Case 135: Apostol vs CA, G.R. No. 125375.
June 17, 2004 respondents agreed that the balance of the purchase price
SPOUSES ELPIDIO APOSTOL and AMELIA APOSTOL,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES
EMMANUEL CHUA and EDNA L. CHUA, respondents.
On June 7, 1993, the Spouses Paulo and Georgina Pascua
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property and the
improvements thereon in favor of the Spouses Emmanuel
and Edna Chua for P1,000,000. On the basis of the said deed,
the Spouses Chua were issued Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 87610 over the property on June 8, 1993. The
Spouses Elpidio and Amelia Apostol, who were present
during the negotiations, verbally assured them that they
would vacate the property within ten (10) days from the
execution of the sale. They then acknowledged that their stay
in the property was only upon the tolerance of its former
owners. Despite demands, however, the Apostols refused to
vacate the property. This led to the filing a complaint for
unlawful detainer against the petitioners, Spouses Apostol,
MeTC of Metro Manila by the Spouses Chua On September 3,
1993.
In their answer the Apostols alleged that Luz B. Pascua was
the owner of the parcel of land and sold a portion of the
property, to them on July 8, 1976 for P45,548 of which
P15,548 was paid. On the same day, the parties executed a
memorandum agreement covering the property, in which the
would be paid in installments. Thereafter, a deed of absolute
sale was executed in favor of the Apostols over an
unsegregated portion of the property, with an area of 29.68
square meters, for P7,350 and, later, a deed of confirmation
of deed of absolute sale with waiver over the said property.
On June 20, 1979, the Apostols executed an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim over the property, stating that they could not
cause the registration of the said deeds because the owners
duplicate of TCT No. 198936 was in the possession of Teresita
B. Jimenez, a former co-owner of the property. The Apostols
further alleged that Luz Pascua, in her letter to the Register
of Deeds dated August 6, 1979, confirmed that she failed to
turn over the owners duplicate of TCT No. 198936 because
the same was in the possession of Jimenez, who, in turn,
gave it to Jose J. Burgos. Thereafter, on May 15, 1980, Luz
Pascua filed a Complaint against the Apostols in the RTC of
Quezon City for rescission and damages docketed as Civil
Case No. 29895 but the same was dismissed on December
19, 1983 for lack of interest to prosecute. Paulo Pascua filed a
similar complaint against the Apostols in the RTC, docketed
as Civil Case No. 88-523, but the same was, likewise,
dismissed. Finally, the petitioners alleged that the Spouses
Pascua’s possession of the property after the sale thereof to
the respondents was by mere tolerance.
In the meantime, the Apostols filed a complaint against the
Spouses Chua, the Spouses Pascua, and the Register of Deeds
in the RTC of Quezon City, for annulment of deed of sale and
TCT No. 86338, and for reconveyance with damages. The
petitioners alleged that they had been in possession of the
property since 1973; their adverse claim over the property
was annotated on June 20, 1979 as Entry No. PE 8812; Luz
Pascua died on December 2, 1984 but Paulo Pascua did not
inherit the property from her because the same had already
been sold to the respondents; Paulo Pascua executed a
falsified affidavit for self-adjudication over the property on
the basis of which he was able to secure, on May 20, 1993,
TCT No. 86338.
MeTC: ruled in favor of the Spouses Pascua, and being the
registered owners of the property, the Chuas are entitled to
the possession thereof ordering the Apostols to vacate the
premises, payment of P5,000.00 per month as compensation
for the use and occupancy of the property, P5,000.00 as
attorneys fees; and to pay the costs of this suit..
RTC: reversed the decision of the MeTC and ordering the
dismissal of the complaint. RTC said that even though Chuas
are registered owners and that they have the right to take
possession thereof and eject Apostols from the premises, it is
the contention of the Apostols that they are the rightful
owners of the land and have been in possession thereon
from the time they acquired the land from the real owner
Luz B. Pascua. In ejectment cases, the only issue to be
determined by the Court is the fact of prior physical and
material possession over the subject property. In this case,
Apostols were able to establish the fact that they have been
in physical and material possession of the subject premises
from the time they purchased the same from Luz B. Pascua
on July 8, 1976. Defendants, therefore, are in possession of
the property in the concept of an owner, and under the law,
a possessor in the concept of an owner has in his favor the
legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he
cannot be obliged to show or prove it. Paulo Pascua had no
right to adjudicate the subject lot therefore the sale in favor
of the Chuas is invalid.
