11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

JAMESESTRELLER,EDUARDO
CULIANAN,GREGCARROS,
RAQUELYEE,JOSELITO
PENILLA,LORNADOTE,
CRESENCIANACLEOPAS,
TRINIDADTEVES,SONIA
PENILLA,ANITAGOMINTONG,
CHINGDIONESIO,MARIBEL
MANALO,DESIRESHUERTO,
andRAYMUNDOCORTES,
Petitioners,

versus

LUISMIGUELYSMAELand
CRISTETAL.SANTOSALVAREZ,
Respondents.

G.R.No.170264

Present:

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CHICONAZARIO,
NACHURA,and
PERALTA,JJ.

Promulgated:
March13,2009

xx

DECISION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

1/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

Inthepresentpetition,theCourtfindsoccasiontoreassertthelegalpreceptsthata coowner may file an action for recovery of

possessionwithoutthenecessityofjoiningalltheothercoownersascoplaintiffssincethesuitisdeemedtobeinstitutedforthebenefitof
all and that Section 2 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 2016, reinforced by P.D. No. 1517, which prohibits the eviction of qualified
tenants/occupants,extendsonlytolandlessurbanfamilieswhoarerightfuloccupantsofthelandanditsstructures,anddoesnotinclude
thosewhosepresenceonthelandismerelytoleratedandwithoutthebenefitofcontract,thosewhoenterthelandbyforceordeceit,orthose
whosepossessionisunderlitigation.

Respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 216, Quezon City, a case for Recovery of Possession against
petitioners,claimingownershipofthepropertysubjectofdisputelocatedinE.RodriguezAvenueandLaFilonilaStreetsinQuezonCity,by
virtueofTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.41698issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCityonJune10,1958.Respondents
allegedthatonvariousdatesin1973,petitionersenteredthepropertythroughstealthandstrategyandhadsinceoccupiedthesameand
[1]
despitedemandsmadeinMarch1993,petitionersrefusedtovacatethepremises,promptingrespondentstofiletheaction.

Petitionersdeniedrespondents'allegations.Accordingtothem,respondentLuisMiguelYsmael(Ysmael)hadnopersonalitytofile
thesuitsinceheonlyownedasmallportionoftheproperty,whilerespondentCristetaSantosAlvarez(Alvarez)didnotappeartobea
registeredownerthereof.Petitioners also contended that their occupation of the property was lawful, having leased the same from the
MagdalenaEstate,andlateronfromAlvarez.Lastly,petitionersassertedthatthepropertyhasalreadybeenproclaimedbytheQuezonCity
Government as anArea for Priority Development under P. D. Nos. 1517 and 2016, which prohibits the eviction of lawful tenants and
[2]
demolitionoftheirhomes.

Aftertrial,theRTCrendereditsDecisiondatedSeptember15,2000infavorofrespondents.ThedispositiveportionoftheDecision
reads:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

2/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofplaintiffsLuisMiguelYsmaelandCristetaL.SantosAlvarez
and against defendants ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the subject property and peacefully
surrenderthesametotheplaintiffs.

Defendantsarelikewiseorderedtopayplaintiffsthefollowing:

1.TheamountofP400.00eachpermonthfromthedateofextrajudicialdemanduntilthesubjectpropertyissurrenderedtoplaintiffs
asreasonablecompensationfortheuseandpossessionthereof
2.TheamountofP20,000.00bywayofexemplarydamages
3.TheamountofP20,000.00bywayofattorney'sfeesandlitigationexpenses
4.Costofsuit.

Corollarily,thecounterclaimsofdefendantsareherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.

[3]
SOORDERED.

[4]
PetitionersappealedtotheCourtofAppeals(CA),which,inaDecision datedMarch14,2005,dismissedtheirappealandaffirmed
intototheRTCDecision.

Hence,thepresentpetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,onthefollowinggrounds:

I
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINCONCLUDINGTHATRESPONDENTSYSMAELANDALVAREZAREBOTH
REALPARTIESININTERESTWHOWOULDBEBENEFITEDORINJUREDBYTHEJUDGMENTORTHEPARTYENTITLEDTOTHE
AVAILSOFTHESUIT.

II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND ISSUES
PRESENTEDBYTHEPETITIONERSINROMANNUMERALSII,IIIANDIVOFTHEIRDISCUSSIONSANDARGUMENTSINTHE
[5]
APPELLANTSBRIEFWHICHAREHEREUNTOCOPIEDORREPRODUCED.

