruled that onl/ one*hal o that propert/ being applied or
shall be titled in his na!e while the other hal, which is now the sub>ect o this co!plaint shall be
ad>udged in avor o Oppositor Teodora Concio Tulad, the Bspouses Dela Cru7=C predecessor*in*
interest.
Since title to the propert/ which the Bspouses CapcoC are now occup/ing had alread/ been legall/
transerred to Teodora Concio Tulad, the right o the or!er in occup/ing the sa!e is dee!ed to
have been anchored ro! the right o the latter as owner o the sub>ect land. The court is, thereore,
o the considered view that Bthe spouses Capco=sC continued sta/ in the propert/ covered b/ TCT
No. .#-$. was trul/ through the sheer generosit/ and tolerance o the registered owner Teodora
Concio Tulad during her lieti!e and e@tended onl/ upon her death b/ her successor*in*interest, the
Bspouses Dela Cru7C.
#3
The 0eTC concluded that since the spouses Capco=s possession o the sub>ect propert/ was b/
!ere tolerance o the spouses Dela Cru7, the latter have the better right to possess and thus !a/
recover the sa!e upon de!and. ?ence, the dispositive portion o its DecisionA
DIEEED <RO0 T?E <ORE+OIN+, >udg!ent is hereb/ rendered in avor o Bthe spouses Dela
Cru7C and against Bthe spouses CapcoC, ordering the latter and all persons clai!ing rights under
the! to vacate the sub>ect land being occupied b/ the! which is covered b/ TCT No. .#$-. located
at Interior P. ?errera St., Pateros, 0etro 0anila, and surrender possession thereo to the plaintis,
and to pa/ the ollowingA
a. Php3&&.&& a !onth as reasonable co!pensation with legal interest thereon ro!
Septe!ber #, %&&., until the sub>ect propert/ is inall/ vacated1
b. Php%&,&&&.&&, as and b/ wa/ o attorne/=s ees1 and,
c. Costs o suit.
SO ORDERED.
#'
The spouses Capco appealed to the RTC.
#-
Ruling o the Regional Trial Court
The RTC did not ind !erit in the spouses Capco=s appeal,
#$
hence, the dispositive portion o its
2anuar/ %&, %&&3 Decision readsA
#,
E?ERE<ORE, oregoing pre!ises dul/ considered, the appealed decision is air!ed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
%&
In view o the Decision o the RTC, the spouses Dela Cru7 iled a 0otion to Re!and and Direct
Court o Origin to Issue a Erit o E@ecution,
%#
and later, a 0otion to Eithdraw 5ac9 Rentals under
2udicial Custod/.
%%
The spouses Capco, or their part, !oved or the reconsideration o the RTC
Decision.
%.
These !otions were resolved b/ the RTC through an O!nibus Order
%4
dated 2une %-,
%&&3, vi7A
E?ERE<ORE, in the light o the oregoing pre!ises, or being pro or!a, the !otion or
reconsideration is DENIED.
<urther, the 0otion to Re!and is +R"NTED and the 0otion To Eithdraw 5ac9 Rentals is deerred
or the consideration o the court o origin.
SO ORDERED.
%3
6ndeterred, the spouses Capco iled a Petition or Review with the C".
Ruling o the Court o "ppeals
The C" ound in avor o the spouses Capco in its Decision
%'
o "ugust #$, %&&'.
Citing +o, 2r. v. Court o "ppeals
%-
and ?eirs o De!etrio 0elchor v. 0elchor,
%$
it declared that a
co!plaint or unlawul detainer !ust aver acts showing that the B0eTCC has >urisdiction to tr/ the
case b/ describing how the deendant=s entr/ was eected or how and when dispossession started.
