PROPERTY DIGEST POOL

A.Y. 2021 – 2022

G.R. 128177
Case Title: HEIRS OF ROMAN SORIANO V. CA
No:
August 15, 2001
Topic: Ownership Date:
Tickler: Owner vs. caretaker, agricultural lessee

Doctrine/s: A person may be declared owner but he may not be entitled to possession

FACTS
Case Type: Petition for Certiorari

The property subject of this case is a parcel of land containing an area of 24,550 square
meters, more or less, located in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Owned by Adriano Soriano until
his death in 1947, the property was passed on to his heirs who leased the same to spouses
David de Vera and Consuelo Villasista for a period of fifteen (15) years beginning July
1, 1967 with Roman Soriano, one of the children of Adriano Soriano, acting as
caretaker of the property during the period of the lease. Heirs of Soriano subsequently
General subdivided the property into two (2) lots, Lot No. 60052 and Lot No. 8459. This lots
Facts were sold to Spouses Abalos.
The lots in question were subsequently registered in the name of Spouses Abalos. The
latter was also declared by the court to be the undisputed owners thereof. Aggrieved,
petitioner filed case against Spouses Abalos, questioning their ownership of the land
and to annul the decision of ejectment in the subject property. While the case was
pending, Roman Soriano is still in possession of the land claiming the rights of “Security
of Tenure” as a tenant of the land.

Petitioner’s
They have the right to possession over the said property as an agricultural lessee.
Contention

Respondent’s As the winning party on the land registration case, they have the right to possession of
Contention the property.
RTC/Land
The land registration court, in a resolution, held the motion in abeyance until after the
registration
complaint of the heirs for security of tenure with prayer for status quo has been
court’s
received by the DARAB.
Decision
The Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the Resolution of the land registration
CA’s
court and ordered instead the issuance of the corresponding writ of possession in favor
Decision
of private respondents
ISSUE/S

W/N a winning party in a land registration case effectively eject the possessor thereof,
whose security of tenure rights are still pending determination before the DARAB. – NO

RULING

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana
 PROPERTY DIGEST POOL
A.Y. 2021 – 2022

Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. There is ownership when a thing pertaining
to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with
the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, among which are the right to enjoy
the thing owned and the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. On the other hand,
possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways:
possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder. A person may be declared owner
but he may not be entitled to possession. The possession may be in the hands of another either as a
lessee or a tenant. A person may have improvements thereon of which he may not be deprived without
due hearing. He may have other valid defenses to resist surrender of possession. A judgment for
ownership, therefore, does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident.
There is no dispute that private respondents' (petitioners below) title over the land under litigation
has been confirmed with finality. As explained above, however, such declaration pertains only to
ownership and does not automatically include possession, especially so in the instant case where there
is a third party occupying the said parcel of land, allegedly in the concept of an agricultural tenant.
It is important to note that although private respondents have been declared titled owners of the
subject land, the exercise of their rights of ownership are subject to limitations that may be imposed by
law. The Tenancy Act provides one such limitation. Agricultural lessees are entitled to security of
tenure and they have the right to work on their respective landholdings once the leasehold
relationship is established. Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they
value as life itself and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means
of livelihood. The exercise of the right of ownership, then, yields to the exercise of the rights of an
agricultural tenant.
However, petitioners' status as tenant has not yet been declared by the DARAB. In keeping with
judicial order, we refrain from ruling on whether petitioners may be dispossessed of the subject property.
A judgment in a land registration case cannot be effectively used to oust the possessor of the land, whose
security of tenure rights are still pending determination before the DARAB. Stated differently, the
prevailing party in a land registration case cannot be placed in possession of the area while it is
being occupied by one claiming to be an agricultural tenant, pending a declaration that the latter's
occupancy was unlawful.

U.I.O.G.D.

Pool of: Bae, Escarcha, Fernandez, Lapuz, Mariano, Novales, Paghunasan, Tana