ThepresentpetitionmerelyreiteratestheissuesraisedandsettledbytheRTCandtheCA.Onthisscore,itiswelltoemphasizethe
rulethattheCourtsroleinapetitionunderRule45islimitedtoreviewingorreversingerrorsoflawallegedlycommittedbytheappellate
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

3/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

court.Factualfindingsofthetrialcourt,especiallywhenaffirmedbytheCA,areconclusiveontheparties.Sincesuchfindingsaregenerally
notreviewable,thisCourtisnotdutyboundtoanalyzeandweighalloveragaintheevidencealreadyconsideredintheproceedingsbelow,
unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a
[6]
misapprehensionoffacts.

TheCourtthenfindsthatthepetitioniswithoutmerit.

Respondentsarerealpartiesininterestinthesuitbelowandmay,therefore,commencethecomplaintforaccionpubliciana.Onthe
partofYsmael,heisanamedcoownerofthesubjectpropertyunderTCTNo.41698,togetherwithJulianFelipeYsmael,TeresaYsmael,
[7]
andRamonYsmael. Forherpart,Alvarezwasabuyerofaportionoftheproperty,asconfirmedinseveraldocuments,namely:(1)
DecisiondatedAugust30,1974renderedbytheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Branch9(IX),inCivilCaseNo.Q8426,whichwas
[8]
basedonaCompromiseAgreementbetweenAlvarezandtheMagdalenaEstate (2)anunnotarizedDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedMay
[9]
1985executedbetweentheYsmaelHeirsandAlvarez and(3)anotarizedMemorandumofAgreementbetweentheYsmaelHeirsand
[10]
AlvarezexecutedonMay2,1991.

[11]
Recently,inWeev.DeCastro, theCourt,citingArticle487oftheCivilCode,reassertedtherulethatanyoneofthecoowners
maybringanykindofactionfortherecoveryofcoownedpropertiessincethesuitispresumedtohavebeenfiledforthebenefitofallco
owners.TheCourtalsostressedthatArticle487coversallkindsofactionfortherecoveryofpossession,i.e.,forcibleentryandunlawful
detainer(accioninterdictal),recoveryofpossession(accionpubliciana),andrecoveryofownership(acciondereivindicacion),thus:

InthemorerecentcaseofCarandangv.HeirsofDeGuzman,thisCourtdeclaredthatacoownerisnotevenanecessarypartytoanactionfor
ejectment,forcompletereliefcanbeaffordedeveninhisabsence,thus:

Insum,insuitstorecoverproperties,allcoownersarerealpartiesininterest.However,pursuanttoArticle487oftheCivilCodeand
therelevantjurisprudence,anyoneofthemmaybringanaction,anykindofactionfortherecoveryofcoownedproperties.Therefore,onlyone
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

4/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

ofthecoowners,namelythecoownerwhofiledthesuitfortherecoveryofthecoownedproperty,isanindispensablepartythereto.
Theothercoownersarenotindispensableparties.Theyarenotevennecessaryparties,foracompletereliefcanbeaffordedinthesuiteven
withouttheirparticipation,sincethesuitispresumedtohavebeenfiledforthebenefitofallcoowners.(Emphasissupplied)

PetitionerspersistentlyquestionthevalidityofthetransferofownershiptoAlvarez.TheyinsistthatAlvarezfailedtoestablishany
rightoverthepropertysincetheDeedofAbsoluteSalewasnotinscribedonTCTNo.41698.Interestingly,petitionersdebunkedtheirown
argumentwhentheythemselvesclaimedintheirAnswerwithCounterclaimthattheyderivedtheirrighttooccupythepropertyfromalease
[12]
agreementwith,first,theMagdalenaEstate,andthereafter,Alvarezherself. Moreimportantly,thefactthatthesalewasnotannotatedor
inscribedonTCTNo.41698doesnotmakeitanylessvalid.Acontractofsalehastheforceoflawbetweenthecontractingpartiesandthey
are expected to abide, in good faith, by their respective contractual commitments. Article 1358 of the Civil Code which requires the
embodimentofcertaincontractsinapublicinstrument,isonlyforconvenienceandregistrationoftheinstrumentonlyadverselyaffects
thirdparties,andnoncompliancetherewithdoesnotadverselyaffectthevalidityofthecontractorthecontractualrightsandobligationsof
[13]
thepartiesthereunder.

