G.R. No.

210504

HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, TEODORO K.

YUSINGCO, Petitioners
vs.
AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG and LIXBERTO1 CASTRO,
Respondents

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

On August 11, 2005, herein petitioners filed five separate (5) Complaints5 for accion publiciana and/or
recovery of possession against herein respondents and a certain Reynaldo Peralta. The suits, which
were subsequently consolidated, were filed with the MTCC of Surigao City, which were later raffled
to Branch 1 thereof. Petitioners uniformly alleged in the said Complaints that: they are owners of three
(3) parcels of land, denominated as Lot Nos. 519, 520 and 1015, which are all located at Barangay Taft,
Surigao City; they inherited the lots from their predecessor-in-interest, Alfonso Yusingco; they were
in possession of the said properties prior to and at the start of the Second World War, but lost
possession thereof during the war; after the war, petitioners discovered that the subject properties
were occupied by several persons, which prompted petitioners to file separate cases for accion
reivindicatoria and recovery of possession against these persons; during the pendency of these cases,
herein respondents entered different portions of the same properties and occupied them without the
knowledge and consent of petitioners; petitioners were forced to tolerate the illegal occupation of
respondents as they did not have sufficient resources to protect their property at that time and also
because their ownership was still being disputed in the earlier cases filed; subsequently, the cases
which they earlier filed were decided in their favor and they were declared the owners of the subject
properties; thereafter, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the said properties, but the latter
refused.

In their Answer, respondents raised essentially similar defenses, contending, in essence, that: they
have been in possession of the subject properties for more than thirty (30) years; petitioners never
actually possessed the said parcels of land and that they never had title over the same; thus,
petitioners' claim would be in conflict with and inferior to respondents' claim of possession.

The MTCC held that: in an earlier case for accion reivindicatoria (Civil Case No. 1645) decided by the
Court of First Instance of Surigao Del Norte on June 8, 1979 and affirmed by the CA in its Decision
dated August 30, 1982 (CA-G.R. No. 66508-R), which became final and executory on December 18,
1986, herein petitioners were declared the true and lawful co-owners of the subject properties; on the
other hand, evidence showed that respondents were mere intruders on the lots in question; thus, as
judicially-declared owners of the said lots, petitioners are entitled to possession thereof as against
respondents whose entries into the said properties are illegal.

On August 17, 2011, the RTC, Branch 30, Surigao City, rendered a Joint Decision, which affirmed, with
modification, the Omnibus Judgment of the MTCC. The dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Decision
reads, thus:

The CA ruled that the RTC and CA Decisions used by the MTCC in holding that herein petitioners
are owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled to legal possession thereof, are based on a
previous accion reivindicatoria, which is a suit in personam. The CA held that, being an action in
personam, the judgments in the said case binds only the parties properly impleaded therein. Since
respondents were not parties to the said action, the CA concluded that they could not be bound by
the judgments declaring petitioners as owners of the disputed properties. Hence, petitioners' present
actions to recover possession of the said properties from respondents, on the basis of the said
judgments, must fail.

The issues raised in the instant petition boil down to the basic question of whether or not the final and
executory decisions rendered in a previous accion reivindicatoria, finding petitioners to be the lawful
owners of the subject properties, are binding upon respondents.

This Court rules in the affirmative.

At the outset, the Court finds it proper to look into the nature of the actions filed by petitioners against
respondents. A perusal of the complaints filed by petitioners shows that the actions were captioned
as "Accion Publiciana and/or Recovery of Possession." However, the Court agrees with the ruling of
the lower courts that the complaints filed were actually ace ion reivindicatoria.

In a number of cases, 10 this Court had occasion to discuss the three (3) kinds of actions available to
recover possession of real property, to wit:

xx x (a) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (a) accion reivindicatoria

Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry (detentacion) and
unlawful detainer (desahuico) [sic]. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of real
1âwphi1

property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth whereas in unlawful detainer,
one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession
under any contract, express or implied. The two are distinguished from each other in that in forcible
entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning, and that the issue is which party
has prior de facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant is originally legal
but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.

The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in the proper municipal trial
court or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual
entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful
detainer. The issue in said cases is the right to physical possession.

Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in
the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary
civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other
words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant
had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be,
not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion
reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an
ordinary civil proceeding.

Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action whereby the plaintiff alleges
ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. 11 It is a suit to recover
possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership. 12 The judgment in such a case determines
the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner. 13 It is
different from accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right
to possess without claim of title. 14

On the basis of the above discussions, it is clear that the lower courts did not err in ruling that the suits
filed by petitioners are accion reivindicatoria, not accion publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover
possession of the subject lots on the basis of their ownership thereof.

Proceeding to the main issue in the instant petition, there is no dispute that the RTC Decision in Civil
Case No. 1645 and the CA Decision in CAG. R. CV No. 66508-R used by the MTCC in the present case
as bases in holding that herein petitioners are owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled
to legal possession thereof, are judgments on a previous case for accion reivindicatoria, which was filed
by petitioners against persons other than herein respondents.

It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in

personam. 15 It is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only "between the parties and their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action." 16 An action to recover
a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only
although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. 17 Any judgment therein is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. 18 However, this rule
admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment
suit19 where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently
occupying the property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the
permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of
the family, relative or privy of the defendant.20

In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings and conclusions of
the MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC, that respondents are mere intruders or trespassers who do not
have a right to possess the subject lots. Thus, the Court adopts the discussion of the MTCC on the
matter, to wit:

On the other hand, the evidence for the defendants showed that they are mere intruders on the lots in
question. They are occupying their respective portions simply as places to stay with intention of
acquiring the said properties in the event that they are public lands and not owned by any private
person.

It is noted that while the defendants had declared their houses and improvements for tax purposes,
not one of them had declared in his name the lot in which his house or improvement is built on. They
just waited for the Yusingcos to show proof of their ownership of the lot.

It was indeed revealing that while professing that the lots are public land, the defendants never
bothered to apply under any of the legal modes of acquiring land of the public domain for the portion
occupied by them. Obviously, their physical possession of the premises was not under claim of
ownership or in the concept of an owner. Hence, the defendants' possession cannot ripen into
ownership by prescription as claimed by them. They are intruders, plain and simple, without any
right of possession to be protected.

The plaintiff[s] [herein petitioners] prayed that their right of possession of the lots is entitled to
protection under the law. In the case at bar, the evidence showed that the defendant's [herein
respondents'] entry into and possession of the disputed premises was illegal from the beginning and
remain to be so until the present. There is no question, therefore, that as between the plaintiffs [herein
petitioners] who had been judicially declared the owners of the land and the defendants [herein
respondents] who are mere squatters therein, the former are entitled to such legal protection. 21

On the basis of the foregoing, the CA erred in ruling that the judgments of the RTC (in Civil Case No.
1645) and the CA (in CA-G.R. CV No. 66508-R) on the suit for accion reivindicatoria filed by petitioners
against persons other than herein respondents are not binding upon the latter. Respondents, being
trespassers on the subject lots are bound by the said judgments, which find petitioners to be entitled
to the possession of the subject lots as owners thereof.