VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO and G.R. No. 156581 MIGUEL R. ARAMBULO III, vs EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB.

FACTS:
Respondent Emerenciana R. Gungab is the registered owner of the contested parcel of land with improvements located in Quezon City and covered
by TCT No. 48330. Petitioners are her sister Victoria R. Arambulo and nephew Miguel R. Arambulo III.

October 19, 1998, Emerenciana’s counsel made a formal demand to petitioners to vacate the subject property on or before November 30, 1998. But
petitioners refused so Emerenciana sought the assistance of the barangay authorities but no amicable settlement was reached.

February 2, 1999, Emerenciana filed separate ejectment complaints against the petitioners before the MeTC. Alleging that:
-she owns the subject property;
- she tolerated petitioners occupancy of certain portions of the subject property without rent; and
- despite her demands, they refused to vacate the subject property

Petitioners assert that Victoria Arambulo is a co-owner. They said that

(1) after their father Pedro Reyes, died intestate in 1964, the property became part of the common properties of the clan;
(2) their mother Anastacia Reyes, allowed Victoria to use and occupy a certain portion of the subject property;
(3) Victoria continuously used and occupied this portion for the last 20 years;
(4) Anastacia also allowed her grandson, Miguel, to use another portion of the subject property since 15 years ago; and
(5) their use and possession of these portions of the subject property had been with the knowledge, consent and tolerance of all the other co-
owners.

Victoria and her brother filed a case for transfer and reconveyance of title before the RTC of Quezon City.

MeTC - dismissed ejectment case for lack of cause of action. It ruled that summary procedure was not the proper procedure to resolve the cases.
- respondent’s allegation of tolerance was preposterous she failed to prove her proper acquisition of the subject property; and petitioners were
entitled to retain possession of the subject property pursuant to Article 448 of the Civil Code.

RTC-AFFIRMED MTC

CA- REVERSED RTC. ordered petitioners to vacate the portion of the subject property under their occupancy or possession, and to surrender the
same forthwith to Emerenciana. They said respondent had a preferred right to possess the property because she had a genuine TCT. It rejected
petitioners claim that Victoria was a co-owner of the subject property cause unsubstantiated.

Petitioners contend that the CA erred in reversing the RTC decision by relying only on the TCT without considering that respondent was never in
possession of the property. They were in possession of the subject property and so there was no physical possession to restore and protect by
Emerenciana. They pray that the Court suspend CA Decision pending resolution of the case for annulment of transfer and reconveyance of title
before the RTC.

Respondent countered by saying CA correctly reversed RTC decision since the best proof of ownership of a piece of land is the certificate of title.
She maintains that a pending civil action for annulment of transfer and reconveyance of title in a separate proceeding is of no moment in an
ejectment case

ISSUE: WON Emerenciana can eject the petitioners.

HELD: YES! SC- The cause of action of Emerenciana was for unlawful detainer since she alleged that (1) she owns the subject property; (2) she
allowed petitioners to occupy it by tolerance; (3) she withdrew her consent and demanded that petitioners vacate it, but they refused. Her
complaints were also filed within one year from the date of her last demand.

The ISSUE for resolution in unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession. But even if there was a claim of juridical possession or an
assertion of ownership by the defendant, the MeTC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the TC can do is to make an initial determination
of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership. Courts in
ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent
the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed
property.

Respondent have a Torrens Title over the land. The CA correctly ruled that respondent, as registered owner, is preferred to possess it. The age-old
rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. Except for the claim that Victoria Arambulo is a co-
owner of the property, they have no other justification for their continued stay thereon. BUT this determination of ownership is not final. It is only
an initial determination of ownership for the sole purpose of settling the issue of possession. It would not prejudice the pending action in the RTC
of Quezon City between the same parties involving title to the property.

Persons who occupy the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any contract between them is bound by an implied promise
that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them. Petitioners
occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance, they are not entitled to retain its possession under Article 448 of the Civil Code. They
are aware that their tolerated possession may be terminated any time and they cannot be considered as builders in good faith. Moreover, as aptly
found by the CA, petitioners have not presented evidence to prove that they made improvements on the subject property and defrayed the
expenses therefor.

Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not necessary in an unlawful detainer case. It is enough that she has a better right of possession. Thus,
petitioners prior physical possession of the property does not automatically entitle them to continue in said possession and does not give them a
better right to the property. Finally, petitioners cannot seek suspension of this case pending resolution of the case for annulment of transfer and
reconveyance of title before the RTC. An action for reconveyance of property or accion reivindicatoria has no effect on ejectment suits regarding
the same property.

Petition is DENIED and the decision of CA is affirmed. CA ordered petitioners to vacate the property subject of this case