PetitionersfurthercontendthatthepropertysubjectoftheDeedofAbsoluteSaleLot6,Block4ofSubd.PlanPsdNo.33309is
differentfromthatbeingclaimedinthiscase,whichareLots2and3.Theyclaimthatthereexistsanothertitlecoveringthesubjectproperty,
i.e.,TCTNo.41698inthenamesofVictoriaM.PanganibanandTeodoroM.Panganiban.

Notably,TCTNo.41698inthenameoftheYsmaelHeirscoversseveralparcelsoflandunderSubd.PlanPsdNo.33309.These
include:Lot2,Block4Lot3,Block4andLot6,Block4,eachofwhichcontains1,000squaremeters.IntheDecisiondatedAugust30,
1974renderedbytheRTCofQuezonCity,Branch9,inCivilCaseNo.Q8426,theownershipof200squaremetersofLot2,Block4250
squaremetersofLot3,Block4andthefull1,000squaremetersofLot6,Block4,wasconferredonAlvarez.ADeedofAbsoluteSale
dated May 1985 was later executed by the Ysmael Heirs in favor of Alvarez, but it covered only Lot 6, Block 4. Nevertheless, a
Memorandum of Agreement dated May 2, 1991 was subsequently entered into by the Ysmael Heirs and Alvarez, whereby all three
apportionedparcelsoflandallocatedtoAlvarezundertheRTCDecisiondatedAugust30,1974,werefinallysold,transferredandconveyed
toher.Evidently,whilethetitlewasyettoberegisteredinthenameofAlvarez,forallintentsandpurposes,however,thesubjectproperty
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

5/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

wasalreadyownedbyher.TheYsmaelHeirsaremerelynakedownersoftheproperty,whileAlvarezisalreadythebeneficialorequitable
ownerthereofandtherighttothegains,rewardsandadvantagesgeneratedbythepropertypertainstoher.

TheexistenceofatitleinthesameTCTNo.41698,thistimeinthenamesofVictoriaM.PanganibanandTeodoroM.Panganiban,
wasadequatelyexplainedbytheCertificationoftheRegisterofDeedsdatedMarch1,1994,andwhichreads:

AttheinstanceofRUYALBERTOS.RONDAIN,I,SAMUELC.CLEOFE,RegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,doherebycertifythatTCT
No.41698,coveringLot19,Blk.8ofthecons.subd.planPos817,withanareaofThreeHundredSeventyFive(375)SquareMeters,registeredin
thenameofVICTORIAM.PANGANIBANandTEODOROM.PANGANIBAN,marriedtoElizabethG.Panganiban,issuedonFebruary8,
1991,isexistingandonfileinthisRegistry.

ThisistocertifyfurtherthatTCTNo.41698presentedbyRuyAlbertoS.RondaincoveringLot3,Blk.2ofthesubd.PlanPSD3309,with
anareaofNineHundredNinetySix(996)SquareMeters,issuedonJune10,1958andregisteredinthenameofJUANFELIPEYSMAEL,
TERESAYSMAEL,RAMONYSMAEL,LUISMIGUELYSMAEL,whichisalsoanexistingtitleisdifferentanddistinctfromeachother
inasmuchastheycoverdifferentLotsandPlans.

ThatitisfurthercertifiedthatthesimilarityinthetitlenumbersisduetothefactthatafterthefireofJune11,1988,theQuezonCity
[14]
RegistryissuednewtitlenumbersbeginningwithTCTNo.1. (Emphasissupplied)

[15]
Finally,petitioners'claimthattheyareentitledtotheprotectionagainstevictionanddemolitionaffordedbyP.D.Nos.2016, 1517,
[16]
[17]
andRepublicAct(R.A.)No.7279, isnotplausible.

Section6ofP.D.No.1517grantspreferentialrightstolandlesstenants/occupantstoacquirelandwithinurbanlandreformareas,
whileSection2ofP.D.No.2016prohibitstheevictionofqualifiedtenants/occupants.

