In unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases, the only issue to be determined is who has the better right to possess the contested property. But if the issue of ownership is so intertwined with the issue of possession, the court may pass upon the issue of ownership only to determine who has the better right to possess the property. This rule is illustrated in this case between Pinang and the spouses Rolly and Liza.
This case involved a parcel of land with an area of 271 square meters covered by original certificate of title P-2388 issued on June 22, 1994 and registered in the name of Pinang on July 18, 1994 by virtue of a free patent application. Occupying a small portion of the land measuring about 103 square meters were the spouses Rolly and Liza who built a hut thereon.
On April 7, 1998, Pinang filed a complaint against the spouses for recovery of possession and damages in the Municipal Trial Court alleging that she was the registered owner of the lot occupied by the spouses; that while the spouses entered the land and built a hut thereon without her consent, she took pity on them and acceded to their request to stay on the premises on the condition that they would vacate upon demand; that in 1997 she asked the spouses to vacate the land as she would be putting up a fence thereon but the spouses refused.
In their defense, Rolly and Liza denied that they entered into any agreement with Pinang allowing them to stay on the land. They claimed that they had been occupying the property as caretakers of the heirs of Paz since 1973 as evidenced by a kasunduan executed on August 8, 1973. They said that the lot they were occupying was part of a land covered by TCT No. 14882 issued on March 1, 1972 originating from a mother title (OCT 39) issued in 1912. Hence the spouses contended that Pinang had no right or personality to eject them from the land.
Pinang on the other asserted that since she had title over the land and the spouses had none, she could order them to vacate the premises. Was Pinang correct?
No. Pinang’s cause of action is grounded on her alleged ownership of the property as shown by OCT 12388. Rolly and Liza however vehemently disputes this claim knowing that the land possessed by them is titled in the name of another person. Hence to determine the issue of possession, the issue of ownership must also be resolved.
Given these conflicting claims, the rule is that where two certificates of title purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. In this case the title in the name of Paz was issued on March 1, 1972. Pinang’s title which was obtained at a much later date, June 22, 1994, appears to be rather specious since no two titles can be issued over the same parcel of land.
The spouses’ right to occupy the land emanates from the authority given them by Paz, the registered and rightful owner of the land as evidenced by a kasunduan executed on August 8, 1973. From then on the spouses were in actual possession of the land. As against a written or documentary evidence giving the spouses authority to occupy the land, Pinang’s mere claim that she merely tolerated them to stay on the land cannot be given weight. The kasunduan executed by the rightful owner is sufficient proof that Pinang has no privity of contract with Rolly and Liza and therefore had no right to evict them from the land. By virtue of the title and the written agreement which are prior in time, coupled with the actual possession of the subject land, Rolly and Liza’s right to possess the land should enjoy greater preference. Thus without any legal or factual basis to lay claim over the land, Pinang has clearly no right to order the spouses’ eviction from the land (Panganiban vs. Spouse Roldan, G.R. 163053, November 25, 2009).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net