Corpuz vs. Agustin Full
Corpuz vs. Agustin Full
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 183822 January 18, 2012
RUBEN C. CORPUZ, represented by Attorney-in-Fact
Wenifreda C. Agullana, Petitioner,
vs.
Sps. HILARION AGUSTIN and JUSTA
AGUSTIN, Respondents.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assails the Decision dated 08 January 2008
1
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition
is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of Branch XVI,
Regional Trial Court of Laoag City in Civil Case No. 13293-
16 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
The Issues
Petitioner assigns the following errors in this Petition for
Review on Certiorari:
I. THE HONORABLE COURT of appeals seriously
erred in failing to consider the legal ownership of
petitioner on the disputed property to claim better right
to possession.
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN THE APPRECIATION OF
THE ALLEGED SALE IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS
TO RULE THAT THEY HAVE BETTER RIGHT TO
POSSESSION.
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE
CASE OF JACINTO CO VS. MILITAR, ET AL. (421
SCRA 455) WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE INSTANT
CASE.
IV. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION
FOR REVIEW RAISED BEFORE IT. 13
consistently held the age-old rule "that the person who has
a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession
thereof."22
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present
petitioner has instituted an unlawful detainer case against
respondents. It is an established fact that for more than
three decades, the latter have been in continuous
possession of the subject property, which, as such, is in the
concept of ownership and not by mere tolerance of
petitioner’s father. Under these circumstances, petitioner
cannot simply oust respondents from possession through
the summary procedure of an ejectment proceeding.
Instructive on this matter is Carbonilla v. Abiera, which
23
reads thus:
Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is
entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply
wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual
occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must
resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses
what action to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions
necessary for such action to prosper.
In the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment
case against respondents. Ejectment cases—forcible entry
and unlawful detainer—are summary proceedings designed
to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession
or the right to possession of the property involved. The only
question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is:
who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises,
that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession
de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title to the
property is questionable. For this reason, an ejectment case
will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has
presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key
jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment
case filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently
proven.
The statements in the complaint that respondents’
possession of the building was by mere tolerance of
petitioner clearly make out a case for unlawful detainer.
Unlawful detainer involves the person’s withholding from
another of the possession of the real property to which the
latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the
former’s right to hold possession under the contract, either
expressed or implied.
A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer
case is that possession must be originally lawful, and such
possession must have turned unlawful only upon the
expiration of the right to possess. It must be shown that the
possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such
lawful possession must be established. If, as in this case,
the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the
plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved. (Emphasis
supplied.)
In this case, petitioner has not proven that respondents’
continued possession of the subject properties was by mere
tolerance of his father, except by a mere allegation thereof.
In fact, petitioner has not established when respondents’
possession of the properties became unlawful – a requisite
for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case.
In Canlas v. Tubil, we enumerated the elements that
24