Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83734:58029&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:14:04+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 164277, October 08, 2014 - FE U. QUIJANO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, Respondent.
FE U. QUIJANO, Petitioner, v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, Respondent.
Where the plaintiff does not prove her alleged tolerance of the defendant's occupation, the possession is deemed illegal from the beginning. Hence, the action for unlawful detainer is an improper remedy. But the action cannot be considered as one for forcible entry without any allegation in the complaint that the entry of the defendant was by means of force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.
Due to the petitioner's needing her portion that was then occupied by the respondent, she demanded that the latter vacate it. Despite several demands, the last of which was by the letter dated November 4, 1994,7 the respondent refused to vacate, prompting her to file agamst him on February 14, 1995 a complaint for ejectment and damages in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cebu City (MTCC), docketed as Civil Case No. R-34426.8 She alleged therein that she was the registered owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6555, a portion of which was being occupied by the respondent, who had constructed a residential building thereon by the mere tolerance of Eliseo when the property she and her siblings had inherited from their father had not yet been subdivided, and was thus still co-owned by them; and that the respondent's occupation had become illegal following his refusal to vacate despite repeated demands.
On February 5, 1996, the MTCC rendered its decision in favor of the petitioner,10 ruling that the deeds of sale executed by Eliseo in favor of the respondent did not have the effect of conveying the disputed property to him inasmuch as at the time of the sale, the parcel of land left by their father, which included the disputed property, had not yet been partitioned, rendering Eliseo a mere co-owner of the undivided estate who had no right to dispose of a definite portion thereof; that as a co-owner, Eliseo effectively conveyed to the respondent only the portion that would ultimately be allotted to him once the property would be subdivided; that because the disputed property was adjudicated to the petitioner under the deed of extrajudicial settlement and partition, she was its owner with the consequent right of possession; and that, as such, she had the right to demand that the respondent vacate the land.
4) to pay the costs of suit.
The petitioner appealed to the CA by petition for review.
On May 26, 2004, the CA promulgated its decision,15 affirming the decision of the RTC, and dismissing the case for ejectment, but on the ground that the respondent was either a co-owner or an assignee holding the right of possession over the disputed property.
The CA observed that the RTC correctly dismissed the ejectment case because a question of ownership over the disputed property was raised; that the rule that inferior courts could pass upon the issue of ownership to determine the question of possession was well settled; that the institution of a separate action for quieting of title by the respondent did not divest the MTCC of its authority to decide the ejectment case; that Eliseo, as a co-owner, had no right to sell a definite portion of the undivided estate; that the deeds of sale Eliseo executed in favor of the respondent were valid only with respect to the alienation of Eliseo's undivided share; that after the execution of the deeds of sale, the respondent became a co-owner along with Eliseo and his co-heirs, giving him the right to participate in the partition of the estate owned in common by them; that because the respondent was not given any notice of the project of partition or of the intention to effect the partition, the partition made by the petitioner and her co-heirs did not bind him; and that, as to him, the entire estate was still co-owned by the heirs, giving him the right to the co-possession of the estate, including the disputed portion.
To be resolved is the issue of who between the petitioner and the respondent had the better right to the possession of the disputed property.
Considering that the parties are both claiming ownership of the disputed property, the CA properly ruled on the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining who between them had the better right to possess the disputed property.
Article 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.
His knowledge of Eliseo's co-ownership with his co-heirs, and of their oral agreement of partition notwithstanding, the respondent still did not exercise his right under Article 497. Although Eliseo made it appear to the respondent that the partition had already been completed and finalized, the co-heirs had not taken possession yet of their respective shares to signify that they had ratified their agreement, if any. For sure, the respondent was no stranger to the Quijanos, because he himself had served as the lawyer of Eliseo and the petitioner herself.29 In that sense, it would have been easy for him to ascertain whether the representation of Eliseo to him was true. As it turned out, there had been no prior oral agreement among the heirs to partition the estate; otherwise, Eliseo would have questioned the deed of extrajudicial partition because it did not conform to what they had supposedly agreed upon. Had the respondent been vigilant in protecting his interest, he could have availed himself of the rights reserved to him by law, particularly the right to take an active part in the partition and to object to the partition if he wanted to. It was only on September 30, 1992, or two years and five months from the time of the first sale transaction, and a year and two months from the time of the second sale transaction, that the co-heirs executed the deed of extrajudicial partition. Having been silent despite his ample opportunity to participate in or to object to the partition of the estate, the respondent was bound by whatever was ultimately agreed upon by the Quijanos.
There is no question that the holder of a Torrens title is the rightful owner of the property thereby covered and is entitled to its possession.30 However, the Court cannot ignore that the statements in the petitioner's complaint about the respondent's possession of the disputed property being by the mere tolerance of Eliseo could be the basis for unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer involves the defendant's withholding of the possession of the property to which the plaintiff is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former's right to hold possession under the contract, whether express or implied. A requisite for a valid cause of action of unlawful detainer is that the possession was originally lawful, but turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess.
Considering that the allegation of the petitioner's tolerance of the respondent's possession of the disputed property was not established, the possession could very well be deemed illegal from the beginning. In that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail.34 Even so, the Court would not be justified to treat this ejectment suit as one for forcible entry because the complaint contained no allegation that his entry in the property had been by force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.
Regardless, the issue of possession between the parties will still remain. To finally resolve such issue, they should review their options and decide on their proper recourses. In the meantime, it is wise for the Court to leave the door open to them in that respect. For now, therefore, this recourse of the petitioner has to be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 26, 2004 subject to the MODIFICATION that the unlawful detainer action is dismissed for being an improper remedy; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
2 Id. at 61, 64.
3 Id. at 61, 65.
10 Id. at 80-87; penned by Presiding Judge Amado B. Bajarias, Sr.
12 Id. at 92-94; penned by Judge Rodolfo B. Gandionco.
15 Id. at 8-18; penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa (retired) and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.
19Barrientos v. Rapal, G.R. No. 169594, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 165, 170.
20Pengson v. Ocampo, Jr., G.R. No. 13 1968, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 420, 425.
21 Supra note 19, at 171.
22 Article 774, Civil Code.
23 Article 1078, Civil Code.
24Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114151, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 536, 548.
25cralawred Article 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.
26Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61584, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 866, 872.
27See: Panganiban v. Oamil, G.R. No. 149313, January 22, 2008, 542 SCRA 166, 176; Vda. de Figuration v. Figuracion-Gerilla, G.R. No. 151334, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 495, 510.
29 Id. at 77, 89.
30Beltran v. Nieves, G.R. No. 175561, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 242, 248; Pasatal v. Coronet, G.R. No. 159292, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 474, 484; Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of spouses Dionisio Delay and Praxedes Martonito. G.R. No. 192893, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 486, 504.
31Carbonilla v. Abiera, G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 461, 469-470.
33 Id. at 61-62; 64-65; 75-76; 88-89.
34Ten Forty Realty and Development Corp. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 151212, September 10, 2003, 410 SCRA 484, 491.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.