G.R. No. 160554 ; August 24, 2007
FLORANTE VIDAD, SR., ARLENE VIDAD-ABSALON and FLORANTE VIDAD, JR., Petitioners, vs. ELPIDIO TAYAMEN and LAUREANA TAYAMEN, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent-spouses Tayamen purchased a parcel of land with a three-door apartment from the spouses Batara in 1982. They later discovered a claim by Dr. Rebecca Cabanos, who had acquired the property at an auction sale. To protect their rights, respondents filed an adverse claim and a case to annul the sheriff’s sale. During this pendency, petitioners (the Vidads) filed a separate complaint, alleging they had a prior contract of sale with the Bataras for the apartment unit they occupied, supported by a Memorandum of Agreement and full payment. This case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondents eventually settled with Dr. Cabanos, who waived her rights, enabling respondents to consolidate their title. Respondents then demanded petitioners vacate the apartment, leading to the filing of a complaint for recovery of possession and damages.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the complaint but, on reconsideration, ordered petitioners to pay respondents ₱200,000. Respondents did not appeal this modified decision. Petitioners, however, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC. The CA ordered petitioners to vacate the property and pay monthly rentals. Petitioners filed this appeal, arguing the CA exceeded its jurisdiction by granting respondents affirmative relief not sought in the appeal and by deciding the issue of ownership.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents affirmative relief they did not appeal for.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the issue of ownership.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s finding that the property belonged to petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On the first issue, the Court held that while a general rule exists that an appellee cannot obtain affirmative relief beyond the lower court’s decision unless they themselves appeal, a recognized exception applies when the judgment is void or when the relief granted is a necessary consequence of the issues raised in the appellant’s own appeal. Here, petitioners appealed the RTC’s modified decision ordering them to pay ₱200,000. By appealing, they placed the entire case within the CA’s jurisdiction, opening all issues for review, including the correctness of the RTC’s dismissal of the main complaint for recovery of possession. The CA’s order to vacate was a direct and logical consequence of resolving petitioners’ appeal on the merits of possession.
On the second and third issues, the Court ruled that the CA correctly addressed ownership as it was intrinsically linked to the issue of possession. In an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana), the plaintiff must prove a better right of possession, which necessarily involves a preliminary determination of ownership. The CA found respondents’ title, derived from a valid deed of sale and subsequently consolidated after Dr. Cabanos’s waiver, to be superior. Petitioners’ claim, based on an unregistered and un-notarized Memorandum of Agreement, could not prevail over respondents’ registered title. The CA did not err in reversing the RTC’s implicit finding for petitioners, as the evidence established respondents’ superior right to possession flowing from their ownership.