[18]
InDimaculanganv.Casalla, theCourtwasemphaticinrulingthattheprotectivemantleofP.D.No.1517andP.D.No.2016
extendsonlytolandlessurbanfamilieswhomeetthesequalifications:a)theyaretenantsasdefinedunderSection3(f)ofP.D.No.1517b)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

6/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

they built a home on the land they are leasing or occupying c) the land they are leasing or occupying is within an Area for Priority
DevelopmentandUrbanLandReformZoneandd)theyhaveresidedonthelandcontinuouslyforthelast10yearsormore.

Section 3(f) of P.D. No. No. 1517 defines the term "tenant" covered by the said decree as the rightful occupant of land and its
structures,butdoesnotincludethosewhosepresenceonthelandismerelytoleratedandwithoutthebenefitofcontract,thosewhoenterthe
landbyforceordeceit,orthosewhosepossessionisunderlitigation.Ithasalreadybeenruledthatoccupantsofthelandwhosepresence
therein is devoid of any legal authority, or those whose contracts of lease were already terminated or had already expired, or whose
[19]
possessionisunderlitigation,arenotconsidered"tenants"undertheSection3(f).

Petitionersclaimthattheyarelawfullesseesoftheproperty.However,theyfailedtoproveanyleaserelationshipor,attheveryleast,
showwithwhomtheyenteredtheleasecontract.Respondents,ontheotherhand,wereabletoprovetheirrighttoenjoypossessionofthe
property.Thus,petitioners,whoseoccupationofthesubjectpropertybymeretolerancehasbeenterminatedbyrespondents,clearlydonot
qualifyastenantscoveredbythesesociallegislations.

Finally,petitionersfailedtodemonstratethattheyqualifyforcoverageunderR.A.No.7279ortheUrbanDevelopmentandHousing
Actof1992.

R.A.No.7279providesfortheproceduretobeundertakenbytheconcernedlocalgovernmentsintheurbanlanddevelopment
process,towit:conductaninventoryofalllandsandimprovementswithintheirrespectivelocalities,andincoordinationwiththeNational
HousingAuthority,theHousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoard,theNationalMappingResourceInformationAuthority,andtheLand
ManagementBureauidentifylandsforsocializedhousingandresettlementareasfortheimmediateandfutureneedsoftheunderprivileged
[20]
and homeless in the urban areas acquire the lands and dispose of said lands to the beneficiaries of the program. While there is a
CertificationthattheareaboundedbyE.Rodriguez,VictoriaAvenue,SanJuanRiverand10thStreetofBarangay.DamayangLagi,Quezon

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

7/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

[21]
CityisincludedinthelistofAreasforPriorityDevelopmentunderPresidentialProclamationNo.1967, thereisnoshowingthatthe
propertyhasalreadybeenacquiredbythelocalgovernmentforthispurposeorthatpetitionershavedulyqualifiedasbeneficiaries.

Alltold,theCourtfindsnoreasontograntthepresentpetition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated March 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

8/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinion
oftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, ArticleVIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourts
Division.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

9/10

11/9/2016

G.R.No.170264

ActingChiefJustice

TheCourtofAppealsisdeletedfromthetitlepursuanttoSection4,Rule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[1]
Records,pp.67.
[2]
Id.at4045.
[3]
Records,pp.409410.
[4]
CArollo,pp.8893.
[5]
Rollo,pp.21and23.
[6]
Quimpov.Abad,G.R.No.160956,February13,2008,545SCRA178.
[7]
Records,p.153.
[8]
Id.at170174.
[9]
Id.at167169.
[10]
Id.at9196.
[11]
G.R.No.176405,August20,2008.
[12]
Records,p.43.
[13]
Agasenv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.115508,February15,2000,325SCRA504.
[14]
ExhibitG,records,p.196.
[15]
Entitled, "Prohibiting the Eviction of Occupant from Land Identified and Proclaimed as Areas for Priority Development (APD) or as Urban Land Reform Zones and
ExemptingsuchLandfromPaymentofRealProperty(Taxes).
[16]
TheUrbanLandReformLaw.
[17]
TheUrbanDevelopmentandHousingActof1992.
[18]
G.R.No.156689,June8,2007,524SCRA181.
[19]
Carreonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.112041,June22,1998,291SCRA78SeealsoDelosSantosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.127465.October25,2001,368SCRA
226.
[20]
CityofMandaluyongv.Aguilar,G.R.No.137152,January29,2001,350SCRA487.
[21]
Records,p.50.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/170264.htm

10/10