.

Divk;b:?l'Ckrk or Court
, r_r ~~ ~ i' c _r;. 1visi0 n
l\epu~lic of tbe ~bilipptnes JUL 2 6 2011
~upreme <!Court
;ffmanila

THIRD DIVISION

ABIGAIL L. MENDIOLA, G.R. No. 205283

Petitioner,
Present:
.

VELASCO, JR., J.,
Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - REYES,
JARDELEZA, and
TIJAM, JJ.

VENERANDO P. SANGALANG, Promulgated:

Respondent. ~017
-~ .. ~

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------~------x

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 are the Decision2
dated March 23, 2012 and Resolution3 dated January 15, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals4 (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 91072 which affirmed the Decision5
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 6 , Branch 218 in Quezon City, dismissing
petitioner's accion publiciana for failure to prove the better right of
possess10n.
1
Rollo, pp. 7-21, with Annexes.
2
Id. at 53-65.
3
Id. at 67-69.
4
Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Myra G. Fernandez.
5
Entitled "Abigail L. Mendiola & Vilma L. Aquino (a.k.a. Vilma L. Sapida), Plaintiffi, versus
Venerando P. Sangalang, Defendant" and docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-56563; Rollo, pp. 45-49.
6
Penned by Judge Hilario L. Laqui.

'{
Decision 2 G.R. No. 205283

The Antecedent Facts

The property subject of the instant controversy is a parcel of land

located at No. 104 Maginhawa Street, Brgy. Teachers Village East, Diliman,
Quezon City, on which a residential house and a four-door, one-storey
commercial building were built. Said property was originally registered in
the name ofHonorata G. Sangalang (Honorata). 7

Honorata had two siblings, Sinforosa and Angel. Sinforosa had three
children, petitioner Abigail Mendiola, Vilma Aquino (Vilma) and Azucena
De Leon; while Angel begot four children, respondent V enerando, Ma.
Lourdes, AngeFno and Fernando, all surnamed Sangalang. Sinforosa and
Angel predeceased Honorata, and on May 31, 1994, Honorata herself died
intestate without any issue. 8

While Honorata was still alive, one-half of the residential house of the
subject property was being used by petitioner and the other half by Vilma's
son. The commercial building, on the other hand, was being leased to third
persons. This set-up continued until after Honorata's death. 9

In 2003, respondent and his siblings discovered that the subject

property was already registered in the names of petitioner and Vilma. Upon
verification, they discovered that the title over the property had been
transferred in favor of petitioner and Vilma by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated
January 29, 1996 purportedly executed by Honorata in their favor.
Consequently, a new title, TCT No. N-148021 10 , was issued in the ames 11
of petitioner and Vilma.

It was around this time, or in July 2003, after Vilma's son left the
residential house, that respondent, allegedly without asking permission from
the petitioner or Vilma and with the use of force and violence upon things,
broke open the door of the unit and had since detained the same. 12

On April 11, 2005, petitioner and Vilma demanded that respondent

vacate the unit but the latter refused to do so. 13 The dispute was referred to
the barangay for conciliation but no settlement was reached. 14 Consequently,
on October 18, 2005, petitioner and Vilma commenced their complaint 15 for
7
See Answer; Rollo, p. 30.
8
Supra note 5, at 46.
9
ld.
10
Rollo, p. 26.
11
Supra note 8.
12
Id. at 45.
13
Rollo, p. 27.
14
Id. at p. 28.
15
Id. at 23-25.
/'
~
Decision 3 G.R. No. 205283

accion publiciana against respondent for the latter to return the illegally
occupied unit and to pay reas.onable rental therefor.

In his Answer, 16 respondent claimed that as heirs of Honorata, they all

have become co-owners in equal undivided shares of the subject property.
Respondent further disputes the Deed of Sale through which ownership over
the property was transferred to the petitioner and Vilma, since the same was
executed only in 1996 after Honorata died in 1994.

The Ruling of the RTC

.
On November 15, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision 17 dismissing
the complaint. The trial court noted that since respondent raised the defense
of co-ownership, the case was converted from accion publiciana to accion
reivindicatoria. It further noted that since it is undisputed that the parties are
all heirs of Honorata, then they all have an equal right thereto. Finally, the
trial court noted that the resolution of the criminal complaint for falsification
lodged by respondent against the petitioner and Vilma constitutes a
prejudicial question to the complaint. 18

The RTC thus disposed:

WHEREFORE, finding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their

burden of proof that they have better right to the property in dispute, the
complaint is hereby DISMISSED. However, plaintiffs are ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, the defendant, the amount of Pl0,000.00 as and by way
of attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED. 19

Petitioner and Vilma's motion for reconsideration was similarly

rebuffed by the trial court. 20 Undaunted, they elevated the case to the CA on
appeal raising as sole error the trial court's conversion of the complaint from
accion publiciana to accion reivindicatoria and in consequently ruling in
favor of respondent. They' insisted that they do not seek to recover
ownership of the subject property but merely its possession. 21

16
Id. at 29-42.
17
Supra note 5.
18
Id. at 48.
19
Supra note 5, at 48-49.
20
See Resolution dated February 14, 2008; Rollo, pp. 51-52.
21
Id. at 57. ',
/
~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 205283

The Ruling of the CA

The CA denied the appeal. 22 While the appellate court disagreed with
the trial court when it converted the complaint to accion reivindicatoria, it
nevertheless agreed with the trial court when it dismissed the complaint for
accion publiciana, for failure to prove the better right of possession. In
provisionally passing upon the issue of ownership to resolve the issue of
possession, the CA held that the parties, being co-owners pro indiviso of the
subject property, have equal right to possess the same. 23

Accordingly, the CA disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is

DISMISSED. The decision of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218 dated 15
November 2007 is AFFIRMED, not because the case was deemed converted
to an accion reivindicatoria but for the reason that plaintiffs-appellants failed
to prove that they have the better right of possession over the property.

