Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco V Busilak
Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco V Busilak
Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco V Busilak
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 1 st 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
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.
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.