CA: reversed the decision of the RTC and reinstated the
decision of the MeTC. The CA held that in ruling against the
petitioners, who were the registered owners of the property,
the RTC thereby violated the prescription against the
collateral attack of a torrens title.
Issues by the Apostols:
(a) their possession of the property since 1976 preceded the
sale of the property to the Chuas
(b) the Chuas were purchasers of the property in bad faith;
(c) RTC did not collaterally attach the torrens title of the
Chuas because it only ruled that the land land was sold to
them first and this may result to gross injustice.
Chua’s said that these are only questions of facts. The
Apostols contend that the Chuas knew that the petitioners
were in actual possession of the property even before they
purchased the same hence they were purchasers in bad faith.
They, the Apostols, purchased the property before the Chuas,
they cannot be ejected therefrom. The sale in favor of the
Chuas is null and void consequently the TCT issued is also
void. They, Apostols, may very well have become the owners
of the property by prescription under Article 1134 of the
New Civil Code.
CA said that RTC erred in dismissing the action for unlawful
detainer on the sole ground that the private respondents are
possessors in the concept of an owner and cannot be
dispossessed of the same. The subject property is registered
under the Torrens System in the names of the petitioners
whose title to the property is presumed legal and cannot be
collaterally attacked, much less in an action for unlawful
detainer. No title to registered land in derogation of the title
of the registered owner may be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. The presumption of ownership granted
by law to a possessor in the concept of an owner under
Article 541 is only prima facie and cannot prevail over a
valid title registered under the Torrens System.
SC: Upheld the decision of CA. It is an accepted rule that a
person who has a torrens title over the property, such as the
Chuas, is entitled to the possession thereof. The registered
owners are entitled to the possession of the property
covered by the said title from the time such title was issued
in their favor. Moreover, the fact that the Chuas were never
in prior physical possession of the subject land is of no
moment, as prior physical possession is necessary only in
forcible entry cases.
The Apostols claim that Chua’s title over the property is a
nullity; hence, the complaint for unlawful detainer against
the petitioners should be dismissed for lack of merit. Such
allegation does not help their present recourse. Under
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a certificate of
title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding
for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the
validity of the title of the respondents can only be assailed in
an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Whether or
not the petitioners have the right to claim ownership over
the property is beyond the power of the court a quo to
determine in an action for unlawful detainer.
The following issues are now the subject of Civil Case No. Q-
94-19352 before the RTC of Quezon City so the SC no longer
rendered a decision for these:
(1) whether the respondents were buyers in bad faith;
(2) the validity of the deed of absolute sale over the property
executed by the Spouses Pascua in favor of the respondents;
and
(3) the validity of the title issued to and in the names of the
respondents. Hence, the Court shall no longer delve into
such issues.
Case 136: Ayson vs Enriquez, G.R. No. 152438. June 17, 2004
LOLITA R. AYSON, petitioner, vs. MARINA ENRIQUEZ vda. DE
CARPIO, respondent.
Lolita Ayson was the owner of 3 parcels of land in Manibang,
Porac, Pampanga covered by TCTs. She has been in
possession of the aforesaid properties being the owner
thereof. On August 29, 1980, she mortgaged the said
properties to PNB, Angeles City Branch (Bank), and were
subsequently foreclosed. After failing to redeem within the
prescribed period, Ayson’s TCTs were canceled and new ones
were issued in the name of PNB.
On April 14, 1999, PNB sold the property covered by TCT No.
220195-R to the Marina Enriquez and is now covered by TCT
No. 466519-R. On October 22, 1999, Ayson filed a Complaint
before RTC of Angeles City for the annulment of TCT No.
[466519-R] and the deed of sale between PNB and Enriquez
as well as for reconveyance and damages. With said Civil
Case still pending, Enqiquez, on January 3, 2000, sent
demand letters dated December 29, 1999 demanding
petitioner to vacate the premises covered by TCT No.
466519-R.
On March 7, 2000, Enriquez filed a complaint with the MTC
for ejectment with damages which was granted. On appeal,
the RTC affirmed with modification the MTCs decision.
Enriquez then filed a Motion with the RTC on February 1,
2001 for issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal.
Ayson interposed an appeal to the CA, assigning that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the action. The Decision of the
RTC affirming the trial courts decision is accordingly
erroneous and consequently null and void.
CA held that the continued possession of the property by
Ayson had merely been tolerated. Possession became
unlawful when she was divested of her ownership of the
premises. Holding that a summary action for ejectment was
the proper remedy against her, the CA explained that the
parties were not precluded from ventilating their grievances
in another action based on a separate and distinct cause
involving ownership of the land.
