Property

Ownership Cases

Manantan vs. Somera

Facts:
- Manantan is owner of 214 sq. m. property; she had relocation survery and discovered
that Somera was occupying certain portions thereof.
- She advised Somera (and Tuvera) to vacate as soon as she found buyer
- She found buyer, but buyer would not buy unless Somera and Tuvera were evicted from
lot.
- Somera and Tuvera refused to be evicted from the lot.
- Manantan sent a letter thru her lawyer to them to leave; letter was ignored.
- Manantan filed in the MTCC of Baguio a complaint for ejectment and damages against
Somera
- Somera replied that MTCC had no jurisdiction, as it was:
o Not a case of unlawful detainer or forcible entry.
o Complaint did not allege possession of property thru FITSS
o Nor did it allege that the portions were withheld after a lawful contract
- Respondent further alleged that they used said property as right of way to their
dwellings; that their right had been recognized by the Bayot Family, the predecessors in
interest of Manantan in the lot.
- Respondent and Tavera contended that they could not just relinquish their right to the
disputed portions and yield to Manantans demand, considering that the latters claim was
based merely on a relocation survey. [J]ust to buy peace of mind and maintain cordial
relations with Mananatan, respondent and Tavera alleged that they walked the
proverbial mile and show[ed] their interest to pay Manantan the equivalent amount of
the disputed portions, but Manantan ignored their proposal and insisted that they buy
the whole of the subject property.
- Respondent and Tavera alternatively argued in their Joint Answer that in case Manantan
would be declared as the lawful owner of the subject property, the MTCC should not
disregard the fact that they were builders in good faith. As builders in good faith, they
should be allowed to pay a reasonable price for the portions of the subject property on
which their driveway/access road, and other improvements were situated
- MTCC ruled it had jurisdiction over case and rendered decision in favor of
Manantan. Ordered payment of damages, etc.
- RTC affirmed MTCC decision
- Appeal to CA by Somera only
- CA set aside previous decisions:
o The appellate court held that Manantans Complaint before the MTCC failed to
allege facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The allegations in
the Complaint merely presented a controversy arising from a boundary dispute,
in which case, the appropriate remedy available to Manantan should have been
the plenary action for recovery of possession within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded that the MTCC had no jurisdiction
over the Complaint in Civil Case No. 10467
Issue:
- WON MTCC had jurisdiction (petitioner argues that case was for unlawful detainer,
hence there is jurisdiction)
- WON A Portion Of Petitioners Land Encroached By Respondent Can Be Recovered
Through An Action For Ejectment
Held:
- No, MTCC did not have jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to allege the exact dates
from the time the last demand was made. It is necessary because Unlawful
detainer must be filed within one year from the time the last demand was made or it
prescribes. In case the 1 year period has prescribed, the proper action would be:
o Accion Publiciana - plenary action to recover the right of possession, which
should be brought before 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 has lapsed since
defendant unlawfully withheld possession from plaintiff, the action will not be for
illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.
o (Accion reivindicatoria, meanwhile, is an action to recover ownership, as well as
possession, which should also be brought before the proper regional trial
court in an ordinary civil proceeding)
- No answer since it is moot and academic already.
Jose Casilang vs. Rosario Casilang-Dizon
Facts:
- Rosario Dizon filed before the MTC a complaint for unlawful detainer to evict her uncle,
Jose Casilang, from Lot 4618. She alleged that her father, Ireneo owned the lot as
evidence by tax declaration. Rosario’s siblings executed a quitclaim to her for the
property.
- Jose responded that he was the lawful owner of said property and that he inherited it
through intestate succession from his late father.
- Jose failed to appear at proceedings and judgment was given to Rosario.
- Jose and his siblings raised the issue to the RTC and sought to annul the various
documents execute by Rosario and her siblings over the property. They also alleged that
they, the Casilang siblings, entered into a verbal partition of estate; that Ireneo never
claimed Lot. 4618 as his own as his share was a different lot.
- Jose further alleged that he has always lived in the house which stood on Lot 4618 and
that he cared for aging parents there and that one of his children also built a house there.
- RTC declared quitclaim void; Jose Casilang owner of property.
o Basis: Jose renounced his claim over a much larger property because he had
already received his share in Lot 4618; in the mind of the court, it would be
ridiculous for Jose to renounce his claim if he did not already believe that lot
4618 was his.
- Case appealed to CA.. CA reversed RTC ruling. Jose’s possession was merely tolerated by
Ireneo and Rosario to occupy land without contract or rentals.
Issue:
- WON CA erred in upholding Rosario’s ownership (and violating Jose’s right as
compulsory heir)
Ruling:
- Inferior courts are empowered to rule on the question of ownership raised by the defendant in
an ejectment suit, but only to resolve the issue of possession; its determination is not conclusive
on the issue of ownership.
- A review of the parties’ evidence shows that they entered into an oral partition, giving Lot No.
4618 to Jose as his share, whereas Rosario presented no proof whatsoever that her father
inherited Lot No. 4618 from his father Liborio (she only presented quitclaim from her siblings)
- Verbal partition between Casilang siblings is valid because it was ratified by them taking
possession of their shares.
- Tax decs not conclusive forms of ownership.

