GR 154565; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154565; November 30, 2006
REMEDIOS RAMOS, Petitioner, vs. TESSIE PABAS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Remedios Ramos, an occupant of a parcel of land in Bagbag, Novaliches, Quezon City, leased a portion thereof to respondent Tessie Pablas for a monthly rental of ₱400.00 beginning June 1998. Respondent initially paid rent but stopped in January 1999 upon discovering that petitioner did not own the land, which appeared to be government-owned. Petitioner admitted she merely held the property by tolerance from her father-in-law, the former caretaker. Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to eject respondent and recover unpaid rentals.
The MeTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate, pay rental arrears, and pay attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, dismissing the complaint. The RTC held the verbal lease contract void as its object was inalienable public land beyond the commerce of man, and that petitioner, having no possessory right, could not eject respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, stating no possessory right could be recognized in favor of squatters.
ISSUE
Whether a prior possessor, who is a squatter on public land, can maintain an ejectment action against another squatter who entered the property by lease from the prior possessor.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstating the MeTC decision with modification. Applying the doctrine in Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that in ejectment proceedings, the sole issue is who has a better right to physical possession (de facto), not legal title or ownership. The validity of the lease contract is immaterial to determining superior possession; the agreement itself is evidence of respondent’s recognition of petitioner’s prior physical possession.
The Court emphasized that where both parties are squatters and the true owner (the government) is not a party to the suit, the courts must still resolve the issue of possession to prevent parties from taking the law into their own hands. Priority in time of possession governs. Petitioner, as the prior possessor who permitted respondent to occupy the property, retained a better right to physical possession. However, the award of attorney’s fees by the MeTC was deleted for lack of factual and legal justification in the decision’s body, as required by jurisprudence.