It ound the Co!plaint wanting in this aspect, thusA
In this case, the Bspouses Dela Cru7=C co!plaint !erel/ alleged that the Bspouses Capco=sC
possession o the propert/ was b/ the tolerance o their predecessors*in*interest and Fout o
neighborliness and blood relationship=. The evidence presented or adduced beore the B0eTCC does
not show how the Bspouses CapcoC ca!e into possession. @ @ @
%,
0oreover, the C" observed that while the spouses Dela Cru7 clai!ed that their propert/ pertains to
hal o the land previousl/ belonging to 2uan that was later ad>udicated to Teodora b/ virtue o the
>udg!ent in aore!entioned land registration case, it is not clear whether the portion occupied b/ the
spouses Capco lies therein or in the other hal ad>udicated in avor o ?er!ogenes Re/es. In view o
this, it opined that there is a need to ph/sicall/ deter!ine the e@act boundaries o the land covered
b/ TCT No. .#$-. which, however, cannot be done in a !ere su!!ar/ proceeding in an e>ect!ent
case but rather in an accion publiciana or accion reindivicatoria beore the RTC.
?ence, the C" disposed o the petition in this wiseA
E?ERE<ORE, the instant petition is +R"NTED. The decision dated 2anuar/ %&, %&&3 and o!nibus
order dated 2une %-, %&&3 o the RTC, 5ranch #3., Pasig Cit/ in SC" Case No. %',3, are SET
"SIDE. In lieu thereo, the co!plaint is DIS0ISSED or reasons discussed therein.
SO ORDERED.
.&
"s their 0otion or Reconsideration
.#
was denied in the C" Resolution
.%
o Dece!ber %#, %&&', the
spouses Dela Cru7 are now beore this Court through this Petition or Review on Certiorari ascribing
error upon the C" in setting aside the rulings o the 0eTC and the RTC.
Parties= "rgu!ents
The spouses Dela Cru7 assert that contrar/ to the C"=s indings, the/ were able to describe with
particularit/ the propert/ sub>ect o the case through the technical description in TCT No. .#$-..
5esides, the spouses Capco ad!itted in the Pre*Trial Conerence that the propert/ occupied b/
the! is the sa!e propert/ which is the sub>ect o the case. The C" li9ewise erred in not considering
as settled the issue o ownership o the land per the >udg!ent in the land registration case and in not
recogni7ing their right to posses based thereon.
On the other hand, the spouses Capco reiterate that the/ are the rightul possessors o the propert/
as Ruino is an heir o the true owner. The/ stress that the/ have been occup/ing the sa!e as earl/
as #,4-, have established their ho!e and business thereon, and introduced i!prove!ents which
are even o higher value than the land itsel. In contrast, the spouses Dela Cru7 ailed to present
beore the 0eTC an/ title showing that the/ are the owners o the sub>ect propert/. "lso, their
Co!plaint is atall/ deective or ailing to allege the e@act !etes and bounds o the propert/ which
possession the/ sought to recover. The spouses Capco li9ewise :uestion TCT No. .#$-. o Teodora
b/ contending that the "gree!ent o Subdivision
..
used as basis or its issuance is spurious.
"ccording to the!, Teodora could not have e@ecuted the said agree!ent on 2une %., #,,$ since
she died on "ugust .#, #,,..
Our Ruling
Ee grant the Petition.
It !ust be stated at the outset that this Court is not a trier o acts. ?owever, the conlicting indings
o acts o the 0eTC and the RTC on one hand, and the C" on the other, co!pel us to revisit the
records o this case or proper dispensation o >ustice.
.4
Contrar/ to the C"=s pronounce!ent, the Co!plaint suicientl/ !a9es out a case or unlawul
detainer.
The C" inti!ated in its assailed Decision that the 0eTC did not ac:uire >urisdiction over the spouses
Dela Cru7= Co!plaint or e>ect!ent since the sa!e ailed to describe how the spouses Capco=s entr/
to the propert/ was eected or how and when the dispossession started, as held in +o and 0elchor.
Such a re:uire!ent, however, does not appl/ in this case. The Court has alread/ clariied in Delos
Re/es v. Odones
.3
thatA
The re:uire!ent that the co!plaint should aver, as >urisdictional acts, when and how entr/ into the
propert/ was !ade b/ the deendants applies onl/ when the issue is the ti!eliness o the iling o the
co!plaint beore the 0TC @ @ @.
This is because, in orcible entr/ cases, the prescriptive period is counted ro! the date o
deendants= actual entr/ into the propert/1 whereas, in unlawul detainer cases, it is counted ro!
date o the last de!and to vacate. ?ence, to deter!ine whether the case was iled on ti!e, there is
a necessit/ to ascertain whether the co!plaint is one or orcible entr/ or or unlawul detainer1 and
since the !ain distinction between the two actions is when and how deendant entered the propert/,
the deter!inative acts should be alleged in the co!plaint.
