CAGUIOA, J:
The instant case originated from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by respondent George dela Cruz [(George)] against [petitioners] before the MTCC.The Ruling of the CA
Respondent [George], as plaintiff below alleged that he was the registered owner of a 2,172 square-meter parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title [(TCT)] No. T-388110, situated in Barrio Manaring, Ilagan City, Isabela, with an assessed value of [P]11,140.00. The said property was part of a bigger parcel of land originally owned by his grandmother, Cayetana Guitang[9] [(Cayetana)]. When Cayetana died [sometime in 1935[10]], the land was adjudicated to [respondent George's] father, Severino [d]ela Cruz [(Severino)], by virtue of intestate succession, evidenced by an affidavit of adjudication in 1982.[11] In 1983, Severino executed a deed of reconveyance,[12] which subdivided the parcel of land into five areas. The portion designated as Lot 1-A was transferred to respondent [George]; the remaining portions were transferred to four others.[13] During the lifetime of Severino, petitioner Leonida [Bangug (Leonida)] asked permission to temporarily build a house on a vacant portion of the property; petitioner [Venerandy Adolfo (Venerandy)] asked permission to occupy a portion thereof and build a temporary structure for storing corns during harvest season. In 2011, respondent [George] demanded that the petitioners vacate the portions of the property that they occupied, but to no avail.
In their answer, petitioners herein, as defendants below averred that Cayetana had other heirs: namely, Luisa, Hermina,[14] Juana, Rufina, and Juliana.[15] Rufina,[16] the mother of petitioner Leonida, and Juliana,[17] the mother of petitioner [Venerandy], both allowed their children to build their houses on the subject property. Considering that Cayetana had other heirs, the adjudication made by [respondent George's] father, Severino, of the subject property for himself was invalid. Consequently, the deed of reconveyance executed by Severino in favor of respondent [George] was invalid as well. As heirs of Cayetana, petitioners have the right to possess the subject property as co-owners thereof. [We[18] must note, this early, that petitioners did not specifically assail the validity of [respondent George's] title and their counterclaim was limited to a prayer for moral and exemplary damages.]
After trial, the MTCC rendered its first Decision, which granted [respondent George's] complaint. It held that petitioners' possession of the portion of the subject property was merely upon the tolerance of respondent [George], the registered owner of the subject property. The petitioners' allegations pertaining to their share in the property, purportedly inherited from Cayetana, and the irregularity of Severino's adjudication thereof constituted indirect or collateral attacks on x x x [respondent George's] title. A certificate of title cannot be subject to such collateral attack. Thus:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff herein, having proven with preponderance of evidence, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and directing defendants, their assigns and those acting for and in their behalf, to vacate the land and to surrender peacefully the possession thereof to the plaintiff being the owner of the land."Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and argued that respondent [George] failed to show that the parcels of land that they occupied were part of and covered by [respondent George's] title. They posited that there were inconsistencies between the area indicated in the deed of reconveyance and those indicated in [respondent George's] and the four other transferees' titles, raising serious doubts as to the identity of the property claimed by respondent [George].
In its second Decision, the MTCC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. It pointed out that an ocular inspection was actually conducted on [August 14, 2015], which verified that the parcels of land occupied by petitioners were inside the property covered by [respondent George's] title. The discrepancy between the area indicated in the deed and that in the transferee's title[s] was also sufficiently explained by the subdivision plan, which showed that the "missing" square meters became part of the national road. The MTCC also noted that this issue was never raised by petitioners in their answer and must be deemed waived. Thus:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration, filed by counsel for the defendants, to the Decision of the Court dated October 30, 2017, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit."The petitioners appealed the MTCC Decisions to the RTC. They argued that they have [a] better right of possession since they inherited the property ab intestato from Cayetana and have been in possession thereof ever since. Severino's adjudication of the property for himself was void considering that there were other heirs entitled to the property. Consequently, the deed of reconveyance was equally infirm.
In the assailed Decision, the RTC affirmed the MTCC's findings. It held that petitioners' position in their answer challenged the validity of [respondent George's] title, a collateral attack not allowed by law; [respondent George's] title showed a better right to possess the subject property, as opposed to petitioners' bare claim of co-ownership. Thus:"WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing discussions, this court affirms the lower court's Decision of October 20, 2017 in toto."[19]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED.The CA essentially affirmed that respondent George's preferential right of possession of the subject property was based on the "age-old rule that whoever held a Torrens title in his name is entitled to the possession of the land covered by the title"[22] and the "manner of attack against [respondent George's] title constituted a collateral one, which procedure is not allowed by Section 48[23] of Presidential Decree No. [(PD)] 1529 or the x x x Property Registration Decree."[24] The CA also stated that in order for petitioners to properly assail the validity of respondent George's title, they must bring an action for that purpose.[25]
IT IS SO ORDERED.[21]
x x x [T]he MTCC explicitly found that, per the evidence offered by respondent [George] and the ocular inspection conducted by a commissioned court staff (the court interpreter), the portion occupied by petitioners are well within the property covered by [respondent George's] title. This factual finding was likewise affirmed by the RTC. This conclusion binds the [CA], for the trial courts are in the best position to appreciate the evidence, especially the results of the ocular inspection, and assess the witnesses' credibility. x x x[32]The Court is bound by the foregoing factual finding, and the same cannot be reviewed in a Rule 45 petition where only questions of law can generally be raised. Petitioners have not identified any of the exceptions which would merit a review of the said uniform factual finding of the lower courts.
