MALIGASO v.
ENCINAS  The petitioners move for the dismissal of the complaint, claiming that the allegations
Possession | June 20, 2012 | Reyes, J.
Nature of Case: Petition for Review
Digest maker: Caringal
SUMMARY: Maria Maligaso Ramos and Jose Maligaso are siblings. In 1929, Maria caused
the registration of their parents’ land in her name. She later sold that land to another person,
who in turn sold it to Simon and Esperanza Encinas (herein respondents). However, all this
time, her brother and his family(Heirs of Maligaso, petitioners) were living in a portion of
said land. 30 years after acquiring the property, the respondents issued demand letters
asking petitoners to vacate the land. Upon refusal by the petitioners, the respondents filed a
complaint for unlawful detainer. The petitioners argue that their aunt fraudulently caused
the registration of the whole lot in her name (the land which is in the possession of the
petitioners belongs to their father thru his successional rights) and that respondents are
barred by laches. The Court held that:
1. The Torren’s title owned by respondents prevails over the claim of inheritance by
the petitoners
2. The possession of the petitoners was due to the mere tolerance of the respondents.
Thus recovery by the respondents is not barred by laches.
3. The validity of a Torren’s title cannot be collaterally attacked.
Therefore, the land in question belongs to the respondents.
DOCTRINE: The best evidence of ownership is a Torren’s title which gives a reasonable
presumption of ownership over a piece of land. The opposing party must produce evidence
to overcome this presumption.
FACTS:
 Petitioners: Heirs of Jose Maligaso:
 Respondents: Simon Encinas and Esperanza Encinas
 Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Sorsogon (2,867 square
meters).
 The original owner of the lot was Maria Maligaso Ramos, the aunt of the petitioners
(it was issued in her name on Feb. 27, 1929)
 May 1965-Maria sold the lot to Virginia Escurel.
 April 5, 1968- Virginia sold the lot to the respondents.
 All this time, the family of Jose Maligaso continued to live in a 980 square meter
portion of the lot.
 March 16, 1998 & June 19, 1998-(30 years from the purchase of the lot) respondents
issued two demand letters to the petitioners asking them to vacate the contested area
within 30 days from notice.
 The petitioners refused to leave, claiming that the subject area was the share of their
father, Jose Maligaso, in their grandparents’ estate.
 Respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners with the
MTC, alleging that petitioners’ occupation is by mere tolerance and had become
illegal following their refusal to vacate the property despite being demanded to do so
twice.
 Petitioners, in their defense, denied that their possession was by mere tolerance and
claimed title thereto on the basis of their father’s successional rights. Furthermore,
their occupation remained undisturbed for more than 30 years. They also claim that
petitioners’ supposedly tolerated possession suggest that the petitioners and their
predecessors-in-interest were aware of their claim over the subject area. Lastly, they
aver that it was thru fraud that Maria(their aunt) was able to register the land in her
name.
therein indicate that it was actually an action for reconveyancei. Also, lachesii had
already set in view of the respondents’ failure to assail their possession for more than
30 years.
 The MTC dismissed the respondents’ complaint, giving more weight to the
petitoners’ possession than the respondents’ title as the former is founded on Jose
Maligaso’s successional rights. The MTC also held that the registration in Maria’s
name created a trust in favor of Jose Maligaso. Lastly, the MTC held that respondents
are barred by laches.
 The RTC dismissed the respondents appeal. It held, albeit implicitly, that petitioners’
possession is a necessary consequence of their title as evidenced by their occupation
in the concept of an owner for a significant period of time.
 The CA reversed the RTC decision saying that:
“A person who has a Torren’s title over a property is entitled to the
possession thereof. Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not
necessary in unlawful detainer cases as the same only required in forcible
entry cases. The issue of a validity of a Torren’s title can only be assailed in
an action expressly instituted for that purpose”
 The CA also denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Arguments
Petitioners Respondents
Their possession was based on their father’s They merely tolerated the possession of the
property right as one of his parent’s heirs. petitioners and their recovery cannot be
barred by laches.
Their aunt, Maria, was guilty of fraud in The petitioners cannot collaterally attack their
registering the contested lot in her name title to the subject property.
because she reneged on her promise to cause
the registration so the portion in their father’s
name. Their aunt, Maria, was guilty of fraud
in registering the contested lot in her name
because she reneged on her promise to cause
the registration so the portion in their father’s
name.
ISSUE/S & RATIO:
1. WON the respondents have the right to evict the petitioners from the subject
property– YES
The respondents’ Torrens title is evidence of their ownership and prevails over the
claim of inheritance by the petitioners. Their title gives rise to a reasonable
presumption that they own the land and it is incumbent upon the petitioners to
overcome this presumption. The petitioners should prove that the property was
adjudicated to their father.
The facts of the case show that the land was already registered in Maria’s name when
Jose built his house. It is rather specious that Jose chose inaction despite Maria’s
failure to register the land in his name despite the fact that he built his house on said
land.
 2. WON the claim of fraud by petitoners can be discussed in an unlawful detainer case
– NO
3.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases such as this one are summary proceedings
designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting the right to possession of
property. Being a summary proceeding, there are limitations on the nature of issues
that can be discussed. Whether the petitoners have a better right or whether fraud
attended the issuance of Maria’s title are issues that are outside the jurisdiction and
competence of a trial court in actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

Also, a Torren’s title cannot be collaterally attacked.

4. WON sheer lapse of time bars the respondents from gaining possession of the land –
NO

The petitoners’ possession of the lot was merely at the tolerance of the rightful
owner. Thu, the latter’s right to recover possession is never barred by laches.

It is in fact the petitoners who are guilty of laches because they should have
questioned the alleged fraud committed by Maria at an earlier time and not only
when they were being evicted from the land.

RULING: Petition DENIED, the land belongs to respondents.

NOTE:
Related provisions
Other things the Court may have said

i Legal remedy granted to the rightful owner of a land which has been wrongfully registered in
the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to
him.
ii Unreasonable delay in making an assertion or claim.