Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83066:57047&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:25:30+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 207525, June 10, 2014 - BONIFACIO PIEDAD, REPRESENTED BY MARIA INSPIRACION PIEDAD-DANAO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORIO GURIEZA AND EMETERIA M. GURIEZA , Respondent.
BONIFACIO PIEDAD, REPRESENTED BY MARIA INSPIRACION PIEDAD-DANAO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORIO GURIEZA AND EMETERIA M. GURIEZA , Respondent.
In a Decision12 dated October 27, 2010, the RTC affirmed the MTC ruling in toto. Similarly, the RTC found that the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by both parties clearly showed that Bonifacio indeed had better possessory rights over the subject lot and the bungalow-type house built thereon than Sps. Gurieza.
In this light, the Court shall solely resolve the issue as to who between the parties has the better right of possession de facto over the subject lot. Corollary thereto, issues pertaining to ownership are better threshed out in another action instituted for such purpose.
First, the evidence shows that as early as the 1950s, Bonifacio already had possession of the subject lot and even built a bungalow-type house thereon. Moreover, when he migrated to Hawaii, Bonifacio appointed numerous caretakers to the said house and lot, the last being Sps. Gurieza. Thus, despite his migration to Hawaii, Bonifacio never relinquished said possession over the house and lot. Consistent with Article 52420 of the Civil Code, it is well-settled that “[i]t is not necessary that the owner of a parcel of land should himself occupy the property as someone in his name may perform the act. In other words, the owner of real estate has possession, either when he himself is physically in occupation of the property, or when another person who recognizes his rights as owner is in such occupancy.”21 Thus, the Sps. Gurieza’s stay on the subject lot was only made possible through the mere tolerance of Bonifacio.
Second, when Bonifacio learned that Sps. Gurieza declared the subject lot under their name for tax purposes, caused a subdivision survey of Lot 1227, and filed an application for survey authority and titling with the CENRO–DENR Nueva Vizcaya, he immediately took steps to terminate their tolerated stay on the subject lot and house and demanded that they leave immediately, rendering the Sps. Gurieza’s stay on the subject lot illegal.
Third, instead of vacating the subject lot, Sps. Gurieza defied Bonifacio’s demand and asserted their ownership over the same. Moreover, they even challenged Danao to go to the courts to have them removed from such lot. In effect,Sps. Gurieza was able to unlawfully withhold possession of the subject lot from Bonifacio.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 18, 2013 and the Resolution dated June 5, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117686 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 27, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 28 in Civil Case No. 6974 is REINSTATED.
2 Id. at 285-295. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, concurring.
4 Id. at 175-178. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando F. Flor, Jr.
6 See id. at 286-287.
7 See id. at 287.
9 Id. at 102-120. Penned by Presiding Judge Paul R. Attolba, Jr.
17Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of Spouses DionisioDeloy and PraxedesMartonito, G.R. No. 192893, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 486, 496.
19 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 190071, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 539, 545-546.
Art. 524. Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another.
21Heirs of Rogelio Isip, Sr. v. Quintos, G.R. No. 172008, August 1, 2012, 678 SCRA 104, 113, citing Reyes v. CA, 374 Phil. 236, 242-243 (1999).
22 See rollo, pp. 152-153.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

Art. 524
 v. 
 v.