Inseparably linked

This is an ejectment case where the issue is the prior physical possession of the property or possession de facto, and not the issue of ownership thereof. The question that arose in this case is whether the court can still pass upon the issue of ownership in an ejectment suit. This is answered and explained in our case for today.

The property involved here is a 109-square meter parcel of land covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) located at a first-class subdivision in a suburban town along the seacoast. It is registered in the name Rudy and Letty, whose marriage was already declared void because of Rudy’s previous marriage to another woman.

When Letty, who was then working in the USA, came home to the Philippines, she was surprised to find out that said property was occupied by persons unknown to her. Upon inquiry, the occupants informed her that they were lessees paying rentals to Benny, who is her nephew. She then told the occupants that she is the owner of the property and that she did not authorize Benny to lease the property to anyone.

Then Letty confronted Benny, who confirmed that he is managing the property and collecting rentals for his aunt Tessie, the sister of Letty. Upon telling Benny that she is the owner of the property, Benny and his aunt Tessie voluntarily left the premises and turned it over to Letty. So, Letty took possession of the land and designated her other sister Chary to administer it. She also made arrangements with the lessees to pay the rentals to Chary. Thus, she changed the locks of the gate of the property.

Three weeks later when Letty was back in the US, Chary informed her that Benny and Tessie entered the premises by destroying the locks using a bolt cutter and prohibited the tenants from entering the premises. Thus, Chary reported the matter to the barangay and hired a lawyer to demand that Benny, Tessie and their tenants turn over possession of the property to her sister Letty. But despite demands, Benny and Tessie refused, thereby forcing Letty to file a forcible entry complaint against them.

In answer to the complaint, Tessie and Benny averred that the complaint is without legal basis because Letty was not the owner of the property. They insisted that although Letty was described in the property’s title as the wife of Rudy, their marriage was already nullified for being bigamous. Moreover, Rudy already declared that Tessie is the new owner of the property.

After trial, the Metropolitan Court (MeTC) rendered a decision in favor of Letty, ordering Tessie and Benny to vacate the premises and to pay the reasonable amount of P5,000 as actual damages until they vacate the premises, plus attorney’s fees. This was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled on the issue of ownership and found that Letty is a co-owner of the property as it was acquired during the subsistence of her marriage to Rudy and that Rudy can only sell his share of the property but the document he executed in favor of Tessie regarding his share in the property is not proof that he transferred ownership thereof to Tessie.

The Court of Appeals (CA), however, declared that the forcible entry case is not proper due to the contrasting claim of ownership. So it reversed and set aside the RTC decision without prejudice to the institution by the parties of the proper action before a court of competent jurisdiction to ventilate and resolve with conclusiveness the contrasting claims of ownership over the subject property. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said that the CA is not correct. Even if the issue of ownership is raised in the pleadings, like in this case, the courts may pass upon such issue in an ejectment case which relates only to physical or material possession so as to determine the issue of possession, especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter. The issue of ownership shall be resolved in deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership. The Rules of Court in fact expressly allow in Section 16, Rule 70 that the issue of ownership shall be resolved in deciding the issue of possession if the question of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership. But this provision is only an exception and is allowed only if the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.

For forcible entry suit to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove: (a) that they have prior physical possession of the property; (b) that they were deprived of the possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (c) that the action was filed within one year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.

In this case Letty was already in possession of the property when Benny and Tessie forcibly entered it again by using a bolt cutter, evicted the tenants therein, changed the padlocks and placed a rent signage in front of the property, thus prompting Letty to file a forcible entry case (Esperral vs Esperal and Biaoco, G.R. 229076, Sept. 16, 2020)