SO ORDERED. 24 .

Petitioner and Vilma's motion for reconsideration suffered the same

rejection from the CA. 25 Hence, the instant petition filed solely by the
petitioner.

The Issue

The point of inquiry is whether the petitioner has the better right of
possession over the subject property as to successfully evict respondent.

The 'Ruling of this Court

The petition is devoid of merit.

In arriving at its identical pronouncement that petitioner failed to

prove her better right of possession, the RTC and the CA passed upon the
parties' respective claim of ownership, a procedure that is sanctioned under
Section 16,26 Rule 70. It is settled that the issue of ownership may be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

To prove their right of possession, petitioner and Vilma harp on their

claim as registered owners while respondent claims entitlement thereto as a
22
Supra, note 2.
23
Id. at 63.
24
Id. at 64.
25
Supra, note 3.
26
Sec. 16. Resolving defense ofownership. - When the defendant raises the defense ofownership
in his pleadings and the question of possetision cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

~
Decision 5 G.R. No. 205283

co-heir. We find no error when the RTC and the CA decided the case in
favor of respondent.

In this case, it is undisputed that the Deed of Sale, through which

ownership over the property had been purportedly transferred to the
petitioner and Vilma, was executed in 1996. However, it is perfectly obvious
that Honorata could not have signed the same as she passed away as early as
1994. If any, Honorata's signature thereon could only be a product of
forgery. This makes the Deed of Sale void and as such, produces no civil
effect; and it does not create, modify, or extinguish a juridical relation:

The Court cannot simply close its eyes against such patent defect on
the argument that registered owners of a property are entitled to its
possess10n.

While it is true that petitioner and Vilma have in their favor a Torrens
title over the property, it is nonetheless equally true that they acquired no
right under the void Deed of Sale. Indeed, when the instrument presented is
forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the
registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee
in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property. 27

In Spouses Reyes v. Montemayor, 28 the Court explains:

Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property is

concerned, the registration of the property in said person's name would not be
sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the property. A certificate of title
merely confirms or recoi;ds title already existing and vested. The
indefeasibility of the Torrens"title should not be used as a means to perpetrate
fraud against the rightful owner of real property. Good faith must concur with
registration because, otherwise, registration would be an exercise in futility. A
Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-
standing rule that registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the
whole world. The legal principle is that if the registration of the land is
fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere
trustee. 29

Neither can the argument that a certificate of title is not subject to

collateral attack would persuade Us to rule otherwise. With the
determination that petitioner and Vilma's title is void, the issue as to
whether it is subject to direct or collateral attack is no longer relevant.
Settled is the rule th:it an action to declare the nullity of a void title does not

27
Heirs of Victorino Sari/iv. Lagrosa, G.R. No. 193517, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 726, 739-
740, citing Spouses Berna/es v. Heirs ofJulian Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88 (2010).
28
614 Phil. 2.56, 274-275 (2009).'
29 Id.

~
Decision 6 G.R. No. 205283

prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral attack. 30 Hence,

respondent is not precluded from questioning the validity of the petitioner
and Vilma's title in the accion publiciana. 31

A necessary and logical consequence of the foregoing

pronouncements is that, title over the property remained in the name of
Honorata as original registered owner thereof. By theory of succession,
petitioner and respondent are co-owners of the property and equally entitled
to possession thereof, either de facto or de Jure. As such, petitioner and
Vilma had no right to exclude respondent from enjoying possession thereof
through a possessory action.

Finally, there being no further argument against the award of

attorney's fees, We have no resort but to affirm the same.

\VHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March

23, 2012 and Resolution dated January 15, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in
CA G.R. CV No. 91072 dismissing petitioner's complaint for accion
publiciana and awarding attorney's fees in respondent's favor are
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

~r
'-All.iv~~~ Z TIJAM
oci~;~Justice

WE CONClJR:

PRESBITER<YJ. VELASCO, JR.

"
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
30
Spouses De Guzman v. Agbagala. 569 Phil. 607, 614 (2008).
31
Romero and Domirigo v. SingsrJn, G.R. No. 200969, August 3. 20 i 5.
 .

Decision 7 G.R. No. 205283

Associate Justice

A T'.f EST AT I 0 N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had 9ten reached in
con.sultation before the case was assigned to the writer of opinion of the
Court's Division.

PRESBIT~R J. VELASCO, JR.

A ociate Justice
Chairp, rson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above.
DeCision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division .

. ' RTffIJi!:D TRUE COPY

~:lJ.~ MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
.LA~- Chief Justice

Th;rd Division
JUL 2 6 2017