1

TITLE: Sps. BUSTOS v COURT OF APPEALS

TOPIC: Unlawful Detainer to a person with possession and ownership.

PROPERTY: Intestate (lot) of Paulino Fajardo

FACTS:
 Paulino Fajardo died intestate.
 He had four children, namely: Manuela, Trinidad, Beatriz and Marcial.
 On September 30, 1964, the heirs executed extra-judicial partition of the
estate. And on the same date Manuela sold her share to Moses Mendoza,
husband of Beatriz.
 Trinidad was in physical possession of the land.
 Moses then filed a complaint for partition claiming the one fourth share of
Manuela which was sold to him.
 During pendency of the case, Trinidad died.
 The heirs of Trinidad executed an extra judicial partition of the estate of
Trinidad.
 Lucio Fajardo Ignacio, son of Trinidad sold Lot 284-B to spouses Viray.
 On February 1989, RTC rendered a decision in favor of Moses.
 On November 1989, spouses Viray filed with the MCTC an action for
unlawful detainer against spouses Bustos, the buyers of Moses, who were in
actual possession as lessees of the husband of Trinidad, Francisco Ignacio,
of the subject land.
 MCTC ruled in favor of the Sps. Viray.
 Petitioner then filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction. RTC
dismissed the case.
 Petitioners filed for motion for reconsideration. CA denied the motion.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner can be ejected from the land they bought from Moses.

HELD:
NO. In the present case, the stay of execution is warranted by the fact that
petitioners are now legal owners of the land in question and are occupants thereof. To
execute the judgment by ejecting petitioner from the land that they owned would
certainly result in grave injustice. Beside, the issue of possession was rendered moot
when the court adjudicated the ownership to the spouses Bustos by virtue of a valid
deed of sale.
 2

TITLE: GARCIA v COURT OF APPEALS

TOPIC: Distinction between possession and ownership.

PROPERTY: Parcel of land at Bel Air II Village

FACTS:
 Atty. Pedro Garcia, with the consent of his wife, Remedios Garcia, sold a
parcel of land to his daughter Maria Luisa Magpayo and her husband,
Luisito Magpayo.
 The Magpayos mortgaged the property to PBCom.
 The Magpayos failed to pay their loan upon its maturity, hence the mortgage
was extrajudicially foreclosed and at the public auction, PBCom bought the
land.
 The redemption period of the foreclosed mortgage expired without the
Magpayos redeeming the same, hence the title was consolidated in favor of
PBCom.
 PBCom filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land
with the RTC and was granted.
 Upon service of the writ, Jose T. Garcia, who was then in possession of the
land, refused to honor it an filed a motion for intervention in the abovesaid
PBCom petition, which was denied.
 Garcia thereupon filed a case for recovery of realty and damages wherein he
alleged that he inherited the land as one of the heirs of his mother, Remedios
Garcia.
 Garcia also contended that at the time of the alleged sale to the Magpayo
spouses, he was in possession of the property, and he became, by operation
of law, a co-owner of the property.
 Garcia added that at the time of the execution of the instrument in favor of
the Magpayo, Atty. Garcia was not in possession of the property.
 Garcia’s claim over the land is belied by the fact that it isnot among the
properties listed in the intestate proceedings of his mother.

ISSUES: Whether or not Jose Garcia was a co-owner of the said land.

HELD:
No. Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists
when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner
not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers
certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of
sale. Possession, on the other hand, is defined as the holding of a a thing or the
enjoyment of a right. In the case at bar, Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife, exercised
their right to dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject to the Magpayo
spouses.
 3

TITLE: ISAGUIRRE v DE LARA

TOPIC: Possession and improvements in bad faith.

PROPERTY: 2,342 m2 lot.