Issues:
1. Whether the Decision of CA erred because it:
a) digressed into matters not alleged in the Complaint,
and by which it breached the cardinal rule that jurisdiction of
the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
b) not holding that the Complaint failed to aver facts
constitutive of unlawful detainer.
c) not holding that the action for the purported right to
possess was anchored on the elemental attribute of
ownership and accordingly was of the nature of an accion
publiciana.
d) not holding that the action suffered from a
jurisdictional defect with the manifest absence of proof of
receipt of the demand letters.
2. Whether Ayson is estopped from assailing the trial courts
jurisdiction.
HELD: Ayson objects to the MTCs jurisdiction. She argues that
a complaint that fails to aver how entry was effected or to
state the circumstances that brought about the owners
alleged dispossession is not a valid action for ejectment, but
is actually a complaint for accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria. Thus RTC, not the MTC, that has jurisdiction
over the case. Enriquez unduly claimed the title to herself
and anchored her purported right to possess the property on
her right of ownership thereof.
Enriquez counters that ejectment is the proper remedy,
because she is asking only for possession de facto. She posits
that in an action for unlawful detainer, it suffices to allege,
without necessarily employing the terminology of the law,
that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of
the property or is refusing to vacate it. Ayson is supposedly
estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial court
after she voluntarily participated in the trial on the merits
and lost.
SC said that the complaint of Enriquez might have been
vague in certain respects and lacking in some details about
her alleged dispossession, but these defects were not fatal.
The origins of fair play were satisfied when she formally
offered evidence, both documentary and testimonial, that
afforded Ayson the opportunity to refute and object to them.
Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court was thus rendered
applicable pro tanto. It provides:
SEC. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation
of evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are
tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they
shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in
the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to
raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at
any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not
affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is
objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the
pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may
grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
The presentation of the evidence for and against imputations
undoubtedly cured, clarified or expanded, as the case may
be, whatever defects in the pleadings or vagueness in the
issues there might have been in the amended complaint.
It is settled that even if the complaint be defective, but the
parties go to trial thereon, and the plaintiff, without
objection, introduces sufficient evidence to constitute the
particular cause of action which it intended to allege in the
original complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces
witnesses to meet the cause of action thus established, an
issue is joined as fully and as effectively as if it had been
previously joined by the most perfect pleadings.
Trial on the merits was conducted without objection of
Ayson. She did not challenge the statement of issues
proffered by Enriquez. Ayson simply presented, as her own,
issues on the propriety of the ejectment case. She claimed
(1) that Enriquez was not in actual possession of the
property; (2) that Enriquez’ acquisition of title over it was
fraudulent; and (3) that no actual conciliation proceedings
had been held before the office of the barangay chairman.
The trial brought to light the true nature of the right of
possession of respondent over the property, and the
circumstances surrounding her dispossession. The facts, as
collected from the evidence presented by both parties,
unequivocally show that the instant case is one for unlawful
detainer. Enriquez was able to present evidence showing that
after the foreclosure of the property, Ayson failed to redeem
it within the redemption period. Thus, she was divested of
her ownership and right to retain possession thereof. for the first time on appeal, pass upon this question. They
Enqriquez acquired a better right to possess the property must be raised seasonably in the proceedings before the
after acquiring title to it through a sale between her and the lower courts. Questions raised on appeal must be within the
mortgagee-bank. issues framed by the parties; issues not raised before the TCs
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
One who has never been in possession of a property may
acquire a better right to possess as where he acquires title to
it through a sale between him and a mortgagee thereby
divesting the mortgagor of ownership and the right to retain
possession thereof.

The continued occupation of the property by Ayson was

merely tolerated and was bound by an implied promise that
she would vacate the premises upon demand. Her failure to
do so justified the action for ejectment filed in the MTC.
Under these circumstances, the trial court acted within the
bounds of its jurisdiction and committed no reversible error
in taking cognizance of the case.

Ayson further assails the validity of the complaint on the

basis of the RTCs finding that it was not clear when she
actually received the demand letter. She insists that there is
no factual or evidentiary basis to establish her receipt of the
demand to vacate the premises. This contention must fail. It
is only in this late stage that petitioner is raising this point. It
was not raised before the MTC or the RTC. Hence, fair play,
justice and due process dictate that this Court cannot now,