.'
The ti!eliness o the iling o the Co!plaint or unlawul detainer is not an issue in this case. ?ence,
the ailure o the Co!plaint to allege when and how the spouses Capco ca!e into possession o the
propert/ does not !ean that the 0eTC did not ac:uire >urisdiction over it. GTo give the court
>urisdiction to eect the e>ect!ent o an occupant or deorciant on the land, it is necessar/ that the
co!plaint should e!bod/ such a state!ent o acts as brings the part/ clearl/ within the class o
cases or which the statutes provide a re!ed/, as these proceedings are su!!ar/ in nature. The
co!plaint !ust show enough on its ace to give the court >urisdiction without resort to parol
testi!on/.G
.-
" co!plaint, to suicientl/ !a9e out a case or unlawul detainer and all under the >urisdiction o the
0eTC, !ust allege thatA
#. initiall/, possession o propert/ b/ the deendant was b/ contract with or b/ tolerance o
the plainti1
%. eventuall/, such possession beca!e illegal upon notice b/ plainti to deendant o the
ter!ination o the latter=s right o possession1
.. thereater, the deendant re!ained in possession o the propert/ and deprived the plainti
o the en>o/!ent thereo1 and1
4. within one /ear ro! the last de!and on deendant to vacate the propert/, the plainti
instituted the co!plaint or e>ect!ent.
.$
?ere, the Co!plaint alleged that the spouses Dela Cru7= predecessor*in*interest, Teodora, is the
registered owner o the propert/ per TCT No. .#$-. and that she tolerated the spouses Capco=s
occupation o the lot. The spouses Dela Cru7 subse:uentl/ ac:uired the propert/ through
conve/ance and the/ e@tended the sa!e tolerance to the spouses Capco. The spouses Dela Cru7
de!anded or the spouses Capco to vacate the propert/ but to no avail1 hence, the/ sent the latter a
or!al de!and letter which, per the attached cop/ to the Co!plaint, is dated Septe!ber #,
%&&..
.,
The Co!plaint was iled on October ', %&&. or within one /ear ro! the ti!e the or!al
de!and to vacate was !ade. Clearl/, the Co!plaint suicientl/ established a case or unlawul
detainer as to vest the 0eTC >urisdiction over it.
The lot occupied b/ the spouses Capco and the lot over which the spouses Dela Cru7 clai! to have
a better right to possess pertain to the sa!e propert/.
The C" opined that there is a need to deter!ine i the lot occupied b/ the spouses Capco reall/
or!s part o the propert/ over which the spouses Dela Cru7 clai! to have a better right to possess.
The Court, however, thin9s otherwise.
One o the three issues deined during the preli!inar/ conerence is Gwhether or not the Bspouses
CapcoC are occup/ing the sub>ect propert/ b/ !ere tolerance o the plaintisG.
4&
It is thereore sae to
conclude that there is no dispute with respect to the identit/ o the propert/. Ehat was clearl/ up or
resolution beore the 0eTC was onl/ the :uestion o whether the spouses Capco are occup/ing the
propert/ b/ !ere tolerance o the spouses Dela Cru7.
0oreover, the evidence sub!itted in this case establishes that the lot sub>ect o this Co!plaint or
e>ect!ent is the sa!e lot being occupied b/ the spouses Capco. "s !entioned, the spouses Capco
sub!itted ta@ declarations covering their house and a ca!arin as well as the corresponding receipts
evidencing their pa/!ents o real propert/ ta@es. Notabl/, the declared owner o the lot on which
these properties stand, as written in the receipts or the /ears #,,3, #,,', #,,- and #,,$, is
2uan.
4#
Het, the receipts or the /ears %&&&, %&&#, %&&%, and %&&. no longer relect 2uan as the
owner but Teodora.
4%
This change tends to support the conclusion that the lot occupied b/ the
spouses Capco, which was previousl/ owned b/ 2uan, is the portion ad>udicated in avor o the
spouses Dela Cru7= predecessor*in*interest, Teodora. This is urther conir!ed b/ the aidavit o the
0unicipal "ssessor o Pateros, 0r. E!!anuel EspaIa.
