A suit for ejectment only resolves the issue of who has a better right to actual physical possession (possession de facto). Even if the issue of ownership is raised, said issue may be provisionally resolved in the suit only for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. This rule is once more illustrated in the case.
The case involved a five-door apartment owned by Johnny and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 14465. He had three children with his wife but he also had a live-in partner, Cely. On October 27, 1983, Johnny executed a “Huling Habilin at Testamento” giving Cely apartments D and E, while he gave apartments A and B to his sons Ben and Turing respectively and apartment C to his daughter Betty.
Barely eight months later however or on June 14, 1984, when Johnny was already seriously ill, he executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in favor of Cely, his paramour for P20,000 only. Thus TCT No. 144465 was cancelled a new TCT no. 150431 was issued in the name of Cely.
Ben, Turing and Betty apparently were not aware of said sale and continued to stay in the apartments allotted to them. On August 23, 1990, when Johnny was already gone, they even executed a Partition Agreement with Cely wherein they recognized each other as co-owners of the apartment and partitioned it in accordance with the provisions of Johnny’s huling habilin.
When Turing, Betty and Ben discovered the said sale, they sued Cely in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to declare the sale null and void for being simulated. They alleged that their late father who was then already seriously ill was unduly influenced by Cely in executing the sale. While the case was still pending, Turing, Betty and Vangie separately leased their apartments to different tenants.
Upon learning this, Cely in turn filed a suit for ejectment against the three and all persons claiming under them. She alleged that she only tolerated their stay in the apartments even after its sale to her; but when they leased the same to other persons without her knowledge and consent, their possession as well as those claiming rights under them became unlawful upon their refusal to vacate the premises and pay the rent.
In answer, Turing Betty and Ben contended that while Cely has a TCT over the property, she is not its true owner because the sale to her was simulated and void which is why they sued Cely in the RTC (Civil Case 01-1641). Besides they argued that Cely had no cause of action against them for being a party to the Partition Agreement she signed with them on August 23, 1990 in accordance with the Huling Habilin of their father Johnny. They insisted that they were co-owners and therefore have the right to possess the property. Can Turing, Betty and Ben be ejected from the apartments?
Yes. Cely has a better right to the possession of the apartments as shown by the deed of sale and the certificate of title in her name. A certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the land described therein, the validity of which cannot be subject to a collateral attack especially in an ejectment case which is summary in nature. The deed of sale in favor of Cely which is the basis of her TCT was executed by Johnny while he was still the owner of the apartment since ownership would only pass to his heirs at the time of his death. Thus as owner, Johnny had the absolute right to dispose of the property during his lifetime.
On the other hand, the Huling Habilin and the Partition Agreement on which Turing et. al relied to prove their right of possession have no legal effect since the said Habilin has not yet been probated. Before the Habilin can acquire force and validity, it must be probated. As it was not probated, the Partition Agreement executed pursuant thereto can not be given effect. Hence even if Cely is a party to said agreement becomes immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession.
This ruling on the issue of ownership is only provisional to determine who between the parties has the better right of possession. It is therefore not conclusive as to the issue of ownership which is the subject matter of the case filed by Turing, Betty and Ben before the RTC (Civil Case No. 01-1641). Cely’s better right of possession was arrived at on the basis of the TCT and the Deed of Sale. Whether or not the sale to Cely was valid is an issue that can be resolved only in Civil Case 01-1641 where the issue as to who has the title to the property in question is fully threshed out (Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez, G.R. 175720, September 11, 2007)
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net