SPS. DOLORES MEDINA, MOISES BERNAL V. CFI JUSTICE VALDELLON, SPS.

CIPRIANO
VILLANUEVA, RUFINA PANGANIBAN,
March 25, 1975 | Esguerra, J.
Possession > Concept
AKGL

DOCTRINE: A mere plea of title or ownership over the disputed land by the defendant cannot be used as a
sound legal basis for dismissing an action for recovery of possession because an action for recovery of
possession can be maintained even against the very owner of the property.
CASE SUMMARY: Sps. Medina allowed Sps. Villanueva to occupy the land owned by the former. But, when
the former demanded the latter to return the property, the latter refused. CFI dismissed the case filed by the
former due to the pendency of a Land Registration Case (LRC) involving the same property.

FACTS:
 Sps. Dolores Medina and Moises Bernal (Sps. Medina) purchased a parcel of land in San Pascual,
Hagonoy, Bulacan from Margarita Punzalan, Rosal Punzalan, Quaquin Gaddi and Paulina Gaddi.
 Since the Sps. Medina were family friends with Sps. Cipriano Villanueva and Rufina Panganiban (Sps.
Villanueva), Sps. Medina allowed Sps. Villanueva to build a small house in the said property subject to
the condition that they will return to the plaintiffs the premises in 1969.
 However, when Sps. Medina asked Sps. Villanueva to return the property, Sps. Villanueva refused to
and claimed that they were the owners.
 Sps. Medina instituted a complaint (Civil Case No. 4353-M) before the CFI Bulacan against Sps.
Villanueva and prayed that the court will order: 1. Sps. Villanueva to vacate and surrender property; 2.
Sps. Villanueva to pay incidental expenses for the action. Sps. Villanueva filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that property was subject to another pending case (LRC No. 2814).
 [CFI] Granted the motion to dismiss the case because of the said pending case.

ISSUE: W/N the pendency of a land registration case will bar the institution of an action for the recovery of
possession? No, the 2 cases do not exactly discuss the same issue. The LRC is for ownership, while the Civil
Case is for possession.

RULING:
 The nature of the action embodied in the complaint in Civil Case No. 4353-M is one for recovery of
possession, and not for unlawful detainer which falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the city
courts or municipal courts.
 An action of unlawful detainer is defined as “withholding by a person from another for not more than
one year, of the possession of a land or building to which the latter is entitled after the expiration or
termination of the former’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract express or implied.”
 On the basis of allegation, the Sps. Villanueva withheld the property since 1969 or very much more
than the 1 year period contemplated in unlawful detainer cases.
 Not all cases of dispossession are covered by Rule 70 of the ROC (Forcible Entry and Unlawful
Detainer cases) because whenever the owner of property is dispossessed by any other means than
those mentioned in the aforementioned rule, he may initiate and maintain a plenary action (accion
publiciana) to recover possession.
 The rights sought to be enforced and the reliefs prayed for in the Civil Case (recovery of possession
and damages) are entirely separate and distinct from that sought in the LRC Case (where Sps. Medina
as oppositors are seeking the exclusion of their land from that of Sps. Villanueva claim of title over a
bigger tract of land).
 CFI, acting as a land registration court, has a limited and special jurisdiction confined to the
determination of the legality and propriety of the issue of title over the land, and cannot entertain issues
of rightful possession and claim for damages.
 A mere plea of title or ownership over the disputed land by the defendant cannot be used as a
sound legal basis for dismissing an action for recovery of possession because an action for
recovery of possession can be maintained even against the very owner of the property.
 SPS. DOLORES MEDINA, MOISES BERNAL V. CFI JUSTICE VALDELLON, SPS. CIPRIANO
VILLANUEVA, RUFINA PANGANIBAN,
 A judgment rendered in a case of recovery of possession is conclusive only on the question of
possession and not that of ownership.
 We cannot see any sufficient reason for any of the parties in this case to object to the consolidation of
the trial of both cases. While the issues raised in both cases are not exactly identical, the evidence
involving the issues of possession and ownership over the same land mu st be related and its
presentation before one court of justice would redound to a speedy disposition of this litigation.

DISPOSITION: Orders declared null and void and set aside; complaint and amended complaint revived; bo th
respondent Judge and Presiding Judge, Branch VI, of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan directed to
consolidate trial of L.R.C. No. 2814 and Civil Case No. 4353-M in one branch of that court.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS CITED:

NOTES:
 The counsel for the Sps. Villanueva was declared in contempt of course, because of his strongly
worded reply when the Court asked the counsels if there were valid issues if the 2 cases were to be
consolidated.