While there is no express grant in the Rules of Court that the court wherein an accion publiciana is lodged can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership, unlike an ordinary ejectment court which is expressly conferred such authority (albeit in a limited or provisional manner only, i.e., for purposes of resolving the issue of possession), there is ample jurisprudential support for upholding the power of a court hearing an accion publiciana to also rule on the issue of ownership.In this regard, the pronouncement of the lower courts, including the CA, that if the issue of ownership involves a determination of the validity of a Torrens title, there is consequently a collateral attack on the said title, which is proscribed under PD 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, is misplaced. The resolution of the issue of ownership in an action for recovery of possession or accion publiciana is never final or definitive, but merely provisional; and the Torrens title is never in jeopardy of being altered, modified, or cancelled.
In Supapo v. Sps. de Jesus (Supapo), the Court stated:In the present case, the Spouses Supapo filed an action for the recovery of possession of the subject lot but they based their better right of possession on a claim of ownership [based on Transfer Certificate of Title No. C-28441 registered and titled under the Spouses Supapo's names].From the foregoing, the Court thus clarifies here that in an accion publiciana, the defense of ownership (i.e., that the defendant, and not the plaintiff, is the rightful owner) will not trigger a collateral attack on the plaintiffs Torrens or certificate of title because the resolution of the issue of ownership is done only to determine the issue of possession.
This Court has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property.
This adjudication is not a final determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership.
x x x x
In the present case, the Answer of Cullado raised, as "special and affirmative defenses" to Dominic's accion publiciana, the issue of fraud in obtaining Dominic's certificate of title on the ground that "neither he nor his father [had] been in actual possession and cultivation of the [subject parcel of land]" and that Dominic was not qualified as he was then a minor.[34]
Being a co-owner, petitioner cannotAs described under Article 484 of the Civil Code, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Articles 485, 486 and 493 of the same Code state the basic rights of each co-owner, to wit:
be ordered to vacate the house
Being a co-owner of the property as heir of Carolina, petitioner cannot be ejected from the subject property. In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the whole property. Each co-owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.
Ultimately, respondents do not have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on tolerance because the latter is also entitled to possess and enjoy the subject property. Corollarily, neither of the parties can assert exclusive ownership and possession of the same prior to any partition. If at all. the action for unlawful detainer only resulted in the recognition of co-ownership between the parties over the residential house.[43]
ART. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.The foregoing provisions confirm the co-owners to have a pro indiviso, pro rata, pari passu right in the co-ownership. In other words, a co-owner's right is proportional to his or her share or interest in the undivided co-owned property that is on equal footing with the other co-owners. Such being the nature of a co-owner's right, petitioners have no right to possess the subject property better than that of respondent George.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. (393a)
ART. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied. (394a)
x x x x
ART. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. (399)
- [HEIRS] OF RUFINA DELA CRUZ, REP. by JAIME ALLAUIGAN, married with an area of (1,860) sq.m. – Lot 1-E[;]
- MARIA DELA CRUZ, married to Filemon Telan with an area of (1,211) sq.m. – Lot 1-D[;]
- MANUEL DELA CRUZ, married to Juanita Mallanao with an area of (1,385) sq.m. – Lot 1-C[;]
- JUANITO DELA CRUZ, married to Estelita Pinaroc with an area of (1,179) sq.m. – Lot 1-B[; and]
- GEORGE DELA CRUZ, married to Teresita Peña Mora with an area of (2,172) sq.m. – Lot 1-A.
x x x x"[13] TCT No. T-388111 was registered in the name of Juanito dela Cruz (Exh. "D," rollo, p. 203); TCT No. T-388112 was registered in the name of Maria dela Cruz (Exh. "E," id. at 204); TCT No. T-388113 was registered in the name of Heirs of Rufina dela Cruz (Exh. "J," id. at 209); and TCT No. T-388114 was registered in the name of Manuel dela Cruz (Exh. "C," id. at 202). These TCTs together with George's TCT were issued on August 3, 2011.
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. – A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.[24] Rollo, p. 40.
Q8: Ano po ang pangalan ng tatay ninyo?[41] In the said JA, respondent George further admitted that Severino had four children: namely, George, Manuel, Juanito, and Maria. Id.
A8: Severino Dela Cruz po.
Q9: Nasaan na po siya?
A9: Patay na po siya. Rollo, p. 150.