4.
5esides, the spouses Capco appear to
have ac9nowledged the act that the spouses Dela Cru7 owned the lot that the/ are occup/ing. "s
shown b/ the records during the irst !eeting beore the 5aranga/ 8upon, respondent 0art/ C.
Capco as9ed "!elia i the latter could >ust sell the lot to the! Bthe spouses CapcoC so that their
business built thereon would not suer.
44
It is thus clear that the lot being occupied b/ the spouses Capco is the sa!e lot over which the
spouses Dela Cru7 clai! to have a better right to possess. Contrar/ thereore to the C"=s
pronounce!ent, there is no need to ph/sicall/ deter!ine the e@tent o the land covered b/ T.C.T.
No. .#$-..
The spouses Dela Cru7 are able to establish b/ preponderance o evidence that the/ are the rightul
possessors o the propert/.
GThe onl/ issue in an e>ect!ent case is the ph/sical possession o real propert/ J possession de
acto and not possession de >ure.G
43
5ut GBwChere the parties to an e>ect!ent case raise the issue o
ownership, the courts !a/ pass upon that issue to deter!ine who between the parties has the better
right to possess the propert/.G
4'
?ere, both parties anchor their right to possess based on ownership,
i.e., the spouses Dela Cru7 b/ their own ownership while the spouses Capco b/ the ownership o
Ruino as one o the heirs o the alleged true owner o the propert/. Thus, the 0eTC and the RTC
correctl/ passed upon the issue o ownership in this case to deter!ine the issue o possession.
?owever, it !ust be e!phasi7ed that GBtChe ad>udication o the issue o ownership is onl/ provisional,
and not a bar to an action between the sa!e parties involving title to the propert/.G
4-
The spouses Dela Cru7 were able to prove b/ preponderance o evidence that the/ are the owners
o the lot. Their allegation that the sub>ect propert/ was ad>udicated to Teodora b/ virtue o a
decision in a land registration case and was later conve/ed in their avor, is supported b/ (#) a cop/
o the Decision in the said land registration case1 (%) the title o the land issued to Teodora (TCT No.
.#$-.), and, (.) the Deed o E@tra*2udicial Settle!ent o the Estate o Teodora wherein the latter=s
heirs agreed to conve/ the said propert/ to "!elia.
The spouses Capco, on the other hand, aside ro! their bare allegation that respondent Ruino is an
heir o the true owners thereo, presented nothing to support their clai!. Ehile the/ sub!itted
receipts evidencing their pa/!ents o the realt/ ta@es o their house and the ca!arin standing in the
sub>ect propert/, the sa!e onl/ !ilitates against their clai! since the latest receipts indicate Teodora
as the owner o the land. 0oreover, the spouses Capco=s atte!pt to attac9 the title o Teodora is
utile. GIt has repeatedl/ been e!phasi7ed that when the propert/ is registered under the Torrens
s/ste!, the registered owner;s title to the propert/ is presu!ed legal and cannot be collaterall/
attac9ed, especiall/ in a !ere action or unlawul detainer. It has even been held that it does not
even !atter i the part/;s title to the propert/ is :uestionable.G
4$
"ll told, the Court agrees with the 0eTC;s conclusion, as air!ed b/ the RTC, that the spouses Dela
Cru7 are better entitled to the !aterial possession o the sub>ect propert/. "s its present owners,
the/ have a right to the possession o the propert/ which is one o the attributes o ownership.
E?ERE<ORE, the Petition is +R"NTED. The "ugust #$, %&&' Decision and the Dece!ber %#,
%&&' Resolution o the Court o "ppeals in C"*+.R. No. ,&-.' are "NN688ED and SET "SIDE.
The 2anuar/ %&, %&&3 Decision o the Regional Trial Court o Pasig Cit/, 5ranch #3., and the 2ul/ ,,
%&&4 Decision o the 0etropolitan Trial Court o Pateros, 5ranch -. are REINST"TED and
"<<IR0ED.
SO ORDERED.
MARANO C. DEL CAS#LLO
"ssociate 2ustice
EE CONC6RA