Endaya vs.

Villaos
G.R. No. 202426
January 27, 2016

Facts:

Endaya, and other heirs of Atilano, filed before the RTC, a

complaint for declaration of nullity of deeds of sale, recovery of titles,
and accounting of income of the PVH against Villaos. Endaya et al.
claim that the purported sale by Atilano to Vilaos was spurious.

Subsequently, Villaos filed an ejectment case against Endaya et

al. in the MTCC, with the claim that the former bought the properties
where PVH was located, and asked the latter to vacate. Endaya et al.
refused to vacate, assailing that the deeds of sale were forged and not
properly notarized in the correct venue.

MTCC, RTC and CA ruled in favor of Villaos, holding that the

questioned deeds of sale, being notarized are public documents
afforded the presumption of regularity; thus denying Endaya et al.

Issue:

Whether Endaya et al. are entitled to possession.

Ruling:

Yes, Endaya et al. Are entitled to possession. Under Art. 777 of

the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent. Thus, Endaya and her coheirs
should have been favored on the question of possession, being heirs
who succeeded the registered owner of the properties in dispute.

Clearly, the MTCC, RTC, and CA erred in in favoring of Villaos.

Hence, in resolving the issue of possession in an ejectment case, the
registered owner of the property has to be preferred over the transferee
under an unregistered deed of sale.

While Villaos has in his favor deeds of sale over the eight parcels
of land, these deeds were not registered. For that reason, the title
remained in the name of the owner and seller Atilano. When he died,
the title passed to Endaya, who is his illegitimate child. This
relationship, however, does not appear to be contested by Villaos in
the proceedings of this case.

Page 1 of 1