FACTS:
 Alejandro de Lara was the original applicant-claimant for a Miscellaneous
Sales Application over a parcel of land filed with the Bureau of Lands on
January 1942.
 Upon his death, he was succeeded by his wife, respondent Felicitas de Lara
as claimant.
 On this lot stands two-story residential-commercial apartment declared for
taxation purposes in the name of the respondent’s sons, Apolonio and
Rodolfo de Lara.
 When Felicitas encountered financial difficulty, she approached petitioner.
 On February 1960, a document, denominated as Deed of Sale and Special
Cession of Rights and Interests, was executed by respondent and petitioner
whereby the former sold a 250-square meter portion for Lot No. 502,
together with the two-story commercial and residential structure standing
thereon, in favor of petition, for and in consideration of the sum of P5,000.
 Petitioner then filed a sales application over the subject property on the basis
of the deed of sale, and was approved, which resulted to the issuance of
OCT, in the name of the petitioner.
 Meanwhile, the sales application of respondent over the entire 1,000 square
meters of the subject property was also given due course resulting to the
issuance of OCT in the name of the respondent.
 Due to the overlapping of titles, petitioner filed an action for the quieting of
title and damages with the RTC.
 RTC favored the petitioner.
 CA reversed the RTC decision on the ground that transaction entered into by
the parties was an equitable mortgage, not sale.
 Petitioner thereafter asserted that the he had the right of retention over the
property until payment of the loan and the value of improvements he had
introduced on the property.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is a possessor in good faith and can claim reimbursement.

HELD:
NO. Based on the factual findings of the appellate court, it is evident that
petitioner knew from the very beginning that there was really no sale and that he help
respondent’s property as mere security for the payment of the loan obligation.
Petitioner may claim reimbursement only for necessary expenses; however, he is not
entitled to reimbursement for any useful expenses which he may have incurred.
 4

TITLE: ABEJARON v NABASA

TOPIC: Evidence of Ownership

PROPERTY: 118 m2 of a 175 m2 residential lot in Silway, General Santos City,

Described as: “Block 5, Lot 1, Psu 154953, bounded on the North by Road, on the
South by Lot 2 of the same Psu, on the East by respondent, Felix Nabasa.

FACTS:
 Petitioner claimed that he is the actual and lawful possessor and claimant of
the property.
 In 1945, petitioner and his family started occupying the property and
introduced improvements thereon.
 Respondent did not opposed or complain about the improvements.
 On September, 1974, Nabasa was issued OCT pursuant to Free Patent
covering the subjected property.
 Alejandro Abejaron, petitioner’s son, representing petitioner’s wife, filed a
protest with the Bureau of Lands against Nabasa’s title and application.
 The protest was dismissed for failure of Matilde and Alejandro to attend
hearings.
 Petitioner then filed against respondent Nabasa an action for reconveyance
with damages.
 RTC ruled in favor of petitioner.
 CA rendered decision in favor of respondent.

ISSUE: Whether possession by petitioner is tantamount to ownership.

HELD:
NO. While petitioner has shown continued existence of the improvements he
introduced on the disputed land, he, however, failed to establish the portion of the
disputed land that his original nipa house, small store and wooden fence actually
occupied as of January 1947. In the absence of said proof, the Court cannot
determine the land he actually possessed and occupied for thirty years which he may
acquire under Public Land Act. Petitioner’s evidence does not constitute the “well-
nigh incontrovertible” evidence necessary to acquire tittle through possession and
occupation. MOREOVER, Abejaron is not the proper party to file an action for
reconveyance that would result in the reversion of the land to the government.
As admitted by the petitioner, he has never declared the disputed land for
taxation purposes. While tax receipts and tax declarations are no incontrovertible
evidence of ownership, the become strong evidence of ownership acquired by
prescription when accompanied by the proof of actual possession of the property or
supported by other effective proof.
 5

TITLE: BRADFORD UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC. v ANDO

TOPIC: Unlawful detainer during an action for recovery of ownership

PROPERTY: LOT 3-F

FACTS:
The fundamental issue to be resolved in this case is whether petitioner
committed forum-shopping when it failed to disclose in the certification on non-forum
shopping of the unlawful detainer case a complete statement of the status of the action for
recovery of ownership of property then pending before the RTC of MAndue City. The
unlawful detainer suit involved Lot 3-F which was also involved in the complaint for
recovery of ownership.

ISSUE: Whether the filing of an unlawful detainer suit during pendency of an action to
recover ownership constitute forum-shopping.

HELD:
No. A pending action involving ownership f the same property does not bar the
filing or consideration of an ejectment suit, nor suspend the proceedings. This is so
becuase an ejectment case is simply designed to summarily restore physical
possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally of forcible
deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims
of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.

NOTE:
Forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgement.
 6

TITLE: CAISIP v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TOPIC: Necessity for Doctrine of Self Help

PROPERTY: Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico, situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, the same
land used to be tenanted by Cabalag’s father when he was alive.

FACTS:
 Spouses Marcelino Guevarra and Gloria Cabalag cultivated a parcel of land,
the subject property.
 Hacienda Palico is owned by Roxas y Cia, administered by Antonio
Chuidian, and supervised by the overseer, Felix Caisip.
