CIVPRO Case Digest Prepared by: DE JESUS, Daniel Luis

201 Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco v. Busilak

TOPIC: Execution, satisfaction, and effect of judgments (Rule 39)
Ponente PERALTA, J.
Citation G.R. No. 210504
Date January 24, 2018
Petitioners EIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TEODORO K.
YUSINGCO (Yusingco)
Respondent AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG AND LIXBERTO CASTRO (Busilak)
Relevant rule/
provision
Case Doctrine Related to Topic
An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only
although it concerns the right to a tangible thing

Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be
heard. However, this rule admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment
suit where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c)
transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
Case Summary
Case revolves around the subject properties owned by the Yusingco. These properties were initially occupied by a first
group of people, which led Yusingco to file different cases of ACCION REIVINDICATORIA. During the pendency of those
cases Busilak and company, entered and occupied different parts of the same subject properties. After this first cases
were decided in favor of Yusingco, which led them to file this case against Busilak.

The MTCC and the RTC ruled in favor of Yusingco, while the CA, reversed the ruling stating that Busilak was not a party
in the first cases, thus judgment rendered in the 1st case, cannot be deemed binding in the current case, since in is an
accion in personam. The SC however ruled in favor of Yusingco, stating that although an ACCION REIVINDICATORIA is
an accion in personam, and shall only be binding towards the parties involved, there is an exception to this general rule.
One of which, is when the non-party to an ejectment suit is a Trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant the fraudulently
occupies the property.
FACTS:
- On August 11, 2005, herein petitioners Yusingco filed five separate Complaints ( accion publiciana) against the
respondents Busilak.
o These complaints were then consolidated and filed before the MTCC.
o In the complaints Yusingco stated that they were the owners of three parcels of land in Surigao City.
They were in possession of these properties prior to the start of the 2 nd World War, however lost
possession during the war
o Upon returning, Yusingco found out that these properties were occupied by people, thus leading them
to file separate cases for ACCION REIVINDICATORIA.
▪ DURING THE PENDANCY OF THE CASES, Busilak and company, entered different portions
of the same properties and occupied them without the knowledge and consent of petitioners
▪ Yusingco was forced to tolerate the illegal occupation of respondents as they did not have
sufficient resources to protect their property at that time and also because their ownership was
still being disputed in the earlier cases filed
o In the earlier cases, the court declared Yusingco, the owners of the subject properties.
▪ This lead to the complaint where Yusingco demand Busilak to vacate the properties of
Yusingco. This demand was however refused by Busilak
- In the Answer Busilak and company, contended that they have been in possession of the subject properties for
more than thirty (30) years; Yusingco never actually possessed the said parcels of land and that they never had
title over the same; thus, petitioners' claim would be in conflict with and inferior to respondents' claim of
possession
MTCC
- Ruled in favor of Yusingco, in summary stating that the respondents are ordered to vacate the premises of the
lots, to remove the improvement and restore possession to the former.
o Also they shall be paying monthly compensation till they are able to vacate.
- This court further held that in an earlier case for accion reivindicatoria decided by the CFI of Surigao del
Norte and affirmed by the CA, which became FINAL and EXECUTORY, Yusingco was declared the true and
rightwul owners of the subject properties.
o Respondents were deemed to be intruders in the lots in question. Petitioners are entitled to
possession of the properties, since Busilak and Company were illegally in possession of said
properties.

Page 1 of 2
CIVPRO Case Digest Prepared by: DE JESUS, Daniel Luis
201 Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco v. Busilak
TOPIC: Execution, satisfaction, and effect of judgments (Rule 39)
RTC
- Affirmed the Judgment of the MTCC
CA
- Ruled in favor of Busilak, stating that the previous decision, where the CA stated that the possession was
based on a previous accion reivindicatoria is a suit in personam.
o Judgments in actions in personam can only bind the parties impleaded.
▪ Since Busilak and company were not parties, they could not be bound by the judgments
declaring petitioners the owners of the subject properties.
▪ Thus petitioners' present actions to recover possession of the said properties from
respondents, on the basis of the said judgments, must fail.
Thus this petition before the SC.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE HELD
W/N the final and executory decisions rendered in a previous accion reivindicatoria, Yes
finding petitioners to be the lawful owners of the subject properties, are binding upon
respondents
RATIO
- The Court here holds that the lower courts did not err in ruling that the suits filed by petitioners are accion
reivindicatoria, not accion publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover possession of the subject lots on the basis
of their ownership thereof.
o Accion Reinvindicatoria: an action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and
seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an
element of ownership.
▪ The judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property and awards the
possession of the property to the lawful owner
o Accion Publiciana - the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought
in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year
- The first RTC and CA decision used in the present case, in holding Yusingco are owners of the subject
property are used as the main basis for the present case.
o Judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is an action in personam.
▪ An action in personam is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only "between the
parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action
o In this case an action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam,
for it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing
▪ judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given
an opportunity to be heard
▪ There however is an exception to this where are non-party is bound to a judgment in an
ejectment suit:
1. trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate the judgment;
2. guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant;
3. transferee pendente lite;
4. sublessee;
5. co-lessee; or
6. member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
▪ In this case, similar to the discussion of the MTCC, the SC deems that the respondents are
mere intruders or trespassers who do not have a right to possess the subject lots.
- the CA erred in ruling that the Decisions of the RTC and CA on the suit for accion reivindicatoria filed by the
petitioners in the first cases against the parties other than Busilak and company, are not binding on the latter.
o Respondents, being trespassers on the subject lots are bound by the said judgments, which find
petitioners to be entitled to the possession of the subject lots as owners thereof.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The July 31, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 04500 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Omnibus Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1,
Surigao City, dated February 25, 2011, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2