Suarez v.

Emboy
March 12, 2014 | Reyes, J.
Rights of Ownership
DOCTRINE: Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year. If at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since
defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the forcible
entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.
SUMMARY: The land dispute started after the cousins of the Siblings Emboy sold the land to Carmencita Suarez, which led to an
unlawful detainer while their case for nullification was ongoing. SC ruled that it did not meet the requirements of the case filed, and
that she cannot compel the Siblings Emboy to vacate the premises while the ownership of the lots is being contested.

FACTS:
1. Sps. Emboy inherited a 222 sq.m. lot from their mother, Claudia. The lot was originally part of a bigger
property*see notes*, Lot No. 1907-A, which was partitioned into 5 different lots for Claudia and her siblings
as inheritance from their parents Carlos Padilla and Asuncion Pacres.
2. In 2004, Sps. Emboy were asked by their cousins, the heirs of Vicente (Claudia's brother) to vacate the
subject lot and transfer to Lot No. 1907-A-5 which was a landlocked portion without a right of way.
3. Sps. Emboy refused, insisting that Claudia's inheritance pertained to Lot No. 1907-A-2. They then received
a demand letter from petitioner’s counsel, requiring them to vacate the said lot on the information that
petitioner had already purchased the said lot from the respondent's relatives on Feb. 12, 2004.
4. Sps. Emboy refused and went on to file a complaint for nullification of the partition and for the issuance of
new TCTs covering the heir's respective portions of Lot No. 1907-A after examining the records pertaining
to the subject lot and uncovering possible anomalies like forged signatures and alterations in the execution
of a series of deeds of partition relative to the same lot.
5. Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents before the MTCC alleging that she
bought the subject lot from Remedios, Moreno, Veronica and Dionesia, the registered owners thereof and
the persons who allowed the respondents to occupy the same by mere tolerance.
6. MTCC upheld petitioner's claims in its 2006 decision and ordered the respondents to vacate the subject lot
and remove at their expense all the improvements they had built thereon. RTC affirmed the MTCC ruling.
7. In a petition for review filed before the CA, respondents argued that –
a) they have been occupying the subject lot for several decades while petitioner was buyer in bad faith for having
purchased the property despite the notice of lis pendens clearly annotated on the subject lot's title.
b) the Heirs of Vicente, who had allegedly sold the subject lot to petitioner, had never physically occupied the
same. Hence, there was no basis at all for petitioner's claim that the respondents' possession of the subject lot
was by mere tolerance of the alleged owners.
c) they discovered a duly notarized document showing that Vicente and his spouse, Dionesia, had waived their
hereditary rights to Lot No. 1907-A when he used the same as a collateral in obtaining a loan from PNB. The
loan was paid for by Carlos and Asuncion. Based on this discoveries, the Heirs of Vicente did not have the
rights over the subject lot to convey to petitioner.
d) Respondents also averred that petitioner's complaint lacked a cause of action because the certification to file
an action was issued in the name of James Tan Suarez (petitioner's brother), who had no real rights or interests
over the subject lot.
e) No demand to vacate was made after the execution of the deed of sale (April 1, 2004), which served as
petitioner's basis for her claim to the property. The absence of such rendered the complaint defective, as the
date of its service should be the reckoning point of the one-year period within which the suit can be filed.
8. CA reversed the trial court’s ruling.

ISSUES:
1. WoN Carmencita’s unlawful detainer met the necessary requirements. NO.
2. WoN Siblings Emboy can be ejected from the premises while their case on the nullification of partition is
pending. NO.

RULING:
1. "Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. However, the owner
cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover
possession, he must resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is
required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper."
2. The Court cited Spouses Valdez Jr.
“Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful
detainer (desahuico) [sic]. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of real property by means of force,
intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The two are
distinguished from each other in that in forcible entry, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning,
and that the issue is which party has prior de facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession of the defendant
is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
3. The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in the proper municipal trial court
or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on
the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue
in said cases is the right to physical possession.
4. Accion publiciana is 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. 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 had elapsed since defendant had turned
plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the
forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an
action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.
5. In the case at bar, the first requisite mentioned above is markedly absent. Carmencita failed to clearly
allege and prove how and when the respondents entered the subject lot and constructed a house upon
it. Carmencita was likewise conspicuously silent about the details on who specifically permitted the
respondents to occupy the lot, and how and when such tolerance came about. Instead, Carmencita
cavalierly formulated a legal conclusion, sans factual substantiation, that
a) the respondents' initial occupation of the subject lot was lawful by virtue of tolerance by the registered
owners, and
b) the respondents became deforciants unlawfully withholding the subject lot's possession after
Carmencita, as purchaser and new registered owner, had demanded for the former to vacate the
property.
6. On the other question, the Court cited the exception with the case of Amagan which squarely applies to
the case at bar, on why the Siblings cannot be ejected from the property while the case is pending.
“Carmencita's complaint for unlawful detainer is anchored upon the proposition that the respondents have been
in possession of the subject lot by mere tolerance of the owners. The respondents, on the other hand, raise the
defense of ownership of the subject lot and point to the pendency of Civil Case No. CEB-30548, a petition for
nulli􀀽cation of the partition of Lot No. 1907-A, in which Carmencita and the Heirs of Vicente were impleaded as
parties. Further, should Carmencita's complaint be granted, the respondents' house, which has been standing in
the subject lot for decades, would be subject to demolition. The foregoing circumstances, thus, justify the
exclusion of the instant petition from the purview of the general rule.”

DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED. CA Decision is AFFIRMED.

NOTE/S:

The land was partitioned into five lots:

 1907-A-1 T-54359 Spouses Rogelio and Praxedes Padilla
 1907-A-2 T-54360 Heirs of Vicente Padilla (Vicente), namely:(1) Azucena Padilla, married to Felly
Carrera; (2) Remedios Padilla (Remedios), married to Oscar Dimay; (3) Veronica Padilla (Veronica);
10 and (4) Moreno Padilla (Moreno), married to Teresita Curso (Teresita)
 1907-A-3 T-54361 Cresencio Padilla
 1907-A-4 T-54362 Fructousa Baricuatro
 1907-A-5 T-54363 Claudia Padilla-Emboy (Claudia)