Carbonilla v Abiera (Right of Possession Arising from Title)
Facts
Petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment against respondents alleging that he is the
registered owner of a parcel of land in Maasin City. He also alleged that he owns the
building standing on said land by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial settlement of Estate
with Waiver and Quitclaim of Ownership executed by the Garcianos. He maintained that
the building was being occupied by respondents by mere tolerance of the previous
owners. Petitioner asserted that he sent a demand letter to respondents asking them to
leave the premises within 15 days from receipt of the letter, but they failed and refused
to do so. The MTCC ruled that Carbonilla is the lawful owner of the subject land.
However it held that the defendants to have the better rights of (material) possession to
the assailed building and deemed as possessors in good faith and are legally entitled to
its possession and occupancy. The RTC affirmed the decision of the MTCC with respect to
the land, however it ruled that petitioner, as owner of the land, would have every right
to evict respondents from the land. The CA reversed the RTC decision and ordered the
dismissal of petitioner's complaint for failure of the plaintiff (herein respondent) to prove
that the case at bar is for unlawful detainer or forcible entry.
Issue
Won petitioner has sufficiently established his ownership of the subject properties and
has the right to recover possession thereof
Held.
No. While petitioner may have proven his ownership of the land, as there can be no
other piece of evidence more worthy of credence than a Torrens certificate of title, he
failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claim of ownership or right to the
possession of the building. The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Residential
Building) with Waiver and Quitclaim of Ownership executed by the Garcianos as proof
that petitioner acquired ownership of the building cannot be accepted by the court.
There is no showing that the Garcianos were the owners of the building or that they had
any proprietary right over it. Ranged against respondents' proof of possession of the
building since 1977, petitioner's evidence pales in comparison and leaves the court
totally unconvinced.
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.calaw 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.craw 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.Here, petitioners failed to prove that the
possession
of
respondents
was
by
mere
tolerance.
Petitioners must file either an action reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership to
property or file an accionpubliciana, a plenary action to recover based on the better
right to possess.
