Battle of possession, not ownership

Most family feuds arise because of disputes in inheritance. Much more so if the decedent’s wishes have not been expressed before he passes away. This is once more illustrated in this case of the Romero family headed by the spouses Romy and Carrie.

Romy and Carrie owned a 228 square meter lot with a two story duplex house. They had eleven children. In 1974, when the spouses migrated to the U.S., they asked one of their sons, Romy Jr. and his children to stay in one of the units rent free. In 1985, another son, Bert occupied the other unit of the duplex house also rent free.

When Romy died in 1992, Carrie and her eleven children executed an extrajudicial settlement where the children voluntarily waived their hereditary rights to four (4) real properties owned by their parents, including the lot with the duplex house, in favor of their mother Carrie out of love and respect for her.

In 1993, Romy, Jr. and his three (3) sons also migrated to the US leaving behind his two other children, Mon and Riza who continued to reside in one of the units of the duplex house. Then Bert also migrated to the US and stayed with his mother Carrie.

On April 6, 1999, Carrie sold the duplex house and lot to Bert for five hundred thousand (P500,000). The deed of sale was executed in the Philippines in which Carrie and Bert were represented by Bert’s daughter Tess and Lina who were residing here. Thus title to the property was subsequently transferred in the name of Bert.

Thereafter, Lina, as attorney in fact of her father Bert, asked Mon and Riza to sign a lease contract over the unit they were occupying covering the period from April to June 1999. But Mon and Riza refused to sign or vacate the premises. So Lina, in behalf of her father Bert filed an unlawful detainer case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)

In their answer, Mon and Riza impugned the validity of their Uncle Bert’s title to the duplex since the sale was fictitious and the consideration was inadequate. They also claimed that they had prior actual physical possession of the property as co-owners, in representation of their father Romy, Jr., so their possession is not by mere tolerance and they cannot be ejected therefrom in an unlawful detainer suit. Besides, Bert’s assertion of ownership in the unlawful detainer case removed it from the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

Were they correct?

No.

In an unlawful detainer case, prior physical possession by plaintiff is not necessary. It is enough that he shows that he has a better right of possession. Actual, prior, physical possession of a property by a party is indispensable only in forcible entry cases, not in unlawful detainer cases wher the defendant is necessarily in prior physical possession of the property but his possession eventually becomes unlawful upon termination or expiration of his right to possess. Thus the fact that Mon and Riza were in prior physical possession of the duplex unit does not automatically entitle them to continue in said possession and does not give them the better right to the property.

A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment may be filed against him. In this case, when title to the property passed on to Bert by virtue of a contract of sale, Mon and Riza’s refusal to sign the lease contract for their use of the unit rendered their continued occupation thereof unlawful.

Although Mon and Riza impugned Bert’s title over the property, this allegation does not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer suit. Courts in ejectment cases are mandated to decide questions of ownership whenever it is necessary to decided the question of possession. They cannot be divested of jurisdiction over ejectment cases just because the defendants assert ownership over the litigated property.

In this case, full ownership of the property was surrendered to Carrie upon the death of Romy, Sr. through an extrajudicial partition signed by all the compulsory heirs. Thus Carrie had every right to dispose of the property as she deem fit. Moreover, Mon and Riza had no hereditary rights over the property in substitution of their father as the latter was still alive. While they insist that the property was part of the inheritance left by Romy, Sr. which gives them the right to assert and protect the interest of their father, Romy, Jr. over his share in the property, this issue, coupled with the alleged fictitious and fraudulent sale of the property to Bert, must be tried in a separate proceedings only for that purpose as it is settled that an unlawful detainer case resolves only the issue of physical or material possession.

So Mon and Riza must have to vacate the duplex unit; pay P5,000 by way of unpaid rentals a month until they vacate it and attorney’s fees of P10,000. ( Rivera vs. Rivera G.R. 154203, July 8,2003)

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]