(Note: there are two important documents (?) – Verbal Partition between Casilang Siblings and
Quiclaim between Ireneo’s offsprings. There was also a quitclaim regarding the said verbal
partition)
Quijano vs. Amante
Facts:
 - Eliseo and his siblings, Fe (Quijano), Jose and Gloria, inherited a parcel of land from
their father.
- Prior to partition of said property, Eliseo sold his share to Atty. Amante. (2x) Making
him co-owner
- Property was subsequently partitioned. However, Amante was occupying Quijano’s
share.
- Quijano demanded Amante to vacate it as she needed the property. Amante refused.
- Last demand was on Nov. 4, 1994
- On Feb 14, 1995 , Quijano filed complaint for ejectment and damages in MTCC.
- She alleged that Amante constructed a building in it by mere tolerance of Eliseo while
property was still not partitioned and now said occupation was rendered illegal
- Amante denied that it was by mere tolerance. He alleged he was owner of property
because Eliseo informed him that the siblings had orally partitioned the estate. What was
sold to him was merely Eliseo’s share. And because he had purchased property already
before extrajudicial partition, she should respect his share. (bibo!)
- MTCC rendered decision for Quijano. What was sold was merely Eliseo’s
share, making Amante a co-owner of the property. And because the
extrajudicial partition gave the said property occupied to Quijano, she had a
right to demand that Amante leave.
- RTC reversed MTCC decision because:
o Summary procedure was not proper because it involves question of ownership
and cannot be determined by summary procedure.
- the CA promulgated its decision,15 affirming the decision of the RTC, and dismissing the case for
ejectment, but on the ground that the respondent was either a co-owner or an assignee holding
the right of possession over the disputed property
- The CA observed that the RTC correctly dismissed the ejectment case because a question of
ownership over the disputed property was raised; that the rule that inferior courts could pass
upon the issue of ownership to determine the question of possession was well settled; that the
institution of a separate action for quieting of title by the respondent did not divest the MTCC of
its authority to decide the ejectment case; that Eliseo, as a co-owner, had no right to sell a
definite portion of the undivided estate; that the deeds of sale Eliseo executed in favor of the
respondent were valid only with respect to the alienation of Eliseo's undivided share; that after
the execution of the deeds of sale, the respondent became a co-owner along with Eliseo and his
co-heirs, giving him the right to participate in the partition of the estate owned in common by
them; that because the respondent was not given any notice of the project of partition or of the
intention to effect the partition, the partition made by the petitioner and her co-heirs did not
bind him; and that, as to him, the entire estate was still co-owned by the heirs, giving him the
right to the co-possession of the estate, including the disputed portion

Issue:
- who between the petitioner and the respondent had the better right to the possession of the
disputed property.

Held:
- Even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, like here, the court may pass upon
the issue but only to determine the question of possession especially if the question of
 ownership is inseparably linked with the question of possession.20 The adjudication of
ownership in that instance is merely provisional, and will not bar or prejudice an action between
the same parties involving the title to the property
- Oral partition was not valid because heirs had not ratified it by taking possession of their
assigned shares.
- Although Amante had a right to question the extrajudicial proceedings as Eliseo’s
successor in interest, he is estopped now by his silence from questioning it.
- Acts of tolerance must be proven and not merely alleged. Quijano failed to do this.
- Considering that the allegation of the petitioner's tolerance of the respondent's possession of
the disputed property was not established, the possession could very well be deemed illegal
from the beginning. In that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail.34 Even so, the Court
would not be justified to treat this ejectment suit as one for forcible entry because the
complaint contained no allegation that his entry in the property had been by force, intimidation,
threats, strategy or stealth.
- CA decision affirmed.
- Libog besh.

INC v. Ponferrada
Facts:
- Respondents filed an accion reinvindicatoria/quieting of title against INC.
- The Santoeses alleged that their parents owned the contested lot and that they inherited
it.
- Sometime in February 1996, the Santoses discovered that INC was claiming the property
for their own, tracing their ownership to PNB and spouses dela Cruz
- They alleged that this claim of ownership was fraudulent because their parents never
encumbered/disposed the property.
- The Santoses fenced the property but they were deprived of the use by INC
-